I've been following the story of the extinction of Australia's megafauna for some time. It originally seemed reasonable to blame man as the extinction occurred at about the same time as we arrived in Australia - about BC 40,000. This fitted the pattern of other extinctions in other parts of the world where the arrival of the highest order predator in the history of the world led to various beasts dying out.

The most recent research, reported by the Herald Sun http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20837553-5005961,00.html suggests that it was climate change that did it, not the mighty hunter. This research has an AGW application. If you check out the East Antarctica temperature chart I published in a blog post http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001708.html you'll see that 40,000 years ago it was very much colder than it is now (40,000 years ago coincides with the second trough from the right).

Somewhere around this time, without any help from manmade CO2 emissions, there were significant temperature fluctuations of around 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. We probably don't know how much these contributed to the change in rainfall, but what it does demonstrate is that climate change is a constant, even in the absence of man. And it underscores the fact that this is a world where climate can and does change.

In the face of this our response to increasing CO2 levels is to wring our hands and talk about taming CO2 as a way of "combatting climate change", when the correct response ought to be to ensure that, unlike the mega-fauna, we are in a position to adapt to it. We also invent excuses for our inaction, such as - "This is the worst drought in 100/1,000 years". You can't absolutely fight climate change, but as evolution shows, you can learn to live with it. But that sometimes means taking tough decisions.

Graham, the fact that something occurs naturally does not mean that this one is natural nor does it mean that management of greenhouse gasses won't lessen the impacts of the process natural or otherwise.

I'm hoping that this is not where you are coming from but it seems that the case against global warming has been
- deny it is happening until the evidence becomes overwhelming.
- when the evidence becomes overwhelming insist that it is a natural occurance and that therefore there is no point at trying to stop it.

I don't know the science well enough to be confident in the balance between entirely natural, natural with some assistance from mankind or entirely man made but whatever the balance I do think we should be looking at ways of minimising how far it goes.

40,000 years ago there was no industrial contribution to climate change. Even if it is partly natural this time around our contributions may be the thing that tips it past the point of survivability.

It appears certain that we will have to adapt to a changed climate but that does not mean that we should not try and lessen how far it changes.

R0bert

I've made this point a couple of times before,yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.The fossil fuels we burn today were a result of plants taking co2 from the air and turning it into carbon and oxygen.In other words the jurassic period had a lot more co2 in the atmosphere and still life prospered.The dynamics of our environment and climate are not the same,but we should not assume that total destruction will befall our planet because we are once again releasing levels of co2 that existed millions of years ago.

We have also the factor of increased sun spot activity which has an enormous impact on weather.

On this forum I've read that it is the pollution of the oceans that has more impact on global warming than co2 gases.To me it makes a lot of sense.The particulate matter in water absorbs a lot of energy.Most of the sun's energy pass through the atmosphere and heat both the earth and the oceans which make up 66% of the planets surface.The oceans and land then in turn heat the atmosphere.Now scientists are telling us that the radient heat becomes trapped by co2 gases.Well polluted oceans and denuded land can absorb and trap far more energy than the atmosphere.

The real story is probably a combination of man made changes.If the predominate cause is the pollution is in the oceans,this can be rectified far easier and cheaper than a radical change in energy sources.

I think we are too focused on a single source of pollution,ie co2 gasses,which may not be the prime source of climate change.

Robert, the point I am trying to make is that climate changes, and to a certain extent it doesn't matter why it changes because the most important thing is to be sufficiently adaptive to survive it. I'm not a greenhouse effect denier - there is no doubt that increased CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. But no-one is really sure how much warming will be caused by it and what that warming will cause to happen. There is no "scientific consensus" as various lobbyists have claimed, just a range of estimates.

As Arjay seems to be suggesting, the best geological record seems to suggest that whatever the warming effect is, it won't be catastrophic. Others suggest that it might be well within the range of normal climate variability.

I'm temperamentally inclined against burning fossil fuels because they are a finite resource, and it is a very inelegant way to harness the sun's energy. But that's not going to panic me into spending money on the latest fad energy source that someone is pushing. I think the higher priority is ensuring that we live our lives in such a way that we can adapt. For example, the issue of coastal development is one that deserves attention because of greenhouse, but it's not getting it.

could it be that the climate change/global warming effect that's apparently occurring now is simply the effect of the past big wars ? just look how much burning went on over the past 100 years. all that oil & fuel which is only just now starting to escape from deep water wrecks. all the subterainean tests & underwater atomic blasts must all have had an impact & it's only now that it becomes more apparent. could it be that all the pressures released by letting out so much gas is somehow weakening a part of our planet that we are unable to monitor as yet. remember 100 years is a mere blink so far as nature is conerned. after all, we have only monitored nature for a couple of hundred years which really means that we don't have much evidence at all to start talking patterns in nature. just as it takes time for damage to become apparent it also takes time for rehabiltation to become apparent. how do we know that the environment hasn't already begun to recover after all the battering it received over the last century.

Graham

You state that you don't recommend the burning of fossil fuels because it is finite though you fail to mention the devastating health effects that the burning of these fuels has on all life forms on this planet - that's scientific!

Do you accept that in 1970, scientists estimated that there were 65,000 black rhinos - now 3,000. African elephants were estimated in 1980 to be around 1,200,000 now 500,000 and the tiger population has fallen by 95%. Then you have Scandanavian countries advising women not to eat fish during pregnancy, nor should their children until they reach the age of 8. This advice is to protect them from the heavy metals and other toxins we have dumped in our oceans.

Are you denying that humans' global footprint is not responsible for the reduction in numbers and the extinction of other species or do you put that down to biogenic droughts and climate change?

When humans increase their numbers from 1.5 billion to 6 billion in a little more than a century, surely you must perceive some correlation between humans' destruction of the ecology and habitats with the decline in numbers of other species. When humans capture some 40% of the world's plant and marine growth, 7 million other species are forced to compete for the remainder.

The human global footprint's impact on our ecology is glaringly obvious to some of us. Why then could one assume that the upper troposphere and stratosphere have remained intact? And I have not yet read of any posters denying the scientific theory that man-made CFCs and other organochlorines are responsible for ozone depletion!

Dickie
We need to decide the right balance between adaptation and mitigation in response to climate change, and counting rhinos is not a very useful to that end. I agree with Graham that the current debate on responses to climate change gives too much weight to mitigation compared to adaptation, because:

1) We don’t know for sure how much the climate will change, or how much of than change is a result of human activity. Building resilience better equips us to meet an uncertain future.

2) CO2 emissions and concentrations will continue to rise for several decades even if the world starts to act seriously to reduce emissions. So if the scientists are right who say this will produce more warming, we will have to live with warmer temperatures. Better to recognise that fact and respond to it than to deny it.

3) It may well be less costly and more feasible to adapt to climate change than to try to prevent it, especially in the short term.

4) Developing countries rightly see the rich developed countries as the source of the rise in CO2 concentrations to date, and understandably place a higher weight on economic development and raising their citizens’ living standards than on preventing emissions from increasing in future. Unless we can find a way to raise developing countries’ living standards without raising their emissions – and so far that’s not possible – then we have no moral right to demand the actions necessary to truly reduce global emissions, which will inevitably mean trying to avert the expected expansion of emissions from developing countries.

Rhian

Typically of many pro-industry/profits-at-all-cost supporters, you fail to address most of the hypotheses, which have already been raised by eminent scientists therefore, these hypotheses/facts are not my revelations!Instead you trivialise the information on the "counting of rhinos".

May I remind you that third world countries which are pumping C02 out by the billions of kilograms, are merely doing what we westerners commenced during the industrial revolution and have continued to do so. Therefore, you and I are agreed on the moral principle to refrain from bullying the developing nations. However, that does not absolve us from a responsibility to set an example by immediately reducing our anthropogenic carbon emissions within the western nations.

We are also agreed that even if we do nothing now, atmospheric C02 will increase. This is due to the catalytic effects from other carbon based chemicals already in the atmosphere! Therefore, your innuendo not to take action now and continue polluting, reveals that you deny man's damaging impact on the environment! As a result your recommendation would merely multiply the concentrations and extend the period of excessive carbon emissions.

And typical of western mentality, China's problems are exacerbated by heavy industry factories moving from Europe, USA, Japan and Australia, to enthusiastically add to this country's environmental pollution.

To China's credit, its top government official (Zhou Shengxian),in November, was reported as stating: "In some places, environmental problems have affected people's health and social stability, and damaged our international image".

Some pity, that Australia's top government officials refrain from making such an admission!

Do you and Graham recommend the:

A)......."Adapt or Die theory" i.e. Do nothing environmentally and quit our sookin'!

OR

B)......."Change or Choke theory" i.e Pull our heads in now
by reducing man-made hazardous emissions immediately!

Dr David Morgan, Westpac's CEO said the the shift in the balance of power from governments to private enterprise meant companies had a greater responsibility for fixing environmental problems. "We had better start doing something about these problems that threaten the sustainable health of the planet and the system as we know it", he said.

My sentiments exactly, Rhian!

Dickie,

I don’t “deny man's damaging impact on the environment,” but nor do I accept the false dichotomy you offer, to either do nothing at all, or to do everything immediately. Yes, we should be acting to cut emissions, but I believe that we should also be acting to adapt to climate change. The balance between mitigation and adaptation, and the timing of the measures we implement, should be chosen to select the balance that minimises the costs and maximises the benefits.

You say we should “set an example” by reducing our emissions in the West. But if – as you admit - that has little effect on carbon concentrations or global warming, isn’t this just an expensive and pointless sacrificial gesture? What we do must be conditioned by what others do. “Setting an example” is all very well, but if no-one follows that example we’ll have the worst of both worlds – all the economic costs of cutting emissions, and none of the environmental benefits of reduced carbon concentrations.

Given time and the right market signals, the private sector will come up with more sustainable economic development in future, as Morgan suggests.

I see both adaptation and mitigation as means to an end, namely responding to risks and minimising the harmful effects of climate change, with the timing and balance of those approaches determined by the best way to achieve that end.

The pro-industry/profits-at-all-cost supporters, of which you assume (wrongly) that I ‘m one, seem to me less dangerous zealots than the anti-industry/cut profits-at-all-cost supporters who see reducing economic activity as an end it itself.

Rhian

Since I've yet to access any data where anyone proposes specific "Adaptations" to cope with GW, I am keen to learn what you are suggesting.

Mitigation of pollutants can be implemented immediately to reduce carbon emissions.

Clearly, you are not familiar with emissions' reports from pollutant industries. If you were, then, after picking yourself up off the floor, you would discover that there are few regulations to reduce hazardous emissions.

Allow me to give you just one example. Community members appealed against a serial polluter, since this company's PM emissions were around the 650mg/m3. The DOE refused to enforce any regulations. However, miraculously, the Minister at the time upheld a community appeal and the rogue company was instructed to implement pollutant prevention control. This resulted in subsequent emissions of around 8mg/m3, after a scrubber was installed. This enforcement had little negative economic impact on the company and the scrubber should have been installed at the commencement of operations. DOE also allowed them to spew out 50mgs/kg of PCB's. In fact no pollutant was capped at all! My years of research have instilled in me a cynical view of industry where they have great reluctance to adhere to any environmental principles until they are forced to.

No doubt you are also under the illusion that Departments of Environment are established to protect the environment and community health. This could not be further from the truth! There are hundreds of large industrial companies operating in this country without pollution prevention control, yet should you or I drive around with a smoky exhaust pipe, we would be immediately forced to rectify the problem or cease driving.

There are many Chinese delegations visiting my region to observe the technology of our industries which should include state of the art pollution management!

I, unlike you, believe that an immediate reduction in anthropogenic carbon emissions will have a long-term beneficial effect, though, it will take many decades/centuries? to reduce the already present atmospheric C02. Your recommendation to continue polluting the planet for the time being, holds as much credibility as does the tobacco industry!

Dickie,

There's lots of literature out there on adaptation. Stern devotes three chapters to it. Possible measures in Australia include:

Agriculture: research into expected changes in rainfall/temperature etc and changes in cropping, planting etc practices to suit the new environment.

Coastal zone planning: investment in sea barriers and erosion prevention measures where feasible and worthwhile

Disease research: to identify likely changes in risk and measures to avert/ameliorate them

Urban design: planning for higher temperatures, lower water use, more extreme weather events.

Infrastructure: building more dams, desalination plant etc

Emergency planning: investment in bushfire fighting equipment and personnel, better cyclone forecasting and responses

Dickie, you're fairly adept at inventing straw man arguments. My point was that climate has always varied and that we need to be prepared for this, and that the variation, without global warming, has been larger than the most credible scenarios for global warming attribute to CO2.

At no stage did I say we shouldn't worry about Greenhouse. What I did say was that Greenhouse is only one contributor to global climate and that no-one could stop climate change.

I worry about Greenhouse, but I also accept that it is largely out of our hands, because the biggest contributors to Greenhouse come from outside our country. As a result, I spend my time thinking about life in a Greenhouse environment, not wondering whether there is any possibility of me stopping it.

Dickie
Its good to see somebody thinks we need to get involved in making some changes. Its starts with Mr and Mrs ordinary people insisting we make changes right now. One good way to reduce is to stop intensive farming. Despite all the proof of the effects nobody is addressing it.
I think its going to be a case of we will reap what we have sewn.
Lets look on the bright side shall we Dickie. Soon we will have a new leader for the ALP with all the right qualifactions for the job.
He will go to Church and pray. Should do well with family firsts leader while turing their backs on common deceny.
Oh the higher moral ground.
Doesnt it make you feel ill. Too many people in this world now but still we will protest abortion Dickie. That ought to fix things.
Shheez.

Of course that has nothing to do with the problems however- The fact we simply have too many people. Remember when Australia had four million people then seven million and so on.

We seemed to have enough water as well didnt we. Never mind Kevin and Steve will make it rain as they walk on the higher moral ground.


I enjoy reading you post as you always put some thoughts and facts into them.

Antje Struthman

So true, Antje!

Remember the old adage: "So many politicians are blessed with great vision which far exceeds their ability". And they all remain in the same cot when one attempts to debate GW: "A cut in emissions is not politically or economically feasible!"

Unhappily they fail to acknowledge that global warming preceded greenhouse gases and I am concerned with a potential runaway global warming effect as a result of humans' ongoing pollution of this planet. The skeptics also fail to acknowledge that the burning of fossil fuels creates much more harm (scientifically documented) to this planet and its inhabitants, than just the hypothesis of GW.

Rhian advises that part of Stern's recommendation for adaptation is "to build more dams and desalination plants" Clearly this shows the ignorance of economists writing on a subject of which they know little and I doubt whether these types of authors know the difference between a VOC and a sock! Already the $350m desal. plant in WA is causing much concern where salt is being dumped in Cockburn Sound. This practice potentially has a devastating impact on marine life.

Any bush scientist can write what he likes. The Al Gore movie and Tim Flannery's book have both been peer reviewed and accepted as fact. Since I have not yet sighted either, I shall refrain from any further comment at this time.

Desal. plants are polluters and the WA government has ignored a submission from 2 prominent engineers to drain the Wellington Dam of 45 gigalites (free of charge) of saline water with no pollutant emissions. This water would then be desalinated by a reverse osmosis process to drinking water. Rather, our "Masters" prefer to annually dump this water into the ocean!

Our federal pollies claim that regulations for the use of our uranium overseas are very stringent - to prevent nuclear proliferation. Why are we not placing stringent regulations for pollution control on those nations who wish to buy and burn our coal? Are we so lacking in competent diplomats these days?

You and I both know Antje, that while the Nero "heros" fiddle.....!

Rhain.

Umm Well its so nice to know they have arranged more fire men after they created it. Ok . Weed growing into river dams lakes choking the life out of the place and fires. Gee remember when the stock took care of all of that. Yesterday they were running around backburning setting fire to wild life especially to our last know area of of K bears.[ Good on them]
They reckon it was real sad the burn them alive but you never know it just [might] end up saving somebodys house from burning.

Hey thats one of the new emergency back up systems your refering to.
Seems a lot of fires are started by lighting in the last few years.
Or are they?
When are the Goverment ever going to tell the truth.
We are in a lot of trouble in this country. A few sanctions should do the rest. Dont kid yourself it wont happen here.
Gee but I forgot we now have Rudd to take care of us.' Another' poly with a so called farming background.
Tell you what we dont see him as a blokes bloke and hes got no appeal to the ladies so I dont know who he will impress other than the Church leaders.

Antje

Graham

In June this year, pre-eminent atmospheric scientists Professor Bruintjes and Richard Stone, during a visit, identified the problem of reduced rainfall over the catchment areas.

They said the problem was not uncommon since many areas where rainfall dropped off were in the pollution shadow of large industrialised developments and as it happens, the catchment areas are downwind of the highly polluting, unregulated, industrial strip.

So, Graham, you state: "I worry about greenhouse, but I also accept that it is largely out of our hands".

Given the advice from Prof. Bruintjes and Stone, kindly spell out for me (in simple terms), the reason for your apathy towards anthropogenic greenhouse and your belief that man cannot begin to fix what he has stuffed up - if only in a parochial sense!

I'm concerned that your theories to date, may indeed earn you the title of the "Straw Man".

Well Said Dickie