The survey of attitudes towards global warming only reinforces my belief about the paradox of global warming. That is while most people acknowledge that it is occurring and will likely be a problem, few are willing to do anything substantive about it. So, it probably won't be until climatic catastrophe occurs that anything substantive is accomplished.

Australia is nearing a catastrophe, and as a result is experiencing a political shift in its attitude. However, it has a small population and does not emit substantial amounts of CO2. So, rather than follow other countries leads, all they may actually do is to lobby China during negotiation to the Kyoto successor.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilU89EeoAqsyJiB1zSkfXkQONwmA

Scott Power, from the Bureau of Meteorology, said Australia's average temperature had already increased by 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1950 while oceans were warmer and sea levels had risen.

We are more certain than ever before that these changes can be largely attributed to human intervention, he told a press conference.

Parts of Australia have been in the grip of drought for more than six years, threatening the country's major agricultural zone, while water restrictions are in place in most state capitals.

But Whetton said Australia was no worse than most other places on earth at a similar latitude in terms of the impact of global warming.

Everyone will experience warming, she said.

Very broadly, if you look around the world, it's sort of a pattern of dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter.

BrooklineTom,

You: That doesn't say Rich is a yahoo. It's not much different from calling VA "the tarheel state". It says that VT, ME, MA and NY are far more liberal than NH. Surely even Rich agrees. It says that New Hampshire draws right-wingers like Rich. Isn't that why Rich LIKES it in NH? Isn't that why Rich is so disparaging about MA?

Reply: What does your "rant" above have anything to do with AGW? It doesn't. You repeatedly harp on anyone who yaws off topic, yet you have a hard time following your own guidelines. Your relentless complaining about off topic blogs is itself, off topic. It's simliar to Al Gore finding it "Inconvenient" to fly commercial, so he charters private jets. I find you both to be hypocritical. You need to chill dude.

With that said, WE understand that you were responding to a post. Why is it NOT ok (don't answer this) for me to respond to a fellow blogger who labels the war as "Operation Iraqi Failure"? This was clearly off topic and highly offensive to this veteran.

Our moderator is very patient and generous, as long as we don't push it. I have crossed that threshold now by responding to your rant, so I will stop. I suggest you do the same.

Another link to Australia.

Maybe they are just getting what they deserve!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/climate-control-the-heat-is-on/2007/10/02/1191091115322.html

Destruction of the ozone layer by man-made chemicals has altered wind patterns leading to a strengthening of an ocean current, known as the East Australian Current, which brings warm waters from the tropics south.

Global warming is also expected to make the current flow more strongly, heating southern waters by up to 2.5 degrees by 2070 if emissions remain high.

An analysis of Australia's carbon emissions by the CSIRO scientist Michael Raupach found that with just 0.32 per cent of the world's population, Australia contributed 1.43 per cent of the global emissions in 2004.

But more concerning, for every unit of energy Australia produced, it burnt fossil fuels at a rate 20 per cent higher than the world average and 25 to 30 per cent higher than the US, Europe and Japan.

Therefore the energy efficiency of fossil fuel use is significantly lower in Australia than in these other developed countries, Dr Raupach found.

Ausralias Mining town mentality.
Exactly what is deserved

To understand Australia you must first accept that this nation was founded in much the same way as any mining town or loggers camp was established 200 years ago.

The founders and workers had no intention to stay permanently, their job was temporary. And like the politicians of today they were there just to facilitate strip mining and clear felling.

Once you appreciate that the culture of Australia was designed only to exploit the land, you will then be less inclined to expect Australians to change their habits at this late stage.

Led from the top, the main concern in Australia is still economic growth derived from the alteration , exploitation and destruction of natural assets including soils, forests and fresh water catchments.
Agriculture and conventional mining has already permanently damaged the land and has already destroyed entire ecosystems, after which almost as if planned, with little left worth saving chemicals are intentionally used to leach the soils of any last trace of the earths bounty, after which the wasteland is abandoned.
Certainly the modern Australian is not planning to move back to Europe, but Australians still care more for wealth than have respect for the environment outside the main city centre. Like most Europeans Australians live in isolation from nature; they are as distant now from the natural environment as the Europeans founders were from home.
Wealth is still extracted from the land and exported. The current Australian Climate depends on mining exports, energy resources and metals which will always remain a high co2 emitter. Australia�s customers are the highest polluters in the world and with Australia�s assistance Asian economies will boom and support Australia as its Agricultural economy dries up with its climate
BTW the Aus drought is into its 11th year while most cities have been affected for the last 6 years and mining is investing in desalination plants to continue.
Agricultural losses due to droughts and floods have had disastrous impacts in the region pushing up prices of basic food stuffs and developing shortages across all of SE Asia, but like Australia, 1 third of the worlds population believe that intensified industrial activity is still the best defence against AGW.

It seem from Giss records, that Australia has got one of the least reliable long term temp records in the world (none earlier than 1940 etc (correct me if wrong). Last summer was one of the coldest and last winter was one of the coldest in Queensland)
In fact SH temperatures are not increasing according to UHA etc
just one good example of extreme global warming from Brisbane (earlier records in data) I suspect if you had had records from 1880 = no change. Also many of the persons in Australia re global warming are mainly enviromentalist/climate scientists etc
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945780000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Climate change disaster is upon us, warns UN A record number of floods, droughts and storms around the world this year amount to a climate change "mega disaster", the United Nation's emergency relief coordinator, Sir John Holmes, has warned. Sir John, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said dire predictions about the impact of global warming on humanity were already coming true. "We are seeing the effects of climate change. Any year can be a freak but the pattern looks pretty clear to be honest. That's why we're trying ... to say, of course you've got to deal with mitigation of emissions, but this is here and now, this is with us already," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/05/climatechange

The sky is falling! Send us all your money!

One minor problem with Mr. Little's hysteria - The ten worst floods in history all occurred prior to 1964.

Reply: Patrick, but again you post the ten worst floods based on "fatalities". Much better warning systems are now in place today which reduces the death toll of similar and even larger sized floods. Brett

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/flooding/tenworst.shtml

Date Location Dead
1887, September-October Hwang Ho (Yellow) River, China Over 900,000
1939 North China 500,000
1642 Kaifeng, Honan Province, China Over 300,000
1099 England and the Netherlands 100,000
1287, December 14 The Netherlands 50,000
1824 Russia 10,000
1421, November 18 The Netherlands 10,000
1964, November-December Mekong Delta, South Vietnam 5,000
1951, August 6-7 Manchuria 4,800
1948, June Foochow, China 3,500

Another gem-

West drought may be worst in 500 years, experts say June 18, 2004 LAS VEGAS � The drought gripping the West could be the worst in 500 years, with effects in the Colorado River basin even worse than during the Dust Bowl years, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey say. "That we can now say with confidence," said Robert Webb, lead author of the report released yesterday. "Now I'm completely convinced."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040618/news_2n18drought.html

Since this hysterical press release was put out in 2004, Las Vegas has been 150% of normal precipitation. Reply: I get 115% of normal going back to early October 2004. Brett. Most of the west is near or above normal precipitation for the last three years. Reply: Patrick, I just looked at a % or normal precipitation map from our inhouse climate data going back to October 2004 of the west and it looks to me that there are more stations below normal than above for precipitation. Just an observation. Brett

http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/36mPNormUS.png

Andrew,

You: Parts of Australia have been in the grip of drought for more than six years, threatening the country's major agricultural zone, while water restrictions are in place in most state capitals.

Reply: The �Federation drought� in Australia began in the mid 1890s and reached its devastating peak in late 1901 and 1902. What role did man and his SUV play here? What about the drought of 1914-15? This drought resulted in the disastrous failure of the wheat crop.

You: Maybe they are just getting what they deserve!

Reply: Yaaa, those @$%#'s! Hopefully the whole country dries out, that'll teach them. What a statement you made. Wow.

Hi Brett,

The UN officer was referring to floods in rural West Africa. I'd have to question the quality of the warning systems and ability to quickly evacuate those regions. It is likely that much of the flooding there has been flash floods from thunderstorms.

And we couldn't even evacuate New Orleans.

"The public focus has been on Eastern and Southern Australia because that is where the bulk of the population is, Dr. Trewin explained, "but in fact the most dramatic trend that we are seeing over the last 50 years is the increasing rainfall in north Western Australia."

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-29/54677.html

Why not interview Dr. Patrick J. Michaels?

He's speaking out about how his speech was restricted due to his skepticism of AGW:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/10/2007100503n.htm

Reply: I believe Katie will be personally interviewing Dr. Fred Singer soon. More on that later. Brett

Brett - OK, do we have long-term data on frequency and magnitude of these floods? We'd have to, in order to justify the claim made by Mr. Holmes.

Reply: I will take a look Tom.

But Brett... I thought the point of AGW and climate change diaster was the measurement of major human casualities from the effects of AGW such as "record number of floods, droughts and storms around the world". If there was a really large flood somewhere in the world and no humans were around and no humans died, then from a human's point of view, it would not be one of the worst floods. If there were a very small flood, but due to a large concentration of people or location or whatever, maybe 1 million people died, but in another part of the world, there was a huge giant flood, but no humans died because there weren't many humans there and/or they left in time, I think we would hear more about the "small" flood being one of the worst floods. Sort of like Cat 5 hurricanes in the middle of the Atlantic and never reaching land, humans are like "ho hum, didn't affect me".
Wouldn't even make the evening news, except for a few crazies who may venture statements such as "what if there had been a school of children out in the Atlantic in the path of the Cat 5? oh, the humanity!"

Off Topic - Sort of. sorry;

I would really like to hear some opinions on the following article. It discuss the proposed Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007.
Lets for a moment pretend that AGW is real and we are going to do all the things we are told we must do to achieve the magic 90% cut.
Can anyone find signifigant fault with the overall analysis of the practicallity of the expence as shown below?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html

I think Patrick's post is spot on. It's intention is not to compare death tolls and warning systems, but to remind us that there have always been great floods, droughts and storms, without human involvement.

History is the foundation for education. We learn nothing from the future. Science is defined as knowledge gained through experience. Have we not learned anything? Storms happen. I am still waiting for a scientifically predicted "consistent" increase in hurricane activity and strength.

FACT: The hurricane forecasts were wrong.

To conclude with absolute certainty, based on prediction, that we are on the precipice of utter destruction, is the scientific approach at being prophetic. Scientific forecasting of this magnitude is not an absolute. There in no concensus, no "Law" that burning the remaining 80 percent of the worlds fossil fuel reserves will be catastrophic. It is merely a theory.

Instead, we should use the science to promote energy efficiency. This is starting to permeate throughout society. We should not use the scienctific attempt at being prophetic as a tool for scaring the law makers into world controlled regulation. Educate, do not indoctrinate.

Sorry Rich, there have been several tries at energy efficiency, all of which have failed to limit the amount of total energy used.
What is gained if cars are built that are highly fuel efficient if many more of these cars are sold because the low running costs and the cheap sale price allows more people to drive further and more frequently on unnecessary trips? Surely public transport has already been developed to solve the problem, its been around for thousands of years but the solution did not offer anything other than affordable transport to suit every ones needs which is not what we want. What our consumer society needs is more opportunities to sell more technology.
What power is gained if you change your incandescent to curly fluorescent when its only illuminating a new plasma screen TV?
How many new never before seen electric gizmos have you bought in the last 20 years. How many are still plugged in and how many more will be in use by you in the next 2 decades?
I have an electric roller door a microwave oven a mobile phone a computer a record player and CD & DVD players plus a video and electric tooth brush a watering system razor several TVs and a intercom system waterheater bigger than the first fan forced oven air con and underfloor heating an electric blanket a spare fridge for drinks & outdoor lighting.
All of which have been plugged in over the last 20 years
I�m wondering what will come next, blue ray? A funky lighting system with LED but whatever it is I know it will be indispensable and just what I need. I guess a plug in electric car is on the list, taking me from 0-60 by the time I get to work 15 klics from home. However I wonder what the effects of thousands of cars plugged into the grid will have while just as many conventional cars are sold to the next generation who are not of age today to be taken into consideration.
There are lots of improvements that can be made to current technology. There is lots of space for windmills and solar panels. Heaps of Uranium and more than enough oil and coal, but there is no intention to reduce the amount of energy used the only aim is to make more energy available for more technology that makes your life easier.
The funny thing with prediction is that most people will do nothing but wait to see if the prediction is correct while they keep each other amused by repeating the same behaviour that led to the prediction being made in the first place.

simon,

California is taking great strides to reducing the amount of electricity they use. Through various efficiency and conservation measures, they use 40% less electricity per capita than the US average. Given that California is home to 35 million people, that amounts to a huge reduction in pollution and CO2. Granted their energy use is still rising, but that comes along with a rapidly growing population.

Solar power is subsidized so that if you wanted to take yourself off the grid, it is cheaper to do so than in most states. You could hook up that plug-in hybrid to a solar panel on the roof of your garage if you're worried about substituting coal for gasoline. Research is ongoing for technology that prints photovoltaics onto thin plastic sheets that can be affixed anywhere. I don't know what their efficiency is at this point, but if such "flexible" solar technology could be mass produced, it could be applied to just about anything; maybe your car will be able to recharge itself as it sits in the parking lot at work.

Building codes have changed along with improved understanding and technologies relating to energy efficiency. Heating and cooling our homes and offices is one of the biggest electricity sinks in the country. Improving energy efficiency in buildings in places like the Southwest (and hopefully soon in the Northeast) will mean huge reductions in electricity usage during the summer months.

I suppose I could be pessimistic like you, but I see too much opportunity and action here on the West Coast. Maybe I would see things differently if I lived somewhere else.

Simon,

I had a nice, lengthy response for you, but it was lost because of my lap top connection. I don't want to rewrite it so I will just say this;

The cost of gas has gone up 100 percent in the past decade. This increase in cost hasn't slowed anyone from driving their cars. This increase could be compared to a fuel tax. Some people think that this tax would dissuade people from driving their cars so much. This has not happenend. Side note: Record profits for big oil means record tax revenue for the government.

It depends on how you look at "limiting" energy use. The demand for energy has gone up 30 percent in the past 30 years. How many efficient nuclear power plants have we built in the past 30 years? Side note: The worst nuclear disaster in the USA, 3 mile island, resulted in 0 casualties.

The demand for efficient "electric" energy will not be an issue. Mechanisms and devices will be built to accomodate the demand. The energy will be there, because of the harmonic balance between demand and the "affordable" evolution of the technology.

Side note: The worst nuclear disaster in the USA, 3 mile island, resulted in 0 casualties.

The Concorde was the "safest" plane in the air -- as measured in deaths/passenger-miles -- until it crashed. Then, it instantly became the worst. The Space Shuttle was similarly "safe" -- until it crashed. The primary learning from the safety record of US nuclear facilities is that we don't have enough experience to say anything meaningful about what happens when they fail.

Anyone who has tried to leave the NH beaches on an average summer Sunday evening knows that the evacuation plans for Seabrook are a sad joke. This is a major nuclear facility, sited on directly ON the ocean coast, surrounded by densely-populated neighborhoods, with NO easy access to evacuation routes. Just this summer, false alarms caused a panic in nearby Amesbury, MA. Seabrook is a case study in how nuclear plants should NOT be built, sited, and operated. Oh, and by the way, it has been an economic disaster.

Yes, we need safe nuclear power -- we need it desperately. No, we have not yet achieved it. In particular, we need to solve the nuclear waste problem. I'm convinced that the engineering problems of safely blasting it into deep-space are far more manageable than any of the proposed repository alternatives. We don't know what happens to concrete after fifteen thousand years -- never mind what happens to it when it is also being subjected to intense radiation during that time.

Three-mile Island was a necessary wakeup call. Fortunately, nobody was injured. Fortunately, the backup and containment systems worked. Unfortunately, the entire incident was NEVER supposed to be possible.

When a pilot safely lands an airliner after a catastrophic in-flight failure, most of us don't use the episode as evidence of the safety of air travel.

I don't know what Rich is trying to say about nuclear power and safety. I'd like to remind Rich -- and the rest of us -- that Chernobyl and Mayak demonstrate that nuclear technology deployed without effective safety systems is very dangerous indeed.

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa facility, for example, was operated under relatively tight (in comparison to Chernobyl) oversight. We know, now, that it was also built on an previously-unknown fault line. The fact that a major environmental catastrophe was averted was a matter of luck as much as design.

We need safe nuclear power. That means we need to be much better at making it safe than we have been in the past.

MUCH better.

Travis and Rich, you will get more of everything and half of it will be more than anyone needs.

I am pessimistic and its probable due to what I see rather than what I am given to read. I read that our local airport was to be expanded, incorporating great innovation into the design to minimise its footprint. The plan was to make it the first solar powered airport.

The solar plan was shelved after completion due to no real reason but it saved a fortune and in a state under long term d