Jump to content
The Corroboree
Evil Genius

The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

Recommended Posts

Earth at risk of 'hothouse climate' where efforts to reduce emissions will have no impact, study finds

An ice shelf reflecting off the water.
IMAGEA "hothouse" climate could trigger earth processes like a major reduction of Antarctic sea ice.(Australian Antarctic Division: Richard Youd)

If humans cause the earth's global average temperature to increase by a further 1 degree Celsius, the world could face a "hothouse" climate and trigger further warming — even when all human emissions cease, an international study has found.

Key points:

  • Study found the climate is heading for a tipping point that could make the planet uninhabitable
  • It could cause temperatures up to 5C higher than pre-industrial averages
  • Current global efforts to curb emissions are "unlikely" to prevent the dangerous situation

The study titled Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, which involved researchers from around the world, was published in the international journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).


It found the Earth was heading for a tipping point, known as a "hothouse" climate, which could lead to average temperatures up to 5C higher than pre-industrial temperatures and rises in sea level of between 10 and 60 metres.

Lead researcher Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University (ANU) said at that point much of the earth would be uninhabitable.


He explained that if human emissions raised global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures it could trigger earth system processes — or feedbacks — that could then cause further warming.

"The real concern is these tipping elements can act like a row of dominoes," Professor Steffen said.

"Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another.


Current efforts 'unlikely' to help avoid tipping point

Professor Steffen said global average temperatures were currently just over 1C above pre-industrial temperatures and rising at 0.17C each decade.


And he said while humans were not the sole cause of temperature changes on Earth, the current efforts by nations to reduce emissions and stop average temperatures rising by a further 1C were "unlikely to help avoid this very risky situation".


"Even if the Paris Accord [Agreement] target of a 1.5C to 2C rise in temperature is met, we cannot exclude the risk that a cascade of feedbacks could push the Earth system irreversibly onto a 'hothouse Earth' pathway," the study said.


"As yet [these initiatives] are not enough to meet the Paris target."


Professor Steffen said countries needed to work together to "greatly accelerate the transition towards an emission-free world economy".



"Collective human action is required to steer the Earth system away from a potential threshold and stabilise it in a habitable interglacial-like state."


The authors of the study examined 10 feedback processes, some of which could cause "the uncontrollable release" of carbon back into the atmosphere, after it had been stored in the earth.


Some of the processes also included permafrost thaw, Amazon rainforest dieback, a reduction of northern hemisphere snow cover, a loss of Arctic summer sea ice, and a reduction of Antarctic sea ice and polar ice sheets.


The study did not lay down a timeframe for when such events would begin to occur, but theorised — if the threshold was crossed — it could be within a century or two.


"The impacts of a hothouse earth pathway on human societies would likely be massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive," the study said.



  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

Current global efforts to curb emissions are "unlikely" to prevent the dangerous situation

I believe it is way to late, dammed if we do and dammed if we don't, without modern industrialization and our pollutants from modern civilization  there likely would be an almost instant warming effect and then the feedbacks really will go like dominoes due to the loss of global dimming


19 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

The authors of the study examined 10 feedback processes, some of which could cause "the uncontrollable release" of carbon back into the atmosphere, after it had been stored in the earth.

Don't forget methane from shallow icy waters and such 

19 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

The study did not lay down a timeframe for when such events would begin to occur, but theorised — if the threshold was crossed — it could be within a century or two.

A century or two is always comforting to say as we will be dead by then anyway and gives a sense of ample time to solve the issue, i think that amount of time is generous and wouldn't be surprised if we see society collapse as little as 2-5 years from now perhaps even sooner, all conjecture but the future for modern society and humans, it does not seem great from my eyes


Now if you would like to sign up to my dooms day death cult get in touch, it is only a $12.30 a month fee, we have meetings every second tuesday where juice and finger snacks are provided, we encourage members to help contribute to the food supply and preparation but if you cannot for any reason that is fine, just bring yourself along and have a great time. 

Activities include pin the comet on the continent, turn around touch the ground the whole world is burning down, poetry reading and death metal music, sharing of current doom porn and much much more.

For an additional $3.30 a month you can receive our exclusive bimonthly newsletter covering the process of world destruction and disasters.

Hope to see you all there : ) 

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bardo said:

without modern industrialization and our pollutants from modern civilization  there likely would be an almost instant warming effect and then the feedbacks really will go like dominoes due to the loss of global dimming

That is even if there is a significant reduction

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 5:23 PM, Crop said:

Sorry a bit off topic.

DualWieldRake You started a thread somewhere asking for business advise. This is may not be the right place, nor the sort of advise you where looking for, but in the true spirit of many of your posts, I'm going to give it anyway.

You started a seed shop, and advertised it on here. Seems like a smart move, given pretty much every one on here, as well as everyone that looks on here, is a potential customer. You then go on several threads insulting people. At times you even insult whole groups of people, gays for instance. Now I'm not gay, but this sort of stuff still effects where I want to spend my money. I bet I'm not the only one.

Mate in business your not only selling your products, your selling your self.


Good point, i'm aware of not beeing PC so i've joined forces with PR department to keep me out of messing up the marketing ;)


What this doesn't make any of ya'll is less retarded though ;)

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 11:37 AM, Northerner said:



Reputation is much easier to lose and much harder to get back than money.


Good thing about threads like these is that they allow to filter out drones easily

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2018 at 3:12 AM, Crop said:


I would love to believe Allan but i am very skeptical of his claims, here is my ineloquent and basic critique 


3.58 he refers to algae crust as the cancer of desertification, i would think that cattle breaking the crust up would make the soil more susceptible to erosion, here is some info about biological soil crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_soil_crust


He says desertification is caused by live stock but there are other causes as well such as deforestation and drought and so on


6.00 He says he proved they had to many elephants so they kill 40000 elephants and it got worse, so how can we trust his current "proof" of the issue and that it won't lead to negative effects ? (and this guy says he loves wildlife)


7.00 He sees a national park in the united states desertifying that hasn't had stock on it for over 70 years, in a previous claim he says live stock causes desertification tho it is clearly happening in places without livestock as well


10.50 he states burning 1 hectare of grass land gives off more and more damaging pollutants than 6000 cars. 6000 cars doing what ? running on idol ? for how long ? driving a certain distance ? what kind of cars ? burning how much fuel ? lol 


12.16 "there is only one solution " "that's the only solution" "There is no other alternative" He speaks this in such a definitive way, those statements sounds like he is an all knowing savior, that's a bit much considering the issue of climate change is so complex, vast and multi faceted, sounds a bit delusional to me. 


17.20 When it's green there is puddles of water, i think that may have something to do with it, that is if that is even the same area/paddock.


17.36 Pity the mountain in the background is so blurry and out of focus in the 1974 shot, cause it would be weird if this method also greened the mountain that clearly wouldn't be able to utilize his methods, this stuff kinda reminds me of those anti aging creams and fat blasting weight loss ads and the likes.


20.00 "by just doing that we can take us back to pre-industrial levels" i doubt that especially with the current and growing population, i doubt you could sequester that amount of carbon just using this method, that is if this method is even feasible in the first place.


21.00 A good question and he couldn't answer it clearly, so no feeding required when you use a sigmoid curve (which is basically a fancy way of saying an s shape) ? What ?


So when he says a five pound note if in a 100 mile drive someone could find one grass and on that we tripled the stocking rate in the first year with no feeding.

So did they find any grass ? that sentence gives no real indication of how much grass there was in that area, absolutely none lol, they may have found a grass or 1000 grasses or none ? lol


I would like to know how the large number of stock in this method are going to eat and drink sufficiently in the dessert ?








Edited by bardo
add something

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2018 at 9:52 AM, DualWieldRake said:

What this doesn't make any of ya'll is less retarded though ;)


On 22/08/2018 at 9:56 AM, DualWieldRake said:

Good thing about threads like these is that they allow to filter out drones easily


Great to have you back and involved in the thread again, such great and sophisticated contributions and counter arguments  :P






  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bardo said:

I would love to believe Allan but i am very skeptical of his claims,

Yeh, there's not doubt he's very rapped up in his own ideas and he has a tenancy to over simplify complex problems (something the elephants learned the hard way). However this fella's not just an academic, he has been out there, doing this, on a fairly large scale, for a long time and getting results. Maybe he offers some of the solution, for some situations. For instance large parts of Australia's north are being taken over by gamba grass. Gamba is a perennial clumping grass from Africa, introduced by cow cockeys back in the eighties. each year the clumps get bigger. 3-4m high and the same wide is already common. It has a high nitrogen content so burns hot. Combine that with a pyromaniacal bush fire council and you have regular fires, that are so hot they can kill mature Eucalypt's (not to mention all the the fury critters), turning woodlands into grasslands in as little as 10 years. The only success I've ever seen at controlling gamba, over a largish area, especially in woodland , is by rotational grassing of water buffalo. Personally I've never let hooved stock on my place, but I've also watched my once pristine forest degrade to the point I don't live there any more.

 This is only a short Ted Talk, might be worth a better look.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me this long to realise that DualWieldRake has Abbotted us. Even though there's a consensus here that it's ignorant to accept anything other than the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening, and that it poses a serious threat to countless species and entire ecosystems on our planet, here we are back-and-forthing about it for pages. Maybe it's time to change the discussion. 


Another pitfall I have noticed in the discussion on climate change is the green identity politics notion that by recycling all your plastics or riding your bike to work you are "being green" and doing your bit against climate change. I'm all for reusing and recycling, using energy efficient transport, etc. But feelgood green identity politics miss the point that taking these measures has very little impact within a system that is based on, and fuelled by, environmental damage. I saw this article that i thought outlines this problem nicely, here's a bit of it and link below:



The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare.

Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite: lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have obstructed green policies and kept fossil fuel subsidiesflowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most effective means for workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.

At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy — so that solar panels can go on everyone’s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.


Edited by hashslingr
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that as technology becomes more mass produced, things will change. No energy company in Australia would sink money into a new coal fired power station, and they are at odds with our government who seem hell bent on burning what's left in the ground, all in the name of cheaper power, even while the providers are telling them renewables are now cheaper...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s how much worse climate change is making Florence

Scientists are working in real time to figure out much warmer weather is boosting the storm.

[Photo: Goddard Space Flight Center/NASA/Flickr]

As Hurricane Florence dumps rain on the Carolinas–perhaps as much as 30 or 40 inches in some areas, causing dangerous flooding–it’s raining more because of climate change. A new study estimates that the forecasted rainfall along the coast is 50% more intense than it would have been without greenhouse gas emissions from humans.


The study is preliminary, and is also the first of its kind. For the last few years, researchers have carefully studied some significant disasters, from record heat and drought to record flooding, to determine how much climate change made them worse. But those studies have happened after each event. This is the first attempt to do it before a storm hits.


“Climate change is often viewed as a distant threat, far off in the future,” says Kevin Reed, a professor of marine and atmospheric sciences at Stony Brook University and one of the authors of the study. “We did this during the event, as it was unfolding, to actually help communicate the reality that climate change is here and it’s a real risk to the public now.”


[Photo: Michael Candelori/Shutterstock]

On Sunday night, as the storm approached, Reed and a team of colleagues began the analysis. The researchers ran a forecast based on atmospheric conditions and sea surface temperatures from NOAA.


Then they ran a modified forecast to remove the changes in temperature and moisture linked to global warming. They found that the forecasted rainfall amounts over the Carolinas were 50% greater because of climate change, and the size of the storm would be around 50 miles larger. After the storm, Reed and the other researchers plan to re-run the simulations and submit a study for peer review.


There are some challenges to doing an analysis early, says Sean Sublette, a meteorologist at Climate Central, an organization of experts that study climate change, including the impacts of climate change on individual weather events. “I think the big difference between trying to do this now, or doing this after the effect, is that you’re going to have a lot better data after the event is over and you have all the real-world data. We know this amount of rain fell here, this amount of rain fell here, whereas now it’s still largely being estimated.”


In similar studies after Hurricane Harvey, the increase in rainfall attributed to climate change was estimated to be between 18% and about 38%. But the general link is clear–climate change is making rain more intense. “It’s going to be a significant percentage higher,” says Sublette. “That’s just basic physics, which is well understood. You’ve got a warmer atmosphere, you’ve got warmer water. So there’s going to be more evaporation, which goes into more precipitation.” Some studies also suggest that climate change is making hurricanes move more slowly, so as more rain falls, it’s also falling longer in certain areas–and making flooding much worse.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much will climate change really cost? It's getting even more expensive.

The true potential costs of climate change are just beginning to come into view.
The true potential costs of climate change are just beginning to come into view. Reuters
by Tyler Cowen

The potential costs of climate change, already the subject of heated debate, may actually be understated.

It's not just the potential disruptions to weather systems, agriculture and coastal cities; it's that we may respond to those problems in stupid and destructive ways.


As the philosopher and cartoon character Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."


Consider how poorly we have responded to many non-climate-related problems.


In the case of Brexit, for example, the Leave movement was arguably responding to some real problems.


The European Union bureaucracy is too stringent, and perhaps the UK did not have an ideal arrangement with immigration.


But Brexit is careening towards disaster, with no good plan on tap, the two major parties in splinters, the British pound declining, the Irish "Good Friday" agreement at risk, and the UK seriously talking about food stockpiles and other emergency measures.


It would have been better if the British had responded to their country's problems in a less extreme way, or simply learned to live with the problems they had.


Instead, they voted for a rash and poorly thought-out remedy.


Similarly, you might think that supporters of President Donald Trump have legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and US unwillingness to stand up to China.


Still, that did not require a presidential "remedy" that has brought chaos and corruption to the White House and US foreign policy alike.


In short, the world increasingly appears to be reaching for extreme and imprudent remedies to admittedly complex problems.


These overreactions do not seem to be mere accidents, but arise from some pretty fundamental features of polarised politics - namely, that discourse has become less rational and technocratic.


When it comes to climate change, all this plays out in interesting ways.

In the US, imagine that many Florida residents have to leave their residences permanently, due to fiercer storms or rising sea level.


The rational approach might involve well-functioning insurance markets, some public-sector transfers and compensation, and better infrastructure planning.


The idea would be to limit the number of such moves or at least to lower their cost. That could prove very costly but essentially manageable.


But that is probably not what we will get.

Instead, the debate may well radicalise Florida politics, which has consequences for national politics as Florida is a swing state.


On the federal level, an infrastructure bill would invariably direct too much money to wasteful new projects in less populated states.


Everywhere, the harsh, non-sympathetic tone of the debate will further corrode American politics.


Forced migration

Looking outside of the US: Imagine that climate change forced or induced the migration of many people from Bangladesh.


An ideal international reaction would involve foreign aid plus the cooperative parceling out of refugees to different countries.


Circa 2018, following the crises in Syria and Libya, does anyone really expect such a rational outcome?


A more likely, though admittedly speculative scenario, is clashes on the border with India, the further radicalisation of Indian politics ("build a wall"), refugee camps full of hundreds of thousands of people, and more extremist terrorism in Bangladesh.


I am struck by the costs of climate change suggested in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, hardly a source of denialism.

Its cost estimate - "1 to 5 per cent of GDP for 4C of warming" - is relatively reassuring.

After all, global GDP is right now growing at more than 4 per cent a year.


If climate change cost "only" 4 per cent of GDP on a one-time basis, then the world economy could make up those costs with less than a year's worth of economic growth.


In essence, the world economy would arrive at a given level of wealth about a year later than otherwise would have been the case.


That sounds expensive but not tragic.

Unfortunately, that is not the right way to conceptualise the problem.


Think of the 4 per cent hit to GDP, if indeed that is the right number, as a highly unevenly distributed opening shot.


That's round one, and from that point on we are going to react with our human foibles and emotions, and with our highly imperfect and sometimes corrupt political institutions.

(Libertarians, who are typically most sceptical of political solutions, should be the most worried.)


Considering how the Syrian crisis has fragmented the EU as well as internal German politics, is it so crazy to think that climate change might erode international cooperation all the more?


The true potential costs of climate change are just beginning to come into view.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what climate change could look like in Canada


'This is real on-the-ground stuff that is costing us right now,' says one expert

October 28, 2018

toronto heat wave cooling centres
The City of Toronto set up seven cooling centres during this summer's heat wave, including one at Metro Hall on July 4, 2018. (Bruce Reeve/CBC)

Climate change is here, experts say, and Canada can expect to suffer the consequences.

The effects of a warming planet are going to be felt from coast to coast to coast. And, if we stick to a "business-as-usual" scenario — no change to our emissions — it's going to happen a lot sooner than scientists initially thought, according to a recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

 In July 2018, Montreal experienced 70 heat-related deaths as the city dealt with unusually hot temperatures into the 30s with stifling humidity that made it feel closer to 40 C. This summer, British Columbia experienced its worst fire season on record. In August, two brief thunderstorms caused widespread flooding in Toronto, bringing the downtown core to a standstill.



With a warming planet, we can expect to see more events like these, experts say.

"People say, well gee, the world's warmed up by 1 C in the last 135 years, but there are parts of Canada that have warmed in some seasons by four, four-and-half degrees in a 70-year period," Environment Canada's senior climatologist, David Phillips says. "So twice as much in half the time."

Chutanli Lake fire
B.C. experienced its worst wildfire season this year, with more than 13,000 square kilometres burned. (B.C. Wildfire Service)

The greatest differences are seen in the north and the interior of continental coast in the west. The region with the greatest warming in 70 years is in the Mackenzie area of the Northwest Territories where temperatures have risen by between 4 C and 5 C in some parts.

Nationally, the summers have warmed by more than 1 C, with winters warming closer to 1.4 C.

"There are communities on the coast where people are experiencing sea-level rise, erosion and flooding," says Catherine Abreu, executive director of the Climate Action Network, an umbrella group of environmental organizations. Indigenous communities "are experiencing a loss of their way of life because of climate change. So, the impacts are real globally, and they're real here in Canada."



Canada climate change trends
This image shows a colour-coded map of Canada depicting temperature trends from 1948 to 2012. It illustrates that temperatures are warming across the country. (Environment and Climate Change Canada)

While it may seem like eastern Canada isn't seeing much of a change, it is, and it's catching up to the rest of the country. Rather than the change occurring during the past 70 years, it has occurred over the past 10 or 15, Phillips says.

"There's no region of Canada that's been left out in the cold." 

Canada's future

What does the future hold for Canada?

Phillips used models based on a "business-as-usual" path. Using the median, the models (run by the Laboratory of Mathematical Parallel Systems, or LAMPS at York University), Phillips says people living in Toronto could see 51 days a year above 30 C by 2050 and 77 by 2100. The current average is 16.

But just because temperatures are on the rise, doesn't mean Torontonians will be done with winter completely. While Toronto gets 16 nights of temperatures reaching –15 C or lower, they'll still get 4 by 2050 and 1 by 2100.


 Torontonians might not want to celebrate just yet, however: those warmer temperatures bring increased chances of freezing rain events.


In Toronto and Montreal, there could be close to a 50 to 60 per cent increase of these potentially disastrous and costly events.


Toronto ice storm 2013
The 2013 ice storm in Toronto cost the city approximately $106 million. (Aaron Vincent Elkaim/Canadian Press)


In the Prairies, growing days are expected to lengthen. That's good news for farmers, but there are also negative consequences. 

"Some regions might benefit from longer growing seasons, but at the same time you have the impact of increased wildfires, for example, the smoke pollution that comes with that and the CO2 emissions," said Felix Pretis, an assistant professor at the University of Victoria who studies the economic impacts of climate change.

Wildfire Smoke Edmonton
Smoke from this year's B.C. fires shrouded Edmonton, making it difficult for some to venture outside. (@Raptor_Chick/Twitter)

 Pretis said that the recent IPCC special report that compared the outcomes of a global temperature rise of 1.5 C versus 2 C is a stark reminder that there could be dangerous and costly outcomes. 

"The report … sends a really strong message that the two degrees that we talked about previously is not really a guardrail anymore, and that we should be very careful about the future," said Pretis.


Canadians may revel at the prospect of warmer weather, but with that comes a price — literally.

"In Canada, now, the expression of extreme weather risk, the number one negative manifestation by far is flooding," said Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo. "Flooding is the most expensive cost in Canada to extreme weather by a country mile, and specifically, basement flooding.

"This is real on-the-ground stuff that is costing us right now."

Submerged streetcar
A brief but soggy thunderstorm in August flooded Toronto streets, costing the city roughly $80 million. (@earthisanocean/Twitter)

Blair notes that, from 1983 to 2008, the cost of catastrophic insurable events annually ranged from $250 million to $500 million. Since 2009, however, in eight out of nine years, these costs have ballooned up to $1 billion or more a year, with a $1.8 billion average.

Pretis believes that part of the problem stems from the ways scientists are conveying their message about the consequences of a warming climate.

"I'm concerned about the lack of policy response," Pretis said. "I think there's a big challenge also how the scientific community conveys these findings to policy makers … I think we need to carefully translate these findings into local impacts that policymakers can relate to."

The message is clear, he says: Canada needs to prepare for the future.



  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, this is it! We do not tolerate such insults and I´ve removed a few posts in this thread. We´ll discuss this internally among the mod team and it´s possible that there will be additional warning points for one particular post that we find really appalling. I have no problem with people disagreeing, even if it´s vehemently and passionately, but this was just over the line. Consider this a courtesy warning, but if we see something like this again we´re instantly done talking. And again, we´ll still have to discuss this internally and there may very well be already consequences. This kind of hate speech is just the lowest form of conversation and we want no part in this. If you can´t disagree respectfully, you better do not post at all. We´re better than this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

'You can't keep arguing this is just a cycle': Farmers struggling to manage impacts of climate change


By Geoff Thompson

Peter Mailler on his farm near Goondiwindi
IMAGEPeter Mailler grows wheat, chick peas and fava beans on his farm near Goondiwindi.(ABC News)

Peter Mailler is a third-generation farmer but if the effects of climate change continue on their current path, he doesn't expect anyone will be farming his 6,000-acre property near Goondiwindi in the future.


"You can't keep arguing that this is just a cycle," he told 7.30.

"Yes, there are dry periods and, yes, there are wetter periods, yes, there are warm periods, yes, there are cool periods, but we have shifted the averages.

"The baselines have moved to the point now where we are unable to manage the impacts of those extreme events in that set."


And with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) containing dire predictions about reaching the critical 1.5 degrees of warming by 2040, Mr Mailler is not sure what he will do.

"We're running out of tricks," he said.

"My bet is that high temperatures are here to stay and that is a serious threat to how we farm and how we manage that lack of rainfall."

Farmers interested in 'science and fact and evidence'

Fiona Simson on her cattle property near Tamworth
IMAGEFiona Simson on her cattle property near Tamworth.(ABC News)

Farmers see the effects of climate change firsthand, and many like Mr Mailler are now convinced the predictions are correct.


Even the peak body, the National Farmer's Federation (NFF), now says it's not a matter of whether climate change is real, but what to do about it.

"Farmers look at science," NFF president Fiona Simson told 7.30.

"We are very interested in science and fact and evidence and we think now there is plenty of evidence on the table that climate change is a factor that we're going to have to deal with here in Australia.

"So let's make sure that we can incorporate it into our policies in a way that we can continue to be productive and profitable, where we can continue to be sustainable."

Ms Simson runs a cattle station near Tamworth in NSW.

"We've been here for 90 years and if we look back over the 90 years, we've seen a series of droughts come and go," she said.

"Right now I think farmers certainly are looking at the climate change and work that's been done on climate change and the heating of the Earth, and they're thinking about how that will affect them on farms."

Mr Mailler believes that effect will be dramatic.

"Australia's probably more exposed to the effects of climate change than a lot of other places," he said.

"We already operate in some of the most volatile conditions in the world and climate change means those conditions are going to be more volatile and more extreme."

And he rejects the argument that Australia's emissions are too small to make a global difference.

"If we don't show leadership and start to be proactive, then who will?

"It's pretty simple."

Success 'in spite of the politicians'

Solar panels on Peter Mailler's parents' property
IMAGESolar panels on Peter Mailler's parents' property.(ABC News)

Mr Mailler was a National Party voter until he founded his own party to run against Barnaby Joyce in last December's New England by-election.

"We're not going to get a coherent policy around drought if we don't deal with climate," he said.

"We've got no chance of getting a coherent policy around climate if we have people who won't admit there's something here that needs to be done."

Sick of waiting for leadership from Canberra, his family has come up with its own solution.

His parents have built a solar farm on their property and are selling electricity back into the grid.

"It's producing enough power for about 1,370 homes," he explained.

"That's most of the homes in Goondiwindi, which is literally just across the river."

And it is succeeding despite all the obstacles.

"There's some irony here because, in spite of the Government restriction and obstruction and everything else that's going on, this investment's making money and it's good for mitigating climate," he said.

"So it ticks all the boxes and it's happening in spite of the politicians."

He is not so upbeat about the farm.

"My farm, on the other hand, won't survive and can't be justified the way things are going at the moment," he said.

The only farm he is confident will make a profit is the family's solar farm.

"Absolutely," he said.

"Better money, safer money, easier money."



  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mongolians plead for action on climate change


Dramatic temperature changes and extreme weather events in Mongolia have been blamed for the deaths of thousands of livestock in recent years and is believed to be forcing hundreds of families each year to abandon their traditional nomadic farming ways. As world leaders prepare for the UN climate conference in Poland next month, Mongolians are pleading for international action.




  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to ease my way into this convo.  I see a lot of media and videos saying that various solutions are just around the corner, but Im left pretty skeptical as its peoples beliefs and attitudes that are the problem.   Having definite solutions will not guarantee that they get implemented on the large scale, as a large proportion of the worlds population dont give a shite and are happy to burn it up.   Hopefully we can overcome this inertia through pressuring government and educating people.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our oceans broke heat records in 2018 and the consequences are catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record


Bleached coral in Guam

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.

There are other ways to measure climate change, but none are as convincing as the oceans. Air temperatures are most commonly reported in the media as evidence of global warming, but the problem with these is they are very erratic. While there is certainly a long-term trend of higher air temperatures, any given year may be warmer or colder than the last.

So oceans are key, and they are telling us a clear story. The last five years were the five hottest on record. The numbers are huge: in 2018 the extra ocean heat compared to a 1981-2010 baseline amounted to 196,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.

The measurements have been published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences in an article by Lijing Cheng, the lead author, and his colleagues from the Institute for Atmospheric Physics in China. His collaborators, of which I am one, included researchers from around the world. The article charts ocean heat back to the late 1950s, showing a steady increase.

Ocean warming is incontrovertible proof of global warming, and there are real consequences to a warming ocean. Firstly, warmer water expands, and this expansion causes sea levels to rise. Approximately a third of the rise in ocean waters is a result of the heat absorbed by the oceans. Scientists expect about one metre of sea level rise by the end of the century, which would be enough to displace 150 million people worldwide.

The warming waters also make storms more powerful. In the US recently, we have seen hurricanes pass over extremely warm ocean waters, which has supercharged them and increased the damage they cause. Other kinds of storms are also being made stronger. Heavier downpours of rainfall are increasing flooding around the world. Simply put, our emissions of greenhouse gases have caused loss of life and property. We are all responsible, but the people who have denied the science and the solutions own a special responsibility that history will judge harshly.

It isn’t just humans that are suffering and will suffer more in the future. The heating of oceans is causing tremendous problems for sea life, particularly coral reefs. If we continue to warm the planet, we can expect to lose much of these reefs. We can also anticipate reductions in fish and sea life populations.

We scientists sound like a broken record. Every year we present the science and plead for action. Not nearly enough is being done. We can still tackle climate change, but we must act immediately. We have the means to make a difference, we lack only the will.






  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

We scientists sound like a broken record. Every year we present the science and plead for action. Not nearly enough is being done. We can still tackle climate change, but we must act immediately. We have the means to make a difference, we lack only the will.


The only action that would have any real effect is an immediate reduction in the human population.  You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.  The hard part is setting a desirable number of people that we believe can live in harmony with the earth and the rest of it's inhabitants and then choosing who gets to live and die.


We're never going to have a technological solution that allows the human population to continue growing and sterilization of the masses is still picking and choosing but allowing the carnage to continue for the rest of their lives.  We can't rely on mother nature to give us the solution in the form of a new flu or plague either as there's an extremely good chance we'll cure it before it lowers our numbers to acceptable levels and then due to it's indiscriminate nature we're just going to breed out of control again anyway.


So if you want to be real about it you need to find reasons why certain people should die.  Given that it's a population issue the logical place to start is by looking at which groups of people are having more children than others.  If your group is having say 6-8 kids per family on average like you see in a lot of African and Muslim nations that's considerably worse than what you see in a lot of western nations like Germany where they're having 1.3 children per family which is below the 2.1 children needed to maintain any given population.  If you do not address this fundamental fact what's going to happen is that you'll get us to a billion people or whatever and then the problematic reproduction begins again which will bring us right back to where we started.


Now lets assume you can't bring yourself to be an eco nazi and want to preserve the other peoples and cultures of the planet.  Your only option is to set hard numbers for every race and force them to kill their own using whatever criteria they judge to be fair for themselves and there needs to be harsh retaliation for refusing to keep to within their limits.  The punishment would have to be so severe that they'd rather kill their own so essentially you're going to need to nuke them or worse otherwise they absolutely will not comply.


So how strongly do you believe that level of action should be taken?  Literally no one will find it acceptable so buckle up kids because we're gonna watch the world burn.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



However playing the population numbers game hides the real impacts of emissions per capita.... Not the number of kids any demographic/"race" has... 


But it's another justification for inaction by some... Can't slay half the world.. Lol. Personally I think the Thanos solution is a crock of shit in regards to the current carbon balance (the issue) . Most likely help relieve several other enviro problems though pretty quickly :wink:


It's an individuals choice to accept, deny, do shit or surrender.... We are all gunna have to adapt regardless, and pay one way or another. 


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now