SMH: Drought Breaking Aussie Rain is a Disaster for Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Clarky of Oz; Australia’s parched Eastern states are finally seeing a little rain, but this is bad news for climate change according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Drought-breaking rain likely to cause greenhouse emissions to rise

By Mike Foley
January 16, 2020 — 9.30pm

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to rise if there is a break in the intense drought in eastern Australia, sinking the Morrison government’s goal of lowering emissions in the short term.

The agriculture sector did most of the heavy lifting in emissions reduction in the year ending May 2019, falling by 4.2 million tonnes to 67.4 million tonnes. It reduced the sector’s greenhouse contribution by 5.87 per cent, compared to the electricity sector’s 1.15 per cent reduction.

“That big drop in agriculture was twice the emissions reduction that came from the record rollout of renewables. But it’s all built on the suffering of Australia’s farmers under drought,” Climate Council senior researcher Tim Baxter said.

The weather outlook is improving and the livestock sector is poised to rebound swiftly when the drought breaks.

“A break in the drought could push our emissions so they are again trending upwards,” Australian National University Climate Change Institute Professor Mark Howden said.

Professor Howden said while Australia’s emissions were “almost flatlining”, when the drought finally broke livestock emissions would likely rise by 4 million tonnes a year.

“Farmers will as quickly as possible build up their breeding herd and this will result in a rapid increase in recorded greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

“During drought animals’ feed intake is likely to have dropped and that further reduces emissions. When it breaks cattle are likely to eat a lot more and increase emissions.”

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/drought-breaking-rain-likely-to-cause-greenhouse-emissions-to-rise-20200116-p53rze.html

Not to be outdone, the Conversation lead with a story about the drought breaking rain poisoning the nation’s river systems.

The sweet relief of rain after bushfires threaten disaster for our rivers

Fire debris flowing into the Murray-Darling Basin will exacerbate the risk of fish and other aquatic life dying en masse

Paul McInerney Research scientist, CSIRO
Gavin Rees Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO
Klaus Joehnk Senior research scientist, CSIRO

When heavy rainfall eventually extinguishes the flames ravaging south-east Australia, another ecological threat will arise. Sediment, ash and debris washing into our waterways, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, may decimate aquatic life.

We’ve seen this before. Following 2003 bushfires in Victoria’s alpine region, water filled with sediment and debris (known as sediment slugs) flowed into rivers and lakes, heavily reducing fish populations. We’ll likely see it again after this season’s bushfire emergency.

Large areas of north-east Victoria have been burnt. While this region accounts only for 2% of the Murray-Darling Basin’s entire land area, water flowing in from north-east Victorian streams (also known as in-flow) contributes 38% of overall in-flows into the Murray-Darling Basin.

Fire debris flowing into the Murray-Darling Basin will exacerbate the risk of fish and other aquatic life dying en masse, as witnessed in previous years.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/the-sweet-relief-of-rain-after-bushfires-threatens-disaster-for-our-rivers-129449

Obviously the waterways will rapidly recover from any contamination, as rains wash the sediment away, as they have always recovered for thousands of years in the wake of bushfires much larger than the present day. Even the total sterilisation of a waterway through pollution cannot prevent its eventual recovery.

But you would be unlikely to learn that by reading the public statements of the CSIRO, or by reading The Conversation or the Sydney Morning Herald.

It seems difficult to believe there was once a time, long ago, when Aussie taxpayer funded scientists thought their job had something to do with improving people’s lives. They used to believe increased agricultural production or the breaking of a savage drought were events to celebrate, not opportunities to express their misery and distress.

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “SMH: Drought Breaking Aussie Rain is a Disaster for Climate Change

  1. No matter what happens, the alarmists will inevitably find a “Dark Side” to exploit.

    My God. How do they get out of bed every morning without committing suicide?

    • They don’t. They cashed in their souls for promotion and free overseas travel then committed intellectual integrity suicide long ago and are now in the CAGW Zombie stage of existence. The dark side does not worry them as their eyes glow in the dark.

    • GeoJim,
      It’s shares the same psychosis and self delusions as Trump Derangement Syndrome.
      “It’s all bad…. and getting worse… all the time!” What a waste of talent, time, money, and human capital.

      • In “The Fountainhead”Ayn Rand’s Dr. Ferris tells Roark that Government can only control men if they are made criminals by overwhelming laws and regulations. Similarly, the warming cult teaches that men can only be controlled by assurances of universal doom unless the cult’s dictates are followed.

        • Wally,
          Amusing item on climate change in the 1840s.
          An Australian commentator in West Australia ( I must dig out the blog site) has collected newspaper cuttings stretching back to the mid-19th century in Australia remarking about climate change, and recording extreme heat incidents.
          In Queensland there were several newspaper articles (Brisbane Courier Mail and Cairns Post) asking the question during the hot 1930s, “Is the world heating up?” and should the citizenry be alarmed by this.
          In each instance the newspapers sought the expert comment of a Professor of Geology at Queensland University.( Oh, for the good old days before anyone had heard of climate scientists!).
          In each case the Geology Professor said that there was nothing to worry about and these were natural cycles of the climate.
          Within a few decades (1940-1975) he was proved right when the natural cycles changed.

      • No, not sociopaths.

        But, yes, the neurotically depressed, for whom all is dark, hopeless, nowhere to turn, including within themselves.

        Sociopaths are people who scheme without conscience, feeling no guilt for sins or crimes monstrous or small.

  2. Erm… What about the CO2 from the burning vegetation? The CO2 not absorbed by dead or water-starved vegetation in a drought?

    Or is that “different” CO2, like “green” electrons?

    • Those CO2 molecules from burnt vegetation lack the distinctive “human fingerprint” of fossil fuel CO2 emissions that some of the most eminent climate scientists are able to use to identify the corpse of every tornado, hurricane, typhoon, monsoon, flood, or drought.

      • The CAGW secret they don’t want you to know. (The “human fingerprint”)

        There is a nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.

        There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.

        The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.

        Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.

        As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.

        And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.

        Yours truly, Eritas Fubar

        • you could tell this to a believer and theyd accept it as gospel and go off yelling
          hmm?
          sounds good to me
          sit back and enjoy the show

          • you could tell this to a believer and theyd accept it as gospel and go off yelling

            A few times I’ve considered setting up an alarmist website posting outrageous claims. I’d keep making those claims more and more alarmist and ridiculous, until it became obvious that it was all made up.

            Unfortunately I’m not sure that it could ever be obvious that it was made up. Supposedly real Climate Scientology is so outrageous that it defies parody.

    • yeah and the uptake of demon co2 BY the fastgrowing grasses and the flush of new growth on the burnt trees got missed?
      these people…need to stfu!
      permanently

  3. When skeptics started using this idiotic term “Climate Change” they totally handed it to alarmists , guaranteed to lose every time from then on.

    • I don’t think there’s much evidence that ‘climate change’ was originated by the skeptics. Check out the Google ngram viewer. link

      ‘Climate change’ and ‘global warming’ started at the same time and ‘climate change’ has been the most used, most of the time.

      I always thought the alarmists switched to ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ wasn’t working but the ngram viewer says different.

      • They just can’t help themselves in always wanting to rewrite history. In this case I was present as a witness to the nuanced changes in terminology coming from warmists. When I first started reading in September of 2008 everyone used global warming, or even the full term agw. It was not too long after that (early 2009) when the term ‘climate change’ started to replace global warming. I ranted against the change in terminology for several years because I could see their strategy, and refused to ever use that term in discussion. Even today I typically use global warming or agw most of the time.

        • Don’t forget that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (our beloved IPCC) was formed in 1988. The term was already there; they just started using it when GW wasn’t causing public panic. Genius strategy, really from their perspective.

          • “The term was already there; they just started using it when GW wasn’t causing public panic. ”

            That sounds about right to me.

            The alarmists used Global Warming until the global temperatures started flatlining after the turn of the century (after El Nino’s are subtracted) and then switched over to Climate Change as a means of covering all the bases. Now, if it gets warm, it’s Climate Change; if it gets cold, it’s Climate Change; whatever the weather does, it’s Climate Change.

        • “When I first started reading in September of 2008 everyone used global warming, or even the full term agw. It was not too long after that (early 2009) when the term ‘climate change’ started to replace global warming.”

          I don’t really think that’s correct. The IPCC was formed what, 1988? And the CC stands for, well, you know. Maybe it didn’t become more popular until 09 or so, but the CC terminology was there the whole time.

          • I am referring to my early blog experience over at Newsvine. The common person and the blog debaters used global warming or agw. In the beginning I did not stray far from Newsvine. It was around 2 years after that where I started to read the occasional post from WUWT. Too bad that almost all of my comments at Newsvine were eventually lost/deleted for some reason, or I could verify when the change occurred.

      • I always thought the alarmists switched to ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ wasn’t working but the ngram viewer says different.

        Right you are, commieBob, ….. ‘global warming’ was the preferred “descriptor” during the 80’s and 90’s when “greenhouse gasses” took front row center in the touting of fearmongering agitprop.

        “Greenhouse gasses” was the name chosen for the ‘radiant gasses’ and “global warming” was chosen as the resulting cause, …….. simply because EVERYBODY knew that greenhouses were “warm”, ….. and therefore they would truly believe that excessive amounts of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere would surely cause “global warming”.

        Iffen the leftist wackos had first tried to associate “greenhouse gases” with “climate change”, the public would have laughed at them.

      • Climate Crisis Emergency if you don’t mind. Those Extinction rebellion warriors, are not gluing themselves to the tarmac for nothing…..actually, I gather a good number of them are actually paid to set an example of how glue and to demonstrate, so definitely not doing it for nothing 🙂

        • Some just pretend they are glued. The police need to call their bluff. Even if they are glued, how do they eventually get unglued anyway.

    • The sceptics didn’t start using it. They were faced with it.
      The term/Meme “Climate Change Denier” is like a Monty Python foot descending on any form of rational discussion. The Meme is so prevalent that it has now addled the global groupthink mind and nobody knows what it means; so have to rely on their emotions.
      Virtuous Rectitude for the alarmists and frustration for the sceptics, devoid of reality. An area ripe for political agendas.

  4. As seeds start to sprout and the vegetation recovers… doesn’t that suck up CO2? Plus there is no dead vegetation to decompose.. it already did during the fires. I guess what they really are going after are the bovines.

  5. Climate change causes climate change.

    Brilliant – gets rid of that wascally word “correlation”.

    causation = causation. How can you argue against that?

    • They say that CO2 causes heating and they also say that CO2 can cause cooling (R-744).
      They say that CO2 causes fires & then they also say that CO2 can extinguish fires.

      Can this magic molecule really do everything?
      Can we live without it?
      Oh wait…………..

      • Being facetious, every molecule is magic. Water can burn you or it can make you freeze. Personally, I like a beverage of water, fermented grain, bitter oils and that is saturated with CO2.

  6. Even being a slow poke as I am, I ‘predicted’ wet weather causing run off and then the associated problems – a mere two weeks ago.
    Well, predicted is too fine a word to be used in this regard – maybe a ‘guess’ based on nothing other than history, would suffice.
    Needless to say, I also ‘predict’ (guess) there will be dry spells again.

    And…repeat…until the end of time.
    Seems reasonable to me.

    • The rain and flash floods were hardly unprecedented. Even BoM say they are a 1 in 100 year event in the heaviest cases but more compelling is the brilliant reverse psychology of Tim The Fool Man Flannery about a decade ago who forecast ‘endless drought’ as I recall and that the dams will never fill again etc whereupon down it came and actually filled the dams then they overflowed.

      • A 1 in 100 rain event naturally happens more often than 1 in 100 because there is such an event for any event duration. Not all ranfall events are the same duration.

        • Correct.
          Additional you can get 1:100 storm in slightly different locations. So a large city like mine , Melbourne can get dozens of 1:100 events per year.
          Many of my co-workers joke that we got flooded by three 1:100 year events this year.

  7. I live in Gosford, New South Wales, just north or Sydney. After a string of quite warm days working out in the sun, it started raining yesterday, Friday, as early as I can recall. It continued all day and all night. It is now early afternoon Saturday and it is still raining. What this will most likely result is increased full load next year.

    • or to put it another way….

      “In God’s good time down came the rain;
      And all the afternoon
      On iron roof and window-pane
      It drummed a homely tune.

      And through the night it pattered still,
      And lightsome, gladsome elves
      On dripping spout and window-sill
      Kept talking to themselves.

      It pelted, pelted all day long,
      A-singing at its work,
      Till every heart took up the song
      Way out to Back-O’-Bourke.

      And every creek a banker ran,
      And dams filled overtop;
      “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
      “If this rain doesn’t stop.””

  8. I didn’t read, The Climate Council and The Conversation pieces? If printer its not worth lining the bottom of a budgie cage to catch the fallout.

  9. Is this the IDO in action? We had a long dry spell followed by lots of rain in the top end. Now its down here in the South East?

    • IOD and yes it weakened about 3 weeks ago as soon as it did the clouds started dropping over WA top end and NT
      ENSOS not moving much but even the east coast has managed on cyslone out on the islands and Nguineas clouds are dropping down the coasts now too

      we also have lost the effects of that Antarctic wind pattern that stuffed mid aus around so much
      Id say that had a huge influence for fires too
      last one was 30yrs ago
      reckon if i looked wed find that was a bad fire yr too

  10. It’s beyond me how the alarmists can continually say white is black and black is white and they aren’t questioned by anyone accept skeptics. I don’t think the masses believe them but it’s hard to tell with the media constantly pushing the alarmist narrative/propaganda.

    • I know it seems weird and disheartening listening to the msm chant and rant on and on and on about ‘climate change’, ‘deadly’, ‘hottest evah’ etc etc but there is an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age on line editions today (https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/in-media-s-wild-west-news-consumers-struggle-to-find-truth-trust-and-transparency-20200117-p53sfc.html) quantifying the rising level of skepticism aboout media content including the relentless sexing up of content.

      The other heartening thing to keep in mind is Trump’s election, Morrison’s in Oz, Brexit and then Boris’s sweeping away of that leftard dill Corbyn much of which the leftard msm just did not see coming. Why is the big question re the leftard’s blind spot. My conclusion is because it is implicit in what are primarily herd animals, intellectual sheep, followers who just baaaa out their practised lines.

      Baaaa, blaaaaack is whiiiite and whiiiite is blaaaack cos like that’s what the experts are saaaaying, baaaa.

    • “I don’t think the masses believe them but it’s hard to tell with the media constantly pushing the alarmist narrative/propaganda.”

      I think you put your finger on the problem. Crazy ideas need a method to spread them in order to be widely held.

      One has to be good at being able to separate the truth from the propaganda in order to make sense out of this world. Which leaves children particularly vulnerable to propaganda. Think of being a child today and trying to sort out what is really going on in the world. And then you have people deliberately lying to the children from postions of authority. Our children are at a serious disadvantage. They need our help.

  11. ““A break in the drought could push our emissions so they are again trending upwards,” Australian National University Climate Change Institute Professor Mark Howden said.
    Professor Howden said while Australia’s emissions were “almost flatlining”, when the drought finally broke livestock emissions would likely rise by 4 million tonnes a year.
    “Farmers will as quickly as possible build up their breeding herd and this will result in a rapid increase in recorded greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
    “During drought animals’ feed intake is likely to have dropped and that further reduces emissions. When it breaks cattle are likely to eat a lot more and increase emissions.”

    All based upon guesswork, gross assumptions and doom prophecies no matter how good the news is.
    Truely a member of the doom generation.

    As is the ‘OMG, the fish and other water animals will all diiieee from the fire debris’…

    • But all those kangaroos and koalas which got wiped out must have been making some contribution to ‘carbon emissions’, if only by breathing, never mind their herbivore guts.

  12. Who can blame these alarmist hacks? The naive, gullible masses take it in without question. When nothing that ever happens can falsify your beliefs, then there is nothing to moderate the claims. 30 years of this nonsense and they still only make these outlandish claims based on models and scenarios…i.e. wishcasting layered on wishcasting. Expect the claims to be more and more shrill and ridiculous.

    It’s hard to imagine how far reality has to intervene before they admit they are wrong and the general public calls BS…maybe the next ice age? Actually, they will never admit they are wrong…they will likely declare victory, pretend like their actions saved the world, and move on to the next cause du jour. Or worst case, their dream of world socialism will be achieved, so the need to masquerade their political desires as an environmental cause will be gone, and they will more easily be able to get rid of those who question their actions. In any case, I hope I’ll be long gone by then.

  13. “And that had a global impact. While atmospheric carbon dioxide still rose in 2011, it grew at a much lower rate – nearly 20% lower – than the average growth over the previous decade.

    Almost 60% of the higher than normal carbon uptake that year, or 840 million tons, happened in Australia. That was due to a combination of factors, including geography and a run of very dry years, followed by record-breaking rains in 2010 and 2011.”

    https://blog.csiro.au/record-rains-made-australia-a-giant-green-global-carbon-sink/

    So in “normal” years approximately a 525Mt net carbon sink.

  14. livestock emissions would likely rise by 4 million tonnes a year.

    That will cause global warming in 2100 of how much?

    I want to know if I can panic in my recliner, or should I get up and dance around and scream and shout.

    • Not much when when comparing Australia’s 4m increase to 71m to China’s 12m increase to 1046m.
      These small changes appear to be weather or economic related and nothing really to do with any climate policy.

    • stay seated a while longer, cows only have one calf a yr sheep might have twins
      its going to take a LONG time to even get stocking levels back to predrought numbers
      let alone supply home and export demands
      our milk and other dairys taken a beating as well and prices will soar as contracts for export will come before home markets and we will pay heavily.

    • Well, according to an article posted on WUWT some time ago, cattle are so “carbon-neutral” that governments ought to be paying farmers to raise more cows.

  15. Again. Why argue and complain? There is no proof that carbon is not beneficial. Certainly CO2 is beneficial to greening the planet. We need to take climate alarmists to court in a class action suit. “Climate Alarmists v. Humanity!” There are trillions in treble damages available, plus potential criminal penalties for fraud and perjury.

  16. Some people have evolved in to dung beetles. Dung beetles swallow every bit of bullshit served up to them. Anyone who swallows this BS must have morphed in to a dung beetle.

    It is getting well past the time to admit that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

  17. If the bushfires and rains don’t get us the sea will-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/photos/cities-around-the-world-that-will-soon-be-underwater/ss-BBYUOgS

    Footnote to headline-
    “These projections are near the high end of the range of sea level futures anticipated by the scientific community as of 2019. We elected to concentrate on the high-risk scenario because, while there are still steps the world can take to address the problems of climate change, we are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals.”

    Obviously closet deniers or they’d know we were all doomed with the UN warning in 1989 we only had til 2000 to address it and we didn’t but I do like a sunny outlook.

  18. Love the walleyed steer/heifer pic, Eric!
    Suggested caption: “It’s all bad… and getting worse… all the time!”

  19. Is this related to Trump derangement syndrome? No matter what happens it’s bad and every outcome has only one interpretation and that is bad.

  20. The Socialist greens are entirely responsible for the fuel build up, for the fires, for the contamination that will occur from the rains, for the loss of habitat and the loss of animal species and the deaths of those caught in the fires, no one else is to blame, it is theirs and theirs alone.

  21. “A break in the drought could push our emissions so they are again trending upwards,” Australian National University Climate Change Institute Professor Mark Howden said.

    A break in the drought is now catastrophic … WOW !
    This clown just passed the buffoonery tipping point. Bravo !

    And the other three idiotic prophets … with their “may” and “could” … who don’t even know that wildfire ash contributes to future vegetation and life by soil fertilization ?

    Is is not science but merely “the worst of climate science” AKA “bonkers idiotic buffoonery”.

  22. If drought grips the country, it is disastrous. If it doesn’t, it is disastrous. If the weather (climate) is as perfect as it was in Camelot, it is disastrous. If we should never see snow again, it is disastrous. If we do, ditto. It is simultaneously the warmest, coldest, driest, wettest ever. The climate is positively Trumpian!

  23. Man Made Climate Change seems to be the new “Low Fat”. In fact, we are seeing the push for Veganism too.

    Charlie Munger was right:

    There’s also cognitive dissonance that Naseem Taleb talks about in The Black Swan. If any of these scientists whose work is used for policy (and who don’t stand up and caveat their work – you know, Ethics and all that), had their food and water deemed safe under the same methods that the uncertainties in temperature and stated to…
    They would be beating down doors trying to get answers for why they or their kids got really sick.

    But it’s perfectly fine telling a developing nation not to use coal because of “climate change”.

    As Taleb says, it’s like taking the elevator 4 floors to go buy a StairMaster because you want to start getting fitter.

    • Me and my blockquote!

      Charlie Munger:

      “Well, I think I’ve been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives, and all my life I’ve underestimated it. And never a year passes but I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther.”

  24. “Drought Breaking Aussie Rain is a Disaster for Climate Change”

    Everything is a disaster in the science of climate science. Even when we don’t have any evidence for it.

    The thing of it is that we need climate action. The reasons for it must be found. If not found they can always be assumed or imagined. Just a matter of how much you care about the environment and the planet.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/15/icefreearcticinsanity/

  25. A break in the drought could push our emissions so they are again trending upwards,” Australian National University Climate Change Institute Professor Mark Howden said.

    So a drought is better 😐 Who pays these utter fools?

  26. “SMH: Drought Breaking Aussie Rain is a Disaster for Climate Change”

    Make-it-up-Eric at it again. Name the person who wrote this.

    • you arent legally blind Loydo?
      the authors name is at the top of the article Mike Foley
      and the quote is prof howden

      • No, Howden did not say that. Eric made it up – putting sensationalist words in his mouth presumably to get more clicks.

        • Correct. The article says no such thing.

          It does provide some insight as to some of the factors that effect carbon emission levels.

          Did Eric actually point out the words that he objected to, or explain how they mean what he claims?

          No. Because he couldn’t quote anything from that to support his headline.

          Shameful tabloid journalism from Eric Worrall.

      • ozspeaksup said:

        “you arent legally blind Loydo?
        the authors name is at the top of the article Mike Foley
        and the quote is prof howden”

        Well, go on then. Quote the text from the article that justifies that statement.

        Where exactly is the bit about the rain being a climate change disaster?

        Can you do better than “yeah well, they’re all a bunch of alarmists, so by talking about the effect the rain could have on carbon emissions, they’re claiming a disaster as a result?”

  27. Given the magic of photosynthesis, I’m struggling to see how agriculture could be anything other than an asset in the supposed desirable reduction on CO2 ?

  28. UK had a drought – 2018-September 2019.

    We just had our seventh month in a row of above-average rainfall (last summer we had a few heavy downpours amidst long hot summer) this January (by 18th we are already above monthly average in NW London) as a natural response to short-term drought.

    The exact same thing happened after the 1975-76 drought episode, something of course the young woke activists were not alive to recall. But I was and I do recall it.

    California broke a medium-term drought with two extremely rainy winters in 2017 and 2019. It is what nature tends to do.

    So it will be interesting to see if Australia also over-reacts to an overly dry situation by having a lot of rain in the months ahead.

    Nature suggests that humans would not have stuck around too long if short-term droughts were not followed by short-term heavy rainfall. They would have either died in a desert or got on a boat and sailed somewhere else…….

  29. More food for everyone, and they are painting it as a climate catastrophe.
    My contempt for them goes beyond words.

    • The more Stupid, scared and hunger the little pipples the more control by Gubmit. They have dumbed them down further with each new nonsensically named Generation.

      The sky is always falling and these Chicken Little types fall into two categories. Those who know its a government plot to take control and those who have been programmed through the various departments of the Propaganda Ministry (Schools, New Media, Hollywood). The former need to be lined up against a wall the latter need decompression chambers for de-programming. It might take a couple of generations to get them mind right.

  30. Decade or 2 ago the greenie crybabies in California were in their hand wringing studios lamenting loss of crop lands.

    In irrigation,evaporation cycles each year the land becomes saltier. Irrigate, evaporate. So we will no longer raise crops.

    Then God and the heavy rains came, runoff removed salt and then silence. Cycles. Many are irregular.

    I live in the middle. When i was young, they built a lake 2miles from our farm with a dirt dam and less than 80 acres of surface when filled. The civil engineer said as many as 20 years before it would ever be full.
    So it was almost finished, we had a couple of heavy gully washers in a couple of days, it was filled and covered a Caterpillar and an earthmover.

  31. Even worse, the rain could cause a growth spurt in vegetation, leading to more future fuel for future massive fires due to lack of reasonable practices to manage the new growth properly.

    It’s a lose/lose situation that suits climate doomsayers beautifully.

  32. Mark Howden is apparently unaware that the many thousands of incinerated livestock will be unable to eat the new vegetation – something to do with mastication difficulties post-death, apparently!

  33. Rain equals growth and that means CO2 is taken up. That should be a good thing if you are a believer. Now cows eat the grass and emit a bit of CH4 as a result of the breakdown in the rumen. That’s a bad thing apparently so should be stopped. If the cow does not eat the grass but leaves it to wither and die it will still give off the methane as it decomposes. The biggest emitter is the rotting vegetation in old growth forests particularly after rain. Bad no doubt so we might be better off converting forests into grasslands. The utter ridiculousness of the environmentalists and climate alarmists makes one wonder about their mental stability and mental acumen.

    I do hope the scientists who work in climate alarmism never get involved with genuine research in specialities like medicine and engineering. Making stuff up and fiddling data to suit would not be tolerated.

    BTW. If the news comes from the SMH, Age, Guardian or the ABC totally ignore it. If it comes from Channels 7,9 or 10 check it carefully. When it comes to climate ignore them all.

  34. The farmers should be prevented from rebuilding their herds so that this progress on emissions can be saved!
    4.2 million tons ! Think how much worse would have been the fires had they not saved 4.2 million tons! I am so glad someone is counting.

    Why not just shutdown the whole agricultural sector. Plant Victory gardens!

    Is gobsmacking how these idiots apparently even learned to tie their shoes.

Comments are closed.