<< home  < Articles

Global Warming

Speaking as we were:

 * UK hits 100F for first time *
The record for the hottest day in Britain is broken as temperatures soar past 100F at Heathrow airport.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk/3138865.stm
O

Meanwhile, in Melbourne, I'm waiting for the nitrogen in the atmosphere to liquefy...  

 Gary-Peter Dalrymple wrote:

I'm Sorry, I know it is serious, but when I first saw on TV that London was suffering the hotest weather in recorded history (except for a week in 1666?), 35.6 degrees C

I........

 fell off my chair laughing! 

Peter Macinnis responded:

On English perceptions of temperature, I was reading Watkin Tench last night -- a choice not entirely unrelated to my current temporary obsession -- but I thought people might enjoy this excerpt: the previous high was 109 F -- keep in mind that with no tiled roofs to the west, there were no sea breezes penetrating to Sydney Cove.  I have taken this from Gutenberg, but reinstated Tench's "desarts", as
it appears in the text.

*****************

But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February [1791], when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days.  At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded:  but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world.  Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height.  It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced.  An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere.  Nor did the 'perroquettes', though tropical birds, bear it better.  The ground was
strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.

[NO Monty Python jokes, thanks]

Were I asked the cause of this intolerable heat, I should not hesitate to pronounce that it was occasioned by the wind blowing over immense desarts, which, I doubt not, exist in a north-west direction from Port Jackson, and not from fires kindled by the natives.  This remark I feel necessary, as there were methods used by some persons in the colony, both for estimating the degree of heat and for ascertaining the cause of its production, which I deem equally unfair and unphilosophical.  The thermometer, whence my observations were constantly made, was hung in the open air in a southern aspect, never reached by the rays of the sun, at the distance of several feet above the ground. 

Would they be on their summer holidays?

Isn't there some particular temperature in Oz where the schools are supposed to close?  I have an extremely vague memory from primary school that it was somewhere over 100F (38C) but I don't remember where.

PS It beats me how anyone thinks the fahrenheit scale is a good thing.  I've had american friends claim that the difference between degrees C is too big, but frankly I think they're dreaming if they imagine they can tell the difference between a daytime temperature of 25C and 25.5C.  In fahrenheit, the freezing point of water is 32 degrees.  Excuse me?  Just what is this scale based on anyway?  Give me metric - zero is freezing, 50 is way too hot, and comfortable is somewhere in between.

Gary-Peter Dalrymple posted:

Fahrenhiet was intended to be;
 
Freezing Water - 32 degrees (1x32)
Human body temp - 96 degrees (3x32)
Boiling water 212 degrees (errrr 6.625x32?)

But of course it didn't work out quite right even then.

> Isn't there some particular temperature in Oz where
> the schools are supposed to close?  I have an
> extremely vague memory from primary school that it was
> somewhere over 100F (38C) but I don't remember where.

Rob Geraghty responded:

[kids being sent home if it gets too hot]

> There has been a very persistent urban
> myth to that effect.

This was certainly children's folklore (the school hand-me-down culture) in primary schools in the 1950's /60's. (Sydney)
I certainly believed it.
The only time we were sent home in primary school was on a Melbourne Cup day.
I never saw our recently transferred Victorian headmaster again...

Work agreements used to stipulate certain temperatures in some industries - the Port Kembla Steel Works comes to mind?

I was there then and fair dink, after 3 weeks without rain, there were PICTURES of mud cracking in the paper.
The downside of it all was that when it did rain, the terrace houses and the dank warm air smelled of reconstituted dog urine en force.

Back in the 1970s, NSW Ed still had a handbook which outlined all the rules like the size of the stable for the teacher's horse, the amount of lime to be added to a pit toilet each day.  Being of a legalistic frame of mind, I read it from cover to cover  -- but I can't recall anything about sending kids home when it got too hot.

On the other hand, if the toilets are blocked . . .  and in some schools, the kiddies know it.

Mind you, it's hard to do that with a pit toilet, unless you can chuck the teacher's horse down it.

You are being a bit hard on him, comes of being one of the first in a field I suppose.

Fahrenheit based his on Roemer's, he being the first to use two standard points of reference, the lowest that he could get in his laboratory at the time and the boiling point of water (0 and 60).

Fahrenheit multiplied by 4 to make the divisions easier to read.

The boiling point had a problem so Fahrenheit used body temp, first 30 deg for freezing of water and 90 deg for body temp.  This was later changed to 32 and 96 for ease of divisions.  A perfectly good system standing on its own.  As were other measuring systems.  Their fault is that there is no easy relationship between them.

Adds a whole new layer of meaning to thunderbox . . .

> Fahrenheit based his on Roemer's, he being the first to use two standard
> points of reference, the lowest that he could get in his laboratory at the
> time and the boiling point of water (0 and 60).

Quibble mode:  Réaumur's ??

Don't think Ole/Olaus Roemer did one . . .

I thought it was closer to 43 or something, but then i also believe that since a portion of classrooms are air-conditioned to some degree it's just a matter of moving classes into them. Aside from the logistical matters of contacting parents though, it would seem more logical to keep the children at school as opposed to getting kids on buses (particularly those in the country) which could just as well break down in the middle of nowhere, or kids walking home in the heat during the middle of the day anyway.

On a serious note regarding global warming though, is there any strong evidence to suggest what is happening in europe at the moment isn't just a natural environmental cycle? I have been led to believe if it is a human caused problem or natural cycle is another one of those 'grey areas' that no one can seem to agree on.

Mythology: Surely not!
So, I s'pose what they told us must have been.
But Google gave me this, and it conforms to what I was told at school.
http://www.geocities.com/david_swaim/tempconv.htm
So THERE!

Fahrenheit
In 1714 Gabriel Fahrenheit built the first mercury thermometer. Mercury is what is used in most thermometers today but up until Fahrenheit most people had used alcohol or water, both of which had a limited range due to their boiling and freezing points. Mercury has a very wide range between boiling and freezing points. Mercury boils at about 674ºF and freezes at about -38ºF. Fahrenheit wanted to calibrate his thermometer scale according to two fixed points. He chose as one of the points the lowest temperature he could achieve in the lab, the temperature of a mixture of ice and salt. As the other point he chose his own body temperature. He had read from the works of Sir Isaac Newton that the body temperature of all well persons was the same.

Another suggestion he took from Newton was that the number of divisions on the scale between the two points should be 12 to conform with 12 inches to the foot. So Fahrenheit set zero as the temperature on an ice/salt mixture and 12 degrees (12º) as his own body temperature.

Fahrenheit soon discovered that 12 divisions between the two set points was not fine enought for good measurement so he doubled the divisions to 24. These divisions were also not fine enough so he doubled the divisions again to 48. Even this was not fine enough for precise measurement so he doubled them one last time to 96.

Those of us who grew up using the Fahrenheit scale are aware that the average body temperature is 98.6ºF (37ºC). It turns out that Gabriel Fahrenheit's normal body temperature was lower than the average person.

On the Fahrenheit temperature scale water freezes at 32º and boils at 212º.

It will never really be possible to attribute any weather event/s to global warming.  Global warming will be/is only recognised as a trend.

Réaumur's went from 0 melting of ice -80 boiling point of water.  Of course a certain encyclopedia may say diferently.

Let's not restrict ourselves to Europe.  How about afew bits of history from the last two years which may or may not be significant.  I spent the first half of last year in Japan.  Winter in Japan was shorter than any winter no record.  The cherry blossoms flowered earlier than ever on record (and it's something the Japanese are meticulous about).  There were dust storms of soil blown from drought stricken parts of China.  The behaviour of the typhoons was also unusual.  In Australia we have ongoing drought, and horrific bushfires.  England had exceptional flooding.  Europe is now suffering an unusually hot summer and bushfires in places which don't usually suffer them. If I had the time and resources, I could probably find a lot more exceptional weather events over the last two years worldwide.

I'm not sure what it's going to take to make people wake up and observe the facts.  I can't see George Bush ever admitting to the concept of global warming; it's not in the economic interests of a family whose wealth is based in the oil industry.  Without the leadership of the USA, other developed nations will use their lead to ignore the issues. Australia is one of the worst offenders in the "western" world, yet we're also one of the best placed to take advantage of alternate sources of energy like solar power.

Well one girl I knew at school set one on fire (paper burns)

When a particular temperature was reached, all the workmen downed tools and went home, watched by  the students(and teachers) still slaving away in the classrooms.
On a similar note, I remember reading that in parts of the former Soviet Union, they are allowed to go home when it reaches a temperature of below -40C.

(Tamara Kelly added:  My Russian friend tells me they have 3 months worth of holidays  in one hit because usually everyone is snowed in.)

Yes well, given that the prision system is completley air conditioned it seems a mockery that schools aren't. My school has about one air conditioned class room per block and then the computer rooms + staff rooms are airconditioned, despite the fact they're reverse cycle the old power guzzling heaters still sit above them and get used as well. Not that it really works in summer anyway, when the temp is in the high 30's outside, u got 25 people sitting in the classroom it's an impossible task for two little wall mounted air cons to keep the tempreature anything below 30 anyway.

It also seems that the bright sparks at EQ haven't yet heard of any other solutions for skyrocketing tempreatures in schools they won't air condition either. It is really about time the government does do something as a whole and stop relying on the P&C's so much. Apparently there is some scheme that the government will match any funds $ for $ that a P&C raises to go towards air con, but once again the school needs to fit into a zone, and most of the communities are isolated and financially stressed enough as it is, making the activity seem rather pointless and just a further drain on the community.

David Maddern: Are there roof fans?

Nick:  yes, that is one thing there is in all the rooms.

I'm not sure what price oil will need to be to help solar power to come into it's own.
I would guess (without foundation) that if oil doubled in price, solar power would become more economically viable.
There is a huge problem with solar power and this is the energy cost incurred and the pollution generated by the manufacture of the needed hardware.

On a different tack (so to speak) - the wind is free but the means to harness it incurs high costs.
Anyone who has sailed around a little would understand that some may shudder when the term 'ship's chandlery' is mentioned.
I have no answers and have not seen any easy answers.
Even if oil did double in price right now, I forsee that the known world reserves of oil (as Podagus mentioned, I believe) would increase on paper overnight.

Regarding global warming. - Many people believe in this.
My own 'groat's' worth, from a long term point of view, is that we shouldn't throw out the winter woolies just yet...

You are right there,we got an extra 2 weeks holiday that christmass while they built a new septic toilet block to replace the remains of the old tank toilet.I will never forget the sight of the male teachers' toilet heading skyward like a turd propeled Saturn5

On English perceptions of temperature,

<snip>

Not only perceptions, there are physiological changes for 'whites' living/working in warmer climates. Ask a sports physiologist.

One thing I recollect hearing is that some sweat pores which are normally latent, become active when exposed to increased temperatures. They are said not to close again.

This would explain why, on leaving Thursday Island after 3 years, I was the first person in Cairns to don the woollies - in May. With my still fairly broad Lancashire accent this caused much mirth amongst the natives.

Here in Rockhampton 20 odd years later I still reckon 16 is cool and 10 degrees bloody cold!

And a swift PS

> Not only perceptions, there are physiological changes for 'whites'
> living/working in warmer climates. Ask a sports physiologist.

Such a person stated on ABC radio yesterday that 20 - 22 deg was optimum for (Europeans??) living and working.

Was up your way in Rocky two weeks ago and it was about 13-15 deg. all bloody day with a freezing wind to boot. You know how exposed the site is brrrrrr. I prefer 25-30 myself and I will admit that I notice the acclimatisation that happened when I moved from the Riverina in NSW to Sydney many years ago and again when we moved to Qld about 22 years now. We thought the Central Coast of NSW was really mild now when we return at this time of the year we really do notice the cooler conditions but some of that may well be psychological.

> We thought the Central Coast of NSW was really mild now when we return at this
> time of the year we really do notice the cooler conditions but some of that
> may well be psychological.

Have you considered the effect of ceiling fans when the air temperature is greater than body temperature?

You wouldn't be one of the large number of misguided souls who think that fans cool rooms down would you?

David Drury replied:

I thought the effectiveness of a fan was more to do with the air movement aiding the body's natural cooling system to work, and thus was more to do with the relative humidity than the ambiant temperature.

Rob Geraghty commented:

Maybe we should make a new scale now that we know absolute zero is around -274C?  :) 

I can see the news reports:
"The temperature today will be a comfortable 300 degrees..."

Peter Macinnis added:

Pedant alert!

300 kelvin

or is it  300 Kelvin?    The CRC handbook says kelvin, but you tend to see the caps so often, you begin to wonder.

A bit like minuscule and miniscule . . .

Trouble is, 300 kelvin spoils the joke.

Peter Macinnis answered:

If the unit were named for Celsius, we would talk about 17 celsius -- as we say 17 watts or joules or amperes.  On the other hand, if they are abbreviated, we have 17 W or 17 J or 17 A -- but "degrees celsius" is wrong because they are degrees on the scale initiated by Anders Celsius.  The Kelvin scale (I think it is a K) has no degrees, so we say and write 17 kelvin or 17 K

The lower case when written in full makes it easier to deal with millikelvin and microwatts and megajoules, and makes it clear what (wW)att we mean when we say the watt is named after Watt.  What?

A garden is a gladsome thing
God wot

Kevin Phyland added:

ok...as the dude in "Alien 3" said, "This is rumour control...here are the facts."

Fact #1: The last twenty years of global average temperature data contain 13 or 14 (the exact number escapes me for the minute) of the hottest on record.

Take that "fact" in isolation at your peril however. Global temperature averages are unreliable at best prior to the early 1960s for various reasons. Among them are dearth of reporting, unreliability of reporting and general lack of interest.

Fact #2: All accepted values of CO2 and CH4 show a distinct rise since the late 1700s.

Nolo contendere here...it's true. However, a correlation is not necessarily a cause-effect relationship, as most statisticians know.

Fact #3: Most climatologists accept that northern Europe (including areas such as Greenland) were considerably warmer during the pre-1000 AD period (and possibly later). Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't show what global average temperatures were like since the available data from, say Australia or South Africa is scarce, to say the least.

So...where are we at? Do ice cores from Antarctica show increased CO2 in these periods or increased pollen levels?

If they do, then what caused the increased CO2 during pre-industrial times? If it was volcanic in nature then our influence may well be minuscule (note: I'm not saying it is - play Devil's advocate with me for a bit...)...

If they don't, then it makes the causative link look a tad tenuous.

My thoughts on global warming (and as usual, only my thoughts) are that the available data is way too short on both time-scales and locales.

Can we make a difference as humans to climate? IMO - a resounding "Yes!"

ARE we making the differences seen? IMO - a resounding "I don't know and I doubt if anybody will for some thousands of years."

The feedback mechanisms involving ocean and atmosphere are so complex that they are still being debated (and not just from the point of view of global warming I might add)...

I'm sorry, but for me the jury is still out.

Rob Geraghty wrote:

I'm sorry, but for me the jury is still out.

For me the issue is more about sustainable existence than anything else.  The human race simply cannot sustain the current use of fossil fuels combined with the current destruction of forests.  So do we wait until it all runs out, or do we start doing something about it now?

Rob Geraghty answered:

It was a long way back in the discussion I think.  My point was that IMO it doesn't really matter whether fossil fuels and deforestation will cause global warming.  They *do* damage the environment and affect people's health.  But as I mentioned, it's more important to accept that fossil fuels are by nature a limited resource and we are consuming them at an incredible rate.

> If any points I've raised have definitive
> answers I'd like to see references and
> understand the bases of them...

> P.S. I was laways taught in Science that it's
> *impossible* to prove something but it's
> possible to disprove something...:))

>  or was that Maths? <g>

David Maddern  commented:

Air moving over skin increases the comfort level in my experience, and this is acutely so in high ambient temperature, in my experience and I think the presence of sweat glands in human skin tends to support that contention.

The jury might be still out (with you and you are getting lonelier) but even if it is wrong would it not be prudent to follow a course that restricts climate heating outputs just in case?  or are you willing to gamble on the planet's future?

David Allen commented:

For me, the most obvious 'evidence' (note quotes) for global warming is that 'hottest' records are reported as being broken considerably more frequently than 'coldest' records. (Although certain centres in western CQ have enjoyed both this last couple of months).

This, of course, does not indicate a man made effect.

> So do we wait until it all runs out, or do we start doing something about it now?

Yes - take up running or ride a bike so you can be prepared to live without a car.  I assume this would generate less heat output, but haven't measured
it.

Did Sydney warm up or cool down after 60,000 people ran/walked the City2Surf on Sunday?  It was very cold at the finish this year but very hot last year. Maybe nature is just oscillating about some point of equilibrium.

and to Tamara Kelly:

Maybe you'll have to give some of those students with the fans a break and get them to operate the water bore pump instead?  :) 

Students... slaves... there's a difference?  Or if you can get Nipper the dog to chase her tail, you could connect her up to some sort of rotating pump arrangement.  She'd get plenty of exercise - if she stopped grovelling long enough.  Or you could use her methane output to drive an airconditioner...

How about we wait for the price {of oil} to go up to indicate a looming shortage. In other words deal with the real world, not the world of political correct fairy tales.

Several places in Queensland have recorded the coldest days (for date) and some the coldest ever this year.  Must be global warming.

This approach is called the "precautionary principal" and has been discredited on several grounds.  eg  action in absence of factual data may make the situation worse.  What is the cost of precautionary action and the possible benefit value, and so on.

Much as I enjoy a good argument I must point out that putting somebody else's quotes under MY name header is both poor science and poor debating!

> This approach is called the "precautionary
> principal" and has been discredited on
> several grounds.  eg  action in absence
> of factual data may make the situation
> worse.

How could cutting greenhouse emissions possibly make the situation worse???

Why am I reminded of the committee meeting of the Golgafrincham Ark Fleet?

"What about this wheel thingy, it sounds like a terribly exciting project."
"Well, we're having a little trouble with that one."
"A little trouble?  It's the simplest machine in the entire universe!"
"Well, if you're so clever, you tell us what colour it should be!"

or a later, possibly more relevent section, where the Golgafrinchams have adopted the leaf as the standard form of money, with the effect of making everyone very rich;

"...so we've decided to effectively revalue the leaf and burn down all the forests."

[with apologies to Douglas Adams if I'm misquoting]

Even if people are not yet convinced about global warming, hopefully everyone is convinced that breathing toxic exhaust fumes isn't a good idea.
Hopefully everyone can accept that fossil fuels aren't an endless resource, so the more efficiently we use them, the better.  If everyone does a little bit, it makes a big difference in the end.  It's like the "Clean Up Australia" campaign in that respect. There's lots of simple things we can all do which cut down the consumption of fossil fuels.  

Here's a few ideas which come to mind;

1. Walk instead of taking the car. Or, ride a bicycle.
2. If something electrical doesn't need to be switched on, turn it off.
3. When buying whitegoods, look for the most efficient product you can afford. The energy efficiency is clearly labelled. This is especially important for fridges and freezers, but also for washing machines in terms of water efficiency.
4. Use low power fluorescent globes instead of incandescent globes. They cut your power bill and require less coal to light.
5. Check the fuel efficiency of a car when you buy one instead of just worrying about whether it will do 0-100 in under 10 seconds.
6. Recycle as much as possible. It takes less energy to make new aluminium cans from old ones than from bauxite.
7. Insulate your home. It makes it more comfortable and requires less power to heat or cool.
8. If you're replacing the water heater, consider getting a solar one.

Does anyone else have any simple ideas for saving power or fuel?  These things won't suddenly make our society truly sustainable, but they would help us keep going a lot longer and in a healthier fashion.

In case anyone thinks I'm not talking about Science here, has anyone heard of Environmental Science?

> Like on the news tonight mention was made of
> the warmest night recorded in Paris.
> Several places in Queensland have recorded the
> coldest days (for date) and some the coldest
> ever this year.  Must be global warming.

Actually, yes.  The scientists talking about the various consequences of global warming have been mentioning more severe weather events - extremes of temperature (hot and cold), and extremes of weather, like drought, floods, blizzard, tornadoes, cyclones, etc.

and:

David Maddern commented:

Sorry, so you dont support seatbelts? insulation on electric cables in your house, a spare tyre in your boot, windscreen wipers installed?

There is in fact factual data, from many fields, and buckets of it. the converse, that wilder variation in weather is due to natural cycles has got heaps less going for it.

It so happens that the raft of changes required, call for instance for an upgrade of bulk power generation, more walking or bike trips and are almost all healthier and smarter things.

How convenient....Everything proves it.  Hot, cold, wet, dry, any change.

> Even if people are not yet convinced about global
> warming, hopefully everyone is convinced that
> breathing toxic exhaust fumes isn't a good idea.

This is another debate altogether.
Typically they are run together, dishonestly.
I choose not to breath industrial and motor fumes and accordingly live in a rural aspect behind the Gold Coast, a low population area.  What little polution there is is blown away daily by sea breeses.  This was a decision I made 25 years ago and have not regretted it, even though it has a money cost.  My car is 27 years old (recycled)and I miss out on all the amenities of city life. So, no  I don't think breathing toxic fumes is a good idea, and I am ahead of most people in doing something about it.

All the above mentioned problems are touted as consequences of global warming if it happens.  It hasn't happened yet, so now we are being asked to accept that effects can preceed causes.

> How much about oil pricing do you think has to do with
> the "real world" as opposed to OPEC deciding how much
> money they want to make in a year?

They try to maximise their income, why not?
They can't get away with much in the way of collusion because there is so much oil on offer.

It has nothing to do with supply and demand

This rather works against your argument.
It was, as you indicate, a man made attempt to escalate the price of oil.  OPEC tried it on and quadrupled the price of oil.  The rest of the world went into economy mode and the resulting pain was all the Arabs.
There is too much oil around for them to get away with that.
At that price places like Siberia China Australia Timour would start producing.
All this is about real supply and demand pricing, and as I said before, when oil gets scarce the price will go up.

> Maybe
> you should have a talk to some of the folks lamenting
> the death of forests in Europe from acid rain?

What has this got to do with supply and demand pricing of oil?

> My arguments have nothing to do with being politically
> correct.  They have to do with making our existence on
> this space rock last a little longer.

Just a coincidence that your arguments are the ones used by the the inventors of political correctness then?

[snip]
> The present indications are that man made greenhouse gasses are a very small
> part of the overall lot.

> The process has been going on longer than
> industrialisation.

> Is  very likely a natural climatic swing.

> The earth has been warmer than at present in past ages.

> Putting Australians out of work.

Creating jobs in different industries.

Offsetting the cost of power by using renewable sources.

Based on what?  The prices of consumer goods are far too artificial to assume that changes to the cost of power will necessarily affect them.

Maybe you should convince everyone to smoke cigarettes.  They generate a lot of tax income which can be spent on health and education.  My analogy is that allowing pollution to continue to worsen will only increase health costs.

If you expect living sustainably to compare costwise to burning fossil fuels, it will never happen. Sometimes there are more important things than economics on which decisions should be based.

Have a look out the window at the smog in any major city of the world and tell me that it's having no effect on the health or quality of life of the people. 

Maybe you missed my point about living within the limits of our resources on this planet.  Or perhaps you ignored it.  Anyway, there's clearly little point in my responding to any more of your posts since your perspective is utterly different from mine and you obviously aren't interested in seeing the other side.

Coming from a premise that it is far better to be safe than sorry, however scant or conclusive the evidence that human behaviour can have influence over the biosystems and environmental systems of Earth (and there are more than a few extinct species no longer able to state their claims for the positive), it probably makes sense to make effort in restraint now rather than to pay a price far higher than any cost now in the future.

Just because driving a car isn't necessarily the cause of an effect of pulped body, no one would suggest that cautious driving is not important.

That is the essence of my own argument, and to wait until the evidence is seen in arrears is tantamount to suicide.

IMO we cannot continue with an open slather life style with impunity, because to do so is like driving a car with zero anxiety.

PS  What is worse perhaps, is that this generation won't be around to worry about the consequences which come on slowly, and so we, personally, don't really have to pay the price for our behaviour.

> What little pollution there is blown away daily by sea breezes.

That does not mean it disappears.
It just implies "I'm alright Jack and stuff you!"

Jim Edwards posted:

For a comparison of a previous instance of global warming, 251 million years ago, see George Monbiot's article at

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=590

Confused thinking here David.
The precautions you mention are against real, known, agreed dangers. The precautionary principle applies to a situation where action is being urged against something that "might" happen. The argument runs, we can't wait for facts to be known, because by then it might be too late, irreversible trends set in. All the usual stuff, it's all just emotional verbiage.  Salesman talk when we are talking about serious stuff, where scientific verified fact is crucial.

I am just making the point that there is a lot of hidden costs and risks to acting in precautionary mode before the facts are known. The precautionary principle was urged back in the sixties to do something about global cooling and the impending ice age, when it was believed that global cooling was in progress.

I understand the point, I'm just not sure how people are expected to operate otherwise. If people waited for 'facts' very little would be done at all and the fallout for politicians for 'not acting' would be significant.

The precautionary principle is supposed to be a graduated response not an all or nothing system as some seem to think.

In other words one looks at the perceived problem and then makes a response on such things as; the likelihood of it being a problem from experience in similar areas, how big a disaster it would be if the worst case turned out to be true.

So one may then decide to ban it completely, or allow it for a specified time and revisit it, or undertake a research program, or even decide that although there is some effect, it is within reasonable limits and is ok to live with under certain constraints, or even no constraints.

John Winckle responded:

No
only cold

I'll plead guilty to that, but what we were discussing was global warming not pollution.  They are not the same.

and, in a post responding to a comment  by Jim Edwards :

Still to happen then
Please advise Rob G,  he is a bit confused.
So, either it is happening and a few honest scientists are trying to save us from a plot by governments, industrialists, oil companies, etc. and save the world, or,  it isn't happening ( the computer modelling is being done by people who cant predict next weeks weather) and we are being wound up (again) by leftist greenies threatening us with extinction unless we let them run the world.
I guess the division will be along party lines.
This is the point I have been making all along.

There was separate calculations based on a run of low temperatures through the sixties.
The times between ice ages calculation still is current.
The phrase 'precautionary principle'  is new, the idea of calling for urgent action before all the facts are verified is not, and was invoked then, for the same reasons it is now.  A cautionary tale I would have thought.

The information you quote does not say that there has been no global warming.  It only estimates the rise in the future.  You seem to have selectively ignored the information posted on the list about increasing temperatures since the industrial revolution.

Is this supposed to be condescending?  If so, can we leave such attitudes out of the discussion?

I don't think it's a "plot" by anyone.  It's simply economic inertia.  It doesn't suit the oil companies or many other corporations to make any changes which will affect their profitability.  So the only way change will happen is by legislation.  If there had been no legislative changes, we'd still be driving cars with leaded petrol for example.

Predicting next week's weather (or even tomorrow's) is very different to modelling global trends over a period of years based on historical data.  But I'm not a meteorologist.  Since this isn't an area of my expertise I have to rely on the information published by those scientists for whom it is.

I'm not leftist, and I'm not sure whether I'd fall into the category of "greenie".  The problem with politics is that it usually takes an extreme opposite reaction to drag the "middle" ground in politics into a slightly different direction.

I certainly don't want to run the world.  All I've been suggesting in my responses to this thread is that each person should try to minimise wasting energy generated by fossil fuel means.  A small effort on each person's part adds up to a significant difference overall.

And it's this sort of attitude which makes change harder.  If we conclude that it's political, sensible discussion of facts becomes more difficult.  Things turn into an "us and them" argument.

PS Did anyone else see the documentary last night about the Permian extinctions and how a 5 degree increase in temperature triggered the release of methane from the seabed that caused temperatures to rise another 5 degrees?  The researchers concluded that a 10 degree increase in world temperatures was enough to wipe out virtually every species in the oceans and on the land.

There was also an Ice Age during the Permian, some glacial deposits of which form some of the strata near Bendigo Vic, for instance.

There are so many diverse factors involved in both over all average global climate, and immediate local weather conditions, it is no wonder that predictions are difficult to make.  It is quite possible that we don't yet know what some of these factors are.

I personally, come from the debate fort which suggests treading more carefully now is better than taking the risk of paying a much bigger price later on.

Then "precautionary principle" I am talking about is not the same as 'taking precautions' the latter being applied common sense. the former is a name coined for the idea that action should be taken before the evidence is in, because if we wait till it is in, it might be too late.

Rob Geraghty replied:


Do you really think that the change to unleaded fuel would have happened without legislation?  Do you believe that car manufacturers would put all the emission controls on cars if they weren't required by law?  I wasn't simply talking about the oil and auto industries - there are many other industries affected by laws concerning the emission of pollutants from factories.  Many companies choose to build factories in countries where the laws are more lax not simply because the land and labour is cheaper, but also because the less stringent pollution control laws reduce production costs.

David Maddern added:

Points taken, I merely wished to point out that there is already a business and government involvement in the changes that need to happen (even with a 1950's style Fed Govt)

 have you looked at Pacific Solar plug and power  technology for your roof? These have caused a quantum change in price, from what I can see.I cant see that having a 20 year payback period, one of their engineers told me a couple of years ago that their business plan had confident projections of out of pocket expenses to the householder less than $4000.
I know AGL who is the power seller here markets them in a glossy brochure

> I personally, come from the debate fort which
> suggests treading more carefully now is better
> than taking the risk of paying a much bigger
> price later on.

Right with you on that one!  I just wish I could afford to build that energy efficient house I'd prefer to be living in.  :( 

Fair enough.

Not at the moment because sadly I don't own my home.
I hope to rectify that soon, so then I'll be able to do something about using solar. At the moment I'm limited to using low power globes and switching things off where-ever possible.

For how many watts?  Is this a full RAPS or a feedback inverter system?  It's good to know that there are less expensive options, but it's still disappointing that so few people are actually using solar.  I can't remember ever seeing a solar array in an urban area. Only in rural areas - and then not much!

> Pacific Solar plug and power technology is a grid
> connected system with internal inverters on each
> panel They call it Plug and Power because it
> simply plugs into a junction box and
> shares lode, if you like, with the grid

David Maddern commented:

I might point out that, in practice, a diesel generator may also be in the loop for the stated purpose of cloudy days and breakdowns and backup security.  I believe that people using this configuration have found that the backup requires more maintenance than the cells which just silently work away!

Circumstances also dictate the diesel presence since solar RAPS is almost invariably replacing a diesel/battery system, and so adds on.

Pacific Solar has a good set of web pages www.pacificsolar.com.au

> How about we wait for the price to go up to indicate a looming shortage.
> In other words deal with the real world, not the world of political
> correct fairy tales.

Yes, let us be truthful about the matter.  We cannot afford either the forest destruction or the consumtion use of fossil fules (at current rates).

Le us be accurate, not politically correct.

> This approach is called the "precautionary principal" and has been
> discredited on several grounds.  eg  action in absence of factual data
> may make the situation worse.  What is the cost of precautionary action
> and the possible benefit value, and so on.

The above statement borders on the insane.

You don't 'know' something is dangerous so it is OK to do it...
Evoution does not know how to cope with democracy.  That may yet kill us all.

The cost of precautionary action is important, true, but so is who pays it and the resulting quality of life.

> So, no  I don't think breathing toxic fumes is a good idea, and I am
> ahead of most people in doing something about it.

I wouldn't call giving aup and running away being ahead.  It also shows a great deal of contempt for every one else.

> Then "precautionary principle" I am talking about is not the same as
> 'taking precautions' the latter being applied common sense. the former
> is a name coined for the idea that action should be taken before the
> evidence is in, because if we wait till it is in, it might be too late.

Well, if someone ever points a gun at you, don't duck.  he might not intend
to use it, so it would be a waste of effort.

Much as I'd like to 'desert' this thread, this comment:

cannot go unchallenged. How so?

The same method was used by the British officers in India so that they could have ice in their whisky while on route marches in the deserts.

A very shallow dish of water was placed outside at night. The loss of heat to the heavens(no insulating clouds to get in the way) meant the temp of the water could get below freezing point and -presto- ice in the morning!

I read this in a National Geographic article (so it must be true!) on ice several years ago. If your School has the indices to the Nat. Geog. you may be able to look it up.

Speaking of whisky- have one for me on the safe arrival of Maggie. how are the siblings taking the news? I still remember how underwhelmed our older ones were when No. 3 came home- I think they'd have preferred a trainset.

On 13/12/2003, Jim Edwards posted:

Today's Science Show reviewed the evidence and concluded that global warming is an indisputable fact.  The US government, however, seems determined to deny the facts and continue on a path of ever-increasing consumption of 
fossil fuels pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There seems to be a concomitant campaign to suppress research into so-called 'free energy machines', which would release the world from carbon based energy supplies without resort to nuclear fission.  An example was the Pons and Fleischman experiments in cold fusion which were effectively discredited by MIT with data that were later shown to have been doctored to produce the required negative results.  Other attempts to gain free energy, for example from zero point energy, have been maligned by associating them with 'cold fusion' even if they were in no way related to that source.

James Lovelock views the prospect of a small, cheap, portable 100 watt electricity generator running on air or water as an unmitigated disaster for the planet.  He sees the enormous cost of building large nuclear or fossil fuel based generating stations as a brake on the spread of the human population with its associated infrastructure into the few remaining pristine ecosystems.  He may be right, but enormous costs are usually accompanied by enormous profits, which in turn provide the incentive to explore those same pristine wildernesses, such as the forests of Alaska, in search of oil. 

Enormous profits also provide a motive to discredit any attempt to develop free energy devices that would eliminate the world's dependence on fossil fuels.  One can understand why the oil, coal, transport and electricity generating industries might conspire to suppress such devices, their very livelihood is threatened.  But why the almost universal refusal by the scientific world to investigate this field?  Are scientists so afraid of

offending the corporate sources of their funding that they are prepared to sacrifice their scientific objectivity in favour of a secure job, or are they deterred from taking an interest in the field for fear of being associated with a 'heresy' like cold fusion?

Global warming or global swarming?  The former looks like being a real certainty unless the free energy research is taken seriously, whereas the latter may be a possibility but it only a distant one which could be negated by the reduced birthrate which seems to follow increased prosperity, and the prospect of free energy would seem to promise that, at least.

>I have heard widely varying numbers for so called "zero point
>energy", some as low as practically zero and some as high as
>astronomical. It gets to the point I am not sure what to think.

I can give you some information on zero point energy if you want.
It may end up being more confusing than elucidating though.
Short version:
Zero point energy is infinite.
Zero point energy is zero.
Zero point energy is very close to zero.

I favour the last. (John Baez is one of my favourite Physicists).

 also I hate to see noble mathematics reduced to math.

now I shall duck down into my burrow to escape the torrent of abuse I
received on the 2 previous occasions I ventured forth yes ;/

i do know language is a living dynamic thing & therefore  changes.

Is'nt maths meant to be our only  way
to communicate with aliens & thus noble.

Ray Stephens quipped:

Not so many of our indigenous aliens can count, so I doubt too many of our ET aliens could count either.

This just confirms what I already believed that Bush, Blair and Howard among others are busy subordinating the democratic process politicising all things that affect their control of the System and that fundamentally is underwritten by Science. This is a disgraceful and I would say blatant attempt at intimidation of those scientists, they will stop at nothing other than Public Opinion, sometimes.

Through out history if you wanted to maintain power you subverted the processes of science and education.  So what else is new.

Which is one reason why their minions spend so much time & effort distracting & subverting & poisoning & confusing public debate & opinion...

PS: Re Hitler's numbers -- as mentioned in earlier discussions, the National Socialist candidate for Chancellor DID NOT WIN a majority of votes in the 1933 election.

[Godwin Alert]
He did end up getting appointed Chancellor by some combination of smoke & mirrors, bluff, intimidation, number-running and faux 'public opinion' (someone else might have more details in their head).   After that he had theapparatus of the law & State under his & his cronies' control and swiftly moved to arrest, outlaw or otherwise get rid of other parties or sources of opposition, including organizations like Boy Scouts, which were banned and replaced by things like Hitler Youth.   (They were very big on "family values" and keeping the children away from corrupting influences like modern music, degenerate art, other ethnic groups, or politics.)

[This is one reason why it's so irritating to hear people say "if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear from [whatever]".  Who defines "wrong"?  Remembering that such structures or measures may long outlive us all, to be used by who knows what organization 20 or 40 years from now.]
[/Godwin Alert]

> Scientist have now found the connection between man made carbon
> emissions and global warming

> proving once and for all that human activity is changing the world.

> And scientist have debunked the myth that global warming is simply a
> global cycle, saying that according to its cycle earth should be
> cooling not warming.

> A report will be released in Paris by I.P.C.C
> Friday. [ intergovernmental panel on climate change ]

A report will be released in Paris by I.P.C.C
Friday. [ intergovernmental panel on climate change ]

Ah, a political body rather than a scientific one.

> It is probably worth reading this as the body's Fourth Report is
> supposed to be published shortly.

What I take from their own description of themselves is that
they assume global warming is happening, that it is human caused, and
that governments should *do something*.

Nonetheless, I need to take the advice I gave to someone else recently,
just because they're a biased source doesn't mean the science they quote
is wrong.

> Amid much that is worthy, Dave (not formerly from Darwin as far as I
> know) said of the IPCC:

> There is very little doubt global warming is happening. As we have
> said here before, to prove the assertion that it is human-induced
> will take a long time

> > Now perhaps is a good time to be clear on what we both think is meant
> > by Global Climate Change or Global Warming. What I understand those
> > phases to be shorthand for is a theory that the world's climate is
> > changing at a rapid and unprecedented rate, a change faster than the
> > world has ever seen and faster than the biosphere can compensate for.
> > Furthermore, this change is being driven by human activities,
> > primarily burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere,
> > will be massively harmful to humans in the near-term (say 40 years),
> > and humans have moral as well as self-interest reasons to intervene
> > to prevent the climate changes.

> and by that stage it will be too late to do anything effective
> about it if it IS shown to be human-induced.

• alcohol production from biomass, not corn (God help us) or even sugarcane,
• mandating fuel-efficiency in motor vehicles,
• if don't need a 4WD for primary production purposes, there should be an extra tax,
• electrification of all those stupid busways the NSW government is installing (if they insist on promising railways and then deciding it is all too hard, then at least make the busways electric)(sheesh!),
• geo-sequestration at power stations - stop talking about it and get a large-scale trial up in the next 12 months,
•  join a carbon trading scheme and make a lot of international money out of it - this place is stuffed full of opportunities to make money out of the world-wide concern with carbon.

> The collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves is a reasonable indication
> that something is happening with climate, and it is not the sort of
> variation that there has been for tens of thousands of years. And
> there is a sh*t load more evidence that something is happening.

> The geomorphological record says that this sort of thing has happened
> before but not in the current epoch.

> I could go on at length. There is good evidence that global warming
> is occurring in the sense of disturbance of the long-term ability to
> easily live in the places where human habitation has flourished
> previously.

> The Stern Report goes to some length to look at the cost of doing
> nothing and whether it would be a good idea to do something even
> though there is uncertainty about the outcome from either course. I
> don't think there is a moment to lose.

> The sorts of things that probably ought to be done:

> And there is a good argument for a fuel tax - we have had one here
> for a long time, and it is time the USA had one, too,

And thus a part of my skepticism.  How do we know the planet isn't just
heading back to the relatively warm, stable, ice free climate of the
mesozoic?  That lasted for what, almost 200million years?  Talking about
hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years seems like
 cherry picking data to find a desired conclusion.

Who told you the US doesn't have fuel taxes?  There have been fuel taxes
for as long as I've been old enough to know about such things, at least
since the mid-70's and I'd guess the practice stretches back at least to
the 50's and probably earlier than that.

But that wasn't the argument I presented there.  It was that reacting to a false theory could be worse than not.

It's great to react early only when you're right.

All climate variation through history runs parallel to sunspot activity,
with adjustments for volcanoes.

Americans use a lot of fuel, the figure of 5% of the worlds total comes to
mind, they also produce a lot of food,  50% in fact.

> IMO, the problem boils down to arithmetic. You cannot subtract 12
> from 10 and get a positive result.

>> It's great to react early only when you're right.

>
> Which can be too late already. Not much help if the proof is the
> burn.

> "It is survival of the fittest and NOT survival of the greediest."

> Name one other species which bases its lifestyle upon the manufacture
> of rubbish and creating work cleaning it up?

Why do people suppose that the amount of radiation received from  the sun
should be constant.

Who told you the US doesn't have fuel taxes?  There have been fuel  taxes
for as long as I've been old enough to know about such things, at  least
since the mid-70's and I'd guess the practice stretches back at  least to
the 50's and probably earlier than that.

Whatever taxes there are on US fuel allows the US to use more than  its share of energy resources.

Do you wonder you are not particularly welcome anywhere?

Why do people suppose that the amount of radiation received from  the sun should be constant.

> I guess I don't see how the taxes allow anything.

> The people who have the crude oil want to sell it. The oil companies where the oil is

> extracted sell it to refiners in the US where it is turned into
> petroleum-based consumer products which we (residents of the US) then
> buy and use. Nowhere along that chain is the oil being stolen.

And as for global warming, I can see Dave's point. A lot of people  point to records of temperature and CO2 levels for that last 600,000  years or so but that is pretty much only a few days or weeks when  viewed in the time-frame of geological epochs. Dave's point about the  temperature of the earth being stable at a much higher temperature  for many hundreds of millions of years seems reasonable.

Why do we  think that the last 600,000 years is the norm while the previous 200+  million was the exception? Why did the temps change? Why have they  been relatively stable at this lower temperature (or colder) in recent time? Why are they changing now?

(I know, this is our fault in  the US because petrol is cheaper here. ;-)

> And in the mean time, the pH change from the additional CO₂ prevents modern

> molluscs from forming shells and contributes to a potential runaway process

> that, at best, gives a new equilibrium in the hydrological cycle, one that
> is likely be noticeable only after it occurs.

It seems to me, that if there is one thing on this planet which has  changed substantially in what it does and why, it is only us, and  the rest of the local universe is very much business as usual.   Minus those periods after and during shifting continents,  heightened volcanic activity and impacts from space.

I can't really grok transformations of arable land into concrete  jungles as a measure of progress, and if civilisation may be  measured by the distance between humans and their excrement, given  that we're now recycling our sewerage to drinking water, I suggest  that the growth toward civilisation is currently in reverse.

[snip] that some people think the Sun's output might change, since someone
(was it you?) questioned the assumption that it does not.  I'm not  sure about it either, but it is food for thought.

I also think that we waste huge amounts of energy and burn large quantities of fossil fuels unnecessarily. Whether or not we sequester carbon has nothing to do with whether we need to burn all that fuel in the first place.

So, you are saying that People Acting Incredibly Stupidly (PAIS)  bothers you too? I agree. But I am still not convinced that we are

So, you are saying that People Acting Incredibly Stupidly  (PAIS)  bothers you too? I agree. But I am still not convinced  that we are causing global warming.

I never thought stomping on the garden was very clever, and aside  from locusts which eventually provide food for entire biosystems  themselves, no other species does anything like it.

Nothing above necrolytic microbes and chronic or fatal parasitic  microbes and 'worms', anyway.

So Brian, I can't be convinced that we're NOT responsible.

I'll agree with "Irresponsible".

And as for global warming, I can see Dave's point. A lot of people point to records of temperature and CO₂ levels for that last 600,000 years or so but that is pretty much only a few days or weeks when viewed in the time-frame of geological epochs.

And yet at this point in time, 10,000 years into the Holocene epoch  and 2000 into the Common Era, we are witness to two trends that are  unprecedented in the Earth's recent geological history: an advanced  technological civilisation emitting all manner of stuff into the  atmosphere, and a warming trend accompanied by a doubling of  atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the space of 100 years.  This  after a few hundred thousand years of relatively stable climate by  geological standards, give or take a few ice ages.

If this were merely a coincidence it would be a most remarkable  one, given what we do know about the link between CO2 and climate.