is the drought caused by..........

[skidmark77]

Just wondering whether people actually believe in global warming. I personally dont, i just think it is just a cycle, and it will eventually break, as has been recorded in the past.

[rovercare]

What killed the dinosaurs, what was the ice age??

Just a cycle and we're all going to die:eek:

[hiline]

and slowly :o;)

[Fourgearsticks]

:Rolling::Rolling:
What killed the dinosaurs, what was the ice age??



No it was when an alien spaceship crashed into the earth and kiltem all.

For this latest global warming that is not caused by dinosaur farts I'm sure is caused by Al Qaeda. Lil Johnny (The mean and tricky one) blames them for most things and I'm inclined to believe him. They're using those weapons of mass distruction (Where ever they have them) to cause the temp to rise. Personally I blame them for the drought as well, either them or Labour. If it's not Al Qaeda it's Keatings fault.

[JDNSW]

You leftout the third alternative, which for most people is the one they should tick - don't know.

However, there is nothing in the past history of the weather statistics, such as they are, to suggest that this drought is different in nature to any of the droughts over the last two hundred years.

If, in fact, it owes anything to human intervention, it is much more likely to be the result of local intervention such as increased runoff due to land clearing in some places, more uniform runoff due to dam building, increased evaporation due to irrigation, increases in and changes in the nature of tree cover due to the control of fires and rabbits, and the increased runoff and local radiation from the paving over with bitumen or tiles of much of the east coast.

While global effects may eventually cause droughts, there is nothing to associate the current increase in temperatures with the present drought - past droughts have shown no relation to temperatures.

John

[beforethevision]

its the 200&300TDi's that cause global warming isnt it?

:P

[HSVRangie]

normal cycle.

M

[JDNSW]

Just clarify my post above - I do "believe in global warming" although there are some serious questions regarding some of the data and the causes, but on the balance of evidence I think that the earth is warming up, and the cause may well be human actions. What I don't believe is that this drought has anything to do with it.

And as I have commented elsewhere, any action by Australia will have no significant effect on global warming - simply because there are so few of us on the world scale. As against that, global effects are likely to have a major effect on Australia.

John

[waynep]

it's actually a misnomer to call it "global warming", This leads people to think the only effect is the whole world is getting "hotter".

it's climate pattern change. ( ie longer droughts, larger floods and more frequent severe weather events )

The more worrying thing now emerging IMHO however is the acidification of the oceans. This has the potential to seriously harm the levels of plankton in the oceans , which is at the bottom level of our food chain.

As far as Australia's actions having little effect on the world situation, that may be true, but should we not be "doing the right thing " anyway ?
We don't have a lot of effect in Iraq either, if you compare our numbers to the number of troops the Americans have there, but our Govt. is still committed to the effort as they believe it is the "right thing" to do.

I sometimes think "yeah it's not proven that it is us causing the climate change, so lets just keep going the way we are, not worry about it and keep spewing stuff into the atmosphere" ". Then I think of my kids and their kid's world, and think, "what if we're wrong and we could have actually done something ?"

[Fourgearsticks]

The "Global warming catastrophy" is being overplayed. When after a while nothing happens, people get a bit cynical. If with the diagnosis and computer stuff we have now we can't tell what the actual temperature is going to be a fortnight from next Wednesday then how can we tell what it's going to be on any particular day within two degrees in fifty years?

Remember in 1975 when Australia went to "World price parady" for fuel? They said the world was running out of fossil fuels and the world would run out in thirty years. Now over thirty years later they say we only have enough oil to last us thirty years, how much do we have and how much of this stuff is just down to bumping fuel prices up?

Remember in the early seventies how the Queensland coast was going to be decimated, "Save the barrier reef" stickers were every where. There's still a reef there.

By playing the "Iminent catastophy" card when it isn't debases any argument.

I'm sure there has been a link established with our treatment of this planet with weather change BUT, to what end result? This planet has been cycling weather for the last millenium, who's to say what is "Normal"? The Great barrier reef has been high and dry three times in the last couple of million years, what caused this and the subsiquent reflooding? Dinosaur farts I think yool find.:D

[JDNSW]

it's actually a misnomer to call it "global warming", This leads people to think the only effect is the whole world is getting "hotter".

it's climate pattern change. ( ie longer droughts, larger floods and more frequent severe weather events )

the more worrying thing IMHO however is the acidification of the oceans. This has the potential to seriously harm the levels of plankton in the oceans , which is at the bottom level of our food chain.

There are a variety of effects likely - the latest one suggested is a new northern hemisphere ice age resulting paradoxically from the loss of the Greenland ice cap. Probably the fastest changes will result from changes in ocean currents, and these are rather unpredictable (the changes that is).

I have difficulties with the predictions of longer droughts, more frequent severe weather events etc, for several reasons. One is that the weather records are over such a short period relative to the natural variability that we have no way of knowing what the current variability really is, so these forecasts are entirely from modelling, and since the data does not exist to test the current frequency of these problems, it is a bit of a stretch to take note of predicted changes.

One point that is worth noting is that the predicted warming for this century is expected to be less than the temperatures reached in the Mediaeval warm period, a fact that a lot of people seem to ignore. Of course we now have far more people in the world than then, and far too many of them living in very vulnerable locations - many of which simply did not exist a thousand years ago (Much of the densely populated parts of SE Asia for example are land that has built up from sediment in that period - and is very susceptible to flooding).

It is "Global" in the sense that to the extent that it is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, the problem is worldwide, not restricted to where the emissions came from. Because of this, although Australia will be affected by it, we can have no significant effect on it, except perhaps indirectly, and even that would be minimal - Australia has well under 1% of the world's population, and even though Australian emissions per capita are up among the highest (High living standards plus low energy costs and long distances) - if reduced by 50% or even 100%, the effect would be still be insignificant, being swamped by those countries with large populations, particularly those with high per capita emissions (US for example) or those with rapidly rising emissions (China, India for example).

John

[waynep]

although Australia will be affected by it, we can have no significant effect on it, except perhaps indirectly, and even that would be minimal - Australia has well under 1% of the world's population, and even though Australian emissions per capita are up among the highest (High living standards plus low energy costs and long distances) - if reduced by 50% or even 100%, the effect would be still be insignificant, being swamped by those countries with large populations, particularly those with high per capita emissions (US for example) or those with rapidly rising emissions (China, India for example).

John

Yep,agree with that.
It is a problem for me though if the argument that follows is "we'll be right, we can't make much difference, it's the Chinese and Indians need to change their ways, so lets not try to change ourselves at all"

Or maybe we could divert the funds going our own greenhouse emmisions into educating and assisting the Chinese and Indians ... I dunno.

[blitz]

According to my ex I am responsible for it :eek:

and the demise of the dinosuars

and world war two

the loss of Neandertals

her sanity

taxes.

Humans should do what we do much better as we waste way to much, but have we caused global warming I feel that is a load of cods wallop.

(hey moderators is cods wallop ok? as it's a colloquialism not a swear word)

Blythe

[Quiggers]

the drought may well be caused by a lack of fresh water:D:D:D

GQ

[olbod]

Yep, thats right.
The draught is caused by a lack of rain.
Pure and simple.

[waynep]

Yep, thats right.
The draught is caused by a lack of rain.
Pure and simple.

so light annoying breezes inside the house are caused by lack of rain too ? hmmmm........;):)

[olbod]

so light annoying breezes inside the house are caused by lack of rain too ? hmmmm........;):)


Nuh, lack of a good wind.
People that work outdoors could help the environment
by having a baked bean sandwich lunch, regularly.

[JDNSW]

Yep,agree with that.
It is a problem for me though if the argument that follows is "we'll be right, we can't make much difference, it's the Chinese and Indians need to change their ways, so lets not try to change ourselves at all"

Or maybe we could divert the funds going our own greenhouse emmisions into educating and assisting the Chinese and Indians ... I dunno.

We won't be right, any more than anyone else will be - but if you think changing your emission habits is going to make a difference you are kidding yourself. Perhaps the most productive thing we can do is to keep our population low, and certainly we should on a personal basis try and reduce emissions, although as I said, don't expect it to make a difference*.

Developing low or zero emission technology to pass on to the major producers would also be productive, but for this to happen here the price of energy would have to rise dramatically. It probably will anyway, as China and India's appetite for energy increases, and this will make for an automatic reduction in emission growth.

*One of the things that concerns me about the majority of the younger generation is the complete absence of concern about waste of resources, but this is probably not the place to go into that, although if this concern existed it would go a long way toward reducing emissions.

John

[Quiggers]

Johns (JDNSW) point is the core of the problem.

Population:

Australia = 21,000,000 (CO output mature)
China = 1,300,000,000 (CO output growing)
India = 1,100,000,000 (CO output growing)
Asia other = 900,000,000 (CO output expotential)

3.5 billion population are yet to get to the level of consumerism we 'enjoy'.

I believe our stats show that there is a motor vehicle (private/business/commercial use) for every Aussie.
Asia is a fraction of this.

3.5 billion motor vehicles; when this market matures, (as in gets to the levels of consumerism we 'enjoy'), means many things.

1). Asia will be a massive parking lot, cars idling away for hours, going nowhere fast, or even slow.
2). Massive amounts of gas to atmosphere.
3). Massive consumption of fuel, which is currently fossil based.
4). Degradation of landscape to supply to the populus, more roads.....

As we already know, as in those who commute in big cities, cars are becoming a slower way to commute, than other forms, like riding a pushbike, or walking....

Our 21,000,000, by cutting our consumption of fossil fuel burning/consumption will do bugger-all in the big picture.

GQ

[jx2mad]

I have read a report from scientists that Mars surface temperature is increasing too!:o Is that caused by little green men racing around in their polluting space ships?;):angel::angel::angel::p

[HSVRangie]

ONCE CARBON TRADING WAS STARTED AND ONE COULD TRADE AND MAKE $$ ON THIS, THIS TO ME SHOWS ITS ALL ABOUT $$$.

many years ago Australia had an inland sea if the seas rise up maybe we will have this again. we will then have a nice temprate climate. bring it on.

europe had an ice age, then warm medieval period then a mini ice age few hundred years ago. cycles cycles.

Just my opinion.

M

[mcrover]

All those greenies driving VW combis are to blame lol :wasntme:

Nah Ravoercare said it in 1, just on the down hill run, only a few million years to go for us humans.

[waynep]

We won't be right, any more than anyone else will be - but if you think changing your emission habits is going to make a difference you are kidding yourself. Perhaps the most productive thing we can do is to keep our population low, and certainly we should on a personal basis try and reduce emissions, although as I said, don't expect it to make a difference*.

Developing low or zero emission technology to pass on to the major producers would also be productive, but for this to happen here the price of energy would have to rise dramatically. It probably will anyway, as China and India's appetite for energy increases, and this will make for an automatic reduction in emission growth.

*One of the things that concerns me about the majority of the younger generation is the complete absence of concern about waste of resources, but this is probably not the place to go into that, although if this concern existed it would go a long way toward reducing emissions.

John

Well put - agree with all of that now ;)

[mcrover]

I think a lot of people out there could benifit from living on a farm for a few days with 1 power line supplying several houses.

You turn a light on and all the other lights in the other huses dim so you have to make sure everything is off unless you really need it and phone lines get easilly overloaded and you have very limited water which is directly proportional to how much it rains so there are no 1/2 hr showers or washing cars and watering gardens unless it is with waste water.

If people in the city lived by 1/2 of that then emissions would drop dramatically but I also dont think it would change the fact that we are in drought.

[RonMcGr]

I think a lot of people out there could benifit from living on a farm for a few days with 1 power line supplying several houses.

You turn a light on and all the other lights in the other huses dim so you have to make sure everything is off unless you really need it and phone lines get easilly overloaded and you have very limited water which is directly proportional to how much it rains so there are no 1/2 hr showers or washing cars and watering gardens unless it is with waste water.

If people in the city lived by 1/2 of that then emissions would drop dramatically but I also dont think it would change the fact that we are in drought.

You were lucky, we had 36 volt, a generator and convertor to run the B&W TV :)

Water tanks with dead birds floating on top :eek:

Oh those were the days..... NOT!
I hate filling and relighting that stinking smoking kero fridge :mad:

[TheLowRanger]

Who was it that won an award for his global warming theory that stated our sea was going to rise between 8 and 88cm in the next 100 years or so? Shows how much the so called scientists know about it. To me that is a huge variation in estimates.

[Outback 1]

its the 200&300TDi's that cause global warming isnt it?

:P

thats a bit rude isn't it:p

[Outback 1]

I think a lot of people out there could benifit from living on a farm for a few days with 1 power line supplying several houses.

You turn a light on and all the other lights in the other huses dim so you have to make sure everything is off unless you really need it and phone lines get easilly overloaded and you have very limited water which is directly proportional to how much it rains so there are no 1/2 hr showers or washing cars and watering gardens unless it is with waste water.

If people in the city lived by 1/2 of that then emissions would drop dramatically but I also dont think it would change the fact that we are in drought.
i can do better than that damo !we live without mains power {generators only which we only use when we need to},and we only have 10500 litres of water storage........just to prove it can be done{not}and you are correct if people had to live without the things they take for granted and made to realise what it takes to provide them the world would be a better place!;)

[edddo]

limited resources and conservation is a seperate issue....but...,.global warming..imo ...it is 10% science and 90% politics of fear by various groups..........spin spin spin....yes the weather is going about its cyclic nature and yes us humans are well.....some arrogant enought to think we can control it...some(many) reckon they can profit by it...some reckon they can get voted in on the back of it...conservation on the other hand is an issue that is real and will hit us in real ways....but it too will be/is clouded by the spin doctors...it is hard to know exactly what the real situation is.....
the solution is

get into the bush while it hasnt burned and while you can afford the fuel!!!!!!!!:D

[JohnE]

My take on the whole thing, its cyclic, now the test is, how long is each cycle, a hundred years, 2 hundred years or longer, there have been great droughts and famines eons ago, so what is so different now, carbon monxide from vehicles, versus the great fires that raged unchecked.

Certainly food for thought.


john

[twitchy]

UMMMM, Even MARS is getting warmer!!!!!!!!!!!:cool:

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Just clarify my post above - I do "believe in global warming" although there are some serious questions regarding some of the data and the causes, but on the balance of evidence I think that the earth is warming up, and the cause may well be human actions. What I don't believe is that this drought has anything to do with it.

And as I have commented elsewhere, any action by Australia will have no significant effect on global warming - simply because there are so few of us on the world scale. As against that, global effects are likely to have a major effect on Australia.

John

I voted yes.. but when I looked at the post more closely I agree entirely with the above. :)

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Further to my last comment.. i see global warming as a moot point. We have to stop using oil for transport/heating/electricity generation because it's **really** useful for making virtually everything. It is a finite resource.

The only way we can get there is by developing better ways of generating electricity so we can move towards electric car with hydrogen as their backup fuel. :eek::eek:

[landyfromanuthaland]

My own belief is we have stuffed this planet in a real short period of time, this worlds endured ice ages etc before and I suspect it will again one day, ultimately we will pay one day, if a dirty great chunk of space junk doesnt smack us first, wasnt that what killed the dinosaurs?, we are our own worst enemy, if the Ice packs of the world suddenly melted overnite, where would all you Sydney siders be apart from cold and wet, looking for a boat perhaps!, should do wonders for house prices in Canberra

[Quiggers]

maybe we should all view the movie "waterworld"...

GQ