Energy Matters Forums

[zzsstt]

I do not believe that the flood situation currently being experienced has precedent, nor did the fires (speed, general ferocity) of a couple of years ago in Victoria. Nor the rainfall situation in WA.

If you only bother to look at the data you will find everything that us currently happening has precedent. The floods in both 1974 and the 1890's (6 years in a row in Brisbane) were worse than what has happened recently. The bushfires of the past were far worse than those of recent time, and the droughts were as bad if not worse. If you doubt this, do a quick Google for "black thursday" and look at the Victorian bushfire of 1851. This is not data extrapolated from tree rings and ice cores, this is actual measured data and eye witness reports that shows that all these recent events are not unique even in a our brief occupation of the country.

The stink being kicked up about the Murray River would suggest that conditions are worse now than before. So does it come as a surprise to learn that the river stopped flowing completely (which it hasn't done this time) in 1850, 1902, 1914, 1915 and 1923.

Just for interest, this is an article pubished in the Brisbane Courier on Friday, 11th October 1889:

"In order to throw some additional light on the above question, I will furnish a few condensed Australian weather statistics of the last 107 years, and if anyone can found a positive forecast on them he is welcome to do so ; all that I can see in them is the simple fact that floods and droughts alternate out here with "lucid intervals" of ordinary settled and moderately wet or dry weather.

Captain Cook in 1770 says little about the weather. Dampier in 1690 or thereabouts was equally silent.
Captain Matthew Flinders reports drought and bush fires from 1782 to 1792.
There was a great drought in 1797 for 100 miles round where Melbourne now stands ; 1799 to 1806 were very wet years, and in 1806 the floods culminated by a rise of 101 ft. at Windsor, on the Hawkesbury River.
The crops were destroyed, wheat rose to 80s. a bushel, and a famine prevailed.

The excessive rain kept on till 1810, but 1811 cut it short, and was so dry that water was worth 8d. per bucketful in Sydney.
This drought was sharp but short, and there was plenty of increasing rain for years afterwards, till in 1820 the Hunter River rose 37ft.

Ten years now elapsed without any more floods, and it was so dry from 1826 to 1829 that water at last became worth 4d. a gallon in Sydney. 1830 saw the first flood for ten years.

Ordinary weather followed till 1837, but 1838 and 1839 saw the champion drought of the century. Stock were all but exterminated. The Murrumbidgee is a great river, 150ft. wide, 60ft. deep, and overflows its banks, like the Nile, when the head snows melt, for five miles on each side to a depth of 3ft. This gives a volume of water equal to a river of 1450 ft. wide and 120 ft. deep, and besides this it fills a group of lakes each from seven to eighteen miles in diameter.
Yet this great river dried up so thoroughly in 1839 that the fish died and putrefied at the bottom of it.

I make no comments on what such a drought now would do to Queensland, and I am at present only going for dry facts and bald statistics.
1841 broke up this drought with the champion flood of Queensland; the Bremer River rose 70ft., and the Brisbane bar not being then dredged, there was no quick "get away" for the water, and it filled the lower story of the commissariat stores here, and Ipswich was very short of rations for some days.

Moderate rain carried the colony of Now South Wales (then the only one) on till 1849, when dry weather began and lasted till May, 1851.

The scattered bush fires of Victoria got " boxed" into one mighty whole on 6th February, 1851 (" Black Thursday "), before a southerly hurricane which sent smoke and leaves across Bass Straits.

1852 brought a flood that swept Gundagai away and drowned the inhabitants ; 1853 saw great overflows of the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, and Darling rivers, but not from local rain ; 1854 was dry; 1855 and 1856, ordinary weather; 1857 was a flood year, with three months ceaseless rain from February to May.
Settled weather lasted till 1863, which, with 1864, both gave heavy flood. The weather settled again till 1873 (bar a small drought up North in 1866), which, with 1875, was very wet, and gave a flood each.

Settled weather again carne, with a small local flood in 1879-80 ; 1882 very wet: 1883 to 1886 very dry; 1887 very wet; 1888 very dry; 1889 moderately wet.

Here we have 107 years of statistics, and who can discern from them the rule that guides the weather ? A matter which enters so largely into our health and comfort, happiness and prosperity, that I hope to be excused for thus dwelling upon it."

[Tracker]

I didn't mention peaks in water.

What PEAKS in water are you referring to.
The dramatic rise in ocean levels swallowing Manhattan as they predicted, or the 1in100 floods that have finally happened in Australia.
For a significant period of my life, I was in the SES, and each time it rained, would wonder - IS THIS the 1 in 100.. .. .. . So , when it finally comes, do we now say - "Now I await the 1in1000".. IT WILL HAPPEN !
and, when it does, will the doom-sayers insist that it is ACC, or recognise that 1000 years have actually passed.

Joey your post is extremely ignorant.

It's strange how practical observations of REALITY, are interpreted by some, as pure ignorance.

and the way we alter it back is by attempting to rectify the mistakes that we have made.

and - when we have made all the corrections, we will still find that it was as cold in 1896, and as wet as in 1913, and as windy in 1936, and as dry for as many years as in 1921, and we will have only achieved the ONE big goal - we will have stopped using fossil fuels that just have to be of a finite nature ... We MUST wean ourselves from Fossil fuels, and lets do it for the best reason - conserving what we now have.
BUT - That is a pipe-dream, because the developing countries will say - "Now it's our turn - you stuffed it - you live with it".

and the way we alter it back is by attempting to rectify the mistakes that we have made. If we are lucky, and quick.

and, IF the scientific claims are correct, that Climate-Change is a direct result of the increase in CO2, and IF we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, then HOW will we actually get that "Excess" CO2, back into the ground, and hence reverse the claimed process.
So, as it stands now, the CO2 is dissolving in the oceans and increasing the carbonic/carbolic acid levels and dissolving shells, and what trees are left, are growing well because of the increased CO2.

The point is that the climate as it stands is eminently useful to us, and has allowed all of life to begin and prosper in the form that we know it.

and, whilst mankind is inflicting horrid things upon this planet, via the Amazon etc., and 'using' the fossil fuels, climate change has been a fact of life for the Planet for MILLIONS of years, and most all of that change has happened long before mankind started to burn the carbons stored as a result of normal change.

Let's just do it for the right reason - Fossil fuels can't last forever.. We MUST act now and not assume the crystal-ball gazers are right, that "Something" will be invented like FUSION..

Why don't they just use the right excuse, instead of manipulating supposed data to scare the pants of us, and then leave the Science-Fraternity with egg on their faces when things don't happen the way they claim..

FACT - We MUST run out of fossil-fuels. .
Find alternatives NOW, and we will see if we have an impact on the climate.

Dare I say the obvious - We MUST reduce the planet's population !
What we need is a new World-Levy.. A population Levy..
We need to scribe the line in the sand and say - NO MORE, people or destruction ..?
and require that each nation maintains their current population, by ANY means deemed appropriate, whilst those that exist undertake living-standard equalisation. We in Australia will remove our floor boards and ship the timber to Africa and India to build their new homes. etc. etc.

We can have a world "Population Control Force" and we can use up some of the Nuclear weapons in storage, for random enforcement !
..
.

[zzsstt]

Tracker,

An ever expanding population is indeed the major problem that we face, especially as in 1st world countries it is an ever expanding population that requires more and more medical care just to survive. However our current economy requires constant growth (actually constantly increasing growth, if you see what I mean), which in turn requires an almost exponential increase in sales. The only ways to achieve this are:

1/ constantly reducing the service life of products to require ever more frequent replacement

2/ constantly introducing new products with sufficient marketing to cause consumers to replace perfectly good existing items

3/ constantly expanding consumer base (aka population growth)

[4/ "inflation", a means of changing the numbers so they get bigger whilst nothing else changes]

For that reason alone it is very unlikely that population control will be implemented in the near future. It is, of course, also the reason why much of the "climate change" debate actually revolves around sales and finances - we fix the problem by selling new products or introducing new taxes. Whilst we attempt to reduce consumption by increasing consumption, it is clear that nothing will be achieved. It is also clear that nobody is sufficiently worried to actually DO anything that might actually fix the problem......

[Tracker]

(actually constantly increasing growth, if you see what I mean)

and that is what I don't understand... We are concerned for the ENVIRONMENT and yet it is suggested that survival revolves around increasing production. Production requires energy and energy currently requires fossil fuels. Increased production means Increased fuel needs

A retired couple have a very fixed income - How can they spend more than they earn, just to create prosperity.

Surely there is a point where all can survive, but the rich capitalists won't be able to get really richer, because there is no way to expand their production.

Anyway - if population control is out of the question, then we are surely not serious about the environment.
..
.

[zzsstt]

....then we are surely not serious about the environment.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!!

I have said it before, and doubtless I'll say it again. The worlds leaders have access to all the information, all the experts and all the advisors, and yet they don't see an issue that is important enough to warrant any action that might even start to address the alledged problem. What does that tell you?

When one of my kids comes to me and says "Dad, my brother won't let me watch a show on TV" I don't get too excited and normally let them sort it out themselves. On the other hand, when the same child comes to me and say "Dad, my brother is playing with a brown snake in the garden", you can bet that I'll be out there before you can blink.

So, if the world leaders have chosen to do nothing (apart from talking about a bit of wealth relocation and income generation), do you really believe they think the future of the planet is in danger?

[Tracker]

.
It only makes sense if they know that there is a new energy source, waiting to be released..

and we can be reasonably certain that that is NOT the case.

So we know recognise that the whole thing is a giant scam to protect those that have, and make us peasants pay !..
..
.

[zzsstt]

Except that it doesn't "protect those that have" as they were never at any risk nor did they need protection. What is has done is to create a marketing opportunity the likes of which has rarely been seen before;

Buy a new car and save the planet.

Buy a new sink and save water.

Buy new, vastly more expensive lightbulbs to save a few kwh each year.

More sales means more profit.

From the planets viewpoint, walking or using public transport is more beneficial than buying a new car, but that doesn't make any money, does it? Equally, how does a new sink save water in comparison with the old sink and a tap turned on for less time at a lower flow (you don't need to turn them all the way on, do you?). An incandescent lightbulb when switched off uses far less power than a fluoro that is on all day, but doesn't make money. On the other hand a $50 LED makes far more profit, even though you could replace your entire lighting system and still save more power by cutting down on one cup of coffee (or the power used to heat the water) each week. Lightbulbs used to cost a few cents and last perhaps a year. Now they cost several dollars, contain mercury* (that is going in landfills because nobody can be bothered with the special recycling requirements), and don't last much longer - whilst saving a tiny amount of power that could have been saved by simply switching off the incandescent when it wasn't required.

So, we have a population running sufficiently scared that a few of them actually support a new tax, whilst increasing the profits of large companies, and actually increasing the usage of power, materials, transport and every other resource. It's quite masterful really!

*Mercury. There was once a conspiracy theory that suggested that the application of fluoride to drinking water was a scam to allow companies to get rid of industrial waste, based on the fact that whilst topical application of fluoride was demonstrated to strengthen teeth, there was little evidence that fluoride in drinking water had any effect. I wonder if the mercury in fluoro's is virgin "first use" product or is a by-product from another process? Just a thought!

[Clemo]

Reminds me of when my wife comes home from shopping, shows me all the useless garbage she has purchased, and then proceeds to tell me how much money she has saved us.

I have no idea if climate change is real or not, even if it is, I doubt that we (humans) have the capacity to change our ways, every other creature on this planet seams to be able to find it's equilibrium if left to its own devices, not us, we are like a malignant tumour sucking life right out the very thing that sustains us.

I think we have bigger issues to face than climate change..... if in fact there is such a thing.

[Tracker]

There was once a conspiracy theory that suggested that the application of fluoride to drinking water was a scam to allow companies to get rid of industrial waste

OT - I was reading a statement about Fluoride and the suggestion that as a contaminant in water, it is causing FAR more medical issues than it's worth.
""Tap water, and bottled water that originates from tap water, is loaded with fluoride. Though you may have been lead to believe this substance to be vital to the dental health of you and your family, this is simply not the case. Unfortunately, the belief that fluoride prevents cavities is a common misconception. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

As this recent study done on children in India shows, fluoride is anything but a cavity fighter. Fluoride is a toxin that actually leads to an increased risk of cavities and can cause a wide range of health problems, including weakening your immune system and accelerating aging due to cellular damage.

One study, published in the September 2001 issue of International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, found that South African children who drank water containing high levels of natural fluoride (3 ppm), had more tooth decay than children in other parts of South Africa who drank much lower concentrations (between 0.19 to 0.48 ppm). And fluoride-saturated American teenagers had twice the rate of cavities as the South African children drinking low levels of natural fluoride!

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association, published in October of last year, also found that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.The study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has updated the information on their website, stating:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis." "In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources—water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products—contributes to enamel fluorosis." ""

More importantly however, on January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they will take another look at the standards and guidelines for fluoride in drinking water due to the increase in dental fluorosis.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... ottle.aspx
..
.

[rg767]

Almost sorry I missed some of this.

I think we have to agree to disagree on climate and weather. There is plenty of evidence in my view for a change in climate, but in your view, not. Great. zzsstt even used a newspaper article form 1889 as data. funny. Isn't that the sort of stuff you were just saying we should avoid talking about?

Of course I agree though that everything has precedent to some degree, and unless you decide to put words in my mouth I don't believe that nothing extreme happened prior to climate change, but thats not what I am arguing. I am saying that things are bit by bit getting more extreme as a result of it, and will continue to do so. Perhaps though, in time, so extreme that life on the planet becomes unsustainable. End of story, and there are many precedents for civilisations wiping themselves out via their treatment of the environmental.

Even the 5% more rainfall from these current floods from the famed 1880s examples is surely enough to make a difference. Add some sea level rise, more frequent storm surges, longer droughts, and what do you have?

But I will leave it there. As I have mentioned, the only people that know how to argue this with any degree is certainty are probably not typing to one another here.

Instead I will comment on what Joey and Tracker said - Joey demonstrated his anger and ignorance when he started using he words "dribble" and "crap" and "rubbish" the other day.

Joey has put forward hardly an argument, but its frankly unsurprising. Yes you are entitled to reply, but it wont mean necessarily that you don't look like a goose. It doesn't mean that I will address your bile either.

Tracker said this, which I think is agreement with Joey's eloquent and knowledgeable words:

It's strange how practical observations of REALITY, are interpreted by some, as pure ignorance.

There are many opinions in here, and they cant all be right, but I seriously wonder when I hear of people attacking my opinion who for example (and this covers a few threads):

* have nothing but obscenities and angry words to frame their argument;

*Any time climate change is mentioned they just say that it is "CRAP", or a "Scam selling a scam", like that forms some part of an intelligent conversation;

*appear to agree with the principal that poor people are the cause of the worlds problems, and that somehow population, not consumption is the issue - nice argument, very human;

We can have a world "Population Control Force" and we can use up some of the Nuclear weapons in storage, for random enforcement !

Tracker, did you actually type that? It might be funny if you actually didn't mean it.

* when for example they hear about string fusing for the first time in a forum, and they haven't heard of it, decide that it must not exist, or be very important;

* Try and stir the pot on peak system outputs for months and months, and still no one bites because people realise that it is not a conspiracy theory, it is just physics;

*Believe that CFLs are out to get us.

Haha, yes, I am the alarmist. Foil hats indeed. It makes me wonder what else it is that you believe, or just don't know.

Let the obscenities begin