# Weather Great Climate Changer



## Garpal Gumnut (25 October 2009)

I notice that even Barack Obama is hedging his bets now on Global warming and is refusing to attend the Copenhagen talkfest at which ole Kev 07 will be making an absolute pillock of himself.

From The Times, a publication not given to inaccuracy or hyperbole.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece




> President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen








> Only 57 per cent of Americans believe that there is strong evidence that the world has grown warmer in recent decades, down from 71 per cent a year ago, according to a new poll. Partly as a result, the White House is having to wage a vote-by-vote battle in Congress for a climate change Bill that would embrace cap-and-trade. The Bill will not be signed into law until next year at the earliest but is considered essential for any global deal.





Its a beautiful late October day in Townsville, this morning, a light breeze, no sign of rain, as is usual at this time of year.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I notice that even Barack Obama is hedging his bets now on Global warming and is refusing to attend the Copenhagen talkfest at which ole Kev 07 will be making an absolute pillock of himself.



It`s not the warming it`s the burgeoning pollution problem. The warming scenario is the front to get the attention of the common ignoramus. Unchecked man made pollution will one day change the climate but probably not in this life time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 October 2009)

There is a particularly good article in this month's Quadrant magazine by a physicist called Reid, I think that's his name, explaining the superiority of Weather for changing climate, over any mathematical or computer model for predicting climate change.

Perhaps Barack Obama has read it and that is why he's going for Oslo rather than Copenhagen.

gg


----------



## Mr J (25 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s not the warming it`s the burgeoning pollution problem. The warming scenario is the front to get the attention of the common ignoramus. Unchecked man made pollution will one day change the climate but probably not in this life time.




I agree with this. While I am skeptical of human-induced change global climate change, I do wish we would better look after the environment.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s not the warming it`s the burgeoning pollution problem. The warming scenario is the front to get the attention of the common ignoramus. Unchecked man made pollution *will one day change the climate* but probably not in this life time.



Could you provide some scientific basis and _fact_ for the above?


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 October 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Could you provide some scientific basis and _fact_ for the above?




Think of how life creates life and how this process requires a "unique balance" of factors to happen. This live planet has all the necessary ingredients for this process to happen. Two of those are oxygen and sunlight in their life sustaining ranges. Now if we place a film or layer of particles (in the form of burnt fossil fuels) between the light source and the live planet, the living organisms will have a changed circumstance in which to live. 
I had to source the internet for an appropriate example because I made my statement on the obvious outcome from continued (unchecked in my original post) choking of the atmosphere with burnt fossil fuels.  


> As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)?as well as water vapor.




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm


----------



## MrBurns (26 October 2009)

I dont think anyone knws for sure if humans are responsible for changes in weather, I'd say probably not but it's an industry on it's own now and those who make money from it will never let it go.

We have to put up with energy saving light bulbs that dont work with dimmers and hardly work at all and this is just part of the conspiracy to create an industry out of nothing.


----------



## noco (26 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I notice that even Barack Obama is hedging his bets now on Global warming and is refusing to attend the Copenhagen talkfest at which ole Kev 07 will be making an absolute pillock of himself.
> 
> From The Times, a publication not given to inaccuracy or hyperbole.
> 
> ...




Yeah, good one GG. What an embarrassment for our fearless leader if Obama is not there. The little worm deserves all that is coming to him.

The signing of Kyoto is dead and it would appear that Copenhagen is heading in the same direction. What will he do if does fall flat.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Think of how life creates life and how this process requires a "unique balance" of factors to happen. This live planet has all the necessary ingredients for this process to happen. Two of those are oxygen and sunlight in their life sustaining ranges. Now if we place a film or layer of particles (in the form of burnt fossil fuels) between the light source and the live planet, the living organisms will have a changed circumstance in which to live.
> I had to source the internet for an appropriate example because I made my statement on the obvious outcome from continued (unchecked in my original post) choking of the atmosphere with burnt fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm




Let's consider this then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaNcQ4Wj7bQ

I also agree with others that all pollution needs to be reduced. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> We have to put up with energy saving light bulbs that dont work with dimmers and hardly work at all and this is just part of the conspiracy to create an industry out of nothing.



Smurf recommends the "Philips" brand of these bulbs due to their relatively good light output and quality. 

They make a 20W (equivalent to 100W) dimmable version and you'd be surprised how well they work. Readily available at Bunnings and also some supermarkets and other stores. Get the "Warm White" (2700K) version and not the "Daylight" version unless you do like the cold, blue light the Daylight ones produce.

Only buy the dimmable ones if you actually do have a dimmer since they are considerably more expensive than the non-dimmable equivalent.

Another option is the Osram halogen energy savers. These fit straight in place of a conventional incandescent bulb and are a bit under $3 each at supermarkets and hardware stores. 70W is equivalent to the old 100W (53W = old 75W, 42W = old 60W, 28W = old 40W). They come in both clear and frosted types just like old style globes. Performance of these is directly comparable to an old style incandescent bulb - most people wouldn't notice any difference at all and they even look the same on the outside. 

I'm reluctant to criticise specific brands on a public forum but I mentioned Philips for compact fluoro lamps and Osram for halogens for a reason based on my experience and opinion.

I suggest that you use the compact fluoros where lights are on for long periods and these bulbs are suitable and use the halogens elsewhere.


----------



## Gamblor (26 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its a beautiful late October day in Townsville, this morning, a light breeze, no sign of rain, as is usual at this time of year.
> 
> gg





Well then clearly we don't have any problems. Thanks man, i feel much better now.


----------



## MrBurns (26 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Smurf recommends the "Philips" brand of these bulbs due to their relatively good light output and quality.
> 
> They make a 20W (equivalent to 100W) dimmable version and you'd be surprised how well they work. Readily available at Bunnings and also some supermarkets and other stores. Get the "Warm White" (2700K) version and not the "Daylight" version unless you do like the cold, blue light the Daylight ones produce.
> 
> ...




Dimmable ones !!!!!!!! I didnt even know they existed.

Many thanks


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

Thanks Smurf for your comments on quality CFLs and the the Osram Halogens. Amongst all the marketing hype it's good to get some clearer more objective advice.

One point I have found in the past has been that sometimes name brands also distribute identical products with other labels. They can't quite get everyone to pay the premium so they attempt to capture the lower end of the market without overtly damaging their premium price. Do you know of any lower price lights that offer similar quality to the Phillips ect ? 

And frankly I also can't see why we can't  state our negative experiences of products on these Forums. In theory the marketplace is supposed to work on perfect information. All the consumers are aware of the quality/value of  the products . (Not likely...) Some websites like Whirlpool.net act as outstanding places to compare  internet and phone plans and share information so the principle is there.


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

> More than 80,000 buildings on Victoria's coast at risk from rising sea levels, extreme weather
> 
> 
> MORE than 80,000 buildings on Victoria's coast will be at risk from the ravages of rising sea levels and extreme weather.
> ...




I guess many forum readers would have seen this report. This comes from the Herald Sun.

I was fascinated that the committee decided to take "a more realistic approach" that the sea would rise only 50 cm instead of the expert opinion of 100 cm. Certainly would have have reduced the  potential situation from catastrophic to merely diabolical.

However  the readers of the Herald Sun who respond to these stories have almost unilaterally decided  (43 out of 44) this is just alarmist rubbish intended to scare the hell out of people and justify the chardonnay sipping socialists who are bent on creating a one world government.

Which really comes back to what has been the dominant comment on this  thread and it's predecessor....


----------



## skc (27 October 2009)

> Only 57 per cent of Americans believe that there is strong evidence that the world has grown warmer in recent decades, down from 71 per cent a year ago, according to a new poll.




The whole climate change issue rests of 2 premises.

1. The world is getting hotter
2. It's getting hotter because of human activities

I've always thought the first premise was not questioned, and that there are reasonably definitive proof on that front. 

It is hard to argue against evidences like melting ice caps, retreating glaciers and rising sea water levels... and the most powerful nation on Earth decides to make policies around what a poll says its citizens believe?

I am happy to accept debates / discussions on the second premise, although I would err on the side of caution in the absence of absolute scientific certainty. 

It's a risk:reward thing. The risks are the certain inconveniences that come with changing our behaviour (e.g. having to search for dimmable energy saving bulbs), while the reward is that humanity survives. Simple really.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> I guess many forum readers would have seen this report. This comes from the Herald Sun.
> 
> I was fascinated that the committee decided to take "a more realistic approach" that the sea would rise only 50 cm instead of the expert opinion of 100 cm. Certainly would have have reduced the  potential situation from catastrophic to merely diabolical.
> 
> ...




You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln,


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

I'd like to know where exactly the effected areas are, thats one of my concerns after looking at property in Port Douglas but I'm interested in Vic and NSW as well.


----------



## lasty (27 October 2009)

There are those who get sucked into this climate change warm and fuzzy stuff.Whats really dangerous is that people dont understand the treaty.
See here.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/55...reaty-would-impose-communist-world-government

We have Al Gore who is a climate change advocate and alarmist.Thats fine everyone is entitled to their views.
If he was so paranoid about climate change, rising sea levels blah blah blah.. why does he go out and buy a beachfront property?


----------



## Knobby22 (27 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
> Abraham Lincoln,




“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

George Bush


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Smurf recommends the "Philips" brand of these bulbs due to their relatively good light output and quality.
> 
> They make a 20W (equivalent to 100W) dimmable version and you'd be surprised how well they work. Readily available at Bunnings and also some supermarkets and other stores. Get the "Warm White" (2700K) version and not the "Daylight" version unless you do like the cold, blue light the Daylight ones produce.
> 
> ...




Well what do you know, just checked 3 packs of bulbs and they're all not suitable for dimmers. No wonder I've been having problems.

Why is this in the small print, bastards !

Thanks again Smurf, I called my electrician about this last week and he didnt tell me that so... so much for his expertise.


----------



## amy997 (27 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Well what do you know, just checked 3 packs of bulbs and they're all not suitable for dimmers. No wonder I've been having problems.
> 
> Why is this in the small print, bastards !
> 
> Thanks again Smurf, I called my electrician about this last week and he didnt tell me that so... so much for his expertise.




On the subject of energy saving light bulbs, the ones i have tried only work sometimes, they are in the hallway in our house at the moment and half the time you turn them on and nothing happens but then the next day they work fine. Anyone else had this problem??


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

amy997 said:


> On the subject of energy saving light bulbs, the ones i have tried only work sometimes, they are in the hallway in our house at the moment and half the time you turn them on and nothing happens but then the next day they work fine. Anyone else had this problem??




Yes I've had the same problem, you'll find they warm up after a while, but Smurf would be able to answer this better I presume.
They shouldnt have that problem.


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

The Age also ran the story regarding the effects of climate change on sea levels around Victoria. It was a bit more expansive on some of the other effects around Australia - increases in dengue fever and so on.

There was one interesting addition. They had a 2 minute video clip highlighting  the effects of unabated global warming  over the next 40 years. The British government has released a  climatic  map of the world of 2050 with 4 degrees of warming. Unfortunately that appears to be the result without  radical reductions in greenhouse gases in the near term.

Best place to be ? Believe it or not south island of New Zealand.

http://media.theage.com.au/opinion/national-times/catastrophic-climate-change-814281.html


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> The Age also ran the story regarding the effects of climate change on sea levels around Victoria. It was a bit more expansive on some of the other effects around Australia - increases in dengue fever and so on.
> 
> There was one interesting addition. They had a 2 minute video clip highlighting  the effects of unabated global warming  over the next 40 years. The British government has released a  climatic  map of the world of 2050 with 4 degrees of warming. Unfortunately that appears to be the result without  radical reductions in greenhouse gases in the near term.
> 
> ...




He looks like a professional academic or "expert" or worse........consultant, revelling excitedly in the bad news like a nerd waiting at the front door of Harvery Norman for the new Windows BS to be released.


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

amy997 said:


> On the subject of energy saving light bulbs, the ones i have tried only work sometimes, they are in the hallway in our house at the moment and half the time you turn them on and nothing happens but then the next day they work fine. Anyone else had this problem??




I just went ad bought some dimmer friendly bulbs, they had the curly ones there but they were $33 *each* for the dimmer friendly ones, what a joke.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> The Age also ran the story regarding the effects of climate change on sea levels around Victoria. It was a bit more expansive on some of the other effects around Australia - increases in dengue fever and so on.
> 
> There was one interesting addition. They had a 2 minute video clip highlighting  the effects of unabated global warming  over the next 40 years. The British government has released a  climatic  map of the world of 2050 with 4 degrees of warming. Unfortunately that appears to be the result without  radical reductions in greenhouse gases in the near term.
> 
> ...




Laughable.

Could, might, may etc.

As the article I posted before shows, their models are a joke.

Sheer scaremongering with zero credible science to back it up.

FFS people let's work on real environmental problems.


----------



## Agentm (27 October 2009)

skc said:


> The whole climate change issue rests of 2 premises.
> 
> 1. The world is getting hotter
> 2. It's getting hotter because of human activities
> ...




there is not proof that humans are the cause of global warming

imho its all australias fault

we used to be a great nation, we all had incinerators, and burned brown coal  in the kitchen ovens in the morning, we had big engined cars that polluted. we had oil heaters and we burned our autumn leaves in piles every year..

wish i could see those days again.. things would be 10 times better climate wise for australia. and the world..

now we are buying globes for $33 and being taken for a ride in a tax exercise that should see the taxpayer fund the next recovery with ease..

keep believing the debate..

 i saw the huge (not) protest in melbourne on the sunday..  lol.. about 300 people were on bikes holding up all the trams and all the traffic.. all of the cars were polluting the atmosphere as they sat there while this tiny crowd of clowns shouted... what do we want?  climate change, when do we want it? now!!   what a failure!!  and it made the news??? wtf??? 

i love the spin on this climate debate.. its one huge joke...

lets get back to reality and start burning off and living again.. i am fed up with these nonsense panic stories about sea levels rising and climate change

guess what.. we are getting huge rain events right now.. anyone ever thought it through? asked why?

arent we supposed to be in a drought forever? totally cactus?


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

I'd frankly like to burn off in the back yard too like i did in the 80's, put the sprinklers on, take a shower without the egg timer on use REAL light globes and throw all my plastic stuff in the general rubbish.


----------



## lasty (27 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I'd frankly like to burn off in the back yard too like i did in the 80's, put the sprinklers on, take a shower without the egg timer on use REAL light globes and throw all my plastic stuff in the general rubbish.




Oh no we cant do that.. The nanny state bureaucrats would cry and then we would need to pay for their therapy.

When is it  "club a greenie day".. we have every other day for good causes..


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

Part of me can appreciate Mr Burns and Agentum's sentiments. Stuff it we would all like to be carefree like the good old days. 

Perhaps continuing the same theme we could enjoy our Camels to our lungs content, we could have those great piss ups in the pub on Saturday night, bash a couple of poofs on way out to car and than have drunken drags down St Kilda rd (without those bloody wussy seat belts  !!) and show everyone whose boss.  And then on Sunday we could knock up some  groovy little extension with the ever practical  cement sheet. Ah the good old days...

It is downright scary to consider a future that isn't as sunny as we become accustomed to.  If I had to consider another parallel it would be Europe 1936-8 with the growing evidence of Hitlers ambitions. It was not fashionable to be concerned about  possible war. People were only too aware of what a real war would mean (WW1 was only 18-20 years old ). Far better to ignore, deny, bluster whatever it took. 

The effects of our collective behaviour on the worlds climate  won't necessarily happen on the 1st September 2015 . But then WW 2 only started *officially* on 1st Sept 1939.  From Hitlers march into the Rhine 1936, The Sudetenland takeover, destruction of Czechoslovakia, the non aggression pact with Russia -- these were all markers on the road. The final assault on Poland was just the logical progression.

We have had every bit of reasonable scientific intelligence and observation to tell us 

1) Our fossil fuel  based economy is producing the CO2 that is largely contributing to warming the planet
2) The warming is measurable and real
3) We can see these effects literally everywhere we look
4) If we don't take radical action to change our direction the earth's  temperature will increase at a very rapid rate with catastrophic results.

The world ignored Nazi Germany until reality forced a response. It took 50 years of  hammering to  get the addictive and dangerous qualities of cigarettes publicly acknowledge. (_And thank you again to those public minded cigarette companies who on appreciating just how dangerous their products were immediately sought to withdraw them from the market to save millions of needless deaths.....)_

And we all remember how hard the wusses had to fight to stop people drinking and driving, to legislate for seat belts to save lives, to demand safer cars, to stop the production of deadly asbestos based products. 

And all along the way (and even now) the people that ran these businesses fought bitterly to obfuscate and  deny the facts, derided the science, bought off the governments, demanded the rights of the individual to do as they wish *and made as much money as they possibly could.*

Are there any parallels here ? Only if want to see them.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> 1) Our fossil fuel  based economy is producing the *CO2 that is largely* contributing to warming the planet
> 2) The warming is measurable and real
> 3) We can see these effects literally everywhere we look
> 4) If we don't take *radical action* to change our direction the earth's  temperature will increase *at a very rapid rate* with catastrophic results.
> ...




Coherence theory abuse and misuse is aiding the lies and claims.

The parallel would be the German people being duped by Nazism much like the believers of today's scams. 

It would be nice to see some truth without scaremongering and the abuse of logic.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

This story in the well known Time Magazine a few months over 25 years ago has a completely opposite picture painted for the Earth's future. The heading says it all. Like most people, I wonder what the present scene with apparent global warming is covering up. A prolonged global economic downturn perhaps or the little known fact that crude oil production has peaked and is on the decline. What is the distraction from? 
Here is an excerpt from Time Magazine - Science: Another Ice Age. 



> As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
> 
> Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 ° F.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2009)

amy997 said:


> On the subject of energy saving light bulbs, the ones i have tried only work sometimes, they are in the hallway in our house at the moment and half the time you turn them on and nothing happens but then the next day they work fine. Anyone else had this problem??



Assuming you have proper 230V supply and there's nothing wrong in that regard, the problem relates to the electronics in the bulb itself, the only realistic solution being replacement.

It works sometimes because of where the sine wave (of the electricity supply) happens to be when you flick the switch. If it's at peak (340V) then the bulb starts, if not then it doesn't. Pure luck with that one and with 50 complete cycles (100 voltage peaks) per second it comes down to luck. If it doesn't work then try switching on and off until you get it going. 

Temperature also plays a part in this situation.

One thing about these bulbs though, I really don't like some of the cheap ones sold in discount stores for $2 or thereabouts. Plenty of reports from overseas of them starting fires and I've seen the same ones for sale in Australia. Stick to known brands.

As for others, I don't like the Mirabella dimmable ones because they buzz. Another product I don't like is the Philips "Halotone" 60 and 100W halogens - they fail quickly under non-ideal conditions based on my experience. Other Philips bulbs are fine (though the Ambience type are slow to warm up) but I don't like the Halotone's.

For other energy-efficient products, a few points:

Solar HWS using glycol heat exchange fluid. A nice idea that solves the frost problem until you find out that the glycol needs replacing every 4 years and this is quite expensive.

Any solar or heat pump running on continuous (24 hour) electricity for boost or to run the heat pump. That will give you some pretty high electricity bills and defeat the benefits of going solar economically and to a significant extent environmentally (peak power demands come with a disproportionately high impact). Use off-peak electricity or gas for boosting.

And there's those heat pump water heaters with a boost element that turns on automatically at 5 or even 10 degrees. Totally unnecessary when you realise there are other brands (eg Siddons or Quantum) that have no booster installed and these work fine even in a cool climate (eg Tasmania) in the middle of Winter. So you sure don't need a booster element in most Australian locations. Don't buy one of the big name products that rely on a booster because they have inefficient heat pump systems - they also need 24 hour power supply which makes them expensive to run. 

Quantum and especially Siddons work fine on off-peak as long as you buy the right size unit for the application. Given that they only use 30% as much power as a conventional water heater, they cost incredibly little to run if on the cheap off-peak rate.

With water heaters generally, don't forget that if it's an enamel ("glass") lined tank then you need to replace the anode every 5 years otherwise it will rust. Most electric, gas and solar tanks are of this type and the reason they rust out is because hardly anyone replaces the anode. And the anode only costs about $40 from a plumbing supply store (in some states they might not be willing to sell to anyone other than a plumber???). But even if you have to pay for labour, it's still cheaper than a new water heater. This doesn't apply to stainless steel and copper tanks which don't need anodes.

Solar panels for generating electricity (not hot water) on your roof? There are some good deals around (mine cost me absolutely nothing!) but make sure it's installed in the right location (as close to true north as you can get it) as there are some dopey installers out there. 

But here's the difficult part - getting your electricity supplier to do their part. Easy in some states (eg Tas) but it's a real minefield in Victoria especially where they seem to have come up with every possible hurdle and cost so as to make the whole exercise a bit pointless. SA they do some funny things too so as to undermine the economics of these systems. 

Check locally before you buy one of these systems and make sure they put the panels facing the right way when it's installed. I'd also strongly recommend putting the inverter somewhere not in the sun, preferably under the house (for security). It's an expensive component, $2500+, and they don't like being cooked in the sun.

Like anything there are good products and bad. It's just that with the high up front cost of energy saving devices, you want to get something that works properly and lasts long enough to be worthwhile.


----------



## Agentm (27 October 2009)

basilo

china is on of the largest co2 producers on the planet, if you want to follow your line of argument that co2 is relevant, then why exclude the biggest producer? if you look at australia and germany, add all their emissions together, then thats how much *more* china will produce in the next 365 days than they did last year..  when are you going to learn that burning off, burning coal and keeping the sprinkler on all summer is going to do squat for the planet compared to what you are doing by ignoring the china factor in your grand illusion of climate change!! what china is going to do to you right now is kill you dead if you believe the carbon tripe!!???? 

but co2 is able to, in a very inefficient way, contain heat, but equally when the co2 is not heated, its inefficiency, as a gas, to be able to contain heat makes it the fastest cooling gas also.. so it heats fast and cools fast..  

so if we were heading into an ice age i guess you would be bellowing out the panic slogans that co2 makes it go there faster as it cool down quickly.. 

its an equally ludicrous argument as the global warming one..  

the recent mini ice age recently brought back the glaciers and they are now *disappearing naturally* as they would coming out of any ice age..

soon europe will be warm in the northern regions, and we will see a different type of crop grown in regions that have not had them grown for a few thousand years now.. but it will happen.. 

naturally..


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Assuming you have proper 230V supply and there's nothing wrong in that regard, the problem relates to the electronics in the bulb itself, the only realistic solution being replacement.
> 
> It works sometimes because of where the sine wave (of the electricity supply) happens to be when you flick the switch. If it's at peak (340V) then the bulb starts, if not then it doesn't. Pure luck with that one and with 50 complete cycles (100 voltage peaks) per second it comes down to luck. If it doesn't work then try switching on and off until you get it going.
> 
> ...




Smurf you are a gem


----------



## MrBurns (27 October 2009)

I got Crompton Halogens, the only other ones there were the Phillips swirrly things @ $33 a pop.......no thanks.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2009)

Agentm said:


> keeping the sprinkler on all summer



Water is a classic example of using the climate change issue to pursue other agendas. Watering the garden isn't adding much CO2 at all, it's just that in some regions there isn't much water available hence it's a problem. But there's no reason not to have a well watered lawn if you live somewhere that has plenty of water - you're not adding significantly to CO2 emissions by doing so.

Sadly, there seem to be some in the general community that see dead gardens as something we need to accept in order to fight climate change. That's outright nonsense even if we take the CO2 induced warming argument to be totally correct.


----------



## Agentm (27 October 2009)

the recent fire in victoria.. it emitted 1/3 of the aussie yearly carbon emission into the atmosphere..  

lets not forget that in the west of australia and the nt and norther qld, when it burns there each year, in acreages far larger than anything seen last year in victoria, year in year out, decade in decade out. forever..... just from lightning strikes, they are left to burn, impossible to contain and are part of the natural cycle of the planet, for millennium the volume of co2 produced this way is way way beyond anything australia emits industrially 

the massive dust storm that dumped umteen billion tons of soil into the pacific a few weeks back,  all that will super enrich the oceans and bring amazing abundance of life to the waters. which means cheaper fish and chips (another carbon polluter with the energy used there).. so lets carbon tax the dust storm also..

so for the sake of it, we should carbon tax ourselves into bankruptcy straight away each year.. we can put in $33 globes till the cows come in.. but its never going to come close to what volcanoes, natural brush fires and everything else put together can equate to..

co2 is a nonsense..   because its being produced naturally in way bigger quantities doesnt mean we should be believing the unproven and very unscientific research that what is happening today is part of what is naturally happening in any case..

carbon is an integral part of the life cycle


next we will hear that the co2 causes the atmosphere to sheer away at a faster rate into space, and we will all die from the solar winds..

you cant tax natural progressions in the climate..  global warming is part of what the planet does. it warms, it cools, it never stays the same..


----------



## awg (27 October 2009)

It seems likely any "ETS" will have the biggest immediate impact on all our immediate lives..but I will be buggerred if I have a clue what practical measures are contained in any proposed agreement.

I consider myself well informed, a news junkie and tech literate, so I wonder if other posters are like me, ie not knowing?

I could probably research it of course, but it would seem we are quite likely to get a scheme imposed on us soon, due to agreements etc.

Mr Burns, I would check with the local council re whether any property you buy is on their "maps" for future possibility of inundation, these are available at some councils.

Location, Location..as a RE you will know, for instance, some places round Byron Bay would be mighty hard to sell for a decent price..they are the ones on the news with their front yards washed away.

Fear factor, real or imagined, may cause beachfront to become less desirable, even unsaleable in some cases, in the future.

(Note to self, dont invest in property in Bangladesh) 

Climate, weather and sea level changes are historically indesputable scientific facts.

As to whether human intervention affects this now, my opinion: yes

Whether we can succesfully reverse those alterations: probably not.

ps, since my seperate thread about compact fluros being short-lived, 3 more have died in no more than a few months, 

still got 2 surviving incandescents, wont be replacing them till they quit, most of the other fluros been replaced at least once!

thanks Smurf for the good quality "energy" posts


----------



## amy997 (27 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Assuming you have proper 230V supply and there's nothing wrong in that regard, the problem relates to the electronics in the bulb itself, the only realistic solution being replacement.
> 
> It works sometimes because of where the sine wave (of the electricity supply) happens to be when you flick the switch. If it's at peak (340V) then the bulb starts, if not then it doesn't. Pure luck with that one and with 50 complete cycles (100 voltage peaks) per second it comes down to luck. If it doesn't work then try switching on and off until you get it going.




Thanks for the detailed reply Smurf


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> Part of me can appreciate Mr Burns and Agentum's sentiments. Stuff it we would all like to be carefree like the good old days.
> 
> Perhaps continuing the same theme we could enjoy our Camels to our lungs content, we could have those great piss ups in the pub on Saturday night, bash a couple of poofs on way out to car and than have drunken drags down St Kilda rd (without those bloody wussy seat belts  !!) and show everyone whose boss.  And then on Sunday we could knock up some  groovy little extension with the ever practical  cement sheet. Ah the good old days...






Your sarcasm and proselytising  are becoming boring. If we want to be brainwashed we can read The Age and The Guardian for ourselves.


----------



## Agentm (27 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Water is a classic example of using the climate change issue to pursue other agendas. Watering the garden isn't adding much CO2 at all, it's just that in some regions there isn't much water available hence it's a problem. But there's no reason not to have a well watered lawn if you live somewhere that has plenty of water - you're not adding significantly to CO2 emissions by doing so.
> 
> Sadly, there seem to be some in the general community that see dead gardens as something we need to accept in order to fight climate change. That's outright nonsense even if we take the CO2 induced warming argument to be totally correct.




if you accept the carbon argument, then watering is exactly what is needed

CO ² consuming biomass

Source: Tonnes of green matter per year per hectare

*Well-watered lawn 70 tonnes (7kg per m ²)*
Temperate rainforest 50 tonnes
Tropical rain forest 90 tonnes
Desert 3 tonnes
Paving / bitumen nil

if a lawn can consume way more than what a temperate rainforest can, then i am all for it.. we are starving ourselves of oxygen by turning off the taps..

i will gladly go back to the days of summer with the sprinkler on all day.. that in turn will reduce the co2, reduce global warming and if you follow the illogical global warming debate,, bring the rains back!!

so water it ever day, mow it frquently and save the planet by watering big time i say..

or maybe the rains are caused by something else..

anyone ever studied the great southern ocean?


----------



## prawn_86 (27 October 2009)

Just on AgentM's point,

New (young) shoots growth from trees also absorbs more co2, than old established branches etc, hence there is a good arguement for sustainable logging/cutting of trees as opposed to letting them grow.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Just on AgentM's point,
> 
> New (young) shoots growth from trees also absorbs more co2, than old established branches etc, hence there is a good arguement for sustainable logging/cutting of trees as opposed to letting them grow.




Good point there Prawn. It has been known for years that sustainable logging is healthy and beneficial. Younger healthy trees produce oxygen.


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2009)

It won't be long before 240V dimmable LED bulbs are readily available. Consumption only 3-5W, last 20yrs, pay for themselves in 3yrs.

http://www.ledshoponline.com/led_E27.htm
http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/pro...LED_Bulb_Lamp_AC100-240V_5W_GU10_E27_E14.html

I bought a small Cree LED torch recently. Incredibly bright and lights up the whole backyard - makes those 6V Eveready Dolphins look like candles.


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> Part of me can appreciate Mr Burns and Agentum's sentiments. Stuff it we would all like to be carefree like the good old days.
> 
> ...




The good old days activities I referred to were common practice in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Doctors advertised Camel cigarettes.

My point was that there were many things we did and accepted then that in hindsight (and probably at the time) were stupid and lethal. But that didn't stop the people who profited from the promotion keeping up the supply and doing everything in their power to prevent any laws that might curtail their activities. *And that is on the  public record. *

And that of course was my comparision to the current situation regarding  the continual use of fossil fuels.

As far as brainwashing ?  The information from The Age/Guardian comes from  a variety of sources. The fact  is that in the area of climate change most of the  information comes from  scientific bodies which almost universally share the same deeply disturbed views on what is happening and where we are going. *It is this near universal consensus  you are disagreeing with not the newspapers.* The papers are just the messengers.

Finally Calliope, I don't appreciate your nastiness. Let's keep this civil.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Just on AgentM's point,
> 
> New (young) shoots growth from trees also absorbs more co2, than old established branches etc, hence there is a good arguement for sustainable logging/cutting of trees as opposed to letting them grow.



We're always going to need building materials and some form of fuel. Sensibly harvesting trees and using them instead of steel / concrete for building and instead of coal for fuel makes a lot of sense in terms of sustainability.

I can certainly see the argument that not all areas should be logged and I agree with that view. But there are a lot of practical benefits in having a timber industry - if we leave every tree standing then we're set to ramp up CO2 emissions as a consequence which doesn't make a lot of sense.

The same arguments apply to wind farms, hydro schemes etc. Yes they will impact the landscape BUT in doing so they reduce CO2 emissions as long as they're sensibly built. It's a point I've often made - conservation in the traditional "tree hugger" sense is at odds with any objective to reduce CO2 emissions, something that most seem unwilling to acknoledge (though the Greens have cautiously made a few policy references to it in recent years, ironically relating mostly to hydro power).

Dam and log the lot? NO! But there's no reason why we shouldn't use wood, wind and hydro in a lot of the situations where it's available - not every square metre of land is of high conservation value worthy of World Herritage listing.

Best advice I can give to anyone wanting to understand this is to see for yourself. See a logging coupe - yes it's an ugly mess. Now take a look at one that was logged 10 years ago and you'll see that trees do grow back.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> T
> As far as brainwashing ?  The information from The Age/Guardian comes from  a variety of sources. The fact  is that in the area of climate change most of the  information comes from  political bodies which almost universally share the same deeply disturbed views on what is happening and where we are going. *It is this near universal political consensus you are disagreeing with not the newspapers.* The papers are just the propagandists.(




Corrected for accuracy.

The science, being in hypothesis stage, is being strongly argued. You just have to get outside of confirmation bias and see past the ulterior agenda.


----------



## Vizion (27 October 2009)

Some figures for you.

If you use a temperate grass lawn as a baseline for CO2 absorption, the area of lawn required to absorb the CO2 of one person and one car is actually close to 1.5 acres.

A car and driver produce about 5.5 tons of CO2 per year. When all fossil fuel is considered, every man, woman, and child can be said to be responsible for (approx) 18 tons of CO2 emissions per year in this country.
The estimate of the average absorption of a temperate commercial forest is (approx) 0.8 tons of carbon/hectare/year.  That equals 2.9 ish tons of CO2 /hectare/year, or 1.20 tons of CO2/acre/year. 

Soooo to absorb the CO2 produced by a car and driver, a forest of about 4.6 acres is required.
*What's that you say?* _*That's allot more than an acre and a half or nice green grass!*_
True, but it's allot easier & more cost effective to plant & maintain 5 odd acres of fast growing pines, than 1.5 acres of watered lawn don't you think?

Have you thought about what kind of water supply you would need to *actually* water 1.5 acres of lawn? (times) *each* of the *13.5 million* cars on our roads? We are not exactly water rich here... I would gently point your attention to the Murray Darling problem and the the current levels of water restrictions we enjoy.
Growing these sizes of areas, of either grass (yeah right) or even trees to nullify our current levels or CO2 output is not exactly feasible is it.

Someone mentioned burn off events, a whole other and very interesting topic in itself. The science of that could easily be a whole thread by itself.

You might bear in mind though, that while those events have gone on for thousands of years, our burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, via 13.5 million & rising cars,  AC units, Coal Mines, Aluminium smelting plants (burning brown coal) etc,  *has not*.  Its about cumulative effects, *NOT* one or two or three things taken in isolation.

We have already, measurably altered weather patterns above our major cities.  The bigger ones act as massive heat sinks, one of the effects of these heat sinks is more violent electrical storms. Ringing any bells here?
Had a few rather large storm events in the last few years have we maybe?
 This is well documented fact by organisations like NASA & our own CSIRO.

So regardless of what *anyone* here might think, unless *you* are in *their *league, when it comes to being able to devise, and interpret complex models and data sets. *After* spending 30 years of *your* life dedicated to it... do please pardon me if I don't listen to your "opinion" that global warming *"might"*  not be happening. Hey if anyone here  has the scientific credentials to back up their arguments,  *not* some page from Google, please trot them out so we can all actually trust you know what you are talking about. Robots does not count, we all know he is a genius 

I personally though, would rather we attempted to do something about it. Not be look back in 20 or 30 years when some of you are dead & gone, & have to be saying to my (currently 2 day old daughter) _"Sorry sweet pea, we should have listened, but there was this bunch of semi informed people who did not believe it was really happening. They *thought*__ they knew more than the people who actually studied it" "shrug" _

The world is full of people you can say "I told you so"  "ner ner... see it was all a crock" *after* an event has passed, this one though? *Just* might be a bit too  important to take that risk with perhaps?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2009)

Vizion said:


> We have already, measurably altered weather patterns above our major cities.  The bigger ones act as massive heat sinks, one of the effects of these heat sinks is more violent electrical storms. Ringing any bells here?
> Had a few rather large storm events in the last few years have we maybe?
> This is well documented fact by organisations like NASA & our own CSIRO.



The "heat island" effect of cities is well documented in Australia and overseas. 

And that is precisely why temperature measurements near cities, power stations, smelters, airports or any other major source of heat are completely meaningless in terms of measuring _global_ temperature changes. 

So forget Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and even Hobart as a useful place to measure temperatures as far as climate change is concerned. Try somewhere in the outback of mainland Australia or in the central highlands of Tas if you want a more accurate representation. Or measure via satellites instead - just don't measure near major heat sources on the ground.

As for watering lawns, I'm certainly not saying that's a viable means of soaking up CO2. But if you've got plenty of water then there's nothing "wrong" with putting some on the garden if you want to despite the apparent agendas of some in this regard.


----------



## basilio (27 October 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> T
> As far as brainwashing ? The information from The Age/Guardian comes from a variety of sources. The fact is that in the area of climate change most of the information comes from *political bodies ?* which almost universally share the same deeply disturbed views on what is happening and where we are going. It is this near universal *political consensus ?*you are disagreeing with not the newspapers. The papers are just the propagandists.
> Corrected for accuracy.
> ...




Just can't see or agree with your revision Wayne. 

It seems as if your saying that when scientific organizations release their analysis on what is happening with regard to climate change they suddenly become just political animals! You seem to be saying that their research is just not credible anymore.. 

Is everything absolutely proven ? Almost certainly not.  Is there a very high degree of confidence amongst  climate scientists as to the cause and final effects of continued  greenhouse gas emissions?  Arguably yes.

How long do we wait for final proof ? If the consequences of the scientific consensus being correct is catastrophic can we wait for absolute certainty before beginning action?

-------------------------------

I also think it is worth repeating the observations I made earlier about the determination of current interest groups to protect their investments regardless of  consequences. I picked out the tobacco industry as one that denied the reality of tobacco  caused deaths for 50 years. 

It is a fact that the most argumentative group  questioning the science behind  anthropogenic global warming and then the need for action is the fossil fuel industry. How much credibility can the coal and oil industry have in  this debate when they are effectively arguing to protect their  patch ?


----------



## bjbcats (27 October 2009)

Reading this thread, there seems a quite a bit of scepticism on the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.

My take on this is: just over 200 hundred years ago, the First Fleet used the Tank Stream as their source of fresh water, but in very short order managed to pollute it so it was unusable (I believe the same thing happened when English and Dutch settled Long Island). Up until the mid 1970's, industry routinely dumped their waste in the local river or lake, which wasn't too good for the fish. It wasn't until people started to get effected by this pollution that we decided this wasn't a good idea.

Now, over a period of maybe 250 years, we are liberating all the carbon trapped from 100's of million years of plant growth back into the atmosphere. If the past experience with our waterways is any guide, pumping this volume of stuff into the atmosphere in such a short time period is unlikely to lead to a good outcome.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Just can't see or agree with your revision Wayne.



I didn't expect you to. 

It is nevertheless, demonstrably true.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2009)

bjbcats said:


> Up until the mid 1970's, industry routinely dumped their waste in the local river or lake, which wasn't too good for the fish. It wasn't until people started to get effected by this pollution that we decided this wasn't a good idea.



Or in one case where all the pollution built up under the bridge to the point of effectively damming the creek and threatening to flood the two offending industries with their own pollution.

I wasn't around to see that but I'm told the solution they came up with (rather quickly) was simply to bring in an excavator to dig a channel and get all the muck flowing again... straight onto the beach (literally).

A few decades later and neither industry is in existance in that form today, one having been long since demolished and the other radically changed in operation.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 October 2009)

From The Times, a publication not given to inaccuracy or hyperbole.

This warmener wants us all to go vegetarian to stop cattle from farting. Perhaps giving him a job lighting matches at the **** end of a cow might solve the "problem" as well.

How low can these unscientific people stoop.

Its been raining here tonight, in Townsville, nice gentle rain. So welcome.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece




> People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
> 
> In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”




gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

bjbcats said:


> Now, over a period of maybe 250 years, we are liberating all the carbon trapped from 100's of million years of plant growth back into the atmosphere.




Surely a new discovery and invention will emerge to replace the burning of fossil fuels that create electricity. The collective mind is constantly evolving into a more intelligent organism so surely a solution will be discovered.


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2009)

basilio said:


> Finally Calliope, I don't appreciate your nastiness. Let's keep this civil.




What nastiness did you infer from my post? Certainly none was intended. I have no objections to you preaching the climate change gospel according to the bias of The Age and The Guardian. But I doubt you are getting many converts on these pages.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

Vizion said:


> We have already, measurably altered weather patterns above our major cities.  The bigger ones act as massive heat sinks, one of the effects of these heat sinks is more violent electrical storms. Ringing any bells here?
> Had a few rather large storm events in the last few years have we maybe?
> This is well documented fact by organisations like NASA & our own CSIRO.



You accidently stumbled on the major source of climate change. It's not CO2, it's LAND USE.



> So regardless of what *anyone* here might think, unless *you* are in *their *league, when it comes to being able to devise, and interpret complex models and data sets. *After* spending 30 years of *your* life dedicated to it... do please pardon me if I don't listen to your "opinion" that global warming *"might"*  not be happening. Hey if anyone here  has the scientific credentials to back up their arguments,  *not* some page from Google, please trot them out so we can all actually trust you know what you are talking about.




Hoist by your own petard there. Why should we listen to you opinion then? 

While the scientists debate, the propagandists give only one side of the story. There are similarly qualified folk who argue either against, or for an extremely different picture of AGW.

One of the few balanced CC* pro*tagonists torpedos massive holes in the IPCC model and political position. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/


----------



## basilio (28 October 2009)

> Rep. Perriello: Coal Fraudster Impersonated Women’s And Seniors’ Groups As Well
> 
> The stack of forged letters opposing clean energy reform on behalf of the coal industry is growing. Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) *has revealed that he not only received forgeries purporting to come from black and hispanic groups, but also senior citizen and women’s advocacy organizations as well. *Yesterday, Perriello’s office told reporters that in addition to the five NAACP letters and one Creciendo Juntos letter forged on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), *“two other letters were forged to appear as if they had been sent by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a Charlottesville agency, and the American Association of University Women.”* Perriello, who cast his vote in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act despite this fraud, discussed the scandal on Rachel Maddow:
> 
> _*Obviously, anything like this, where someone is claiming your letterhead and then claiming your position is just outrageous. They also did JABA, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, which is one of these great service organizations in our community that helps our seniors. And for them to get dragged into something like this really is, I think, a blow to folks in the area. But it’s also just a turn-off again to these sorts of corporate-lobbying tactics.*_




http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/further-coal-fraud/

I've made a few references in recent comments to the role of  the fossil fuel industry, in particular coal in attacking any attempts to curtail coal production.

It's interesting to see just how far they will go in their efforts to deceive us.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Surely a new discovery and invention will emerge to replace the burning of fossil fuels that create electricity. The collective mind is constantly evolving into a more intelligent organism so surely a solution will be discovered.



Technically it's possible now, financial cost is the problem. Coal at $40 per MWh (operating cost less than half of that for existing plants) is cheaper than alternatives that start around $70 per MWh and go over $100 per MWh when scaled up.

If Australian industry operated in isolation then we could possibly afford $100 per MWh. But not when we've got to compete with others who will keep using cheap coal. *Globalisation and "free" trade are the problem there - our energy intensive industries are price takers on the international scene and simply can't increase selling prices if input energy costs go up. THAT is the problem.*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

There is so much horse**** on the numerous recent threads about weather I thought we should get it in perspective.

We had some nice rain last week in Townsville but its a dry and hot cloudless day today.

We await a wet season to get all the plants, insects, trees, animals, birds, reef and fish up and going.

There are heaps of birds, green ants and green frogs about which is usually a good sign about this time of year.

I do enjoy weather, its changes and all the beauty it brings.

Whats the weather like where you live?

Stick your head out the window rather than going to bom.gov.au.

gg


----------

