Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have been engaged in a discussion on this topic at John Reilly's site. It's been a productive discussion and I learned a lot. Here part of a post where I project future CO2 levels.

I didn't know he had a forum! I always loved his "Temporal Analogizer".

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have been engaged in a discussion on this topic at John Reilly's site.

Ugh, too many "the evil lefties hate America" idiots there. I see HC68 is one of them...

When global warming first reached public attention in the 1980's I was not particularly concerned about it for a simple reason. Although temperature had risen since 1900, and CO2 had definitely risen over the same interval, most of the rise in temperature had occurred during the first half of this period while most of the CO2 accumulation had occurred in the second half. What this told me was that CO2 was not the dominant factor affecting global temperature during the first 80 years of the 20th century. Some other factor was operative.

Solar factors are a logical choice. Obviously solar intensity directly affects climate through the Stefan Boltzmann relation, but the magnitude of fluctuations in solar intensity with sunspots are simply too small for this mechanism to be producing the observed effects.

There is a theory that attributes temperature changes to the behavior of the solar magnetosphere: as the magnetosphere expands and contracts, Earth is alternately shielded from and exposed to cosmic rays, and these rays are supposed to be key to cloud formation. Increased cloudiness means increased albedo. Increase albedo means lower temperature. Thus one should expect an inverse correlation between fluctuations in cosmic rays and temperature.

Sunspots are correlated with cosmic rays as shown by poster Ben Espen:

Originally Posted by Ben Espen

I think sunspots are a pretty good indication of cosmic rays. I grabbed the data on both from the following places:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...AYS/climax.tab
It is pretty hard to miss a cosmic ray, you just point your scintillation counter up and wait. Sunspots are similarly easy to see, as generations of blind astronomers testify.

As you can see, there is a pretty good negative correlation here.
]

The negative correlation between sunspot number and cosmic rays and the hypothesized negative correlation between cosmic rays and temperature suggests a positive correlation should exist between sunspot number and temperature.

Here is a plot of sunspot number and global temperature (HadCRUT3v series):



The lowest level of sunspots and temperature occurred in the 1900-1910 period. Both temperature and sunspot number rose for about five decades after these minima. Since around 1950 sunspot number has been roughly flat. Temperature was likewise flat from around 1940 until the mid 1970’s. This correlation suggests that my conclusion in the 1980’s was correct. This cosmic ray effect may have been the factor responsible for rising temperature in the early 20th century (when CO2 rise was small). The lack of temperature rise in the four decades before 1980 might be explained by the lack of rising in solar activity (as indicated by sunspots) over most of this period.

However, in the two decades since the 1980’s there has been substantial warming. Sunspot number has continued to be flat in the decades after 1980 as it was in the decade before. Thus, the solar cosmic ray mechanism isn’t a good candidate for rising temperatures since 1975. CO2 is a good candidate because CO2 levels in recent decades have risen to their highest levels in 800,000 years. Enough of a rise in CO2 has occurred to account for about 0.7 C of warming since the late 19th century. More warming has occurred, but some of this reflects the higher average level of solar activity in recent decades than a century previously.

The sunspot record can be used in a model to explain historical temperature changes. Here’s a graph offered by Ben Espin, a poster at Reilly’s site:


Espen notes that the sunspot-based temperature model matches up pretty well with the mean temperature data collected in the northern hemisphere except for the last 40 years or so. That is, until CO2 levels moved to levels higher than any seen in the last 800,000, solar activity provides a plausible explanation for temperature fluctuations. More recent warming seems to be largely CO2-driven.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

When global warming first reached public attention in the 1980's I was not particularly concerned about it for a simple reason. Although temperature had risen since 1900, and CO2 had definitely risen over the same interval, most of the rise in temperature had occurred during the first half of this period while most of the CO2 accumulation had occurred in the second half. What this told me was that CO2 was not the dominant factor affecting global temperature during the first 80 years of the 20th century. Some other factor was operative.

Solar factors are a logical choice. Obviously solar intensity directly affects climate through the Stefan Boltzmann relation, but the magnitude of fluctuations in solar intensity with sunspots are simply too small for this mechanism to be producing the observed effects.

There is a theory that attributes temperature changes to the behavior of the solar magnetosphere: as the magnetosphere expands and contracts, Earth is alternately shielded from and exposed to cosmic rays, and these rays are supposed to be key to cloud formation. Increased cloudiness means increased albedo. Increase albedo means lower temperature. Thus one should expect an inverse correlation between fluctuations in cosmic rays and temperature.

Sunspots are correlated with cosmic rays as shown by poster Ben Espen:

The negative correlation between sunspot number and cosmic rays and the hypothesized negative correlation between cosmic rays and temperature suggests a positive correlation should exist between sunspot number and temperature.

Here is a plot of sunspot number and global temperature (HadCRUT3v series):



The lowest level of sunspots and temperature occurred in the 1900-1910 period. Both temperature and sunspot number rose for about five decades after these minima. Since around 1950 sunspot number has been roughly flat. Temperature was likewise flat from around 1940 until the mid 1970’s. This correlation suggests that my conclusion in the 1980’s was correct. This cosmic ray effect may have been the factor responsible for rising temperature in the early 20th century (when CO2 rise was small). The lack of temperature rise in the four decades before 1980 might be explained by the lack of rising in solar activity (as indicated by sunspots) over most of this period.

However, in the two decades since the 1980’s there has been substantial warming. Sunspot number has continued to be flat in the decades after 1980 as it was in the decade before. Thus, the solar cosmic ray mechanism isn’t a good candidate for rising temperatures since 1975. CO2 is a good candidate because CO2 levels in recent decades have risen to their highest levels in 800,000 years. Enough of a rise in CO2 has occurred to account for about 0.7 C of warming since the late 19th century. More warming has occurred, but some of this reflects the higher average level of solar activity in recent decades than a century previously.

The sunspot record can be used in a model to explain historical temperature changes. Here’s a graph offered by Ben Espin, a poster at Reilly’s site:


Espen notes that the sunspot-based temperature model matches up pretty well with the mean temperature data collected in the northern hemisphere except for the last 40 years or so. That is, until CO2 levels moved to levels higher than any seen in the last 800,000, solar activity provides a plausible explanation for temperature fluctuations. More recent warming seems to be largely CO2-driven.

Interesting Mike, I once read during the little ice age when Galileo was seeing the sun with the first telescopes there were very little sunspots. Now that there are more sunspots, temperatures are higher. Apart from that I know the Earth's axial tilt has a major effect on climate, the savannas of the Sahara 8000 years ago was because of the earth having a very slightly different tilt. Along with that there is that cycle of glacial and interglacial periods aka the Milankovitch cycle.

I got a feeling this issue (global warming and greenhouse gases) is being hyped by Boomers who want to turn this into a moral crusade. These are same sort of Boomers who want to ideally dismantle every nuclear and fossil fueled power plants and use 'renewable' energy sources instead. Also change the way we live, give up our cars and go back to traveling on trains, trams and bicycles, along with going back to living in dense cities (The boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens are a good example of dense living) and small towns. If this approach was ever put into practice living standards would nosedive (probably to a third or fourth present levels in developed world), but they are likely to nosedive anyway once the great devaluation hits.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I got a feeling this issue (global warming and greenhouse gases) is being hyped by Boomers who want to turn this into a moral crusade. These are same sort of Boomers who want to ideally dismantle every nuclear and fossil fueled power plants and use 'renewable' energy sources instead. Also change the way we live, give up our cars and go back to traveling on trains, trams and bicycles, along with going back to living in dense cities (The boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens are a good example of dense living) and small towns. If this approach was ever put into practice living standards would nosedive (probably to a third or fourth present levels in developed world), but they are likely to nosedive anyway once the great devaluation hits.

There are always a few die-hards that see everything in terms of a <insert descriptive> Crusade. If I have to guess, we will see a return of trains and communal ground transport, but it will be something newer-cleaner-better, or it will never succeed. Energy will be provided by diverse sources, nuclear certainly included, and energy use will be reduced by efficiency improvements more than denial.

In the end, the talk and action will only vaguely resemble one another.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I got a feeling this issue (global warming and greenhouse gases) is being hyped by Boomers who want to turn this into a moral crusade.

Huh? Didn't you see the graph? About 0.5 C of warming since 1975 associated with 50 ppm of CO2 rise. Continuing this trend of 1 C rise per 100 ppm we would expect the following effects using my earlier median forecast of rising CO2 levels:

Year CO2 Temp rel to 2005
2005 380 0
2015 403 0.2
2025 432 0.5
2035 469 0.9
2045 517 1.4
2055 579 2.0
2065 659 2.8
2075 760 3.8
2085 891 5.1
2095 1059 6.8


This looks like hype to you? To put it into perspective in the last ice ages temperature was about 6-8 C lower. This was after the ice has come down to 40-45 degrees north (exerting an enormous cooling effect). Obviously, a temperature decrease of much less than 6 C was sufficient to trigger the ice age.

We can expect temperatures of 6-8 C higher than today to be associated with the complete absence of the polar ice caps--most of it due to changes in albedo. Obviously a temperature rise much less than 6 C would we sufficient to trigger melting. If we continue with business as usual we are virtual certain to hit this point in this century. Considering that it would take at least 30 years before the trend in CO2 output could be significantly affected and probably another 30 years to stop the rise (power plants built today will still be operating in 2055 and the current plan is to build conventional coal plants).

Even if we started dealing with the issue in a non-disruptive fashion in 2010, which I find hard to believe will happen, we can expect no substantial change in the projections above before 2050 and perhaps a halt in temperature rise at 3 C warmer than today. This may or may not be sufficient to stop polar melting. But if we wait for another full degree temperature rise before even starting it will almost certainly be impossible to stop the poles from melting without drastic action. Doesn't prudence dictate that we take measured action now--when we can phase it in gradually in a market-friendly fashion--than to do nothing until drastic action is forced upon us thirty years down the road?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The sunspot record can be used in a model to explain historical temperature changes. Here’s a graph offered by Ben Espin, a poster at Reilly’s site:


Espen notes that the sunspot-based temperature model matches up pretty well with the mean temperature data collected in the northern hemisphere except for the last 40 years or so. That is, until CO2 levels moved to levels higher than any seen in the last 800,000, solar activity provides a plausible explanation for temperature fluctuations. More recent warming seems to be largely CO2-driven.

Nice graph. I'll add that you can easily spot the Mt Laki volcanic eruption in 1783 and the Mt Tambora eruption of 1815. Both kicked a lot of particle emissions into the air for significant global cooling effects, notably the 1816 "Year Without a Summer."

Looking at the above graph, one might be tempted to shrug off 'minor' temperature variations of a few degrees. Then one reads accounts of cop failures and farmers slaughtering cattle during the Year Without a Summer. I'm not sure that graphs such as the above adequately convey the impact of climate change.

The eruptions also produced some spectacular sunrises and sunsets, such as the one depicted in The Scream, which was painted in 1893, following the Krakatau eruption of 1883.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In the end, the talk and action will only vaguely resemble one another.

Truer words were never writ. Regardless how things end out, they are never the way the biggest talkers said they would be.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I got a feeling this issue (global warming and greenhouse gases) is being hyped by Boomers who want to turn this into a moral crusade. These are same sort of Boomers who want to ideally dismantle every nuclear and fossil fueled power plants and use 'renewable' energy sources instead. Also change the way we live, give up our cars and go back to traveling on trains, trams and bicycles, along with going back to living in dense cities (The boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens are a good example of dense living) and small towns. If this approach was ever put into practice living standards would nosedive (probably to a third or fourth present levels in developed world), but they are likely to nosedive anyway once the great devaluation hits.

There are certainly Boomers who still think this way; they are the types I refer to as "those who stopped thinking in 1975". There are others, such as Stewart Brand, Bruce Sterling, and David Brin, who are still Boomer environmentalists but recognize the relative value of a wider range of options.

For instance, newer pebble-bed nuclear reactors do away with most of the negatives of earlier nukes and will get us off fossil fuels long enough to develop cheap solar power; trains should be used where appropriate, and other options (hybrids, fuel cells, car sharing arrangements such as Zipcar) can reduce envrionmental footprint without sacrificing lifestyle. LED and flourescent bulbs can replace old incandescants and save money as well as the environment, etc.

Of course, the frozen-brain Boomers vilify the Techno-Gaians as sell-outs who have surrendered the purity of kami for the practicality of the Real World. But in the days to come, the masses of Xers, Millies, and Homelanders will decide which Boomer visions do and do not come to pass. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm with the Techno-Gaians over the neo-puritan Cryo-Hippies...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Of course, the frozen-brain Boomers vilify the Techno-Gaians as sell-outs who have surrendered the purity of kami for the practicality of the Real World. But in the days to come, the masses of Xers, Millies, and Homelanders will decide which Boomer visions do and do not come to pass. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm with the Techno-Gaians over the neo-puritan Cryo-Hippies...

This Techno-Gaian is very much getting sick by the eco-mystic True Believers whose brains stopped working in 1975. It seems like every time I say I support climate manipulation, nuclear energy and GMOs over at Democratic Undergroud the Deep Gaians who spam the Energy and Environment sub-forum shriek in horror. I really caused their heads to explode when I stated that I like both GMOs AND organic farming!

Originally Posted by catfishncod

There are certainly Boomers who still think this way; they are the types I refer to as "those who stopped thinking in 1975". There are others, such as Stewart Brand, Bruce Sterling, and David Brin, who are still Boomer environmentalists but recognize the relative value of a wider range of options.

For instance, newer pebble-bed nuclear reactors do away with most of the negatives of earlier nukes and will get us off fossil fuels long enough to develop cheap solar power; trains should be used where appropriate, and other options (hybrids, fuel cells, car sharing arrangements such as Zipcar) can reduce envrionmental footprint without sacrificing lifestyle. LED and flourescent bulbs can replace old incandescants and save money as well as the environment, etc.

Of course, the frozen-brain Boomers vilify the Techno-Gaians as sell-outs who have surrendered the purity of kami for the practicality of the Real World. But in the days to come, the masses of Xers, Millies, and Homelanders will decide which Boomer visions do and do not come to pass. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm with the Techno-Gaians over the neo-puritan Cryo-Hippies...

You make good points there, However even the moderates are proposing and already put into reality to a degree solutions which will lead to reduced living standards or at least reduced quality of life. At least where I live in Australia.

Such as here replacing the cheap coal fired power industry with more expensive power sources.

Not building much needed freeways in major cities to ease road congestion and spending lots of money on public transport which most people will not use. Land rationing which is driving up house prices to staggering levels across the country and locking out a whole generation from being able to own their own home, along with urban consolation policies which are suppose to prevent the urban sprawl.

I'm all for solutions to pressing real environmental problems, however not at the expense of people's standard of living and aspirations. Most people aspire to live in big houses on big blocks in the suburbs or exurbs, where public transport is never going to be competitive to automobiles. We now live in societies given the right policies the majority can achieve these dreams.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Huh? Didn't you see the graph? About 0.5 C of warming since 1975 associated with 50 ppm of CO2 rise. Continuing this trend of 1 C rise per 100 ppm we would expect the following effects using my earlier median forecast of rising CO2 levels:

Yes, however the chart only goes back a few centuries. Here is a solar activity chart going back some 1000 years, which shows solar activity is at it's highest level in 1000 years and that matches the increase in temperatures last century pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ity_labels.svg


I would like to see a temperature chart going back to end of the last glacial period. If I can convinced human are causing higher temperature through emissions of greenhouse gases. We still have to come up with solutions that do not harm the economic development of the third world at the very least.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Yes, however the chart only goes back a few centuries.

Why is this relevant?

Here is a solar activity chart going back some 1000 years, which shows solar activity is at it's highest level in 1000 years and that matches the increase in temperatures last century pretty well.

Sunspot number peaked in the 1950's at the highest level since sunspots have been recorded. The graphs you show also indicate that this 1950's peak is the highest in the last 1000 years. But sunspot number has not risen since the 1950's while temperature has. This tells us that recent warming is likely not due to solar activity. Nothing you have presented even addresses this point, much less refutes it.

I would like to see a temperature chart going back to end of the last glacial period.

Why is this relevant?

If I can convinced human are causing higher temperature through emissions of greenhouse gases. We still have to come up with solutions that do not harm the economic development of the third world at the very least.

We can do nothing and just deal with the outcome. The effects of climate change for Michigan, which is surrounded by the largest reservoir of fresh water on the planet are going to be a lot less severe than for those living in already hot and arid places like Australia or in low lying areas like Bangladesh.

Originally Posted by Tristan

You make good points there, However even the moderates are proposing and already put into reality to a degree solutions which will lead to reduced living standards or at least reduced quality of life. At least where I live in Australia.

Such as here replacing the cheap coal fired power industry with more expensive power sources.

Not building much needed freeways in major cities to ease road congestion and spending lots of money on public transport which most people will not use. Land rationing which is driving up house prices to staggering levels across the country and locking out a whole generation from being able to own their own home, along with urban consolation policies which are suppose to prevent the urban sprawl.

What appears 'moderate' to an American and to an Australian may be two different things. The projects you describe sound overly socialist to these self-described 'moderate' ears. In America, the moderates' push has been made for 'clean coal technology' and either a carbon tax or trading system, while reducing regulatory costs to the point that the newer and safer generation of nuclear plants can be built to be competitive with fossil fuel electrical generation. We've waited until energy prices rose sufficiently that increased public transport is being naturally demanded, instead of pushing and shoving people to abandon their cars ahead of time. Likewise, tax credits and easier loans can make hybrid cars, fuel-cell cars, and home solar energy installation easier. In general, the idea is to alter the regulatory and technology landscapes such that altering lifestyles in green directions is economically attractive -- then stand back and let the Invisible Hand do all the heavy lifting that placards and begging and pleading haven't done in forty years of effort. Co-opt the Man.

As for land rationing -- I can't tell if your housing price boom is locally generated by regulation or is part of the worldwide real estate price inflation. It's not just ya'll, mate, everyone's house price everywhere has gone bonkers. Europe, America, East Asia, Australia, India -- all of 'em. I don't understand it at all but the data are the data.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Doesn't prudence dictate that we take measured action now--when we can phase it in gradually in a market-friendly fashion--than to do nothing until drastic action is forced upon us thirty years down the road?

Prudence often dictates, but is only rarely obeyed. Panic, on the other hand, seems to get and keep our attention until a solution is obtained or the disaster runs its course.

Do you expect a better, more reasoned approach this time? Oddly, I do, but it's a contrarian belief with little more than intuition to back it.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

As for land rationing -- I can't tell if your housing price boom is locally generated by regulation or is part of the worldwide real estate price inflation. It's not just ya'll, mate, everyone's house price everywhere has gone bonkers. Europe, America, East Asia, Australia, India -- all of 'em. I don't understand it at all but the data are the data.

Believe me house prices here are pretty damn high for a country with lots of land which to build houses on it.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Believe me house prices here are pretty damn high for a country with lots of land which to build houses on it.

They say that land can be had pretty cheap out in Charleville (just like in Yakutsk). It's not how much land you have, but how much desirable land you have. Since almost the entire population of Oz is less than 500km from the sea, you can't really count all of your land as 'to build houses on'.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Prudence often dictates, but is only rarely obeyed. Panic, on the other hand, seems to get and keep our attention until a solution is obtained or the disaster runs its course.

Do you expect a better, more reasoned approach this time? Oddly, I do, but it's a contrarian belief with little more than intuition to back it.

I believe that unless the skeptics acknowledge that global warming could be a problem and some government response is prudent (instead of simply dismissing the issue), then they will have no input into the action that eventually will be taken to address the problem. If we wait until panic mode, then the government elected to deal with the problem will contain too few former skeptics for them to have input. Liberals such as myself who believe that we have time now to implement a gradualistic low-impact policy will no longer feel that way 20 years from now if recent temperature trends continue. Support will coalesce around command and control solutions--exactly what skeptics fear will happen. But this will happen because they refused to take the issue seriously while they were still in a position to help craft a solution.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

They say that land can be had pretty cheap out in Charleville (just like in Yakutsk). It's not how much land you have, but how much desirable land you have. Since almost the entire population of Oz is less than 500km from the sea, you can't really count all of your land as 'to build houses on'.

Even on the coast here is a lot of land for new housing to be built. Even in Sydney, which has large areas of undeveloped situtable land on the Cumberland plain just outside the metro area.

In the USA and Canada there are plenty of places, including fast growing cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta among others. Where housing is pretty affordable around $100,000 to $200,000 for an average home.

In Australia it is anywhere from USD150,000 in the inland cities to USD390,000 in cities like Sydney and Perth.

Given the right policies mean house price in major Australian cities should be around USD65,000 to USD138,000. Not at those levels I described.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Prudence often dictates, but is only rarely obeyed. Panic, on the other hand, seems to get and keep our attention until a solution is obtained or the disaster runs its course.

Do you expect a better, more reasoned approach this time? Oddly, I do, but it's a contrarian belief with little more than intuition to back it.

I believe that unless the skeptics acknowledge that global warming could be a problem and some government response is prudent (instead of simply dismissing the issue), then they will have no input into the action that eventually will be taken to address the problem. If we wait until panic mode, then the government elected to deal with the problem will contain too few former skeptics for them to have input. Liberals such as myself who believe that we have time now to implement a gradualistic low-impact policy will no longer feel that way 20 years from now if recent temperature trends continue. Support will coalesce around command and control solutions--exactly what skeptics fear will happen. But this will happen because they refused to take the issue seriously while they were still in a position to help craft a solution.

This seems to be the line of progress we're following, if progress is the right word to describe it. We should be looking for synergy with other needs, like the reduction and final elimination of fossil fuels for political and economic reasons as much as environmental ones. For some reason, we don't link them together, and that's simply foolish.

I do have some hope for moving ahead, and it was the 'successes' of the Bush administration that created it. Having fought so hard against this, and having destroyed their credibility so completely, the linkage of Bushian inaction to BushCo sleaze may be a good enough impetus to get this moving.

But like I wrote, I have nothing more than intuition to back this.

As April's temperatures plummet amid rare snow squalls, the issue of Global Warming is rising to new highs around these parts of fly-over country. People here are of the opinion that were it not for Global Warming there would ice engulfing our greening trees rather than merely snow.

There is little doubt that this spring's deep freeze is contributing to the growing consensus among scientists and political experts. Once July's heatwave begins to scorch mother Earth, this consensus will probably reach a boiling point. It remains to be seen whether America has that much time left in order to reverse the effects of Global Warming, but I guess we'll find out in the next couple of months.

Stay tuned...

Originally Posted by zilch

As April's temperatures plummet amid rare snow squalls, the issue of Global Warming is rising to new highs around these parts of fly-over country. People here are of the opinion that were it not for Global Warming there would ice engulfing our greening trees rather than merely snow.

There is little doubt that this spring's deep freeze is contributing to the growing consensus among scientists and political experts. Once July's heatwave begins to scorch mother Earth, this consensus will probably reach a boiling point. It remains to be seen whether America has that much time left in order to reverse the effects of Global Warming, but I guess we'll find out in the next couple of months.

Stay tuned...

Do you pracice the Big Lie as an art form, or are you just oblivious? That's a serious question.

This issue has been raised and debunked on this forum at least five or six times recently. I won't bother to refute it again, since those that will read it already know, and you that refuse to know will ignore it as usual.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This issue has been raised and debunked on this forum at least five or six times recently.

How can you debunk a "consensus" among scientists? If more say the world is flat, than those who say it's not, then the Big Government research $ub$idie$ go to the flat guys.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Even on the coast here is a lot of land for new housing to be built. Even in Sydney, which has large areas of undeveloped situtable land on the Cumberland plain just outside the metro area.

In the USA and Canada there are plenty of places, including fast growing cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta among others. Where housing is pretty affordable around $100,000 to $200,000 for an average home.

In Australia it is anywhere from USD150,000 in the inland cities to USD390,000 in cities like Sydney and Perth.

Given the right policies mean house price in major Australian cities should be around USD65,000 to USD138,000. Not at those levels I described.

I know that a lot of the factors in the construction industry are internal, but do not Austrailan devolopers compete on the international market for some of the same raw materials as devolopers in other nations? Here in South Carolina, much of the local contruction industry has been effectivly taken over by subcontractors using mostly undocumented Mexican workers. In theory, this should make homes cheaper, but it does not. It just pads the profit margin of the contractors. This isn't supposed to happen but it does.

The devolopers are going to charge what the market will bear. It is fairly consistant in urban areas in the devoloped world. Ending regulation will not result in cheaper housing, it will just cause the local government to lose the ability to amelorate the local problems. As conditions becoe untenable, a Federal approach that will likely not take into account local conditions is likely to be imposed. You will yearn for the days of local control.