Global warming??

it's not the amount of CHIT we pump out, it's what we take out of the planet that is causing the drama. . . . don't we run oil in our engines to cool them? Don't we run water in our engines to cool them? We need to find alternatives to these so that we can let the planet have it's cooling system be, or we will all just dissapear. . . .
Just my view.
A.J

Wetty- water is not really a concern because you cannot get rid of it. Yes you can polute it and it may be found in lesser quantities in some areas but essentially water cannot be exhausted.

The Earth will survive. It has survived several mass extinctions in the past. It may take thousands of years to recover, but it will recover. It's humans that I'm worried about. The world will become a gradually hotter, dirtier, smellier and uglier place.

For example, sea temperatures are rising which is damaging the barrier reef. Just that in itself is enough reason to be concerned.

We CAN change the way we do things. It is possible and it won't send us broke. It's the future direction and as any good businessman knows you have to prepare for the future.

Barnesy

and why wouldn't. . . .sorry shouldn't we be concerned for the bleeping plant????? It is where MOST of us live isn't it?

Absolutely, I feel it's been blown out of all proportion though and of course the almighty $ comes first even if it means our ruin.

I reckon that offence would have to be taken with this comment.

Scientists always have an agenda. They start with one every time they set up research or test a theory. A theory is a type of agenda.

The bigger agenda scientist have though is funding and recognition. Both are very strong pressures and often lead them to focus one way or another.

You will notice that most 'breakthroughs' be it in medicine or any other area are often related to a funding request or looking for someone to take up the project.

All of this of course is not to say that the pollution/resource problems don't exist. What they are, how they effect us, who are causing them, what we can do about it, are unfortunately very complex and sadly none of the science is any where near 'proven'... only likely.

This is what the scientists say.

Agreed. Wake up, read and be educated. There are opinions on all sides, but the tide is rapidly turning and the evidence is amounting and it is disturbing. The Andrew Bolts of the world are increasingly diminishing and looking very very stupid.

>I live outside a major city and I depend on the rain for my water,

Are you serious with that statement

Yeah, Yeah! ok, but mine does not go through all the treatment you city folks get.
But I see your point, I'm not quite as pedantict as some!

andy

Yep Sorry Andy, reading it a bit slower I see what you're getting at.

Hey Mad Dog, No worries.....been there, done that

andy

Sorry SunWizard. It's not that simple.

A politician used the 1,000 year quote last week. It was quickly knocked on the head as records [for oz] are only a couple of hundred years old and only for a few areas.

If you do read the science, then you would understand that global warming is a natural occurence and that the current worry is whether humans are adding to it.

Then the question is: What are the ramifications? At the moment, the fashion is to look at the negatives. Good outcomes may be just as likely. It's just not the focus at the moment, because it is seen as a 'bad' thing that humans may have a hand in it.

The 10 year records are too short to make a decision on. At the moment things are dry. But historically it's only a little bit drier than other dry periods, which are a regular thing in Oz.

If the next 10 years are wet, will we blame global warming?

Real science talks about 'indications', 'evidence pointing to or supporting'. Unfortunately, it will be 50 years before we can look back and really find out if it was all true, and if it is as bad as some say.

The problem with this type of thinking is that by the time we have rock solid proof that the climate is changing it will be too late.

I believe there is a problem and the indications are becoming clearer each day.
And its not just the weather ,but the diminishing fish stocks with northern fishing fleets now looking below the equator and the worlds forests being cleared at an astronomical rate.
Fresh water becoming a scarce commodity,dead pools in the ocean around polluted cities where no living things exist getting bigger.There were more than 30 at last count.

Maybe the next 10 years will be wet but what if it was in the form of the most devastating floods ever seen brought about by cyclones coming further south than ever before?

As for scientists hanging out for research money ,well they do have to eat.
Scientists are also the harshest critics of each others work.
Producing work that is highly regarded by their peers is often the highest accolade a scientist can achieve.
Not too many scientists are rolling in money uness they invent something that is highly marketable
Which is more than you can say about the faceless corporations who have a vested interest into pumping pollutants into our enviroment.

Ross, I agree with your second paragraph and would go on to say that even if it is arguable that global warming is caused by humans, all the environmental issues are major problems in their own right which need addressing anyway. But instead of getting on with the job, they're all arguing about global warming....

I dont see the scientists all argueing about global warming,99% are in agreeance that something is wrong and it must be addressed.
The other 1% work for industries that pollute and are employed to argue against other scientists ,the same way tobacco companies hired doctors to say smoking was harmless.

The big us oil companies spent $60 million on propaganda they knew was false to convince the US voters there was nothing wrong and the greenhouse effect was a scare tactic dreamt up by the crazy greenies.
Sadly ,many Americans still believe it is a conspiracy by enviromentalists.

Agreed, Ross.

I wasn't refering to the scientists, but the world community, as informed as they are by the media, politicians and 'vested interests'.

The problem is however that we could end up getting into just as much trouble panicking over theories that are quite likely to be true, but are none the less theories.

The panicking can lead to poor decisions.

I am sure that most people would agree that cutting emissions and reducing pollutants is essential, whether human effects on the Earth's temperature are there or not.

Again... the problem is that the "Global Warming" hysteria is just too easy to blame for everything. People, companies, pressure groups, politicians are using it to hit each other over the head with. Meanwhile day to day planning decisions are not always being put into place either to fix the problem or adapt to it, perhaps due in part to this gigantic argument.

Human greed doesn't allow us to do anything about it, get used to it, there will be token measures taken but if we really are frickin up the planet then it's a done deal. Hopefully there'll be a few humans left to carry on and populate the planet after it's all sorted. The rest of us good people will be having a good time in heaven.

Aint life grand

Mmmmm, pretty defeatist attitude Mad Dog. I'm a glass half full guy myself.

It won't be easy, but with the right leadership (not likely to be from politicians), I'm of the view that enough can be done to rescue or descendants from our past and present excesses.

In the late 1700s, a fellow by the name of Edmund Burke said ' All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing'.

While it might need a little adjusting to fit this debate, I'm sure you get the drift. If enough of us believe nothing can be done (so do nothing), then bleep will surely follow.

I'm a realist Norm, we are driven by greed.

What made me laugh last week when the pollies were talking about the drought i think it was beatty or some one up here in QLD (this is the worse drought in a thousand yrs) i did not know that white man was here in Oz that long ago to take records & i don't know if the Natives took or cared about records to this effect either.
Cheer's Bob.

hahha, 10 earth years = 1000 political years. That's why they get such good super

"My final rant. The risk of getting it wrong and trying to do something about global warming (even if it DOESN'T exists) is largely a financial cost. "

The financial cost to Australia of some measures might be a very big social cost due to unemployment, and the death of some towns. Having said that though.... there are heaps of inexpensive things to do. How about solar collectors on every north facing roof? Water tanks for every house? Kinda expensive, but with the economies of scale and savings not too bad...

"The risk of getting it wrong and doing nothing about global warming (if it DOES exist) is that we will destroy this planet for future generations. "

Unfortunately the stuff we have done already will be effecting future generations for a very long time. The things we CAN do will only slow down the human inputs to the system. WE can do a few things, but how will you make the rest of the world follow suit. Okay we have to try, but meanwhile get on with life. I don't think it will end all that soon.

"Which risk should we take??? " We have to do the best we can...don't we?

A strange thing has happened this afternoon. IT'S RAINING!

The water tanks have filled from nearly empty. The grass is growing.

Hallulua [spelling?]...... Global Warming is over.

Well.. it IS raining anyway.

Yep Royce

I measured 13mm this morning and all the water tanks are full(4000litres storage capacity).

It is 16 degrees at 9.15am(not warm...lol)

Cheers

And tonight we've got the fire burning and wife just went to bed with a hot water bottle.... hmmm while I'm sitting here.......

Sorry it was in the 19th century and he was a civil engineer.

nup, you're sounding very desperate with that one, sorry.

TIMELINE November 2076. Bob Brown former senator and leader of the Greens in the early part of this century had his statue unveiled in honour of his tireless warnings about the enviroment.
The Prime Minister ,who was there for the unveiling ceromonysaid in his speech ,that as young boy he had often used Browns words as an inspration and noted that Bob Brown was often ridiculed for his beliefs but time had proven him largley correct.
The ceremony was attended by descendants of Bob Brown.

Sorry again, a physician discovered that polluted water caused cholera. He did persist to make changes. It wasn't until the big stink in 1858 with rotting sewerege in the streets (the politicians didn't like that) that changes were made and that's where the civil engineer came into it.

It seems even then that only when politicians are directly affected that changes are made!

Mad Dog, I'm desperate? It's historical fact. You don't believe me? read an encyclopedia!

I wonder if the bloke who set up this web site has ever read anything. After all his t-shirt says that DDT gives life to everything. Are we supposed to take him seriously?

Very nice ross.

Hmmm Ross....dunno about the descendants of Bob Brown....maybe you should do some more research.......

lol, maybe Bob and partner will have a baby

Barnesy
I have been working on some updates to my web page.check out the 2 links but in particular when you get to the Impact page read the specs for Manicouagan and Lake Bosomtwe all in brown text , I'm sure you will find so info there your mind wind will blow a fuse

Impacts members.westnet.com.au/dtilley/impacts.htm

Warming Site Link

I can't understand your point Doug. You seem to have a fascination with volcanoes and meteorites. They are interesting topics but not really relevant to current global warming. Did you read my reply to the other site you suggested?

You tried to debunk it, but you must have only read half of the article. And misunderstood even that half. The second half confirmed every aspect global warming that some people still can't accept. Some of those people do actually set up web sites to argue against it.

The vast majority of scientists and laymen know that human activities are significantly contributing to greenhouse warming, above and beyond any natural occurences. Now lets get on with finding long term solutions to the problem.

Barnesy

Barnesy

I read your post top to bottom, Humans might be contributing to warming but I believe not in a way to make a lot of difference , As for your statement Volcanoes and Meteors do not contribute to warming is not correct and yes I am obsessed with the past history about them because it WILL happen again , maybe you didn't read the section in one of the links about the effects of volcanoes , Now I see where they reackon Greenland is cooling, To tell the truth Barnsey I'm quite happy with our planet , As for the future I see about this nice warm period that keeps us all alive is due to end and go into an ice age just a mere 15,000 years ahead .Barnsey don't worry so much mate, enjoy life while you got it, Man is too microscopic to make a difference, thats why I study Impacts, there is no way known any human could cause such an almight event as some of the impacts I have read about , when one can see a mark on earth from 4000 klm away all i can think is WOW.

QUOTES:
Taking all the evidence into account, it is clear there is local warming, but overall, the planet has cooled over the past twenty years. The claimed 'global warming' is not due to mankind but to volcanoes and other natural phenonoma. It is estimated that humans have contributed about two percent to some local warming and many scientists are now exposing the myths of global warming.

While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -- before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -- principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

I f you would like to have more talk about and sensible debate then email me
dtilley@westnet.com.au

now i gotta go and get some beer
Doug

I have done a self styled mod to that URL , use this one

members.westnet.com.au/dtilley/warming.htm

Disco,
You mentioned nuclear energy. Due to security concerns the costs involved in nuclear power are often hidden.

The current bills that nuclear countries have to store their waste runs into 10's of billions each. That's only the waste they have now! You expand the industry, and work out the cost of storing the waste for even just 100 years and the cost involved is ridiculous. But this is often not factored into cost predictions.

Without a doubt the most expensive electricity source in the history of mankind. Some complain about the cost of solar.

Barnesy

Barnesy,
Didn't mention anything about cost, didn't even enter the equation.
Just in case you missed the point of my posting I will re state it

There are too many people reproducing.
The population explosion globally is putting extreme pressure on the currently available resources. All countries are building more "dirty" power stations to meet the needs of the populace.

Unless the population growth is controlled it will rapidly outstrip the available power/energy supplies.

Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and Nuclear will then have to be considered as a matter of human survival.
I am well aware that none of these options are inexpensive to set up but must be considered, even if they do not appeal to everyone

Disco

PS I'm not totally in favour of nuclear but it must be included in the options.

I got your point Disco and it's true about the population. I thought i would expand on the debate regarding nuclear, that's all. I thought it was an interesting point that too often gets overlooked. It is true though. I wasn't saying any more than that.

Saw "An Inconvenient Truth".... one sided.

Probly the side I'm on ... but still one sided.

Royce,

I'm surprised that you thought it was 'one-sided'. I went in to see it with a mildy cynical point of view, circumspect would be good word, and actually watched for signs of bias, hype, political influence (Al Gore being who he is).

I saw none of the last two things. Bias was apparent, but only in so much as the data provided by the scientists. After all, bias is evident in every scientific endeavour. It has has to be. It's inherent in research. It's an intrinsic part of it. If you want to prove a point then the data you would produce will aim to prove that point. If you produced data that proved the opposite then there's no point in your endeavour. So naturally, there's bias.

For exactly that reason, I saw no evidence that said everything was OK on this Earth.

However, the figures that I did see were frightening. Even if only part of the prognosis comes true,,,,,,,,,we're in trouble.

Bilbo

HaHa..... LOL How's that for comparing apples with mars bars?

Yep, good one Royce. But in case anyone missed the point - man did not cause the global warming that occured on Mars and probably is doing very little for any warming that is occuring on Earth. Interstadial events ARE cyclic ! One medium size volcanoe can pus out more greenhouse gases in a day then man can do in a decade. Also, where do people thing the worlds large deposits of limestone come from? From the atmosphere, via some small animals. CO2 is like a fertiliser for these animals, as the CO2 content of the atmosphere goes up these animals florish and capture it in their skeletons so locking it up for a few billion years.

Scientific opinion is that we are at the start of a new ice-age... so in a couple of thousand years we'll know.

Just had a quick look at the Hudson institute mfewster. On the surface the types of articles they seem to be producing on climate change are geared towards the ultra conservative. The style of denial that argues it will too expensive to change and they welcome any reports that say it will be easy and cheap.

The board of directors are all Suits. With backgrounds in business takeovers and economics. I didn't see one reputable scientist amongst them. Who the hell are this Hudson institue anyway? I've never heard of them before. I assume they are respected in the US for drawing up public policies. But then I suppose with the president they have now getting his foot into everything, who knows what this institute has been told to write.

Barnesy

Barnsey, you can find some genuine scientists among them. Just remember all those genuine scientists who worked for the tobacco industry. The Hudson Institute has been around for a while -it was the "Thinktank" endorsed by Dan Quayle (now there is an oxymoron if ever there is one. They have lots of contacts with the Republican Party and get their $ from some of the biggest multinationals around. They do reports on all sorts of subjects, but global warming is their current speciality. Have a read of the book I cited for a fascinating account of how big business gets "scientists" to muddy the waters of public debates so that the public simply gets confused. A lot of the readers of this forum seem to blame pollies for all the angst and alarm raising. I think they are missing the real cuplrits. I suspect Andrew Bolt is a regular Hudson Institute subscriber.

I did read that site Doug. It seems to confirm global warming. "We should be heading for an ice age but wer'e not due to greenhouse warming; Levels of greenhouse gases are incredible; No doubt humans have changed the atmosphere; Humankind enthusiastic co2 belching; And the last paragraph, It's a grave concern as he sees a strong connection with greenhouse gases and climate in the past".

Quotes >We have already been in an interglacial for about 10,000 years, so we should - according to the pattern - be heading for an ice age. But we are not.

"The next ice age is not imminent," said Dr Wolff, "and greenhouse warming makes it even less likely - despite what The Day After Tomorrow says."

By understanding what greenhouse gases did to global temperature in the past, scientists might be able to predict the effect of humankind's enthusiastic CO2 belching.

"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible."

He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."

Doesn't leave much doubt in my mind.

It seems to confirm this Doug. I can't put the whole article in but it's from the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division.

"In summary, climate research since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report provides significantly stronger evidence for three of the main conclusions of that assessment. First, the surface of the Earth is warming globally. Second, the observed warming is beyond that expected for natural variability over the past 1000-2000 years and at a larger rate. Third, human-driven emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are the major cause of the observed surface warming since 1950".

This is what the CSIRO could prove beyond doubt. It is the gist of the vast majority of reputable scientific publications. The longer people fart arse around the harder it will to do something about it. The world will gradually become a dirtier, smellier, uglier and hotter place to live with.

Barnesy

Landy,
I use 100% biodiesel whenever I can. I am looking into producing my own. Yes I know production of the oil still uses crude oil etc but it's certainly better than dino diesel. Will be fitting a bypass oil filter so i use a lot less engine oil.

I reduce the amount of water i use at home. Cutting back on electricity use. I donate money every month to Greenpeace who have been warning about climate change for years. I am a volunteer grower for 'trees for life', growing seedlings for farmers and landholders to plant trees on their properties.

As soon as i can i will be using solar power for as much as possible. And reuse grey water.

All of that takes little effort and are things that everybody can do.

Barnesy

There is a dilemma here, isn't there. What is the individual prepared to do? I think most people are willing to do what they can but sometimes things like recycling depend on the local council supplying the facilities. When it comes to excrement, for instance, when I lived in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs, I had no choice in where it ends up. Alot of things require the government supplying the infrastucture or, atleast, the subsidies etc for others to do it. Bio-diesel doesn't exist where I live. Public transport - a joke.

Governments need to legislate on the issues that need addressing, but if that might lose them the next election then it wont happen.

Landy, you are correct, though, regarding what are we prepared to do. I don't see a shortage of people asking for seafood in restaurants which is where the commercial fishers sell their product. A reduction in demand for seafood worldwide would go along way towards saving the ocean's eco-systems.

Perhaps a step in the right direction, but still stops short of not using the vehicle for recreational purposes. I understand that people still need to get from point A to B. Hence just looking at non-essential use.

My point is that we all have that in our control, but how mnay are willing to see it through in the interests of doing something about global warming. After all bio-diesel or whatever, the vehicle still emits carbon dioxide........

I'm not suggesting I'll stop using my vehicle for recreation, heavens forbid it owes me 100 years of solid travel to pay for itself........it is just that a lot of ideas have merit, but many stop short of implementation once it affects them directly.

Food for thought...........

I can see where you're coming from Landy. But I think a more useful example would be the number of people driving to work every day in the CBD. Twice a day, every day in every developed city in the world 100's of millions of cars are driving through stop-start traffic. Encouraging those people to catch public transport would be better than stopping people from going on sunday or recreational drives.

Even then coal powered stations emit more co2 worldwide than all cars. So we need to look at alternatives there. China are currently building over 90 new coal power stations! They get their coal from Australia. To say we don't play much of a role in world co2 emissions is burying heads in the sand.

It gets back to what Bware said, governments won't do anything about it unless it becomes an election issue. This is starting to become an issue but there is a long way to go still. People need to be aware of these issues and demand that governments set up infrastructure. If they don't act, vote them out. Pollies won't act until it affects them directly, meaning lost votes.

Barnesy

And then there's the problem of jungle being cleared to grow Palms for palmoil biodiesel.... Why isn't everything simple?

I suppose if everything was simple Royce then everybody would agree. There wouldn't be any websites called "junkscience" to poke fun at where people wear t-shirts that write "DDT saves all life", and where is the fun in that?

Have heard about scientists in SA developing biodiesel grown from algae that can be farmed on waste salt ruined land. Wish that was around and on the market now.

Global warming will put an end to that in no time at all LOL

Freezing cold and wet down here in NW Tassie and report in the paper says its caused by Global Warming. Got me Knackered.
Duke