I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph -
"What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050." .included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it's typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. _____ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _____ From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 9:02 AM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Well that's the hope. The hope is that that the ecosystem can somehow rebalance itself in spite of the extra greenhouse gases injected into the system. On the other side of this is the fear that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now so great that the carbon sinks can't accommodate the amount that is produced. We always have hope. Weighing up the probabilities, with all the events that are occurring worldwide, I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and suggest that we need to do something to ensure that conditions don't become worse. I note that Melbourne Water's storages are dropping again. They show the graph of water flows into the main supplies. There's a note below that graph that states: "What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050." http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/water_r eport.asp From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of mike smith Sent: Friday, 26 February 2010 11:31 AM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 25 February 2010 20:07, Tony Wright <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote: Meanwhile: I had a look at David Connors sent link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php and it should be pointed out that this refers to sea ice and whether that has an impact on increasing sea levels. I looked another link on this site: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php which refers to sea ice in the northern hemisphere, which has been melting at a faster rate than down south. This is all consistent with what the Australian Antarctic Division have said. Again from the NASA site supplied: "Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic. This series of record lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries starting in the winter of 2004-2005, marked a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Sea ice did not return to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000) after 2002." But sea ice actually doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact as land-based ice does on sea level. It is analogous to ice cubes floating in a glass. When sea ice melts, it doesn't increase the volume (much). However, if land ice melts, and the water flows into the sea, the sea level does rise. However, what it does do is decrease our overall albedo. Whether ice is land or sea, its reflectance is the same. -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
