Adelaide expecting 46C tomorrow, Melbourne 42C, at least a week above 40C. Back to the good ole days of the 1960s and 70s when summers were warm, none of this mamby pamby cool 30C-35C summers that we've had for the past 20 years.

Here, here, good stuff - can we have some of that for summer 09 in the northern hemisphere?!
I'm all for it. We have not had a heatwave since summer 03 and that was a good 'un.

__________________
Dave

I've always thought global warming was a con, that aside the only thing I am missing right now whilst on the road is Melbourne's summer heat 46 is incredibly hot though I recall a 47 degree day I think it was '05 and Sharapova was in the open final or semi final, it was extremely uncomfortable with no aircon

Tipping point anyone?

__________________
Patrick passed Dec 2018. RIP Patrick!

Well I have to admit to being a global warming sceptic, mainly because historical records show that the climate has changed back and forth - not globally but by various parts of the world. You only have to look at the known climates in SE Asia when their civilisations were forging ahead - whilst Europe sat in the cold and fog after the end of the Roman Empire. Much the same for the Chinese Empire, Japan, S American, etc. all had their turn. A temperate and wet climate leads to easy food production, having an excess of food allows for the arts/sciences to flourish and civilisation takes a big step forward, as the climate changes again those civilisations wane and die out - Indian sub continent, Aztec/Inca, Indochina, Greco Roman.

If the global warming proponents would care to take a look at the evidence (not theories) about the position of the North & South Poles and their influence on climate then I would feel happier. Magnetic maps are available and can easily be referenced to weather patterns from writings, observations and plant/tree remains going back to about 4000BC.

The position of the North Pole was heading South until the 1980s - under Canada. It then started moving North North West in the direction of Central Siberia at about 10kms per year. In the late 80s it sped up to 40kms per year - causing the limp wrists to scream "global warming and its all your fault!!". The pollies were only to quick to see the opportunity to increase taxation, "we'll tax you to save you from yourselves".

It wont matter how much carbon tax you pay, the Earth's magnetic core will do whatever it wants, and at present it wants to warm the North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. No doubt the areas where people benefit from the changes to global weather patterns will be ignored - much as we have ignored them by migrating to more temperate climates when the going got tough in the past.

I certainly think cleaning up our act and respecting the environment is of the utmost importance but people have been making these claims of Armageddon for many years, since they thought the sky was falling but most of all is that it has such a heavy political agenda and none of the science shows that the world is warmer today than before, where I am from the hottest day on record was 100 years ago when there were hardly any cars and powerplants not to mention while the arctic shrunk the antarctic was growing plus the polar bears have just about doubled their numbers since the 70s but you never hear of these things because nobody publishes it, doom and gloom gets the highest ratings.

Another thing is that I never trust politicians who aren't scientists telling us we have to 'act now'.

Then of course there are the false predictions which nobody ever seems to be held accountable for yet these people make an awfully large amount of money from, if a doctor misdiagnosed like these people he/she would go to jail.

Hi Mollydog, you come across as being a very switched on individual. I have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is definitely happening. But I see also what very varied ideas and belief systems humans have. In this case it's more serious though than an entertaining bar room chat. Humans seem programmed to be optimistic to survive. People cherry pick evidence and quotes to fit their own present idea. That's just the way we are. I wonder why I have decided we have a big problem? I'm not the only one to have traveled. It's bloody cold here now but it still doesn't disuade me. Linzi.

We were taught to fear the coming ice-age when I was at primary school.

I don't entirely grasp how change is bad. Getting warmer (or colder) is good for some, bad for some, and makes no odds for some. On balance it doesn't make much odds.

__________________

This is the problem IMHO. The scientists act like a bunch of train spotters, they'll argue for years about the wheel nut size on a 4-2-4 Pacific class when the question was "does it burn coal". The polliticians can't see further than next week and will never bite the hand of the big corporations that feed them or the confused people who have to try and vote. The big corporations need to keep selling stuff no one needs or the system will destroy them too. The PR people and journalists haven't a clue and will cut out big chunks of information in order to get anywhere near something anyone but a scientist might THINK they understand at the end of a 90 second piece. The result is lots of ammunition for the people who really love their V8 lawn mower and think only having a V6 somehow diminishes their manhood.

To me it's as simple as this. There are too many people for too few resources, we are on a planet of a fixed size and breeding like crazy. If everyone in China and India owns a V8 pick up truck, a flat screen telly and enough air conditioning units to freeze the Gobi, the bits of the planet that fix the mess the US and Europe make now won't be able to cope. Like any mechanism in failure it'll overheat or over cool, or make noxious gasses or leak or whatever. We are talking about a failure on a planetary scale, it'll take hundreds of years, one hot summer or cold winter is just noise and proves nothing.

So, forget global warming, it's just a phrase like "knackered engine", it can mean all sorts in practical terms and in no way helps you find the solution. Forget buying your way out of it, Hybrid cars and energy efficient lightbulbs are just sales gimics unless your old ones were in actual need of replacement and the alternative uses even more resources. Forget carbon credits and green taxes, that's just a way of saying to someone "I'll pay you to stay poor" :confused1:

Basically, if we keep on the way things are, the whole world will look like Hull docks only without the sea breeze to shift the smell of fish. It won't be very nice. If more people are mean rather than green we'll slow the transition until we work out how to let everyone have the pick up/Tv/aircon or we convince people they don't need some of them, or find a comet we can mine, or we have a ****** great war and reduce the population to what the planet can handle without ending up as one huge trading estate.

If anyone can prove that the whole world's population can have a UK standard of living, constantly increasing, without changing the world I'd be interested to see the numbers.

Andy

Global warming...the biggest world threat since??
The last Ice age.
How many ice ages have we actually had?
What caused the previous ice ages to disappear? It certainly wasnt man.
Must have been a natural event,
Like moving closer to the Sun, in an elliptical pattern maybe?


A friend came up with a theory I like tho,
"The world is getting hotter because there is no longer all that soot and stuff in the air that used to filter the sun out"
Absolute genius, wish I had thought of that.

Gaz

I don't get this. The Earth goes round the sun every year in an elipse (thats the definition of a year). This motion is well understood, we've about 3000 years of data, the last five hundred in fine detail. We undestand the length of a year to the point of being able to add one second to 2008 so our atomic clocks once again agree with the earths position. How would we miss even a few thousand kilometers movement nearer or away from the sun that would cause a temperature change?

Might as well blame angry Sun Elves for making a second, invisible sun and start sacrificing chickens to please them until we understand it.

Andy

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

Paying people not to reproduce (or only have one child) would be the cheapest solution.

__________________

As an opener, I will happily agree that there is room for us to clean up our act, and that doing so would be a good thing, on many levels. I also believe the climate is changing. As to whether that change is caused wholly, partly or not at all by human action, I am very doubtful, for three reasons:

1/. Putting all eggs in the carbon reduction basket seems to be very high risk as this can only work if (a) carbon emissions are a major cause of warming; (b) stopping such emissions is likely to stop climate change; (c) anthropogenic emissions are significant given the level of natural carbon emmitted; (d) the proposed actions will end/reduce such emissions enough; and (e) the whole world is willing to buy in which is far from certain, or even likely. Taxation seems to be the politicians' panacea to reduce carbon emissions and save the world, which seems very convenient (for them).

2/. If there was a real threat pure self preservation would mean politicians would be looking at effective solutions. Such solutions might include strategies to reduce carbon emissions, but they would also include such matters as engineering solutions to greater risks of flooding, the development of crops better suited to a changed climate, and strategies for dealing with the social consequences of mass migration if parts of the world become uninhabitable. Obviously these (especially the last) are matters politicians don't like to address, because they may be unpopular and that ministerial car is very comfortable, but in the face of a real threat they would have to do something. There have only been very isolated examples of such planning that I have heard of.

3/. The models used by the supporters of warming cannot accurately predict climate change for known periods suggesting there are gaps in their logic which casts doubt on their predictions for the future. By comparrison, I read an article in late 2007 (print media, no link, sorry) that said that, due to a very low level of sun spot activity we could expect 2008 and possibly 2009 to be colder than trend. Apart from a hiccup when the IPCC "accidentally" repeated Russian data for September in October, this prediction has proved accurate. Apparently 2008 saw the lowest level of sun spot activity since 1912 (not sure how accurately they could count sun spots back then, so 2008 may be lower than that, and sun spots are not caused by human activity).

I am prepared to make some changes to my lifestyle to reduce the amount of pollution I generate, but I will fight back if it is suggested that I should impoverish myself and my children on an altar of what remains very speculative science, and for which the much vaunted "consensus" is a myth.

Further reading for those who are interested is at: Watts Up With That?

It is biased of course, but no more so than the pro warming sites.

Basically agree on the carbon emissions/proof thing, but, Carbon emissions are a general measure of industrial activity and also represent how fast we are moving to self sustaining energy. Carbon targets look better than having a target for reducing GDP in the developed world (which is flawed anyway as it would encourage living in caves not a gradual switch away from oil). It is a fact that the oil is going to run out and coal gas/synthetic oil etc. will result in a horrible mess. The carbon targets are at least making the Live In Cave brigade drop some objections to nuclear power, wind farms, tidal barages and so on.

What is really really lacking is whole life impact calculations. Scrapping a 2004 bike so you can have a 2009 with an extra catalytic convertor (like the manufacturers want you do) must be a waste. Likewise keeping your 1970 MZ 125 going like Arkwrights brush (four new heads, six new handles) can't be good. Where is the tipping point at which replacement uses less resources than repair?

Andy

Dose not matter 12/12/2012 11:11 am well all die anyway. The TV told me so. I got my tin hat you need to get one too.

But as far as WE did it I dont see any proof volcanoes and cows put out more organic carbon than people do. The earth heats up from time to time and then cools off. Mabe we will go in to ice age we are past dew for one. Read some place the sun is on cooling cycle so you never know.

Pollutants in clouds do play a grate role seems they deflect heat better than clean ones. So do plain contrails It was tested 9/12 till the plains started flying. NOVA | Dimming the Sun | The Contrail Effect | PBS

Will the global environment change? Yes it has and will.
Will the change be good for man? Probably not.
Can we fix it? Nope we will not even try.
Poluting is still a bad idea