Actually, as far as I'm aware many of the major dams built in Australia have sluices, and we can control how much water is released from them in some cases, for environmental flows.

The problem is that once they are built, its too politically easy to not open them, and instead dam the water for uses other than environmental flows.

So we don't need more dams I think, until we can responsibly use the ones we have.

" There are official exceptions for people like rural populations where more children are needed to help run the farms. ".

Exceptions that let the extra child live, but is not allowed
to attend school or have any kind of a government job.

A true 2nd class citizen, especially if they are not of
the correct race.

A system where the majority is more important than the
individual.

Kind of like in the Star Trek movies. More like the Vulcan
line of thinking.

Exceptions that let the extra child live, but is not allowed
to attend school or have any kind of a government job.

A true 2nd class citizen, especially if they are not of
the correct race.

A system where the majority is more important than the
individual.

Kind of like in the Star Trek movies. More like the Vulcan
line of thinking.

The Vulcan line of thinking always emerges during a time of survival and great crisis, which is exactly what the Chinese have been facing. What solutions do those of you who object to limiting births have to the problem they faced? Seeing as you don't live in a society with such an enormous population problem along with starvation and epic environmental problems, how exactly do you know what it is like to face such problems? I've not seen a single suggestion for what to do, only idealistic stances on the rights of the individual (which of course I believe in). I don't quite understand, why is the individual more important than an entire population when that population is starving by the millions? To me that is the height of selfishness and indifference. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Yes, when things are bad and a choice needs to be made I very much agree with this philosophy. What's funny is that many of you making the comments about the rights of individuals are also from the military, and I would think you, of all people, would understand what it means to give up your single life to protect the lives of the many who depend on you. The problem is a life-or-death, very real decision that the Chinese have to deal with. It is dire, not just a political whim. Knowing this, what other choice would you then make? Try to look at the problem without the ideological blinders that make you automatically discount everything about China (yes, I do have A LOT of objections to Chinese actions and thinking), and try to see it from a native Chinese leader's point-of-view, looking at his own country, trying to tackle an impossible task.

ps. I should amend my statement to make it clear that I DON'T advocate killing people, anyone! The only thing I nod my head to is China's decision to limit, as much as possible, births. I also DO NOT agree with discriminating against children born outside the law. That some people will inevitably have more children is only natural and should have been figured into the original law. But, in general, I believe the spirit of the law of limiting births is intended as a benefit to Chinese society, not a burden. I think most CHinese understand very well that being selfish about having more kids adds to the existing population problem. The more individuals who flout the law, the bigger the population gets. Those individuals really begin to add up in a population of billions!

Edited by butuki on 09/06/2010 22:01:43 MDT.

"Then you'll have decided which issue to whinge about once and for all. ;-)"

Can't say I like the tone of that - what issues have I/we been whinging about?

And I think we were still waiting for you to provide some evidence for your claim that LPG prices had cratered?

"Dams don't have to fully restrict flows. There's an old invention called a sluice. You may have heard of it."

Oh, more of the "stupid Australians" stuff.

Adam says:
The problem is that once they are built, its too politically easy to not open them, and instead dam the water for uses other than environmental flows.

So we don't need more dams I think, until we can responsibly use the ones we have.

If there were more dams, there would be more water for the cities, and plenty to spare for environmental flows. I think the pollys are just hoping for a change in the weather patterns along with the shift to a negative dominated phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation such that they won't be needed.

Even the tiny island called Britain I live on has drought problems in one area while there is surplus in another. My dad was a senior water engineer involved in resource planning durng the ltter part of his career. He was one of the architects of the 'National Water Grid', which pipes water from one area to another as needed.

Oil and Gas pipelines in Russia and the middle east span thousands of miles, yet the needs of the Australian people can't be served by their own government. It's a bit crap really. Maybe pressure could be put on the Aus Govt to use the green taxes they levy for something which actually benefits the people and the ecology.

Melbourne population by year:
1836 177
1851 20,000
1854 123,000 (gold rush)
1880 280,000[161] (land boom)
1890 490,000 (economic collapse)
1930 1,000,000
1956 1,500,000
1981 2,806,000
1991 3,156,700 (economic slump)
2001 3,366,542
2010 4,000,000[1]

Maybe Melbourne's water issues have as much to do with the ~20% population increase in the last decade as much as the drought?

This worth a look, despite the hubris of the first line, which looks like it was tacked onto the original report:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/bc-iac090110.php

Edited by tallbloke on 09/07/2010 01:30:42 MDT.

Arapiles says:
Can't say I like the tone of that - what issues have I/we been whinging about?

You even quoted the winky smiley, and still had a whinge about me whingeing about your whingeing. ;-)

And I think we were still waiting for you to provide some evidence for your claim that LPG prices had cratered?

I'll give you that one. I was getting mixed up with he big fall in bulk gas prices in the UK since LNG came onstream in a big way here. Meanwhile the price to the end consumer, which has been hiked 60% hasn't fallen back to affordable levels, because the govt now takes a big slice to pay for 'Global Warming'.

Something I like to have a good whinge about, since the 'Green Taxes' now far exceed what we were told was the cost of 'mitigation'. It's a scam to pay for the state propping up the corrupt banking system. Meanwhile old people die of the cold in the snows we were told would be a thing of the past a few years ago.

"Maybe Melbourne's water issues have as much to do with the ~20% population increase in the last decade as much as the drought?"

No. All things being equal, 20% more people would mean 20% more water used - which doesn't explain our storages being at 30%, i.e. 70% less than full. And you've seen the rainfall anomaly charts.

In any case water usage per person has declined sharply due to public educations programmes and the restrictions.

"Oil and Gas pipelines in Russia and the middle east span thousands of miles, yet the needs of the Australian people can't be served by their own government. It's a bit crap really. Maybe pressure could be put on the Aus Govt to use the green taxes they levy for something which actually benefits the people and the ecology."

Rog - as I said, I was an oil and gas lawyer and my firm worked on most of those schemes. They are hideously expensive but for economic and geopolitical reasons they get done. But why would we spend billions to pipe water from northern Australia to the south? So that people in Melbourne's eastern suburbs can continue to hose down their concrete driveways and grow English gardens? The problem is that in the past every time more water was put into the system more water was used: that cycle has to end.

Arapiles said:
"But why would we spend billions to pipe water from northern Australia to the south?"

Why spend billions on an energy hungry desalination plant?

"In any case water usage per person has declined sharply due to public educations programmes and the restrictions."

People who pay taxes have a right to services. I agree that some things need to be kept in check, like lawn sprinkling and dust suppression, though even this could be considered in the scheme of things. Maybe like electricity bills in some parts of America such as California, once over a usage threshold, the price goes up, but you get to choose between washing the car and watering your grass. The extra revenue being used for schemes to conserve and improve water supply.
Are people already on meters over there? Or just a flat water rate?

All things being equal, 20% more people would mean 20% more water used - which doesn't explain our storages being at 30%, i.e. 70% less than full.

Errr, that's nonsense. If it takes 3 men with 4 hoses 7 hours to fill a tank, and 5 men with 3 buckets 10 hours to empty it....

Think about it, what else has changed over the last ten years apart from population, drought and domestic consumption patterns/ restrictions? Agriculture? More mouths to feed in the local area...

An Australian farmer writes:
"2010/09/07 at 4:09 am

In Aus the drought's well broken, its flooding:-)
such a pity the ultra green agenda 21 cretins have made it so that people cannot! put damns in without massive paperwork and hoop jumping, to save water at times of plenty.
I have 2 4,000 litre tanks, they were full weeks ago and I have had to watch precious rainwater run away. no funds to buy more tanks,
funny thing, they offer rebates…and the tank prices go up! to exactly what the rebate is. No win for the consumer, plenty for the makers.
earthberms slow and hold water, a dam would have given me 2yrs at least of better than saline bore water to use to grow food!
as an EX Green type I am hugely angry at the politicisation of water and land care.
we did fine without this bulldust and legislation, more fees and charges for nothing!"

The floods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BD5859Q5qw&feature=player_embedded#!

Edited by tallbloke on 09/07/2010 06:26:26 MDT.

"Are people already on meters over there? Or just a flat water rate?"

Yes, meters and going back for quite a long time.

"such a pity the ultra green agenda 21 cretins have made it so that people cannot! put damns in without massive paperwork and hoop jumping, to save water at times of plenty."

Not sure who your "farmer" is but the reason why you can't simply dam every bit of water that runs across your property is because your neighbours further down the watercourse won't appreciate it: they'd like some water too (in point of fact, lots of farmers are complaining about exactly this issue in relation to places like Cubby Station). As far as I'm aware that's always been the rule, it's not a new, greeny thing.

"I have 2 4,000 litre tanks, they were full weeks ago and I have had to watch precious rainwater run away. no funds to buy more tanks,"

I'd read that as 24,000 litre tanks and was wondering why any farmer would be mucking about with such small tanks: then I realised that he/she means 2 X 4,000 - they're kidding right??? I live in inner-city Melbourne and my tanks (when they bloody arrive) will total 20,000 litres and I wanted more. My parent's HOUSE tank is 31,000 litres and they had probably 80,000 litres running off the machinery shed alone. Your "farmer" is no such thing. And a 4000 litre tank costs less than $1,000 delivered so they really must be short of funds - in any case a 24,000 litre tank is better value at about $2,300.

Edited by Arapiles on 09/07/2010 08:09:31 MDT.

Yeah, I wondered about that. I have a 10,000L system up and running myself. I'm on a meter too.

My dad used to assess and issue abstraction licences back in the day. Interesting business, setting max quantities etc. He has some interesting tales to tell.

Why spend billions on an energy hungry desalination plant?

Edited by tallbloke on 09/07/2010 09:13:16 MDT.

John Christy published a paper back in 2006 which showed a rise in temperature at night in the Californian valleys which wasn't present in the foothils or the higher sierra. He thinks this is due to increased use of irrigation systems. http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=293

.

.

Not much co2 induced Global warming to be seen in Californian summers since 1930.

Another recent study claims the opposite; that irrigation causes cooling and this 'offsets' or 'masks' the warming signal. http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2726

Christy points out that his study performs a far more rigorous treatment of the data.

My own experience is that humid air is warmer at night. As backpackers who have camped in irrigated valleys and up on the hill will confirm. Even allowing for the adiabatic lapse rate (the amount cooler it gets per amount of altitude climbed), moist air has a warming effect.

Looking at the trends on Christy's graphs, it looks like increased irrigation and the shift to lower thermometers in the '90's may have had an unexpected effect on temperature measurements, leading to a belief in more warming than has actually occurred.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/14/2010 01:02:39 MDT.

Just another reminder that we should be doing something NOW, even if there is no global warming, and even if it's not anthropogenic:

"BMJ 2010;

Health budgets would benefit from ambitious climate change goals

Brussels
An ambitious climate change policy would bring European Union governments major public health and financial benefits, says new research published on 14 September.

By aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, the 27 member EU would make annual health savings of up to €30.5bn (₤25.3bn; $38.8bn) by 2020 in addition to the €52bn health gains that are expected from the existing 20% reduction target.

The forecasts come as European environment ministers prepare to finalise the EU’s negotiating position in mid-October for the next stage of the global climate talks in Cancún, Mexico, in December.

The report, commissioned by the Health and Environment Alliance, a network of groups across Europe, and another non-governmental organisation, Health Care Without Harm Europe, gives a breakdown of projected health savings by country from an extra 10% reduction in greenhouse gases. The biggest beneficiary would be Germany (€8.1bn). Poland, France and Italy would also make major savings, while the UK would benefit by €0.9bn.

Génon Jensen, executive director of the alliance, said, “This study provides conclusive evidence that cleaner energy and cleaner air, associated with an immediate move to 30% domestic cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020, would go a long way to paying for itself in better health in Europe.”

The findings go further than recent figures from the European Commission, which calculated health benefits on the basis of increased mortality from exposure to air pollution alone, by taking into account the costs of ill health as well as of deaths. These costs include hospital, consultation, and medication expenditure and restricted activity because of heart and lung conditions.

The report points out that its estimates may be “only the tip of the iceberg” of the real health benefits that ambitious tackling of climate change could bring, because, as greenhouse gas emissions fall, so too do other air pollutants. These side effects, or co-benefits, are in addition to the health gains from reducing phenomena associated with climate change such as heatwaves, flooding, and the spread of infectious diseases.

Anja Leetz, executive director of Health Care Without Harm Europe, pointed out that the findings show that action now would mean 140 000 fewer consultations for asthma and respiratory conditions each year by 2020 and thousands fewer admissions to hospital for cardiac and respiratory problems.

The two groups note that the extra €30.5bn savings that would result from a 30% greenhouse gas reduction policy would go a long way towards covering the annual €46bn price tag the European Commission has placed on the higher target."

Hi Lynn, good to see you back online after the quake.

What's the weather like down there? I'm seeing lots of reports of a cold spring for NZ.

"City store in ruins after roof collapses | Stuff.co.nz

A central Invercargill street was cordoned off yesterday after the roof of decorating business Wrens collapsed under the weight of heavy snow.

The building was one of at least four that caved in following significant snow on Saturday and yesterday.


City snowfall biggest in 50 years? | Stuff.co.nz

A Southland weather expert says the weekend’s snowfall could be the heaviest in Invercargill for 50 years.

‘Winter in spring disaster’ | Stuff.co.nz

Southern farmers will need to wait for snow to clear to assess their losses from the impact of the southerly storm that hit during the middle of lambing.

Federated Farmers board member David Rose, who farms at Oporo near Wallacetown, said while much of the snow had melted yesterday, the night before had been shocking, with blizzard conditions.

“Winter in winter is OK but winter in spring is a bit of a disaster.”

Heavy snow destroys $100k glasshouse in city | Stuff.co.nz

Heavy snow destroyed his $100,000 glasshouse at the weekend at Eldon Gardens, with the panes and shards of glass smashing down on to about 2000 young tomato plants."

Couln't agree more about the benefits of reducing air pollution for humans. Couldn't agree less about the bogus claim that reducing co2 emissions will reduce the number of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves, coldwaves, etc etc. They can't have it both ways and still have a credible hypothesis. (Not that it's credible anyway)

Edited by tallbloke on 09/20/2010 08:11:45 MDT.

Hi Roger

Farmers always complain about the weather. It's a national pastime. We have a lot of students from overseas here, and they see the daffodils come out and the lambs being born, the days are longer, we get a couple of warm days and they think "Hurray, winter is over". Those of us who have lived here long enough are quick to point out that all of our heaviest sea-level snow falls tend to happen late August to late September. You would think the farmers would lamb later! I don't think this weather is very unusual, but you would probably know better where to find that kind of information. We are getting clipped by an awesome sized storm from the south. They say the storm is as big as Australia, and will bring bad weather to much of the country for the rest of the week. I'm just waiting for some nutter to blame our earthquake on global warming...the weather in Christchurch has been really nice, thank goodness :) People without homes or holes in their roofs and walls don't really need the nasty weather on top of everything. But, as a Hungarian I work with has said, "If I have to be caught in a major earthquake, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else in the world but Christchurch"! Like much of California (where I grew up and survived the 1971 Sylmar quake, but missed the Northridge one), we expect major earthquakes and are well prepared to deal with them.

I am still undecided on the impact of CO2 on climate, but feel we should be making every attempt to reduce CO2 for many other reasons even if global climate change isn't impacted.

It doesn't look like this thread is gonna make it to 100 pages :(

"I am still undecided on the impact of CO2 on climate, but feel we should be making every attempt to reduce CO2 for many other reasons even if global climate change isn't impacted."

I'm more concerned with how CO2 will affect those small beer kegs you put in your fridge for Sunday ball games. I think we need to decrease CO2 injections because I don't like my beer very bubbly.

"It doesn't look like this thread is gonna make it to 100 pages :("

Perhaps 50? Wouldn't that still be a record?

"I think we need to decrease CO2 injections because I don't like my beer very bubbly."

Flat beer? I suppose you like it warm too. You don't happen to be from the UK? Naaah, you wouldn't be watching ball games if you were...snails and slugs just LOVE warm, flat beer ;) I have several of these as traps in my garden. They literally drown themselves in it.

Gosh, I've never before considered the impact of beer and soft drinks on global warming!

Change of weather...it's just gone from a lovely sunny spring day to snowing in Christchurch. Hmmm, a cold spring indeed!

They seem to like flat beer in the south of England, but rest assured that if you ever visit the north of the country, you will find the beer is hand pulled through a sparkler and carries a nice head which lasts down to the bottom of the glass. We brew world class ale up here. :-)

That Australia sized storm to the south is caused by the big sudden stratospheric warming event six weeks ago which is causing continuing big oscillations in the Antarctic circulation. Tasmania and Melbourne caught a dose of the edge of it a couple of weeks ago as I predicted. Sorry to hear you are catching it on top of the clean up and repair effort going on down there.

Co2 is not a pollutant, it is the essential gas which plants use in photosynthesizing sunlight - the basis of all biological life on Earth. Below around 250 parts per million, trees start to suffer. When it was 7000 parts per million about 550 million years ago, Earth was a really lush place. We had ice ages in the Permian era, while co2 was around ten times higher than it is now.

Anyone who tells you we understand Earth's climatic processes well enough to be able to attribute a 0.7C rise in global temperature over a hundred years to human emitted co2 is talking out of their behind.

"They seem to like flat beer in the south of England, but rest assured that if you ever visit the north of the country, you will find the beer is hand pulled through a sparkler and carries a nice head which lasts down to the bottom of the glass. We brew world class ale up here. :-)"

My favorite beer is a dark, organic beer brewed in Vermont. Fabulous stuff.


"Anyone who tells you we understand Earth's climatic processes well enough to be able to attribute a 0.7C rise in global temperature over a hundred years to human emitted co2 is talking out of their behind."

Jim Carrey used to talk out his behind. But that was in the movies. I don't think it had anything to do with the environment, though. (Hey, just trying to help Lynn get to 100 pages of posts for this thread).