Climate Change

I wouldn't listen to Tim Flannery any more than I would listen to Alan Jones.

The former head of the former climate commission? Installed to let all of us simple folk know about climate change? He wasn't worth listening to?

I wish some scientists had the courage to say what you said back when it mattered.

But we all figured it out anyway, so no harm done, except to their cause of course. If only he was an isolated example.....
 
Also, I suppose the "skeptic" politicians will be held accountable for the consequences of their "views" long after their terms are over? :rolleyes:

Depends on what you mean by accountable in this context I guess. If they are wrong, they will be pariahs.
 
The former head of the former climate commission? Installed to let all of us simple folk know about climate change? He wasn't worth listening to?

I wish some scientists had the courage to say what you said back when it mattered.

But we all figured it out anyway, so no harm done, except to their cause of course. If only he was an isolated example.....

To me anyway, the personalities don't matter. All that matters is the evidence and it's implications. I don't really want someone to give me a blanket statement about what I should be thinking (without backing it up with some evidence). Same applies to my statements. Go to the primary literature. Look at what experiments they have done and what they have concluded and judge it from there.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt it exists.

It's just a case of it being a naturally occurring phenomenon that has occurred for eons and all mankind is doing is speeding up the next warming/cooling cycle.

We can't stop it.

Mankind will adapt. That's why we've been around for a long time.

Well you'd hope so. In the whole scheme of things, mankind has not been around very long at all, a mere blip in the universe's timeline.
As Darwin said - survival of the fittest, adapt or die.

I used to worry about climate change and global warming etc etc, but really what's the point? The climate is always changing and there will always be mass extinctions. Do we humans really change things very much? I don't know. I read that the amount of carbon added into the atmosphere by Mt Krakatoa was many times more than what humans have contributed for our whole time on earth. But who knows.

I don't much care if the human race becomes extinct. It would be the best thing for planet earth I think.
 
I was joking/sarcasm about the $30k

I haven't even got a spare $3.00 right now. :eek:

I used to worry about climate change and global warming etc etc, but really what's the point? The climate is always changing and there will always be mass extinctions. Do we humans really change things very much? I don't know. I read that the amount of carbon added into the atmosphere by Mt Krakatoa was many times more than what humans have contributed for our whole time on earth. But who knows.

I don't much care if the human race becomes extinct. It would be the best thing for planet earth I think.
Yay; finally!

Well said.
 
Agreed, very well said.

Surrounded by red dirt and spinifex, you'd be one of the last to survive I reckon.
Special breed of humans live out there, surviving some of the harshest conditions on Earth and not a hint of whingeing.;)
 
I get on forums and torment deniers for sport. We all got to do our bit and you guys are such soft targets. :)
Has it occurred to you that we also lick our chops when folks like you come on here? :D

Same as when the younger armchair experts - with no properties - come on here with their charts and models about the world of real estate, and try to D&G the place.

Time for some fun.
 
Last edited:
I'll give you four:

It's gotten about 0.8C hotter in Victoria
0.8 of a degree.

In a State where it can be 30 degrees one day, and 17 degrees the next, with rain....how can anyone hope to measure a change as small as 0.8 degrees?

It's ridiculous and alarmist.

Did you see TC's rainfall chart? No pattern whatsoever, and no trends.

Many a time here in Melb it has been 40 degrees on a given day, with a hot, blasting Northerly wind, and by 3.00pm the Southwesterly buster comes through, dark nimbostratus clouds scudding in underneath the high Cirrus clouds that go with yer hot day, then a massive storm and a temp drop down into the teens, followed by a couple of days of cr@p weather.

That's the only pattern there has ever been here in Melb.

I used to live at Red Hill up on top of Arthur's Seat, and commute to Box Hill each day. Often, I would be driving home on a hot afternoon, looking forward to getting in the pool at home.

I would hit the start of the hill at White Hill rd, start to climb, and you could feel the temp change like a switch had been thrown to turn off the heater.

By the time I drove in the driveway a few minutes later, the temp would be 22 degrees with a howling Easterly wind - no hope of getting in the pool.

All within the space of 60kms and 1 hour of travel.

It did my head in, and we ended up moving down to the beach some 10kms away. Not far, but the weather is often totally different.

0.8 of a degree.

What a laugh.

It's silly statements like that which give you people no credibility whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
I just had a good read on the News Corp site.
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/goyders-line-in-the-sand/story-fnii5yv4-1226766215082
A new book about the story of Goyder's line and it's surveyor.
Goyder would be familiar to anyone who has traveled in the northern region of South Australia visiting the ruins of those early homesteaders still dotted over the landscape.
The line is defined by reliable rainfall rather than just rainfall in itself.
I'll have to get a hold of that book and read it


"Although Goyder?s purpose in 1865 was ostensibly to determine the southern reach of the worst drought the settlers had faced, and thus provide a basis for drought relief for pastoralists, his main interest was in mapping a line that would define the limit of agricultural land.

His achievement ? remarkable for his time ? was that through close observation from the saddle, zigzagging thousands of kilometres across the country, he learned to read the vegetation.

He saw how the southern flora gave way to the saltbush, bluebush and mallee that was adapted to the more arid conditions. He also understood that this wasn?t just a difference of annual rainfall, but rather, reliable rainfall.

This month, Wakefield Press is publishing the first biography of Goyder, the result of years of work by Melbourne scholar Janis Sheldrick. Called Nature?s Line: George Goyder, Surveyor, Environmentalist, Visionary, it charts his life and his long career in the service of the new colony. Sheldrick?s mission is to record not just what Goyder did for South Australia, but to place him at the heart of the Australian story."
 
Thanks for the discussion guys. I have to head up to Ningaloo to drive the boat around for a week (for work). I'll have limited internet access.
 
Instead of buggerising around talking up the so called threat, why doesnt this brilliant scientific peer group get their collective wisdom together and provide a solution that is clean/green and lean on our wallets?

No, theyd rather hang a threat around the worlds neck and side with govts to tax people for the solution.

That lazy $30k...so if you spend that the system lasts how long did someone say... without maintenance?

Dreamin.

I believe you are from the area so was wondering what the locals think of the grant to Bindaree Beef to contribute to the cost of installing a biodigester?

Wed 3 Jul 2013,
"Bindaree Beef has received a $23-million Clean Energy grant to build a system that will eventually end the abattoir's need to be connected to the electricity grid.

A $45-million biodigester will be built on the company's Inverell site, processing waste and run-off, turning it into methane and using the gas as a power source.

The equipment will dramatically reduce reliance on coal-fired power.

Federal New England MP, Tony Windsor, told the NSW Country Hour the project has wider implications for Australian processing industries.

"It will, over time, eliminate much of the dependence on the electricity grid itself and could eventually remove itself totally," he said.

"This will give this business real control over its utility prices [because] what it actually does is supply a closed-loop energy system that can be converted into electricity, or heat, or gas to power a lot of the equipment."

General Manager of Bindaree Beef, Kerri Newton, says the high-tech biodigester is based on American technology.

When finished she says it will reduce the company's carbon emissions by 95 per cent.

"We will reduce our coal usage which is 7,200 metric tonnes of coal and that will eliminate all the smoke and we will be able to reduce our electricity usage substantially," she said.

"We're talking about the red and green waste streams, which is your paunch and your run-offs, and that will be put into the digester and that is where they capture the methane gas."

Project engineer, David Sneddon, says the coal-fired process will soon be replaced with a renewable, and more sustainable, process.

"We'll capture the methane, store it in bladders, we scrub it which is cleaning out all the impurities out and then we'll use it to fire a gas-fired boiler which will eliminate our coal-fired boiler and the left-over will generate electricity," he said.

"All we retrieve out of it is methane and fertiliser and Class A water.""
 
Last edited:
All within the space of 60kms and 1 hour of travel.

It did my head in, and we ended up moving down to the beach some 10kms away. Not far, but the weather is often totally different.

0.8 of a degree.

What a laugh.

It's silly statements like that which give you people no credibility whatsoever.

This would have to be penciled in as one of the most ill informed, nonsensical confused rant I have ever read on denying the effects of man made climate change.
 
Many a time here in Melb it has been 40 degrees on a given day, with a hot, blasting Northerly wind, and by 3.00pm the Southwesterly buster comes through, dark nimbostratus clouds scudding in underneath the high Cirrus clouds that go with yer hot day, then a massive storm and a temp drop down into the teens, followed by a couple of days of cr@p weather.

That's the only pattern there has ever been here in Melb.

I used to live at Red Hill up on top of Arthur's Seat, and commute to Box Hill each day. Often, I would be driving home on a hot afternoon, looking forward to getting in the pool at home.

I would hit the start of the hill at White Hill rd, start to climb, and you could feel the temp change like a switch had been thrown to turn off the heater.

By the time I drove in the driveway a few minutes later, the temp would be 22 degrees with a howling Easterly wind - no hope of getting in the pool.

All within the space of 60kms and 1 hour of travel.

It did my head in, and we ended up moving down to the beach some 10kms away. Not far, but the weather is often totally different.


Bayview - You didn't have 4,000 of the world's top scientists sitting in the car with you....therefore it's not pal reviewed - therefore it didn't happen.

Such are the "rules" they've created for themselves.
 
Has it occurred to you that we also lick our chops when folks like you come on here? :D

Same as when the younger armchair experts - with no properties - come on here with their charts and models about the world of real estate, and try to D&G the place.

Time for some fun.
In the one corner, a scientist from CSIRO, who talks with the guys doing the research. And if shown data which may not fit in with his view, is willing to go back to the source.

In the other corner, somebody who has stated that weather = climate, who goes to a newspaper journalist for sources, and not much further than the front window for corroboration.

For the record, a dictionary, encyclopedia or wikipedia would tell you. Weather is what happens at a particular time. Climate is weather over a period, possibly a large period, of time. For somebody who claims to know so much about climate change, I would have thought that the definition of the word would have been something important. Apparently not.

People are looking at weather over a period of time to try to determine if things are changing. The variability adds some complexity- statistics can help to determine if things are changing. In the same way that statistics showed that smoking increased death rates- a debate which reminds me of this one, in that so many people over so many years refused to believe that there was a link.

Did you see Geoff's rainfall chart? No pattern whatsoever, and no trends.
If you are going to cite sources, please attribute them correctly. That was not me.

.8 of a degree might not be significant if that was the end of it. But if happened in a finite length of time, it could be continuing to rise. .8 in 10 years = 8 degrees in 100 years. That is really significant.

If the climate was changing, I would think that it's important to find out about it earlier rather than later, to give a chance to take precautions. If it was influenced by mankind, even if it's not 100% certain, then it's important to do something about it- before it's too late to make changes. I would like a world in which my grandchildren are able to live properly and comfortably.

Things like changing icecaps, glaciers and tundras seem to confirm that the climate is changing.

The study of climate change encompasses a wide range of the world, not just over time. It may well be that there are areas where the change is negligible, or where it goes in a different direction. Certainly there are areas where a climate change would make things more comfortable. But any change is occurring world wide- so it's certainly not enough to say that because you can't see something happening, or that nothing is changing where you are, that it's not changing.
 
This would have to be penciled in as one of the most ill informed, nonsensical confused rant I have ever read on denying the effects of man made climate change.
Your opinion is that it is man made.

My opinion is that it is not only not man made, but that there is no "new" climate change - just the same stuff that has been going on for billions of years.

It's not Climate Change; it's business as usual.

All of a sudden, in the last 10 or whatever years, humans have decided that the changing climate never occurred before we came in and started meddling.

It's so ridiculous my sides hurt.

Amazingly, the phrase "Climate Change" seemed to emerge only after many started to refute the "Global Warming" mantra.
 
Bayview:
Your opinion is that it is man made.

My opinion is that it is not only not man made, but that there is no "new" climate change - just the same stuff that has been going on for billions of years.
Wikipedia:
Wikpedia said:
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

btw, when I studied meteorology 40 years ago, there were indications already of man made climate change. Certainly it was occurring on a smaller level- for instance, the presence of a city changed the absorption of sunlight which changed the temperatures around the city. We know that smog changed weather patterns where it occurred. At that stage,indications that the changes were much wider than that were beginning to emerge.
 
Good post Geoff. In my opinion, you seemed to have nailed the nub of the whole subject with this one paragraph.

If the climate was changing, I would think that it's important to find out about it earlier rather than later, to give a chance to take precautions. If it was influenced by mankind, even if it's not 100% certain, then it's important to do something about it- before it's too late to make changes. I would like a world in which my grandchildren are able to live properly and comfortably.

....but to grapple with that one paragraph is overwhelming.....it's just so vague.

The first word IF is not agreed upon. Most of the major economies of the world and their political leaders don't agree. Copenhagen, with all of the big cheese there, despite Rudd's best efforts and huge contingent, failed to come away with anything at all.

The next highlighted word IT hasn't been agreed either.

The next highlighted word PRECAUTIONS is so wide and varying it can mean anything. Some action in Canada might be totally inappropriate if applied in Tuvalu. Cost estimates seem to be avoided altogether....especially in poorer countries.

SOMETHING hasn't been agreed either. The action and the massive cost associated with it hasn't been defined, and the preparedness of the population to embrace some ill defined benefit is lacking.

PROPERLY AND COMFORTABLY sounds fantastic, except when you try and nail down what that means. Someone in Bangladesh might define it differently to someone on 5th Avenue New York.


As mentioned above, as a blanket paragraph it looks great at high level and probably no-one would disagree, until you drill down into the detail of what those lofty statements actually mean on the ground out there in the real world....and you suddenly find you can drive a truck through the massive gaps of ill defined practicalities.
 
My apologies Dazz. It wasn't my intention to provide a treatise on the causes and solutions to all the climate problems in the world. I thought that the discussion had previously just been about whether or not climate change was happening. I hadn't realised that I had to define the entire problem and its solution as well.
 
Big Picture

Millions of years ago:

2 First humans
2 Ice age
55 Extreme global warming
65 Major extinction of life on Earth, including dinosaurs
130 First fowering plants
150 First birds
190 First mammals
200 Major extinction of life on Earth
225 First dinosaurs
250 Major extinction of life on Earth, including most marine organisms
300+ Ice ages
315 First reptiles
365 Major extinction of life on Earth
370 First amphibians
420 First plants and animals on land
450 Major extinction of life on Earth
460 Ice age
510 First fish
545 First animals with hard parts
600 - 900 Ice ages
1200 First multicellular organisms
3500 First bacteria and archaea (cells with no nucleus)
3800 Earliest life
4600 Origin of the Earth

Around 1000 million years ago, all the continents had combined together into one huge landmass in the southern hemisphere. This supercontinent began to break up around 750 million years ago and the different continents were shuffled around.

Between 300 and 250 million years ago all the major continents on Earth had been joined together again to form the largest supercontinent ever seen on Earth, called Pangaea.

The continents continued to move, India collided with Asia forming the Himalayan mountain range, and Africa impacted on Europe forming the Alps. This movement of plates and continents over geological time has had profound effects; oceans have formed and closed, continents have grown and split, and plate movements have produced mountain ranges which
were later eroded. The plates are still moving at 8cm per year.

As the plates and continents were moved across the Earth, they encountered different climates in different parts of the globe.
 
Back
Top