Bonmot,

Christ, I hope so, otherwise ....... is that all there is ?

Bonmot,

In my daily scrutiny of the paper for highest maximums and lowest minimums over the past decade, here are the scores for July 16 and 18:

July 16:
Max maxs: nil
Min mins: nil

July 18:
Max maxs: nil
Min mins: nil

At random, one would expect an average of one max or one min over the past decade - sixteen readings per day, with records covering sixteen decades. An average of one per day. If the past decade had been the hottest ever, then the hottest maximums would tend to have occurred over the past decade, maybe not for every day but pretty often ? Or is this being impossibly naive ?

Suggest you scrutinise this instead Joe:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=10

Change the parameters to get a fuller picture.

On the site you will find contact numbers - bounce your thesis off them.

Loudmouth

Please check Bonmot's link. A point to consider is that climate change means extremes in temperatures at times - the cold winter we are experiencing in Australia has followed very mild winters for the past ten years or so. It is the overall trend, taken over decades which indicate a warming climate - not current and localised weather.

Whether you believe in an anthropogenic influence or not, we cannot continue to pollute or use all our non-renewable resources. This little elephant will remain in the room, irrespective of claims of left or right wing philosophy, capitalism, communism or even fascism. The planet will get on with being planet earth - we can either take action to adapt now or deal with the consequences in the long term.

Thanks Bonmot and Ammonite,

Of course, one swallow doesn't make a summer, and a few readings don't indicate anything conclusively. But it's just a handy and quick way to keep up with hottest ever days and coldest ever days, that anyone can do for themselves.

And - hey presto ! yes, it's just possible that global warming brings about extremes, including extreme cold. Not being religious, I don't have your faith that everything can be explained by one factor.

And although I believe - in a lukewarm, arm's-distance sort of way - in AGW, I am worried that the former emphasis on pollution (of waterways, soils, air, etc., etc.) has been neglected somewhat by a re-orientation towards focussing on AGW as the Enemy.

And it beats me why Gillard and her new tax aren't concentrating on:

1. the planting of vast areas of trees across the north. I can't see very much in the carbon tax proposals that actually promises to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as tree plantations would do. Of course, not just any trees, but those which are both Indigenous to the areas they are planted in, and are likely to be used for building or furniture, NOT for burning, EVER: higher-value timber than just firewood timber. There's lifelong employment as a bonus.

and

2. putting more carbon back in the soil, as char, etc. As I understand this process, it considerably improves crop yields and at the same time, reduces use of water. Maybe I've got that wrong ?

Okay, an increase of two inches in sea-level, and one and a bit degrees in temperature, over fifty years, are factors that we should be concerned about, once non-AGW factors have been taken into account. Agreed. But frankly, I don't lose any sleep over it. I'm more concerned about the disappearance of frogs from the environment, due to feral animals, inappropriate building regulations and water pollution, to be honest.

Joe

Loudmouth

You say:

>> I'm more concerned about the disappearance of frogs from the environment, due to feral animals, inappropriate building regulations and water pollution, to be honest. <<

Which is why I preempted with the point below in my previous post:

"Whether you believe in an anthropogenic influence or not, we cannot continue to pollute or use all our non-renewable resources."

Also I am not religious, unless you mean totally caught up in seeing only one side to managing our eco-system, planet earth? I believe transition to a cleaner and sustainable way of life for the human race will take many and varied actions to repair the damage we have caused, there being no single magic bullet.

For example, my post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12333&page=0#213234

I am saddened that the entire focus is upon a single component: carbon. Our problems go much further than just that - as you say feral animals to which we could add mono-cultures of plants, farming cattle and sheep in regions to which kangaroos are perfectly adapted, private control over genetically engineered plants, animals... the list goes on.