Well, button down the hatches and move away from the coast, we are doomed now Australia did not sign Kyoto, as our insignificant portion is going to tip the scales to disaster for the world.

Why sign something that restricts you, when you are not the main culprit of emmissions? Kyoto has achieved its intended, it has committed countries that were impactual (due to estimated increases in emissions etc), which is a positive step.

We are an insignificant small country that wants to continue to grow, albeit at our own pace, with our own small insignificant population. We are not a third world country, their is a natural level of environmental consciousness in our country, and positive steps taken by our people. therefore it would not be an intelligent decision for the country, only to sedate the bleeding hearts who think we are the center of the universe, the most important country on earth.

Get off the governments back for making a logical, intelligent decision.

When global warming occurs, and we feel the impact, Australia is one of the few countires to benefit, thanks to the great dividing range. We will be the most sought after places on earth, as climate change will help dramatically some parts of this country.

So buy your highland properties on the eastern scarp of Australia, and leave a good legacy for your kids. Get the solar systems up there, generators, be in the position to be self sufficient and be comforted in the knowledge that you have a plan if the worst does happen, and you will be looked after. Now leave Kyoto behind.

Hear hear Realist. I couldn't agree more. And comparing us with Venus is ridiculous. Venus is the way it is because it is smaller than us much closer to the sun than we are, just as Mars is the way it is because it is further away.

Venus takes earth days to rotate once.
This does not allow efficient thermodynamic shifts (cyclones) of heat to its poles. Consequently, greenhouse heat trapping is viable. Additionally, the proto solar system formation naturally bestowed Venus with more heavy elements than Earth. Its interior is a radiocative semi solid soup that generates FAR more heat than the greenhouse effect or venus' proximity to the Sun.

The Earth has cyclonic activity due to the second law of thermodynamics and Earth's hugh rotaion speed. If CO2 levels rise, additional equatorial heating merely spawns more cyclones (climate change) to transfer heat, and excess CO2 to polr regions. At the poles:
* Heat is first trapped in the roaring forties and melts proximal ice caps in what appears to be global melting. However, due to the incredible INHOMOGENEITY of the biosphere, this heat slowly gets used by the melting process and is degraded to longer wavelenghts that can be transmitted to space without any greenhouse reflection. The net effect is localised of=r regional melting at the sub polar regions and excess heat flux to space over the poles. The poles cannot melt because they NEVER get enough sunlight.

So, global warming cannot be sustained. However climate changes can, will and are occuring. I predict a hurricane will wipe out Houston in the US this year around August for example. I won't go into the research I have done to show this here. Suffice it to say that by ceasing to function, New orleans has ceased to pollute coastal waters, and the Mississippi tends to egress towards the Texas Louisiana shelf and Hoiuston. Further, Houston and Appalachicola are bearing the industrial brunt of recovery efforts for the region. THEY are now producing all time record wastewater pollution plumes.

Now these plumes are high entropy and attract low entropy cyclonic formations by the 2LT. The bigger and denser the pollution plume, the bigger the hurricane (cyclonic) strike.

It really amazes me how someone can pack in so small space such amount of misinformation and unscientific claims! No wonder Venus is so hot: its atmospheric pressure is 90 times bigger than Earth’s, so just the sheer weight that atmosphere creates the heat –aided by the proximity of the Sun. Fairy tales are good for children, but serious people (and journalists that think they are serious) should abstain from publishing Fairy Tales trying to scare ignorant people.

Just for giving an idea: CO2 concentration was between 6000 and 2600 parts per million (ppmv) during the Cretaceous, while the mean temperature, according to all proxy studies, was barely 2º C higher than today. But going no further than the 1930 decade, temperatures in the North Pole were as higher as today –and the ice didn’t melt. See now if the North Pole ice is melting because the cold that keeps coming down from Greenland (Mobile Polar Highs) and around the Polar ice cover is unprecedented (as the IPCC guys love to say). Geez!

Mark Twain said once something like “science is a special place where with a trifle investment in speculation one can get such a huge result in predictions”, or something like that.

Continued ...

The problems with greenhouse warming theory:
* does not account for long wavelength heat loss at poles, or biospheric inhomogeneities.
* It is a scenario that predicts loss of our ability to survive, to perform work, which is by definition, thermal equilibrium. As the Earth is continually pumped with solar and geothermal energy, this is not possibble.
* It masks action that needs to be taken wrt wastewater management NOW, to avoid Climate change catastrophes. Instead, agencies dither endlessly over harmless atmospheric gases.

PS Venus has a rotation frequency of 243 earth days .. in the opposite direction to Earth rotation.

Appropiate that Venus is mentioned.

Well the signs of warming on Mars (polar caps disappearing) and Pluto, and ambiguous indications in that direction in the Jupiterian and Saturnian cloud-tops. Wassup with that?

Have got to tell all those nasty people to stop polluting those planets.....wait...hang on?

Okay that nasty sun that controls the Earth's climate, you are okay since any increase in activity is conveniently forgotten.

Far from being a bit player Australia is a major contributor to GW through coal exports. Australia's 375 megatonne coal production must generate more than a Gt (billion tonnes) of CO2. That is a lot of the 8 Gt world total, given we have some 0.3% of the world's population. If we want to 'think local, act global' as Realist suggests then stop coal exports. If Australia is just a tiny Chihuahua then it is one with flatulence so powerful it can clear the room.

Taswegian is right. Our coal exports are a big part of global greenhouse gas pollution. Howard knows that and it is the reason he won't sign Kyoto. The government is attempting to meet Kyoto targets anyway, but conveniently overlooks the pollution from the exported coal.
Hard to believe that there are those prepared to argue that global warming is not a concern. By focussing on Venus, both the author and his detractors are being sidetracked. The government could put us back in the lead in investigating alternative energy sources, which is where the smart money is going. Even the enivironmental neanderthals in the Bush administration recognise that. Instead, the government has directed the CSIRO to pursue this furphy known as carbon sequestration.

Taswegian,

I'm sorry, but I just can't follow your logic on coal exports. Say we stop exports, say to Japan. The Japanese simply switch to importing coal from South Africa (not an annex 1 country, so expempted for Kyoto restrictions). Not one molecule of CO2 less would enter the atmosphere, and the only result would be mass unemployment of coal miners here. Where is the benefit?

"Why sign something that restricts you, when you are not the main culprit of emmissions? Kyoto has achieved its intended, it has committed countries that were impactual (due to estimated increases in emissions etc), which is a positive step."

It has signed countries that were impactual? Australia per capita is one of if not the biggest polluter globally! While the USA is the biggest gross contributor to global warming. Both of these countries have not signed Kyoto!

Venus is supposed to be an odd 45 million km closer to the sun than Earth is... maybe that's why it's a tad hotter.

Facts not fear.

I believe in global warming, but the "scientific mainstream" is a collection of people (not scientific fact) who have been wrong in the path (geocentrism, flat earth etc).

The coal industry itself has conceded the need for 60% cuts in emissions. Since I doubt geosequestration will progress beyond an experimental novelty that should mean the industry will be severely downsized, perhaps with the miners re-employed into newer 'green' industries. That won't happen anytime soon because of political protection and scenarios such as supplier switching. However as the years go by with more climate dramas I think low emitters will turn nasty towards major coal traders. For example Europe could ask Australia and China for restraint. Therefore there seems a chance of adopting an internationally enforced carbon trading scheme. Hopefully while the problem is still manageable.

That is the point Sparkie, Facts not esoterically oriented crap some pseudo scientists and Sick minded psychopaths can conger up to scare the hell out of everyone.
How did the Ice melt after the Ice ages?
Was the Methane from prehistoric existence and Neanderthals so potent it stuffed the atmosphere? And did it melt the Ice?
Volcanic eruptions spew out more of the so called Green house gasses than man ever could, why not cap the volcanoes instead and save the Planet.
I forgot, the Misery industry, and then they would need to get a real life and have to work like the rest of us. That would be a sight worth remembering and not forth coming though. While a nest of Money lay dormant for them to steal, they will remain where they are, producing the same lie, and creating the same fear and emotional based propaganda.
Witch doctors are a better name, and a category of a person of such tallentless enthusiasm. Ready to Loot you of your existence.

Pk writes; “The government could put us back in the lead in investigating alternative energy sources, which is where the smart money is going. Even the environmental neanderthals in the Bush administration recognise that.”

This is pretty amazing when you think about Bush’s big oil connections. Mind you, he says very clearly that the oil companies are not to blame.

Perhaps the biggest problem with our inability to deal with climate change is the sheer magnitude and non-immediacy of the problem. No one country wants to make serious meaningful cuts in its usage of fossil fuels because of the tragedy of the commons: if they tighten their belts in isolation, they will simply be put at a considerable disadvantage compared to the rest. Even if lots of countries do it while the big ones don’t, they will feel the relative pinch.

Ok, so that much is obvious. So then, have we really got any hope if China and the US don’t put their heads together and come up with a meaningful initially bilateral reduction plan? If this was to happen then, the rest of the developed world would almost certainly follow.

Now that G. W. Shrub has actually called on his country to wean itself off imported fossil fuels, in a very prominent and unambiguous manner, we might just actually be on the very first rung of this very tall ladder. Perhaps the next big rung on the ladder might be climbed if he was to reach out to China and initiate this bilateral arrangement, in a serious manner.

(continued)

Kyoto is not even on this ladder, it is entirely a distraction. By getting a bunch of countries to agree to ridiculously small cuts or even increases in some cases, it is simply making us feel good about some form of action while actually leading to no significant action. It is just promulgating more of the same absurd overconsumption! You might argue that it is a good first step, but the cold hard truth is that it’s not going to progress into something useful unless the really big players do something amazing.

But wait…peak oil will save us! Prices are rising and will continue to rise to the point where we are forced to consider alternatives and a much-reduced rate of consumption, in the very near future. Peak oil increases the immediacy beautifully. It’s here, now! None of this, ‘in another 10 or 20 years crap’, which is a major issue holding us back with CO2 emissions. The immediacy is..well, immediate. It’s just what we need to really get our climate-change arses into gear.

We should be concentrating 100% on peak oil, not climate change. Essentially the same approach is required for both anyway. It won’t affect coal or gas directly, but it will indirectly by causing us to really focus on alternate sources and better efficiencies.

Peak oil will have a vastly bigger and more imminent threat to us here in Oz, and around the world. THIS is our overwhelming concern.

Just for the record Mr Gruen, what was your position on Y2K? Were you busy insulting the doubters? Were you right out front, running with the pack?

And for all the money wasted on that bogus crisis, did anyone actually lose their job for sending most of the planet up such an obvious blind alley?

It seems the argument is really about, it was not me and it will cost.
The first has been alluded to, as to cost well consult rocky mountain institute web site a scientific if practically oriented research institute, CEO Amory LOvins a scientist who has proclaimed energy efficiency since the1970's.
Lowandbehold many have taken his ideas they work BP uses less energyat a profit, Lovins claims putting solar water heaters alone could solve much of our greehouse gas debt at profit to householder, but visit the web site www.rmi.org and check out the profitable options or look at Victoria. Howard escapes the odium of being out of step by his actions andthe coal lobby profits, when we could all profit and feel godly!

And how dare you have the gall to include a quote from Hansen, the NASA scientist who kicked off this global warming farce, in the very week when he admitted that he knowingly exaggerated (ie, lied) to the Senate in 1988.

See Gagging Who? James Hansen! Impossible! at www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog

Even the mental miget George Dubwua reckons the US has to get off it's addiction to oil.The big oils companies have almost halted the research into alternative fuel sources and Govts have similar self interests.
Much more money needs to go into solar energy.Imagine if every house was covered with solar panels.At night with the aid of batteries we could probably re-charge our cars ready for work and cool our houses by day;but hang on here,this is making the individual self sufficient.How can Govt and the multi- nationals make a quid?We can't have that!
I think the push will be towards nuclear, since we then could be charged for a service.It is very hard to shake those parasites when they're addicted to that cash cow.

Countries like Australia should be putting more effort into solar power since it is the most environmentally sound and cost effective way of providing energy.

Something for Nicholas to consider.All the fossil fuels we are burning today are a result of plants removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere millions of years ago.All we are doing is releasing it back into the atmosphere to previous concentrations.
If life survived then,perhaps it will continue to do so under much higher co2 levels.Do we dare take the chance?

G'Day Viewers,

It's OK...don't forget Nick works for a parochial Qld rag. Up here, we particularly value entertaining journalistic attributes such as sensationalism, superficiality and brevity; much more than say accuracy or relevance....
As touched on by other commmentators, whether we few inhabitants of Terra Nullius Australis continue in our world-record coalburning behaviour or choose to adopt an aboriginal lifestyle, the consequences will make bugger-all difference to the rest of the planet.
The answer to Nick's hypothetical question about the state of Brisbane in the event of voluntary controls on pollution is also "bugger-all difference". The vast majority of air pollution in southeast queensland is caused by gum trees after all; volatile organics while they're alive and then particulates and smoke etc from their pesky habit of spontaneous combustion.
Suppose we shouldn't be too hard on poor Nick; it must be very difficult to find anything at all worth writing about in Brisbane..

Citizens Collective for Nuclear-Powered Desalination & Irrigation of GM Crop Circles.

JAP,

Interesting initials for a Queenslander, Hmmm!

1. Brisbane is an air pollution hell hole. I get the heebegeebies just driving though it. I don't feel Ok till I hit Caboolture. When I stop at traffic lights in Brissy, people at the kerbside look pale, gaunt and ill. There are NO environmental regs in Qld. Its a legacy of Jo that the Qld government regulates only for its big business buddies. And don't you worry about that! Why do people in Melbourne look so much healthier than Brisbane? The DIFFERENCE? It just astounds me.

2. Environmental degradation of the Australian continent has one principal thermodynamic effect. Heat from central Australia no longer does much useful work or creation of biomass as it moves with the earth's rotational air streams to the south pole. Qld cuts more trees each year than any country in the world.
The extra heat leaving Australia gets stuck in the roaring 40's and largely due to Australia this heat content is rapidly on the increase. It is sucking all the moisture out of the ground and perpetuating record droughts as it heads to the sth pole. It is MELTING the ice shelfs and throwing bloody global warming nutters into a frenzy. How about that for making a DIFFERENCE!

3. Adopt an Aboriginal lifestyle? Not quite, but Qld needs 10,000 2 acre engineered wetlands strategically placed along natural drainage pathways to retain its internal thermodynamic heat, make up for biodiversity loss and to protect the Barrier Reef from toxic farm nutters and their runoffs.
Australia needs to make its desert heat work for the country, not destroy it.

Clean up your act Queensland. You are making a VERY BIG difference to world climate.
You can no longer hide behind global warming and say that it threatens you with drought or that it is killing your reefs. For it is Queensland's lack of respect for the environment that is doing that. And You had better worry .. about THAT!

Really, kaep, 10,000 x 2 acres (8,000ha) of engineered wetland to maintain thermal balance? Why not just put a dam on any of the Gulf rivers, (they are all in monsoon at the moment) pump it south and grow 100,000 hectares of irrigated crops and actually improve the thermal balance? If you want to "save" the Barrier Reef, build a dam to catch the silt laden monsoon floods. The main killer of coral is actually FRESH WATER. It is why the GBR stops at the mouth of the Fly river in PNG.

But that would be a common sense solution that would actually contribute while paying its own way. And as for your anti-Qld bigotry, a third of Queenslanders came from NSW & Vic over the past 2 decades. And it is they who have elected ALP State Governments for 15 of the past 17 years. And even they are starting to realise what a mistake that was. It is Beattie Labor who has destroyed the best, and free , hospital system in the country and labelled anyone complaining about their butchered loved ones as racist hillbillies.

It is entirely possible to be against corruption in Qld, and yet be a friend to the people of that great state.

Propaganda is rife across our nation. It cements privileges for the few. Nowhere more than in Qld is this true.
No flavour of government will change it. It has been entrenched from farms and mines into local and state public services for generations.

But one thing is certain, even those with vested interests must soon take action to bring Qld in step with the rest of the world. People are WATCHING.

One way, with an excellent cost/benefit ratio, to redress Qld environmental problems is to make use of ENGINEERED Wetland Basins (EWBs) to retain thermodynamic heat.

Dams:
* sequester nutrients to dam floors, never to be seen again
* divert water MORE efficiently than ever to humans, to become polluted and to run off into coastal waters, accelerating environmental damage. Thermodynamic imbalances caused this way off coasts, where dams are present, are a significant contributor to global climate change.
* starve downstream catchment areas and ecosystems of water solely in favour of wasteful human activity.

EWB networks on the other hand have advantages:
* sequester nutrients in reeds and other biomass that can be spread around as total catchment fertilisers.
* keep all sections of a catchment moist and productive.
* retain thermodynamic heat that can do more work in the environment and in human habitats. This prevents drought, migration of moisture to coastal seas. It promotes more regular precipitation over farms and towns.
* can be designed to favour native plants and animals over introduced species like toads.

This paper http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-a/40/i02/html/011506news2.html, shows the benefits of EWBs for Arizona which is arid like much of Qld. Wildlife in some wetlands will evolve to hardier species, but this will be to the benefit of species below those wetlands in the catchment network. EWBs act as barriers. Although appearing negative, this is an important issue and is very useful to bring out in early EWB discussions.

Great suggestions guys - wetlands and dams and what not. Pity the sun is the main driver of climate change.....and unless man changes earths orbit there is not much we can do about it. Just think in 100 million years time the expanding sun causes temperatures to rise and creates world wide deserts and slowly the seas boil away and eventually the atmosphere is stripped away before the expanding sun devours the earth. Maybe after 500 million years. But that's all theory. I just hope the current spike in Sun activity is not a prelude to something "hotter". I mean with Mars polar caps dissappearing and other planets showing some signs of a more active sun. Maybe we are stuffed any way.

BigFish,

We know Climate Change IS accelerating.

However, Changes in the Sun's output are NOT accelerating. Changes in human greenhouse gas outputs are NOT accelerating. Rate increases are steady with a slight deceleration due to Kyoto.

The only planetary change concomitant to climate change is human migration to coastal areas. And the key environmental change associated with this is WASTEWATER egress into coastal seas.

Not only do people underestimate the amount of wastewater egress across the planet, they also underestimate the energy channelling effect wastewaters have on heat redistrubution from deserts and tropical seas. This effect is similar to small current diffusions in transistors which can switch large load currents on and off. Similarly, accelerated human wastewater egress, a small thermodynamic high entropy diffusion, attracts huge low entropy heat loads from tropical oceans (cyclonic activity) and deserts (drought). This is the second law of thermodynamics(2LT) at work. It IS climate change and there is a 1:1 correspondence with human migration patterns.

In order to decelerate climate changes you need to reduce human wastewaters flushed into seas, or reduce coastal migration.
OR, you could cut the Sun's output by 10%.
OR, you could stop the use of all fossil fuels and wipe out mankind in internecine fights over remaining resources, especially oil. That will do it nicely.

As a stakeholder, naturally I want wastewater egress reduced, employing thousands of Engineered wetlands in STRATEGIC GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS (saddle points) across Australia and the entire planet. I also want climate scientists to be forced to do competency tests in Thermodynamics (especially Statistical Thermodynamics) before being allowed to publish professional opinions that affect the future of OUR world.

The main breed of scientist to blame for the current lack of progress on climate change are biologists. They are trained in observing and theorising dynamics of ecosystems. They just don't understand that you CAN NOT theorise about dynamics until you have a proper understanding of the ENERGY flows involved and in particular the thermodynamic constraints that are in operation. Current global warming blatherings by groups of scientists of this ilk, are FISHY and INCOMPETENT.