The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[Bogweevil]

[QUOTE="joe soapy, post: 5370508, membe ....and Antarctica,the entire continent has been covered in ice ever since a sailing boat ran into a big lump of ice and discovered it.So, how come a man in 1500 was able to draw a very accurate map of the place?[/QUOTE]

aliens from outer space took him up over Antarctica in their spacecraft, gave him pencil and paper and Bob's yer uncle. Aliens also control the Dept of Transport because the motorway network seen from above is a message home that says 'home for dinner soon - they have rumbled us'.

 

[Dave645]

Peer review, not pear.
I was rushing, and it would not let me edit it when I read it latter to check it.
Einstein created the theory of relativity which was thought to explain the Universe. But it was found that this explanation of the universe only works for large objects (macro), but doesnt work for very small objects - some time later Quantum theory was found to work for small objects (micro).

There is currently no one overriding theory which works for both the macro and micro.

So science is not concluded based on it being 200 years old. Science moves on all the time.
I agree, but theory’s stand until they are shown to be wrong. Show me the science that proves co2 is not a greenhouse gas?
You cannot because it doesn’t exist, all we can debate is the level of the effect it has, which is very difficult because our planet is very complex. Things like water vapour and other factors, all have a role, including the fact the Planet is absorbing CO2.

Climate Science came up with Climate Models which were used by Ed Miliband to create Climate Policy in the UK. Those models were identified as being failures some time ago. To the extent that the very minimum they were wrong by was 1 degree - ie the climate pause. Other climate models were worse.
If we went by the predictions of deniers, theirs would be far more wrong they said the world was not warming, until they couldn’t deny that anymore then they shifted It to not by as much as predicted....
Now they predict it’s over, all without any science to prove their opinions, I hope it is but only time will tell.

To "Fix" the problem various agencies decided the "Temperature Data" had to be changed because the Seas were cooling/warmer more than was allowed for in the original climate models.
So when data shows what you want, a levelling off or decline the data’s good... but when it shows rises it’s bad? This has been the mantra for years if the data is not what some people think it should be because they predicted falls in temp years ago, because of this or that, they say the data’s faked or fudged, the moment the data shows what you want it to be it’s gold.... it hard to see why you expect the data to be more accurate now than it was.

BUT if UK policy is based on temperatures which are NOT going to happen in the future .. because the models are wrong and therefore we are not in the danger proposed by the original climate models .. then why do we have todays Climate Policy ?
Only in your mind do scientist jump to a conclusion with only 2 years worth of data, this is not going to swing long term policies around, I would add these polices are being used to fund renewable energy and other good measures, so even if your theories were proven true it’s unlikely to get them removed, the very fact we are pushing co2 levels well above the normal, is plenty of reason to stop producing co2, regardless of what it’s doing or not doing we are messing with our planet, and we only have one.

The reason about "Truth" is a question of the politics and if the original climate models were deliberately manipulated. In addition because the climate models are wrong and given the fact something as simple as the sea not being accounted for correctly .. the whole theory is open to question because of incompetance and previous manipulation of data.

My opinion having read the Climate literature for some years is that the situation was exaggerated many years ago. My gut feeling is that some have an unhealthy interest in manipulating the situation and quite frankly I do not trust the system at all - especially given the timing of Climate Policy and the rejection by the public of being taxed to fund the 3rd world.
We are not climate taxed to fund the 3rd world, that is just a trickle down of new tech, like solar, which offer the 3rd world the option to install that instead of coal fired power or other types of energy generation, Especially now the price point has dropped.

Climate taxes have been used to power, a tech and power revolution, that is fundamentally changing the way we live and power our lives, in a much more balanced renewable way, so even if 10 years down the road, we find that climate changes was over played and there is no impending disaster, or that we have managed to avert one. I don’t expect the underlying policies to change much, the reasons for it may change but not the goals. If the result of all this co2 taxes is we live in a cleaner, quieter UK, where a large portion of energy production come from clean renewable tech, it doesn’t sound that bad.

 

[ollie989898]

We are acidifying the oceans and pumping out arsenic and mercury by burning coal. It has to stop.

 

[wanton dwarf]

FFS. Large corporations are now stateless. I have told you that before. There is no such thing as a British, Gerrman or anything company. For all you know the majority of Siemens shareholders are Chinese, British or American, no one knows. The fact they have headquarters in Germany doesn't actually matter a job any longer. They have factories all over the shop.

Give the cost of establishing factories, and training staff, having a barbie doll factory in every consumer country is pointless, I thought you would have worked that out already.

But just what is it with you and your obsession with forcing people to make stuff in factories? I have told you countless times:

MANUFACTURING IS WHERE THE LEAST VALUE IS ADDED TO A PRODUCT.

You would think someone working in or connected to agriculture would understand that. The designer, owner and retailer of a product or service always make the most margin.

How many international companies have you worked for ?

 

[wanton dwarf]

I agree, but theory’s stand until they are shown to be wrong. Show me the science that proves co2 is not a greenhouse gas?

I don't need to.

Show me a Climate model which works.

So when data shows what you want, a levelling off or decline the data’s good... but when it shows rises it’s bad?

I didn't say that, you did. If you have a different version of what has happened in the history of Climate Science then say it. Fabricating a new version of what I've said doesn't disprove the history of what has happened. Nor will it change the mind of those who have issue with "Climate Science".

the very fact we are pushing co2 levels well above the normal

There is no "Normal". During the previous Ice Age CO2 got to 190ppm ... throughout history CO2 has been as high as 8000ppm and all levels in between. CO2 levels fluctuate as does Oxygen as do most gases and water vapour.

You say you are well read but keep demonstrating an avoidance of certain facts.

 

[ollie989898]

How many international companies have you worked for ?

What possible difference does that make?

 

[ollie989898]

For the uninitiated:

 

[wanton dwarf]

What possible difference does that make?

Either you've worked in an international company or not .. have you ?

 

[ollie989898]

Either you've worked in an international company or not .. have you ?

Come to think of it, yes, I have.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Come to think of it, yes, I have.

Which nationality is the company founded from ?

 

[wanton dwarf]

For the uninitiated:

View attachment 702830

Does this make the Climate Models work ?
Are the Chinese going to pay Climate Taxes because of this graph ?
Does paying Climate Taxes reduce CO2 ?
Does manufacturing UK goods in China reduce CO2 ?
Are the Chinese going to stop burning coal because you want Mercury reduced ?
Are the Chinese going to stop producing Barbie Dolls using low grade plastic ?

Or are all these just hurdles put in the way of the West whilst countries like China do whatever they like ?

 

[ollie989898]

Does this make the Climate Models work ?
Are the Chinese going to pay Climate Taxes because of this graph ?
Does paying Climate Taxes reduce CO2 ?
Does manufacturing UK goods in China reduce CO2 ?
Are the Chinese going to stop burning coal because you want Mercury reduced ?
Are the Chinese going to stop producing Barbie Dolls using low grade plastic ?

Or are all these just hurdles put in the way of the West whilst countries like China do whatever they like ?

What the cronk are you on about, have you been at the sauce?

The Chinese are putting their house in order, steadily. Maybe you didn't get that memo; they have recognised their air quality is poor. It is causing a big issue and having half their population with chronic lung conditions is not good for your economy:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-to-expand-air-pollution-measures#gs.f8VIRBc

Air pollution in China is now affecting 37 percent of China's population, and measures taken so far are falling short of government goals and public expectations. The new plan offers tougher limits and proposes a quicker shift to cleaner fuels such as LNG and electricity, and high grade iron ore, coal and metals.

The challenge is many of these commodities are not produced competitively locally and need to be imported. Additionally, a large portion of existing capacity will now require stricter supervision and environmental compliance. As a result, Prakash Sharma, Head of China Research at Wood Mackenzie, expects domestic costs to rise and production curbs to increase. A proposed ban on trucking to move raw materials from port to plant could also be a game changer, as it creates more competition between domestic supply and imports.

The plan extends its reach to cities in the Fenwei plain in Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan provinces, where air pollution is worsening. It calls for prioritizing district heating with coal-based combined heat and power plants and more switching from coal to gas or electricity. Henan province has said it will switch a further one million households by October 2018.

China has cut thermal coal consumption by 350Mt in the heating and cement sectors since 2013. “Further reductions will come,” says Sharma. “But it will be a challenge to switch to gas completely because it is more expensive and domestic supply is short. Heating demand in northern China is 300 bcm gas equivalent but actual consumption is only 30 bcm. One can imagine the potential impact on global gas markets if China were to switch fully, or quickly.” Sharma expects gas supply prioritization and rationing to continue to serve heavily polluted residential areas of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei cluster and the Fenwei plain.

They are looking at ways at mitigating the emissions from coal, just as the Germans are, whilst being a major player in research and development with regards to nuclear power, 58 in the pipeline, I believe: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Start-up-nearing-for-Chinese-units-2503144.html

China currently has 20 nuclear power reactors in operation with a combined capacity of 17,130 MWe. A further 28 units are under construction. Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020.

Are the Chinese going to stop making barbie dolls from low grade plastic? I have no idea, ask the people who specify what materials are used in production maybe?

The Chinese 'just do whatever they like', not that I am aware of? Are you confusing them with Trump, who wishes he could do what he liked?

 

[wanton dwarf]

What the cronk are you on about, have you been at the sauce?

The Chinese are putting their house in order, steadily. Maybe you didn't get that memo; they have recognised their air quality is poor. It is causing a big issue and having half their population with chronic lung conditions is not good for your economy:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-to-expand-air-pollution-measures#gs.f8VIRBc

Air pollution in China is now affecting 37 percent of China's population, and measures taken so far are falling short of government goals and public expectations. The new plan offers tougher limits and proposes a quicker shift to cleaner fuels such as LNG and electricity, and high grade iron ore, coal and metals.

The challenge is many of these commodities are not produced competitively locally and need to be imported. Additionally, a large portion of existing capacity will now require stricter supervision and environmental compliance. As a result, Prakash Sharma, Head of China Research at Wood Mackenzie, expects domestic costs to rise and production curbs to increase. A proposed ban on trucking to move raw materials from port to plant could also be a game changer, as it creates more competition between domestic supply and imports.

The plan extends its reach to cities in the Fenwei plain in Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan provinces, where air pollution is worsening. It calls for prioritizing district heating with coal-based combined heat and power plants and more switching from coal to gas or electricity. Henan province has said it will switch a further one million households by October 2018.

China has cut thermal coal consumption by 350Mt in the heating and cement sectors since 2013. “Further reductions will come,” says Sharma. “But it will be a challenge to switch to gas completely because it is more expensive and domestic supply is short. Heating demand in northern China is 300 bcm gas equivalent but actual consumption is only 30 bcm. One can imagine the potential impact on global gas markets if China were to switch fully, or quickly.” Sharma expects gas supply prioritization and rationing to continue to serve heavily polluted residential areas of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei cluster and the Fenwei plain.

They are looking at ways at mitigating the emissions from coal, just as the Germans are, whilst being a major player in research and development with regards to nuclear power, 58 in the pipeline, I believe: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Start-up-nearing-for-Chinese-units-2503144.html

China currently has 20 nuclear power reactors in operation with a combined capacity of 17,130 MWe. A further 28 units are under construction. Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020.

Are the Chinese going to stop making barbie dolls from low grade plastic? I have no idea, ask the people who specify what materials are used in production maybe?

The Chinese 'just do whatever they like', not that I am aware of? Are you confusing them with Trump, who wishes he could do what he liked?

No climate regulation, no climate taxes, no recycling, using coal which you say you don't like because of mercury .. PH increased in the oceans .. but all of that is ok as long as the UK keeps paying climate taxes.

Doesn't stack up to CO2 being a serious problem.

Looks to me as though the problem is UK manufacturing .. obviously producing goods using clean UK energy with no transport pollution is worse than Chinese unregulated non Climate tax paying dirty energy using manufacturing needing 1000s of miles of transport.

Right got that.

Of course when India and Africa increase their economies more CO2 won't be created either. That's obviously not what the Paris Climate agreement is for, transferring $ Trillions.

Could this be "Polishing a Turd" ?

 

[ollie989898]

No climate regulation, no climate taxes, no recycling, using coal which you say you don't like because of mercury .. PH increased in the oceans .. but all of that is ok as long as the UK keeps paying climate taxes.

Doesn't stack up to CO2 being a serious problem.

Looks to me as though the problem is UK manufacturing .. obviously producing goods using clean UK energy with no transport pollution is worse that Chinese unregulated non Climate tax paying dirty energy using manufacturing needing 1000s of miles of transport.

Right got that.

Of course when India and Africa increase their economies more CO2 won't created either.

Could this be "Polishing a Turd" ?

India will have the exact same problems and has already begun to address it. I note they are also major players in the nuclear power world.,

Africa will have the same problems.

In areas where they are so dirt poor they can't even afford electricity, no one is in any position to argue what they should or should not do. Once everyone is housed, fed and has access to cheap energy, then you have a chance to address environmental concerns. Making them richer means they will have fewer kids; that's an environmental win already. Being richer will also mean there is more chance to sell them stuff, you know, international commerce and trade. Washing machines, not just weaponry.

All countries have to go through the same societal and industrial developmental process. You cannot expect people living in abject poverty with their child life expectancy being incredibly low, to give two hoots about the Ozone layer or Ocean acidification, or plastic.

 

[wanton dwarf]

India will have the exact same problems and has already begun to address it. I note they are also major players in the nuclear power world.,

Africa will have the same problems.

In areas where they are so dirt poor they can't even afford electricity, no one is in any position to argue what they should or should not do. Once everyone is housed, fed and has access to cheap energy, then you have a chance to address environmental concerns. Making them richer means they will have fewer kids; that's an environmental win already. Being richer will also mean there is more chance to sell them stuff, you know, international commerce and trade. Washing machines, not just weaponry.

All countries have to go through the same societal and industrial developmental process. You cannot expect people living in abject poverty with their child life expectancy being incredibly low, to give two hoots about the Ozone layer or Ocean acidification, or plastic.

Or you could just stop using the 3rd world as a cheap dirty source of goods, reduce CO2 in the West and when a cheap energy source is found roll that out .. but no CO2 is so NOT serious that this doesn't need to be done.

Never mind the potential 3 Billion new consumers all creating Western levels of CO2. 4 Billion if you include the existing Chinese population.

QED.

 

[ollie989898]

Or you could just stop using the 3rd world as a cheap dirty source of goods, reduce CO2 in the West and when a cheap energy source is found roll that out .. but no CO2 is so NOT serious that this doesn't need to be done.

Never mind the potential 3 Billion new consumers all creating Western levels of CO2.

QED.

3 billion new customers; bring it on.

There is already cheap energy; but your mate drumpf has neatly ensured the USA will not join that party for decades, the Chinese must be cock-a-hoop at being in the premier position to be the world's leading renewable and nuclear energy innovators. Give it another 20 years and someone will have a commercial molten salt reactor operating for less than the cost of a modern coal-fired power-station and it's game set and match in that regard.

Why in the heck would I want to cease trading with anyone but UK companies? We have already established that most major companies are effectively stateless now; BP have more overseas assets than they do British ones any longer, although I doubt that is one-off given their origins in the Middle East. But more to the point, what if a UK company doesn't produce their goods within our borders or they simply don't sell what I want? No thank you, I am quite happy with my Miele washing machine; our Swedish cars and electrical goods from Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. Although I am quite happy to bank with an allegedly UK institution and purchase insurance from them?

Carbon dioxide is serious, no matter how much you loathe the costs and complexity involved in reducing it. There is much to be cheerful about. Fortunately, as a wealthy Western economy, we can afford and have agreed with others that we will reduce our emissions and tidy up how we conduct our affairs, and quite right too, someone has to lead the way and get off a diet of fossil fuels, shame the Americans will be wedded to the stuff for decades when the rest of us are way past that but that is their problem. Meanwhile look at the UK manufacturers of wind turbines go, using all that clever composite plastics technology we developed...

What are you so worried about UK manufacturing for, anyway?

https://www.cps.org.uk/blog/q/date/2012/09/11/industrial-strategy-no-thanks/

 

[Dave645]

[YQUOTE="wanton dwarf, post: 5372330, member: 5903"]I don't need to.

Show me a Climate model which works.[/QUOTE]
Lol evasion, you cannot show co2 is not a green house gas, so you move the discussion to models. . . which side of the arguments has been closest? The answers is our side yours has never shown a graph prediction at all that’s going up. Only that co2 is not having an effect which you cannot prove, so why claim it, if science is on your side you should have proof!
So quit saying co2 doesn't create a greenhouse effect, unless you have evidence that it doesn’t.
As for models your right they don’t get them accurate, because it’s very difficult to predict accurately, the fact they have predicted increases over falls has been mostly true for the better part of 40 years which is a better track record than, some parties have made. The disruption to weather patterns are hard to factor in as are cloud cover changes attributed to these changes.

Can you show me a climate model for your predictions on what’s to come. Then we can see how actuate the people you believe in are going to be?

I didn't say that, you did. If you have a different version of what has happened in the history of Climate Science then say it. Fabricating a new version of what I've said doesn't disprove the history of what has happened. Nor will it change the mind of those who have issue with "Climate Science".
You yourself said they fixed the temprature data it was in my reply a quote of what you said your implying data was fixed to show climate change was going on when it was not, so fixed! So now your denying your own statements?

There is no "Normal". During the previous Ice Age CO2 got to 190ppm ... throughout history CO2 has been as high as 8000ppm and all levels in between. CO2 levels fluctuate as does Oxygen as do most gases and water vapour.
Yes their is, it’s the normal for the time man and life as we know it has existed The last million years or so. Going back to times where the planet was radically different in a number of areas not least tempratures is just grasping at straws, to avoid the obvious, man is having an effect on the Earth. Co2 levels Changes are having unknown levels of effect but you chose to not see that and that you think man has no effect. Everything we do has an effect, the cities warm the air which can effect weather, we chop down trees, we build roads, all these are effecting our planet so have an effect on it regardless of how small each effect is individually they add up, so man effects the planet.

You say you are well read but keep demonstrating an avoidance of certain facts.
No one knows everything, if you shared a few links to your data sources then I would read them, but you don’t.
The only link to data so far anyone has shown me are pictures and YouTube videos these are not helpful you need to show links that also share their data sources or scientific papers themselves, or websites where we can verify them. You blow a lot of smoke, but you fail to show anyone the fire that’s making it!
Show me anything your saying has scientific basis and links to that science that hopefully has data or scientific papers to read, and I can draw my own conclusions from it when I read it.

If you cannot do that why are you posting, personal opinion or parroted blurb without first seeing if it’s correct or not? And how can you tell it’s correct if you don’t look up the data yourself. If you do, do that then share the links?

You give off very mixed messages, from your posts, you come across has having scientific knowledge including basic or better understanding of the processes of climate change yet, you spend most of your time with political statements about the unfairness of how these changes are taxed for and that other countries, are not paying their share or pulling their weight, you think some of the clean air renewable energy side of things are good, yet you seem to want to stop the money that helping to pay for them.
It’s seems that you have a personal dislike of the effect taxes have had on UK industries and jobs and that is colouring your opinion on climate change rather than looking at the excepted facts you prefer to look for facts that fit what you believe because you believe climate taxes are damaging UK industry and jobs.

This is me reading between the lines, of your posts, I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, that you are a renowned climate scientist and have studied this for 40 years have lots of data sources to back up your conclusions. Your not just repeating things you have heard, on websites that also have an agenda.

I do have an agenda the truth. I also want to protect my families future the only 100% garenteed way to do that is to take climate change seriously, believing it’s not true is 50:50 at best. Betting on climate change is like an each way bet on a 2 horse race you win what ever the outcome, we get clean air and use renewable energy for most of our energy. Even if we lose and climate change is not a make or break issue. If it is we may just save the human race as we know it.

But if you want to put your money and bet against it, that’s your choice just don’t ask us to do the same. Which seems to be what your posts are trying to do. We have 40 years or more of evidence for rising Global temperatures yet you chose to disregard all of that, without producing a single link to prove it. Why should we believe you Over data ?

 

[Farmer Roy]

New
August 6 2018 - 7:00AM
Farmers need to call out climate risks

On January 3, 2014 we had an extraordinary hot day. It was regarded as a one in 100-year event, and it knocked hundreds of millions of dollars of summer crop production in the region.



In February 2017 it happened again, coupled with a record-breaking period of continuous extreme heat. So much for one in a 100; it now feels like the new normal.

In my farming business, the impact of a changing climate is already evident and seriously harmful. As we continue to witness record-breaking weather event after record-breaking weather event, the government stands by.

I’m now convinced more than ever that, by setting a lowball target of only 26 per cent reduction in emissions from the energy sector, the federal government is failing to grasp the reality of what happens if we continue to compromise our nation’s agricultural capacity.

As farmers, we need to stand up and call out genuine risks to our industry. If we don’t act on climate change now, we are condemning our livelihoods and all future generations to oblivion.

The simplest and most cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions lies in transitioning the static electricity generation industry to renewables.

Regional Australia presents an amazing opportunity for decentralised, 5-10 megawatt solar installations at a fraction of the cost of large-scale solar.

The award-winning Chillamurra solar farm near Goondiwindi has proven this, by using smaller panels to save up to 40 per cent on construction costs.

Australian farmers are extremely resilient when it comes to managing production and market volatility. But climate change will soon put more pressure on our systems than ever before, meaning we can no longer survive on our own.

Energy and policy settings built around electoral cycles and destructive back bench capitulations are completely at odds with the long-term needs of our economy and the foundations of our society.

In the context of energy policy, the national interest is best served through a planned and orderly transition to clean energy and a much higher emissions reduction target for the energy sector.

In the end we are all just stewards of the land, with a responsibility to pass it on to future generations in good condition, or preferably better than we received it. Australia can and must show global leadership on mitigating carbon emissions now.

Peter Mailler is a grain producer from Goondiwindi, Queensland.

 

[Farmer Roy]

I don't even know why we are wasting time arguing if climate change is real when systems are crashing all around us. Instead of fiddling while Rome burns, we need to be taking action before we reach a tipping point of no return


Long-term plan for farming and climate change

2,054 have signed. Let’s get to 2,500!

Farmers for Climate Action started this petition to Federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud
My name is Jody Brown and I'm a grazier from Longreach in Central West QLD. I’m responsible for roughly 2000 ewes and their lambs, 550 cows and their calves, plus about 80 maiden heifers and 20 horses. There are many small challenges we face every day as graziers: a cow with calving issues, a busted water pipe, or a bull that’s jumped out of his paddock.

But by far, the biggest challenge we face in the long term is damage to our climate. Climate change has already warmed the planet one degree and makes droughts like our current one longer and hotter.

Our region is now in its 6th consecutive year of drought, and it’s not an isolated incident. We have been dealing with ongoing droughts of increasing severity and duration for the better part of the last two decades.

That's why, along with thousands of other farmers, I’m part of Farmers for Climate Action. We’re calling for a national plan on farming and climate change. We have already seen some progress on this at the last meeting of state and federal agriculture Ministers. Now it's time to prioritise, implement and fund it.

This plan will guide our federal and state governments through what they need to do to reduce emissions and help farmers manage the changes that are already predicted in a warming world. We need a plan to manage what we can't avoid, and avoid what we can't manage.

The national plan on farming and climate change should include:

• Comprehensive research on the direct and indirect risks climate change poses to Australian agri-food systems, including risks to primary production, biosecurity, food processing, food safety, farmer health, key infrastructure, equity, animal welfare, export markets, and farm inputs;
• Short-, medium-, and long-term targets for adapting Aussie farming to climate change including a ‘just transition’ for regions that will no longer be viable for agriculture;
• Support for farmers to transition to ‘climate-smart’ agricultural practices that build resilience and reduce emissions, including funding for research, development, education, training and extension in this area;
• A long-term plan to promote clean energy in farming communities, including community-owned renewables projects that can provide sustainable, alternative income for farmers during drought;
• A strong commitment to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, in a way that maximises benefits to farmers and rural communities, and investigating all options for supporting farmers to capture and maintain carbon in our soils and vegetation;
• A commitment to stopping new coal and gas mines. Fossil fuel mines use water that we as farmers desperately need, and make climate change worse.

Climate change is not a future problem. This drought is not business as usual. For farmers, climate change is here now. And our politicians need a long-term plan to deal with it, for the sake of Aussie food and farming.

 

[Farmer Roy]

Drought drives push for policy reform

Mike Foley@micksfoley

9 Aug 2018, 3:30 p.m.
News

Malcolm Turnbull and Parkes MP Mark Coulton talk with the Miles family of "Strathmore", Trangie, NSW during the PM's recent drought "listening tour".

Share
Tweet
Aa

Calls mount for for future-proofing reforms as climate risks increase

Share
Tweet
Aa

It’s the last thing we want to hear when so many of our farming communities are battling a big dry, but the long term scenario for southern Australia under the influence of climate change is for more frequent droughts coupled with generally hotter temperatures and less soil moisture.

This outlook adds impetus to calls for a concerted effort on coordinated national drought policy to bolster the investment in preparation many in the sector are already making.

Hotter temperatures, elevated likelihood of less rain at the right time means action is needed.

This week National Farmers’ Federation president Fiona Simson urged the federal government into policy action.

“We are certainly concerned that as a Commonwealth we don’t have a Federal drought policy in place. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Drought expired in July,” Ms Simson said.

Related:

• Australia drought risk revealed in ice core analysis
• Tougher times for marginal cropping country
• Rainfall zones on the march
  
  • [URL='https://www.theland.com.au/story/3588931']Drought policy Q&A with Australian Farm Institute
  [/URL]

[URL='https://www.theland.com.au/story/3588931']She welcomed the announcement of increased funding for the Farm Household Allowance, directed at farmers in dire straits, and suggested targeted grants or even tax incentives for drought infrastructure could be part of future preparedness policy.

“Obviously the focus now needs to be on providing help to farmers for their immediate needs. But we’d also like to see, as soon as possible, the Government get serious on developing an appropriate, future-focussed drought policy,” Ms Simson said.

“A successful drought policy needs to include measures to support farmers in normal seasons; when farms are drying, during a dry phase and in recovery. It needs to address the social, economic and environment needs of a farm business.”

The evidence of global warming’s impact on weather is clear. Average air temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius since 1910. The 2016 Australian Climate Variability and Change report from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO said there is “very high confidence” in continued increases to temperatures in Australia throughout this Century.

According to the 11-year mean temperature for 2007–2017 was the highest on record at 0.61 °C above average. Seven of Australia's ten warmest years have occurred since 2005 and Australia has experienced just one cooler than average year in the last decade (2011). This July was the warmest on record, beating the record set the previous year.

Aside from potential disruption to rainfall patterns from climate change, the demonstrated trend of higher temperatures results in increased evaporation, reduced soil moisture and changes to plant growth and physiology. Less stored moisture leads to higher risk cropping in many parts of Australia.

Farmers for Climate Action is a member body of the NFF and is leading the call for proactive ag policy.


Reduced rainfall and hihger maximum temepratures has reduced potential wheat yields according to CSIRO. Image source ABARES.

“We can have a bright future ahead of us in agriculture, but first we want to see a new, national coordinated policy that takes into account the climate trends, and the risks of climate change,” said FFCA chief executive Verity Morgan-Schmidt.

“We need to see a comprehensive analysis of the risks and opportunities facing the ag sector, right across Australia’s broad range of commodities.

“We also need support for adaptive management, and analysis of its limits, as well as increased climate literacy for farmers.”

CSIRO senior research scientist Dr Jaci Brown said while temperature forecasts are well-accepted, climate change’s impact on drought in southern Australia was far from settled science.

“Scientists are very confident temperatures will continue to increase under climate change. But rainfall variance is less certain.

“We don’t know how climate change effects La Nina and El Nino cycles. Does it make them bigger, smaller or more frequent? That’s the big question for Australia.

“We know climate change is happening on a global scale and we know it’s getting warmer. It’s the subtleties about rainfall patterns that’s uncertain,” Dr Brown said.

“It's alarming that we are seeing drying trends but we don’t yet know how much is due to climate change and if it will continue into the future.”


Negative impacts to yields from climate change has cancelled out wheat growers' productivity growth, according to a CSIRO study co-authored by scientists Zvi Hochman, David Gobbett and Heidi Horan.

Bureau of Meteorology manager of long-range forecast services Dr Andrew Watkins agreed with Dr Brown that climate change’s impact on rainfall “is a more complex problem” than the temperature trend.

“In the most simplistic explanation, for each degree of warming you get a seven per cent increase of water that can be held in the atmosphere. So when it rains we expect it to rain more. But we also expect rain events to be less frequently.

Dr Watkins said wet tropic zones had been expanding at a rate of between 5 to 10 kilometres a year.

“We expect climate change to make it wetter in the tropics, which are moving southwards over Australia. But we expect the semi-arid zones which below the tropics to move south as well.”

“We are seeing increasing aridity in many areas. It’s slow, but we now have the research to say it’s happening.”

Australian Climate Variability and Change report said climate change has been linked to a positive Southern Annular Mode across the bottom half of the continent.

The SAM is a weather pattern which influences the movement of rain-bearing low pressure systems and cold fronts across the bottom of Australia.

During a positive phase the westerly winds associated with the SAM contract towards the South Pole and high pressure systems linger over the middle of the continent.

This effect is predicted to reduce winter rain in southern Australia.

Overall, the report predicts with a high level of confidence that time spent in drought will increase in southern Australia - consistent with the projected decline in rainfall.

Moderate to severe droughts are expected to occur less frequently, while severe droughts are forecast to become more common.

Dr Brown said increased climate variability added a degree of difficulty to farming practices.

“Australia is surrounded by three ocean basins that contribute to rainfall patterns. There’s so many different factors at play, which makes is very hard to say how rainfall will change year by year,” Dr Brown said.

“Decisions on planting and so on are often based on past experience, but now we are moving into different territory and we can’t necessarily look at the past.

“Because we have a system with climate change in it we don’t have those analogues of previous practice that apply to the future in the same way.”

The BoM lists the likelihood of a drying El Niño event at ‘watch’ level - which means there’s a 50pc of an El Nino in 2018.
[/URL]