As I understand it, global warming is defined by a measured increase in average temperatures over time. According to my memory and perceptions, there seems to be a greater number of extreme weather events being reported since the climate change debate became mainstream somewhere in the 1990's.

I'm talking about record breaking temperature extremes, droughts, floods, hurricanes, bushfires and even earthquakes. I'm not an expert on the climate change debate, so I'm wondering to what extent these events are considered by the majority of the scientific community, to be a result of actual climate change or an over reporting of those events, due to the increased public interest in the subject.

I have been under the impression that noticable anthropogenic climate change would take place over a much longer time period than a human life. Much too gradually to be actually noticed without using sensitive equipment and recording data over a significant time frame, in order to differentiate from natural fluctuations. Unless of course there are specific periods in which those shifts reach tipping points which are within a human lifetime to observe and that we just happen to be experiencing one at this point in time.

No more than 20 years ago, I recall there being an awareness of the possibility of human influenced climate change, with the depletion of the ozone layer being a popular topic of discussion. But I had a clear impression that if humans were affecting the climate, that it would take a significant period of time and manifest in subtle ways, like species extinction and crop failure, rather than dramatic global weather events. :-/

The "drought" in australia isnt so much because it doesnt rain but because when it does rain we dont get the water because coka cola is taking all our groundwater.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:39am:

The "drought" in australia isnt so much because it doesnt rain but because when it does rain we dont get the water because coka cola is taking all our groundwater. SOB

Posting drunk at 3.30 am will make you write garbage like this.

::)

WS, I have seen changes.

Also dont forget the rise in CO2 has been happening for a long time, we may be past the subtle change window.

My text book at school showed CO2 increases measured in Hawaii well away from large industrial areas, that was at least 45 years ago.

I think the discussion we should be having is not if climate change is happening.
It should be since we seem incapable of slowing the carbon output what else can we do to cool the planet?

If we did cool the planet, does that mean the oceans would not be able to contain as much CO2.

CO2 increase in the oceans will not be stopped by cooling the planet .

I am glad I am old and just about fuct, its your problem brats.

miketrees wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:40pm:

WS, I have seen changes. Also dont forget the rise in CO2 has been happening for a long time, we may be past the subtle change window. My text book at school showed CO2 increases measured in Hawaii well away from large industrial areas, that was at least 45 years ago. I think the discussion we should be having is not if climate change is happening. It should be since we seem incapable of slowing the carbon output what else can we do to cool the planet? If we did cool the planet, does that mean the oceans would not be able to contain as much CO2. CO2 increase in the oceans will not be stopped by cooling the planet . I am glad I am old and just about fuct, its your problem brats.

Being old is a poor excuse.

You last legacy to the people who will come after you is to do your best to right the wrongs of your generation.

Dont waste your remaining years.

Winston Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:03am:

As I understand it, global warming is defined by a measured increase in average temperatures over time. According to my memory and perceptions, there seems to be a greater number of extreme weather events being reported since the climate change debate became mainstream somewhere in the 1990's. I'm talking about record breaking temperature extremes, droughts, floods, hurricanes, bushfires and even earthquakes. I'm not an expert on the climate change debate, so I'm wondering to what extent these events are considered by the majority of the scientific community, to be a result of actual climate change or an over reporting of those events, due to the increased public interest in the subject. I have been under the impression that noticable anthropogenic climate change would take place over a much longer time period than a human life. Much too gradually to be actually noticed without using sensitive equipment and recording data over a significant time frame, in order to differentiate from natural fluctuations. Unless of course there are specific periods in which those shifts reach tipping points which are within a human lifetime to observe and that we just happen to be experiencing one at this point in time. No more than 20 years ago, I recall there being an awareness of the possibility of human influenced climate change, with the depletion of the ozone layer being a popular topic of discussion. But I had a clear impression that if humans were affecting the climate, that it would take a significant period of time and manifest in subtle ways, like species extinction and crop failure, rather than dramatic global weather events. :-/

You can't be blamed for spreading FUD... It's a Natural human instinct and despite appearances I am not being facetious ..

No, no ... I'm just being funny  :D ....climate change is akin to a titration test 'cept no one knows all the rules !

** attack is invisible: awareness is no escape!  :o :o :o

...ready for battle awaiting The Final Command.... :-?

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:48am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:39am: The "drought" in australia isnt so much because it doesnt rain but because when it does rain we dont get the water because coka cola is taking all our groundwater. SOB Posting drunk at 3.30 am will make you write garbage like this. ::)

Are you saying that coka cola isnt taking all our groundwater?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:47am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:39am: The "drought" in australia isnt so much because it doesnt rain but because when it does rain we dont get the water because coka cola is taking all our groundwater. SOB Posting drunk at 3.30 am will make you write garbage like this. ::) Are you saying that coka cola isnt taking all our groundwater? SOB

Are you saying that Coca Cola uses groundwater, rather than tap water to make soft drinks?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 12:09pm:

Are you saying that Coca Cola uses groundwater, rather than tap water to make soft drinks?

try these -

'One of Coca-Cola Amatil's (CCA) bottled water product is made from water extracted from near the world heritage listed Springbrook National Park.'

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/03/12/3961951.htm

'Coca-Cola Charged with Groundwater Depletion and Pollution in India'

http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/groundwater_ind.htm

Are you saying that Coca Cola uses groundwater, rather than tap water to make soft drinks?

This is known as City Slicker Syndrome.

The disconnect between city people and reality.

You may remember it from other classic statements like, we don't need farmers, we get our food from the shops.

While on one level shops will still get food, but wherever they get it by definition it will still be a farmer producing it.

miketrees wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 1:35pm:

Are you saying that Coca Cola uses groundwater, rather than tap water to make soft drinks? This is known as City Slicker Syndrome. The disconnect between city people and reality. You may remember it from other classic statements like, we don't need farmers, we get our food from the shops. While on one level shops will still get food, but wherever they get it by definition it will still be a farmer producing it.

Of course mike. It makes sense that Coca Cola would build an individual bore, pumping station and filtration system at each and every bottling plant in Australia, rather than just connect to the existing, already filtered, domestic/commercial water supply...

miketrees wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:40pm:

WS, I have seen changes. Also dont forget the rise in CO2 has been happening for a long time, we may be past the subtle change window. My text book at school showed CO2 increases measured in Hawaii well away from large industrial areas, that was at least 45 years ago. I think the discussion we should be having is not if climate change is happening. It should be since we seem incapable of slowing the carbon output what else can we do to cool the planet? If we did cool the planet, does that mean the oceans would not be able to contain as much CO2. CO2 increase in the oceans will not be stopped by cooling the planet . I am glad I am old and just about fuct, its your problem brats.

It's a regulation versus big business lobbyist problem: the simpleton consumer slash voter can't work out that they are the ones being lobbied against by the sheep clothed planet accountants due to Hollywood and MTV making them accept pulp fiction like pavlovs conditioned subjects!

Money s getting funnier and funnier: all this tap and go stuff is spreading to the gay as metrosexual mobile phone with no end in sight!

Synergistic systems don't decay, they collapse... So I have heard!

Yes, Mike, you must keep helping to warn us all cos we've only got one mudball  ;)

Yes, Mike, you must keep helping to warn us all cos we've only got one mudball

Have I just been damned with faint praise?

I have trouble understanding Earthlings

miketrees wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 4:08pm:

Yes, Mike, you must keep helping to warn us all cos we've only got one mudball Have I just been damned with faint praise? I have trouble understanding Earthlings

I'm no curse, mate: I give a hoot!

miketrees wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 1:35pm:

This is known as City Slicker Syndrome. The disconnect between city people and reality.

I thought it was just me who noticed that.

Winston Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:03am:

As I understand it, global warming is defined by a measured increase in average temperatures over time. According to my memory and perceptions, there seems to be a greater number of extreme weather events being reported since the climate change debate became mainstream somewhere in the 1990's. I'm talking about record breaking temperature extremes, droughts, floods, hurricanes, bushfires and even earthquakes. I'm not an expert on the climate change debate, so I'm wondering to what extent these events are considered by the majority of the scientific community, to be a result of actual climate change or an over reporting of those events, due to the increased public interest in the subject. I have been under the impression that noticable anthropogenic climate change would take place over a much longer time period than a human life. Much too gradually to be actually noticed without using sensitive equipment and recording data over a significant time frame, in order to differentiate from natural fluctuations. Unless of course there are specific periods in which those shifts reach tipping points which are within a human lifetime to observe and that we just happen to be experiencing one at this point in time. No more than 20 years ago, I recall there being an awareness of the possibility of human influenced climate change, with the depletion of the ozone layer being a popular topic of discussion. But I had a clear impression that if humans were affecting the climate, that it would take a significant period of time and manifest in subtle ways, like species extinction and crop failure, rather than dramatic global weather events. :-/

NASA has a good doco on that!

http://youtu.be/6X5DqKdi8A4    Future Earth" [2014 Documentary] - YouTube

Winston Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:03am:

As I understand it, global warming is defined by a measured increase in average temperatures over time. According to my memory and perceptions, there seems to be a greater number of extreme weather events being reported since the climate change debate became mainstream somewhere in the 1990's. I'm talking about record breaking temperature extremes, droughts, floods, hurricanes, bushfires and even earthquakes. I'm not an expert on the climate change debate, so I'm wondering to what extent these events are considered by the majority of the scientific community, to be a result of actual climate change or an over reporting of those events, due to the increased public interest in the subject. I have been under the impression that noticable anthropogenic climate change would take place over a much longer time period than a human life. Much too gradually to be actually noticed without using sensitive equipment and recording data over a significant time frame, in order to differentiate from natural fluctuations. Unless of course there are specific periods in which those shifts reach tipping points which are within a human lifetime to observe and that we just happen to be experiencing one at this point in time. No more than 20 years ago, I recall there being an awareness of the possibility of human influenced climate change, with the depletion of the ozone layer being a popular topic of discussion. But I had a clear impression that if humans were affecting the climate, that it would take a significant period of time and manifest in subtle ways, like species extinction and crop failure, rather than dramatic global weather events. :-/

You're right: change takes time..

..the panic is establishing if there is a problem or not and thereby determining if a fossil fooled global infrastructure should be continued or not: remember- IT IS A COMMERCIAL WORLD AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND WEALTH CREATION AND POWER ARE AT STAKE  8-)