No love for 4WDs
March 6, 2008 by Alborz Fallah
A recent survey of 2380 drivers across Australia by Sweeney Research (for AAMI) has found two rather obvious facts. One, the majority of drivers believe 4WDs are dangerous and should not be allowed in the city and two, all 4WDs need a rear camera as standard.
The problem is our ADR (Australian Design Rules) for vehicles. A brief look through would show a growing list of out-dated or inefficient regulations that hardly have any relevance in today’s automotive world.
Two important rules that many motoring organisation have been asking for – mandatory Electronic Stability Program (ESP) for all new cars and a rear camera for all SUV and 4WD vehicles – are still not finalised. .
The research found that 75 per cent of Australians agree that it should be compulsory for four-wheel drive vehicles to be fitted with a rear camera.
But even without the research, the growing number of small children that have either been killed or seriously injured by their own parents reversing over them should be enough to force the Federal Government’s hand.
Then there is the ESP debate, although everyone now agrees that ESP saves lives, the Federal Government is still some years away from making the technology compulsory on all cars (note that ESP has been around since the mid 90s).
At the moment many 4WDs are available with rear cameras, either as standard (Toyota Kluger) or as an option. Of course the bigger question still lingers, if you live in the city, why exactly do you need a 4WD?
The majority of respondents resent the presence of four-wheel drives on the roads, with 60 per cent agreeing that they don’t belong in the city.
Other interesting findings from the research:
- 66 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are dangerous for other road users;
- 56 per cent of drivers support four-wheel drives being subjected to higher registration fees;
- 33 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are socially unacceptable because of their contribution to the greenhouse effect.
What do you think? Is it time for mandatory rear cameras and ESP?
No tags for this post.
The government should legislate that all large vehicles (including the larger 4WDs) must be fitted with reversing beepers. Then see how many soccer mums will want one!
QUOTE…………
“33 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are socially unacceptable because of their contribution to the greenhouse effect.”??????????
well who the hell would admitt that to the guy that is showing off his brand spanker 4X4 at the next BBQ you attend??
Mandatory requirements must be:
1. Reverse camera
2. Reverse parking beeper warning public in close proximity
3. ESP
4. There must be a better way to keep these pseudo oversized pretend 4WD’s off the road somehow as it should not be available to some people who do not use it 4WD’ing. I feel a yearly ongoing penalty should apply en-masse to lessen the saleability of these cars. Sure it will hurt, but a lot buy them and never take them off the tar!
I for one hate them as how often do you see people use these and never go anywhere close to a 4WD situation and worse still they block your view at say roundabouts, etc. An oversized menace!
My brother as just bought a new 70 series cruiser. he uses it for the bush but it is the only mode of transport he has so i want to ask a question.
When he goes into the city in his cruiser is that ok and socially acceptable because he also uses it in the bush.
Is it acceptable that your brother ALESTER use more petrol then non-4WD’s as we should be sharing this commodity around and not letting others waste more of it then non-4WD users!
I actually find the whole reversing camera thing creates more problems than it solves.
When you’re reversing, your head should be turned and looking behind you, not at the centre of the dashboard. The field of vision of the camera is less than that of the human eye, so you see less of what’s around you when you’re reversing.
So if you have a reversing camera, you have to choose whether to look at the restricted peripheral view available on the screen, or the limited view of low lying objects directly behind you.
I think reversing sensors actually make more sense.
Oh, and while we’re at it; people need to be educated in the use of GPS systems too. I’m sick of being cut off by selfish people who cut across multiple lanes of traffic at the last second because their GPS told them to turn in that direction, and they didn’t hear the first instruction.
Yes Foggy, but you gotta remember, buyers react to seeing these trendier SUV’s (Murano, Captiva, etc) come out with thick pillars at back as rear upturned windows behind rear doors….we as buyers are loving this and demand makes manufacturers follow the buyers path!
well Naughtius my brother gets about 12L per 100km. so when u think about it u r also having a go at V8 Commodore and falcon drivers
Maybe if 4WD owners were caught with a clean engine bay and no mud on their tyres they should get a big fine.
Reality is majority of SUV’s and 4WD’s use more pertoleum then non-SUV’s or smaller cars….it does “NOT” matter how you look at it ARLESTER, if you have a gas guzzler 2WD or 4WD my philosophy is you either get a more economical car and pay less overheads, fees for that (Government should bring in fees for gas guzzlers to discourage ownership as simply put “THEY WASTE PETROLUEM” – or own a SUVor 4WD bigger then Ben Hur with 29cupholders, etc and pay the premium penalty fee per year to use much more petroleum. As a conscious person of an ever decreasing petroluem industry as supply is running lower and lower….we should all stand for this philosophy and start living in reality of that! Trouble is many diehard hoonheads “CANNOT” = WAKEUP!
The problem is Foggy that even if you turn your head around and look out the back of the car, the high driving position means you wont be able to see small kids, as they will be hidden by the back door.
ARLESTER….supply and demand. Little supply and more demand for usage with SUV’s and 4WD’s willy nilly everywhere is asking for supply to disappear quicker isnt it. I dont care naming which car, V8 or whatnot….you want a gas guzzler, you should be penalised for it to discourage people to buy them. Until new technology comes in, this is the reality! So forget….V8 Fords or V8 Holdens as it is across the board!
Wonder how many of those surveyed had more of a problem with the incompetent unsafe poseurs who drive them through the rocky and harsh environs of Double Bay; and Toorak etc
Because as with those idiots who are involved in Street Racing the car did nothing wrong its the nut behind the wheel
So in the same way that L and P platers are restricted to non turbo /supercharged cars… we should also restrict dangerous reckless 4×4 owners to Yaris or Barinas etc..
Good point WHEELNUT. I hate to say it but there should be a restriction to V8’s with L and P platers. Plenty of these hoonheads everywhere!
i agree on a couple of your points naughtius. like the government should introduce taxes for cars that use more fuel. but what i was refering too is the fact that people do no like 4WD’s being in the cities.
Now back to my brother he only has the cruiser and has to do the occasional run into the city for something. Now being the only car he owns i think it is a little unfair that people say that 4WD’s should not be allowed in the city because of the size of them especially when that particular car is also used for recreational use. I do agree with the soccer mum thing though. why buy the 4WD when u can have a Honda Odessy or something close to that for half the price and in most cases carry one more person.
Reversing Camera’s should be made mandatory for most vehicles as there are plenty of sedans and hatches that you cannot see a small child behind the car. My wife and my Territory’s have reversing camera’s and parking sensors and I would not buy a vehicle now without these features.
As for looking in them all the time that is not how you use them. When you select reverse and the picture comes up on the dash you should check the display to see if there are any children or objects behind that you cannot see and then turn around and reverse as normal. As to the 4wd arguement many territory’s are rear wheel drive and are classed as suv’s and drive and handle better than many sedans and hatches on the road and are quite economical if driven that way.
i must admit i hated 4wds as well… UNTIL i drove a Prado, it was like 8 years old as well
BUT SERIOSULY, it was bloody awsome, the ride hieght makes you feel so much better, and the ride is comfortoable enough, especially considering our speed limits
Naughtyius- If there is little supply and more demand, it should drive the price of fuel up, hence discourage purchase of vehicles with bad fuel economy. Or so goes the theory. 4wds are here to stay, and a modern diesel 4wd has quite reasonable fuel consumption. If you ban a 4wd in the city, you open the door for banning any, and therefore all cars in the city. Maybe that is how it should be?
It must be a slow news week, so why not have another 4WD bashing session. The facts are that many sedans and hatchbacks have worse rear visibility than some 4WD’s. If someone choses to drive a 4WD then that is their choice. We are not living in Stalinist Russia. If the social engineer’s in this country had their way we would all be driving Trabant’s or Wartburg’s.
As I have stated previously on this site if anyone says anything about what I drive I will tell them to pull their head in. It is my money and I will spend it any way I damn well please.
Naughtyius Maximus,
Isn’t the discouragement that you seek already in the price of fuel itself? The more scarce a resource becomes, the more expensive — the market is a wonderful thing. Taxing/regulating/banning everything is not the solution.
also if u go banning 4WD’s in cities then what about trucks. doesnt matter if it is a three tonner or a prime mover with a 50 foot tralier behind it they both have worse visibility than any 4WD. and buses too.
As an enviroment point, and don’t get me wrong I don’t favour off road 4WD’s, but most of the large petrol gas guzzlers use roughly the same amount of fuel as a diesel 4WD. A mini cooper S has a higher CO2 output than a Suzuki Vitara diesel.
Captain – just checking for mud won;t work, there are garages in London who will spray your car with mud to look like you’ve been off road.
I am all for ESP and cameras on restricted visisbility vehicles, manufacturers would care if they really thought about it.
Lastly how do cars/wagon based 4WD like Subaru’s/Allroads fit in with being banned in cities.
naughtious max the fundamental flaw in your argument is that modern diesel 4WD’s use around the same and quite often less fuel then 6 cylinder commodores and falcons, so should we ban them too? As the strong ford fan we all know you to be i’m sure you don’t like that idea all that much
As for the whole they are a menace to small cars bit, i had someone put that to one of my mates who owns a pajero and he said “your saying to me that it shouldn’t be your problem that i bought a large 4WD, but the reverse apply’s doesn’t it! It shouldn’t be my problem that you chose to buy a small car…”
Look if you lot wanna live in a communist society where everyone has to drive the same kinds of cars and people should have no choice as to what cars they buy then off ya go! See ya later, but you know what the next step will be don’t you? Then it will be what kind of house you should be purchasing, then it’s what kind of job you have, what kind of sports your allowed to play… Once you start the old communist ball rolling its pretty hard to stop!
and no i’m not being at all extreem suggesting that this attitude is communist because the very suggestion that people shouldn’t have the freedom to buy whatever they damn well please as long as it’s legal is exactly that = COMMUNIST!
fact: a correctly maintained turbo diesel 4×4 (patrols, landcruisers)use less fuel per 100km than a commadore & falcon
fact: the life span of a landcruiser, patrol is four times that of a hyundai
fact: the amount of energy required to build a hyundai is the same as a landcruiser
fact: less people die in 4×4s when involved in an accident
fact: hybrid cars require more harmfull chemicals to build than any other conventional engine car
fact: uni students DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING and need to get out into the real world and open their eyes. manual labour is the ONLY WAY to learn.
If the main argument here is fuel consumption than no name makes a good point.The grand vitara diesel uses only 7.6 l/100k. The hyundai santa fe deisel is even better at 7.3. These are even better than your average 1.8 corrola, focus ect. Add to that the modern deisels have lower co2 emmisions as well. I do agree that rear parking sensors are a good idea though.
1. Forget car allegiance is irrelevant here
2. It is nothing to do with “communism” but more so to do with responsibility of governments to ensure reserves of petroleum are not wasted quicker by hoon heads.
3. Go join the queue of hoonheads and waste and squander petroleum as more cents then sense!
4. My comments have nothing but responsibility attached to the environment…..are you Richo suggesting we all drive big fuel guzzlers, have air conditioning in our homes and LCD or Plasma TV’s in our homes.
5. The correct thing to get responsibility into someones life in regards to the environment is penalise people who have excess greenhouse gas producing items in there possession (i.e. car fuel guzzlers, air cond, LCD tv’s, etc)
6. If you attack the excesses of man and greenhouse gases…then you are ignorant and part of the problem even more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DONT QUOTE ME “RICHO” AS FORD MAN IN SAME BREATHE AS V6 OR V8′S….that dinosaur is becoming extinct. Refer downward spiral of Falcon and Commodore sales for proof of that.
Trouble is people are ignorant to the problem and still waste $ on greenhouse gases! WAKE UP ALL OF YOU AS TIMES ARE CHANGING!
Thanks Teapot – funny name dude. Just the point I was making. Not so sure about 4×4 mans facts though but I see his point.
And may I add, to force change onto people is not just to sign Kyoto agreement….but to further change the landscape to ensure petroleum resources are managed better to last longer – just as our national parks are, our seas to some extent are (even when I go Scuba diving this is visible). So dont preach that crap “COMMUNIST” comment as dam well irrelevant!
really most softroader are only cars with a raised ride height anyway ie crv ,dualis,etc these cars are ralley wagons really a commodre has worse rear vision problems as does a camry and dont get me started on the current bmw 7 sereis but the truth is people will start raelising this anyway and buy smaller cars
I find it interesting a lot of talk in this topic about ‘charging’ the user who buys a bigger car or one not getting 5L/100km. We must remember we DON’T make the rules, the government does. It is no longer a free society just look at how times have changed. I can name plenty of new laws taking away rights that we had only 10 years ago. So I say to Naughtyius how much water are you using ? How much electricity are you using ? How much paper do you use ? Do you honestly think what you are saying about user pays makes sense. If so lets take it to the n-th degree and charge anyone for wasting any amount of anything! Governments make the laws and when it is no longer suitable they change the rules ie the law to suit and we end up paying for it. So my view is I will continue to use what has been made for me to get from A to B. If I choose to get a better car because I can afford it well then I will. I don’t make the damn cars! I work hard for my money, and if I want to enjoy it I will. The footprint I make on the environment is miniscule and I am responsible in everything I do and use. Last time I looked the sky wasn’t falling in. Just my 2c worth.
Reversing cameras are a great idea too!
Oh and I meant to add lets go back to walking or riding horses everywhere. It seems everyone would be happier….oh that’s right society would collapse because nothing would be supported/delivered/manufactured. Ape man had the right idea by the looks of it. Let’s go back to being nomads.
NM,
deep down i feel you are being a bit hypocritical in what you are preaching.
i mean dont you have a decent sized boat which consumes unecessary fuel? and what do you tow it with?
honestly mate if people really care the price of fuel is a big enough deterrant.
i have no problem with “Argesters” example of his brothers landcruiser as he obviously doesnt intend to menace society with it. are you honestly telling the poor old farmer he cant bring his one and only vehicle being a 4X4 in to the city to pick up some kelp for his best mate rusty the cattle dog?
i dont drive a 4X4 but on the other hand no way will i ever buy myself a presumed better consumer in a yaris or fiesta or what ever
and on reversing cameras……..
Dlunn64 said it perfectly as they are only and aid for a preliminary check of your surroundings not to actually look at whilst reversing as some illuded to.
also i know its sad to hear these stories on the radio of kids being run over by their parents, but the first thing that comes to my mind is who the hell was watching the poor little buggers?
i mean who the hell moves a car if they dont know where their most prescious possesions are?
lock them inside or put them in the car with you for christs sake.
i wont even move a car if i cant see a certain animal or pet. if i dont know where they are i will pull the car back out of gear and get out and look under the car etc.
and if you are leaving a friends place and you cant see their kids standing by them, wouldnt it make sense to stick your head out the window and ask “where did so and so get to” like i do/would?
honestly it isnt that hard
Communism? The last of the rabid cold war warriors.
I thought they all died out with Frank McManus of the DLP.
As long as the world continues the outrageous burn off of LPG as a waste product,continues the production of unrepairable,non upgradeable goods,there is no way of being ‘carbon neutral’
More than a few say Driver education is the answer to the issues on our roads.I think it is a little deeper than that & it is attitudes,commonsense if you like,which tells you that these vehicle are light trucks albeit very good ones.
Some don’t realise this,like a relative of mine who used to corner & U turn the Range Rover like it was a small car & she is definately not alone.
Is it any wonder they get a bad press
ESP,rear cameras fair enough,but they won’t smarten a dumb uncaring driver.
Iam amazed as most comments on here are centred on “Why change anything and lets just let the environment sort itself out as its all sweet as and man does not need to change lifestyle”
Yeah every person says there footprint on the environment is small….trouble is there are over 6.4billion people worldwide and increasing always!
Trouble is most people on here are liking situation where it is going in the world as thinking it is all ok….most on here would of stood there on beach when sea waters headed back out further in the Boxing Day Tsunami whilst a few would of went to higher ground. Iam a higher ground guy!
ANDREW M….46ft sailboat.
My comments relate to increased use of petroleum products and pressure on greenhouse gases!
i have a 15 y/o 4×4 for the week ends and a pushbike for the weekly comute
so am i one of these posers who backs over children and needs reversing aids… no my 15 yo car has far less embodied energy then any new car and uses the less fuel the a new subaru liberty. not to mention it’s a turbo diesel and so has lower co2 emissions.
if you want to attack 4×4 owners think long and hard about who you are targeting and don’t just put 4×4’s under 1 big umbrella. i challenge you to find a car thats better for the environment then a 1970’s Suzuki lj.
if you want to tempt people out of there big 4×4’s make smaller cars better and introduce the kie car class with all it’s tax benifits! so they don’t have to drive the truck every day.
Matt
17tonne sailboat ANDREW M….non-towable
NM – you are good at coming up with arguments but you seem to be deftly ignoring all of the counter arguments here and have gone off on some environmental crusade talking about air conditioning and plasma tv’s etc etc… for goodness sakes we are talking about 4WD’s and your main argument is centred around their excess fuel usage and how we should legislate to reduce it, however whenever someone ACCURATELY points out that alot of modern diesel 4WD use comparable fuel to ordinary cars you seem to gloss over this… if we have to ban 4WD’s based on the petrol they use then equally we must ban commodores and falcons and well basically everything that has an engine of more then 4cylinders or otherwise any such ban would be massively hypocritical
and anyway the largest user of petrolium is industry… maybe we should get rid of that too???
oh and i was given a plasma tv as a wedding present and the house i rent came with air conditioning and guess what! I AIN’T GETTIN RID OF EITHER OF THEM! You talk about the need to “force change” onto people, but that just shows how ignorant you are, you can NEVER force change onto people! Instead you have to educate them and make it easy for them to make the correct choices, you can’t make them change, you have to simply make it easy for them to change and make them understand why they should, beyond that though it has to be the individual’s choice.
And don’t say that can’t work because brisbane citizens went from being one of the biggest water wasters in the world to a situation now where other cities around the world are studying brisbanes water management and using us as a model for their own cities as we have done so well in reducing our water usage. And we didn’t acheive this through legislation forcing people to use less, we did it through educating the public and as a result the public chose to do the right thing
This article was never about fuel economy or usage so it is irrelevent to this comments page (talk about it in the post below).
4×4 man said less people die in a 4×4’s when involved in an accident, but what about people not in the 4×4. Hypothetically, if a 4×4 (Landcruiser, Patrol, ect.)hit head on with a Focus or an Astra say, who will come out the better? The 4×4 will win. Also pedestrians are at more risk of serious injury if hit by a 4×4. Think of inertia, say a car hits a pedestrian at 10km/h, the damage will be less than a 4×4 as the 4×4 has more mass. Which leads onto my next point.
4×4 should be banned in cities as they are dangerous to the pedestrains whom walk the streets as well as people on bikes and couriers on bikes as they can’t see past the beasts or cars can’t see pedestrians. Now your going to say why not ban all cars? Well yes that whould be the safest situation, but you can see past cars. 4×4 (over certain sizes)should be banned from certain busy areas. The areas will be small enough to walk around easily as well as dreaded “public transpot”. You can catch a bus a few km and leave your car.
Now on to the cameras and ESP. Yes ESP should be standard, everbody knows that. The cameras are just as someone above said, there for a perliminary check. Andrew M also makes a good point about how hopeless parents are about knowing where there children and pets arre, but enough has been said about that.
Personally i have no objection to 4×4, only if they are used for off road driving, towing (even though there are sedans that could tow most trailers, ect.) and so on.
I know people with 4×4’s and they are getting good fuel economy (i no wat i sadi before but i am just reinforcing a point) whilst using it.You cannot class a little suzuki or dihatsu or hyundai (sorry for picking on south east asia) as they have poor off road ability (incomparison to full size 4×4). The article is talking bout Landcruisers, Defenders, Range Rovers, Patrols, Outlanders, Pajeros, Hummers, ect.
To sum up.
Only buy a 4×4 if you are going to use it.
and before you say it yes ofcourse their are water restictive legislation around but the fact is the only people who are ever caught breaking the rules are the bloody state government themselfs! The vast majority of industry, especially small business’s, and all of the citizens have been epic in their following of the guidlines, just because the legislation is there doesn’t mean peopel will automatically follow it, but they do here in this issue because they have been taught and educated as to why they should
NM you seem to be using this 4WD issue as a vehicle for your environmental crusade, you stopped actually talking about the topic, that is whether or not 4WD’s are socially acceptable, long ago, now you are just rambling on about irrelivant topics that aren’t up for discussion in this medium, so stick to the issue of whether or not 4WD vehicles are socially unacceptable.
Think about the fact that modern 4WD absolutely do NOT use more petrolium then regular cars, and come up with a fresh argument as to why they are any more socially unacceptable then other cars. I bet you can’t.
acfsambo – you say that 4WD’s are too dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists and they are hard to see around etc etc and therefore they should be banned from busy areas and people should take the bus instead. Ok so lets follow this through to its logical solution, this would create an increased demand for buses, therefore their would be more busses in these busy area’s which the 4WD’s have been baned from. Now tell me what would you prefer to be hit by, a bus or a 4WD? I’m guessing you’d have a better chance against a 4WD… Also what is harder to see around a bus or a 4WD? Again i think you would be better off with the 4WD.
It’s a false economy mate, your saying 4WD’s are too dangerous and difficult to see around yet much larger and heavier buses are fine… i dont see how this makes sense
Ahh the arguments continue. Remember to initial statement that 4WD’s should be banned from cities. I agree they should but where there is a genuine reason for owning a 4×4 a la ‘Arlester’ there should be exceptions. Any ban should be aimed at the posuer user who owns the 4×4 on Tourak Road and never ventures off road. ‘Off road’ meaning rough track not just the smooth variety on the extremeties of the suburbs. I drove the Great Ridge Rd in a knackered Magna with no problems and just laughed at the kitted out Landcruisers posing around.
As for 4×4 Mans argument that they are safer to drive in – No way, they might be for the occupants but for other road users and pedestrians they are leathal. Please don’t think ‘cos i’m in a 4WD I’m safe bugger the rest of them, thats a poor excuse. Independant test have proven they are not as safe purely due to the fact that there is a perceived notion that they are safer and then driven in a more risky way. That is fact.
No Name, who would be responsible for determining if they will be used for their intended purpose or not? If mr and mrs jones say that they are going to go on touring holidays etc but can’t afford to run two cars, even if they are lieing, who is going to have the responsibility of saying whether or not that is reasonable? The whole argument of “only people who use/need them should be able to use have them” is a completely unenforcable concept.
As for your acheivements on the Great Ridge Rd, mate these people you laughed at probably didn’t buy their car for just that one trip! Generally if people are going to go to the (considerable) expense of kitting out a 4WD they are probably going to use it for a few more things then just the Great Ridge Rd! It just happens that they are going for a drive their on that particular day! I mean thats a fairly ignorant comment to make dude…
NM what are your environmental credetials? What car do you drive? what steps have you actively taken to reduce your carbon footprint? how many trees have you planted? how many clean up australia days have you been involved in? Come on mate your talking the talk but what actual walking have you done?
the world is full of people who talk the talk when it comes to environmental issues and the world is full of people who love standing on their soap boxes and look down on everyone else who in their minds “just dont get it” but when they go back into their private little world fact of the matter is at the end of the day they are no different to anyone else..
AndrewM – I agree the reversing camera may be a bit of an overkill, but mandatory reversing cameras would probably help avoid more than one accident. However the “accident”, as you say is usually more a result of negligence rather than a result uncontrollable events in this instance.
I agree with Richo on the needs testing of 4wds being unenforcable. No one ever suggests any way it could be practically enforced, and in my oppinion they do not pose a problem in the city. 4wds are not the only large vehicles on the road, but cop most of the flak. Like you do when you drive behind a bus, and cant see beyond it……drive accordingly!!!!!
The determining thing Richo is difficult if not impossible. Congestion charging? Mayor of London Ken Livingstone does it, he hammers high pollutors for coming into central London. It works, a 20% drop in inner city traffic. The once-in-a-while visitor like you cattle farmer it won’t hurt, but the posuer it will.
My bit about the Ridge Road was really putting the perspective of a Family Saloon car onto a smooth unsurfaced track which doesn’t exactly require a big 4WD to stem the pathetic arguments from the Posuer brigade.
Richo your correct about the hypocrit stuff. I’ve quoted BMW execs before whe discussing the environment. “people go to coctail parties talk about the environment and what needs to be done, then jump in the X5 and drive home’.
I think thats what you mean. However it would be a communist state that dictates all have to drive small efficient cars. We have a choice. I’ll admit I drive a 3.0litre diesel rather than a 2litre, but I tow a boat occasionally up steep slimey slips. I’d love a 4wd to do it but won’t live with the penalty that goes with it. Does that make me a hypocrit, I think not.
Currently living in the states, you guys would just go insane on seeing the amount og SUVs and 4WDs here. I can honestly say Vans/SUVs make about 4/5 cars on the road.
With that said, this area/state has plenty of snow come winter and hence the use of such vehicles is justified… to an extent.
Also, Americans just love big cars in general, from a safety stand point, yes big cars has more parts that play a factor in side, front, rear impacts, so technically, yes they are safer.
The price of gas… ahem.. fuel is also a huge factor.. currently $3.2 USD for a gallon. About 75 cents a liter.
And they actually complain that thats HIGH.. haha
Now… with that said.
In Australia, we actually have many roads and areas in which a 4WD is the best suited… heck, Australia, per ratio has a one of the world’s highest 4WD buyers.. note, 4WD not just limited to SUVS/Vans… sedan/wagon 4WDs too.
Combine that information and the fact that we are paying probably 3rd or 2nd highest price for fuel in the whole WORLD…. you’d think Australians would avoid big cars… BUT… the thing is… many people simply need the benefits and features of 4WDs/Vans/SUVs… farmers, people living in the country… or within 100kMs of any major cities… Ballarat/Melbourne/Benalla comes to mind… a lot of people there can justify big cars as most of them require it for their everyday living… and they use it for private use too… you can’t tell someone to buy a smaller car so they can go to the city…. You willing to fork out the dosh for them?
Cars are actually one of the worse investments… especially these days and in Oz….. but thats a different story.
Anyways.. I find it surprising that the same people who put down big cars as a threath to the environment is not blasting worse offenders…. V8 sedans..
And its also ironic, a country where most bogans… are obsess about these V8s play ignorant to their contributions to the problem to blast legit big car/vans/suv drivers for polluting the streets.
And to say suvs, vans etc are “dangerous”…. haha.. another irony… as most of the death traps are powerful sedans driven by tools and stooges in the city…. far from the family/farmer guy who drives the big suvs…. it is ironic as most here or SOME anyways cream their pants over the newest 7 liter engine from Holden/GM etc and then make statement against big cars…. perspective people.. and a little bit of context too. tsk tsk.
that said, I’m not picking sides just justifying that there are worse offenders to the environment or safety of other drivers than SUV/4WD drivers.
It totally agree with your sentiments Jamison, but irrespective of whatever size engine or car, an off-road car/SUV will ALWAYS use more fuel/km than a similar size/engined car in traditional 2WD sloon guise. Theres no escaping that.
Another problem you pick up on is the social structure of people and the cars they drive. Yes the bogans might drive a V8 as they cannot afford to change their vehicles. THey don’t drive as frequently or as far. I have always been of the thought the richer you get the more you pollute the planet. The rich folk generally have more than one or two cars,a bigger car, a bigger house, a boat, go on holiday further afield and longer and to remote unpolluted places. I think these are the worst offenders for pollution and more hypocritical as well.
Fiducia – London’s congestion charge applies to ALL CARS, not just 4WD’s, so what exactly is your argument here?
No Name – yeah ok fair enough, i’ll agree with most of what your saying there, i just get annoyed at all these people who jump up and down about the environment but when it comes down to it they are no different to anyone else, they still drive the same kinds of cars and they haven’t done anything particulary remarkable to reduce their own personal carbon footprint… its like preaching about water conservation to your neighbour whilst you hose down your driveway
To tackle this problem is complex yes….start with making the overall total population of the world decline is a great fairdinkum start (AS MUCH AS THAT HURTS TO SAY IT YOU PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE DRIVING FORCE TO THE PROBLEM). Plenty of comments on here but not one of you say a massive amount…Andrew M once touched on population control and already being practiced – yet the population is getting much bigger!
Richo…Iam not a soap box stander, or a greenie. Iam a realist and the sooner we realise that we are all responsible the better as most people do not like change, think recycling is the answer, and thats all! We all are guilty. And the ones who drive giant fuel guzzlers are tad more guilty. Maybe there should be government incentives (just as with LPG conversions) to update to more recent newish cars that are no old hat. Like I said the problem is a complex one!
Yep 4WD owner bashing again……………..Sure there are bad 4WD drivers out there, but there are also bad car drivers and bad truck drivers. no one seems to want to get them off the road do they????? My Diesel Pathfinder uses less fuel than any falcon or commodore. So I don’t see how its is environmentally unfriendly? If anyone can show me a car with a third row seat(which I need) and can drag a 2000kg caravan I will gladly trade it in tomorrow. What next ban caravans too??? Unfortunately these are two necessities I have in a vehicle and the reality is I cant afford different car for every occasion. Some of these people need to pull their heads out of where ever and have a good look around!!!!!!
Just 2 things i would like to comment on being a 4wd owner and actual 4wdriver “60 per cent agreeing that they don’t belong in the city” it is my only car and i cannot afford to buy and run 2 cars so saying that i dont belong in the city is ridiculous like me saying that cars dont belong in the bush because i get sick of pulling them out of places they SHOULD NOT be.
Secondly “56 per cent of drivers support four-wheel drives being subjected to higher registration fees” i own a hilux and already pay more rego for the higher weight rating of the car, and cars still park in my loading zone without paying.
it just annoys me the pidgeon holing of 4wdrivers when most of us do the right thing, i check my surroundings before reversing and only ever reverse slowly as to give people/children the time to realise that there is a car there.
And a question at say a shopping centre why do people walk right behind you when you have already started to back out then get angry when you continue?????
i think the problem is that makers dont have wagons as much as they once did. e.g. Corolla & Camry Wagon
Rico-I never mentioned Londons congestion charge
No name- Yes we are all guilty, but assigning more guilt to “gas guzzling” car owners seems hypocritical to me. Overall their carbon foorprint would be marginally larger when factoring everything in, though for some reason they should be societies scape goat? Atm I would propose to adress once own waste first and then try to educate rather than chastising the owners of certain cars.
I think majority of the public is uneducated. 4WD’s are not the tractors they once were. Sure most are relatively large vehicles, but many aren’t that much heavier than a lot of medium to large cars.
Tax cars by their weight if you must, not segment!!!
The reverse camera issue is just crap, if a camera is required, it should be in ALL cars. The 4wd’s that we have owned have had superior rear vision than that of the sedans, hatches and coupes.
Most poeple that rubbish 4wd base their criticism’s on stereotypical information…. and to be honest… I think jealousy…. Because many people now link owning a 4WD (and SUV) to being successful, a snob and ultimately that Toorak tractor tag that comes along with it as they are increasingly the choice of wealthier poeple and manufacturers are pushing the luxury 4wd/suv trend.
I ownded a landcruiser and needed it at the time…. don’t forget some poeple do use their 4wd’s for WORK & PLAY!!
Mitch,
Your comment is also spot on! I wanted to go from a 4WD to a ’sports based’ wagon 5 years ago and to be honest the choice available was pathetic!!
I ended up getting a sports sedan and had to live with the compromise..
That situation is changing now with the introduction of many new stylish & versatile wagons and I think this will decrease the number of poeple that purchase both SUV’s and 4WD’s.
The biggest problem I have with urban 4WDs isn’t related to fuel efficiency; it’s related to their sheer size. I hold my breath whenever I have to reverse out of a carpark and I’m parked next to one, because you can’t see what is coming your way.
If there was an incentive (or a disincentive) to buy cars so that most people were at least at the same height, then this would make the roads safer. Otherwise – especially with the ridiculous situation we have now where luxury 4WDs are not even taxed as luxury cars – people will naturally try and buy a car with a higher centre of gravity than the other road users. At the moment in Australia a BMW X5 costs much much less than a 5-series wagon, which it just shouldn’t.
Drive a 4WD if you like, but be prepared to be taxed for the pleasure.
Ever tried to reverse a Mitsu 380? or a Tarago? or an Astra Coupe? 4wds present no more a hasard on city roads than do people-movers, mini buses, delivery vans etc.
With regard “growing number of children killed or injured by their parents reversing over them” … the statistics show 4WDs are not over-represented in these types of accidents! (regardless of what self-appointed expert and one-man committee Harold Scruby would have us believe.) Their is a simple way to avoid running over your children…either put them in the car, or (and here’s a novel idea) have your spouse supervise them properly!
Maybe it’s just Darwin’s work being done…these unfortunate victims don’t get to grow up to be a stupid as their parents.
I have to say i agree Motowebbi, to ban these cars would be communist. and HA! to the darwin theory. It has been proved time and time again, these new sedans like the VE commodore with their high rising belt lines create massive rear vision blind spots, the FG falcon is going to have rear vision cameras!! on a sedan! and new small cars that limit vision to the windscreen are just as bad. Sure i reckon driving a 3 ton v8 200 series landcruiser in the CBD carrying 1 person is just plain pointless and irritating as its like having a massive fast moving bus in front of me limiting my vision to its bumper, but to tell people they cannot drive where they want when they pay their license and their fair share of taxes (they pay more tax because they buy more fuel) is just autocratic. All we can do is as the public is make it uncool to drive a 4wd, make bumper stickers that pay out mums that think their 4wd is safe, that kind of thing. No rules limiting choices people want to make. We live in a society with freedom of choice.
Doesn’t anyone here realise we already pay taxes for having cars ? Problem is the money isn’t spent on the car industry or associated infrastructure or anything related to cars. In fact it probably gets spent on world aid for all I know but to tax us even more for having a car when the money isn’t being spent in the industry doesn’t make any sense. We in fact pay tax on almost everything so governments aren’t short of a quid (ie Large Surpluses). When they start investing in greener alternatives then the general population can feel and see their taxes are in fact be spent appropriately. But I haven’t seen one large government backed initiative to show this. Sure there are lots of little hair brained schemes but we are expected to foot the bill. They expect the car manufacturers to come up with alternatives so they can still get their stamp duty, GST etc……without having to commit our tax dollars where they should be committed.
i’ll be wasting petrol till the day i die in my 5.8L V8 Falcon…
you, Naughtyius Maximus, can keep kissing al gores butt because your pathetic argument isn’t going to make a difference. You keep whinging about depleting stocks etc. yet you haven’t mentioned 1 FACT about how low are stocks really are, maybe it’s just scare tactics and you’ve been brainwashed? i’d say that’s more likely than the fact we really are going to run out of petroleum, but who really knows? I doubt anyone does so until you give me REALLY HARD PROOF i’m going to enjoy burning every bit of fuel till the day i die and it’s going to make me even happier knowing how much you can’t stand that fact :)
1. Worlds population is on increase
2. We all cause pollution
3. Climate change is occuring
When number 1 is on increase, then number 2 is on the increase! Never before has problem been so great as “SIGNIFICANT” erosion of the problem is to decrease or lessen the world’s population. Doing anything to Number 2 is fairly short term at maximum!
Your answers are sedate and truly head in the sand like an emu, as most people indicate this clearly!
By all means waste petrol in a big aussie V8, but please, dont buy a fricken Large 4WD, or even a medium sized SUV, unless your going to use it off-road, or in the case of an SUV, have more than 5 people in your family. I’m sick of people saying “We need a 4WD to fit all the kids in” there are plently of other vehicles that can fit 7+ people in comfort, that dont impeed the vision or safety of other motorists.
JOHNNYBRAVO….dont need to mention how depleted stocks are when the fact is prices are always on the rise. Get your V14 Hummer and drive it on the road! Hell lots love it, then we get air conditioning to tolerate heat and the worlds population goes skyrocketting. We all just sit back and watch, LIKE YOU.
NM you ignored my question, what have YOU PERSONALLY done to reduce your carbon footprint and what kind of car do you drive? I want to know if there is any substance behind your rantings…
NM its all very easy to go on and on about climate change and the need to reduce it, it’s alot rarer however to find anyone who actually does anything about it… thats because 9 out of 10 people who rant on like this are all just hot air and when it comes down to it they are no different to anyone else
Naughtius Maximus,
What about planes ? How many litres per trip does a plane use to carry people from A to B ? Perhaps we should stop planes flying as well as they would use a lot more per year per plane than I do in my vehicle per year. That would certainly help retain large quantities of fuel for everyone for years to come.
And what about boats/ocean liners/freighters….
the list goes on and on and on. My piddly little amount of fuel used per year surely is no comparison to what large corporations use. So why not target them instead of us tax paying motorists?
NM,
where is the proof that the earth is actually warming?
so we get a tsunami which is something that has been happening for hundreds of years and when it suits the government to try some scare tactics on us to pull us to order to march like soldiers to their tune they the tsunami was caused by all of us driving cars
so where is the proof the earth is actually warming?
if you have no proof to this then you can not talk about this mythical thing called “global warming”
population decline will never happen unless we get another “population control measure” like the world wars were.
“exponential growth” is a silly little formula that ensures things grow at a continually increasing rate with every turn/generation.
if the population gradually declines then there is no point in saying “we must look after the heirs to the earth because another silly little formula in “exponential decay” will ensure that eventually there is no one left to inherit the earth
oh and once again how do you know the earth is warming?
Why bother crash testing passenger cars when all this technology is instantly negated by a two and a half ton full chassis 4*4 juggernaut with a bumper bar/bull bar that lines up with the roof pillars on my car!
99% of wankers with 4*4 don’t even need them.
Toyota goes on about the safety t cell in their passenger cars. If they were serious about safety they wouldn’t produces the Landcruiser urban assault vehicle to maim and kill other road users.
Being a lumberjack in the winter months I chop down trees to be made into McDonalds rappers and in the summer time I am a whale hunter who will take a dolphin in my nets when ever I can, I also enjoy nothing more than 4WDing through the streets of inner Sydney in my “Tractor”. No I don’t have a plasma TV but the gun rack holds my shot gun which I like to hunt greenies using depleted uranium ammunition which I store in underground bunkers next to the waterways along with my waste oil from the oil changers we 4WDers need to do “all the time”.
When I ever get under 25ltrs per 100km I always use the spare fuel to light a bomb fire in a plastic container of industrial waste.
Now what has this to do with rear cameras and ESP ? Not much unless I have been watching some old Monty Python movies to gain my online name.
Yeah why is ESP not standard in all vehicles and at a minimum standard rear parking sensors!
LOL. 4WD’s contribute more pollution then non-4WD vehicles on average….99% of wankers with 4×4 don’t even need them!
Andrew M…population control should be mandatory with all countries worldwide as without a doubt this is the foundation of our problem. Never before has there been such a problem and it is always linked with greenhouse gases increases! FACTS……and if you ignore them your head is stuck in the sand and you are ignorant!
Concerning warming of the earth, I follow scientific proof and not anything else. Open your eyes! Its is changing! Like the summer what just went here it was warm and very overcast and raining a lot in Northern NSW. Not much sunny days either!
We’re covering old ground again. Just look back up my comment made at 2.02am first paragraph.
Funnily enough I work next to a Toyota garage, just outside my window today is a spanking new Landcruiser V8 parked next to a Smart car. The hypocracy of it is a pure indication of the way we really are. The Landcruiser will never go off road in its life-time and the Smart is where it belongs in the city. I might put the picture on the Forum.
Regarding the camera bit – they are just an aid to manouvering and should never be
used on its own.
Wouldn’t it make sense for the government to allow a vehicle registration to be tranferrable between 2 vehicles.
That way people can own the large 4×4’s and keep them in the garage until they need to carry a large load, and the other 90% of the time, they can drive something more sensible to the local Westfield Shockingtown.
The car industry will also like it because they get to sell more vehicles.
Good idea Foggy, but the Bogans would abuse it for sure, pay one rego drive two cars. maybe satelite monitoring would work but we’re getting into big brother then.
NM,
how about the FACT that no scientific data shows a warming of the earths temperature????
i can link you a quote relating to the findings of such data that shows no change what so ever in our average temperatures.
how do you know it is changing? because we got a mild summer this year compared to last year?
the only thing credible is that co2 content has gone up slightly.
and did you know that increased co2 can actually be more beneficial to our environment?
dont believe every thing you are told especially if it is coming from the government.
i reckon id be pretty safe in guessing you dont carry a co2 meter and thermometer with you and have logged every days findings for the past 150 years.
so you base your scientific feelings on it feeling hotter today than it was yesterday?
i can show you 150yr old data that says your body thermometer is wrong
Sounds Like there is a lot of Jealous, ignorant and extremely selflish people on this site!!
I can’t belive why so many people still bag 4×4 for being fuel in-efficient, when a vast majority of them at the consume less fuel then the large Australian family cars, and a lot of sport cars…. And yet can carry more people, more safely, at greater comfort, and pull greater loads to more locations…. While the fuel guzzling family/sport cars, can only go faster!!!
ACFSAMBO,
It is a fact that that 4×4s are safer for the occupants!! Although they do have a higher risk roll over, they still are far safer then a standard sedan!
Sure if a 4×4 crashes into a small sedan, the 4×4’s occupants, come out far better off!! But that’s live, you can only look after your self! Some people might argue that a 4×4 into 4×4 crash is worse for the occupants then a hatch on hatch crash!, but the probability of hitting either a 4×4 or hatch is same for all case, so its still safer to be in a 4×4….
As for the inertia, don’t make me laugh!! The effect is the exactly same no matter whether you get hit by a 1 tonne car, or 3 tonne car!! By the way, my current, heavily modified 4wd, weighs 1.5T + 200Kg of accessories, while my old company falcon weighs 1.9T!! Looking at them you’d never tell!! My jeep also runs on lpg!!
As for not being able to view over 4wd, just drive defensibly, and it won’t be have a problem!!!
There is many vans, trucks I can’t see over, yet I never have a winge or a cry about it, nor I demand them to be baned!! I think all that winge about height is just a classical tall poppy syndrome!!
Although I do approve of a ban on softroaders!! They definitely won’t take you offroad, and if your silly enough to believe the hype (e.g Nissan xtrail commercial) your probably get yourself into a lot trouble!!!
I just hope I never get T boned by a Landcruiser or Patrol type 4WD. Have you ever noticed that their bull bars are at about head height to the driver of a normal sedan? But I don’t expect that to matter to the typical 4WD buyer who says “I’ll drive whatever car I bloody well like and you can get stuffed!”
Yes I don’t know if banning them from the city is practical, but why are they still attracting less import duty than cars when only a tiny proportion are actually bought by farmers? Why not tax 4WDs at a high rate, and then give rebates to the farmers who really need them.
And it carries on.
The Australian Government do not really truthfully like many of us actually give a fishes t1t about the environment. There are no current guide lines on manfacturers stating CO2 outputs on vehicles, Rego is not based on pollution constraints, There are no requirements to recycle cars at the end of their lifespan. I could go on. Things really need to change don’t you think? A lot of this already happens in the European community. A green to red rating is given to cars to indicate the level pollution spewing out the exhaust. CO2 rtaing are provided by law and the rego is CO2 based. Nobody complains here we just move on and change.
Australia as the most civilised country in Australaisia ought to be the market leader in climate control in the southern hemisphere, sadly for you NZ lead the way. Nobody likes change but we all get used to it in the end.
“Naughtyius Maximus …FACTS……and if you ignore them your head is stuck in the sand and you are ignorant!”
sticks and stones dude, you will never stop v8s and 4×4s doing regular driving duties so why bother…here’s an idea for you Naughtyius Maximus… ENJOY LIFE!!! stop stressing about shit you really don’t know about and stop becoming brainwashed with all these scare tactics from the government…
go get yourself a big v8, head to a locaal burnout pad/drag strip/racetrack and go have some fun! you may actually enjoy it more than trying to pursuade people not to have babies.
no name,
im pretty sure that manufacturers have to state co2 outputs on their vehicles now.
for quite a while they have been displaying co2 outputs on the same sticker that goes on the windscreen displaying fuel consumption
BRAVO….mate rattle that head of yours and stop poking out your chest. Iam not an environmental crusader as Iam merely stating reality as follows:
1. Worlds population is on increase
2. We all cause pollution
3. Climate change is occuring
When number 1 is on increase, then number 2 is on the increase! Never before has problem been so great as “SIGNIFICANT” erosion of the problem is to decrease or lessen the world’s population. Doing anything to Number 2 is fairly short term at maximum!
Obviously you have a simple approach in life as most people on here cannot see that number 1 is always the majority problem!
Naughtyius Maximus,
dont you know that we, buy driving our cars and 4×4s are merely trying to speed up global warming so that the polar ice caps melt, raising the sea level and therefore allowing us all to sail to work.
At which point we will start complaing that your 46′ sailboat is too large to navigate around and is a menace to other waterway users.
And yes ESP should be standard… all they have to do is give the manufacturers a few years notice.
Truly hardly suprising K.Rudd got in…most of you have no idea of pollution and its effects! You think it is great for survival of species and ok for humans. Maybe you simple lot should go see the smog in Beijing or pollution to the Yangtze River = this is what happens when poeple around! Forget any other view, just that word “pollution” and what it does to the world”
Obviously the simplistic shallow viewpoints espoused by some about my sailboat hasnt really got home in your thoughts….a non-engined boat!
NM,
i have a very simple question that you have not answered yet you still claim your finger is well and truely on the global warming pulse.
where is the proof that mean temperatures have risen?
there is no proof of that!!!!
also Rudd speedily signed the kyoto agreement so wouldnt it be more fitting that you would have been one of those to vote him in since you seem to share the same blind leading path on global warming
also read dlr1’s comments again as it wasnt engine polluting related but rather more of a size taking up space just like the 4X4 argument
ANDREW M…Scientists are sure about the greenhouse effect. They know that greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer by trapping energy in the atmosphere. In general global temperatures have risen since the 19th century industrial revolution. There is little scientific question the reason is a steep increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide — CO2 — from human use of fossil fuels. Methane, ozone, other gases and dusts have also increased greatly. The mechanism of our atmosphere is that gases like CO2 and methane trap some of the sun’s radiation and hold it in the lower atmosphere, heating it. The natural greenhouse effect made the earth warm enough for life, but the effect is much higher now. Ice core records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as any previous change seen in the ice cores. The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing.
This increase caused earth’s average atmospheric temperature to go up about 1degree F in the 20th century. Now, according to NOAA, the global warming rate in the last 25 years has risen to 3.6degrees F per century. This tends to confirm the predictions of temperature increases made by international panels of climate scientists (IPCC). The ocean has actually absorbed most of the added CO2 and heat — becoming warmer and very slightly more acidic. These increases, seemingly small, have a giant effect on weather, climate zones, plants and animals, sea life, glaciers and river flow — and thus human life. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE DELUDED TO THINK IT CONTINUES TO BE PERFECT ANDREW M….in the short time I have scuba dived to depths of around 50metres it is noticeable and disturbing the change! TROUBLE IS MOST LIVES REVOLVE AROUND HOME, WORK AND PLAY AND YOU DONT SEE THE EVIDENCE AND SIMPLY DISMISS IT AS GOVERNMENT SCARE TACTICS….in fact its your lack of understanding like most on here! THE CORE TO THIS PROBLEM IS HUMAN POPULATION AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS IT IS ALWAYS ON THE RISE….dont fool yourself by saying World War or Aids or Famine or Tsunami will even it out as it does not put a dent on overall population!
FOOTNOTE….obviously its all a conspiracy Andrew M as thats the majorities viewpoint. And scientists have it all wrong as some luntaic scientist has disproved the theory. And you think Kyoto was a massive step….read about Rudd and how he has performed in papers. He only wanted it for votes! You talk of him as the Messiah………LOL
And you can go whatever tangent and soap box attack on me with all others you want to all walk down!
Fact are crystal clear (irrespective of whatever responses come back from anybody on this website)………Ice core borelog records over a very long time!These show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as any previous change seen in the ice cores. The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. Funny how this link is directly attributable in large to humans!
1. Worlds population is on increase
2. We all cause pollution
3. Climate change is occuring
When are you lot getting head out of sand! Go boating over the waters too Andrew M….looks perfect, under water buddy is dramatically changing! Suggest you get down there and observe yourself! Obviously you all are all rounders away from cars and know more then scientists? LOL IT IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNY FOR WORDS YOUR FEEBLE RESPONSES!
Hey NM..I agree climate is changing ,yes we cause pollution and of course the worlds pop is on the increase but Im still yet to believe that man is the cause of climate change……
Lets just agree to disagree babe.
LOL…………..so the ice borelog core samples that have been recorded are just BUGS BUNNY hey! Or maybe the Ming Ming lights, or TP driving a Prius?
None of you have put up one single credible comment on your defence. Rather attack me, my yacht (un-powered – yet in ones stupidity that is deemed terrible and hypocritical somehow……..please!). Put your facts on the table!
I remember watching a documentary on TV a couple of months ago which basically said that:
the worlds environment is cyclical – that is that it goes through various phases such as extreme heat; extreme cold etc hence the ice age.
the world has experienced a similar situation thousands of years before now and the inhabitants either evolved; adapted to survive or died off – like dinosaurs
It also said that the weather patterns changed 10 years after the initial change on earth which caused the change
So what we are experiencing now is a result of what we did in the 90s and what we do now will have an impact on the weather in the next decade
So yes man is a factor but the changes in temperature; and the environment similar to this would happen anyway
Its just that because the worlds population is increasing thereby taking up more space not to mention the worlds precious limited resources which it needs to work etc we are simply speeding up the process and halving the delay from 10 to 5 years.
Refer borelogs which show not cyclic – but increase in CO2 emissions quite clearly since record keeping. It doesnt just resolve itself. This record keeping is more then “what we did in the 90’s and what we do now will have an impact on the weather in the next decade”. Thats a simple anaelgy. Not a long term one!
This is what I was getiing at… yet again we have got off topic and its been at least 15 entries or so since someone made a comment which actually mentioned 4×4s
They are impractical; should be banned in built uop areas or at leas thave their sales taxes registration feses and insurance premiums increased – just like trucks [as they virtually the same size etc] because of the extra resources they use and damage they can do to the roads the environment not to mention people
They used to be considered to be a commercial vehicle but just like Utes the majority of themn are now a status symbol dare I say Poseurs vehicle
Thinkgs are dfinitely warmin up folks. I can remember as a kid in the 60’s scraping ice off the inside of my bedroom window looking out at a foot of snow. I remember the long dry summers and endless days of rainfall. Its different now
short sharper rain periods, much warmer winters, and much wetter summers. The last significant snowfall was in the early 80’s. It is without doubt changing. Whether it is human intervention is debatable. I personally tinks it is. With 3rd world countries coming into the position where the civilised countries were 40 yeard ago things will only get worse. Look at the weather extremes we are having, What about the Australian drought, 7 plus years of no rain how long do you think it will go on and how long can you continue without it. Another 3-4 degrees on the average temp you’ll no doubt see areas of Australia being uninhabitable.
correct me if I’m wrong; but isn’t this website called http://www.CARadvice.com.au not http://www.ECOadvice.com.au?
*33 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are socially unacceptable because of their contribution to the greenhouse effect. Hence it is open discussion!
conversely 67% do not say they are socially unacceptable.
I wonder what the response would be if the question was… “do you agree that V8 powered vehicles are socially unacceptable because of their contrbution to the greenhouse effect”
or even “do you agree that cars that burn fossil fuels are socially unacceptable due to their contribution to the green house effect”
my advice… take each “survey” with a grain of salt. You can manipulate the answer by the way you phrase the question. The “facts and figures” compliled by the “research” company can be manipulated to support any argument.
Just a few things to think about before believing any tabloid news type surveys.
DIR1…..you miss my point. I raised the 33% as fact is it relates to greenhouse gases which therefore make my comments relevant.
NM,
ok here we go…….
here is couple of quotes to start me off…….
QUOTE…………….
“While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of all climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.
Even if earth’s temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries — a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonised Greenland and built settlements in Canada.
Scientists do not agree that human activity measurably affects global climate. The evidence supporting this theory is weak. Most scientific experts directly concerned with climate thoroughly reject the theory.
A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions — principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.”
and one relating to co2………..
QUOTE…………
“First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.
Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.”
In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration – water evaporating after it is released from plants’ pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.”
just a little experiment for you at home NM…….
take a large chunk of ice out of your freezer(lets call the freezer the “ice age”)
go and put it in the middle of your back yard at around 2pm when the outside temperature has peaked.
you will obviously see the large ice cube diminish in size every hour. now as it continues to diminish in size is that as a result of the temperature starting to reach scary heights as we enter night time or as a result of being taken out of the ice age?
Quote [NM]:DIR1…..you miss my point. I raised the 33% as fact…..
NM these statistics/figures are as a result of a survey. Surveys are carried out inorder to gauge the opinions etc of a sample of the populaion ore even a particular group of people. Which they do by asking a series of questions
They are by no means Factual as with most surveys the results are often manipulated or adjusted to suit
.. they are by no means fact
A fact is something which has been proven as a result of a standardised or recognised testing procedure.. not as a result of someones opinion
I mean I could say that 78% of environmentalists are morons…. doesn’t mean that its a fact now does it
ANDREW M…..we can to and fro and say the Earths flat and other irregularities from scientific data. Fact is the core samples taken for many many a year show quite clearly the increase in CO2. Ice core records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as any previous change seen in the ice cores. The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing. You cant confuse this result over with a natural progression towards natural weather change as you try to imply! These CO2 emissions are being forced back into the oceans and trees and thereby are changing the landscape we live in with the undersea landscape changing dramatically!
AM….here is a little experiment you can do for me. Indicate to me where the pollution is going to when in cannot escape outside our atmosphere! Explain to me coral bleaching and the fact species are dieing at a fast rate. Explain to me how pollution is a good thing as if I listen to you there is no problem. Hugging a tree and planting trees wont fix problem will it! It seems to me you just dismiss it quite simply as normal on track like before. You cannot deny my comment before and you still have given me a feeble answer to it – “….The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing….” So you can throw into the mix what happened in France and England with vineyards and what not, the greatest proof is not the verbal rubbish espoused by your comments but rather cold hard facts dug up from ground right here on Earth and not some textbook theory by some renegade rednecks! If I was to believe you ANDREW M…..why is it there was no massive increase at the times you refer to in the 15th and 16th century. I will tell you….the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND BIGGER INCREASE IN POPULATION! You cant be a basketballer and dodge around ANDREW M, as you cany escape the reality of the core samples which indicate clearly the composition of whats in the air going back an extremely longer time the your miniscule snapshot!
The earths temp in its millions of years of existance has ALWAYS fluctuated, the ice age and then the dry spells are evidence of this. Better off it heats up then freezes over!
NM – There is no proven relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperatue. In fact the increased CO2 levels occur after glacial termiantions. CO2 levels increase during warming trends, but we still dont know why or what, if any, effect it has on global temperature.
Correction – What i meant to say is there is nothing that proves atmospheric CO2 caused the end of the Ice ages. CO2 levels correlate with their end, however the increased CO2 levels occur after glacial termiantions. We now it affects temperature, but not how important it is in regulating global temperature. It not believed CO2 initiates/causes a warming trend but that it may amplify the effect.
NM,
mate im not denying that there is increased co2 levels in todays atmosphere as i have seen proof that levels have increased.
what im saying is and its pretty much just regurgitating what Fiducia has said in that there is no proof that co2 has any affect on global temperatures. how the hell can there be irregularities in something as simple as recording the earths temperature? it isnt open to interperitation its either 35degrees or 40degrees
and on top of that many scientists who actually study the affects day in day out are at the conclusion that human interferance is hardly responsible for the increased levels.
hey im not saying we should all go and throw plastic bags in the ocean either. just sick of the idea that the sky is falling in and we must all drive electric cars or we will die in 30yrs.
the auto industry is just a scape goat for a mythical thing called global warming. and why is it mythical? well because there is absoultely no proof what so ever that the earths mean temperature has risen or that co2 can or may cause it to.
an interesting thing i heard quite some time back was if every one was to change 1 scabby light bulb to an enery saving variety then that equates to removing 49,000 vehicles off the road.
now doesnt that put it into perspective in that there are many more beneficial things the goverment could restrict if an action plan is needed?
(and yes i know they are starting to look at energy efficiency of new housing)
ANDREW M……Hardly a week goes by without an article appearing in the professional scientific literature or debate on what you and others raise (ANDREW M, ETC) with results that show shortcomings in the numerical models of climate upon which the global warming scare is based. In many cases, the problems deal with the numerical representation of some important processes, in other cases the problems deal with assumptions of growth rates in greenhouse gas concentrations, while in other cases, the problems deal with data used to initialise the models. The problems are endless and rarely reported in more popular presentations of the greenhouse global warming story. Another recent paper has appeared with a surprising problem to be solved by the modelers.
Two scientists from the Netherlands have published a paper in the International Journal of Climatology with results not consistent with models predictions (this paper is a follow up to an earlier paper the authors had published that was covered a few years ago). de Laat and Maurellis note that greenhouse gas (GHG) warming should be observed at the surface, and indeed, such warming appears in the surface record of the past 25 years. However, they observe that “Climate models and theory predict that enhanced GHG warming should occur throughout the troposphere” but far less warming has been observed in the free troposphere than at the surface. They write “This discrepancy between surface and free tropospheric warming is a well-documented phenomenon” and “This discrepancy opens the possibility that other anthropogenic near-surface processes may have contributed to the observed surface temperature variations.”
de Laat and Maurellis then proceed to reveal a surprising pattern in the warming trends in the data from throughout the world. There is a clear signal in the observational records of the surface (derived from thermometer records) and troposphere (derived from satellite-based records) —places with the highest greenhouse gas emissions have the greatest warming trend. In their own words, they state “The main conclusions that can be drawn are that both satellite and surface data show a significant temperature increase with increasing emissions and that this correlation is absent in the climate models’ temperature response.” Further, the state “any agreement between both types of measurements would indicate the underlying presence of an industrialisation-related process that has decadal timescale effects over a vertical extent well in excess of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL).” Whatever the cause, the pattern of increasing temperature in places with the greatest emissions of greenhouse gases shows up prominently in both the thermometer-based surface temperature measurements and in the satellite-based measurements of lower-tropospheric temperatures. No such pattern is suggested by the numerical models of climate.
In this current paper, the authors apply different statistical techniques to be certain the pattern is not some peculiar artifact of a particular procedure, but not matter what technique they use, the pattern shows up over and over in the empirical records. Furthermore, they find the pattern is stronger in winter than in summer and stronger at night than in the daytime. They note that “During local summer, convection will be more effective in transporting the surplus heat from the ABL to the free troposphere, reducing the near-surface warming. Thus, the seasonality in temperature trends in the measurements is quite consistent with heating from surface industrialization-related processes. Note that the same kind of process could explain the difference between daytime and nighttime surface temperature changes. During the night, a stable ABL prevails, suppressing vertical exchange of heat in the ABL. During the day, the ABL is generally thicker; hence, the surface heating could be distributed over a thicker atmospheric layer. This could result in a larger temperature increase during night compared to during the day and, thus, a reduced diurnal temperature cycle. Additionally, this would be very much in agreement with the observed reduction of the amplitude of the diurnal cycle of surface temperatures.”
The explanation is elusive at this time, but the authors conclude “Anthropogenic heat is not the only process that can or may explain the correlation between temperature trends and industrial CO2 emissions. There are a few other possible processes that may play a role: changes in land use that could change the surface albedo and also soil moisture and thus the surface energy balance and also groundwater levels; absorbing aerosols like soot, cloud cover or cloud optical properties all are potentially plausible explanations.”
The pattern they uncovered is a reminder that not all warming in a record can be ascribed to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Something is happening in areas with high CO2 emissions that is causing the surface and lower-tropospheric temperatures to rise far more quickly than other areas of the earth. Whatever the cause, it is inflating the rise in temperature observed for the planet and should be considered in any attempt to identify the temperature response to elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases.
and it leads back to my earlier fact on ice core records. They show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as >>>>>ANY
….previous change seen in the ice cores. The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing.
The defence of your side is weak at best.
mate i have contradicting evidence.
all i provided was a summary unlike your self who provided a whole essay in order to bore the hell out of other passers by of this site.
also related to what i posted earlier is that only something like 17% of scientists who have had to deal directly with all the evidence provided believe that increased co2 is causing global warming.
and to add to that further only 11% believe that if it were, that human interference is responsible or able to reverse any effects.
now i know you love your statistical figures of late so surely that must hold some weight with you.
things i believe is…….
yes co2 levels have increased but it is not responsible for an apparent warming trend nor is human interference able to dramaticlly change it to go in either a better or worse direction.
good argument in progress by the way…….
im feeling we are going to end up in a “stale mate” though
now im off to move a pool table………..
ANDREW M…your evidence is lacking and all you have provided is gibberish and gut feeling and is not backed up by core samples whatsoever!
Come up with something which has backbone….your comments and percentages are just that, bending light like can be manipulated towards anything.
Remember 2words: CORE SAMPLES (have told you the accuracy which go back much further then your counter claims). Cold hard reality Andrew!
The thing is all the so called experts are sayin g that the average temperature is increasing by 1-3 degreesa year or whatever.. yet at this stage they are only predictions based on current trends
I mena its like the Beareau of Guess-ology [meteorology] who predict that next week we will se temperatures in the mid 30s possibly even up around 40 but then as the week progresses something happens and they alter ther forecast and say its only going to be 28-30… a big bloody difference..
And these people like the environmental experts are supposedly university graduates [with a series of acronyms after their names] and the latest computer technology etc at their disposal to help get it right
I personally would love a job at the beareau getting paid so much for getting it so wrong so regularly
So even though there is a problem with the environment etc.. we have acknowledged it and are taking steps to resolve or rectify it.. who knows we may have acted at just the right time inorder to if not prevent a complete meltdown.. at least minimise its impact
So now can we get back to the topic of 4 by friggin 4s?
My other half is selling her car and getting a 4WD…..hmmm I might know all the moves with karate, but I never argue with a woman! MISSILE take note! Remember that thing who revved you!
Hey I’ve just eaten an apple.. shall I send you the Core Sample NM
ANDREW M…. maybe go swimming in Yangtze River or understand why coral bleaching is occuring.
You still cannot answer me with a shred of extreme superiority on why….Ice core records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as *************ANY*************** previous change seen in the ice cores. The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing.
So Andrew M…….my task for you is quite basic. Indicate clearly how this proven fact can occur if your theory is right……..thus net result it debunks your theory. Are you alleging the following (as it appears your viewpoint is just as comical):
a/ a Prius to the ice where this was done to fake the result
b/ an Aurion’s exhaust was pointed within 1ft of core sample drilled (faster then a Veyron and quicker to 0-100 then a Veyron….Ha Ha Ha)
So I conclude me comments and ANDREW M…
1. Star Trek is not true
2. R2D2 is not a bus driver
3. Did you vote for Pauline Hanson a while back
4. The earth is round
5. Mars bars are found on earth
Ha Ha Ha Ha…..off to get me a number 5. Lock it in (I have no life lines)
a/ a Prius went to the ice core drilling where this was done to fake the result
Gunna hurt….went for spin in friends Monaro. Nice quality and impressive. Great car and smart interior!
Dicky Johnson…..you beauty cobber. Good on ya WILLY!
Back off on Pauline NM.
Didn’t the establishment do a job on her!!!!!
In conclusion I would like to say that the world is doomed.
More people than insects that will be our undoing.
REALCARS….I met Pauline and she got my attention as did more real change and talk clear commonsense then other parasites! Iam just saying….she is outta picture now!
Agree with population comment cobber!
WTF is all this population control BS about???
A bit over 60 years ago over 55 million people (that’s 55,000,000)were wiped of the face of the earth!!!
According to some of you this was a good thing that could have used some better PR.
Heres another Idea for 4×4s…
What about an LCD TV/Monitor mounted in either the rear window or tailgate which is cionnected to a camera at the front of the 4×4
so that those who are unfortunate enough to be stuck behind these mobile fortresses are able to see what’s infront of the 4×4 and know when its safe to overtake or when to brake etc
Similar to a Rear Parking Camera.. but in “Reverse”
NM,
mate i have acknowledged that co2 levels have increased and have never debated that so you are talking on your own about that one dude.
how about you answer the initial question i asked you right at the start???
here it is again.
show me proof that over the last 150yrs that there has been significant temperature rise.
there hasnt been any rise to speak of so how the hell did we get onto the topic of co2 being responsible for something that hasnt happened?
just deal with the basics first mate before you try to do a myth buster on us using apple core samples.
i mean there hasnt been significant temperature rise to start with let alone the need to look for an answer to what may be causing it.
here is a few points for you…….
1. armageddon isnt real,
2. deep impact isnt real,
3. the one on tellie the other night wasnt real (forget the name but is a good flick all the same) someone help me out what is it called where large chunks of ice start falling from the sky due to global warming.
so just drop your evidence of co2 levels for just one second and show me a significant rise in temperature levels FIRST before you skip to conclusions.
i have provided already where i have stated
QUOTE……….
“While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of all climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.”
my evidence says nothing has changed in the 150yrs that they have been recording it and in the 18yrs they have used satellite measurements it appears even more so that there has been no temperature spikes.
the jury is still out on whether it could be cooler or warmer temperatures caused by higher levels of co2 and to date many believe co2 levels dont affect temperature.
3. The day after tomorrow.
Happy to help;)
Dont worry i know of 4wd in country towns that never leave the tar only time they get mud under the guards if they go through road up grades
Fiducia,
thats it mate thanks.
i remember seeing it when it came out, and it happened to be on tellie the other night. its a great flick.
i think that is exactlly the stroy line NM is replicating.
i mean in the very start they are doing core drill samples in the ice and they carry on about parts per million etc etc.
and then they take it to the president etc and say we all have 6-8 weeks to live and we must act now!!!
then next thing there is massive storms and chunks of ice falling from the sky
well thats fiction…….
someone has taken the idea and ran further with it.
Baaaaaaaaaah temperature increase, Im told in newspaper there will be many over 35 degree days due to global warming, yet this summer only had two days above 30 degs in NSW at least.
I agree TP, in Brisbane we only had one day over 40 degrees when in 2004 we had two days over 40 and a week of days at 35 which we didn’t have this summer, nor the summers between then and now. So there’s so much exaggeration in this Global Warming.
TP,
did they really publish that in the paper?
i can clearly remember some 6yrs or so ago where we had a week or more of temperatures where we were peaking at 45 degrees. i remember exactlly what i was doing during those days and as yet i havent experienced temperatures that high during the last 6 yrs or so.
also we just had the coolest christmas day in something like 60 yrs.
and the best one i love hearing is when they say “gee it was really hot today we havent seen the mercury at that since 1957!!!!”
that is contradictory in itself when they say that global warming is really showing its affects.
we get a hot day thrown in an immediately people blame it on global warming but rather it is just “short memories”
And then we go to Adelaide and Melbourne where some record temperatures are recorded…. lol
mate heat waves in melbourne etc isnt a new occurence
But it never gets hot in Adelaide.. it could be 40 degrees and you will find some of the locals will tell you “it’s a bit warm” as they crack open another Coopers
Mind you its also quite common for the hottest part of the day [during summer] to be in the early hours of the morning – the following day..
Yet with little or no humidity; its a dry heat so you dont feel like a sponge like you do in NSW or FNQ
And no that’s not because of global warming its been that way here in SA for years
I remember it being 41c in Melbourne 4 years ago
all the crap in the news is making some blame the odd unaverage day for global warming. in 2006 there was a storm in winter and someone I knew said it’s global warming, but I remember storms in winter for years.
But has anyone noticed the media isn’t using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” as much as they used to?
RECORD TEMPERATURES ARE RELEVANT AS HEARD IT ONE NEWS – THINK IN SA AS HOTTEST EVER RECORDED….the weather is arse about hey!
The problem is, whilst its not proven that global warming is caused by human intervention surely its better the take the cautious view and reduce the effect we are having rather than bury your head in the sand and go away approach, I don’t think global warming is purely about temperature rises and localised temperature increases. There are always spikes, just saying NSW has only had two days over 30 degree so therefore the world is not warming is complete ignorance at the highest level. Weather patterns have a big role, every year monthly and annual records for weather are being broken. In the UK last year we had the warmest September on record, last winter was the warmest on record, the year before was the dryest on record. All Facts.
Take for instance the northwest passage by Canada, It has opened for the first time in 30years, OK hardly a long period, but if it opens regularly every summer then surely that points to a sequence of warming. Scientist have proven the ice caps are melting. I reiterate the point that you may deny the human bit but you cannot deny the actual facts about ice caps melting.
Its like you driving down the road, you always take the safest approach to protect yourself and others, being in denial your just continuing to put everything at a higher risk. That just totally selfish in inhuman.
Either way Im thinking its going to be hot in Adelaide next week anyway when Im there…………but really in 1930s the North Pole was experiencing similar problems with melting icebergs.
Until scientist prove really why we have climate change we can just keep speculating
I agreed BM keep speculating but don’t sit about thinking it will all be Ok, It might not be.
I’d laugh me cods off if the bloke picked you up from the Airport in a Prius.
Hey what stuns me is the other side to my views….not much chop of a defence back. It would stand to reason increase in CO2 from cars and increase in CO2 in coresamples taken from ice which is deadly accurate snapshot on our environment would make the climate change and speed up things. Maybe you people think we can just build a giant funnel and run it into a black hole out at Alpha Centauri and periodic empty out there with electric hybrid motors running this funnel. LOL!
TYPO…periodic empty out Earth’s crap and CO2….etc
hahaha..that wont happen No Name I have seen what he drives….but you would think it maybe a Prius seeing the 45 min trip back to his place we think is going to take 2 hours min. 9 days and counting…….sigh
are you sure the subbie is real BM,
i mean i have heard wheelnut is quite the photoshopper.
hahaha..no Andrew, its real.
You people look at isolated areas as proof its cooler which is a laugh….ADELAIDE HAS RECORDED THE HOTTEST CONSECUTIVE DAYS FOR LAST 5DAYS IN A ROW AND IS EXPECTED TO BE SAME FOR ANOTHER 5DAYS!
EVER RECORDED!
Ever recorded?
Yes NO NAME….listen to others and tend to agree around Brisbane and underneath has been cooler.
It astounds me the attack back at me and it has been lame to say the least! No drivel from “anybody” can deny the facts on core samples taken from the ice. I read in the paper on the weekend that they are taking a 4kms coresample as these truly always preserve a snapshot over time on the atmosphere.
CO2 is the most important of the six “greenhouse” gases blamed for driving changes to the world’s delicate climate system.
These gases hang like an invisible shroud in the atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and inflicting what many scientists predict will be serious changes to icecaps, glaciers and weather patterns.
In the earth’s distant past, climate change has occurred naturally, by emissions of CO2 disgorged by volcanoes and other phenomena.
But the “overwhelming majority of climate experts and scientists” (ANDREW M, ETC ALL FOLLOW THE MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS. THESE DOUBTERS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS FLAT, FORD IS A CHASM IN A NORWEGIAN MOUNTAIN GORGE, STAR TREK IS REAL AND STAR WARS IS BETWEEN THE USA AND RUSSIA….LOL) say CO2 levels are rising fast today because of the unbridled burning of oil, gas and coal.
Opinions differ, though, as to how fast the effects will occur and how bad they will be……IT WILL HAPPEN!
Yep: Adelaide March maximum temps (deg Celcius) – so far
1 Sa 25.7
2 Su 31.1
3 Mo 35.4
4 Tu 35.7
5 We 37.9
6 Th 38.5
7 Fr 39.0
8 Sa 39.8
9 Su 40.2
10 Mo 40.0
I totally 100% agree with you Naughty M. Our weather conditions are getting more unpredictable buy the month. Summers are wetter, Winters are stormier. I just wish the an8l critics would here the words and act. Excuses like “if Chinas still polluting then why bother” are just pathetic. If we need to sort the China problems out then do it with economic constraints and assistance. After all its us buying their good, no demand no sales.
NO NAME….may I add that Adelaide has now recorded the hottest 11 consecutive days “ever on record”…..looks like continuing too! Perth was the last city to have it in 1988.
To fix the problem means total revamping where the world is heading and mainly the serious one of truly reversing the global population as “anything” else is meek….extreme short term….drinking lattes and ignorant….vague at best! Trouble is 99.9% is like this as they are ignorant of this chief problem and dont want to address it. My philosophy is blunt…….once you have a maximum 2kids one must get medically fixed up as the stupid ALP and previous shower of s*it being the Coalition are in “vote buy mode” and pay big $ for people to willy nilly have kids. Call me Hitler or whatever – sorry but no education or anything else will truly work to stop the tide of an increasing humanity!
population wont go down NM,
do you know why the “baby bonus” was implemented?
to boost the population as birth rates were/are dropping.
they forecast that the ageing population would bee too heavy for the younger employed population to support
ANDREW M….humour me mate>>> If what Iam saying is wrong and population keeps increasing and we all ignore forced reduction on it; what will happen and where do we go collectively on Earth? Do we listen to George Bush and colonise Mars…….LOL?
If you weren’t so ignorant and believed everything the pessimists told you NM, you would realise that we have sh*t all to worry about. The world is not about to end. Even your precious ice cores show that there was a CO2 build up before the last ice age occured! But more CO2 means hotter temps! Or does it? There is also plenty of evidence to conuteract what you are throwing around here.
So you want to limit the population? You do realise that Australia has serious population issues? Because we DON’T have enough kids???? If Australia limited population, and only kept the current immigration rate, our economy would grind to a halt.
Thats right JBOT,
enter the baby bonus.
thats why it was brought in. not because the government thought it would be nice to help out those with new littlies, but rather because the population forecast spelt an “out of balance” economy in the foreseeable future
i do see what you are saying though NM,
but populaton reduction just wont happen.
we would be better off inventing a machine that converts co2 into oxygen or just nip down to your local nursery and pick up a couple of $2 natives
So cool to throw in your $100,000 in Jbot.
If you were not so ignorant an Engineer you would look at facts on past C02 emissions contained therein! My comments has “nothing” to do with doom and gloom…..rather an impact that mankind is placing on it. So Jbot….does it just sort itself out if the population increases at the rapid rate that is predicted. Be a realist and paint me a picture if we go down the road where we are going! The answer is not out of a theory book as never before has the problem increased til after the Industrial Age and it goes solely hand in hand with the population increase!
“we would be better off inventing a machine that converts co2 into oxygen or just nip down to your local nursery and pick up a couple of $2 natives”
We already have them, and you even mentioned them! Trees/plants, etc. Thats if CO2 really is the problem its made out to be by some.
Better go back and have a look at your ice core samples NM, because there was a significant increase in the CO2 levels prior to the last ice age.
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORAY…..phew. Andrew M’s last comment would paragraph would help! Either that or a huge machine to suck the pollution out into outer space?
Look at history……facts. What you are saying is “related” to volcanoes! So till you shake that rats maze under your hair, you contradict the “majority” of scientists Bot!
TYPO……..Andrew M’s last paragraph comment would help!
Do us all a favour then NM. Stop typing away on your PC which is producing loads of CO2, go and live in a cave, grow your own food, just like back in the day before the population took off. You’ll reduce your CO2 emissions by heaps man! Groovy! Let me know if you enjoy it, but either way I’ll be much happier producing more CO2 with a much higher standard of living.
BOT…………..did they teach you anything at Uni or you base your views on what? So we plant trees and remove rainforests at Brazil at alarming rates to change the weather pattern? You sit back and “simplistically” think planting trees which agree is a good thing helps when destruction is in other areas!
LOL!
Jbot…………wake up. Your the complete clown just like your naive green as claim “$100,000per annum job as an Engineer first year out of university”
BOT……………maybe with your massive wisdom you can enlighten us what will occur say in 50yrs when population will be much more bigger! Lets put you to the test!
Lets all plant trees and look at satelitte imagery of other areas like PNG………….once was there is shrinking less! Yeah trees will help I do admit – but shivers massive amounts worldwide need to grow!
Depends how many people follow your lead and go and live in a cave :)
You disappoint with your shallow view Bot….lacking AGAIN! The cave is irrelevant; so please get some depth to you and let us know what your plan is for an increased population! Shock me BOT and answer this with clarity and reality…..this is really the $100,000 question that mankind is stuggling with!
Ok, my prediction for 50yrs time. Your poor, sorry arse will be long gone. I will retired, trying desperately to spend the $50 billion dollars I’ve earnt, laughing at your kid who thinks builders are the wealthiest men in the world, and CO2 levels are about to destroy the earth. LOL.
Seriously though, 50 years time Australia will still be a great place to live, Asia gets very powerful, and population will indeed be a problem, but I seriously doubt nothing would have been done to limit popuations (Asian nations in particular) before then.
sorry NM,
but im with Jbot on this topic.
i can honestly see your point but its no where near as bad as you are making out.
also there is no evidence that if something is happening then humans are responsible.
perhaps just punch a hole in the ozone layer to let the extra co2 out????????ha ha ha ha
hang on………
ozone layer hole shrinking, co2 levels increasing……..
i know whats happening, the ozone is mending itself and hence the co2 isnt escaping like it use to be able to.
which brings me back to punching another hole in it
Jbot,
i can see him now,
just like tom hanks in that movie where he is stranded on the island with only a netball with a face drawn on to talk to.
dont take it personally NM im just having a bit of fun.
hey bot boy,
just curious, what kind of an engineer are you?
(genuinely interested)
Will leave you to shock us on the answer? Or more to the point…………….an empty reply!
PROVIDE PROOF THAT CORE SAMPLES SPIKED MUCH GREATER THEN IS CURRENT SINCE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND LENGTH IT OCCURED…..Andrew M and Bot>>>>>>>>>>>>>challenge me and put the info on the table and then lets compare your claims over a long time and lets see which is on the upward trend!
My case is closed as you have proven – WAFFLE AND GUT FEELING AND WORDS LOOSELY DRAWN ONTO WORLD WIDE WEB!
Iam waiting…..still!
Ciao
R
My degree is in Civil, minor in mining
NM, you do realise you too have provided no proof…
I’m off for the night, will check back tomorrow to check the “facts” you give us NM.
NM,
i have showed you that the earths temperatures over 150yrs have not increased 1 little bit.
you on the other hand have yet to show some real effects of global warming. temperatures havent risen, hence no global warming.
for the record i have always agreed that co2 levels have increased. but in that, it has not been showed/proved that the co2 levels are increasing temperatures as you claim
HA HA….netball. Iam agreeing with you guys in principle. But Iam a realist as fastfowarding the result to around 50yrs when Jbot will be a real wheeler and dealer with monoploy money!
Google search what I have and dont just get some sentences spasmodically as there is a lot of crap on it and one must look at in depth to grasp it. Hey Iam like you guys….show me the facts, hell I stayed up one night as didnt believe in UFO’s and low and behold – bang two moved at astonishing speeds and stopped instanteous. And dont pluck at straws….I cant personally give you readings as “nobody” has access to them! It is acknowledged there has been spikes or upturns in CO2 emissions – but it aint an upward trend over a steeper rise then now!
LOL you two are funny buggers! This time – ciao R!
Q:How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2?
A:As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).
Q:The greenhouse effect – how increased CO2 causes temperature rise?
A:When there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn’t let as much get out. CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg – Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~ 1000 years (Stott 2007).
Q:Climate sensitivity – how CO2 amplifies temperature increase?
A:Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have helped quantify exactly how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2. Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth’s history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C.
Q:So what does the CO2 lag tell us?
A:The behaviour of CO2 in the past is well understood by climatologists and confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, sharp temperature rises in the past (from volcanoes, etc) indicate how sensitive climate is to change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to “tipping points” where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a runaway warming effect.
Gone as early one…..zzz zzz zzz
NM,
ah good to see you still see a funny side to my little image of you on the island with “Wilson”
mate,
all the theory sounds well and good but the bottom line is that there has been no rise in average temperatures whilst the co2 levels have had a notable increase.
Wow NM.
That was amazing! If i had submitted essays like that in college i might be driving a Beamer now instead of a Hyundai!
Eyma Teapot……gee thanx, dont let TP see your comment as Hyundai and not Toyota. LOL
Footnote to CO2 emissions: bear in mind scientists look at past history only and it is a proven fact that since the Industrial Revolution that CO2 emissions have “always” increased with direct human intervention to supply the population! This is a major concern as it never will be a shrinking population and resources and goods will always be required…..to give you an example to put this in perspective Mining currently contributes around 12% towards CO2 emissions.
To state that CO2 emissions have always occured in the past is fairly weak as man’s intervention was significantly less…..so therefore any doubters (i.e: ANDREW M, Jbot, etc) are essentially clutching at straws, and just maintain that “Oh thats a negative comment and is not true” based on some hairy fairy comment by some renegade minor group or person that truly is not factual. I would like to think you are right cause Iam like you guys…..i.e. “I need to see this reality”
Planting trees are a part of the answer. The major problem with this flaw is that once the trees are cut down for usage for human resources, major stockpiles of CO2 that the trees absorbed is released. This has been proven by scientists recently. If everything is growing really fast as currently is the case then it there is not enough phosphorus or nutrients in the soil – THIS IS CURRENTLY BEING RESEARCHED BY SCIENTISTS. When the trees are cut down (from all the trees that are planted like Jbot espouses) CO2 gases are released straightway! How do I know this Jbot…currently being researched as confirmed to me! You see Bot…..Iam on your side and Andrew’s side, but this problem exists and wont go away!
ANDREW AND JBOT….go do some checking for me in your backyard. Go plant some vegetables and just let nature take its course and watch it sooner or later get to its end cycle! The leaves will fall off and then CO2 gases will be released.
On the other flipside, if we plant trees and we have a forward marching worldwide population and these trees are planted everywhere….where do we get resources such as timber.
Waaahey Maxi dude, been swatting lately.
Sorry folks i’ve not been around to add to the discussion, had to drive to London, in my polluting car, 400K’s each way for work.
All interesting stuff, Whilst i’m totally in agreement about the human intervention in global warming there was an interesting programme on telly a year or so ago basically saying that earth was a carbon snyc and levels of carbon released in the atmosphere would eventually be absorped and things may settle down. All educated scientific guessing though.
Quote NM: “major stockpiles of CO2 that the trees absorbed is released (when cut down)”
You do realise plants continuously convert CO2 to O2 in the same way we convert O2 to CO2 when we breathe?? CO2 isn’t just sucked up and stored in the plant like your implying!
JBOT QUOTE: “You do realise plants continuously convert CO2 to O2 in the same way we convert O2 to CO2 when we breathe?? CO2 isn’t just sucked up and stored in the plant like your implying!”
NM RESPONSE: Trees shed leaves and branches, etc and during this debris decay or the burning of the tree or when it is cut down for usage the decomposition process commences immediately when the CO2 is released (and more is released). Maybe you think that as the population gets out of hand and bigger and ground becomes more scarce that all of a sudden there will be trees everywhere on this limited land. And all this shrubbery will pull out the nutrients and will cause a phosphorus problem with the soil structure making it more unattractive for plants and trees. The flaw with your “very lacklustre” nothing answer is that you are relying on scientists digging up and go over the past…..and you like them forget from when all this has taken off since Industrial Revolution! This is an unknown quantity much like your non-ability to give me evidence to the contrary!
Like I said, show me your facts as you have none of merit and lack massively!
FOOTNOTE: Did you answer questions at university as you have “not” clearly here! LOL! Come on JBOT and ANDREW M…..like Iam seriously like you but one has to look at nature to know what is occuring. Maybe you two penned the song…”THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE”! HA HA HA HA!
You still haven’t answered Amdrew M’s question as to why the temperature of the earth hasn’t changed in the last 150 (?) years, despite CO2 increasing…
NM,
dont make me keep repeatingmyself……….
REPEAT…………..
the bottom line is that there has been no rise in average temperatures whilst the co2 levels have had a notable increase.
im not debating the extra co2 content but rather the claims you make on its affects to temperature and now apparently killing trees.
maybe you penned “i wanna be a punk rocker with flowers in my hair” ha ha ha ha ha
1. Are you illiterate…….read my comment March 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm . This highlights temperature rise and other research I have looked at is a higher figure temperature wise! Obviously you two are as blind as bats to my response!
2. Lets not move away from core of issue here….focus and maintain decorum….! I have asked you where do you get your evidence as there is none of merit………….still!
3. I go off what was reported at meeting other half went to concerning tree planting as clearly its not the help that is perceived! This was admitted readily by scientific evidence and is being researched right now.
Obviously you two are lacking any evidence, decency to provide your supporting evidence and I have provided proof of what year and by whom findings were assumed to have been scientifically provided…..what have you two done and were is your evidence as you two should be born agains as all about gut feeling! LOL this is your best attack back…………….LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF massive!
Provide me with comments by scientists (name and year) on how they see the ozone layer healing itself with an expanding far bigger population……ignore personal comments and lets go toe for toe as you arent putting anything of merit or supporting evidence of
PUPPET TWOSOME…PULL THE CHORD ON THERE BACKS AND JUST REPEAT THERE HARPING AND NOT PROVIDING THERE EVIDENCE FOR THERE SIDE. LOL YOU TWO ARE LIKE TOO FUNNY TO TAKE SERIOUS!
NM,
as i said earlier,
only 17 % of scientists who study the specific field of global warming believe it is happening. and of those that believe it is, only 11% believe it is us humans that are responsible
now if you dont want to take on my evidence i provided with direct quotes then it is pointless arguing the subject as we have a “stale mate”
oh and just for you…….
i bought an 8.6kw split system airconditioner a few weeks back and am just waiting for my mate to pull his finger out and hook it up for me.
hey but dont cry because as i type my grey water re use system is in full song watering the lawn
One of the many articles around, this one is by Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“Most of the literate world today regards “global warming” as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.”
ANDREW – your 17% is flawed a wee dram….are you “aware” of this??????
No, it’s not the old comment that global warming stopped in 1998. The new contention is that global warming stopped in January 2007. The argument originated from Anthony Watts who plotted data from 4 sources (HadCRUT, GISS, RSS and UAH), all of which show sharp cooling of around 0.6°C from January 2007 to January 2008. The most common interpretation around the blogosphere is that the long term global warming trend has reversed. Daily Tech goes so far as to say 2007 “wipes out a century of warming”. Clearly the flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively “MINISCULE” short period of 13 months. Particularly when a large portion of that cooling occured over one month (January 2008). Only over a period of years to decades can you confidently discern climate trends. Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate…..and then believing the 17% ANDREW M REFERS TO! Sunspots ANDREW M….that might help as this
So sunspots reveal a lot. First. The effect from the sun controlling the temperature according to the number of sunspots is cooling when many sunspots. That’s the effect which for example IPCC AR4 gives a few tenth of a degree cooling when there is many sunspots in the 11 years cycle. This is only the TSI effect, not involving a cosmic ray connection. (This description I guess also quite well fits in to the “reversed” covariance that Locwood/Frohlish noticed, but I think they conveniently missed a delay factor.) According to this TSI effect only we shall have a warmer world now, not a cooler one.
Hoi…..nice try “NO CIGAR”. There is clearly massive amounts on here on this topic and there are flaws more in your side then mine. You must agree that scientists make mistakes and cant get it clearly correct and even change their minds or reverse a previous finding. My point is some cold has been detected in a changing weather pattern and not climate. Refer to El Nino and La Nina. My travels have revealed flaws and these are soooooooo many!
typo……….travels on research on this topic has revealed flaws…
NM,
these are all seperate theories and there are lots of them for one way or the other.
who are you to say your version is right?
my version simply says that there has not been any warming over the 150yr old records i presented. that can not be manipulated or misinterpereted.
how many scientists have personally stuck a thermometer up the suns bum?
as i said with all these theories that have been presented only 17% believe it is ocurring
exactlly!!!!!!!
El Nino and La Nina are responsible for a hell of a lot of what is happening with todays weather patterns.
the weather we are having today in terms of droughts and floods was acurately predicted over 100 years ago and it was mapped out with reference and study relating to the moons and earths cycles etc.
these patterns were acurately predicted with out any consideration of global warming.
does global warming now cause king tides too and not the moon?
“does global warming now cause king tides too and not the moon?”
LOL
You still cannot answer me with a shred of extreme superiority on why Icecore records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as *************ANY*************** previous change seen in the ice cores. So what Iam saying to you clearly is this has been recorded by the safest data (in black and white scientifically proven and “not” theorised by freelance scientists willy nilly). The current level is 380 parts per million, the highest in more than 650,000 years. It shows no signs of decreasing.
I have put up a lot of comments and views…..good to see Jbot with last whatever T** F*** IT means chim in. I felt like he bowled a wrongun when his was actually a mediocre slow full toss. Gee that was returned into the grandstands like Kevin Pietersen displays against the Aussies (NO NAME WOULD AGREE)!
Hey dont hassle me as Iam guilty as sin….I got 3 air conditioners and as good as can get with 8.1Kw cool and 9.0Kw heat is “inverter technology”
And may I add Mark “Tubby” Taylor endorsed as Fujitsu….so Iam doing my bit to test the theories! LOL
“You still cannot answer me with a shred of extreme superiority on why Icecore records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature.”
Minding explaining to me how the ice cores tell you what temperature it was??? I would love to know.
LOL….Mr $100,000 first year out of uni BOT?
Do you have any depth other then
NM said
JBOT response
Iam not privvy to ice cores just know who assessed and where I read this. Get some depth and substance!
I said my above comment because I know ice cores don’t give temperature information…
And I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the $100,000 thing. Are you really that jealous?
1. Oh so you know more then scientists! Are you calling the info what I came across a lie or impossible! As looks like you are mate! LOL
2. As for your salary….I dont care! My only point is its just a joke 1st year out of uni as “not believable”
PATHETIC ATTACK AGAINST ME………….so much for info and quote names and year! Are you sure this is as good as it gets from you? LOL SO DAM MUCH!
Ciao
(AP) A 2mile long (3.2 kilometer long) ice core laboriously drilled out of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years.
As the longest ice core record of Earth’s weather history obtained to date, the core also shows that those gases; chiefly carbon dioxide and methane play a big role in warming the planet when ice ages end.
But how this icy record will influence current theories about global warming blamed on human activity isn’t clear, the researchers said.
“The ice core gives us the past, not the future. But it adds to our thinking about the future, about the future of our climate,” said Jean-Robert Petit, director of research at the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France. “It’s clear that greenhouse gas levels are unprecedented compared with the previous 400,000 years.”
Coldest spot on Earth: The core was extracted from 1992-98 by a U.S.A. Russian and French team at Russia’s Vostok research station, the coldest spot on Earth. Petit and team members endured readings as cold as minus 70 Fahrenheit (minus 57 Celsius), though the station holds the world record low of minus 129 (minus 89 Celsius). They stopped drilling about 120 yards (109 meters) short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that’s been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. Scientists want to send sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are protecting it from contamination until then.
Each cylinder like chunk of ice drilled out of the ice sheet contains a record of snowfall, atmospheric chemicals, temperature conditions, dust and bubbles of air. Those clues, trapped in icy layers like tree rings, enable scientists to reconstruct past climates.
The lengthy Vostok ice core is particularly significant because previous cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland dated back only about 150,000 years and showed just two ice age cycles. The new core reveals four ice ages at roughly 100,000year intervals, shedding new light on how the icy interludes end.
‘Some really large changes’
All four appear to have given way to balmier times after levels of the heat-trapping gases carbon dioxide and methane rose by amounts smaller than the increase blamed on human industry in the past century.
The multinational team reported its findings in the June 3 1999 issue of the journal Nature.
Petit and colleagues found carbon dioxide levels rose from about 180 parts per million during each ice age’s height to 280-300 ppm in the subsequent warm periods ~ far below the current CO2 levels of 360 ppm.
Methane levels, meanwhile, rose from 320-350 parts per billion during the icy interludes to 650-770 ppb during the warm spells. Current methane levels are 1,700 ppb.
The levels of both greenhouse gases are expected to continue their rise in the next century due to continued burning of fossil fuels such as coal and other human activities.
“This study is probably the most convincing evidence to date that humans are making some really large changes to Earth’s climate system,” said Jonathan Overpeck, head of the paleoclimatology program at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Beyond natural variation: “What this says is we’re going well beyond the bounds of natural variation.” Petit estimates that the rising greenhouse gas concentrations contributed to about 50 percent of the post-ice age warming; he attributes the remaining heat to periodic shifts in Earth’s orbit that increase the amount of sunlight warming the planet. The natural rise in the gases was attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in oceanic processing of C02, increased plankton activity and the return of methane-producing swamps.
But the core also appears to call into question previous research suggesting a 500- to 1,000-year lag time between the post-ice age temperature increase and the CO2 increase.
Instead, the core suggests temperatures rose in step with rising C02 levels, a finding of interest to scientists studying global warming.
“This core is telling us to get busy and understand the climate system because it really could change,” said Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University
ANDREW M……read last Question and Answer as well! Further research revealed as follows:
QUESTION: Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around?
ANSWER: A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.
QUESTION?Milankovitch cycles – how increased temperature causes CO2 rise?
ANSWER: Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles – gradual, regular changes in the earth’s orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth’s orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000). The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south, retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007).
QUESTION:How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2?
ANSWER:As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).
NM,
the scientific studies are still out on whether or not global warming affect will mean a warming planet or cooling planet.
“Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous “yes.”
“First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.”
“A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth’s albedo and cool the planet.”
ANDREW M…..These people are “NOT” obsessed with weather; but more so climate change! You are pessimistic to follow the reality of the situation….but rather look at the minority who are always around! You see Andrew this is clearly a problem and scientists only now the past and there has never been a rapid increase as of now…….thus we are being warned to actually do something! Unlike some minors out there who conclude that its a weather change (which does occur Andrew).
This is info located as at today: A grouping of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters has backed UN-led efforts to forge a global pact to fight climate change, but disagreed on a sectoral approach to curb emissions from industry. G20 nations ranging from top carbon emitters the United States and China to big developing economies Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa held three days of talks near Tokyo to discuss ways to tackle rapidly rising emissions.
LOL….and they all fly into the Summit Meeting with the worst greenhouse gas emitters being an aeroplane, then go out and drive around in Veyrons or Hummers and say “We are working on it”. Then go eat out and contribute what all do anyhow!
The whole structure of society needs to change as Kyoto is a band aid of minor proportions! We as buyers force industry to lower prices….hence we buy Chinese or Taiwanese, and these have very poor conditions for greenhouse gases produced as no regulations of real substance. If they get clamped down on by authorities, businesses will just go elsewhere such as India or other areas where a distinct advantage can occur for the company who buys there products to on sell them to the public at lower prices! What was deemed to be fixed….will be relocated to other countries for opportunists to make big $ from! OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE LIVE IN! THE CIRCLE TURNS AND COMES BACK AGAIN!
Facts are where most supplies and goods are manufactured have the poorest record for greenhouse gas production!
Its simple, my 4wd uses far less petrol than my turbo rx7, also i pay for the fuel so who can say how much i use.. What next ban people that live more than 20kms from work because they have to drive further and need mroe fuel?
If you want to winge that more people die when involved in an accident with a 4wd, then try not being a tuna can and buy a car that has a 5 star safety rating..
If your worried about your children when i reverse my 4wd, then be a decent parent and take care of your children and keep them out of my driveway..
Politicains drive around in V8 cars, that use more petrol than i do..
But to keep everyone happy i will swap my 4wd for a station wagon, you just pay the rental fees for a 4wd when i want to go bush and camping..
Basically stop wingeing about everything.. If you dont like them, dont buy one, if you are worried about what it will do to you in an accident, dont pull out in front of one, if your worried about the petrol consumption then trade in your own car and get a bike…
Its a shame that you dont know what your missing..
for Arlester, whose brother has only one vehicle, a 4WD, who asks if he should be allowed “occasional runs into the city”…. I have two suggestions.
1. Such vehicles will have country rego, not city, so they could be fitted with different coloured rego plates and “allowed into the city occasionally”. Then city drivers (and police) can easily see he is from the country and GIVE HIM A WIDE BERTH. Which brings me to my second point….
2. Country drivers are generally very very poor city drivers. I can vouch for this from experience. They are not used to the city environment, there is too much happening too fast, they do not have the anticipation skills required. They hate being there, they are stressed and generally not competent. In a 4WD these people are a menace in the cities. If in fact the 4WD was banned from the cities, I am sure these people would find a (safer, less stressful) alternative.
cheers,
Arg