Water consumption off the hook as inflows hit record lows

On an annual basis consumption has been reducing for a decade now, see this ACTEW graphic.
http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/facts/annualConsumption.aspx
To put recent daily consumption in perspective we need to see the annual cycle of say monthly consumption. The only useful figures I can see quickly are here,
http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/facts/statistics.aspx
the figures they quote for Normal summer (winter) daily consumption could be out of date because the winter figure of 118 ML per day is almost exactly our daily average consumption for the fin year 2007/2008.
If the Govt would stop wasting water on “over target” environmental releases, stop wasting water on “fish research”, that surely could be done elsewhere,
do more to stop spillage over Cotter Dam – which overflowed much of last spring; then we long suffering consumers could use more water and pay less per unit.
There are just 3 near zero cost ideas.

You’re right, I missed that part of the question as I was half asleep. I’m about to run off to work so will have to answer later, but I also have a question for you. Prior to humans being around what do you think changed the CO2 level as during the period the ice core covered it did fluctuate.

It’s part of the ice core record, why would I dispute that ? It doesn’t mean that the current CO2 level is caused by humans, nor does it mean that it isn’t.

I asked you specifically what’s causing it. I say humans. You say it maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Science has put its cards on the table, so now you need to put up – tell us why the science is wrong, show the errors in its data, and offer evidence for an alternative cause – or shut up.

What you’re saying is exactly the same as me saying “apples fall toward the ground, why would I dispute that? It doesn’t mean the falling is caused by gravity, nor does it mean that it isn’t.” It’s called ‘conjuring away the question’, and its a sign of intellectual weakness.

So – what IS causing the rise in CO2 that hasn’t happened in over 720,000 years? Why won’t it the rise be couple with temperature like it has for the past 720,000 years? Put up or f.ck off.

Thumper said deye,
12000BP is generally thought to be the end of the severest of the last ice age. Around this time we also see the flooding of the land bridge from mainland Australia to tasmania and place such as Batesman bay becoming coastal.

We started coming out of the glacial period about 15,000 years ago, it was warming nicely to almost current levels when it suddenly dropped back into the Younger Dryas which lasted around 1,300 years and ended with the rapid warming mentioned earlier.

Woody Mann-Caruso said Let’s try this the other way, shall we? How about all you climate experts explain to me:
– why CO2 levels are drastically higher than they’ve ever been for the past 720,000 years – that’s the past 8 ice ages; and
– what’s so magical about modern CO2 that causes it not to act like a greenhouse gas like regular CO2.
References to reputable, peer-reviewed journals, please.

Peer reviewed journals tend to cost a bit to access, however in this case there is no need. According to the ice cores the highest reading during the last 700 thousand or so years was about 300 ppm while they are currently about 385 ppm. It’s part of the ice core record, why would I dispute that ? It doesn’t mean that the current CO2 level is caused by humans, nor does it mean that it isn’t.

However that isn’t 8 ice ages, it’s 8 glacial cycles in the current ice age. If they had been individual ice ages there would have been no ice sheets in between each of them to keep record of them. The current ice age has been going for about 2.3 million years and there has been about 80 glacial/interglacial cycles so far.

Go back further though and it does get higher. The standout ones are around 3,000 ppm about 150-200 million years ago and around 6,000 ppm about 400 and 600 million years ago.

I have no idea by what you mean in your last question.

Let’s try this the other way, shall we? How about all you climate experts explain to me:

– why CO2 levels are drastically higher than they’ve ever been for the past 720,000 years – that’s the past 8 ice ages; and

– what’s so magical about modern CO2 that causes it not to act like a greenhouse gas like regular CO2.

References to reputable, peer-reviewed journals, please.

deye said :

The datasets used aren’t accurate enough to tell, but I recall reading last year about some indications that some of the previous events have been as quick.

actually I’ve been doing a bit more reading and found an article that cited another article from a Greenland Ice Core drilling in ’92 which indicated that during the “Younger Dryas” Greenland warmed by about 7º in less than 50 years. This was about 12,000 years ago. Records further back become too fuzzy for that detail.

I haven’t been able to find an easily accessible version of the source article, just an overview and payment required.

Needs more BLOCK CAPS though Thumper 🙂

The datasets used aren’t accurate enough to tell, but I recall reading last year about some indications that some of the previous events have been as quick.

deye said :

The key words there are “in the history of the human race”

Yes but apart from mass extinction events, like a comet or asteroid hitting the planet, previous global warming has occurred slowly over thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Isn’t the global warming event we’re currently having happening a lot quicker than it’s ever happened before??

Emlyn Ward said :

NEVER BEFORE in the history of the human race have CO2 concentrations been at the level they are now
NEVER BEFORE in the history of the human race have they increased at the rate they are currently increasing
NEVER BEFORE have global temperatures increased at the rate we are currently seeing.

The key words there are “in the history of the human race”

As has been pointed out, the history of the world goes back a lot further than that.

There are just as many “green group funded inventions” as “exxon funded inventions” .

But some scientists truly believe that global cooling is a much bigger threat.

This is quite interesting given the 1970s global cooling issue.

This is what’s funny – you Denialists claim to be “sceptical” and to be rational intelligent people and therefore not deserving of denigration for your pathetic beliefs and then in the very next breath we catch you trotting-out an Exxon-funded invention.

*What* “1970s global cooling issue”?
– Look up the facts and then post back here with what those facts tell you.

As for “The climate has always changed continuously” – you’ve swallowed the Exxon-provided complacency pill and are missing the point, which is this:
NEVER BEFORE in the history of the human race have CO2 concentrations been at the level they are now
NEVER BEFORE in the history of the human race have they increased at the rate they are currently increasing
NEVER BEFORE have global temperatures increased at the rate we are currently seeing.

You are *not* sceptics – you are irrational contrarians.

I agree.

It’s entirely fair to say that “the climate is changing”. Humans probably even have something to do with it (but wouldn’t be the major factor). The climate is, and has always, changed continuously.

It’s more about adapting ourselves. Being sensible about resource consumption is more about the level to which we want to preserve our current way of life.

Loose Brown said :

I have lived in Canberra my whole life and I remember when it used to rain. It used to be green here. In fact, it used to rain so frequently that as a kid I’d get annoyed on days when it did rain due to the inconvenience!

Now it seems as though it doesn’t rain or it buckets down intensely with hail, thunder and the works.

I have a young daughter and I worry for her future.

The current weather can’t be used to support what will happen to our climate. Both 1999 and 2000 had above average rainfall. Droughts of similar intensity have occurred in the past.

This is not to say that there is not compelling evidence that global warming is occurring but it is not scientifically creditable to use an 8 year drought as evidence and to predict future weather patterns but some scientists and environmental reporters are doing so.

*will check for other people’s typos in future when cutting & pasting*

…there’s potential for a few in future, (IE: 1950DA has a 0.3% chance of impact in 2880AD) we’re boned..

Probably not me personally from that one, but I take your point.

“A new life awaits you in the Offworld Colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure. New climate, recreational facilities… a loyal trouble-free companion given to you upon your arrival absolutely free. Use your new friend as a personal body serbal or a tireless field hand – the custom tailored generitcally engineers humanoid replicat is designed especially for your needs.
So come on, lets put our team up there….”

Any sustainable offworld colony would be a useful insurance policy against any human ELE, but the potential for a thousand years of chaos on Earth would mean we’d have a wholly different place to come back to.
But yes, if we don’t create an ELE for ourselves, there’s potential for a few in future, (IE: 1950DA has a 0.3% chance of impact in 2880AD) we’re boned..

p1 said :

Anyone seen The day after tomorrow? There were lots of people in the ’70s who looked into this for a long time. I think the general consensus these days seems to be that it could happen, but human influenced climate variation (like how I didn’t use the word change) is as likely to be the trigger as anything.

bring it on! we will all be living in beachfrontages. shame about sydney, but what can you do?

Anyone seen The day after tomorrow? There were lots of people in the ’70s who looked into this for a long time. I think the general consensus these days seems to be that it could happen, but human influenced climate variation (like how I didn’t use the word change) is as likely to be the trigger as anything.

Then I guess we’re all fckued hey?

time to start evolving…

And Thumper,

we are statistically overdue for a nice big meteor strike.

Me too LB, I also worry about the future for my kids. But some scientists truly believe that global cooling is a much bigger threat. Google ‘earth is cooling’ and have a read – very interesting stuff relating to the counter-argument. I do worry about the current water situation and feel sad that my kids may not ever get to run through a sprinkler the way we did as kids (noting that Queensland is flooding while we are in drought). But I just refuse to blindly believe ‘the earth is warming’ argument when there is so much science to suggest that the opposite may, in fact, be true.

Deza – I hope you are right.

I have lived in Canberra my whole life and I remember when it used to rain. It used to be green here. In fact, it used to rain so frequently that as a kid I’d get annoyed on days when it did rain due to the inconvenience!

Now it seems as though it doesn’t rain or it buckets down intensely with hail, thunder and the works.

I have a young daughter and I worry for her future.

There are two sides to every theory:

‘In the meantime, we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that our cherished ideas about global warming may be, if not dead wrong, only partially correct. Intriguing recent evidence gathered from ice-rafted debris looks remarkably similar to a much older pattern that preceded an ice age. We may have to entertain the possibility that Earth’s natural climate development may be on a return to another such period, or at least to colder conditions than we now experience. If so, and ironically, the very greenhouse warming we fear may either mitigate the cooling or cancel it altogether.’

Jens Bischof is author of Ice Drift, Ocean Circulation And Climate Change and is a research assistant professor in Old Dominion’s Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Loose brown – Australia has had some extreme droughts in the past and we are in drought now (in some areas of Australia).The current drought doesn’t necessary mean that earth is experiencing ‘climate change’. There isn’t enough data to prove or disprove either way.

Well Simon Corbell was saying last night on the news that the new pipeline and enlarged dam are going to solve the problem of permanent water restrictions.

But he reminded us that the ‘days of the long shower’ are long gone.

Which begs the question – will it ever rain properly again? Why are there still people denying climate change?

Bloody italics.

Skidbladnir said :

deezagood said :

In other news, the Pope remained Catholic today.

More’s the pity.

Skidbladnir said :

deezagood said :

I think on balance, RA is generally to the left.

Good heavens. You mean its representative of Canberra?

In other news, the Pope remained Catholic today.

bob will be happy.

deezagood said :

I think on balance, RA is generally to the left.

Good heavens. You mean its representative of Canberra?

In other news, the Pope remained Catholic today.

deezagood said :

I think on balance, RA is generally to the left.

and I still think it all depends on where you are looking from.

I think on balance, RA is generally to the left.

(Emlyn said): Denialists are irrational contrarian loonies

(Thumper said): And unlike Emlyn, I don’t go around abusing people simply because they believe in something different.

It’s probably the best way to shoot all the feet off one’s argument, I certainly agree.

Which thread was it recently when someone accused Riotact of being lefty? 🙂

deezagood said :

Yeah Thumper – there seems to be an assumption that if you don’t automatically subscribe to the theory of ‘human-induced climate change’, you are uneducated and/or ignorant and/or some sort of fundamentalist religious zealot/loony. Frankly, I think it is sensible to question theories, seek scientific proof/data supporting a theory and explore counter-theories before blindly jumping on the popularist media bandwagon regarding climate change. I have read widely on this issue and I don’t think there is sufficient data (yet) to prove or disprove the theory either way. Does this make me a denialist loony?

Personally, I think that the human-induced pollution spewing into the atmosphere, coupled with vast forests of trees being hacked down every day MUST have an effect on earth’s atmosphere and climate … and I eagerly await irrefutable evidence that our earth is, indeed, warming. Until such time, certainly agree with Sepi that it is far better to be safe than sorry regarding climate change.

as i have always thought, the earth will right itself. It may be of detriment to us, but the planet will endure.

Yeah Thumper – there seems to be an assumption that if you don’t automatically subscribe to the theory of ‘human-induced climate change’, you are uneducated and/or ignorant and/or some sort of fundamentalist religious zealot/loony. Frankly, I think it is sensible to question theories, seek scientific proof/data supporting a theory and explore counter-theories before blindly jumping on the popularist media bandwagon regarding climate change. I have read widely on this issue and I don’t think there is sufficient data (yet) to prove or disprove the theory either way. Does this make me a denialist loony?

Personally, I think that the human-induced pollution spewing into the atmosphere, coupled with vast forests of trees being hacked down every day MUST have an effect on earth’s atmosphere and climate … and I eagerly await irrefutable evidence that our earth is, indeed, warming. Until such time, certainly agree with Sepi that it is far better to be safe than sorry regarding climate change.

Nice rebuttal deye.

Emlyn Ward said: Deye has simply unintelligently recycled the mindless PR-drivel that Exxon has been funding for the last few years in a bid to arrest any political activity aimed at curtailing CO2 emissions.
Let’s see what Deye was actually saying:
“The only constant is change.”
Irrelevant, meaningless and dishonest argument aimed at the conclusion “therefore we should do nothing”.

What word would you use beside "Change" to describe how the world has gone backwards and forwards from hot to cold over the eons ?

Emlyn Ward said: “Every temperature before then is an interpretation of some kind of data. Not all the data agrees, let alone the interpretations of that data.”
Outdated and false assertion – temperature reconstructions all agree quite well on historical temperatures and their analysis all agrees that the steep warming since 1970 is anomalous.

Temperature reconstructions do vary depending on the source data, sometimes it is shown in the graphs, sometimes it does not. It warmed from the 70’s till 98, but warming and cooling periods are nothing unusal. Sure the rate might be faster than what we know about so far, but actual warming is not unusal.

Emlyn Ward said: “Since 1998 3 of the 4 temperature datasets have shown that the temp has been cooling.”
Utter rubbish. Every single temperature so far in the 21st Century has been higher than every temperature recorded in the 20th, except 1998. The above “argument” is simply a dishonest use of cherry-picked statistics to produce a supposed “trend” which simply doesn’t exist.

So does that mean we can ignore the pro global warming arguments because they use the same 4 datasets ?

Emlyn Ward said: “Computer models”
Denialist loonies hate them and never tire of saying so. They’d rather use Auntie Fay’s crystal ball, presumably. Computer modelling is used in many disciplines and allows you to test data within a fairly well-defined margin of error. Computer models for temperature and sea-level rises have been shown to have been consistently conservative in their predictions compared with eventual measurements.

Computer modelling works well where you can define most of the variables – preferably all of them. When it comes to climate modelling we haven’t even been able to identify a lot of the variables let alone define them.

Emlyn Ward said: “How much carbon do you think goes up in smoke during a bushfire”
Irrelevant. Or is it? Who’s lighting the fires? In any case, the CO2 cycle is very well understood, and the problem is that the difference between what is absorbed and what is emitted has blown out to 3% annually, which is giving us the steep CO2 increases.

yes it was sort of irrelevant – except for the clean air remark. For the quip about who started the fires don’t forget that nature starts fires as well as the occasional human

Emlyn Ward said: “Be it natural or not we have to adapt to it ”
False. Humans are the animal which controls its environment instead of adapting to it. We’ve been doing it since the first caveman lit a fire in his cave and hung up some animal hides in the entrance to keep the heat in.

We can exert some control over our immediate environs, it’s a tenuous grip that’s a long way from controlling it completely. If we could control it we wouldn’t have to worry about flood, cyclones, earthquakes or most natural disasters. If we weren’t adapting then why do we choose to live where there are water sources ?

Emlyn Ward said: “How do we settle on the right temperature ?”
Is this more code for “therefore we should do nothing”? “Right temperature” isn’t the issue. Change is the issue – change is expensive economically and socially destructive so what we need is equilibrium.

no code for anything, other than who decides for the entire world.

Emlyn Ward said: “What I am against is this semi religious fervour”
It’s called science.
*You* creationist denialist flat-earth fruitcakes are the irrational ones who’ve arrived at conclusions without proper regard for the facts of the matter and regularly trot out the same tired old dishonest assertions to back your faith-based position.

ooh ahh my heart bleeds. I don’t normally post much personal information about myself on forums, but this time I’ll make a little exception. My Grandfather was a methodist minister, he died before I was born. My parents weren’t all that religious and I am an atheist. The only times I go to church are to attend family and friends weddings and funerals. I respect their choice, but don’t pretend to pray while I am there.

My interests are wide and varied as is my education. Some of it’s been formal, some of it informal. For a number of years I studied Engineering until I decided it wasn’t for me. I currently work in IT. Some of the formal education I only do until I’ve learnt what I want, others I stick with until completion. One of the ones I completed is in Renewable Energy Technology. Informally I look into a large number of topics, my major interest is in the future utilization of space based resources, particularly those that can be used in conjunction with the sun to provide an abundant and clean power source for the planet. That is still some years off, but I expect it will happen one day as there are too many drivers forcing us towards it.

That really doesn’t seem to be the mark of a “creationist denialist flat-earth fruitcake”, although fruitcake might be a bit debatable according to my friends 🙂

The only thing I take on faith is that the planet will be here for a lot longer than humans are likely to be.

Ah, I almost forgot the mindless Exxon driven PR drivel. Long before human caused climate change was even a blip on the public’s radar I was taught about the ice ages, hot times and geological changes in school. I doubt Exxon would have been fiddling with school text books back then. The research and data since then has only refined our knowledge, not overturned it.

Tempestas said :

chewy14 said :

Tempestas,
if any theory that can’t be proven wrong is false,
Quantum theory and a lot of theoretical physics is in trouble then.

Chewy14, Not sure that the physicists would go with you there. As I understand it there are large areas where providing “measurable” data from those “theories” is problematic, but does not make the theory always true.
If a theory can’t possibly (note possible not probably or measurably) be wrong, then it can’t actually tell you anything about the universe.

peterh, my invisible friend says yours is full of it. 😉

who said it was my invisible friend? Leave Bob out of this.

There is a book called “The Great Boomerang”. National Library has it on their catalog. Have a read regarding ways to return the inland to a fertile environment and redirect the weather patterns to more of a state of normality for australia.

chewy14 said :

Tempestas,
if any theory that can’t be proven wrong is false,
Quantum theory and a lot of theoretical physics is in trouble then.

Chewy14, Not sure that the physicists would go with you there. As I understand it there are large areas where providing “measurable” data from those “theories” is problematic, but does not make the theory always true.
If a theory can’t possibly (note possible not probably or measurably) be wrong, then it can’t actually tell you anything about the universe.

peterh, my invisible friend says yours is full of it. 😉

Tempestas said :

Waiting with interest for round 2.

Just for the record, “Science” however we like to define it is NOT a religion or faith. It is always open to the possibility of being wrong, but and here is the kicker, it is the best explanation of existing phenomena at the now. Sure the practice of science has its quirks and fashions like everything else, but that is not the same as religion.

Here is a relatively simple test.
Any theory, about anything at all, that can’t be proven wrong is false.

So the Creationist myth of “god created world complete with fake fossils” cannot be disproven, because no matter what evidence you produce the creationists will go “Ah but god put that there to give you a mystery”
Ergo creationism is a crock of fantasy/delusion whatever.

So back on topic. Lets run the ruler of “what evidence could exist” to disprove deye or emelyn. If the answer is none then they both tell us nothing. If some things pass and some things fail, we have a debate.

I’ll leave the rest to you….

the bible says that god created the world and the heavens in 6 days. where does it say that they were earth days?

plenty of time between day 1 & day 6 for evolution… and everyone is happy.

I think deye’s post was quite balanced and rational; s/he is not denying man-induced global warming necessarily, just pointing out that there are two sides to the debate and perhaps not enough data to support assertions either way. At least that’s how I read it. Nice to see some balance on this issue; as opposed to the ‘denialist loony’ accusations posted in response.

Tempestas,
if any theory that can’t be proven wrong is false,
Quantum theory and a lot of theoretical physics is in trouble then.

Waiting with interest for round 2.

Just for the record, “Science” however we like to define it is NOT a religion or faith. It is always open to the possibility of being wrong, but and here is the kicker, it is the best explanation of existing phenomena at the now. Sure the practice of science has its quirks and fashions like everything else, but that is not the same as religion.

Here is a relatively simple test.
Any theory, about anything at all, that can’t be proven wrong is false.

So the Creationist myth of “god created world complete with fake fossils” cannot be disproven, because no matter what evidence you produce the creationists will go “Ah but god put that there to give you a mystery”
Ergo creationism is a crock of fantasy/delusion whatever.

So back on topic. Lets run the ruler of “what evidence could exist” to disprove deye or emelyn. If the answer is none then they both tell us nothing. If some things pass and some things fail, we have a debate.

I’ll leave the rest to you….

http://www.cyberdyne.jp/English/

I don’t have time to reply to Emlyn at the moment, but will when I get home from work.

hasn’t the company that builds skynet been closed for a while? Cyberdyne I think?

Or if SKYNET takes over and launches all the Nuclear missiles, then we’ll be screwed.

of course, if we have a big tectonic event, or an asteroid hits the earth, then all we do will be for nought. the earth will right itself. we won’t be able to control anything….

housebound said :

Any action we take to stop climate change won’t have an effect straight away. Unfortunately our earth is bigger than a cave. We have to adapt.

What, like evolve solar cells on our bald heads, you mean – that sort of thing?

Loonies, read this and you may learn something:

After WW2, scientists noticed that the earth’s temperature seemed to be dropping. After a few years’ research they realised that industry-emitted aerosols were causing a “shading effect” which was cooling the earth. Over the next couple of decades, industry cleaned up its act, and the cooling trend was reversed.

The above *fact* of climate history demonstrates quite clearly that humans don’t “adapt to” change (which is transparently code for “do nothing”), humans *implement* change.

This also demonstrates that the Denialists’ article of FAITH to deny the following is WRONG:
– humans *cause* climate change
– humans can *reverse* human-induced climate change.
– reversing human-induced climate change will destroy the economy

*You* creationist denialist flat-earth fruitcakes

Ah, here we go again. As soon as anyone dares question the climate change issue the inquisition comes out.

Quite predictable really.

I see you were unable to address the substance of my post but nevertheless display your faith-based disagreement with the conclusion.

Quite predictable really.

Denialists are irrational contrarian loonies who somehow kid themselves they are being “sceptical”.
Just like anti-vaccinationists and homeopathy suckers.

“Be it natural or not we have to adapt to it ”
False. Humans are the animal which controls its environment instead of adapting to it. We’ve been doing it since the first caveman lit a fire in his cave and hung up some animal hides in the entrance to keep the heat in.

Ummm, true actually. It’s also the best reason for taking action if you you aren’t a believer.

Any action we take to stop climate change won’t have an effect straight away. Unfortunately our earth is bigger than a cave. We have to adapt.

But how can you go past ‘better to be safe than sorry’.

Quite apart from the agreement of many leading scientists (almost all of them).

I feel that serious climate change deniers would not change their mind no matter what, so why bother trying to engage in debate with them.

I think their main focus is ‘I don’t wanna think about it’.

Deye has simply unintelligently recycled the mindless PR-drivel that Exxon has been funding for the last few years in a bid to arrest any political activity aimed at curtailing CO2 emissions.

Let’s see what Deye was actually saying:

“The only constant is change.”
Irrelevant, meaningless and dishonest argument aimed at the conclusion “therefore we should do nothing”.

“Every temperature before then is an interpretation of some kind of data. Not all the data agrees, let alone the interpretations of that data.”
Outdated and false assertion – temperature reconstructions all agree quite well on historical temperatures and their analysis all agrees that the steep warming since 1970 is anomalous.

“Since 1998 3 of the 4 temperature datasets have shown that the temp has been cooling.”
Utter rubbish. Every single temperature so far in the 21st Century has been higher than every temperature recorded in the 20th, except 1998. The above “argument” is simply a dishonest use of cherry-picked statistics to produce a supposed “trend” which simply doesn’t exist.

“Computer models”
Denialist loonies hate them and never tire of saying so. They’d rather use Auntie Fay’s crystal ball, presumably. Computer modelling is used in many disciplines and allows you to test data within a fairly well-defined margin of error. Computer models for temperature and sea-level rises have been shown to have been consistently conservative in their predictions compared with eventual measurements.

“How much carbon do you think goes up in smoke during a bushfire”
Irrelevant. Or is it? Who’s lighting the fires? In any case, the CO2 cycle is very well understood, and the problem is that the difference between what is absorbed and what is emitted has blown out to 3% annually, which is giving us the steep CO2 increases.

“Be it natural or not we have to adapt to it ”
False. Humans are the animal which controls its environment instead of adapting to it. We’ve been doing it since the first caveman lit a fire in his cave and hung up some animal hides in the entrance to keep the heat in.

“How do we settle on the right temperature ?”
Is this more code for “therefore we should do nothing”? “Right temperature” isn’t the issue. Change is the issue – change is expensive economically and socially destructive so what we need is equilibrium.

“What I am against is this semi religious fervour”
It’s called science.
*You* creationist denialist flat-earth fruitcakes are the irrational ones who’ve arrived at conclusions without proper regard for the facts of the matter and regularly trot out the same tired old dishonest assertions to back your faith-based position.

Thumper: err.. Not that I’m sure that’s what Corbell is going to talk about, but yeah.

Debate is good Deye,
but the problem is people use arguments like yours to be just as “religious” in their stance that there isn’t a problem, or we didn’t cause it so we should do nothing.
Your argument seems to go:
We haven’t been here long, What Could we know.
A small amount of evidence says the Earth is cooling.
Computer models don’t work.
Natural processes create carbon anyway.
Even if it is real, it doesn’t matter.

You say that species need to adapt to survive, yet you don’t want to have to change your lifestyle at all. It can’t be that hard for people to make a small change even if it does turn out that Global Warming isn’t real. Most of the things suggested to combat Global Warming will be good for the general environment anyway. Surely it is better to be safe than sorry.

Thumper: The New Cotter Dam EIS should be finishing up in the next month or so.

See, now Deye has proved that the debate still exists by, well, debating.

Most of the other people here have simply discounted out of hand their opposition (on faith?), which is neither debate nor science.

While it might be annoying when one is forced to either let Deye have the last word, or go spend a day reading to find what convinced me in the past, it doesn’t mean I need to stamp my feet.

That said, I still believe humans are having a measurable influence of global climate. And while I am not at all sure it will mean anything in the long term (like has been said, climate has varied greatly over history), I still hold the “beter safe then sorry” argument.

He was just on 666. I hope his office put something out for everyone else soon.

Hold your horses.

Couldn’t agree more with deye.

People like woody need to consider the scientific evidence more carefully before ignorantly screeching that the debate is over. Scientific debate is over for testable and proven hypotheses such as E=MC2, not global warming; for which there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence which can prove that it is anthropocentric in nature. Science isn’t about “concensus” either. So the debate continues.

Witching Hour this Saturday will fix the dams, won’t it?

Great post deye.

+1. Good to see some real intelligence injected into this thread.

And surely a massive national water dam/pipe project would have been just as ‘stimulating’ as flat-screen t.v.s for all?

Great post deye.

Irrespective of the cause, Australia is now (and probably has always been – in recent history anyway) a country of ‘drought and flooding rains’; we need to be smarter about finding ways to store/channel those flooding rains to alleviate the drought areas. Obviously needs to be a strategic federal government initiative, because each state tends to just look after their own. At the moment, I am seeing a whole lot of nothing from our illustrious leaders on this issue – what is taking them so long? Do we need to actually run out of water before something dramatic is done?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

There is plenty of debate

If we use your criteria for ‘debate’, then there’s also debate about the flatness of the earth, the sun revolving around it and half-Jewish lizard men controlling it.

Since I’m the only one to say that I assume you are talking to me.

Let’s see, the length of time that humans have been around is but the blink of an eye compared to how long the Earth has been around, it’s surely going to be around much longer than humans (unless we all leave at some point in the future). During it’s time the Earth has been much hotter and much colder than now. There have been times when the water level has been so low you could almost walk from here to Europe, There have been times when there has been no icesheets whatsoever. There have been times when we wouldn’t have been able to breath given the amount of CO2 in the air. The only constant is change. Species that couldn’t adapt to these changes died.

In all the time humans have been around it’s only been the last 150 years or so where we have been able to record temperature somewhat accurately and it’s only been the last 30 or so where we have been able to record the atmospheric temperature with satellites. Every temperature before then is an interpretation of some kind of data. Not all the data agrees, let alone the interpretations of that data.

Since 1998 3 of the 4 temperature datasets have shown that the temp has been cooling. The odd one out is NASA http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ which appears to be because they have been adjusting data. Does this make the news ? not much, only the hot days and freak weather events seem to really make headlines.

No one has a computer model that can accurately work out all the variables for what the climate is doing, they only simulate some of them and they are only as good as the programmer and data given to them. Heck BOM has enough trouble getting a forecast right for 2 days out do you really expect an accurate forecast for the next 30 years ?

Take a walk outside and see how clear the sky is and take a deep breath, the next time a bushfire is within 100 kms upwind of us take another walk outside and see how clear it is and try to take a deep breath then. How much carbon do you think goes up in smoke during a bushfire ?

Even if it turned out warming was caused by humans, so what. In Glaciological terms we live during the time of an ice age, sure we are in an interglacial period, but it’s still an ice age and it’s been going for 2.5 million years. Over the last 3 billion years there have been 4 of these major ice ages. If we can’t handle a few degrees of temp increase that might be caused by us how will we possibly handle it when the ice age ends and it increases a lot more, or if we drop into another glacial period how would we handle the cold. Be it natural or not we have to adapt to it or else we become another failed species while the Earth goes on.

Let’s say it was real and we implement measures to try and drop the temperature (space sun shields anyone ?) do we then try and heat it up if it drops too far ? How do we settle on the right temperature ? What’s right for me is not necessarily right for you. How much damage would we cause in trying to hold the temperature at a particular point.

That said I have nothing against some of the measures taken, I even encourage them. We should be doing more recycling, we should be using less rubbish, we should definitely be using less packaging, we should stop using oil for transport (it has far more valuable uses) and we should use cleaner energy sources and minimise pollution where possible.

What I am against is this semi religious fervour taken on by the global warming advocates that “it has been decided” and that they are the only ones that are right and if you aren’t with them then you are nut cases. Case in point, look at the responses in this thread when the possibility that it hasn’t been decided was raised.

p1 said :

Why stiffle the debate? Every debate I have seen always ends with me convinced that human influenced climate change is a reality.

and I haven’t seen anything to convince me that it is.

There is plenty of debate, it’s just one side has resorted to words like “nutsacks” in order to stiffle debate.
Why stiffle the debate? Every debate I have seen always ends with me convinced that human influenced climate change is a reality.

monomania – I say huh!

I thought water tanks essentially harvested water that would normally go into stormwater and eventually end up in the Murray-Darling system.

Water is finite, the less we waste the more we can use elsewhere, bigger dams still need rain.

I was under the impression that Tennent Dam was not viable for real geological and civil engineering reasons.

The fact of global warming is largely irrelevant to our immediate needs for a sufficient local water supply. The current rapid global climate change is still very much a long-term thing compared to the immediate large annual increases in local water needs as new suburbs are opened for development.

Dodgy backwards foreign tyrants manage to produce enough water for their desert-cities, but the ACT government can’t manage it……although they *can* manage to “accidentally” leave written details of CHick Henry’s remuneration in plain view on a table in a room full of journalists.

Frankly, a drama queen like Stanhope would be fine as the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Irrelevant Red Tape, but he has no place holding an executive position in the running of our town.

Tempestas said :

A better water tank policy, less red tape (like even though my block slopes to the front I can’t put a water tank there because its “unslightly”) might go someway to help.

Where are our climate change is a myth commentariat now?

The f**king water tank is now empty but the w**kers with them still have green lawns and a sign that says ‘rain water used here’. Don’t be such a clot.

this has to be looked at by the bureau of met, and actew. perhaps our catchments can be moved

Was this a deadpan joke, or are you serious?

There is plenty of debate

If we use your criteria for ‘debate’, then there’s also debate about the flatness of the earth, the sun revolving around it and half-Jewish lizard men controlling it.

sepi said :

The drought does make you realise that if climate change is true, and the world is gradually getting hotter and drier, then we are in trouble.

There are plenty of ways to get water as long as you have the energy, money and will to do so.

Jim Jones said :

deye said :

Human caused global warming is under debate.

Ah, actually the debate is pretty much over.

The only people ‘debating’ are the sort of nutsacks who wouldn’t believe that the earth is round if it hadn’t been accepted by Andrew Bolt in one of his columns.

There is plenty of debate, it’s just one side has resorted to words like “nutsacks” in order to stiffle debate.

They are not called “water restrictions” but “water conservation measures” – sounds more touchy and feely than restrictions!

Yep Emlyn – they should but haven’t. And now time is running out to come up with a alternative…..

Again too much stick – not enough carrot.

a quick calculation shows we have around 400-450 days of water left if we have no more inflows. why dont they put that on the sighs, so for every large day of use we see our days running out 46% means nothing unless we know the size. given we are falling around .1-.2 % per day at 140-170 mg per day it shows that really we dont have that long left.

How many household can genuinely say that they know whether or not they are using more than their share of that limit?

There’s no point publishing an overall target if you’re not going to help people understand what that means for their own personal consumption habits.

A city needs water.

The people running the city are responsible for ensuring the infrastructure is sufficient for the city’s requirements.

…except in Canberra, where the people running the city are more interested in irrelevant crap like homosexual marriage, appalling street art and 5-star holiday-accommodation for criminals.

p1 said :

Of course, if we were to totally revegetate all the forests lost in the ’03 fires, then for the first fifty odd (depending on species) years of growth they would be using almost all the water falling as rain (assuming they didn’t die like many of Canberra’s street trees).

But that would be the same as the last eighty years anyway, since they had been used for plantation forests during that time.

can’t do any more harm than leaving the hills bare.

Of course, if we were to totally revegetate all the forests lost in the ’03 fires, then for the first fifty odd (depending on species) years of growth they would be using almost all the water falling as rain (assuming they didn’t die like many of Canberra’s street trees).

But that would be the same as the last eighty years anyway, since they had been used for plantation forests during that time.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

The drought does make you realise that if climate change is true, and the world is gradually getting hotter and drier, then we are in trouble.

Hotter maybe, drier no way. There is a finite amount of water on planet earth. It may not always be in convenient forms or locations, but the amount changes only based on what is locked up in ice and in life forms.

We would be smarter to take an approach of saying ‘the local region seems to be getting drier, what are are options for getting the water we need’.

Being smart about this means using water carefully, but also securing supply.

the problem that we have here in canberra is the change of the landscape and the resulting loss of vegetation by the fires. The amount of trees that died at mount stromlo and the brindabellas would be a huge hit to the oxygen production system. the ground now has the chance to heat up, in summer, well beyond what it was able to do in the past.

the reverse occurs in winter. the moisture is being sucked out of the soil, without its covering of trees and shrubs.

as i mentioned above, i saw rain falling in a band, missing tuggeranong, even though the wind was blowing the drops towards tuggeranong.

The drought does make you realise that if climate change is true, and the world is gradually getting hotter and drier, then we are in trouble.

Hotter maybe, drier no way. There is a finite amount of water on planet earth. It may not always be in convenient forms or locations, but the amount changes only based on what is locked up in ice and in life forms.

We would be smarter to take an approach of saying ‘the local region seems to be getting drier, what are are options for getting the water we need’.

Being smart about this means using water carefully, but also securing supply.

Agreed with Deye, that is. And Sepi! I am so sad to hear about the Botanic Gardens.

Agreed. Climate change is like anything – the more you look for something, the more you see things that affirm that view. This is how astrology works.

An example from my own life – I was a classical musician in the dim distant past, and at one stage I thought I was going a bit deaf – and everytime I had to ask someone to repeat something this affirmed my thoughts. (An eventual hearing test showed my hearing was fine.) I know someone who, similarly, thought they were losing their memory as there was a strong family history of Alzheiners – but it turned out they were depressed!

Organisations (inc govt) currently find it convenient to jump on the climate change bandwagon. Eg ACTEW, who would prefer us to have to pay $$ lots, on an ongoing basis, for an Orwellian ‘water purification’ plant and simultaneously justify raising the price of water, instead of building a once-only infrastructure project (ie, the Tennent Dam) that actually stores ENOUGH water. I mean, where is Occam’s razor in this?

deye said :

Human caused global warming is under debate.

Ah, actually the debate is pretty much over.

The only people ‘debating’ are the sort of nutsacks who wouldn’t believe that the earth is round if it hadn’t been accepted by Andrew Bolt in one of his columns.

The drought does make you realise that if climate change is true, and the world is gradually getting hotter and drier, then we are in trouble.

Tempestas said :

Where are our climate change is a myth commentariat now?

The climate has always changed even before humans turned up. Human caused global warming is under debate. Believe what you like a drought doesn’t prove it one way or the other.

Anyway have a look at previous droughts
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/livedrought.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/drought.htm

Nosey said :

What have you done about her peterh?

I would guess nothing because she is wearing a bikini and looks HOT.

LOL.

uuurgh. never seen her in a bikini. elderly women don’t do it for me….

actew have advised me and some other neighbors that they really can’t do anything unless she is seen.

The botanic gardens has lost one seventh of their plants under water restrictions.

I think it is wrong that builders and big business have no restrictions, and yet the botanic gardens is treated the same as a domestic house.

Im on the side that says we should now and forever be on water restrictions and have them actually enforced. Also, i would have a water tank if i could currently afford it and governemtn rebates would be great.

What have you done about her peterh?

I would guess nothing because she is wearing a bikini and looks HOT.

LOL.

sepi said :

Also, established plants and trees require less water than new baby plants, which need heaps.

So it is a false economy to let all the lawns and trees die, then plan to put in new ones when it eventually rains.

so why do we have an arboretum and a botanic garden? The ABG have been there for years, the arboretum is impacting our resources. I use tank / bath / grey water for my trees and shrubs. the grass gets any overflow (not much) and it gives me the irrits as I watch my neighbor hosing down her driveway….

Also, established plants and trees require less water than new baby plants, which need heaps.

So it is a false economy to let all the lawns and trees die, then plan to put in new ones when it eventually rains.

But didn’t we all use less water in spring due to the rains we got then? I think this is a beatup, and people have short memories. We STORE water for the dry times, like now. I can’t understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

It’s that endless conundrum: human activity is held to be causing climate change, yet we charge headlong seeing population increase as vital. What are they going to drink?

arbitrarily saying target usage will fall from this date just becuase the calendar says it’s autumn is shortsighted, dare I say stupid. If the underlying conditions haven’t changed then patterns of usage won’t change just becasue an arbitrary diary entry says it’s autumn.

Over the past 6-10 years we’ve often gone 7 weeks or more without rain at this time of year. Summer storms as I recall were historically responsible for the bulk of Canberra’s annual rainfall – if we don’t get them then we have an “issue”!

About time the gubment (loose term for the stanhope collective) started seriously slowing development and increasing water harvesting options cos we can’t all keep using less as the population grows.

time to put the soap box back in garage…..

The dry tendency has been going for years now. Sometimes there’ll be a wet month and people forget, but the overall picture remains grim. Groundwater is depleted and the rain we do get does little to mend that situation. The stressed trees are a result of this long, long dry.

Who remembers days of sustained, steady rain? hasn’t happened in a very long time. Storm rains are dramatic, but their effect is not as good as teh same amount falling over a longer period. If things don’t change, the city is in for some soem serious times.

It hasn’t rained decently since just before Australia Day. That’s a long time !

Or just water the poor old trees we still have.

If you actually have a good look at any of the trees on our nature strips and roundabouts, they are half dead – it is very sad.

The big woden roundabout has some shockers in it.

was driving home from civic yesterday at 5.45, rained between scrivener dam and the parkway on cotter road. dry in kambah. this has to be looked at by the bureau of met, and actew. perhaps our catchments can be moved or the lakes used as sub catchments to bolster our water levels.

The arboretum is possibly, no, probably the best idea for changing the weather patterns, build more arboretums around canberra, or just plant more trees…

I was driving past one of those roadside signs announcing daily water use the other day, and noticed that we are on level three water restrictions. It occured to me to wonder why this is so. Shouldn’t they do away with the concept of restriction levels, and just have a permanent policy of not wasting water?

Its a shame but not surprising, you can let your lawn become dirt and weeds, you can minimise or give up the vege patch, but when the only organic life you have is trees and the native low water once established shrubs. There is only so much you are prepared to let die. Also like Sepi said drippers for those shrubs mean we are actually watering.

A better water tank policy, less red tape (like even though my block slopes to the front I can’t put a water tank there because its “unslightly”) might go someway to help.

Where are our climate change is a myth commentariat now?

Not all that suprising given that Feb was the driest for 15 years, and March is shaping up as similar..

Water use may also have risen cos lots of us have finally got around to getting dripper systems that are allowed during watering time.

The outlook for rain is pretty grim. The patterns are in a mess, troughs go over regularly without delivering a drop. If late autumn doesn’t bring soemthing substantial, then restrictions should be re-imposed.

For some time now, our most substantial rain has come with storms. That is a worrying trend, and if it continues then a lot of how we live will have to be re-thought.