Thanks for being passionate about the environment, we are all becoming more concious in this day and age but let me tell you why it cant happen.

Kyoto does not make business sense for Australia. It places un neccessary restrictions and strains the ability to develop as a nation at speed. the problem lies with witholding technology therefore for Australia to develop and keep pace being a niche economy, we must have the ability to make independant choices on our emmissions, as emissions are the result of our development and a developed lifestyle. Until new cleaner technologies become prevalent and available, as with the rest of the world we cannot do anything about it.

John Howard has alot more quality information, advice and people assisting him than most. He is not evil despite everything, and if was a sound option he would entertain it for the nation. I am not a liberal voter by the way.

Your heart is with this, i applaud you for that but our way of life is important and freedom for Australia to develop is just as important.

Not everyone would be as content as you with a degradated lifestyle, considering we have worked so hard to create a good one.

Remember, we are only talking 20 years time when petrol may be replaced with water emitting engines.

Realist, I agree nothing can be done, but the buck stops with Howard and the rest of the ruling elite.

Waiting for beneficial changes to come about in 20 years is like saying, after the bomb goes off, we will do something. We have the technology, the resources but not the will to change. We could reduce our reliance on imported oil down to almost zero without reducing our standard of living, again it just requires the will power.

There is not one politician that who will do that, because they know that they are only there to support big business and current economic approaches. If I, as a small business operator, can reduce our energy bills to just maintainance levels, grow our fuel and after 5 years have saving of more then $12000 a year to be put into lifestyle improvements, then why can't others. I sit here with all the mod cons, not connected to the grid nor a telephone landline and never worry about power or telstra bills. Next year when they will begin to add excise to biofuel products, we will still have fuel that costs less than 50c a litre to produce.

Change will not come about until our ecology collapses enough to bring our society to a stop. What most can't understand or want to hear, is that you can have an environment without and economy, but you can't have an economy without and environment. Its as simple as that, all the semantics and rhetoric in the world won't allow you to overcome nature and its retaliation.

If you lived where I live, then you would see how dramatic they changes are becoming now, not in 20 years. At the present rate of change, in 5 years, society will be struggling to survive the onslaught of nature ripping its cities apart with increasingly violent storms and collapsing ecosystems. Being a true realist, I see and accept this coming reality. Sorry about the pun, no offence meant.

Why do enviromentalists always want to penalise Australia for having a low population? The real impacts on the environment and on climate change are the total impacts. We should be congratulating ourselves (not criticising ourselves) for keeping our population low and therefore our impact on the world's environment low.

The United States may produce 27% less greenhouse gases per capita but they produce 12 times as much total greenhouse as we do. Well done Aussies. China may produce a quarter of the greenhouse per capita that Australia does, but they produce 17 times as much greenhouse gas as Australia does. Good work Aussies.

None of these countries have made any special sacrifices to have these lower per capita greenhouse emissions. China is burning all the coal it can dig up, in order to industrialise and improve its lifestyle as quickly as possible.

Total environmental impact is based on population times per capita impact. Australia has kept its population low and we have a low total impact on the world's environment. Lets keep our population low and our impacts low and we will be able to live sustainably.

Peter Singer as an ethicist? Surely we are now approaching a special time when "The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb". I stopped reading when I came across his name.

Is that the same Peter Singer who: advocates sterilisation in Third World countries; said "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed" and he went on to say that killing the disabled infant should be considered right; and in furthering his advocacy of infanticide he says the killing of healthy "newborn-infants especially if unwanted, are not yet full members of the moral community," and thus it is acceptable to kill them (Rethinking Life and Death). He offers a plan in which "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others".

Mr Singer has an odd view of humans and animals. He said: "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings" (Singer, "Heavy Petting").

Preterists at OLO can remember that just a few short weeks ago Team Left tried to whip us into a frenzy over the state-sanctioned execution of one person - a drug dealer, yet it is happy for Mr Singer to advocate a system whereby the state will dispense with unwanted infants if they are not claimed within 28 days. Why not have an auction like CityRail does for lost property.

Peter Singer as an ethicist? Why not Hitler or Pol Pot?

Sorry Sage, I will get back to the issue, if you don't mind. People are complacent and will only act at the 11th hour it seems. If we have the technology, it seems crazy to me not to use it. We have alternate sources of power now, hydro, solar, wind turbines to name a few. Our governments, yes government's' need to fund R&D into these industries to exploit these technologies, and transform them into viable solutions for the mass market. Why can't Australia lead, instead of follow for a change? We may find that we have a huge commercial advantage in doing so, with resulting employment, and a healthier economy both in terms of climate, and lifestyle. If industry are participating in greenhouse reduction in the USA, why is it unreasonable to suggest that Australia employ the same or better technology, especially having read the previous post concerning savings in power bills, and telephone charges. There are a great many people like myself who could benefit from a revolution in this technology, however at the moment it is just too expensive for the homeowner to purchase. Lets lead the world on sustainable energy, help the world out of poverty, and ourselves to an enhanced economy similtaneously.I believe business call it a win/win situation, strange for

Our little planet has been in a state of change forever and will be henceforth. Oil, hopefully, will run out in the near future and maybe a less polluting substitute will be found.
Wind, solar,tidal energy is all there waiting to be harnessed, it just takes a willing mind to do it.
The big problem is overpopulation. We have the means to prevent the various plagues, we have the means to prevent famine, not sure if we have the mind to prevent war which is so profitable. Maybe it is the only way we have of population cull.
Think of the hugeness of Australia, will a little bit of smoke make any difference in comparison with such a bulk? I think not.

Regarding increasing scientific proof that climate change may end human existence as we know it within the next 100 years? As Australia and adjoining South Sea islands could be the first to go under, why do we have to follow the US political line, when big continents like America could be among the last to suffer?

Are we still suffering from the old 19th century colonial complex that we are still not allowed to think for ourselves?

George C, WA - Bushbred

George C, I think you have hit the nail on the head again mate, I do enjoy your posts, Regards,Shaun.

The problem with the whole Kyoto story, is that Australia burns quite a bit of energy for others, such as alumimium smelting etc. So its
how the figures are calculated that is part of the problem.

So to comply with Kyoto we could simply move the large refineries
to China, sell them the bauxite and let their energy consumption figures rocket, whilst ours will look dramatically better.

Will it solve anything? Absolutaly not, it will simply keep those
screaming about Kyoto happy.

Perhaps we should start by ensuring that every woman on the planet has access to family planning etc, despite the Vatican.
80 million extra humans a year do not help solve the climate change problem and is totally unsustainable.

I'd suggest that readers go to this site about greenhouse before committing themselves to this dubious proposition.

http://www.john-daly.com/

Greenhouse is dubious at best and we should not become like lemmings going over a cliff because a few "egg-heads" have made frightening predictions. Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Clilmate scientists have pooh-poohed it.

The most significant observation here has been from Mickijo. If you want to “solve” the problem, attack the root of the cause not the consequences. Greenhouse gas emissions is a consequence the root cause is population growth.

gbyrneg50 makes valid observation to the credibility of the basic data.

Attempting to make projections and predictions of outcomes to the highly specific and fine variations promoted by so called scientists is as much a matter of spurious correlation and statistical skew as it is of anything approaching predictable accuracy (citing the multiple predictions of disaster from the oil and coal supplies being exhausted - such fatuous predictions being made regularly over the past 250 years and always proved wrong because they ignore "the natural inventiveness and ingenuity of individuals to develop solutions to problems and the capitalist economic system's ability to promote such solutions for the benefit of all").

Basically the models used are limited not only in the number of data collection points but by the quality and quantity of data as collected over time. That means no one knows if changes are the consequence of erratics, anomalies, real change or short cycles of change versus longer cycles.

Recovery – I would note the ability of the Earths natural processes to recover from manmade short-term problems seems very powerful. Forests grow back and once polluted rivers renew rapidly.

Oh and any idea that the “affluent West” is producing more than its fair share of greenhouse gases – wait ten years and see how that shifts to China and India with burgeoning manufacturing growth powered by “old-science” fossil fuels as energy intensive manufacturing shifts through the benefits of freetrade to those countries from “developed” countries.
Kyoto is not “the” ethical alternative to Australian government policy nor is it sustainable.
I doubt whether Kyoto, the science which underpins its imperative being based on lies and skewed supposition, is even an “ethical” pursuit and certainly destroying the means of wealth generation is not a “sustainable” proposal for even the simplest of national economies.

There is no such thing as greenhouse gas warming. It is a THERMODYNAMIC impossibility on this planet at this time in geological history. Humans cannot change the trajectory of biospheric cooling and natural oscillations within that trajectory. See fig 1-6: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
for details of this trajectory over the past 3 million years.

The real problems are:

* Overpopulation. Why do governments have to grow electorates to meet economic targets and build power bases at the expense of the sustainability and health of existing populations? Iemma and his undemocratic desal moves so he can squeeze 1 million more rioters into Sydney? Howard and his 110,000 per year immigration of skilled workers to displace Australians who can't upgrade their skills because of HECS fees?

* Air pollution is degrading quality of life. Greenhouse gases can't cause climate change, but they and toxic associates are so concentrated in urban areas that they pose serious chronic health effects. We are living longer since leaded petrol was phased out, but quality of life is still questionable.

* A replacement for oil. Howard gets full marks for Carbon sequestration. It will have to do till serious geothermal and space based solar technologies can develop and mature. Ultimately, we are citizens of the SOLAR system, not the Earth, and future energy must sooner or later recognise this. Coal is abundant and IS the only serious replacement for the forseeable future.

* Climate change caused by mismanagement of wastewaters. The thermal heat capacity of large pollution plumes and dead zones off large cities and farm areas will be balanced by low entropy heat from tropical areas and from heated deserts. The ensuing energy shifts to address these imbalances are the direct cause of climate changes. Atmospheric heat redistribution and greenhouse warming are less than 10% of the problem.
Until we can make significant progress in cleaning wastewaters before dumping them at sea, droughts, storms, freezes and melts will occur across the planet as different energy zones equilibrate by the second law of thermodynamics. Kyoto does not address the wastewater issue and thus can never solve climate change.

Isn't it great to see people still denying what every major government now has admitted publicly? Maybe the earth is flat after all?

The population growth is certainly a part of the problem but essentially it is greed and power that keeps the world using materials that are damaging the environment.

Oil, coal and the like have been wonderful servants of humans but the time has passed for such materials to be used, particularly when there is a massive demand for energy coupled with a dearth of available materials.

It is governments that still pay homage to those with the big money and the power ( pun intended ) that are preventing us moving quickly to alternate energy sources.

The science is there, the people who can do it are there but it is being crippled by one thing. Money. Someone will miss out on massive profits if current industries are given the flick. As usual it is money. What's new?

NEWSFLASH

Australia is not the centre of the universe. We are not the centre of the universe.

Kyoto is great, lets assume it is followed and Australia does not. Overall, to the total output of emmissions across the world, there may be 0.1% difference overall than if Australia had of signed Kyoto and we impacted our lifestlye.

Who cares, i am sure mother nature does not mind as she is being hit between the eyes anyway. the world will not tip over just because we exceed our insignificant targets.

6 billion people on earth, 4 billion living in poverty dont give a rats arse about the environment and we are worried about our 20 million waterdrop in the ocean exceeding our targets.

Go and eat some red meat guys i think your thinking is tainted. We are not important. To reduce to the ridiculous, think of us as Nimbin compared to the rest of Australia, if nimbin curved their car use, would it impact on Australias envoronment? No

Isn't it great to see people still toadying to every major government now hell bent on 4 and 5% economic and population growth rates for the benefit of their own power and a few global corporations. Kyoto is a convenient never ending crutch to stall genuine concerns about climate changes caused by wastewater mismanagement. I mean do people really believe in greenhouse gas warming when governments save trillions of dollars in waste management by dumping in coastal seas.

""The science is there, the people who can do it are there.?""

Scientists are paid by governments and corporations to feed the public what is best for Greenspanian economic growth patterns.

Solving COMPLEX biospheric systems without due regard to TOTAL energy inventories is typical of specialist scientists who are not trained in Applied Mathematics as a first tier subject. People do what they are trained for and if that means solving one dynamic within an exceedingly complex system like the biosphere then that is what they will do. This is a mistake. Scientists make mistakes like anyone.

As time goes on from here, the sheer unpredictability of imminent climate changes will all but rule out global warming as a cause. Global warming theory is very specific about the global homogeneity of it's effects and the gradual increase in its effects with time. For example the 2006 US hurricane season will be worse than 2005 and will all but squash greenhouse warming theories because the change is occurring too quickly.

And remember, the Earth was deemed FLAT in the dark ages because the leading power of the time, the Catholic Church wanted it that way to control the populace and keep it in its place.

The obvious, but for some emotionally unacceptable alternative is of course to go nuclear as the French have done. We have it, but for emotive reasons, resign ourselves to exporting uranium. What a waste!!

Another thing to consider is as the world respected economist Michael Porter has found in his tome "The Competitive Advantage of Nations" is that creating a tough environment, actually stimulates business. There are many examples such as the Italian tile industry to the Japanese micro white goods industry etc. The point? Australia should take a tough position on carbon emission and in so doing, promote SMART activities, and not the commodity producing smoke stack industies. Australia is simply continuing to undervalue itself with its soft approach.

Who here has their head in the sand?

gbyrneg50; Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Climate scientists have pooh-poohed it.

There is a link to these pages ‘Tasmanian sea levels’ – ‘still waiting for green house’ - John L Daly.

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm

John avoids any reference to say our modern base line station at Cape Grim or the old faithful such Greenwich. Today I reckon any measurement or data on the www not certified by say NATA is not worth a pinch of salt. Besides; any worthwhile measurement system must have a minimum of three known standards. So much emphasis on one old water mark at Port Arthur is not so valid in greenhouse calculations now.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/international/third-comm/chapter8.html

Col Rouge; “gbyrneg50 makes valid observation to the credibility of the basic data”. Hmmmm!!.

Col goes on to “Recovery – I would note the ability of the Earths natural processes to recover from manmade short-term problems seems very powerful. Forests grow back and once polluted rivers renew rapidly”. I almost agree with Col here as the old coast lines formed at a slightly higher sea level in recent geological times are well hidden in some places.

I spent a good part of my youth re discovering old coastlines around my part of Bass Strait. We are still at the mercy of the sea and many of our settlements are as fragile as the first line of sand dunes. Some of our questions must relate to the current rate of destruction of these modern margins.

People living on deltas and sand islands are at most risk from even the slightest change

Simon Divecha suggests that Australia’s climate change stance does not make sense. While the ticked-off conspiracy theorists have written that, nah, yeah, it does make sense because climate change is a sinister plot designed to penalize conspiracy theorists (in all their comic variety).

Yet there must be reason behind our stance, it cannot be utterly illogical. Our stance defies modern science, ethical consideration and the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, why? Why? Any thoughts?

Realist: What restrictions does Kyoto place on Australia? We are on track to meet our target of 108% increase above 1990 levels. Kyoto is nothing but a start.

Bushbred: Who says human existence will end in 100 years?

Yabby: The problem is getting all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts. General anti-pollution laws over the last 30 years in developed countries have had the side effect of providing competitive advantage to countries that do not have such laws. (China is currently suffering the adverse consequences of this burden). However Kyoto avoids such side effects by using mechanisms such as international emission trading.

gbyrneg50: Can you back up your astounding claim that “Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Clilmate scientists have pooh-poohed it.” Perhaps, give us the name of a paper published in 2005 in a peer reviewed climate journal that supports your amazing claim? For heavens sake though, don’t post any anti climate change conspiracy web sites; your claim was about scientists; what work of which scientists?

KAEP: Are now saying that there is climate change but that because it is changing so quickly global warming isn’t happening? What?

gbyrneg50, This John daly, is he a lib/lab lacky. Just for interest, I live near Port Arthur and spend a lot of time at sea. Our tide range is from 0,35 to 1.9m. Five years ago at king tides, the local wharf deck was 1m above the water line. Yesterday, not a king tide, the deck was 10cm above. Our beaches are disappearing. Over the last year or so, boats have had to be moved when we have rough weather as the tidal surges are getting bigger and in the next couple years we may lose our wharf.

Look at the recent ice core taken from the antarctic, that give co2 levels going back 650000 years. This showed that we have at least 27% more co2 in the atmosphere than at any time before. Add that to the thawing tundra and permafrost peatbogs throughout the nth hemisphere that are now releasing methane at alarming rates and you only need half a brain to see what is happening. Add the ice shelf that is slipping of iceland at an alraming rate, that is revealing ground that hasn't seen the sun for millions of years and we have a problem

Be as politically correct and stupidly blind as you like, in your illusionary city worlds, but reality is about to catch up with you. A friend on the E coast of the US tells me last night that they are building huge sands barriers around LA because the seas are rising and sending 4-6m wave onto the shores. They have no idea what will happen when the summer storm season hits.

"""KAEP: Are now saying that there is climate change but that because it is changing so quickly global warming isn’t happening? What?"""

I said that due to thermodynamic considerations, greenhouse gas warming is an impossibility on THIS planet at this period in Geologic history. The Muller diagram I presented shows the expected trajectory of Earth temperature and it's basic declination correlates strongy with internal Earth actinide depletion.

I also stated that wastewater mismanagement across the globe is creating thermodynamic imbalances off populated, farmed and mined coastal areas of the planet. And that the second law of thermodynamics
predicts rapid equalisation of these imbalances and this is responsible for ALL climate change manifestations. Atmospheric effects are purely secondary as the atmosphere does not have the heat capacity of the oceans.

Also, as the Earth cools, what happens to the crust? Yes it shrinks. And what happens as it shrinks? It emits heat and ENERGY which rapidly finds its way to ocean surfaces. And what happens after 100 years or so of this cooling? Yes, a mini ice age. And that is where we are headed yet again. So If you want to believe in global warming based on a few unrelated measures in an extremely inhomogeneous biosphere, go ahead. But nature is going to give you a big wake up call and very soon. Starting with another fun hurricane season unleashed upon Nth Australian mining towns and followed by a dreadful 2006 US hurricane season as tectonic heat increases hurricane frequency and high ENTROPY US wastewaters attract the LOW ENTROPY hurricane formations right into their biggest cities.

Now I can repeat this yet again but it is up to you to first comprehend it before commenting.

And remember, greenhouse warming depends on the notion of a homogeneous biosphere and a smooth transition in its effects. It clearly is not homogeneous and CC effects are NOT smooth or gradual. Further, increased tectonic heat can escape quite happily despite any CO2 or other gas increases precisely because the biosphere is NOT homogeneous. The second law of thermodynamics will and does, find a way.

Wharf man,

One of the effects of tectonic ocean surface heating is that more heat is being transferred to and held in the roaring forties by ocean and atmospheric circulations. This is part of the inhomogeneity in the biosphere of which I speak. Tassy is smack bang on the edge of this and consequently will experience some temporary fluctuations (O~100Yr), both up and down in tidal levels. This is not the end of your world.

""""Look at the recent ice core taken from the antarctic, that give co2 levels going back 650000 years. This showed that we have at least 27% more co2 in the atmosphere than at any time before.""""

It is worth noting that due to natural processes like compaction and due to strong inhomogeneity within the biosphere, CO2 ice core records of our era in a million years time will NOT show anything more that what we see in the muller diagram (fig 1-6)now, no matter how spruiked out we have become by myopic politicial pundits in scientific expert's clothing.

And keep count of those QUAKES. That might be more problematic. Tasmania is on the Pacific Ring.Its going to be a BUMPY ride!

" The problem is getting all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts"

Martin that simply isn't going to happen. As economies like India
and China are exempt from Kyoto, energy intense industries will simply be moved there, so Kyoto achieves absolutaly nothing.

The best thing that could happen is for oil to hit 100$ a barrel.
Then people will use it more sensibly and more sustainable energy
sources, which have a nett zero affect on c02 will evolve and be developed.
Not one magic cure, but many different potential energy sources.

I Totally agree with Yabby. We are just simply not going to get all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts. How on earth could we expect such a thing? Even if China improved its efficiencies (in per-capita usage of fossil fuels and hence emissions) at an extraordinary rate, it would still continue to rapidly increase its overall greenhouse gas emissions, because of the enormous growth rate in the number of users. Same with India. And with those two countries facing that sort of a scenario, the rest of the world needn’t bother tightening its belt.

It would take the most enormous global effort just to stop the growth in emissions, let alone lead to any sort of decline.

We are beaten on this one. Peak oil will hit us like a ton of bricks (actually many billions of tons of bricks). Humanity will adapt, but not without massive upheaval.

As far as the environment is concerned, and the long-term health of humanity; the quicker this happens, the better.

As far as climate change is concerned, the same applies. The quicker we exhaust this amazing fossil fuel resource, the better.

Unfortunately, any efforts to halt this momentum will only succeed in drawing it out and prolonging the pain. So as whacky as it may initially sound, I reckon the best thing we can do is to just go for broke – and consume as much as we can while we still can

Yabby,

I understand your skepticism. But as big as the task is to get developing countries to reduce their emissions, the obligation, the necessity, for them to do so is even greater and is growing.

You’re partially right about India, China and all the developing countries. They were not obligated by the initial round of emission reduction targets that the Kyoto Protocol set out in 1997. The developed countries, who have by far the greatest wealth and who by far have emitted the greatest amount of greenhouse gas (per capita and per volume) were to make a start, to lead the way. So that efficient mechanisms (eg. market mechanisms, cooperative partnerships), policies, understanding and technologies were available to enable developing countries address climate change along with the rest of their humanitarian and development needs.

Sadly, due to the concerted spoiling of certain interests, this start has barely been made, 8 years later. Sadder still is that lack of progress itself is being held up as a reason not to bother. And yet the adverse impacts of climate change continue to grow.

Under what conditions do you think Australia will loose either exports or any of its energy intensive industry? - I can’t see this happening, except if we continue to refuse to participate with the rest of the world, ie. Kyoto.

Taz – regardless of the “environmental sciences” by their very nature, people should not live in river deltas or sand islands. New Orleans has proved it several times. As King Canute discovered, the action of the tides and waves care little for the actions of man.

Yabby - transfer of manufacturing capacity to China and India is happening and you are correct, such transfer will facilitate apparent compliance by “developed” nations from ridding themselves of their high-energy manufacturing bases.
Thus, your assertion regarding the effectiveness of Kyoto is also correct.

The real issue with Kyoto is the completely artificial and politically contrived carbon credits exchange system put up to tax developed country consumers (the ultimate funding source of all government largesse) and hoodwink us into subsidising competitors in underdeveloped countries for our own domestic market needs.

Carbon Credits is a myth. The Sydney Stock Exchange might have a futures market for them but every market (including futures) relies on one thing - the ability to effect exchange – now since the method of counting carbon emissions is flawed and inaccurate, whatever follows is flawed and inaccurate. Inaccuracy (and Carbon Accounting is as scientific and accurate as the magic of Merlin or the alchemists “science” for making gold), is no basis for exchange when dealing in any service or commodity.

I recall other artificial market devises used in the EEC produced, as well as butter mountains, olive oil lakes. These lakes were successfully harvested by the Italian mafia in one of the EEC’s biggest scams.

Carbon credit, the instrument of delivery and supposed practical implementation of Kyoto, will end up a SCAM, only world wide instead of just European. That is not only a possibility – it is an absolute certainty and the ones who will be “scammed” – you and me through artificially increased commodity, product and utility prices.

Noting the United Nations involvement in This whole scheme is no reassurance. If you thought Iraqs Oil for Food program was an absolute cesspool of UN corruption, then think how bad Carbon Credit trading is going to end up.

In a climate of adversity we should remain hopeful; in fact we have a few things going for us, like a decent democracy, these forums on the internet and a long history of enterprise. For some time I have been considering how we can be positive around these new issues of living in a more complex world as the human population explodes.

Col; millions of people do live and depend on their deltas and sand islands. Perhaps you can prepare your castle on that rock where you live and extend your hospitality to some of them soon. Perhaps a few people in Canberra can leave their back doors open too in the traditional Aussie outback way.

Ludwig: Yabby; “The quicker we exhaust this amazing fossil fuel resource, the better” is the same kind of argument my partner uses and I guess likewise many others around us.

She on leave from the day job works in support of the whole concrete industry in our region. Where would we be without our concrete? I know she is very concerned about the disappearing species world wide when I try to hide those pleading letters from all the wildlife funds in our mailbox.

But we are all conservationists if pricked deep enough, however I believe the answers lie in improving our technology not in the final round up of lost causes. Concrete secures the base of mud brick houses for a time.

This forum is microcosm of what happens in higher places and is in itself a good sign. But please be practical in your expectations.

Well my prediction is that the so called "tragedy of the commons" will apply in the end.

Humanity has shown that we cannot even stabilise world population at 6 billion and now accept 10 billion as a given. Religious nuts carry a large responsiblity for that.

I kind of feel sorry for other species. Here is this creature with a slightly larger brain then other species, intelligent enough to invent all sorts of new interesting things, too stupid to use them wisely to create sustainability on the one planet that we have. I'm fairly convinced that we'll fairly wreck it and then mother nature will just have to sort it out the hard and painfull way. All very sad really.

Taz, you wrote: “But please be practical in your expectations”.

Yes. And this means realising when things are unachievable. So let’s not waste energy on impracticalities such as reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions and population. These things are beyond our grasp.

No one wants to hear this. Indeed, it has taken me years of soul-searching to come to this ugly conclusion. I was in denial mode for a long time. “It just cannot be so”, I kept telling myself. “There must be answers”. Only now, for the first time, am I able to come out and say it.

I am a past president of the North Queensland Conservation Council and Sustainable Population Australia - North Queensland branch (for 12 years). I have put many years into fighting the good fight over continuous population growth, resource consumption and sustainability. So it is a bitter pill indeed.

Preparation for life after cheap liquid fossil fuels is not impractical, and is of the highest priority. Preparation in the slightly longer term for climate change is also eminently practical. Similarly, prep for an inevitable pandemic. Let’s concentrate on these things.

Ericc (29/12), I don’t think we should be in any way congratulating ourselves in Australia for “having a low population”.

Our population is a product of our resource base, first and foremost soils and rainfall. Our small total, compared to the USA which has a similar land area, simply reflects the enormous difference between geologically old and arid Australia and recently glaciated and uplifted wet North America. Our relatively small population certainly isn’t a product of government policy. We have been boosting it with reckless abandon since WWII and indeed since 1788.

Yes we have a very high per-capita greenhouse gas production rate. We ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it. But of course reducing this as far as we reasonably can would be nothing short of meaningless in terms of total global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Neither would there be any point setting a good example, which the US and other countries may in part emulate, because China and India won’t pay any credence to it and they are the countries that really matter in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Even with the best example we could hope to set, our average per-capita consumption/emission would still be much higher than that of China and India.

However, we should do our utmost to reduce fossil fuel consumption and hence emissions, in preparation for peak oil, for the good of Australian society and environment. Implementing alternative sources of energy will only go so far. We will have to quite severely reduce average per-person consumption rates as well if we to get through peak oil with an intact society.

We should forget what the rest of the world is doing about climate change and concentrate on changing our approach, environmentally and economically. If this country prepared now for change, no matter what the rest did, in the end we would capture the world market with our innovatinve and environmentally sustainable economy and products

Currently growth is determined by the amount of stuff you can sell. Whilst it should be about growing our ability to improve our lifestyles and maintain our society in a sustainable way.

Forget giving the rest of the world an example, we should be preparing to survive the climate and fossil fuel collapse by implementing alternative fuel concepts now and get our growth from that future. It would create a huge amount of jobs around the country, revitalise farming in a sustainable way and give our society a security that the rest of the world won't have.

That's what matters, not the world, nor economic rationalism. Supply and demand should be according to our ability to sustain, rather than produce more of the same useless rubbish.

The alchemist; how can we forget the rest of the world? We just had Christmas made in China.

Taz,
The Alchemist I believe has a good point if you re-read the post concerning innovation economy.
We have been told for decades that we must learn how to work smarter, we cannot yet compete with China's "a bowl of rice a day" pay structure, YET, so it stands to reason we must reduce our overheads in order to compete.
That said, why can't we continue to sell coal to China [because we won't stop doing that] and similtaneously use new innovative technologies, which are less costly, to produce our own power e.g hydro, solar, thus reducing our overall cost of production and giving us a firmer footing on which to compete.
This may mean that sometime in the future China will be having Christmas, made in Australia, what say you....

Shonga: We must go back to our roots to have an impact in the global market. For several decades I worked in support those at the forefront of our technology. In practical terms it mostly meant measurements and engineering for resource development, something recent social trends have failed to support.

Most folk here today can’t make their own wheels or chop sticks!

In my last comment on another article on fuel alternatives to oil I mentioned this review;

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/598.html

Considering I worked in many of the facilities covered in this extensive review and had a keen interest in energy including hydro in all its forms, lets say I find it most significant that the minders of this heritage are also calling for an urgent re education of our young.

In other comments on regional government policy I question our sustainability rhetoric, building for the future should not include using someone else’s energy or resources. We run with a substantial NIMBY factor and that is a big handicap in these exciting times.

The Chinese may think they are a tad smarter than us when they reckon their youth can learn all we know in a year or so at our universities but I know our forbears did much more over time with their wits and bare hands. This makes me a cultural snob.

One of my mentors came from Sydney, he and his brothers made grass soup outback during the last depression

Pacific Islands and the global warming Bogeyman.

The Sea Surface Height Anomaly map for the Pacific Islands for 4-Jan-2006

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006004spsha.png

shows sea height mini basins up to 30 cms above and 15 cms below actual sea level.

There are a number of thermodynamic reasons for these discrepancies. They are NOT anything to do with putative rising sea levels.

The reasons are:

1. Natural redistribution of heat within the region based on depth variation.
2. Increased pollution plumes from burgeoning island populations causing zonal thermodynamic instabilities with resultant High/Low pressure system developments.

Either way you slice and dice it, increased sea levels that threaten Pacific islands are very much a product of their own poor wastewater management strategies. Like Australia and every other global nation these islands must learn that if you want the luxury of having mass populations at the ocean's edge, you have an obligation not only to the environment but also to yourself to manage wastewaters in a cleaner, more efficient manner.

The above SHA map and its companion SST (Sea Surface Temperature) map

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006004spsst.png

are also indicating thermodynamic instability edges forming, that will inevitably give rise to future cyclonic activity between 150E, 12S and just North of Darwin. The cyclonic activity path or track is indicated by growing areas where warm water mass is abutted by cooler water edges. These particular regions, based on a study of recent hurricane activity in the US, allow cyclones to exchange thermodynamic energy between hot and colder zones while maintaining a warm water presence to optimise their energy absorbtion and growth.

There is no such thing as global warming on a planet whose insolation and geothermal energy inputs continually pump it away from any kind of thermal equilibrium as represented by global warming theory.

Climate changes are real, severe and threatening and are principally caused by large scale human wastewater mismanagement and its thermodynamic equalisation consequences.

Heat could kill delicate coral

RECORD temperatures last year could kill up to 40 per cent of Australia's coral
"Bleaching events usually occur about four to six weeks after the high temperature anomalies begin," he said.
"This year we are worried because we have higher [temperature] anomalies, which may result in greater damage."
The university's researchers have designed a protection system that involves placing huge sun shades over the coral in summer.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/heat-could-kill-delicate-coral/2006/01/07/1136609986742.html

Comment:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005062spsha.png
This Sea Height Anomaly map for March 3 2005 (Cyclone Ingrid) shows that (blue plumes) pollution from the Gulf of Papua and from Port Moresby are impacting Australia's Great Barrier Reef much more than temperature anomalies.

This map is and excellent example of what pollution plumes look like. It is a shame that the GOM circulations are too complex to show up this kind of simplistic pollution representation to solve the US hurricane conundrum.

The corresponding SST map, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005062spsha.png
shows the surface temperature anomalies mentioned in the article. However these are diurnal in nature and probably do not have the anticipated consequences for coral that the article implies. If the sunshades that researchers are proposing fail to work, then this point will be affirmed.

As well as these anomalies casting doubt on greenhouse warming, Japan's snowstorms are tearing it to shreds:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/56-killed-as-record-snowfalls-bury-japan/2006/01/07/1136609984025.html

If you want to solve climate change issues then you must focus on strategies to clean human wastewaters entering coastal seas.

Sorry KAEP: Somebody has to say it; your dirty water argument is so much bunkum in this context.

It seems KAEP has ignored comments like my early observations around Bass Strait based on ancient inland shores sometimes way beyond the present dunes (Who here has their head in the sand?).

What really matters is thermal conditions at the poles where most of the ice is retained under normal long term balances. Melt those ice caps and many living things will suffer in the interim.

However you dirty water can turn the sea from blue to green in more than a few places along the way. Chin up hey

Come on Taz,

How do you explain the Japanese' record snow falls while you wish for the poles to melt? How can the poles melt when heat from all over the planet gets trapped in the roaring forties and finds numerous escape routes into space despite any CO2 level changes? And how do you explain the increase in earthquakes around the planet and that next one which is due any minute now?

And, did you even look at the Sea Height Anomaly maps? You know, the ones that show natural variations in anomalous tides of up to 45 cms without any increase in sea level whatsoever.

And last but not least, how do you explain your mommy-told-me-so assertions when you have presented zero evidence?

Careful, Dirty water's gonna get you.

Since KAEP insists on us understanding NOAA climate data lets see the most recent Mean Temp Anomaly for the US for 30 days ending Jan 05 2006.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

These maps in themselves prove little. If Japan is covered in snow, somewhere else is probably suffering in a heat wave.

Getting the measurements and interpretations right is one thing, getting appropriate reaction is another. In predicting bushfires we only need to look at our short history in records. Long term I maintain it depends on looking more at the ice caps than the oceans.

I wonder what others here think about this issue

Greenhouse gases causing climate changes like cyclones?

Cyclone Clare track uncovered in old data.

Subtracting the SHA maps for West Australia for 6 and 7 of January 2006 yields a unique linear path from Sualwesi, Indonesia to Dampier WA.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006006ausha.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006007ausha.png

This differential track includes the precise track of Cyclone Clare with a 2-3 day predictive window. The meaning of this derived differential map is that Sea Height Anomalies have suddenly collapsed along a contiguous oceanic path in the Indian ocean and Indonesian archipelago. The reasons for this are not obvious but it is easy to understand that such a sudden mass movement of water from a height of 30cm to minus 20cm could trigger atmospheric disturbances equal to an incipient Cyclonic system.

The fact that the track extends back to Sulawesi where recent earthquakes have occurred is interesting. Further analysis of this situation is in progress. Additional analysis of possible tectonic events in the Caribbean are also pending. It would be useful to know if some cyclonic systems do have a trigger mechanism in localised tectonic events.

The same SHA differential collapse has been observed some days before US hurricanes. The circulation topography of the GOM is however rather complex and when these disturbances initiate there is evidence that up to three subsequent, consecutive and distinct hurricanes may result.

Whoa KAEP: How did we progress from analyzing NOAA sea surface data associated with cyclone Clare to considering tectonic movements?

Quote: ”It would be useful to know if some cyclonic systems do have a trigger mechanism in localised tectonic events”.

KAEP; I have long been interested in vortices as great sources of differentials both large and small, including studying controlled and natural heat engines.

Let’s not get carried away here.

Taz,

Look at the ausha6&7 maps superimposed over a light box. That is equal to a differential map of sorts. Those who do not look can not see!

Kaep, I have been interested in what you have said and agree that waste waters are having an effect on climate. However maybe you should get out of the box you live in and have a look at the real world.

To deny global warming is to deny you are alive, Of course we will see localised differences, snow, here and heat there. Where I live, we had our hottest year on record, we also had our wettest, and we had snowfalls down to sea level for days on end. Before the snow it was warm, after the snow it was warm. We are in the middle of our summer, yet we have a fire and last winter we had fires some days and all the windows open the next.

If you take any body of water, it will be influenced by all local events. The graphs you link to don't show anything that you espouse, other than what your mind wishes them to.

As Taz says, it is the ice caps and glacial covers that show what is happening. Around the world, they are in rapid decline. The largest, Iceland is melting at unprecedented rates exposing soil that hasn't seen the light of day for millions of years. This is happening because the ice cap is slipping of the land, as melting ice seeps down under it and allows it to slide. When it does, you will see massive and rapid sea level rise That evidence is very hard to refute.

Let's see now.

You can turn lead into gold, alchemist, you say the SHA maps do not show what I say, which means you DIDN'T look and you politely try to prove global warming exists without any proof at all. Nice trick for a shill.

Have I got everything?

You have no idea about:
the inhomogeneity of the biosphere which makes it leaky,

the fact that you can't keep heat in a LEAKY greenhouse,

the fact that thermodynamic laws make greenhouse warming impossible at this time in geologic history

the fact that climate changes will continue to ACCELERATE after can't-think-for-themselves greenies have shut down every last trace of combustion on the planet

and the fact that if air emisiions are to be curbed it must be on the basis of their dreadful toxic components and not harmless gases like CO2.

The fact is that the waste heat and chemical disorder or entropy that we dump in coastal seas cannot be destroyed. Energy can not be created or destroyed. It can only be equalised with its ambient surroundings. The half life for violent climate changes performing this energy equalisation is many times shorter than weak diffusional equalisations which you THINK are instantaneous. All you have to do is look at the SHA maps at river mouths to see persistent plumes that are not diffusing fast enough to avoid being annulled by voracious low entropy formations. In most cases these plumes are not diffusing at all.

And remember the second law of thermodynamics states that order moves to disorder, hot moves to cold, either within a closed system or across adjacent connected systems. The latter variation is responsible for climate change. Since 90% of our waste heat is put into coastal seas where it hangs around as stagnant plumes, 90% of climate changes will take place between those plumes and tropical oceans or deserts where diurnal heat can build up.

Now the fact you can not work this through for youself does not mean it is wrong. You just need to learn some basic physics.

Don't be lazy!

Kaep; we had another good post by The alchemist on climate change, a modest assessment of the facts as we know them. In all of this I am conservative; I don’t want to find any thing too big to contemplate, however things are in motion all over and it isn’t due to energy made by man.

In considering global maps and data measurements we need some basic tools. With any change the magnitude is important; we start with finding what proportion. But so is the rate of change over time and we must integrate too.

In my last post I referred to the vortex. What drives the atmosphere into powerful cyclones is mostly heat on the surface of this place and I reckon our liquid effluent has little to do with it, likewise the additional heat in all the flues can be ignored but it matters what’s in that blanket of air above. However energy transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere is critical in driving all our weather.

Keap we should concentrate of how rough the transition will be in the wind up to new sea levels. A study of normal cyclone formation will be very worthwhile meantime. Add a few ocean currents and we may all get the picture.

This is where I changed my post -

Sorry but my physics may be a bit rusty, but one thing I am certain off, your use of theory makes little sense in engineering as I knew it. I am convinced only when I see reinforced opinion.

Be assured too; Celtic folk who settled in southern oceans have great powers of personal observation. That our tradition. What’s yours hey?

As I said we don’t get carried away with half baked science