# Global Cooling????



## wayneL (27 August 2006)

I give up!! I'm keeping my overcoat, just in case.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml




> Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years
> 
> Created: 25.08.2006 17:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 22:33 MSK
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2006)

Then there are the Local theories - eg the theory that Florida will fry, and at the same time England will freeze.  This theory was on TV recently.  Basically the warm Gulf stream is pivotal to the climates of both.  After travelling north east from the tropics, it hits the northern Atlantic where due to its high salt content it sinks, then returns at a lower level to be reheated etc.  They call it "the conveyor".  Trouble is the salt is being diluted by melting iceberg/ polar cap etc,  and when this happens the conveyor stops.   They say it will take a long time for it to restart - eg a century or two.   They have found evidence in boreologs in Iceland that there have been many mini-Ice Ages in that part of the world, many more than previously thought.   But apparently local in extent etc.  Yet another of those finely balanced subtleties of nature that Man is bound to screw up before he fully understands what he's doing.

"If I were the Mother of Nature, and my world was a breaking shell, and someone was pouring black oil on my birds, and poisoning slowly the well.  And deserts were growing like wildfire, and wildfires were burning like Hell, Id be just a tiddy wee bit concerned, - and I'd probably opt to sell."  Cripes I need a beer after that.


----------



## Realist (27 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I give up!! I'm keeping my overcoat, just in case.




So you'll keep your overcoat for the next 50 years eh?

Now that is value investing.  

Buy WDC and hold for 50 years and you could buy a few overcoat companies instead.


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> So you'll keep your overcoat for the next 50 years eh?
> 
> Now that is value investing.
> 
> Buy WDC and hold for 50 years and you could buy a few overcoat companies instead.




Really? Do you think they will survive in a post consumerist economy?


----------



## bunyip (27 August 2006)

Global cooling eh, after all we've been hearing about global warming!
I've always questioned the theory that global warming is a product of man made emissions from factories etc. Thousands of years before industry came along, the ice age was on the way out as the planet warmed up. 
The most vocal scientists are always the ones who support the theory that industry is causing global warming. And because it makes good headlines that sell newspapers and news programs, the media jump on the bandwagon and report it for all it's worth.
But not all scientists agree on the causes of global warming. Recently I saw an interview with a very highly respected scientist from James Cook University in Townsville.
His view is that the amount of factory and exhaust emissions is just a drop in the ocean, so to speak, too small in the overall context of things to significantly affect the climate. 
According to him,  everything the climate is throwing at us.....tsunamis, droughts, floods, cyclones, record cold snaps, record heat waves, have all occurred thousands of times over the last few million years, and quite likely with greater severity that what we're seeing today.
He says that seasonal cycles are quite normal and can last much longer than most people, including many scientists, realise. For example, we could get a run of hot summers with above average temperatures for ten years or fifty or even a hundred years. Then the seasons could go in the opposite direction....twenty or fifty or maybe even a hundred years that are cooler than usual, or wetter or drier or whatever.
Given all of the above and assuming that at least some of it is correct, it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that sooner or later we could see global cooling replacing global warming. The theories of those Russian scientists might be closer to the mark than we think.

Bunyip


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2006)

Bunyip,

I remember watching a program about the Mayan or Aztec (can't remeber which) civilization. Apparently they died out well before the Spaniards arrived. The reason they reckoned was because of climate change... and this was thew 14th century (and backed it up with science).

I saw another program where Vikings used to live and *FARM* in Greenland. They died out because of... you guessed it climate change. Can't farm there even today.

So it seems to be a cycle thing... lot's of scientists actually think this way. The problem is you can only get funding if you are studying global warming. So if you want to mainatain funding you have to support tjhe warming scenario.


----------



## Kipp (27 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bunyip,
> 
> I remember watching a program about the Mayan or Aztec (can't remeber which) civilization. Apparently they died out well before the Spaniards arrived. The reason they reckoned was because of climate change... and this was thew 14th century (and backed it up with science).
> 
> ...



Wayne/Bunyip- I do not entirely discount theories on cooling as it is stue that the Earth has gone through cooling/warming stages long before the days of coal plants and V8's.  But when have a look at the RATE of change of this heating, compared with say 1,000 years ago, you'll see that it is much faster now under man's influence.  (I should really post a graph illustrating this but too tired..)

Wayne you say that Global Warming paranoia sells newspapers... I would argue that the number of lobby groups/governments trying to dismiss GW theories are equally stron (and infintely better financed/resourced) than the hippies trying to fight them...

Fortunately Oil looks like it'll keep running north (surely $100 isn't out of the question?) so maybe we'll seee a few more hybrids on the road in another 5 years.  Alot of Wind Farms under contruction too which is a very good thing (in my view).

P.S.  I know very little of the Aztecs, but I'm pretty damn sure they were around when Cortez and his boys rocked up with Horses, Muskets, and an insatiable appetite for Gold.  Find it very hard to believe that it was GW that knocked them or the Mayans (of Central America off)  very hard they were quite an advance bunch all of those groups, roads, agriculture etc...
But still... they couldn't match handful of whitemen and their religon


----------



## moola (27 August 2006)

It's been shown that industrial air pollution is a factor in both global warming and global cooling. More particals in the air reduce the intensity of the sun, thus acting as a kind of shade cloth. This has only recently started to gain credibility since pan evaporation rates all accross the world have indicated that pan evaporation is dropping and the primary factor in pan evaporation is the intensity of the sun. Everyone is familiar with causes of global warming. There can be no doubt that humans make an impact on the climate, you can't just say that it's completly natural for these things to be happening. It's true though that the earth does have natual cycles of warming and cooling but not to the extent that wayneL is suggesting. Significant environmental changes like that leave lasting evidence, not to mention most cultures would have recorded anything like that (convienient that it was two cultures that have left nothing readable behind). If florida suddently melts or England freezes, then that's a truely significant and unusual even. In nature, changes like that occur over gradually over thousands of years (unless it's volcanic or a meteor).

Um, the Mayan's weren't around in the 14th century, and it's pretty well accepted by the people who have all the available facts that most of the Aztec cities were wiped out by disease after first contact with the spanish. For instance, the second bunch of Spanish dudes to sail down the Amazon couldn't believe that there were supposed to be all these huge cities along the banks, because by the time they got there most of them had been decimated by disease. The accounts of the first discoveries were assumed to be false for hundreds of years. But recent investigation around the areas were those cities were reported to be showed evidence of large scale agricultural civilization inhabiting those areas in about the same places as was originally reported by Spanish eye witnesses.

It's likely that Aztecs had the largest agricultural system in the world just before they got wiped out. Arial photography of the savana grass lands show distinct lines were irrigation systems used to be in place. I don't know what science could possibly be backing up claims of global warming there.

From my understanding of the situation, either there was global warming at the exact same time as everyone was also dying of disease and the Spanish just didn't bother to mention in their reports that the people were all dying of starvation, or it was not a factor here. Since you claim that they died out before the spanish arrived (which in order to be true means that there is some huge ancient Spanish conspiracy going on), I'm just going to stick with the latter conclusion in order to preserve my sanity.


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2006)

Kipp said:
			
		

> Wayne/Bunyip- I do not entirely discount theories on cooling as it is stue that the Earth has gone through cooling/warming stages long before the days of coal plants and V8's.  But when have a look at the RATE of change of this heating, compared with say 1,000 years ago, you'll see that it is much faster now under man's influence.  (I should really post a graph illustrating this but too tired..)
> 
> Wayne you say that Global Warming paranoia sells newspapers... I would argue that the number of lobby groups/governments trying to dismiss GW theories are equally stron (and infintely better financed/resourced) than the hippies trying to fight them...
> 
> ...




Just looked it up.. it was the Mayans that disappeared from Guatemala around 900 AD. It wasn't GW as such, but it was climate change. The band of reliable rains had shifted north for a few decades.. long enough for them to abandon their city because of lack of water. It is only a theory, but it does seem like a good one.

Whether we are heating up or cooling, I am certainly for a reduction of pollution, which to me is a bigger problem than CO2.


----------



## Realist (27 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Really? Do you think they will survive in a post consumerist economy?




No.

But I said 50 years, not 10,000 years.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

Kipp said:
			
		

> Wayne/Bunyip- I do not entirely discount theories on cooling as it is stue that the Earth has gone through cooling/warming stages long before the days of coal plants and V8's.  But when have a look at the RATE of change of this heating, compared with say 1,000 years ago, you'll see that it is much faster now under man's influence.  (I should really post a graph illustrating this but too tired..)
> 
> Wayne you say that Global Warming paranoia sells newspapers... I would argue that the number of lobby groups/governments trying to dismiss GW theories are equally stron (and infintely better financed/resourced) than the hippies trying to fight them...
> 
> Fortunately Oil looks like it'll keep running north (surely $100 isn't out of the question?) so maybe we'll seee a few more hybrids on the road in another 5 years.  Alot of Wind Farms under contruction too which is a very good thing (in my view).



Agreed about the rate of change issue. It does suggest human influence and in theory at least (and in the lab) the global warming (GW) argument stacks up.

That said, there is a HUGE amount of money riding on it so don't for a minute expect science to prevail. On one side is the fossil fuel industry and on the other is the green / nuclear lobby. Both are very well resourced in every way, although the green / nuclear side does seem better at public relations / media.

It is no secret in the power industry that the Kyoto Protocol would be better described as the Nuclear Protocol for the simple reason that its design effectively ensures new nuclear generation gets built. Kyoto's timeframes work very strongly against a shift to renewables with tight timelines necessitating large scale "quick fix" options of which nuclear is the only serious contender in most industrialised countries. Hardly surprising for an agreement backed by the nuclear industry from day one. The pro-GW lobby is _very_ well resourced...

Certainly, I support reducing greenhouse gas emissions where it is reasonable to do so. You'll be hard pressed to find a stronger advocate of renewable energy than myself. But Kyoto belongs in the bin as the biggest environmental charade yet devised. Kyoyo doesn't stop rising greenhouse gas emissions which makes it pointless. In practice, it leads to an expansion of non-fossil energy in the West and the diversion of fossil fuel supplies to the likes of China. No reduction in emissions, indeed they continue to rise under Kyoto, but the facilitation of even more energy use globally (from all sources) as the West gives up a portion of fossil fuel consumption. End result - pointless as far as GW is concerned but a bonanza for the nuclear industry with a few scraps left over for renewables.

A more realistic solution IMO would be to ignore actual emissions and focus on their source. Progressively limit the % of commercial energy that is supplied by fossil fuels falling to zero around 2100. That avoids the "quick fix" rush and allows market forces to largely prevail when it comes to actual technology. Also, if avoids the sole focus on emissions and encompasses the problems of oil/gas depletion etc too (whereas a focus solely on emissions encourages the use of more gas with all that entails - essentially the same issues as oil with global supply security etc).


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

Two more photos. You decide which ones are messing up the planet...

As far as I'm concerned, it's not those that get all the complaints about spoiling the scenery etc (hydro and wind).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 August 2006)

Has anyone ever thought that it might be from the orbit. The Earth`s orbit does have a comfort zone that allows life to continue living, at times it will be hotter or colder.

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/ECT/the_book/Chap2/Chapter2.html

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/flipaxis.htm


----------



## NettAssets (28 August 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Two more photos. You decide which ones are messing up the planet...
> 
> .


----------



## rub92me (28 August 2006)

I don't know which 'experts' to believe anymore in the global warming debate. What I do know is that they can't even get a weather forecast for the next 12 hours right for Sydney. Not exactly a vote of confidence if the same experts are in charge of predicting what is going to happen 25+ years from now.


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> I don't know which 'experts' to believe anymore in the global warming debate. What I do know is that they can't even get a weather forecast for the next 12 hours right for Sydney. Not exactly a vote of confidence if the same experts are in charge of predicting what is going to happen 25+ years from now.




Good point.

Weather forecasters, and scientists and so called experts are much like stock analysts.

They get their forecasts right about half the time.

In other words, they are wrong half the time and should mostly be ignored.


----------



## mit (28 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> Good point.
> 
> Weather forecasters, and scientists and so called experts are much like stock analysts.
> 
> ...




Weather Forecasters get it wrong due to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) not due to errors in their theory. The greenhouse effect is real and the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so. The balance does not look that way because most of us read the popular press and not the original scientific papers. And the popular press loves controversy and giving a "balanced" view.

The people who push Greenhouse gas denial/HIV Denial/Holocaust Denial/Intelligent Design know this and have been successful in casting doubt on work by people who spend their lives studying the science.

I currently have a simple test. Find out what the majority of scientists believe in a subject and trust that this is what best fits the current data.

A good book about vested interests warping real science is "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney


----------



## rub92me (28 August 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> Weather Forecasters get it wrong due to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) not due to errors in their theory. The greenhouse effect is real and the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so. The balance does not look that way because most of us read the popular press and not the original scientific papers.




Surely the butterly effect will have an exponential effect on the longer term predictions as well. If they can't account for that in their theories, then that *is* a flaw in their theory. Real scientists don't believe. They have hypotheses and try to test them. Currently there is insufficient data, and the models are primitive and inclonclusive at best.


----------



## Bloveld (28 August 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> Weather Forecasters get it wrong due to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) not due to errors in their theory. The greenhouse effect is real and the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so. The balance does not look that way because most of us read the popular press and not the original scientific papers. And the popular press loves controversy and giving a "balanced" view.
> 
> The people who push Greenhouse gas denial/HIV Denial/Holocaust Denial/Intelligent Design know this and have been successful in casting doubt on work by people who spend their lives studying the science.
> 
> ...







So why is weather affected by chaos theory and not climate?


----------



## watsonc (28 August 2006)

Without a greenhouse effect, there would be no life on earth as we know it. A greenhouse effect is a good thing. Sea levels may not rise with global warming because when ice melts is contracts in size (shrinks) i.e. frozen water expands.

I have read about some theories on global cooling, and it seems possible. It had something to do with dark matter (trees) being removed from the earth's surface, reduces the earth's ability to absurb and trap heat.


----------



## Bloveld (28 August 2006)

moola said:
			
		

> It's been shown that industrial air pollution is a factor in both global warming and global cooling. More particals in the air reduce the intensity of the sun, thus acting as a kind of shade cloth. This has only recently started to gain credibility since pan evaporation rates all accross the world have indicated that pan evaporation is dropping and the primary factor in pan evaporation is the intensity of the sun. Everyone is familiar with causes of global warming. There can be no doubt that humans make an impact on the climate, you can't just say that it's completly natural for these things to be happening. It's true though that the earth does have natual cycles of warming and cooling but not to the extent that wayneL is suggesting. Significant environmental changes like that leave lasting evidence, not to mention most cultures would have recorded anything like that (convienient that it was two cultures that have left nothing readable behind). If florida suddently melts or England freezes, then that's a truely significant and unusual even. In nature, changes like that occur over gradually over thousands of years (unless it's volcanic or a meteor).





So what wiped out the mammoths in Siberia and in California?
And what about the megafauna in Australia?
What could explain the Piri Reis map?

Rapid climate change might just be a natural regular occurance.


----------



## mit (28 August 2006)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> So why is weather affected by chaos theory and not climate?




Sorry, I only put down half a thought down. Most of the mainstream modelling agrees that there will be further global warming and the effects wont be pleasant, all of the positive and negative feedback effects are NOT 100% known so how bad it is going to get is unknown. It's a bit like Pascal's wager. We can do nothing because of a couple of lone voices we read in the newspaper it is not going to happen or we can believe the mainstream science and try and get something done.

If we believe the lone voices and they are wrong and the worse case happens then we are f**ked well and truly. If we believe the mainstream science, the worse case is the best case and we have wasted some money cutting back on emissions.

MIT


----------



## mit (28 August 2006)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> So what wiped out the mammoths in Siberia and in California?




People. 



> And what about the megafauna in Australia?




ditto



> What could explain the Piri Reis map?




Eh? 



> Rapid climate change might just be a natural regular occurance.




Scientists can measure past weather through ice-cores and tree rings etc so have a good idea of weather patterns.

I never ceases to amaze me that people think their opinion is better than others that spend their life studying this stuff. Science is not a democracy or post-modernist (ie there are no truths).


----------



## bunyip (28 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bunyip,
> 
> I remember watching a program about the Mayan or Aztec (can't remeber which) civilization. Apparently they died out well before the Spaniards arrived. The reason they reckoned was because of climate change... and this was thew 14th century (and backed it up with science).
> 
> ...




Wayne

There's no doubt that it's a 'cycle thing'......it's completely ludicrous when you hear on TV that the current drought is proof of man-made global warming and climate change. Any clear-thinking person can see that in all likelihood there were droughts during the last few thousand years that were more severe than any in the last two hundred years since recordings began. And not just droughts either.....floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, cold spells, earthquakes, cyclones......the full range of climatic conditions and naturally occurring events.
Coral core samples taken from the Barrier Reef show that exceptionally severe droughts were as common a few hundred years ago as they are today.
Core sampling of coral reefs enables scientists to look back in time hundreds of years and 'see' what the seasons were like. Coral has 'growth rings' similar to the growth rings that occur in trees. The flow of fresh water from the rivers on to the coral reefs in North Queensland determines the extent of the growth rings that are formed each year. In wet years the growth rings are well formed and obvious, in drier years they're less pronounced, and in drought years they're insignificant although still visible.
By studying the growth rings under a microscope, scientists have established that Australia suffered many particularly savage droughts before European settlement.
In the late 1700's there were a  couple of decades that were particularly dry, as indicated by the insignificant growth rings on the coral during that time.

While the cyclical nature of climate is well proven, the question is whether or not industrial and exhaust emissions are speeding up global warming.
Some scientists answer that question with a definite 'yes', while other scientists say 'no'. 

Maybe as you say Wayne, the 'yes' opinion predominates because that's the best way to attract funding.

Bunyip


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> If we believe the mainstream science, the worse case is the best case and we have wasted some money cutting back on emissions.
> 
> MIT



Depending on _how_ emissions are reduced, we could waste a lot more than money. The transfer of global economic power (reducing emissions in the West whilst allowing unconstrained growth in China) and world dominance being one of them. Creating a vastly larger nuclear power industry with most countries having operating reactors being another. Depleting the world's supply of natural gas (on which human food production is absolutely dependent due to its role as fertilizer feedstock) being another.

I'm in favour of reducing emissions as long as it's a _genuine_ reduction. Simply shifting emissions from Australia or the US to China does nothing to fix the problem. Indeed with the added global trade it would make matters worse (due to freight transport emissions). Also there's a valid argument that going nuclear or gas, both of which come with massive problems of their own, isn't a good solution even though it cuts emissions. A similar argument could be made in relation to biofuels - clearing the forests to massively expand agriculture (or simply buring the wood) comes at a huge environmental price. 

Cut emissions certainly. But not by means of solving one problem and creating another.


----------



## dubiousinfo (28 August 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> I currently have a simple test. Find out what the majority of scientists believe in a subject and trust that this is what best fits the current data.





The majority of scientists once believed the world to be flat.


----------



## bunyip (28 August 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Depending on _how_ emissions are reduced, we could waste a lot more than money. The transfer of global economic power (reducing emissions in the West whilst allowing unconstrained growth in China) and world dominance being one of them. Creating a vastly larger nuclear power industry with most countries having operating reactors being another. Depleting the world's supply of natural gas (on which human food production is absolutely dependent due to its role as fertilizer feedstock) being another.
> 
> I'm in favour of reducing emissions as long as it's a _genuine_ reduction. Simply shifting emissions from Australia or the US to China does nothing to fix the problem. Indeed with the added global trade it would make matters worse (due to freight transport emissions). Also there's a valid argument that going nuclear or gas, both of which come with massive problems of their own, isn't a good solution even though it cuts emissions. A similar argument could be made in relation to biofuels - clearing the forests to massively expand agriculture (or simply buring the wood) comes at a huge environmental price.
> 
> Cut emissions certainly. But not by means of solving one problem and creating another.




Smurf

That's a good point. There's little to be gained by reducing our relatively small amount of industrial emissions in Australia,  while huge countries like India and China are rapidly increasing theirs, and we're helping them to do so.
Last week during my trip to North Queensland I visited the worlds largest coal export terminal at Hay Point, just south of Mackay. 
The scale of this operation is staggering. Six ships can be loaded simultaneously at the rate of 4,000 to 6,000 tonnes of coal per ship per hour.
The loading goes on 24/7 every week of the year. That's roughly 5 million tonnes of coal each week that's shipped out of Australia to be burnt in factories and power stations around the world. Clearly this produces a staggering amount of industrial emissions. And we in Australia, by supplying the coal, are indirectly but willingly participating in the production of these emissions.
And we're not going to stop doing it.....it's just too lucrative a business for us.

Bunyip


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> And we in Australia, by supplying the coal, are indirectly but willingly participating in the production of these emissions.
> And we're not going to stop doing it.....it's just too lucrative a business for us.
> 
> Bunyip



And with plenty of coal in the world, if we don't mine it then somebody else will. We are by no means the dominant holder of coal reserves.

But as for actual climate, take a look at this link. The focus is cloud seeding but contains some pretty startling figures as to rainfall. In short, something drastic happened in 1976 as both WA and Tas (and elsewhere) have recorded significantly lower rainfall ever since. The decline in WA is dramatic to say the least although it is not insignificant in Tasmania (cloud seeding has substantially offset the decline in Tas so in a "natural" scenario the decline would be worse). 

The climate IS changing. Question is what effects come next and what was so special about the 1976 divide?

As for cloud seeding, it's time to end the "it doesn't work" nonsense and make more use of it IMO. It's a proven technology that just happens to also be relatively cheap.

http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/files/ISsubcs.pdf


----------



## moola (28 August 2006)

I don't know what you're talking about, the wether forcast is correct about 95% of the time in Darwin. 27o and no rain in the dry season. 30o and pissing down in the wet season. Oh to be a meteorologist in Darwin.

Oh, and BTW. I dispise that concept of the 'green / nuclear lobby'. It's marketing, and you can forget about that 'green' part. The environmental advantages are very short term. It's to make the now domesticated middle class greenies feel better about the fact that the government isn't interested in real low environmental impact energy sources. If you disagree then why don't you take the nuclear waste instead of dumping it in the NT. No one here want's it here and the federal government is just taking advantage of the fact that we aren't a state to off load it on us with out a choice (that's not democracy). Despite popular belief, just because the malls are 1500kms apart doesn't mean the NT is a desert wasteland.

The media has a whole lot to balance on their plate. On one hand, condemn Iran for wanting nuclear power plants. On the other hand, telling everyone we need nuclear plants, they are safe, and oh, by the way, we're just going to sell a few thousand tons of uranium to the Chinese for their safe Nuclear power plants, 'cos we can trust them (Hahaha they got busted farming human organs but they wont build nukes with our uranium, bah! Hahahaha!). It's known as doublethink, being able to hold two conflicting concepts in your mind at the same time and believing both of them fully without question. And you'll need that to survive in the coming decades (see ya in hell   ).

The _only_ problem with safe energy sources is that their suply can't be centralised. Power is exactly that and it needs to be kept under strict control. Just look at what's happening in Germany, one of the few countries that has policies and even laws to promote alternative energy production. Individuals and communities are producing all their own power. How are you going to play games with them like Enron did to California by switching off the power from time to time? The are self suficient. Can you imagine what would happen if that kind of self suficiency met a culture like what US have? People would build little Mad Max style fortresses and they would bring out the national guard the FBI and the ATF for some old fashion napalming and chemical wepons testing. The fact that people would feel that they need to build armed fortresses is a fault with the society in my opinion, not the technology. But still, that's the future we are heading for. I only wish we could have sided strongly with the EU somehow and ditched America. They are determined to take the whole world down with them it seems. And they will claim they are the greatest and are fighting for freedom to the bitter end. I know who I'd like to see conviceted for war crimes... oops wrong forums. :horse:


----------



## Bloveld (28 August 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> Scientists can measure past weather through ice-cores and tree rings etc so have a good idea of weather patterns.
> 
> I never ceases to amaze me that people think their opinion is better than others that spend their life studying this stuff. Science is not a democracy or post-modernist (ie there are no truths).





So far you have put up several theories as facts.
One theory of mamoth extinction is hunting by humans. But in Africa, where supposedly humans started off, elephants and rhinos survived. So why were humans capable of wiping out similar animals in America and Asia but not Africa.

I dont know if your last comment was aimed at me. But so far you have put foward several opinions whereas I have asked questions and suggested possibilities.
A scientist can spend his career believing in a certain theories, then next week something can be dug up that blows away all previous theories.

Actually I am proud not to call myself a scientist, because I can ask stupid questions, believe anecdotal evidence and use my common sense. Scientists can only use observable and repeatable facts.

Anyway you just keep playing it safe, listen to the majority, keep the blinkers on. Fortunately there will always be guys like Galileo, Newton, Columbus and my favourite Ignaz Semmelweis. They werent crowd followers.

Piri Reis Map. Well you could of put it into Google. But dont bother, its a map of Antarctica drawn 300 years before Antarctica was discovered. So therefore scientifically impossible. Just something for us dreamers to think about.



The Semmelweis Reflex:

Mob behavior found among primates and larval hominids on undeveloped
planets, in which a discovery of important scientific fact is punished rather than rewarded. Named after Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, ... physician who discovered the cause of puerperal fever, a now-obsolete disease which, in Semmelweis's primitive era, yearly killed a vast number of women in childbirth. Semmelweis was fired from his hospital, expelled from his medical society, denounced and ridiculed widely, reduced to abject poverty and finally died in a madhouse.

-Timothy Leary from "The Game of Life"


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

mit said:
			
		

> Weather Forecasters get it wrong due to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) not due to errors in their theory. The greenhouse effect is real and the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so....... And the popular press loves controversy and giving a "balanced" view........The people who push Greenhouse gas denial....know this and have been successful in casting doubt on work by people who spend their lives studying the science.....I currently have a simple test. Find out what the majority of scientists believe in a subject and trust that this is what best fits the current data.



No doubt in my mind either, mit.  And if you want anyone to second your motion, just ask any farmer west of Katoomba.

There's another minor point - We should act now in any case.   The ramifications of being wrong on this are horrific.  Worst case scenario if we act now and the "optimists" and/or "those in (maliciious) denial" have accidentaly got it right, is that we will have stalled things for maybe a generation, and heck we'll apologise.  Either way we should ACT NOW.  Otherwise the kids in the generation after the next will kill us - and in any case it's much harder to push up daisies when they are drought affected.  :70: 

There is a precedent for acting cautiously when there is doubt - Exhibit A - the Y2K preparations.  Let's revisit that one - overdone for sure - by a factor of 5, but at least the "end of the world as we know it" was avoided.:evilburn:  :viking: 

Coming back to the first point - farmers.  I was driving out near Hay the other day, and I asked a truck driver what he thought of AWB and what was the mood in the bush about whether the outcome of copious wheat sales over the last few years justified the means, etc.  His reply (in a characteristic aussie drawl) -   "Dont know mate - Ive got grapes on board"   :sheep:


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> ....Piri Reis Map. ... its a map of Antarctica drawn 300 years before Antarctica was discovered. So therefore scientifically impossible. Just something for us dreamers to think about.
> 
> The Semmelweis Reflex:.....fired from his hospital, expelled from his medical society, denounced and ridiculed widely, reduced to abject poverty and finally died in a madhouse.



Bloved, I seem to recall reading that Hindmarsh Island (SA) shouldn't get a bridge etc because of "5000 year old secret women's business"  and that, sure enough, if you got in a helicopter and went up a thousand feet or so, you could make out the rough shape of male genetalia.    :boy: 
Which just goes to prove that aboriginal women mastered flight 5000 years ago. (Whereis.com).  The jury is still out on whether the men could fly as well, but you'd have to agree that the east coast of aus vaguely resembled a breast yes? :girl: 

Mate, I think Galileo 1564 - 1642 takes the cake for the Semmelweis award, at least for the 17th century - over his opinion that the Earth revolved round the sun, although the church insisted otherwise.  "G was forced to recant his views and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.  Following his recantation, Gis said to have murmured Eppur si Muove (still itmoves). He was finally cleared of heresy by a Vatican commission in 1992!"  Who said the church wasnt heavily into forgiveness.

But (another point) it took Einstein to set him straight on a few incidentals, like the fact that the universe was all warped, etc.  You know, some people still dont believe all that relativity stuff! - dont know why, Einstein explained it so simply  

Old Galileo would take out his telescope, stare at the shadows on Venus,
Calmly predicted the sun was the centre instead of the pope or his genus,
Einstein went on to say, stare out for long enough - something quite horrid and heinous - 
the back of our heads somehow comes into view, and turn around quickly, we've seen us. 

Newton explained if you sat under apple trees, apples would fall on your head,
personally I can relate to that theory, gladly I'd take it as read.
Einstein went on to say, if one explodes then E = m times c squared,
So now I eat apples exceedingly carefully, and bunches in treetops I dread.

Harrison mastered the Royal Naval timepiece, his clocks milli-second to none.
One twin-son sailor could trip to the tropics (you just point the clock to the sun).
Einstein went on to explain in great detail that, were this twin shot from a gun,
Then speed-of-light-logic decrees when he flew past, his brother was old but him young. 

I like the idea of fishing, spin a few yarns and wide tails,
I like to make believe holding my fishes to show they were damned nearly whales.
Einstein would have me face forward, (given the windspeed in gales),
Otherwise fishes would foreshorten speedwise - imagine! elliptical scales!

Black holes are mean cosmic cannibals - eating up prodigal Suns,
Light rays refuse to escape from their surface, mmm, much like by burnt raisin buns,
Einstein explained it quite simply - "teaspoonfuls weigh in the tons",
dense as Mum's rockcakes! can you imagine it? crushed by a handful of crumbs.

Then there's our old friend prof Heizenburg - He of "Uncertainty Theory",
States in a nutshell precision in speed means that place and position get bleary.
That should imply if you're speed is up high enough - probably make cyclecops teary,
"Sir you were booked at precisely mak 1.5, streetname's been entered as "query"".

Hard to imagine how they would have felt, exPlaining to men (stubborn mules),
after they'd preached of their black-holed uncertaintised, relative fringe-dwelling rules,
Can't youjust picture it, Einstein and Herzy, wobbling around on barstools. 
"...Audience larfed ven there vasn't a joke - Mein Gott, vot a kreat pack of fools!".  :millhouse  :bart:


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2006)

moola said:
			
		

> Oh, and BTW. I dispise that concept of the 'green / nuclear lobby'. It's marketing, and you can forget about that 'green' part. The environmental advantages are very short term. It's to make the now domesticated middle class greenies feel better about the fact that the government isn't interested in real low environmental impact energy sources. If you disagree then why don't you take the nuclear waste instead of dumping it in the NT. No one here want's it here and the federal government is just taking advantage of the fact that we aren't a state to off load it on us with out a choice (that's not democracy). Despite popular belief, just because the malls are 1500kms apart doesn't mean the NT is a desert wasteland.
> 
> The media has a whole lot to balance on their plate. On one hand, condemn Iran for wanting nuclear power plants. On the other hand, telling everyone we need nuclear plants, they are safe, and oh, by the way, we're just going to sell a few thousand tons of uranium to the Chinese for their safe Nuclear power plants, 'cos we can trust them (Hahaha they got busted farming human organs but they wont build nukes with our uranium, bah! Hahahaha!). It's known as doublethink, being able to hold two conflicting concepts in your mind at the same time and believing both of them fully without question. And you'll need that to survive in the coming decades (see ya in hell   ).



By "Green" I mean as in the political party, closely allied organisations such as The Wilderness Society (TWS) and their international equivalents.

It is a fact that what is now the Australian Greens was originally formed for the express purpose of opposing large scale renewable energy production. It has continued to do so at various times right up to the present day with moderate success. Last time I checked (not long ago), the official line was that they support renewable energy, but not on a large scale.

Now, if you oppose renewables on a scale large enough to actually be a real alternative and you also support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol then by default you are supporting nuclear energy as the only remaining option. Either that or you are proposing a reduction in energy use in the West to virtually zero (given the growth of China etc).

My point is about the politics of global warming / cooling rather than the environment. With the exception of the renewable energy industry itself, there is basically nobody with a plan to actually reduce emissions. Mainstream politicians, whether they be Labor, Liberal, Green or whatever, may seek to reduce emissions from one source but tend to promote a greater increase somewhere else. That's the track record of practically every Australian politician on the issue, Greens included.

My personal view is that nothing will be done in practice to reduce emissions on a meaningful scale until it is too late. It just doesn't seem likely in practice IMO. So it would therefore make sense for Australia to be planning to adapt to the consequences of what seems inevitable. The scale of adaption is such that the cost, both financial and human, of (for example) World War II will seem like a trivial event.

What happens if, for example, a cyclone hits Brisbane or Sydney completely runs out of water? For that matter, if the incredible lack of rain this Winter is any indication then we're in for some very serious fires this Summer. We could easily end up with much of NSW, Vic and Tas burnt to the ground. We're talking about conditions far worse than previous records if it doesn't rain soon. Whether or not it is due to climate change, it is an example of man's absolute vulnerability in the event that change does occur.


----------



## bunyip (3 September 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> No doubt in my mind either, mit.  And if you want anyone to second your motion, just ask any farmer west of Katoomba.




The farmers out west of Katoomba wouldn't have a clue. Sure they're copping a run of dry seasons, just like farmers in many other areas of Australia.
But if they were farming hundred of years ago, long before factories and cars and industrial emissions, they'd still be copping a dry run. There's proof that over the past several hundred years, Australia suffered many droughts of similar severity to the present drought.
There's also proof that hundreds of years ago Australia was hammered by cyclones far more powerful than any we've copped in the last two hundred years since official records began.
Presumably, these super cyclones were accompanied by super floods that were far bigger than any floods in recorded history.

The weather events we're experiencing now.....droughts, floods, cyclones, heat waves, cold snaps etc, are all just par for the course, a natural and recurring part of the Australian climatic cycle.

Please note that I am NOT dismissing industrial emissions and the accompanying greenhouse effect as being inconsequential to the climate and the environment.
Far from it.....the problem is in all likelihood very real (in spite of the disagreement among scientist and researchers) and needs to be addressed if we are to avoid destroying our environment.

I'm simply pointing out that any climatic event we see today is only a repeat of what this country has experienced hundreds or even thousands of times over the last few million years. 
It's naive to blame the greenhouse effect for every severe climatic event that we experience in the present day and age.

Bunyip


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> It's naive to blame the greenhouse effect for every severe climatic event that we experience in the present day and age.Bunyip



OK Mate, I'll be naive, and you can be the teacher - and (assuming that you're not in agreement with the ghist/tenet of my post i.e. immediate and drastic action to address this problem), then let's meet in 50 years, and see if we then agree which one of us should have done the listening


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

BTW, when the scientists are saying in all sincerity that the Chernobyl  nuclear power plant distaster will pale into insignificance compared to the effects of global warming, and that nuclear is miles ahead in the final analysis of "the greater good", then you have to start appreciating the gravity of the situation.  
Personally I've been through 3 phases on this nuclear debate - in favour in the old days when global warming was a new topic, against after Chernobyl when it became obvious that humans are possibly too stupid to "go there", and now in favour again, because the prospects for the world, and the coasts, and the forests are exponentially going downhill.   
As they say, civilisation leaves large footprints, my friend - they're called deserts. :evilburn:  
I just hope the next generation forgive us.


----------



## bunyip (3 September 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> OK Mate, I'll be naive, and you can be the teacher - and (assuming that you're not in agreement with the ghist/tenet of my post i.e. immediate and drastic action to address this problem), then let's meet in 50 years, and see if we then agree which one of us should have done the listening




I suggest you read my post again.....mate. Particularly the part that I've reproduced below inside the quotation marks.....

"Please note that I am NOT dismissing industrial emissions and the accompanying greenhouse effect as being inconsequential to the climate and the environment.
Far from it.....the problem is in all likelihood very real (in spite of the disagreement among scientist and researchers) and needs to be addressed if we are to avoid destroying our environment."

Does this sound like I'm disagreeing with the gist of your post? 
Not at all. I stated clearly that I believe the problem is in all likelihood very real and we need to do something about it.

The part of your post that I do disagree with, however, is your silly comment about the farmers west of Katoomba. Without actually saying so, you're clearly implying that the tough time they're having with droughts is a result of the greenhouse effect caused by industrial pollution.

If your thinking was a little more balanced and if you had more knowledge of Australia's climatic history, you'd know that, regardless of the opinions of the farmers west of Katoomba,  severe droughts just like we're currently experiencing are a normal part of our climate and have been for many hundreds, and likely thousands, of years.

Therefore, while it's reasonable to surmise that the current severe drought across Australia could be partly attributable to the greenhouse effect, it's equally reasonable to assume that the drought may be just a normal part of a naturally recurring climatic cycle.

Bunyip


----------



## smoothsatin (3 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Really? Do you think they will survive in a post consumerist economy?




I don't think the post consumerist society is coming soon, actually the deeper we get into profit maximisation as the foundation of our economy, the further entrenched we will become as a consumerist society.

What do you think will replace consumption? I mean i know what i would like, and i am sure you know what youwould like, but i mean realistically? Most peoples primary info sources (ie mainstream media) are increasingly dumbed down, which will tend to make us more boring and sheltered, so an intellectual revolution and rejection of materialism is unlikely any time soon. 

What are peoples thoughts?


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2006)

smoothsatin said:
			
		

> I don't think the post consumerist society is coming soon, actually the deeper we get into profit maximisation as the foundation of our economy, the further entrenched we will become as a consumerist society.
> 
> What do you think will replace consumption? I mean i know what i would like, and i am sure you know what youwould like, but i mean realistically? Most peoples primary info sources (ie mainstream media) are increasingly dumbed down, which will tend to make us more boring and sheltered, so an intellectual revolution and rejection of materialism is unlikely any time soon.
> 
> What are peoples thoughts?




I is unlikely to be an intentional transformation


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2006)

We're dealing with the future here. As such, we can make all sorts of predictions, based on proper science or otherwise, but there is no certainty. 

The only way to prove that something will or will not occur in the future, unless you are able to prove that it is physically impossible, is to wait for some future date to arrive and see if it has or has not happened. Agreed with the notion that it could be too late by the time there is firm proof of global warming, but the argument stands that there can be no proof until it actually occurs.

One problem is lack of long term data. We just don't have 100,000 years of records to know what the natural variability of the climate is. Depending on location, records span less than a human lifetime up to a few centuries. That's just not enough data for the full range of natural variation to have been recorded, hence new "records" will from time to time be reached. 

That a new high temperature record is reached when the data only goes back 100 years is proof of nothing other than that it didn't get this hot in the past 100 years. Whether or not it has ever been that hot before is unknown.

However, with proper scientific and mathematical processes, it is possible to expand recorded data to estimate what short term variations would have occurred in the past assuming the general climate were comparable to that in the available records. This general process of expanding on known records where firm data does not exist is known as "synthetic data generation". It's not perfect by any means but it is useful.

Synthetic data generation is used extensively in, amongst other things, the hydro-electric industry in Tasmania. The basic approach is along the lines that just because certain lotto numbers came up last week, they are no more or less likely to come up again this week. In other words, probability.

Using this approach, whilst the rainfall over the past 9 years has been below average it has not fallen outside of the expected range on the basis of running literally thousands of simulations. Dry, but no drier than the available 90 years of records and the 1000 years of theoretical data produced from them would suggest is likely to occur from time to time. For that matter, the extremes of the records since 1914 haven't been breached either, at least not on an annual basis (the shorter the time frame, the less valid the observation in this context - one month with zero rain is _very_ much less relevant than 12 months with zero rain).

That said, there is the issue of the unexplained rainfall trend change since 1975 observed in SW Western Australia, Tasmania and elsewhere. Something _has_ changed, and it did so abruptly in the mid-1970's. Question is what and why? It may or may not have been simply a natural variation, but the period since 1975 has been very different (lack of high rainfall events) compared to the previous 60 years. It is the suddeness and severity of the change (more than a 50% reduction in water availability in SW WA) which makes this one stand out. Also it is heavily seasonal with the peak drop off in rain being around February and no effect observed in Spring.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> I suggest you read my post again.....mate. Particularly the part that I've reproduced below inside the quotation marks.....
> 
> "Please note that I am NOT dismissing industrial emissions and the accompanying greenhouse effect as being inconsequential to the climate and the environment. Far from it.....the problem is in all likelihood very real (in spite of the disagreement among scientist and researchers) and needs to be addressed if we are to avoid destroying our environment."
> 
> ...




Gr8 m8 - I see you agree with me after all 
Problem is when a post says two statements - one agreeing and one disagreeing, then you have to weight the relative weight of words for each argument - I figured you had disagreed with me.  

By the way if you (in your turn) had read what I said about the farmers "grapes etc" - it was clearly tongue in cheek.

Let's all lighten up here - Only Monty Python has this kind of "Complaints Dept"


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

BTW Bunyip - I have grandfathers and greatgrandfathers who both prospered and went broke on the land - going back to about 1890, so :-
a) you're right - it isnt as if it hasnt happened before, and
b) let's have some sympathy for country folk who are doing it hard - while we argue about whether or not Kyoto has any merit. - and in the end don't do anything.
Do they care less that it's happened before.  No
Do either of us argue that mankind aren't doing enough to remedy global warming - No. 
I just wish there was some action here.
A single jetplane taking off uses all the oxygen that Sherwood forest makes in an hour  - or is it a day. Either way its a one way ticket to disaster in the eyes of thinking people.  :bier:


----------



## Happy (3 September 2006)

Irrespectively of how we treat our planet and if we reduce pollution or increase it, our Sun is going to expand at the end of its life, gobble up our planet for sure and collapse.

Surely, we have few billion years to wipe out ourselves sooner, but we better in parallel with our planet preservation to extend its life until expiry date, look for other places in the universe to live in or to adapt to our requirements.


----------



## moola (3 September 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> By "Green" I mean as in the political party, closely allied organisations such as The Wilderness Society (TWS) and their international equivalents.
> 
> It is a fact that what is now the Australian Greens was originally formed for the express purpose of opposing large scale renewable energy production. It has continued to do so at various times right up to the present day with moderate success. Last time I checked (not long ago), the official line was that they support renewable energy, but not on a large scale.




Um, the Greens original goal was to save the franklin river or something like that. That's where they got started, as far as I'm aware. Also they have been anti-nuclear and pro-renewable energy when ever anyone's asked them to take a stance on these issues. Please if I'm wrong supply me with some evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you are talking about international green parties, of which I know very little about (unlikely since you started that paragraph by singling out the Australian Greens, but maybe that was unintentional). If so then it's still a bit of a wild generalisation to suggest that these parties all have the same single goal and stance on energy production. Even here the Greens are a little more flexible in there structure than the major parties, and I only know about the Tasmanian and NT senators/candidates (of whom I've met and they are all certainly well anti-nuclear). Maybe you're state candidates have a different point of view on the matter or something. Please show me what you base your views about the Greens on. Where did you last check?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> ...The only way to prove that something will or will not occur in the future, unless you are able to prove that it is physically impossible, is to wait for some future date to arrive and see if it has or has not happened. Agreed with the notion that it could be too late by the time there is firm proof of global warming, but the argument stands that there can be no proof until it actually occurs.



Smurf - what happened to the concept of being proactive. - Of managing things even.  
As someone once said "the world would be a much better place if , when Noah was collecting the animals, Man (the self proclaimed "managers" and Lords of Creation) had missed the boat." 
I also suspect that we can only get a proper perspective if we've spent a bit of time in the third world, maybe even in Africa on the border of the (galloping) Sahara.  My daughter plans to go there for 6 months or a year in an aid project.  I just hope she doesn't come back totally heartbroken about the inequalities of human existence.  
IMHO, Better to overreact (to this threat- like we did with Y2K) than not to act at all.  
And if you say that any action is token at best then, irrespective of whether or not I agreed with you, I would say better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.


----------



## moola (3 September 2006)

smoothsatin said:
			
		

> I don't think the post consumerist society is coming soon, actually the deeper we get into profit maximisation as the foundation of our economy, the further entrenched we will become as a consumerist society.
> 
> What do you think will replace consumption? I mean i know what i would like, and i am sure you know what youwould like, but i mean realistically? Most peoples primary info sources (ie mainstream media) are increasingly dumbed down, which will tend to make us more boring and sheltered, so an intellectual revolution and rejection of materialism is unlikely any time soon.
> 
> What are peoples thoughts?




I think we are even being genetically dumbed down, with the use of chemicals in our food and air. Who knows what humanity will become in the future. Thanks to google, I don't need to actually know anything anymore so maybe it's all good. We'll just need to get a google implant. As for thinking, didn't they get rid of that in the 70's?


----------



## moola (3 September 2006)

moola said:
			
		

> Um, the Greens original goal was to save the franklin river or something like that.




Doh, I couldn't edit it because I posted something else already. I've just realised what you're saying, that by trying to protect the rivers and other unique natural assets they are "opposing large scale renewable energy production". That may be true but your statements are highly misleading. You haven't directly stated that the Australian Greens are pro-nuclear either, but it's implied since that was the topic. You're just as bad as the media in that you're effectivly suggesting that even our own green movement is pro-nuclear. 

The only reason that renewable energy production would need to be on a large scale is for the centralisation issue I was talking about earlier. If you can't trust the people and you don't want them to be able to participate in energy production. Centralised energy production is very inefficent. It's a fascist concept, not a democratic one.


----------



## bunyip (3 September 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> BTW Bunyip - I have grandfathers and greatgrandfathers who both prospered and went broke on the land - going back to about 1890, so :-
> a) you're right - it isnt as if it hasnt happened before, and
> b) let's have some sympathy for country folk who are doing it hard - while we argue about whether or not Kyoto has any merit. - and in the end don't do anything.
> Do they care less that it's happened before.  No
> ...




Sympathy for country folk who are doing it hard? 
Nobody on this forum understands better than me what country folks are going through as a result of this drought. Nobody has more sympathy for them than I do.

I grew up on a farming and grazing property in inland Queensland. Throughout my childhood we copped drought after drought after drought.  
We'd have one or two good years, then four or five years of drought. Another two or three good years, then several more years of drought. On and on and on, year after year. Carting water for cattle because our dams and our river had gone dry. Mixing molasses and urea and taking it out to the cattle paddocks where it was put in roller drum lickers to give cattle a protein supplement so they had a better chance of surviving on dry pastures that were almost eaten bare and were virtually devoid of protein.
Pulling bogged cattle out of dams that were soupy mud patches. Then having the bloody crows peck the eyes out of some of those cattle that were too weak to stand up once we got them out of the bog. Shooting those that we couldn't get back on their feet.
When I had three weeks holiday from boarding school at the age of 14, spending every day of those three weeks on horseback droving our cattle along a stock route because we didn't have enough grass to keep them on our property.
Mustering cattle and turning them into our paddocks of wheat and sorghum because the crop was so badly drought-affected that it would never produce grain, but would at least provide some much needed feed for the stock.
Having to move cattle all the way from Queensland to agistment at Dubbo in central NSW in 1970, because the Queensland drought was so bad that it was impossible to find agistment for cattle in Queensland.
Shooting baby calves, or killing them by hitting them on the head with the blunt side of an axe, so as to increase the chance of their mothers surviving the drought. (Lactation places an enormous strain on a cow already weakened by drought. The severely restricted amount of protein available to her is used for milk production rather than for maintaining her body weight. Consequently, drought-stricken cows lose weight rapidly and can actually die, as a result of suckling a calf).

Considering all the droughts I went through as a kid, it's surprising that I opted for a career on the land, but I did. Soon as I finished school, home to the land I went. I stayed on the land until my early forties, during which time I copped many more droughts, some of them just as severe as the current one.
A couple of times we bought properties in new areas hundreds of kilometres away, hoping our new location would give us a better run of seasons. But it never did.
Finally my wife and I decided we'd battled droughts long enough. We sold out, bought a hobby farm near a major city, and invested our money into real estate and stocks. Anyway, that's my story of life on the land. It was in many ways an enjoyable life, despite the hardships.
I mention it here not to complain about it. I chose the life and I could have chosen to leave it much sooner than I did. I mention it make the point that drought has always been, and will always be, a normal part of the Australian climate. Another reason I've outlined my life on the land is to give some of you city born and breed folks an insight into what it's really like for country people who are doing it hard because of the weather.
Not only do they have to battle drought, but many of them at the same time have kids away at boarding school at huge cost because secondary education is not available locally)

During my life in the bush I knew many crusty old farmer/grazier types who always claimed that the seasons were getting drier every year. They'd name a creek that always ran 40 years ago, or a waterhole that used to be permanent, and point out that now they were dry. The fact is that it was probably no drier or wetter or hotter or colder than it had been historically.....it just seemed that way after a run of severe drought years.
Hence my comment that the farmers west of Katoomba wouldn't have a clue......they, like the farmers I grew up amongst, would have plenty of theories, but the reality is that they were/are only experiencing the normal climatic extremes that Australia is renowned for.

I don't dismiss the greenhouse effect and its possible adverse effects on our climate. I think it's wise to continue researching it and to take whatever measures we can to combat it. One day we might find out it's not near the problem we thought it was. Or we might find that it's a far more serious problem than we ever imagined. I really don't know. What I do know is that it's naive to suggest that every drought or cyclone or extreme weather event is proof of climate change resulting from the greenhouse effect. While at the same time, we ignore the fact that severe droughts etc have always been part of Australia's climate, and always will be.

Talking of cyclones, below is some information I pulled off the net. The research done by Jonathan Nott suggests that when it comes to cyclones, we 'ain't seen nothin yet'....the cyclones recorded in the last couple of hundred years were only babies.
If there were mega cyclones before European settlement in Australia,  it's a fair assumption that there were bigger droughts than any we've experienced so far.
And probably bigger floods as well.

Narration: North Queenslanders beware - a supercyclone, bigger than anything you've seen before, is coming your way. And Cairns may not be able to cope with a cyclone from hell.

Jonathan Nott: Generally Europeans haven't been in north Queensland since the last super cyclone but one is definitely going to occur in the future.

Narration: Cyclones are regular visitors to Cairns. Cyclone Steve hit in 2000 causing extensive damage. It was one of the strongest storms recorded in the area. But this is not the worst that can happen.

Steve was a pup. If a small cyclone can cause this much damage, imagine what a really big cyclone could do. Dr Jonathan Nott from James Cook University at Cairns has been looking into the geological record to figure out how often cyclones hit the North Queensland coast. 

Today he's taking me to one of his study sites on Fitzroy Island, just off the coast from Cairns.

Jonathan Nott: Out there is the Great Barrier Reef so the beaches here are not made of sand, they're made of broken coral. This coral shingle is washed onto the beach during storms. 

Narration: Cyclones create storm surges and these walls of water push the shingle into ridges at the back of the beach. The bigger the cyclone, the bigger the storm surge, the bigger the shingle ridge it leaves behind. 

Jonathan Nott: We have a small ridge here that is deposited by a relatively moderate size cyclone. A ridge behind that what was deposited by an earlier cyclone that was bigger again and then back into the rainforest we have another deposit that was deposited by a very large or very intense cyclone.

Narration: By measuring shingle ridges Jon's been able to build up a 6,000 year history of cyclones in North Queensland. He's found dozens of super cyclones - enormous storms the likes of which have not been seen within historic times.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 September 2006)

moola said:
			
		

> Doh, I couldn't edit it because I posted something else already. I've just realised what you're saying, that by trying to protect the rivers and other unique natural assets they are "opposing large scale renewable energy production".



With regard to the Franklin, the power available from that source and other dams that could be built in the are immediately surrounding it is equivalent to saving about 1,300,000,000 litres of petrol each year in terms of the fossil fuels otherwise used to produce the same power. About 5 million tonnes of brown coal would do the same job. 

If you add in other hydro schemes opposed by the Greens (in Tasmania alone) then it comes to about 1,750,000,000 litres of petrol or 6.7 million tonnes of brown coal per annum. 

Whether it is wrong or right is not my point. It is a FACT that the Greens position on that issue was to support, in practice, the burning of more fossil fuels. Initially oil, now gas and mostly coal being the alternate power sources actually used.

The amount of renewable energy in the above figures is roughly double that saved by every solar hot water heater in Australia. 

It is also a fact that the Greens have opposed the construction of wind farms in Tasmania, the construction of which would have directly displaced coal-fired generation (via Basslink). This was as recently as 2005. "We oppose industrial scale wind farms." In other words, "We oppose any wind farm large enough to make a difference."

If you put wind farms near people then problems are guaranteed. Noise for a start. Visual objection being another. Hence the need for remote "industrial scale" wind farms if it is to be a meaningful source of energy.

As for Basslink itself, the Greens did support it as an alternative to other (renewable) sources of energy. That is, they supported the concept of a link to import brown coal-fired power from Victoria to Tasmania. However, they promptly reversed position when the idea of building wind farms and using the link predominantly to export that power to Victoria was proposed. I am in possession of original letters from the Greens supporting Basslink (1993) whilst their recent position of opposing it is well known.

It is also a fact that Bob Brown proposed building a coal-fired power station in Tasmania, which would necessarily use coal mined from the Douglas-Apsley National Park (there being no other sufficient coal resource in Tas) and dismantling an existing hydro-electric scheme. Other supporters of that idea proposed oil-fired power or relocation of industry to the mainland (in order to use coal-fired power). The plan fell apart when it became known that even most Green voters opposed it. 

That was 1995 and the plan was subject to a Commonwealth inquiry that year which came to the conclusion that basically nobody actually supported the plan apart from the proponents themselves. There was an attempt to exclude all local representation from the Inquiry (whatever happened to democracy?) although this was reversed when it was pointed out that the Commonwealth would be in breach of UN regulations if it allowed this to occur. 

Regarding the history of the Greens, what is now the Australian Greens was first formed as the United Tasmania Group (UTG) in the early 1970's to oppose hydro-electric development. Nuclear energy was viewed as the realsitic alternative at the time with discussion of a nuclear power station on the NE tip of Tasmania. That plan was unsuccessful and the hydro power station proposed, which is the largest single source of renewable energy in Australia, was built.

The party continued in various forms and a new organisation, The Wilderness Society (TWS) emerged alongside several independent candidates during the  Franklin saga. With Bob Brown being elected to the Tasmanian Parliament during that time, they effectively became the world's first Green party to actually have a sitting member in parliament. 

Despite Bob's election to parliament, it is worth noting that a referendum on the issue gave majority support to building the dam. With 7 members per electorate at the time (now 5) and a Hare-Clark voting system there is no need for majority support to be elected in Tasmania - it is quite possible with anything much over 10% (though to be fair Bob did do considerably better than this).

What was then The Independents became The Green Independents which became the Tasmanian Greens and ultimately the Australian Greens which exists today.

Since the Frankin issue was settled, the main focus of the Greens has been (1) denying that it was ever needed (a point they have been forced to back down from, though not in those words, in 2005 when the Greens accepted the need for additional fossil fuel power generation to be built as a matter of extreme urgency (ie forget planning processes etc) to overcome shortage). (2) Opposing the forestry industry and (3) promoting tourism.

With regard to forestry, I must point out that wood was seriously promoted as an energy source by environmentalists during the Franklin debate. The words being "put more pressure on the forests" (to take pressure off the rivers). There were various figures around at the time, mostly along the lines that forest "waste" should be burnt for power rather than left to "rot on the forest floor". As was stated at the time, most of this "waste" was naturally occuring and not as a result of logging. That is, there would be a need to enter then untouched forests in order to recover this wood so as to be able to burn it.

It came to the point of one prominant environmentalist going into business manufacturing wood burning heaters. As anyone who has ever visited Launceston during Winter will know, these were an environmental disaster in terms of air pollution. Launceston (population under 100,000) being officially more polluted than Melbourne at the height of wood heater popularity. Launceston still consistently fails to meet national air quality standards, with various studies showing 94-96% of all air pollution in the region comes from domestic wood heaters. Other studies have shown lung damage in children growing up in the area.

With regard to tourism, it is undeniable that promoting tourism is promoting oil consumption. Tourism quite literally means simply moving more people around in more oil-powered aeroplanes, ships and road vehicles. A "tourism dependent economy" is an OIL dependent economy.

The great claim of the Greens, in Tasmania at least, is to have transformed the state's economy from dependence on hydro-electricity to dependence on tourism. That is, to have transformed the economy from dependence on renewable energy to dependence on oil. It may have saved a river, and I am not opposed to that goal in itself, but it is absolutely unsustainable to depend on oil.

I am not opposed to the Greens or their objectives. I spend more time in the bush for recreation than most and I strongly support the objective of conservation. But when it comes to energy, we are stuck with the basic reality that fossil fuels are both limited and polluting. In that context I note the Greens' recent position of calling for an end to tourism subsidies and, wait for it, they are now using the term *"clean, green hydro-electricity"*. 

Yes, that's right, the party orignally formed to oppose hydro development is now concerned with the notion that the state is using any source of power other than "clean, green hydro-electricity". Various comments over the past 2 years being to the effect that they don't want what was a 100% hydro-electric grid "tainted" with other forms of power. Hmm...   

They have also revisited their position with regards to wood waste. They are opposed to burning it at high temperature with electrostatic precipitators (so no smoke) but are actively avoiding commenting on the question of slow combustion (tar-emitting) heaters. 

The pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging away from "No Dams" as far as I can tell. Water shortages in the mainland cities are becoming real and Queensland has already decided upon a new dam. I expect Sydney will be next to embark on some form of major water infrastructure. 

As far as dams for power are concerned, I do think the Greens' not so subtle change in attitude is paving the way for the future. With present technology, the only way to make intermittent sources of energy (wind, solar etc) work is to balance them either through batteries (which means huge amounts of toxic materials, high cost and low efficiency - the problem with distributed generation) or through centralised hydro. The Greens are quite good (far better than Labor or Liberal) on technical matters and I have no doubt whatsoever that they are very much aware of this. Indeed I've had some very technical discussions with various Greens candidates on this and related topics.

I contend that _conservation_ and _sustainability_ are conflicting objectives in many cases. Wild rivers and distributed generation with storage batteries being brilliant as far as conservation is concerned, albeit at high cost in terms of pollution. Big dams being more sustainable, albeit at high cost as far as conservation is concerned. 

*I contend that this is all somewhat missing the point however. The real problem at the seat of all resource and environmental issues is the concept of unlimited economic growth and the associated notion of continually rising population. If we do not confront that issue then saving one forest, keeping one river wild or even ratifying Kyoto is simply condemning another tree somewhere else to being cut or ensuring the use of some other source of power, which will also pollute in some way, either here or somewhere else. * 

But "No Dams", "No Mill" or anything else that fits on a trinagle is a lot more electable than "No Children" or "No Growth".


----------



## NettAssets (4 September 2006)

I agree Bunyip

Although this year has been the driest here for some years (I am a fertilizer contractor in the WA wheatbelt and my own turnover has been 10% of my average for the last 3 months) there certainly have been drier times in the past. 
In the arborial record here there are signs of fairly significant climatic changes. We know the area was only lightly forested before being taken up for farming about  1880, with the largest trees recorded chopped or sawn off about 3 to 4 foot in diameter but in the surviving woodlands there is evidence of trees two and tree times this size that have grown and died in times previous to that. 
So while I agree that is in the planets best interest to limit our impacts on climate lets not overreact to every event that comes along.
John


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2006)

I agree with everything in the last two posts - except for the need to do something. Hard to overreact when we're not even acting.  Like the one about the two old blokes playing poker machines together "Can't understand why everyone's getting excited about global warming - why don't they just buy an air conditioner?" 
Sure there has been statistical scatter in temperature ranges over the years, goes without saying.  Standard deviations etc etc.  Mawson died during a particularly cold winter.  Gotta feeling that when Burke and Wills were wandering around in the NT it was hotter than expected (certainly hotter than they expected).  
I think you are saying that the jury is still out on whether the trend in temperatures is upwards.  Al Gore is sure convinced.  Just by the way - we could all spare a thought to speculate on where we would be now if Al Gore were President - Maybe Aus and USA would be marching together into a brighter greener future in my opinion.  
As I said up there somewhere, I hope the next generation forgive us.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> ... Al Gore is sure convinced.



True I am making some assumptions here.  Im assuming for instance that Al Gore at least knows how to spell "potatoes" 
Sorry shouldda said up there that I agree with all THREE of the above posts.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2006)

Hey Bunyip - My Great grandfather settled a coupla hundred miles up the Cooper Ck from where Burke and Wills died - and only about 20 years after that event.  Just arrived from Scotland, he had to head out there by bullock dray - couple of months - took his young wife out there - to manage a property.  Only aboriginal stockmen.  My grandfather was born there - breach birth, and only an aboriginal midwife.  No European women for miiiilesss.  Still he survived.  So did his mother.  All good.  Aboriginal women know more than they let on.  Thereafter as soon as she got pregnant, she headed for Brisbane. 
So dont tell me about droughts mate !!!! LOL. (obviously a jest - I accept the fact that you have been through the mill on the subject of droughts).   :bier:


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 September 2006)

Just thought I would state the underlying basis of my apparently controversial views on this subject.   

1. I believe that global warming is _probably_ real. I've done plenty of study on the theory and done some experiments in the lab. Whilst they're not perfect by any means (pretty hard to simulate an entire planet in a lab...) the results were as expected. Increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and, all other things being equal, the temperature goes up. Very simplified however.

2. I am in principle opposed to the use of nuclear energy derived from conventional fission reactors based on uranium. 

They are technically incredibly wasteful of the resource (most of the potential energy being basicallly thrown away as radioactive waste). 

We have no plan for long term safe storage of the waste - history shows we're lucky to go 100 years without major disaster or war so how are we going to keep this stuff safe for 100,000 years?

There is no guarantee of absolute safety for any uranium fission reactor. The consequences of an accident being absolutely disastrous. Even the technically safest reactor could be hit by a major earthquake, for example.

3. In principle I am in favour of conservation of the natural environment in general. However, I see sustainability of man's activities, species, natural resources and the planet in general as far more important than preservation of scenery, avoidance of noise or visual pollution etc. The latter are reversible in a moderate timeframe (a point publicly noted by Greens leader Bob Brown in 1995) whereas loss of species, climate damage, resource depletion etc are in practice irreversible.

4. I contend that there is overwhelming evidence that the depletion of conventional oil and gas resources is both serious and a near term problem. Discovery of oil peaked in 1963 and for gas it peaked in the 1970's. Meanwhile consumption soars and substantially exceeds the rate of discovery (oil) and is beginning to overtake it in the case of gas. With the boom in China etc this can only get far worse in an alarmingly short period. I contend that both oil and gas will be seriously depleted resources within the lifetime of a child born today. In the case of oil, I contend that the balance of available evidence points to the peaking of production being imminent at a level not much greater than present rates of production.

5. Whilst I believe the notion of perpetual economic growth to be foolish in the extreme, it is the basis of the entire world financial system and as such is unlikely to end anytime soon (unless forced). It is worth noting that if China achieves a US-style consumption of oil then that alone would double world oil demand. The world would then be using in each 12 month period a quantity of oil equivalent to 6% of all the oil _ever_ produced to date worldwide. In view of discovery trends that is absolutely unsustainable to the point where it is highly unlikely to ever be achieved, not even briefly. There would seem to be a significant possibility of this resulting in military conflict to secure remaining supplies.

6. World food production depends heavily on chemicals and fuel derived from oil and gas. Nitrogen fertilizer, for example, is produced literally from gas and air. Tractors and trucks run on oil and oil is the basis of most agricultural chemicals. Likewise irrigation requires significant energy inputs, commonly sourced from oil or gas. Oil and gas depletion thus ultimately threatens global food supply.

7. On the basis of the above I am absolutely in favour of the development of renewable energy sources even if doing so results in loss of aesthetic values (eg wind farms in scenic areas) or radical alteration of the natural environment (large scale hydro). I hold this view on the basis that localised effects, which are generally reversible (even Bob Brown publicly acknowledges the potential to largely restore rivers used for hydro-electricity in the event that the dams are no longer needed at some point in the future). I see doing damage that takes 100 years to reverse as far less important than the benefits of avoiding the use of oil/gas (irreversible depletion), greenhouse gas emissions (in practice irreversible in a realistic timeframe), the creation of nuclear waste (an absolutely irreversible problem in practice and a dangerous one at that) and the production of fissile (bomb making) materials and their increased availability.

I am thus prepared to accept wind farms along the coast, solar panels on roofs in suburban areas (it truly amazes me that they attract criticism on aesthetic grounds) and the flooding of rivers for hydro-electricity. None of these are ideal, but they are by far the lesser of the evils that are available to us at this present time as far as I am concerned.

In saying this I note that, in the absence of either large scale hydro or some other storage medium (batteries just aren't practical - toxics, cost, scale, use of limited resources, efficiency and durability all being against them), intermittent sources of energy can provide only a portion of electricity demand. For a long term sustainable system, storage is absolutely critical and this is the reason for my stong support of large scale hydro-electricity. Only through integration with hydro does wind or solar become an _alternative_ to coal rather than merely an uneconomic supplement. Hence I think that, in due course, we'll see several new large scale pumped storage schemes built in Qld, NSW/Snowy and Victoria as well as a return to large scale baseload hydro construction in Tasmania. This is still quite some time away however and won't happen until there is overwhelming evidence of the need for action over climate change or fossil fuel depletion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2006)

Not necessarily replying to any post in particular, but ....Let's do a George Orwell and see if we can guess what it'll be like in 2050 or worst case 2100.  Half as many cars, andeach about half the size maybe?  Battery powered? - come home and plug into the grid originating from a few nuclear powerplants and a handful of hydro stations where they get enough rainfall to work - nuclear waste has to be guarded, but that's easier than trying to “turn back the tide” twice a day - air conditioners banned maybe? the wealthy first world no longer allowed to take so much more than their share - (don't we realise that others will suffer from our extravagance).  Solar panels on all roofs – especially in Aus – (and lets not forget that only 20 years ago we said these would never be cost effective – I used to import photovoltaic cells in the early 70’s),  “thrift” at all levels – now there’s a brave new word for a Brave New World.


----------



## moola (8 September 2006)

How about potato powered calculators for the kiddies? Well I must say that this is an insightful thread, I can't really imagine what the future holds. I think that something positive can be done about the situation and while I must agree that about 95% of what smurf is saying is quite spot on, something deep down inside wont let me give up on the idea of actually doing things properly. It has to happen eventually (I hope sooner rather than later). It's certainly true that the REAL issue is not wether we use nuclear power or hydro-electric. There are social forces in place that need to change. And they MUST change eventually, it's impossible to continue on this course. Change will happen wether we like it or not, that's for certain.

So what are the driving forces that are sweeping us in this direction, and what is going to change? As smurf said, the concept of 'unlimited economic growth' is really a big problem, and it's a problem that's programmed into so many sytems to be ignored. Or rather imperceivable. Why can't we get it together to look after out planet right now? Well I'm just going to paste here something I just emailed to a friend earlier today about the subject because I thought I summed it up nicely (and it'll save me some time)...

_The only problem with truly safe power sources is that no ones investing any cash or effort into developing them. In fact power companies, mining companies and governments have a vested interest in preventing any attempts to research these technologies, it's in their best interest to repress them. These three forces have virtually limitless resources at the moment so there's not much you can do about it right now. But this can be changed. They do have many powerful allies, since who doesn't like to invest in mining? Alternative energies mean mining shares go down and keep going down as the technology develops further so you're also up against every stock exchange in the world. The knock on effect of this means that you are basically pushing sh_t up hill, since anyone who might invest money isn't going to want to invest money in alternative energy production (maybe a wild generalisation, but you get the gist). That doesn't mean to say that it can't be done and it isn't a viable solution. Not only is it viable but we could replace all energy production with environmentally friendly alternatives in less than twenty years if we cut the crap and got down to work (prove me wrong and I'll let you sh_t in my mouth, maybe it's just my opinion, but I'm fairly certain that it's true). The real issue is removing the resistance that prevents us from being able to save ourselves. This is the REAL issue, the rest is just a smoke screen (no pun intended).

If you don't believe me, think about how long it took the human race to go from the V2 rocket in 1943 (basically our first big cylinder full of rocket fuel that was able to fly straight), to putting an actual human into space in 1961 (and getting him back safely of course). That's an incomprehensible leap in technology. This was during a time of war when nations weren't even working together. They had a tiny fraction of the skills and resources that we have today. I have a lot of faith in the abilities of the human race, when we have to get something done, there's not much I would put past us.

We're in the same situation, we have the basics figured out like the Germans had with the V2. What we don't have is the motivating force to put masses of resources into developing the technology further. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole story about environmentally friendly power sources being impractical. I mean the only evidence on the subject that I've seen is in Germany where they have figured out how to supply 1/3 of their power from low environmental impact sources (non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel). They are currently working on building various clean power facilities but it's being funded and managed by members of the population, so it's taking a while. This is what one country can do on it's own with no support from the power companies and only legal support from the government (they made laws to allow people to produce their own power and sell it back into the grid at a reasonable price). Hmmm... now what could be achieved if we actually put some real effort into it?

The only alternative that we are being presented with is Nuclear power. It has a lot of advantages to the mining companies / power companies / governments but the disadvantages are far too horrendous. I mean, if you start leaking nuclear waste into the water table, that's not something you can clean up. You just have to live with a high risk of cancer/deformities/miscarriages/infertility in any place that comes into contact with ground water from that area, pretty much forever. In a global world market that could mean the whole world is effected. You buy items or food from another country that has a broken nuclear plant and that food or the material was grown in the vicinity, then you are going to end up with deadly toxins in you're own environment. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for this kind of poison to 'evaporate' so the problem gets seriously compounded over time. Nuclear power is not viable, unless the people who are running the power plants are extremely aware of their responsibilities to the future generations. But they are corporations, money hungry entities always looking to bypass laws and regulations. It's just a train smash waiting to happen. No member of the environmental movement is even slightly convinced that Nuclear energy is a safe alternative to fossil fuels, the concept was invented by the public relations industry. The same people who sell you your tooth paste and breakfast cereal and incidentally the same people who are paid to come up with the election campaigns. _


----------



## moola (17 September 2006)

Maybe nuclear energy really is not so bad after all, I found a little flash animation about nuclear waste and how it can be used productively...

http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html

For crimes against humanity perhaps, but still, I'm sure the power companies consider it a productive application of their waste materials and they will be doing everything in their power to promote this kind of behavior. Will they ever be tried for that? Can we ever trust the corporations who impose their will upon our feeble governments with this kind of crap? What do you rekon?


----------



## Julia (17 September 2006)

moola said:
			
		

> Maybe nuclear energy really is not so bad after all, I found a little flash animation about nuclear waste and how it can be used productively...
> 
> http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html
> 
> For crimes against humanity perhaps, but still, I'm sure the power companies consider it a productive application of their waste materials and they will be doing everything in their power to promote this kind of behavior. Will they ever be tried for that? Can we ever trust the corporations who impose their will upon our feeble governments with this kind of crap? What do you rekon?




It's relatively simple to briefly hear in a news bulletin that depleted uranium has been used and I suspect most of us give it not much thought.  After all, it's not raining down on us here in Oz and it might not really be happening way over there after all.

This video is a stark reminder of the realities of what "our side" is doing.
And in the name of what really???

Julia


----------



## Happy (17 September 2006)

Beside all other ideas and improvements simple    -  use less
Is probably good idea too.
We can suffer a little bit more and run air conditioner on a little bit higher temperature in summer and set heat little bit lower in winter.
Heat sink house climate control is quite popular in Europe, not sure about Australia, but if you don’t hear adds promoting system installation, then chances are that this is not popular yet.

Thicker insulation including double or triple glazed windows should be considered a must. 
Metal frame windows and doors should be at least protected from the elements so are not such an energy waster.

As to food, we could eat less too, this way we would not have to produce so much food or maybe not as many people would go hungry if surplus could be distributed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2006)

If we're going to reduce emissions then simply signing a piece of paper (Kyoto Protocol) is meaningless. We actually have to stop emitting otherwise it's effectively a cheque drawn on an empty account. Worthless.

Of course, if we're going to stop emitting so much carbon into the atmosphere then we have to stop or at least reduce the things that cause that carbon to be emitted.

Unless you're seriously contemplating building a major power station or investing $millions into technology development, you are stuck with the reality that cars run on fuel produced from oil, the marginal source (that which will be increased or decreased in response to changes in consumption)  of electricity practically everywhere (including Tas and NZ) is from fossil fuels and so on.

So what can you do? I suggest the following as things that will both save money and reduce emissions with minimal lifestyle impact. 

1. Get an efficient hot water system when yours needs replacing. Solar boosted by gas is generally the most efficient option. Electric heat pumps come next followed by electric boosted solar (unless you're in a very sunny area in which case electric boosted solar will beat the heat pump). Then comes natural gas - not too bad but you can do better. 

Conventional electric water heaters cause the emission of more carbon dioxide than running a small car and are thus best avoided. If you must use electricity then at least go off-peak to get better efficiency (and lower emissions) from generation, transmission and distribution. It's still a big polluter however.

2. Use a heat pump (reverse cycle air conditioner) for heating the house. In cooler climates this is the single biggest saving you can possibly make in emissions (when compared to conventional electric heating). My heat pump saves more emissions each year than driving a large 4WD would produce. Natural gas and _efficiently_ burned wood are reasonably good too (as long as the trees are regrown). If you're going to use wood then pellet heaters produce no smoke and burn very clean - a sensible option.

3. If you're in a hot, dry climate (eg Adelaide) then evaporative cooling instead of conventional air-conditioning will work reasonably well and saves 95% of the energy used. It does use some water but even if we had to get the water via desalination using coal-fired electricity it would still be a winner compared to conventional air-conditioning.

That said, since air-conditioning is a good thing for heating there's no real gain in switching to an evaporative system unless you maintain an efficient heating system (gas would make sense if you have evaporative cooling). And it's really only suitable for places like Adelaide - Sydney and Brisbane are far too humid to use evaporative systems. 

4. Don't leave appliances on stand-by. Turn them off instead. We're wasting something in the order of the entire output of the Snowy Hydro scheme (though in practice it is power from coal) this way. Is it _really_ so important to save 30 seconds every morning while the computer at work boots up? Not much chance of cutting emissions if we can't wait half a minute...

5. Cars. It's commonly believed that air-conditioners use a lot of fuel. That's true when the car is stuck in traffic but on the highway the air-conditioner will use _less_ fuel than an open window (due to the open window wrecking the car's aerodynamics). Empty roof racks waste fuel too, as do underinflated tyres and carrying junk in the boot (since it adds weight).

On a mild day, simply turning the fan on will use far less fuel (and produce less emissions) than either opening the window or turning on the air-conditioner.

6. Fridges. Your mother was right when she told you to keep the door shut. Apart from heating up the food (risking food poisoning) it's a totally unnecessary waste to leave the door open while making a cup of tea etc.

I have my fridge tilted slightly (some models are designed to do this easily) so the door shuts itself. Of course I would shut it anyway, but having done the same at work is likely saving quite a bit.

7. Lighting. Halogen downlights use far more energy than most people realise. About 60 Watts each once the transformer is included.

I doubt that you would think it reasonable to have 6 x 100 Watt bulbs in the kitchen and yet many use just as much power with 10 or so halogen downlights. It's not as aesthetic (but does that _really_ matter?) but a 2x36 watt fluorescent light will provide better lighting and use a fraction of the energy. And with modern tubes (get the 3000K ones) the light quality will be the same as halogen light rather than bright white. And if you get electronic starters then there will be absolutely NO visible flicker.

And of course with two tubes you'll have to change one, on average, every 7500 hours (since modern tubes last about 15,000 hours). With 10 halogen bulbs you'll be changing a bulb every 200 hours so you're going to an awful lot of inconvenience to pollute. And you say you can't wait for the computer to boot up...

8. You wouldn't try and put 10 litres of petrol in a mower that only holds 1 litre and spill the rest. So why boil 2 litres of water to make a cup of tea with 90% of it remaining in the kettle to go cold (and adding more load to the air-conditioning)? Not a massive polluter but it all adds up. 

And you're waiting an extra 2 minutes every time you boil the kettle (but you can't wait for the computer to start or be bothered to turn the TV on at the set...). There's a reason why they put the element right at the bottom of modern kettles - so you only boil as much as you need.

9. Transport of any kind is a big polluter. Buy local where possible, especially fresh food.

10. Generally stop wasting things and put the money saved to good use. Many are happy to spend $2000 a year buying lunch but won't spend the same amount, once, on a solar water heater. 

Also stop thinking in purely economic terms. If you have two options that cost about the same, choose the one that is kinder to the planet. And never pay _more_ to pollute.

For those who say that one individual's actions will make no difference I say this. It is the collective sum of our individual actions that is the problem in the first place. Polluting products are made because we buy them. Millions of tonnes of coal are burned in Australia every year so we can leave appliances on standby. Millions more are burned due to our lack of enthusiasm for solar hot water. 

They only cut down the trees because you and I are using the wood / paper... Either we take the easy options to reduce emissions now or we end up with no choice but to take the hard ones later on. All things considered, I'm quite happy waiting for the computer to boot up and driving an economical car. Beats climate change and wars for oil...


----------



## Happy (18 September 2006)

All valid points and if we take them on board, our 5,000-head community could make bigger difference.

I saw report that future stand-by power consumption will be reduced to about 1W, still a lot, but much less than 5, 10 or even 15 W as it is now.

We could consider walking or pedal power whenever possible, instead of any type of fuel powered option.

I saw cool to touch kettle, which in effect is more like a thermos, and speaking of thermos we can put rest of boiled water into thermos for later use.

Not to mention, that we can spend less free time using power consuming devices. Physical activities not only could aid our digestive system and circulation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 September 2006)

Good to see AGL doing something progressive that doesn't involve dumping CO2 into the air or building up a stockpile of nuclear waste. Actually, you could literally drink the waste product in this case...    

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1743764.htm


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2006)

Interesting article on "the Greenhouse Effect"

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


----------



## billhill (12 October 2006)

Interesting Wayne. But i was a bit sceptical so did some research. found this on wikipedia. This is the guy who operates and runs your source above.



> Steven Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and ExxonMobil.[1][2][3] From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.
> Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, passive smoking and ozone depletion, among other topics.


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Interesting Wayne. But i was a bit sceptical so did some research. found this on wikipedia. This is the guy who operates and runs your source above.



Good work Billhill.

The fox connection blows a lot of credibility out for me.... and I violently disagree with his articles on DDT as well.

Notwithstanding that, what do people think of the science in the article?


----------



## billhill (12 October 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding that, what do people think of the science in the article?



A lot of it is in conflict with the evidence i've read on global warming. Some of it may have its merits but i can't say as he does not reference his material.

I'm sure if he provided references for the statistics he's supplied they would probably be research papers funded by companies like exxon mobil. My feeling is it is mostly manipulated propaganda.


----------



## ice (12 October 2006)

A little background about JunkScience amongst others:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

PS. The writer no doubt has his own prejudices, so I guess you need to make your own mind up.   



ice


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2006)

ice said:
			
		

> A little background about JunkScience amongst others:
> 
> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html
> 
> ...




That is proving difficult to do. With competing scientific views, both with vested interests... and dealing with a chaotic system such as weather. I'm totally confused.

... and totally cynical about "science" too.

Thanks for the links


----------



## Broadside (12 October 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> That is proving difficult to do. With competing scientific views, both with vested interests... and dealing with a chaotic system such as weather. I'm totally confused.
> 
> ... and totally cynical about "science" too.
> 
> Thanks for the links




***************************************************

interesting article.....

***************************************************

 Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

Read the letter in full here http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday September 20, 2006
The Guardian

The Royal Society is worried about climate change lobby groups, including those funded by Exxon. 


Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".


In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate," it said.

In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."

The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.

The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.

The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.

Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."

Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.

ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.

Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.

The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.


----------



## Happy (13 October 2006)

Today is the hottest day since 1914 or was it 1917, doesn’t matter.

Today’s heat is the direct result of global warming, what was the reason for one almost as high almost 100 years ago?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Today is the hottest day since 1914 or was it 1917, doesn’t matter.
> 
> Today’s heat is the direct result of global warming, what was the reason for one almost as high almost 100 years ago?



Simple natural variation in the climate. Even if it was a record high temperature, it's unlikely that we've experienced the full range of natural extremes in weather since European settlement, hence any short term variation isn't valid proof of global warming.


----------



## Tim (13 October 2006)

> ... and totally cynical about "science" too



Indeed, _science_ itself is okay, it's all the _"science"_ that we are now exposed to which makes things difficult. ("science" = meaning _commissioned_ studies)

I recently saw Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Now I have no idea whether he's Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Labor, Green or whatever, and I don't really care. Politics is often best left out of science.

_Something_ is definitely going on with the climate (hottest October day on record yesterday in Melbourne). I don't know how much humans are to blame, but it is definitely inconvenient for lots of companies to have a theory go round that "CO2 causes global warming". Hence why there is always going to be arguement and controversy surrounding the issue.

As this thread has shown, global warming is not a scientific issue. The science is out there (the _real science_ that is). The issue is one of human psychology and human emotion. At this point in time, the majoritory of the world's 6.5 billion people don't know or don't care about global warming (assuming such a thing does exist). So more scientific research, and more pictures of disappearing glaciers are not going to do anything. Change will happen when the decision makers (politicians) decide to make a change. And things need to get a lot worse before they get better.

If you believe in what Al Gore is saying, and that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now nearly double the highest amount it has been over the last several thousand years (and heading for quadruple in the next few decades), the greatest environmental disaster over the last decade _may_ have been Al Gore's loss to George W Bush. But then who knows whether Al Gore would have been the same man?


My opinion (based on human behaviour, not global warming) is that in tens of thousands of years' time, a species will dig up human remains and wonder, just like we do with the dinosaurs, what happened?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Joe Blow
Can we set up a questionnaire please - 

1. Do you believe global warming is a real phenomenon
2. is a serious threat to future generations
3. is being adequately managed by most countries
4. and is Australia doing its part.

Maybe also a suggestion box :-
What can we do about it?  eg if we didnt fly so much and took teleconferencing up a notch or two - then maybe TLS would even become viable 

One person in twenty in this thread seems to be prepared to ACT!!  It's like Britain and the lead up to WW2!!!  Appeasers to the obvious threat that "darkens our skies".  Gee I wish I could whip up a speech like Winston Churchill.  Al Gore to me was 100% convincing.   Meanwhile let's watch as farmers sell up their irrigation rights - and water becomes more valuable than oil,  and Tuvalu goes under, and London raises its tidal gates 10 times more frequently than planned, and New Orleans raises its dykes, and polar bears are dying , and reefs are dying, and animals in desert fringes are dying,  and
.... the only things that are growing are deserts,   ....


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Tim said:
			
		

> My opinion ... is that in tens of thousands of years' time, a species will dig up human remains and wonder, just like we do with the dinosaurs, what happened?



Tim, Dont worry about man mate - that selfish bastard will still be here, 
"Grieve instead for the animals".  (AND the innocent humans)

God - who created man in his image (or as someone cleverly suggested, it might have been vice versa), God whether real or imagined would have intervened by now !!!!
Mother Nature (ABSOLUTELY REAL - but sadly powerless against the tyrrany of man) CANNOT intervene - except that she gave us a conscience.  !!!!

If its Friday night (yes, guilty) and happy hour (guilty), and possibly Im doing a Mel Gibson, (jury out) - at least I can claim no particular prejudice - Im including almost all manking in this one.   (Some mankind in the third world just die watching the sand - cover their bony ankles, and without enough vitamins to even form or express an opinion "why").  (or maybe the tide?) Any prejudice I have is against particularly the first world who are so damned  greedy on eating not only their share of the cake but the next generation's - and (weep) the third world's as well.  And as Nelson Mandela said BEFORE the recent gulf war II, words to the effect that only the ignorant could be "so lacking in foresight".


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Joe Blow
> Can we set up a questionnaire please -
> 
> 1. Do you believe global warming is a real phenomenon
> ...



1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Absolutely not.
4. In practice, the same as most other countries.

As for what YOU can do about it, my number one point would be STOP making excuses for doing nothing and STOP placing a greater value on aesthetics than sustainability.

We've got no chance of winning the battle against global warming whilst we complain about wind turbines "spoiling" the landscape - and yes, on the coast and on top of hills where they are most visible is exactly where they need to be built.

Likewise we've got to stop muttering about fluorescent lights being "ugly" and start thinking of the emissions associated with halogen lights as being the real "ugly" lighting. It's time to stop finding excuses to not use solar for hot water, stop seeing gas guzzlers as a status symbol and start being too embarassed to be seen anywhere near one, let alone actually driving one. And start supporting localisation, not globalisation (transport, particularly by air, being incredibly polluting).

Clean, sustainable energy. Of course the BANANA lobby doesn't like either of them but thousands of tourists seem to be finding them quite attractive.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> whilst we complain about wind turbines "spoiling" the landscape - and yes, on the coast and on top of hills where they are most visible is exactly where they need to be built.



smurf - thanks for jumping into the ring so enthusiastically   i would bet my house - no i would bet $1M that you dont live near a wind turbine  i.e without hearing distance.  

I would also bet (despite my respect for you and your opinion) that you have never been sprayed by the cropdusters near the Tasmanian timber country.  People have - and theyve contracted terminal illnesses DIRECTLY as a result. (relevance? damned if I know - but Id be interested to know how it sits with your philosophy Horatio) 

Have you ever seen the graphs of what noises affect animals compared to humans?   The humming of wind turbines is massive albeit outside to 200 to 20kHz audible range for humans.

And as for your answer to Q4, mate - we can afford to be generous on this one, like - are we to be compared to economic pariahs like Malaysian timber companies who go into neighbouring countries and trick the locals into clearing their virginal forest! 

PS if I live to regret this post I will blame the tequila - good enuf for Mel Gibson - good enuf for me 

PS But I have to be fair - you want to know my area of vulnerability? where I am most easily attacked ? I believe that nuclear power will be way of the future! - and due care with the spent rods etc.  Dont forget that the scientists are saying that compared to global warming, "Chernobyl will pale into insignificance"


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Speaking of (Hamlet and) Horatio ?   maybe Id better get in first and lighten the tone :-

HAMLET AND THE DATING AGENCY
Scene 1 –Hamlet and Horatio enter Graveyard – Hamlet accidentally triggers his mobile phone and  rings the little-known dating agency H.I.D.I.U.S. DATES… Receptionist is hearing impaired, Hamlet continues to talk to Yorick without realising etc etc ….   

Receptionist:-   “Hello,  this is H.I.D.I.U.S. DATES, the hearing-impaired dating introductory “u-asked-for-it” service, Your name is ..ok….what seems to be the problem Omelette?

Alas poor Yorick….	A lass for Yorick? ….
Hi Horatio….		High whore ratio? mmmm would 50-50 be ok? ….
A fellow of infinite jest, - The fellow’s an infinite pest, you say? 
Of most excellent fancy - and mostly sex he fancies? Mmmm lemme think, Doris maybe?
Your flashes of merriment 	- and he flashes at merry men,? Mmmm,  Boris maybe?
Were want to set the table in the roar - and he wants to set the table in the raw?, a-huh, yupp !! – and I thought I’d heard em all ….

How abhorred in my imagination - and now a whore from my imagination, Of all the gall…

You chauvinists can be so damned unkind….
You ring me up and I’m supposed to find….
We may have kinky escorts wined and dined – But mate – 
YOU want a blind date who is blind!!
(Hangs up)!!  Another tragedy ends.

IF’n you’re interested in the real words….:-  Graveyard :-   Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio:
 	a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: 
He hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. 
Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft.  Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? your songs?  
Your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? 
Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; 
Make her laugh at that. ……mmmm,  Naaaa,  I think we’ll just watch “I loe Lucy” again thanks.

PS does BANANA mean "been asked, never answered, never admitted"?


----------



## billhill (13 October 2006)

Guys lets not be so pessimistic (good post Smurf fully agree). Sure we face some massive problems due to global warming and i'm not going to say everything will be alright.

We still have time to act on this issue and if people just adopt a negative attitude and give up, well we might as well  shoot ourselves in the head now. 

Just talking about this issue on these forums is helping change the mindset of people. The more this issue is pushed into the popular media and political realms, the sooner governments will be forced to change there ways. 

Changing your own behaviour may only be a drop in the ocean but if that encourages just one other person to change theirs, well isn't that worth it.

The huge changes needed to combat global warming will not come overnight these thing happen gradually. Remember humans can be very ingenuitive when they need to be.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> The huge changes needed to combat global warming will not come overnight these thing happen gradually.



Sadly Bilhill we come back to my main point - WHEN are we going to act?
PS I have the utmost respect for 90% of what both you and Smurf said.

PS Cant help myself - here's some more Shakespeare 
Merchant of Venice:-	"The quality of mercy is not strained 
It droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven"
I just wish mercifully it bloody rained
Before our team got ducks, and all eleven.

The Tempest:-	"We are such stuff as dreams are boldly made of
And our little life is rounded with a sleep"
I just wish I could turn the neighbour’s maid off
Instead of counting 50,000 sheep.

Midsummer Night’s Dream:-	"The course of true love never did run smooth"
A bit like my old Chev, it needs some flattery
You miss ‘em when they’re missing - that’s the truth
(Maybe I’ll check the spark, and then the battery.)

Romeo and Juliet:-	"But soft, what light from yonder window breaks
It is the east and Juliet is the sun
Arise fair sun, and kill the envious moon"
Ahhh – let’s just go to my place, have some fun.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Romeo	What shall I swear by?
Juliet	Do not swear at all
	Or if thou wilt swear by thy gracious self
	And if thou wilt, Viag-aras on call - 
	And swearing - wash your mouth – soap’s on the shelf.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet
So Romeo would were he not Romeo called
Still smell like rotting fishheads round his feet.

Twelfth Night (Duke on Music):-If music be the food of love play on
Give me excess of it – and surf and sun!
The appetite may sicken and so die
But me, I’m sticking round for some more pie.

Julius Caesar (Mark Anthony):-Friends Romans Countrymen, lend me your ears
I’ve gone and left my hearing aid at home
And futile if I’m deaf to rousing cheers
And damn it all, the best seats in the dome.

And Brutus was an honourable man
So buy his snakeoil – 20 bucks and bottled
But Mark the word of Anthony, his fan,
You turn your back, you’re liable to get throttled.

For I have neither wit nor words nor worth 
Action nor utterance, nor the power of speech
To stir men’s blood -  except perhaps in mirth
Or when my bloody beer is out of reach.  etc etc

Ahhh CRIKEY ( such a dignified word  ) guess you justhad to b there


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Im gonna push my luck and see if the ASF will accept three (3 ) of these nonsensical ramblings... 

MY MATE, WILL SHAKESPEARE  

let’s DisaPpear inTo some Shakespeare Verse
And see if we can make the margins rhyme,
At worst, we’ll make them marginally worse
At best, mark you, we’ll probably mark time,
McDonaldbain, Macbeth, McDad, McDave
Four Big Macs of their day say last goodbyes,
For bony thinner Shakespeare, one last rave,
	(For Thicker-Shakes, it’s ninety cents with fries).

Example – “harken digger!, wherefore dagger!”
“dog-gone it Doug? Again you’re on your ear?”
“I’m stabbed, I’m stuffed, I step, my final stagger,
‘Twill be ‘twards the fridge for one last beer.”
My guess is that you get the picture clearly - 
You’re not obtuse, and these are not acute
The cute ones I suspect were written beer-ly
The obtuse ones I flushed right down the chute.

Hamlet soliloquising:-
To be or not to be that is the question
The bloody answer seems to be the hitch
Ahhh great – a coin – bet -  “heads or tails?”, Sebestion
We’ll either go home poor or filthy rich.

Hamlet Reproaching the Queen:-
Such an act that blurs the grace betrothed
Of modesty; calls virtue hypocrite
Makes marriage vows as false as dicer’s oaths
Ahh – double 6 !!! well now we’re in the ****  !!

Macbeth:-
If done, when ‘t is done, then ‘t were well,  done quickly
Participants contributing as one,
Now “up and doing” for the well done quickie
And alternating “down and being done”. 

Macb:-
Is this a dagger which I see before me?
The handle toward my hand – come let me clutch!
Ahhh no , it’s just that dead-cheap Scotch you pour me
And some dead Scotsman had me by the crutch.

Macb:-
I’ve Done the deed – did You not hear a noise?
Lady Macb:- I Heard the owl scream and the cricket’s cry!
Macb:- 	Reminds me, I should Be out with the boys
and What’s the score?
Lady Macb:- bout 2 for 25.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

AND SO FROM HOUR TO HOUR …    	
From Billy Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” (Jacques):-	

_And then he drew a dial from his poke….	
And looking at it with lacklustre eye
Says very wisely “It is ten o’clock……		
Thus may we see” quoth he “how the world wags..”_

“_Tis but an hour ago since it was nine
And after one hour more ‘twill be eleven”_
And 9 hours hence ‘twill be mmmm ….err….nineteen ?
And 87 prior ‘twas only …seven.?
_
"And so from hour to hour we ripe and ripe
And then from hour to hour we rot and rot"_
And thereby hangs a tale and lots of tripe
And such words mean the least when there’s a lot.

The question is I guess which is the faster
Which, ripening or rotting, takes the lead
The thing determines which one is the master
Is whether we eat onions or birdseed.

And so we “let er rip” - if given rope,
And reap our wild oats where the wild oat grows,
And under grip of grape we probably grope,
But who-the-Hell remembers days like those.

And so we pass through life like someone blind,
Or live to make a pass at someone blond,
And so we stretch out here our wayward mind,
And way-out minds in stretcher wards respond.

(needless to say - I prefer to write gibberish than things like well TV for instance )
Now...What was the thread again ? ... ahh yes global warming - serious stuff !!!


----------



## billhill (13 October 2006)

The tipping point is near 2020. Popular opinion is gaining momentum and governments will be forced to act shortly. Why because even the corporations are changing their tune. Living in denial just wont cut it anymore. Profits run companies and global warming is a risk to that.

I can say i've been following the issue for many years now and this year in the media ive seen more stories and articles then all the others put together.  Why, are movies in cinemas. Richard Branson and Warren Buffet dedicating vast amounts of money to the issue and finally an admission by governments that this is no longer a fantasy story.

Don't get down about the issue 2020. Lead by example and run your car on biofuel or source your electricity from a renewable source (i do both). Join the growing chorus and help start a revolution.


----------



## nioka (13 October 2006)

GO OUT AND PLANT A TREE THIS WEEKEND. The nursery trade needs the help too. Plant one each week, not a great ask, and you won't need to feel bad about driving the car.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> and help start a revolution.



VIVA LE (LA?) REVOLUTION!! :viking:  
(Maybe one of you francophiles will assist here)


> plant a tree



Nioka - also refrain from pulling up weeds ?
PS I planted a tree called "Robert the Spruce" when my son Robert was born - now although it threatens the house I'm not allowed to touch it lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> smurf - thanks for jumping into the ring so enthusiastically   i would bet my house - no i would bet $1M that you dont live near a wind turbine  i.e without hearing distance.
> 
> I would also bet (despite my respect for you and your opinion) that you have never been sprayed by the cropdusters near the Tasmanian timber country.  People have - and theyve contracted terminal illnesses DIRECTLY as a result. (relevance? damned if I know - but Id be interested to know how it sits with your philosophy Horatio)
> 
> ...



The only wind turbine that I've lived near was an experimental unit that is no longer in operation. It was within 15 minutes walk from my front door and my neighbours didn't even know about it for quite some time.

In the photo is Woolnorth wind farm stage 1. It's a lot bigger now with many more turbines and still more under construction (stage 3). I was there the day it opened and I will say this about noise, the WIND noise was incredible but to hear the noise of the turbines I had to literally press my ear against the tower. The wind at the top of the cliffs being so loud blowing against my body that I couldn't hear much above it. All I could hear was a faint whirring noise - the machinery seemed to be incredibly quiet.

All that said, one of the reasons why it makes sense to put wind turbines along the coast in the scenic spots is because nobody lives there. That scenery will, of course, be PERMANENTLY destroyed by global warming whereas the turbines are temporary and removable if they become obsolete.

Forests - an area I know little about although I've been quite vocal in my opposition to burning them for heating for quite some time due to air pollution. The levels of pollution we had in parts of Tas 10 years ago from domestic wood heaters had to be seen to be believed - Sydney's air being incredibly clean in comparisson. I would much rather have more hydro / wind than blackened lungs and stinging eyes (wood smoke being literally "tar" and not at all healthy). Thankfully this has changed in more recent times.

I'm not keen on aerial spraying of anything, especially not when it ends up going directly over people, food or water catchments. We're not supposed to be eating, drinking or getting ourselves covered in anything that comes from an oil refinery.

Overall, I think what's needed in the climate change debate is vision of the kind that lead to the development of the New Zealand, Victorian and Tasmanian power industries in the first place. All three have an incredible history of doing things "against the odds" and relying on "unconventional" energy resources. We need to get that kind of vision back but this time on a global scale with the focus being on renewable energy only.

I see now as being somewhat similar to the situation a century ago. Back then there was a pretty convincing argument that it was outright dangerous (in a physical sense) and financially reckless to build this "long distance power line" then proposed in Tasmania. The Commonwealth even went to the point of insisting that it would be in no way responsible for the consequences of this scheme and strongly expressed the view that there was unlikely to be any long term use for electricity and hence no point in producing it.

The underlying anti-progress attitude of the Australian Government doesn't seem to have changed too much over the years. But then neither has that of most other world governments.


----------



## billhill (13 October 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> GO OUT AND PLANT A TREE THIS WEEKEND.




Hey if people don't want to do it themselves they can pay for environmental organisations to do it. 

http://www.greenfleet.com.au/planting/projects.asp
This company will offset your car emmisions by planting native trees. I suggest people check it out its really not that expensive.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> and I will say this about noise, the WIND noise was incredible but to hear the noise of the turbines I had to literally press my ear against the tower. The wind at the top of the cliffs being so loud blowing against my body that I couldn't hear much above it........
> The underlying anti-progress attitude of the Australian Government doesn't seem to have changed too much over the years. But then neither has that of most other world governments.



Well
a) thanks
b) your contribiution is as usual worth more than   
c) As for the noise of the wind turbines I was only recalling a documentary which includes some stats and also some character who was interviewed who said "ok mate, YOU try living beside the bludy thing then" - he was quite prepared to swap homes - with ANYONE!  and he doesn't even have canine/ tas devil / blue footed boobie bird , etc  audio range of onset of pain. 
d) by "antiprogress" i guess you mean "anti GREEN progress" /aka sustainable energy progress.  I agree with you that that is the case, but AGAIN I come back to the point that we should be asking for ACTION.  
(But as I mentioned, I'm only marginally interested in tinkering at the margins. Id be real happy if we cut emissions 20% in 5 years !! - possible?? buggered if I know.  necessary ? SURE !! and I'm positive of that fact)

PS as for Tas forests - Ive heard near black-eye arguments in pubs in Tas - greenies vs timbergetters ...."but the bludy trees would fall down anyway after 10 years  - why not harvest them, you dill brain !!! - "  how we all love to "adjust the facts" towards our own case lol.


----------



## billhill (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> but the bludy trees would fall down anyway after 10 years - why not harvest them




Can i ask why they are going to fall down?


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Can i ask why they are going to fall down?



Bilhill  the argument put forward by the timbergetters is that trees live then fall down then rot ... ashed to ashes etcetc.   It is true to some extent, but Im personally not convinced that the act of harvesting them ( and knocking down hundreds of healthy saplings in the process) is justified   To say nothing of the fact that natures way is to return everything to the soil, lets face it, we will all end up there one day   I want to succeed as fertilizer - heaven knows Ive only been mediocre at everything else ??  :goodnight


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Well
> a) thanks
> b) your contribiution is as usual worth more than
> c) As for the noise of the wind turbines I was only recalling a documentary which includes some stats and also some character who was interviewed who said "ok mate, YOU try living beside the bludy thing then" - he was quite prepared to swap homes - with ANYONE!  and he doesn't even have canine/ tas devil / blue footed boobie bird , etc  audio range of onset of pain.
> ...



Agreed that wind farms shouldn't be built near houses where noise will be a problem. But in my opinion they should be built somewhere and realistically that means they'll have to go in those places where they can't be heard but can be seen. We'll just have to get used to seeing them much like we accept buildings, roads and power lines now. There was a time when mountains were considered "ugly"...

As for trees, mature forests don't soak up as much carbon as a rapidly growing forest and wood is a renewable resource. But that's not a valid reason to clearfell the lot although we do need to cut some down for timber (it's less polluting than building with steel).

I'll throw a real cat among the pigeons here and list some things that I think will have happened by 2030 in Australia. Specific projects. I don't necessarily think they _should_ all be built, but I think they will happen in practice.

1. A large nuclear power station will be built in NSW. It will supply an amount of power equivalent to at least 15% of NSW's present consumption and could well be double that size.

2. The notion of limited oil supply will be common knowledge and widely accepted. There will be general acceptance that gas is also limited and thus is not a long term alternative (though it is a short term alternative).

3. Tourism will no longer be viewed as a "green" industry (due to reliance on oil-fuelled aviation).

4. A substantial geothermal (hot rocks) industry will be in operation. It will be particularly significant in SA where it may supply perhaps 50% of all power used.

5. A new high tech brown coal plant, probably more than one, will be in operation in Victoria. It will produce liquid fuels (diesel) with electricity as a by-product. The scale of individual plants will be comparable to present brown coal power stations (very large). The technology will involve capture of carbon emissions and pumping them underground, most likely into depleted Bass Strait oil and gas fields.

Queensland will also build some form of coal-fired power plant that involves carbon capture and underground storage. It is likely to be less financially sucessful than the Victorian plants (due to being electricity only, no liquid fuels) and will be built, with some form of government support (possibly outright ownership) amidst much political fanfare.

6. Public attitudes towards large dams will have totally reversed. I think this is much closer than most realise and could come before 2010. First it will be new water supply dams in Qld, NSW and later Vic. 

Later when there is a need for the power and widespread acceptance of climate change it will be in the form of a return to the "big dams era" in Tasmania. Whether the Franklin will be dammed is hard to say, but if it isn't then that will mean damming only the lower Gordon (an option considered but rejected in the dams referendum in 1981) rather than "no dams".

7. It will be virtually impossible, quite likely illegal, to buy an electric hot water service for household use except as a booster for a solar water heater.

8. There will be some form of government involvement aimed at reducing vehicle fuel consumption. This could involve practical penalties for gas guzzlers (banning them from all but one lane on highways, for example), much higher taxes on petrol, legislative requirements for minimum fuel economy standards and a registration system which charges based on fuel consumption. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of those. 

Depending on the general political climate, we may see some form of rationing of petrol (due to oil shortage and imports harming the economy rather than concern about emissions although emissions will be the stated reason for political purposes).

9. Southern NSW or northern Victoria will be home to a substantial solar thermal power industry.

10. Wind turbines will still be in use but they will no longer be being built to supply the major grid (due to having reached the technical limits of market penetration and the emergence of other clean power sources). 

This isn't a complete list, just some of the things I think will actually happen. I don't agree with all of them but I do agree with some. I don't think total emissions will have fallen by a large amount but attitudes will have shifted.

   (Four cents this time   )


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> This isn't a complete list, just some of the things I think will actually happen. I don't agree with all of them but I do agree with some. I don't think total emissions will have fallen by a large amount but attitudes will have shifted.    (Four cents this time   )




11. Smurf will be elected FEDERAL MINISTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY lol. 
PS (we have a bloke at work we call Mr 110% - because whenever we ask him for an answer he always answers 10% more than you could ever have imagined - now why would I have thought of him I wonder  lol - thanks man. - adios amigos - maniana

PS just had a pay rise :- FEDERAL MINISTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND BREAD RECIPES


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Im going to end on what I'm choosing to call a positive note - well more bludy nonsense to be honest - but then there's no way I can keep up with your bludy intellect at this hour This concerns the predicament of "a reluctant and rather grumpy optimist"...based on a bloke I know down the road lol 

WHY THE GRASS IS GREENER
Why is the grass so God-damned green, since I decided to smile, 
Pain in the **** that it grows so keen, and all on account of my dial,
Kick the damned dog, and stone the damned crows, I’m so sick of starting that mower,
Maybe I’ll frown and sort out the bastard, and then it’ll grow a bit slower.

Why is the sky so God-damned blue, since I decided to laugh
Bloody hot sun, and mowing too, it’s enough to make you barf,
Dog in the way – I could’ve kicked her – making mountains of charf,
Next person gets in the way of my Victa, I’ll cut the bastard in half.

I wanna know why the sun in the morning has got this God-damned hue,
I wanna know why the world without warning can wake to a dream come true
Tell me each day why my God-damned re-borning gets christened with God-damned dew,
Christ it gets tiresome each perfect dawning,  It’s enough to make you spew.

I wanna know why the salt in my blood is the same as the salt in the sea,
Ancestors rose from the primeval mud, with their crusted-on will to be free,
But they bloodywell brought with them blood from the oceans, and now it lives in me,
Now my tears and my sweat are these magic potions – Ahhh, bugger, I need a pee.

I wanna know if the “hedonist” path can be trod with your “head-in the sand”,
I wanna know if the “pragmatic” ploy is like practically “prag-on-demand”
I wanna know if a beer or thirteen gives a fellow an “ideal-list”
Ahh, bugger this bull**** and smiles and stuff -  I’m goin’ out to get pissed.


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2006)

An interesting article on global warming (not) in the UK Telegraph... a very enlightening read.

Climate Chaos? - Don't Believe It


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

Wayne, When stern report said global warming would result in 20% drop in GDP, I couldn't help thinking to myself - and the solution? 30% drop in GDP ! lol    . Sorry dont have time now to read your article completely.

Another quik comment - nuclear is the answer - and btw the sun (way up there) is nuclear, so solar is strictly nuclear as well  - but sure , lets go  photovoltaic as well.


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Wayne, When stern report said global warming would result in 20% drop in GDP, I couldn't help thinking to myself - and the solution? 30% drop in GDP ! lol




hahaha

easy really!


----------



## 123enen (10 November 2006)

*Re: Global warming*

Do your bit for global warming this Christmas.

DONT turn on any Christmas lights....AT ALL.

Show us that this is being taken seriously!!!

Imagine if every country in the world did this. Every council, every Govt. Don't switch streetscape decorator lights on 2 weeks before Christmas and don't leave them on for around 1 week after Christmas.

Even though the lights are low voltage they will still consume an enormous amount of energy globally.

Yeah Sure!!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2006)

In all seriousness, avoiding any form of tourism this Summer will do far more to help stop global warming than worrying about christmas lights. That and avoiding any other form of organised activity that involves travel to get there. 

Tourism is a massive polluter - aviation accounts for about 11% of all oil used and then there's petrol in cars driven as part of holidays etc. When you put that in the context that most of the time we are NOT on holiday, it is a truly massive impact per individual for those few weeks every year. 

In contrast, the power consumed by christmas lights is in practice undetectable - load in the evening doesn't go up noticeably in December and back down again in January. Obviously the load does exist, but I would be surprised if the energy consumed nationally for this purpose exceeds the output of a single wind turbine over the course of a year.

Not that I'm against tourism or christmas lights, but the latter is an insignificant source of emissions. Just build ONE more wind turbine and that fixes the problem with emissions from christmas lights.

All those TV's turned off with the remote - now there's a real polluter that we could easily get rid of...


----------



## billhill (10 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> avoiding any form of tourism this Summer will do far more to help stop global warming




Tourism increases global warming. Global warming bleaches our coral reefs and destroys our forests. No Forests or reefs mean less tourism. Problem fixes itself. 

If only it were that easy.


----------



## Rafa (10 November 2006)

when i was in cairns a few weeks back, i heard that we only have 3 years left before global warming destroys the reef...

and the message was... get to the reef as soon as you can...

I couldn't help but smile at the irony of it all!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> .... That and avoiding any other form of organised activity that involves travel to get there. ...



I had a win this week - yaahoooooo ,  someone wanted me to travel interstate for a seriously optional meeting - I replied by email - "Due to the fact that a plane taking off uses all the oxygen that the Daintree forest makes in a day - and the subsequent risk of global warming, I would prefer to have a teleconference" - and that's what happened   as the kiwis would say ...

Score :- Conservationists seven,   airline pollution sucks!!



> http://www.daintree-rec.com.au/daintree.html
> Many millions of years ago Australia was warm and humid and rainfall was plentiful. During this time rainforest thrived in places such as the Ayers Rock region. It's hard to believe this would be possible as anyone who has visited our red centre will tell you not much rain falls there now. However this is a good example of how old our continent is and just how much change has occurred.
> 
> As Australia became more arid, there were fewer and fewer places rainforests were able to survive. In the Daintree region, however the climate and topography were ideal, so the area became a last remaining refuge for rainforest. Within this refuge many species were able to live comfortably without reason to change.... their descendants still living today retaining many of their ancestors primitive characteristics, some dating back 110 million years!
> ...




Gee - and all this time I thought Idiospermum australiense was something rejected at the Sydney sperm bank 

PS I originally heard that quote about forests > oxygen > detroyed by 1 plane etc  applied to an English forest - (lets say Sherwood forest lol - only one I know!!) - and I can't recall if its a day or an hour or a week! - but hey!! 78.76% of all statistics are made up on the spot !!  - and buga it it sounds plausible to me.  Poor little green leaves trying to compete with 4 SCREAMING jet turbines!!  they've got a "green leaf's chance in hell" of competing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPv8psZsvIU&NR
speaking of global warming due to aircraft - here's a simulated video of planes over USA


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2006)

Just a question - where have you felt hottest ?
 ( and I'm not talking about a night as a strip club lol)

Me? Melbourne (allegedly only) 43degC - few years back - I was waiting for a taxi to the airport - there were fires up north ( as there are this weekend - commisserations folks) - another bloke and I agreed to share a taxi to airport - 
Turns out my fellow passenger was an unreasonable d..head - he INSISTED that the airconditioner be on - the taxidriver explained that the car would boil .. insisted - sure enough, the radiator boiled within a couple of blocks - lol.
This other passenger REFUSED to travel another yard in this taxi , and got off at the next corner.  !!

Meanwhile , we hobbled off to the airport - cars parked in each and every opportunity for some shade along the sides of the Tullamarine motorway ...women trying to cool babies etc ....

The only time that I can recall that it was cooler with the window (almost fully) up than fully open - because the air was like a furnace - even travelling at 80kph or whatever. 

Boy that was hot!!   Melbourne is one cruel place when it's hot !


----------



## Lert (8 December 2006)

Hottest I ever remember was driving across a stoney claypan on a Gascoyne(wa) station a long time ago.. The homestead thermometer said 47c that day which was hot enough but when a willy willy came across the claypan it was like being in a furnace.. eyeball singing stuff. Temp was still 38c at midnight..

BTW  2020, do you fly HG's ? I fly the stiff wing variety..


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2006)

Lert said:
			
		

> BTW  2020, do you fly HG's ? I fly the stiff wing variety..



m8, the concept of unpowered flight really intrigues me.  I posted #26 on favourite lyrics and I think I explained that the picture was my daughter not me (Stanwell Tops) - with an instructr   but she's just a kid btw :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4327&page=8&pp=20

As for myself? Yesterday I posted a picture of Mt Alava in American Samoa, 1650 ft high. Can't tell you how often I've been up there and tossed a coin to see if I was brave enough to jump off or not 
There were 3 co-owners in an old Rogallo - developed as you probly know by NASA for soft landings of returning craft and stuff.  One of us DID jump off - got caught in the trees 50 feet down - broke the central tube - lucky to return to "base" by the cable car rather than gravity 
He also once landed upside down in the sail at our 85 foot "training hill" - in a quarry lol - a most unforgiving landing!  
I broke my arm in a bad landing at same site. 
but - b4 I shuffle off this mortal coil, I plan to do that mountain lol. (or equivalent I guess) 
btw also - the best of us (HG pilots in Pago Pago) was an american who jumped off that 1650 foot mountain many times.  He was BRILLIANT !! He returned to USA - had a lightweight - prop was laminated carbon fibre - with an adhesive brand sticker - the glue attacked the epoxy -  the prop fell to pieces in mid-air - (all from the Coroner's hearing) need I say more


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Just a question - where have you felt hottest ?
> ( and I'm not talking about a night as a strip club lol)
> 
> Me? Melbourne (allegedly only) 43degC - few years back - I was waiting for a taxi to the airport - there were fires up north ( as there are this weekend - commisserations folks) - another bloke and I agreed to share a taxi to airport -
> ...



Issues of global warming / cooling aside, that sounds like a dodgy taxi. In theory at least, the car shouldn't overheat sitting still with no wind in 43 degrees with the air-conditioner going flat out. If the car was actually moving then no way should it overheat. But then some car manufacturers do some pretty dodgy things when it comes to radiators and more importantly the fan...

As for me, hottest I recall ever being was having to literally sit on the highway (work related) when it was 39 degrees. Burnt bottom from sitting there and burnt hands trying to get up again. Sunburnt too. Job got done OK however.

A really hot place though is to find a house with black roof tiles with no foil under them and no roof ventilators either. Now, put your overalls etc on and go and do some work in the roof space when it's 40 degrees outside. Even better if you need to wear a respirator, goggles and ear muffs too. Seriously, don't do it unsupervised as you might literally pass out. Spare a thought for the tradespeople who have no choice. Being outside or sitting in an office with no air-conditioning is nothing compared to the heat in a roof even when it's only 30 outside.

Metal casting places get pretty hot too. And it never gets cold in a power station even in mid-Winter. Needless to say it's not the best place to be in Summer. It has been known to snow (literally) _inside_ the cell room at Zinifex in Hobart. They've fixed the roof now though so presumably that doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2006)

smurf - (or anyone out there electrically inclined)
I joked with the lady down the road that I was slow putting up Xmas lights this year because I was having conscience issues with global warming - (it was in jest btw).
She countered that a stack of decorative lights were about equivalent to boiling a jug of water. 
Was just interested in checking out the math.
(another nice math Ive got myself into)
I mean we can probably enjoy Xmas - including house decoration - with a clear conscience I imagine


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2006)

How much power / energy in Xmas lights ( assuming I’ve got this right.)
I think some people are effectively boiling anywhere up to 14 jugs continuous ( but you need about 80,000 lights to do that - see para c below). most people less than 1 jug i would think.

energy to boil a jug is say 2.4kW jug x 3 mins. = 0.12 kWhr ( or 2c if you pay 18c / kWhr)

energy with say 8 rope lights each 9m long running for 1 hour?
power 72m with 36 W/m = 2.6 kW
energy to run for an hour nonstop = 2.6 kWhr.
this is equivalent to boiling 21 or 22 jugs or water every hour., i.e. continuous jug boiling. 
cost per hour for 8 such ropelights = 2.6 x .18 = 47c.  (if you pay 0.18 per kWhr)

notes :-
a) maybe don’t leave em on all night
b) blinking, fading, chasing etc cycles help - could reduce the above energy consumption and cost to half (or even less).
c) some people have up to 80,000 lights each at about 0.42w (equiv to about 1000m of rope lights) = 34kW - leaning towards excessive . - plus it would be costing them $6 per hour to run.  - depending on blinking ect


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 December 2006)

I wouldn't be too worried about Christmas lights as a cause of greenhouse emissions. 

Whilst individual light displays can use quite a bit of power when operating, they are generally on for no more than about 2% of the time over the year (assuming 8:45pm switch on and off at 1am which is the generally accepted practice in Hobart - I assume it's similar elsewhere) and most houses don't have extensive displays.

Bottom line is it doesn't have a noticeable impact on power demand overall. Sure, there is a bit of a spike in demand when the sun goes down but that happens every day of the year. It doesn't get noticeably bigger in December.

As for the maths, fairy lights typically have 0.1875 Watt bulbs. Put up 10,000 of them and you've got a decent size display but the power use, including transformer losses, is no more than about 2500 Watts. Run that for 4 hours every night from 1st December to 5th January (12 days of Christmas...) and it's a total of 360 kilowatt hours used.

Now, an all-electric house in a cold climate (eg Tas) would typically use 20,000 kilowatt hours per annum, half of that for heating and a quarter of that for hot water. Adding another 360 kWh for Christmas lights is no big deal especially when you consider that household use of electricity is only 20% of total demand anyway (varies between the states).

Even if you compare it to a typical house in a warmer climate (eg Adelaide) using 5000 kWh per annum, it's only a 7% or so increase and then only for a very small % of houses.

So, we're adding maybe 5% to the power demand of perhaps 2% of houses with significant scale Christmas lights displays. That's 0.1% of domestic electricity or 0.02% of total electricity use. In other words, if we got rid of Christmas lights it would offset growth in power demand for all of 3 days. Not a big saving but one which would disappoint a lot of young kids to achieve. It would be better, and far more effective, to just switch every office computer off at night instead or stop leaving the TV on standby. 

Obviously there are individual houses using lots of power for light displays but it's not a big deal overall. Even my own display, which is understood to be the highest powered private house display in the state and is quite well known (a few hundred visitors tonight - there are quite a few people standing in the driveway right now), uses less power each year than would be saved by putting in one domestic solar hot water heater. (Peak power 18.7 KW, average load during operation 11 KW).

The attached graph shows Victorian power demand (had to pick somewhere and Vic is larger than Tas) for the past 24 hours. Not much of a spike when the lights go on. The 2 spikes in the early hours of the morning are due to off-peak hot water switching on. Note the scale doesn't start at zero. Green line is demand for power with scale on the right. Red line is spot price with scale on the left. Note that the time is standard time NOT daylight savings time. Source of the chart - NEMMCO (National Electricity Market Management Company).


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 January 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfMW4oGFGdY&NR fuel crisis, paul hogan skit


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2007)

Tonight - 8.35pm SBS.   - Nuclear Nightmares.


> Climate change is one of the major hot topics in politics today. Faced with potential global catastrophe, a controversial technology is back on the policy agenda - nuclear energy. But it is taken as a given by most people - experts as well as lay people - that radiation is terribly bad for our health, and that an expansion of nuclear power would inevitably lead to thousands of deaths from cancer. But what is the truth? In the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, experts predicted thousands of deaths from cancer. Yet, when an authoritative report was published it found that 50 workers in the plant died from acute radiation sickness and so far only nine of those can be attributed to the accident. This documentary explores the possibility that it is our fear of radiation that is the problem. Are we fighting a technology which may be vital in the fight to save our civilisation from the effects of global warming?



If there's a god, this show will be available for download in a few days. - fingers crossed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2007)

With rain falling solidly all Saturday in much of Tasmania and recent falls elsewhere, those who proclaim that short term weather patterns are due to climate change must be feeling a bit foolish. More to the point, they're making an outright mockery of what is a very serious debate.

Never rain again? Of course it will and yes we've had serious droughts long before climate change was an issue. I just hope some of these attention grabbing fools (especially certain high profile politicians) stop blaming climate change for everything that happens with the weather in the hope of some political gain and start focusing on what it really is - a long term problem that needs long term solutions which most of us won't live long enough to see any real benefit from but are nonetheless morally obliged to pursue.


----------



## Julia (7 January 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> With rain falling solidly all Saturday in much of Tasmania and recent falls elsewhere, those who proclaim that short term weather patterns are due to climate change must be feeling a bit foolish. More to the point, they're making an outright mockery of what is a very serious debate.
> 
> Never rain again? Of course it will and yes we've had serious droughts long before climate change was an issue. I just hope some of these attention grabbing fools (especially certain high profile politicians) stop blaming climate change for everything that happens with the weather in the hope of some political gain and start focusing on what it really is - a long term problem that needs long term solutions which most of us won't live long enough to see any real benefit from but are nonetheless morally obliged to pursue.



I don't suppose you are actually surprised that politicians prefer to focus on "climate change" rather than take responsibility for their lack of planning regarding basic infrastructure.  The population of S.E. Qld, e.g. has been growing at an exponential rate for many years, politicians have trumpeted this growth as a reflection of Qld being "the smart State" etc etc.  But they have simply failed to plan accordingly for the increased population:  hence the current panic about dams running dry. 

If politicians existed for a reason other than their own gratification and actually had the good of the population at heart, then the sort of measures which are being belatedly undertaken at present would have been in place at least a decade ago.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 January 2007)

re that SBS doco over the perceived threat of reactors -  after researching it, they conclude that we over-react - that the potential damage due to radiation in the event of another chenobyl has been exaggerated.  

One week to middle of summer - really mild so far (in Sydney).
and TV tonight had new yorkers sunning themselves in shorts cossies etc when normally they'd be using snow shovels to get the car out of the garage.  Wierd.

agree smurf, morally no question but to address it asap.
and julia - thanks for taking all those thirsty old bugas off our hands


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2007)

http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbs_front/index.html# - Click on "Dateline interviews Al Gore" 
global warnings on global warming if you like.
He is sceptical about nuclear. 
Post Stern report, he says analysis of the economics means that we are hurting ourselves by not going along with Kyoto.

Gore says that at least John Howard has watched his movie (An Inconvenient Truth).  
Meanwhile GW Bush steadfastly refuses to watch it.  (such an enlightened example). 
There are many other Dateline interviews worth watching incidentally.

You can also get a short summary of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (on "Movie Show" , right hand side)


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> re that SBS doco over the perceived threat of reactors -  after researching it, they conclude that we over-react - that the potential damage due to radiation in the event of another chenobyl has been exaggerated.



Attached pdf file from SBS 
- the relative effects of global warming and nuclear radiation.
You have to open the pdf file folks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 April 2007)

From post # 2 on this thread ..I notice tonight there is an article on SBS at 8.30 
The Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age
bound to be on this sorta stuff (I'm guessing)


2020hindsight said:


> Then there are the Local theories - eg the theory that Florida will fry, and at the same time England will freeze.  This theory was on TV recently.  Basically the warm Gulf stream is pivotal to the climates of both.  After travelling north east from the tropics, it hits the northern Atlantic where due to its high salt content it sinks, then returns at a lower level to be reheated etc.  They call it "the conveyor".  Trouble is the salt is being diluted by melting iceberg/ polar cap etc,  and when this happens the conveyor stops.    etc etc .






> This program explores the results of a recent American government report that believes that the collapse of thermohaline circulation (the global circulation of deep ocean currents) will take place around the year 2010 and impose a minor ice age on Europe. Could Dublin acquire a climate like Spitzberg, and London like that of Siberia?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 April 2007)

and at 10.47pm on ABC "What would Jesus drive?"
cripes - I have an old mazda 626 he can have for a song - assuming anything would be an improvement to a donkey   only needs about 3 miracles to get it shipshape.

I jest , sure to be an interesting show, see how I'm travelling with "my homework"

PS this assumes that Jesus would be into minimisation of global warming - when in fact he probably didn't realise we lived on a "globe" 

PS Wasn't there a quote somewhere that Moses "burned up the desert in his Triumph" ? (or maybe it was a pharoah?)  details escape me, I ain't no expert on the old testament 

PS Jesus opinion? - probably irrelevant , what matters now is the opinion of the modern equivalents of his Dad -  the GW Bush's and J Howard's of the world who 
a) encourage us to selfishly take more than our share, and
b) are the only major industrialised nations to refuse to sign Kyoto. 

PS nice quote at the end of "2057 - The World in 50 Years : The World "
"evolution is the exception, extinction is the rule "


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2007)

> ...collapse of thermohaline circulation (the global circulation of deep ocean currents) will take place around the year *2010*



2010, that's just 3 years away!

If it really is going to happen that quickly then it's adapt or die. 2010 is as good (or bad) as it happening literally today - we won't be even 1% more prepared than we are now by 2010.


----------



## Rafa (30 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Jesus opinion? - probably irrelevant , what matters now is the opinion of the modern equivalents of his Dad




Yes, fundametalist Old Testament followers are back...
It absolutely astounds me that this is possible in this day and age!


----------



## Happy (30 April 2007)

> ...collapse of thermohaline circulation (the global circulation of deep ocean currents) will take place around the year 2010





Maybe desalination could help?

If all concentrated salty water was dumped in the area where higher concentration of salt in the ocean is needed could do the trick to keep current alive.

And one argument against desalination would be fixed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 April 2007)

Rafa - the TV show on "what car would JC drive" had nothing to do with JC or Moses lol.  Just stating the obvious - petrol guzzlers won't be around much longer.

Happy - lol - desalinators to the rescue  - now that's optimism - like the pregnant schoolgirl rubbing her belly with vanishing cream. To be honest, it's sounding like it's too late no matter what.  



Smurf1976 said:


> 2010, that's just 3 years away!



Smurf, my thoughts exactly - (I was surprised to see that prediction) - A bit like the Titanic doing 22.5 knots and heading for an iceberg 100 yards ahead  - best chance sadly that it will melt in the next 10 seconds  

Reminds me (off topic) I went to an engineering conference once, speaker was talking about ship impact on bridges, and of course Tasman Bridge came up - he claimed to know exactly what force and crunch distance etcetc - I asked a question challenging his accuracy - no change in his position - the fellow in front of me turned around and whispered that he was involved in the investigation into Tasman collapse - and the committee concluded that the only way to avoid the problem was a cone of bouys leading into a narrow navigation channel under the bridge - but each with a mine attached sufficient to sink the ship before it hit a pier  

Once off the track and completely lost, you might as well look around , lol...


> TITANIC TRIVIA  http://www2.sptimes.com/titanic/Titanic_trivia.html
> The giant ship with the enduring story is often just as fascinating in its tiny details. The following is a collection of some well-known, and some lesser-known, Titanic facts.
> 
> Cost to build the Titanic: USD $7.5-million (probably would cost USD $400 mill today
> ...



Gotta be at least two morals there  

http://www.keyflux.com/titanic/facts.htm Note: The Titanic was designed to hold 32 lifeboats, though only 20 were on board; White Star management was concerned that too many boats would sully the aesthetic beauty of the ship


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Reminds me (off topic) I went to an engineering conference once, speaker was talking about ship impact on bridges, and of course Tasman Bridge came up - he claimed to know exactly what force and crunch distance etcetc - I asked a question challenging his accuracy - no change in his position - the fellow in front of me turned around and whispered that he was involved in the investigation into Tasman collapse - and the committee concluded that the only way to avoid the problem was a cone of bouys leading into a narrow navigation channel under the bridge - but each with a mine attached sufficient to sink the ship before it hit a pier



Off topic but just for reference, the ship that hit the Tasman Bridge was a very long way from where it should have been. There's a navigation span at the centre of the bridge but it didn't hit a pier either side of that. It hit another pier quite some distance (about 200 metres I think) East of that. 

To this day the restored Tasman Bridge is closed to traffic when a ship big enough to cause damage if it hit goes under it. The only reason for the closure is "just in case" since it's not an opening bridge and, in theory at least, there's no "need" for the closure. Better safe than sorry a second time around but it certainly wasn't closed before the disaster, hence the lives lost. 

Like a lot of things it was a lesson learned the hard way - looks like we might be about to do that with global warming/cooling too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> To this day the restored Tasman Bridge is closed to traffic when a ship big enough to cause damage if it hit goes under it. The only reason for the closure is "just in case" since it's not an opening bridge and, in theory at least, there's no "need" for the closure. Better safe than sorry



I guess the beaurocrats would be really "in the ship" if anyone else ran off the end should another span come down. 
Hence the kneejerk reaction.  Typical huh.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 May 2007)

as well as the bureaucrats 
.. so  I failed spelling ok. 
especially this word - and gaurantee (guarantee?) 


> An official of a bureaucracy.
> An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.



Bureaucratist = n. An advocate for, or supporter of, bureaucracy.

Bureaucratese = a style of language, used esp. by bureaucrats, that is full of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords, abstractions, etc. 

example: "Soviet bureaucratese, especially the tongue-twisting acronyms and alien-sounding portmanteau words of the state security apparatus" (Strobe Talbott).


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2007)

FWIW



> from www.washingtontimes.com
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Article published Sep 12, 2007
> ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 October 2007)

> China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading CO2 emitter.



And all this pressure to sign Kyoto.



> FWIW
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


----------



## Whiskers (4 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> FWIW
> Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 ”” and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.






> Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records




When? Why?


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> When? Why?



A quick google search found this:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

Again, FWIW


----------



## Whiskers (5 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> A quick google search found this:
> 
> http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
> 
> Again, FWIW




Well,  that gives one a hell of a lot of confidence to believe anything at all about world temperatures.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

heard this fellow on PM Wednesday - bludy brilliant
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2050327.htm
(also available there as podcast if you hunt around)



> British scientific expert urges carbon-free economy
> PM - Wednesday, 3 October , 2007  18:22:00
> Reporter: Mark Colvin
> MARK COLVIN: Britain's Chief Scientific advisor, Sir David King, is back in Australia. He was last on this program two years ago.
> ...


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2007)

More skeptics. 

Doomsday Called Off Part 1

Doomsday Called Off Part 2

Doomsday Called Off Part 3

Doomsday Called Off Part 4

Doomsday Called Off Part 5


----------



## Whiskers (5 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> More skeptics.
> 
> Doomsday Called Off Part 1
> 
> ...




This seems to be more logical. Just a big coincidence that modern temperature records started at the bottom of the coldest cycle for a long time. 

If you factor in the NASA temperature corrections, then the Al Gore version has lost it's 'degree of urgency' factor to do something, and we are left with probably a largely natural warming phase from a long term cold base. 

Having said that, it seems the issue of environmental polution should be of less concern about CO2 and global warming and more for other toxic materials that contribute to the illhealth of humans as well as all species on earth. The two are obviously not necessairly related and particularly not proportional.

It does seem however that global temperature is more likely to warm and sea levels rise possibly over the next few hundred or thousand years as a natural phenomenem. 

So, from the global warming issue we now have this carbon trading scheme! Who are the main benifericies of this?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/12/2058573.htm

Gore and IPCC share Nobel Peace Prize  (from field of 181 candidates).

PS Does anyone remember a few months back, when Johnny Howard   accused Gore of acting for the cameras in some selfinterested pursuit of an Oscar etc (paraphrasing) 



> Gore 'deeply honoured' by Nobel prize
> Posted 2 hours 7 minutes ago
> Updated 2 hours 1 minute ago
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2007)

High farce IMO. Lost all respect for it now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/12/do1202.xml



> What has Al Gore done for world peace?
> 
> Damian Thompson
> Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 12/10/2007
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> High farce IMO. Lost all respect for it now.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/12/do1202.xml



Wayne
I have a lot more respect for 

a) Al Gore's opinion of global warming , and
b) the Nobel judges' opinion of his opinion in that direction also 

than I do for 
c) Mr Damian Thompson's opinion of Al Gore.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> I have a lot more respect for
> 
> a) Al Gore's opinion of global warming , and
> ...



That's your right. 

But Damian unquestionably has highlighted a few "Inconvenient Truths" of his own. Even the US court has canned "An Inconvenient Truth".

I'm exercising my right to censure Gore for sensationalism and dishonesty... and absolute GROSS hypocrisy. 

This particular Nobel peace prize is a fraud.


----------



## rederob (13 October 2007)

Anyone doing the research on global temerature changes, not just US temperature changes, will quickly discover why Gore got excited.
Wayne can can Gore as much as he likes, and cite NASA's revised data 'til the cows come home.
The recorded facts show that global temperatures have increased markedly in the past 100plus years, with the greatest rate of increase occuring in the most recent decades.
The thread title suggests we look at the notion of global cooling?
There's no evidence that global cooling has been occurring since standard recordings of temperature have been available: Save that over short periods of years there may be decreases.
Has man caused global warming?
Don't know.
Can man prevent global warming?
Don't know.
Is man contributing to global warming?
The weight of evidence suggests so.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

There's another matter.
They've been savvy enough to give this equally to two independent teams... 

Someone is gonna have to find fault with team #2 as well , i.e. with the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/briefcv_Pachauri_IPCC.pdf

No doubt they'll find the Gore and RK Pachauri had a cup of coffee together once - hence proving collusion. - and furthermore that coffee contributed to global warming. 

Here's are some jpeg extracts from a paper by a Martin Manning on IPCC's website - a Director of a working group - as presented to WMO congress 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/15_wmo_congress_pdf/manning_cg15.pdf


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

...
obviously I won;t post all those powerpoints presented in that paper.
I recommend a saunter through that presentation though. 
http://www.ipcc.ch/15_wmo_congress_pdf/manning_cg15.pdf


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

Wayne, before you give me a hard time about words like "unequivocal" - you'll see he defines 95% confidence limits etc -  95% confidence level is what engineers use to design bridges etc - albeit with a few extra factors thrown in.   

Moving on - here's George Pell's attitude... (the first from May 2006, then from a week ago, Oct 2007 - where he contradicts the late Pope for instance - as well as all other religious leaders. - see photo, I think he's been fishing again )  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/05/05/1631670.htm


> Pell angers Muslims, environmentalists
> Climate change, May 2006
> 
> Cardinal Pell's speech also described concerns about global warming as "hysteric and extreme".
> ...






> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2050357.htm
> *Religious leaders urge Govt to act on climate change *
> PM - Wednesday, 3 October , 2007  18:14:00
> Reporter: Simon Santow
> ...



For once I agree with Tony Abbott..  (at least in Pell's case - not in the case of all the other religious leaders)


> Representatives of the Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish faiths are among those who've signed on to a declaration calling for stronger and speedier action on the issue - (but not Mr Pell)



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/12/2057476.htm



> Cardinal Pell says *in the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.*



  LOL - Am I REALLY reading this !!  omg.


----------



## noirua (13 October 2007)

It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

noirua said:


> It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin.




thanks for putting my mind at ease noi, lol 
no doubt 95% confident?

PS you're gonna have to be a bit more specific about your definition of "next few years"  

PS I've already posted IPCC's opinion btw - here's an idea of the depth of their research..
http://www.ipcc.ch/


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (13 October 2007)

Fact is carbon dioxide can not be linked to the main cause of global warming. heaps of scientists from the IPCC dont actually think that carbon dioxide is the main culprit. Carbon dioxide plays a role but the % of total heat capture co2 can equate for is tiny. I still think we should be limiting our carbon output, fact is new technology will be renewable and create alot more jobs.

Go watch a doco called "the great global warming swindle". The earth has been much hotter and had alot more carbon in the atmosphere than it does today. 20-30 mill years ago it was above 3000 ppm. 

The much more likely causes for warming are 
1. the Sun; been the biggest factor to global weather how can anyone rule out solar activity on yearly, decade and hundred thousands year scales it has many cyclical variables.

2. natural cycles and feedback systems.

3. the earths mantle; example:look at yellowstone its geothermal hotspot has moved hundreds of kms in the last few thousand years. whats to say a hot spot may have moved from under land to under water where its heat would actually heat the ocean causing increaed gobal warming.

There are so many discrepancies with the co2 main cause arguement.
1. the fact that oceans are warming as much if not more than the atmosphere: the problem here is that water is much denser than air and there more of it. If you have a glass half full of water and air and heat the air +10 degrees it will take the water much longer to get to the +10 to be equal to the air temp. The co2 argument says the atmosphere is heating the oceans which is just not possible over the ten's of years time scale.

I could go on for ages but there is so much evidence from ice cores etc for millions of years that shows co2 levels trail temperature rises and therefore are more likely a product of increased temp than the cause.

heres a graph. 
1. solar radience vs temp also showing co2


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/13/2058675.htm


> *US stands firm on climate policy despite Gore's success*
> Posted 1 hour 28 minutes ago
> Updated 1 hour 27 minutes ago
> 
> ...




ok, there's no similarity between Al Gore (2007) and Mother Teresa (1979) - not sure there's much similarity between either of em and George Pell for that matter -

and sureAl Gore may have a big house - 
but in the global scheme of things - 
and from a global perspetive - 
getting the message across - 
he's doing a brilliant job. 

- even if his house is brilliantly lit (as some pedant wants to fault him on - probably with twice as many lights on as Gore) 
he's doing a brilliant job (imo)  

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/


> *2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.*
> 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
> 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
> 2004 - Wangari Maathai
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Fact is carbon dioxide can not be linked to the main cause of global warming. heaps of scientists from the IPCC dont actually think that carbon dioxide is the main culprit. ..
> 
> *I still think we should be limiting our carbon output*, fact is new technology will be renewable and create alot more jobs.
> 
> Go watch a doco called "the great global warming swindle"....



Kiwi
there's a thread on the great swindle (by Durkin , UK Channel 4 - very selective, and hopelessly biased) - here's what I posted after the ABC actually ripped that  show apart.  
He admitted that he amended NASA graphs etc etc  - seriously err   ...  unscientific! 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179638&highlight=durkin#post179638

Fact is, changes are happening at previously unheard of rates - and 

at the end of the day - I agree with you, viz  - 







> I still think we should be limiting our carbon output


----------



## rederob (13 October 2007)

noirua said:


> It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. *Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin*.



Any basis for this view?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2007)

Climate change advice from the IPCC is very much like road safety advice from Ford and nutrition advice from McDonalds. Lots of experts employed and they know what the truth is.

But in all of those cases there is a strong element of bias since in a worst case telling the truth could put the organisation completely out of business. Let's face it, the safest car is a bus and the best food doesn't come in a wrapper.

The only rational advice Ford and McDonalds could give in order to maximise consumer safety would be to avoid their products wherever possible. Travel by public transport and cook your own food. Obviously they're not going to say that or they'll be out of business. 

Same with the IPCC - they can't possibly say anything other than that climate change is a real and urgent threat otherwise they'll be out of business. No government is going to fund something that doesn't seem at least moderately serious or urgent.

Personally, I do think climate change is real although I don't believe that measurements are being done in a proper manner - the impact of direct heat addition to the atmosphere is surely quite substantial but seems to be completely ignored. Given that it is something that can be reversed, it's not in the same category of seriousness that "greenhouse" type warming is. Factor that in and I'd expect to find that climate change is real but it's not happening due to gas emissions as rapidly as some believe.

Another issue I have with the whole debate is that I have NEVER seen any climate campaigner acknowledge the depletion of oil and gas. Plenty of experts in both fields (though the public is largely ignorant of the latter) and both generally share a common concern that we can't continue to rely on fossil fuels. But those campaigning on the basis of climate change always seem to ignore the probabiltiy that oil-related CO2 emissions will never rise significantly from present levels and are set to permanently decline. Gas will rise for a while but then that too declines and in both cases by 2050 we've got emissions well below present levels and by 2100 at levels well below even the most drastic cuts proposed by the climate campaigners. Factor that in and climate change remains a serious issue, but not quite as drastic as some claim. 

We're more likely to see green men flying about on the backs of pigs than we are to see the growth in oil use that climate models assume as part of the basis for their dire preditions.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2007)

So what are those banging on about anthropomorphic GW actually doing about it?

Though I'm a bit skeptical, I'm actually doing far more than anyone I know, but for slightly different reasons. I agree cutting CO2 is a great idea, but my main concern is POLLUTION & CONSERVATION. Far more pressing concerns... to the point that in the context of the materialistic society we live in, people think we're broke. 

Much smaller house, car etc than we can afford, put a jumper on instead of heating (within reason), ride pushbikes for all local trips including grocery shopping, plus a host of other measures

If it is such a concern, why is everybody still buying SUVs, building enormous energy hungry houses etc.

NOBODY IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, INCLUDING AL GORE!

You have to lead by example, but the odd bohemian living a quiet life in a country town has no influence. The "names" have to do it so the sheeple will follow. When fat egotists like AG don't practice what they preach, nobody else will either.

If anthropomorphic GW is real, then STFU, join people like me & Mrs. and DO SOMETHING; and to hell with keeping up with the stupid Jones'. In fact even if it isn't, do it anyway for the other reasons I've stated.


----------



## Julia (13 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> So what are those banging on about anthropomorphic GW actually doing about it?
> 
> Though I'm a bit skeptical, I'm actually doing far more than anyone I know, but for slightly different reasons. I agree cutting CO2 is a great idea, but my main concern is POLLUTION & CONSERVATION. Far more pressing concerns... to the point that in the context of the materialistic society we live in, people think we're broke.
> 
> ...



Agree completely.
A couple I know who vehemently bang on about how we are destroying the planet have just spent the last five months flying all around the world.  Now that they are home they will resume their frequent flying all around Australia.
This is not for work - they are retired - they are choosing to do it.
Well, fine, but just don't tell everyone how concerned they are!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

well I just wish we all 
a) did more, and
b) did not deride Gore's efforts.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211855&highlight=gores#post211855

PS Wayne
I don't think STFU is appropriate attitude ( though I could care less about the swearing)
I think TTSU is better 
- turn the (Al Gore) speakers up 

After all - even Johnny Howard seems to be picking up on the beat 
only took him 10.5 years


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

Kiwi,
Here's part of that ABC review of Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" - showing it to be a swindle itself !!
  Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9


> This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle




There are other parts of course - but this one should be enough to show you how "scientific" this Durkins bloke is (and honest for that matter) 

ok next one is pretty relevant as well 
this one introduces the Australian panel . 
 Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9

Prof David Koroly (Uni of Melb) allegedly has links to IPCC
Prof Bob Carter (James Cook Uni) - probably doesn't


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Agree completely.
> A couple I know who vehemently bang on about how we are destroying the planet have just spent the last five months flying all around the world.  Now that they are home they will resume their frequent flying all around Australia.
> This is not for work - they are retired - they are choosing to do it.
> Well, fine, but just don't tell everyone how concerned they are!



I'll bring another big name (in the Australian context) environmentalist into it. Bob Brown.

Bob's entire strategy for Tasmania since the early 1980's has been based upon the notion of shutting down or not building any industry that doesn't involve bringing hundreds of thousands or, in his words, "millions" of tourists to the state each year by plane and then having them spend their days driving around looking at the scenery. 

That's it. That's Bob's solution. And it's totally unsustainable once either peak oil or carbon constraints hit. 

Bob's good at conservation of on-ground resources for sure. Full credit (I seriously do mean that) to him for his efforts. But he's done it at the expense of plundering what's underground and pumping the wastes into the air. Green  and good for conservation maybe but not in the slightest bit sustainable. If we're going to do something about the climate then we need to start looking beyond what makes a nice picture for the news or 60 Minutes.

As for the politics of it all, I would simply make the observation that the ongoing operation of Sydney (for example) would never meet the environmental constraints imposed on any project which comes to the attention of the Greens. And yet I hear no calls to demolish Sydney but do hear a constant stream of people living there jumping up and down about far less serious pollution elsewhere. Look in your own backyard first - fly over Sydney (or any other Australian capital city) and you won't see many solar hot water heaters. But you will see lots of oversized cars sitting in gridlocked traffic. 

Most seem more interested in putting their money into bigger homes which use more power, 4x4's, plasmas etc. They say they are concerned but when it comes to the crunch they don't care enough to put their money into emissions reduction and they put it into emissions growth instead. They're not taking it seriously by any means.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Bob's entire strategy for Tasmania since the early 1980's has been based upon the notion of shutting down or not building any industry that doesn't involve bringing hundreds of thousands or, in his words, "millions" of tourists to the state each year by plane and then having them spend their days driving around looking at the scenery.



Smurf - last time I went to Tas it was on the Spirit of Tas - ex Sydney - returned the same way - 

Sadly no longer available.  

playing Devil's advocate here .... 
but the ferry would perhaps have been sustainable if Bob's message sunk in a bit more 

btw, I've read enough of your posts and picked up on your valid points of criticism on this one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Smurf - last time I went to Tas it was on the Spirit of Tas - ex Sydney - returned the same way -
> 
> Sadly no longer available.
> 
> ...



I should point out that I don't hate Bob. Indeed he's certainly in the top half of my vote. Also he's undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I've talked to.

I simply mention him because he is the ultimate Australian environmental politician in terms of the success he's had. And he's done quite a bit of good in a lot of ways too. 

But I'll never agree that anything that involves using more oil on a permanent basis is a valid solution to any problem (other than perhaps as an alternative to using even larger amounts of coal / gas).

As a society, I think we really do need to start focusing on energy, and oil in particular, as the massive problem that it is and start doing something about it. I'm told by friends in Brisbane that it would be somewhat socially unacceptable there now to admit to standing in the shower for 20 minutes. I think we need to get to the same point with attitudes towards fuel if we're ever going to have even a hope of doing something about climate change.

Electricity has technological solutions. Sure, it's going to take a few decades to implement them but we know right now how to run a grid in this country without using fossil fuels. It's just a bit expensive now but that should come down. As the only conventional energy supply system that can be made clean, I've no doubt we'll be using far more electricity in 50 years than we do today.

But we've got no idea what we're going to do for transport fuels and that is one almighty problem that's increasingly urgent. Hence I just can't see the validity in promoting travel as the solution to any environmental problem even if the right intentions are there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> But we've got no idea what we're going to do for transport fuels and that is one almighty problem that's increasingly urgent.



well 
thousands of trucks leaving each and every capital city every night can't be wrong 
 instead of a handful of trains (or can they ?)

Gotta feeling out grandfathers were cleverer than us in this regard - and I say that DESPITE the fact that they managed to design a change of rail gauge at nearly every state border 

Ahh State and Federal politics  - some things never change.  

let's get rid of states - and have two tiers of govt - 
 feds for health, education etc
local for roads garbage collection recycling etc 

speaking of which - I heard an interesting comment on ABC tday ...
Recycling has come a long way but ...
We should all have our licences endorsed as organ donors.  ( only a small percantage have apparently) 

lol - they made the comment - so ??  when you die , they put you out on Tuesday night?  in a recycling bin??? 

EXACTLY !! says the interviewee


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well
> thousands of trucks leaving each and every capital city every night can't be wrong
> instead of a handful of trains (or can they ?)
> 
> ...



Agreed about the trains. Ships too. It always amazes me that there was a push to give us the minimum number of ports in the name of "efficiency" and then move everything by road. It would be far more efficient to have ports all over the place. 

Shipping goods from Melbourne to Sydney may well be slower and less _econimically_ efficient but it's massively more fuel efficient than trucks. The shift to trucks will have been economically stupid once fuel gets expensive or we're carbon constrained. Talk about short termism.

A classic example of transport stupidity is the "zinc works" (Nyrstar formerly Zinifex) plant in Hobart. Mine the ore at Rosebery and put it on a train. Unload the train and ship it straight to the plant (has its own wharf). Unload and process the ore. All makes sense so far...

Now put the refined zinc on trucks and move that to another wharf also in Hobart whilst the wharf at the plant is under utilised (they used to load the metal onto ships there). Then unload the trucks and put the zinc onto trains. Then send the train to the other end of the state. Then unload the train and put it on a ship.

I can't believe it's profitable but presumably it is. Even worse when you realise that the trains can't handle all of the zinc so they run trucks almost literally parallel to the trains headed north to take the remainder. I nominate this as the most ridiculous bulk transport arrangement anywhere in Australia. They even built special "Zinc-A-Skel" trucks to carry the load - basically a massively scaled up glazier's truck carrying zinc ingots instead of glass.

As for governments, well the feds sure stuffed up with ports and railways here in Tas. IMO the feds aren't fit to run, well, anything important if this one's any indication. Outright farce and now the state wants to fix it by stopping the trains running into Hobart and using even more trucks. 

End result is by 2010 we'll have gone from shipping and railing most goods to trucking very close to 100% not just of zinc, but everything else in and out of southern Tas as well. What progress for a city founded largely on the basis of its deepwater port. 

And the destination of the trucks? Well they'll all be going to a new rail hub just north of Hobart...

Needless to say I'm not confident in that we'll come up with solutions to real problems. Getting things on and off ships in Hobart wasn't exactly difficult to start with. It's only been done for a bit over 200 years...


----------



## So_Cynical (14 October 2007)

Arguing on the internet...

Global warming/cooling, 911 conspiracy's, Iraqi oil/WMDs

These threads are funny and disturbing....some of the stuff 
people come up with. :bonk:


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Wayne
> I don't think STFU is appropriate attitude



Nonsense.

There are those that talk the talk, and there are those who walk the walk.

STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example, or STFU.

It is entirely appropriate.

What are you doing?


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> 1. Nonsense.  There are those that talk the talk, and there are those who walk the walk.
> 2. STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example, or STFU.
> 
> 3. It is entirely appropriate.
> ...



Unfortunately mate I have to do some flying this week  
It's called making a living - I don't have the luxury of living on my trading.  Some of us actually have to DO things lol.

Video-conferencing
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=90699&highlight=interstate#post90699

I try to do these things by video conferencing - it has cost me jobs in the past - big clients can be very demanding.  They say "meeting next week, be there or be square".  I usually reply "surely video would be adequate?".  I have seriously had to fly to interstate meetings which were always going to be a waste of time ... ahh I'll skip the detail.  I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. 

But when three or four jobs require meetings, then I jump on a plane.  

Incidentally, UNTIL the fashion catches on - i.e. that video conferencing is more efficient for the planet - and that will only happen AFTER Al Gore's speakers are heard by more businessmen and others   ....

...then that plane I refer to that I will be catching will still fly - just that it will have one more empty seat - nothing I can do personally to stop a flight being booked.   (despite how much I might wish it otherwise). 

As for the contribution you make in rural WA - great every bit helps
but unless we blast Canberra with some public concern about main grid power generation and a heap of other inefficiencies - then I hate to tell you, but your efforts are pissing in the windpower.   

So I still say TFSA  (turn (the) flaming speakers up.

TFSA means that the message has gotta SINK IN - for everybody ! ESPECIALLY those in power - should listen  rather than pour cold water on his concerns - maybe even sign up on Kyoto next opportunity arises - instead of branding Al Gore and his message a political stunt-   without basis - we know what we're doing . etc (this was Canberra until 6 months ago).  

PS who knows, Johnny Howard might hopefully declare that Govt doesn't have to meet on Monday IN TIME for hundreds of pollies to avoid flying there.    I mean, he could have called the election last Friday and saved a heap of confusion and possible / probable unneccessary air travel .  


so in summary
1. I think Al Gore is talking the talk AND because his role in this is to educate ...
he is simultaneously walking the walk.

If you are going to fault him on the size of his house -
or the number or times he flies -

or misrepresenting the number of polar bears who have drowned, when this other reporter clearly knows that only 4 drowned - despite the massive reduction in ice - sheesh - what an idiot Al Gore is   the trend is for alarming decline in Arctic ice, end of story - (I think your reporter friend should STFU btw). 

2. "STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example" - ok that's not what it normally means lol - but no probs...

(i.e. I was just saying above that your reporter friend should stop preaching and lead by example ) 

3. What am I doing 
a) not enough
b) teleconferencing
c) driving a small car
d) living in a small fibro house, and
...
e) voting for someone who will listen to Al Gore 

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?

PS Also of course we should back Canberra when they get it right - and they are finally starting to think straight in a few directions.  Nuclear is necessary unless we are going to seriously address "demand management" .
Sure we can play with solar . I used to import solar powered novelties back in the early 80s) - but Aus is not going to get over the line with current demand and solar power are we -

some swap the syllables and call it ar-sol power by the way - methane etc - but let's not make jokes.  

Finally I remember a talk that drove the message home for me -  that the consequences of Global Warming are going to make Chernyobel look like a teddy bear's picnic. - thought for the day 

for those who have Al Gore's speakers turned down  :2 twocents


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

ps Why are air flights so damned cheap anyway 
there should be a massive tax on them - carbon tax, resources tax, pollution tax,  whatever you want to call it/them. 

As Smurf said somewhere, the end of fossil fuels is just around the corner folks. ( And the US military is using it up at a massive rate - etc.) 

When that happens (i.e. we all run out - except perhaps what is stockpiled in America or somewhere)  there are gonna be a lot of cheap aeroplanes up for sale (you'd think)


----------



## BIG BWACULL (14 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ps Why are air flights so damned cheap anyway
> there should be a massive tax on them - carbon tax, resources tax, pollution tax,  whatever you want to call it/them.
> 
> As Smurf said somewhere, the end of fossil fuels is just around the corner folks. ( And the US military is using it up at a massive rate - etc.)
> ...



Not if Richard Branson gets his way, as i posted in renewable energy news he plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year Should be interesting to watch and hope he pulls it off as there are a lot of sceptics out there.



> Regular readers of TreeHugger will be aware that aviation is becoming an increasingly hot topic in environmental circles. Readers will also be aware that Richard Branson, the owner of Virgin Atlantic, has been trying to position himself, and his company, as environmental leaders in the aviation industry. In particular, Virgin have been making big claims about developing biofuels that could one day replace kerosene in jet engines, something that many people claim can’t be done (see George Monbiot's attack on Virgin, and Virgin's response here). We first reported on Mr Branson’s claims here, when he announced he was looking at cellulosic ethanol for jet fuels, and that they might replace fossil fuels in the next 20 – 30 years. We later posted on this again with an update, when Mr Branson was not talking about ethanol anymore, but ‘a new kind of fuel’, which he claimed could be working in cars and trucks within a year, and airplanes within five years. In between then and now, the Virgin boss also announced that he would be ploughing all of his profits from his travel companies (he also own Virgin Trains in the UK) into renewable energy, claiming this would amount to $3bn in investment. It doesn't end there, however. According to a recent report on Sky News, Mr Branson is at it again. Apparently he now hopes to run a test flight of a Boeing 747-400 using biofuel by the end of next year, and the first passenger flights could be taking off within the next two years.



Rest of the article here

Heres an interview with him, quite interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16190265/


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

BB thanks mate - 


> Branson plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year



hope the plugs don't carbon up 
just have a sacrificial Virgin out on the wing to change em I guess. 
PS make that the injectors lol


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> so in summary
> 1. I think Al Gore is talking the talk AND because his role in this is to educate ...
> he is simultaneously walking the walk.



I'm sorry to have to laugh, but I'm LMFAO at that one.... walking the walk AHAHAHAHA.

That is worthy of any political spinmeister.



2020hindsight said:


> PS Question for you Wayne...
> Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?




Most absolutely not. Gore's agenda is different to anything you can imagine, but will leave you to ponder on that one.

It will result in massive taxation on the middle classes, with a clever sleight of hand that will ensure the "elite" will continue unaffected. 

True change will mean dismantling the entire banking system. Why? Because the way money is created relies on ever increasing debt and ever increasing economic growth. What we need right now is a few steps backward (with some concurrent steps forward in other areas).

The current banking/money system cannot survive that, and they won't go there.

"Real" change, I will support. Gores version is largely propaganda to a certain end. I will vote against Gores vision.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm sorry to have to laugh, but I'm LMFAO at that one.... walking the walk AHAHAHAHA.  That is worthy of any political spinmeister.
> 
> Most absolutely not. Gore's agenda is different to anything you can imagine, but will leave you to ponder on that one.



well I'm happy if I'm unintentionally funny, and made you laugh -   Not much else to laugh at on this topic 



> PS Question for you Wayne...
> Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?



btw, when I asked this, I was only referring to whether a pollie's attitude to doing something about man-made global warming would affect your vote. 

Speaking of which - you're allowed to say 
"I guess not", or 
"it's a difficult one" or 
"depends how you define etc etc"  

PS Maybe I should have said
Is either Al Gore's message or the IPCC's message going to figure in your voting choice.  ?

The message implied in the Nobel Peace Prize maybe?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

Wayne , from your reporter friend...



> 1. Gore predicts sea levels rising by up to 20ft in the near future. Not so, according to the judge: that will happen only after millions of years.
> 
> 2. Those low-lying Pacific atolls that Gore claims have been evacuated? No evidence. Polar bears who drowned swimming to look for ice? Again, no evidence: *four bears have drowned *- but because of a storm.
> 
> 3. None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.



1. straw man  (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)   
2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence.   since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears
3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).  

My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) ,  - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.  

I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff.  That's what this thread is about surely. 

And doing something about it - like electing people who care.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne , from your reporter friend...
> 1. straw man  (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)



The problem with tis argument is that we are never told whether, the land mass thas is Naru is stable, rising or falling. The problem I see with the rising levels at Naru, is that it is not observable anywhere else. The land could be sinking, but we don't know cause we are not told. This and other inconsistencies make me highly suspicious.


2020hindsight said:


> 2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence.   since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears



If you want 100% credibility, you better have "good" evidence and not selective spin. Just as if a witness lies in court over one matter, his whole testimony becomes suspect.



2020hindsight said:


> 3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).



I'm not one for ad hominem attacks... unless they are deserved. In this case they are and it is material to his point.



2020hindsight said:


> My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) ,  - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.



There are those who wish to play down  or ignore the problem, but there are numerous reasons that have been argued here why Gore/IPCC could be intentionally barking up the wrong tree. As I've stated before, I am firmly of the belief they are. 



2020hindsight said:


> I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff.  That's what this thread is about surely.



Not many deny GW, the argument is whether it is anthropomorphic or not.



2020hindsight said:


> And doing something about it - like electing people who care.



If you think ANY politician cares, you're dreaming. What they are interested in is votes. If being "green" means winning more votes than they lose, even Dubya would become a greenie.

The people who matter are US, you and me & Bobby McGee and the bloke down the road. The truth is, I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of people give a toss. The typical attitude is "I be dead anyway" (and this is something they say in front of their children!  )

I remain very skeptical on AGW, but am deeply concerned about those other things I've outlined previously, so I care enough to DO SOMETHING MYSELF and politicians be damned!! People will never follow politicians with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

(But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!
> 
> (But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )



no argument from me about doing something 
including drumming up public awareness ( which is where I started)

and we've gone full circle on the question of me claiming that STFU is wrong attitude.


----------



## long$$ (15 October 2007)

moola said:


> It's been shown that industrial air pollution is a factor in both global warming and global cooling. More particals in the air reduce the intensity of the sun, thus acting as a kind of shade cloth. This has only recently started to gain credibility since pan evaporation rates all accross the world have indicated that pan evaporation is dropping and the primary factor in pan evaporation is the intensity of the sun. Everyone is familiar with causes of global warming. There can be no doubt that humans make an impact on the climate, you can't just say that it's completly natural for these things to be happening. It's true though that the earth does have natual cycles of warming and cooling but not to the extent that wayneL is suggesting. Significant environmental changes like that leave lasting evidence, not to mention most cultures would have recorded anything like that (convienient that it was two cultures that have left nothing readable behind). If florida suddently melts or England freezes, then that's a truely significant and unusual even. In nature, changes like that occur over gradually over thousands of years (unless it's volcanic or a meteor).
> 
> Um, the Mayan's weren't around in the 14th century, and it's pretty well accepted by the people who have all the available facts that most of the Aztec cities were wiped out by disease after first contact with the spanish. For instance, the second bunch of Spanish dudes to sail down the Amazon couldn't believe that there were supposed to be all these huge cities along the banks, because by the time they got there most of them had been decimated by disease. The accounts of the first discoveries were assumed to be false for hundreds of years. But recent investigation around the areas were those cities were reported to be showed evidence of large scale agricultural civilization inhabiting those areas in about the same places as was originally reported by Spanish eye witnesses.
> 
> ...




A documentary on the subject of the effect of particles in the air reported that when air traffic was grounded after 9/11, rainfall increased. This was attributed to increased solar radiation in the absence of particles from aircraft causing increase in evaporation from standing water eg lakes & rivers etc, and hence more rainfall. The effect of particles when present was called "global dimming". This effect it was claimed does not cancel "global warming" as heat is still prevented from escaping the atmosphere by CO2 & other greenhouse gases.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!



I'd better stop reading this thread. Sitting here coming up with lots of ideas on how to make my new house more energy efficient. 

Then I realised just one problem. Not only haven't moved in yet but no power connected at the moment either. I guess you could say that makes it the ultimate in energy efficiency. 

So my short term intention is to make it MORE polluting not to destroy the earth, but because I do like the idea of having lights that work and being able to cook. No power would keep me off ASF too... 

Nothing structural to change but there's resisitive heating, peak rate hot water and not a single energy efficient light there at the moment. First power bill from that lot is sure to be a rather blunt reminder to get on with the energy efficiency real quick. 

Either that or "electric" Smurf will have to work out how to get the wood fire going... (Woodheaters, now there's something that causes lots of argument about the environment!).


----------



## noirua (7 October 2021)

I think this proves the North Pole is getting warmer and the South Pole is getting colder.  Therefore part of planet Earth is the subject of Global Warming and the other part is the subject of Global Cooling. It could be that Earth has been jolted off its axis by different Polar winds.  Soon the Polar winds will change plunging Australia into a new ice age.
South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record​




__





						South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## bellenuit (7 October 2021)

noirua said:


> It could be that Earth has been jolted off its axis by different Polar winds




Wouldn't that have been noticed?


----------



## rederob (7 October 2021)

bellenuit said:


> Wouldn't that have been noticed?



I doubt it!
When did you ever see Santa deliver his presents?
Last year Santa DM'd with news that global warming caused him to abandon his North Pole abode due to warehouse flooding.
His new home at the South Pole is absolutely cool, however, the relocation of his abundance of presents has caused a few wobbles of our planet's axis.

I admit to being very confused about this global warming hoax.  The temperature of my fridge has been the same for at least 30 years, and I don't have any trouble getting ice from the freezer.


----------

