Earth's Worst-Ever Mass Extinction Of Life Holds 'Apocalyptic' Warning About Climate Change, Say Scientists

The Independent - Ian Johnston

Runaway global warming saw the planet's average temperature hit about double what it is today about 250 million years ago

Some 250 million years ago, life on Earth nearly died out completely

Researchers studying the largest-ever mass extinction in Earth’s history claim to have found evidence that it was caused by runaway global warming – and that the “apocalyptic” events of 250 million years ago could happen again.
About 90 per cent of all the living things on the planet were wiped out in the Permian mass extinction – described in a 2005 book called When Life Nearly Died – for reasons that have been long debated by scientists.
Competing theories have been put forward, including meteor strikes, huge volcanic eruptions and climate change.
Now a team of researchers from Canada, Italy, Germany and the US say they have discovered what happened and that their findings have “an important lesson for humanity” in how we deal with current global warming.
According to a paper published in the journal Palaeoworld, volcanic eruptions pumped large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, causing average temperatures to rise by eight to 11°C.
This melted vast amounts of methane that had been trapped in the permafrost and sea floor, causing temperatures to soar even further to levels “lethal to most life on land and in the oceans”.
“Based on measurements of gases trapped in [the mineral] calcite, the release of methane … is deemed the ultimate source and cause for the dramatic life-changing global warming … observed at the end Permian.
“Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic, but the release of methane from hydrate [its frozen state] may be apocalyptic.
“The end Permian holds an important lesson for humanity regarding the issue it faces today with greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and climate change.”
The paper said the average global temperature would have reached “well above 29°C”. Today’s average is about 15°C.
“The emission of carbon dioxide from volcanic deposits may have started the world onto the road of mass extinction, but it was the release of methane from shelf sediments and permafrost hydrates that was the ultimate cause for the catastrophic biotic event at the end Permian,” the researchers added.
Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, suggested a major methane pulse was possible.
However he said this would be “maybe not apocalyptic, but catastrophic”.
“If there were a large methane release, which is now possible because of the instability of the methane hydrates underneath the Arctic continental shelves, the off-shore waters, that could quite easily give rise to a very large pulse,” Professor Wadhams said.
He was one of the authors of a paper in the journal Nature, which suggested it was possible for a truly vast amount of frozen methane to be released over just 10 years – a blink of an eye in geological terms.
“We were concerned if there were a 50 gigatonne release, about eight per cent of the methane in the hydrates, that would give an immediate 0.6°C of global warming, which is a very large pulse indeed,” Professor Wadhams said.
“That modern threat is very real and very serious and has been disregarded a lot by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … I feel strongly about it.”
However, Professor Wadhams criticised the title of the Palaeoworld paper, which was “Methane hydrate: Killer cause of Earth’s greatest mass extinction”.
“There’s a serious tendency these days to offer a breathless overkill on the importance of a discovery. The title of the paper is over the top,” he said.
“Methane may or may not be the cause of the extinctions described. The evidence is equivocal. It doesn’t justify all the razzamatazz.”
And Professor Tim Palmer, an Oxford University physicist who has worked on the IPCC reports, said it was unclear what future humanity was facing.
“The relevance of such apocalyptic scenarios for the present climate-change debate depends on cloud feedbacks being significantly and substantially positive,” he told The Independent.
“Without them we will probably not warm enough for these releases of methane to occur – another reason to do our utmost to try to understand such cloud feedbacks.”
In a recent talk at the Royal Society in London, Professor Palmer suggested “lukewarmists”, who downplay the dangers of climate change, and “catastrophists”, who do the opposite, were both making the same mistake.
The science, he said, suggested a range of possible outcomes from one to the other and it was unclear what would happen.
However, Professor Palmer said computer models which accurately simulated the Earth’s climate suggested it was more likely that humanity was on course for global warming at levels considered to produce particularly dangerous weather conditions.

Links

• Stopping climate change could boost the world economy by £15 trillion
• 'Darth Vader-style' threat to oust bosses who ignore climate change
• Trump's Defence Secretary: Climate change already destabilising world
• Climate change-denying EPA chief told: CO2 causes global warming

Why The World Economy Has To Be Carbon Free By 2050

New York Times - Johan Rockstrom*

 In front of the financial district of Pudong amid heavy smog in Shanghai in 2015. Credit Aly Song/Reuters 

STOCKHOLM — Global warming is a scientific fact as much as the hole in the ozone layer or Earth’s orbit around the sun. Global temperature records have been broken three years running. Arctic Sea ice is declining rapidly. Sea levels are rising. For some societies, such as small island nations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, environmental havoc is not a distant threat. It has arrived.

To reduce the risk of a global environmental catastrophe, and to avoid reversing the course of human progress, the world must urgently bend the curve of global emissions away from fossil fuels. Global warming must be kept below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit); beyond that we will face major social and economic consequences.

The math to keep the increase below that critical level doesn’t get much simpler. Emissions must peak no later than 2020, and we must reach a fossil-fuel-free world economy by 2050.

National pledges made for the Paris Climate Agreement fall short. Indeed, the political landscape is dominated by governments willing to make only incremental progress: two steps forward and one step back, or giant leaps back, in the case of the United States, where President Trump has threatened to retreat from international climate action and has proposed devastating cuts in funding for climate science and international collaboration.

The vast divide between what is necessary and what politicians are willing to do leaves many scientists nervous that we could blow our last chance to reduce the grave risk to our environment and world stability.

Still, there are good reasons for cautious optimism. Despite the halting progress made by politicians, history shows that the modern world has been shaped by major moments of disruption. Think about the recent United States election, Brexit, the global financial crisis of 2008 and the rapid advances made in the technology sector in recent decades.

To help rethink the climate challenge, my colleagues and I developed an environmental corollary to Moore’s Law, which says that computing power doubles every 24 months. A “carbon law” states simply that the world must halve emissions every decade to stand a chance of reaching a stable climate system for the planet.

We emit about 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year. Assuming emissions start falling by 2020, and using the carbon law as our guide, we should halve carbon dioxide emissions to 20 gigatons by 2030. We then should reach 10 gigatons by 2040, and leave a small residual of five gigatons by 2050.

To make this happen, we must ramp up technology to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, protect the oceans and land that absorb half of our emissions already, and transform the world’s food system from a major carbon emitter into a major carbon store.

A carbon law of halving emissions every decade can be adopted at all levels: for individuals, families, communities, companies, cities and nations. Those with the biggest carbon footprint need to do the most.

The global economy is on the right trajectory.

Global emissions growth from fossil fuels has plateaued for three years running, even with strong economic growth, thanks to efforts in China, but also progress in the United States, and some 20 other countries where net domestic emissions are declining. The renewable energy sector is expanding rapidly and employs more people in the United States than fossil fuels combined.

Installation of renewables in the energy sector is doubling every five to six years and has been on this course for a decade. If we keep doubling at this pace, renewables will reach 100 percent before 2050.

We can say good riddance to coal by around 2030, saving millions of lives as air quality improves. And bye-bye to oil by 2040. At this pace and scale, we can be close to carbon-free by 2050.

*Johan Rockstrom is the director of Stockholm Resilience Center and professor of global sustainability at Stockholm University.

Links

• A Remote Pacific Nation, Threatened by Rising Seas
• Inside the Paris Climate Deal
• Global CO2 Emissions Decline in 2015 After Soaring for a Decade, Study Says
• E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change
• Sydney’s Swelter Has a Climate Change Link, Scientists Say

Climate Change Is Happening Now – Here’s Eight Things We Can Do To Adapt To It

The Guardian - Missy Stults

Donald Trump has rejected global leadership on the issue, so now it’s down to us as individuals to plan, and push through new policies change where we can

Somalians fleeing drought fetch water at a camp in Doolow as humanitarian agencies warn that famine could affect 6.2 million people. Photograph: Xinhua/Barcroft Image

A little girl sits outside on her front stoop, watching the cars go by and the people trot to work in the early hours of the morning. She wears a long-sleeved shirt, pants, and sneakers. Nothing is particularly shocking about this image, except the fact that it’s December in New York City (or Detroit, or London). In a “traditional” year, this girl would be wearing her winter coat, a hat that covers nearly her entire head, and potentially snow boots. But not in 2016. Or 2015. Or 2014. It’s simply too warm for all those clothes.
If, like many of us, you have the sense that seasons are changing, winters are milder, summers a bit warmer, springs coming earlier, and autumns not quite what they used to be, you’d be right. According to a report released today by the United Nations, 2016 was the warmest year on record, breaking the record previously held by 2015, and before that by 2014. Having three years of record-breaking temperatures is a clear trend that the climate is changing.
And the UN isn’t the only one to have noticed; Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US, the UK’s Met Office, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Japan’s Meteorological Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and dozens of others have repeatedly stated that the global climate is changing and that society is now in “uncharted territory”.
Perhaps having slightly warmer temperatures sounds appealing. I must confess, I enjoyed walking around the streets of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in February, basking in temperatures of 15C (60F). Yet it’s not quite that simple.
Changing climate, including increases in temperature and shifting precipitation patterns, lead to real and significant impacts to human health, livelihoods, cultural assets, economies, ecosystems, and society as a whole. For example, shifting rainfall patterns can drastically impact crop timing and yields. Rising sea levels already threaten to further drench coastal communities, roads, homes, and other infrastructure. Shifting disease patterns bring new issues into areas with limited exposure and immunity. Prolonged droughts can lead to famine, as in Somalia and Ethiopia at the moment. And natural disasters, which are on the rise, wreak havoc on local communities and economies. Regardless of where you live or what you do, it is nearly guaranteed that climate change is already affecting you. And these effects are going to get more severe and frequent.
In the face of this reality, one would assume that investments in disaster preparedness and climate action were on the rise. If you lived in the United States, however, you’d be grossly mistaken. In fact instead of being serious about protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens, the Trump administration has decided to gut all programmes related to climate and many related to disaster-preparedness.
If you still doubt the need for action to adapt to the consequences of climate change, don’t just listen to me – listen to the US military, world business leaders, or the majority of Americans. Given that climate leadership is unlikely to come from the US federal government under Trump, many are asking, what can I do to prepare for climate change? Here are eight initial actions that individuals, as well as governments, could take immediately to prepare.

What you can do

1. Make a plan; build a kit. Natural disasters are on the rise and are only projected to occur more frequently and be more intense thanks to climate change. Ensure you are prepared by having a plan for what you and your family will do in the case of a disaster. Then make a kit that has the supplies you’ll need to withstand and recover.
2. Get to know your neighbours. In a disaster, government resources are likely to be strained. Building strong social networks, including within your own neighbourhood, can be an extremely effective way to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.
3. Reduce your carbon footprint. Anything we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will help slow down climate change. The mantra I use is that we must manage the unavoidable through adaptation, but avoid the unmanageable through mitigation.
4. Call your legislators today, and every day. Demand that they preserve and advance domestic and international climate programmes, policies, and funding streams. Don’t take these programmes for granted.

What governments should do
Sea level rise: Miami and Atlantic City fight to stay above water

5. Integrate climate change into all policies, programmes, and decision-making processes. We need to ensure that all investments are based on sound science and prepared to endure, regardless of what the future brings. That is why climate change must be factored into all planning and decision-making at local, state, national and international levels.
6. Invest in climate science. Instead of gutting science budgets, increase investments in climate science, including investments in real-time monitoring, research into climate-related impacts, and the implementation of climate solutions.
7. Embrace green infrastructure. Investing in green spaces, parks, urban forestry, rain gardens, and the like would be an economically smart way of managing storm-water and flooding while also investing in our local communities. Encourage your government to consider green infrastructure with the same fervour usually reserved only for traditional physical infrastructure projects.
8. Embrace climate action as a means of advancing economic development and social justice. Climate action needs to be about people. When designed with citizens, climate strategies can enhance both the economy and the wellbeing of all, especially those traditionally left behind. Make sure that the most vulnerable are part of identifying and implementing climate solutions.

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it is essential that we all understand that the climate is changing and it is in our collective interest to immediately begin adapting and mitigating. The stakes are simply too high for inaction.

Links

• Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’
• World Water Day: one in four children will live with water scarcity by 2040
• 19 House Republicans call on their party to do something about climate change
• The climate change battle dividing Trump’s America
• Most voters in Peter Dutton's electorate oppose subsidising Adani coalmine, poll says

Two Quit Australian Climate Authority Blaming Government 'Extremists'

The Guardian - Helen Davidson

John Quiggin and Danny Price resign over Coalition’s ‘rightwing anti-science activists’ and climate change political point-scoring

A marsh area in the Simpson Desert. Two climate change experts have quit the government’s advisory panel over its refusal to tackle rising emissions. Photograph: De Agostini Picture Library/Getty Images

Two members of the Climate Change Authority have resigned, with one accusing the government of being beholden to rightwing, anti-science “extremists” in its own party and in the media.
John Quiggin told Guardian Australia he informed the federal minister for environment and energy, Josh Frydenberg, of his resignation on Thursday. It follows the resignation of fellow climate change authority member, Danny Price, who quit on Tuesday.
“The government’s refusal to accept the advice of its own authority, despite wide support for that advice from business, environmental groups and the community as a whole, reflects the comprehensive failure of its policies on energy and the environment,” Quiggin said.
“These failures can be traced, in large measure, to the fact that the government is beholden to rightwing anti-science activists in its own ranks and in the media. Rather than resist these extremists, the Turnbull government has chosen to treat the vital issues of climate change and energy security as an opportunity for political point-scoring and culture war rhetoric.”
Quiggin said his immediate reason for resigning was the government’s failure to respond to the authority’s third report of the special review into potential climate policies, which the government had requested and which it was legally required to respond to.

“The government has already indicated that it will reject the key recommendations of the review, particularly the introduction of an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity industry.”
Quiggin said he didn’t believe there was anything to be gained “by giving objective advice based on science and economic analysis to a government dominated by elements hostile to both science and economics”.
Price told Guardian Australia he had resigned because he “didn’t think it was appropriate for a member of a government agency to be openly critical of government policy”.
“I think the authority does really good work, but I didn’t think I could stay if I was going to continue to criticise the government’s policy making and I didn’t see any chance that it would get any better,” he said.
“I really hate the complete ad hocery of it all … the idea that anything at all can be thrown out by a government in a political panic.”
Quiggin was appointed to the authority in 2012, and Price in 2015. Both were appointed for five-year terms.
The Climate Change Authority’s special review was undertaken last year, and recommended the government institute two emissions trading schemes and strengthen regulations if it was to meet Australia’s 2030 emission reduction targets.
The report was criticised by the Climate Institute, the Greens, and other climate groups and experts criticised elements of the report, and in August Guardian Australia revealed a split in the ranks of the authority, with three members writing a dissenting report.
However many groups – including the Business Council of Australia, Energy Networks Australia, retailer Energy Australia, electricity provider AGL, the Climate Change Authority, the National Farmers Federation and the CSIRO – have also called for the introduction of an emissions intensity trading scheme.
Frydenberg canvassed a trading scheme in December, but the the idea was dumped after three days following objections from senior ministers.
The government’s openness to a scheme has also been cited as a reason for Cory Bernardi’s resignation from the party in February.
The Climate Change Authority was set up in 2011 as an independent statutory agency, and the Coalition has maintained that it should be abolished after failing to get its legislation to do just that through the Senate.
Frydenberg told Guardian Australia: “the government thanks both Danny Price and John Quiggin for their service and the government will continue to engage constructively with the authority”.
The Greens climate and energy spokesman, Adam Bandt, said the government’s “dangerous pandering to climate change deniers” had left it friendless.
“When added to previous resignations, this exodus is the equivalent of half the reserve bank board resigning over the government’s economic policies.”

Links

• Climate Change Authority splits over ETS report commissioned by Coalition
• Pressure mounts on Finkel energy review to consider price on carbon
• Australia's conservative government fiddles on climate policy while the country burns
• Chief scientist defends Climate Change Authority review against dissenters
• Australia's emissions won't fall by 2030 without greater climate action, modelling shows
• Malcolm Roberts to discuss climate science with CSIRO
• Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier
• Josh Frydenberg plays down Climate Change Authority call for tougher emissions limits
• Letter signed by 154 Australian experts demands climate policy match the science
• CSIRO cuts: Turnbull government orders U-turn on climate science research

Cities Shop For $10 Billion Of Electric Cars To Defy Trump

Bloomberg - Joe Ryan

• L.A., New York among 30 cities seeking up to 114,000 vehicles
• Trump said planning to re-examine Obama fuel-economy standards             

QuickTake: The Drive Towards Cleaner Cars

Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emission vehicles, just as President Donald Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.
Thirty cities including New York and Chicago jointly asked automakers for the cost and feasibility of providing 114,000 electric vehicles, including police cruisers, street sweepers and trash haulers, said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is coordinating the effort. That would be comparable to about 72 percent of total U.S. plug-in sales last year.
While urban leaders want more low-emission vehicles to ease the role city traffic plays in altering the climate, automakers say there aren’t enough buyers. They also have advocated for relaxing rules on traditional fuel vehicles. The Trump administration, which seeks to cut regulations it sees as too costly or onerous, is poised to announce Wednesday that it will reconsider tighter standards finalized a week before President Barack Obama left office.
“No matter what President Trump does or what happens in Washington, cities will continue leading the way on tackling climate change,” Matt Petersen, Los Angeles chief sustainability officer, said in an email.
The initiative is still in the early stages, and the cities haven’t actually ordered any of the 114,000 vehicles. Rather, they’ve taken what’s typically the first step in a formal bidding process by inviting manufactures to outline plans to supply them. Plus, some cities are asking about vehicles that don’t exist yet, such as electric fire engines and heavy-duty trucks.

The initiative could move the market nonetheless, said Colin McKerracher, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Orders for that many electric vehicles would be a significant driver for the U.S. plug-in market, which totaled 160,000 in 2016. While the initiative would probably be spread out over several years, it would provide electric vehicle manufacturers reliable demand as federal policies shift and gas prices fluctuate.

“I wouldn’t underestimate this,” McKerracher said. “What automakers really want in investing in electrification, whether that’s for passenger vehicles or commercial-use vehicles, is certainty.”
Trump plans to announce his intentions to re-examine vehicle-efficiency standards on Wednesday during a meeting with auto executives near Detroit. Automakers including General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV have pushed for the move, saying the standards drive up costs and don’t reflect motorists’ driving preferences.

Demonstrating Demand
The mayors, mostly Democrats, want to demonstrate that demand for low-emission vehicles is robust. “If you build it, we will buy it,” Chris Bast, Seattle’s climate and transportation policy adviser, said in an interview.
Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, said consumers are the ones who want less stringent fuel economy standards. “This is not coming from the auto industry -- it’s coming from consumers and the auto dealers association,” said Ebell, who left the Trump transition team in January.
Carmakers have invested heavily in cutting emissions, offering 95 different varieties of hybrids and electric vehicles last year, said Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers trade group. However, Americans still prefer gasoline-powered vehicles, he said.
“Combined, those models were all outsold by a single model of pickup truck,” Newton said.
Los Angeles began spearheading the effort for a joint electric-vehicle order during the run-up to the Paris climate accord in late 2015. The request to automakers went out earlier this year, initially with an order for 24,000 vehicles from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. Twenty-six other cities have since joined, including Boston, Denver, Kansas City and Houston.
Nearly 40 automakers, truck makers, bus makers and others have responded so far, Petersen said.

‘Cities’ Leadership’
Tail-pipe fumes are crucial in the fight to stop global warming. Emissions from cars and trucks became the largest U.S. source of greenhouse gases last year, surpassing power plants for the first time since 1979. That makes the EPA standards that Trump is eyeing central to help the U.S. meet its goals under the Paris climate deal.
“Now more than ever there is a need for cities’ leadership on climate,” Daniel Zarrilli, New York City’s senior director of climate policy and programs, said in an interview. “We really want to send a message that there is a growing market for electric vehicles -- regardless of what is happening in D.C.”

Links

• Why Trump Would Want to Slow Tough Fuel Standards: QuickTake Q&A
• China Electric Bus Sales Still Exploding
• China 100% Electric Bus Sales Grew To ~115,700 In 2016
• Electric Bus Sales Exploding In China (2010–2015)
• This Electric Bus Recharges At Bus Stops In Just A Few Minutes
• North America’s First 100% Electric Municipal Bus System
• Will The Latest Electricity Review Bring Climate And Energy Policy Together At Last?
• Electric-Powered Cars On Display In Melbourne A Taste Of Vehicles Of Future
• Electric Cars Need 15% Market Penetration To Go Mainstream
• Range Anxiety? Today’s Electric Cars Can Cover Vast Majority Of  Daily U.S. Driving Needs
• Delaying Shutting Power Stations Will Bring Big Disruption Later: Climate Institute Research
• Electric Vehicles

China Electric Bus Sales Still Exploding

CleanTechnica - Zachary Shahan

We wrote a couple of weeks ago about China's dramatic electric bus growth, but the numbers we had at the time only covered fully electric buses. We now have numbers for plug-in hybrids as well, again thanks to Jose Pontes and his helpful EV sales obsession.
Thanks to the new numbers, below is a chart I created visualizing the dramatic growth in the plug-in bus market in China.

Electrified Bus Sales in China (2011–2016)

Source: CleanTechnica Get the data

As mentioned several times before, China's electric bus growth dwarfs electric bus growth everywhere else in the world, but the economics of electric buses are clear — they are already cheaper than conventional buses, and they will be much, much cheaper before long. Plus, they offer dramatic quality of life benefits and help to stop global warming.
China has unique circumstances due to its overall economic growth and rapid development that help to make its electric bus growth so dramatic, but the shift to electric buses worldwide should catch on in a similar fashion before long.
The good news — aside from China — is that stories of electric bus orders have been increasing notably in the past year. We frequently get news of new electric bus orders all around the world, including some large ones.
I consider EV procurement to be one of the top 10 things cities and counties can do to advance a cleaner world, fight global warming, and cut air pollution. One huge part of that is switching to electric buses. Luckily, companies like BYD and Proterra make that an easy choice anyway — their electric buses can save these cities and counties money, in addition to cleaning their air and offering a smoother ride for passengers.
China has taken an obvious leadership role in the EV production and demand market. It deserves a great deal of credit for that. Who will start buying thousands of electric buses a year next?


Links

• China 100% Electric Bus Sales Grew To ~115,700 In 2016
• Electric Bus Sales Exploding In China (2010–2015)
• This Electric Bus Recharges At Bus Stops In Just A Few Minutes
• North America’s First 100% Electric Municipal Bus System
• Will The Latest Electricity Review Bring Climate And Energy Policy Together At Last?
• Electric-Powered Cars On Display In Melbourne A Taste Of Vehicles Of Future
• Electric Cars Need 15% Market Penetration To Go Mainstream
• Range Anxiety? Today’s Electric Cars Can Cover Vast Majority Of  Daily U.S. Driving Needs
• Delaying Shutting Power Stations Will Bring Big Disruption Later: Climate Institute Research
• Electric Vehicles

Ocean 'Tropicalisation' Radically Changing Southern Coastal Environments, Senate Inquiry Hears

ABC Rural - David Claughton


Fears Tasmania's giant kelp forests almost extinct (ABC News)

Warming water moving south along the New South Wales and Western Australian coasts from their tropical north is leading to fisheries contamination, more frequent storms and the destruction of kelp forests, a Senate inquiry has heard.
The 'Current and future impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity' inquiry has completed hearings in Sydney and Hobart, and is due to report by June 30.
Senators heard that fishermen have registered warm ocean currents making their way down the NSW coast, bringing fish contaminated with toxins such as ciguatera.
The toxin is only present in larger Spanish mackerel, which led to a food poisoning outbreak and subsequent ban on the larger fish at the Sydney Fish Market.
"Three people off Evans Head got ciguatera so we've had to stop catching large mackerel and the fish market won't take any ... over 10 kilograms," said Tricia Beattie, the chief executive of the Professional Fishermen's Association.
The inquiry also heard that coral fish are migrating much further south on the warmer currents leading to radical change in the underwater environment.
The migrating fish are eating plant life, including kelp, which underpins major fisheries in southern waters.
In Tasmania, kelp forests have almost disappeared due to rapidly warming waters and the spread of sea urchins.
Adriana Verges of the University of NSW said the tropical fish are destroying seaweed beds all along the east and west coasts of Australia, affecting key industries based on lobster and abalone stocks.
"It's the seaweeds that provide the habitat," she says.

"They can overgraze them and that causes a profound shift, whereby the entire ecological community changes and that's already been shown in northern NSW and the west coast of Australia."

Rabbitfish feed on kelp, filmed by researchers investigating its disappearance in southern oceans. (Supplied: Adriana Verges)

One kelp species has already been listed for protection, but researchers want more to be protected.
Professor David Booth from the Centre for Environmental Sustainability at University of Technology Sydney singled out the need for more resources to protect the ocean environment in places like the 2,900 square kilometre Perth Canyon on the west coast.
"I don't think we have enough data on what is actually in some of these areas and we're flying blind with a lot of the management," he said.

Cameras on the sea floor recorded migrating coral fish feeding where kelp has disappeared. (Supplied: Enric Ballesteros)

While Professor Booth said the oceans can not be climate proofed, he said they could be made climate ready, including the addition of additional marine sanctuaries in Commonwealth and northern trawl fishery waters.
Fishermen are opposed to an increase of ocean sanctuaries arguing that the industry has suffered too many cuts in recent years, and pollution and the causes of climate change itself need to be dealt with first.

'Slapped' by twin bleaching events
The coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef was happening more frequently, Professor Booth told the inquiry, occurring in 1998, 2004, 2006, 2011 and the past two years.

Storms in January damaged the Rockpool kiosk at Tuncurry. (Supplied: Wallis Lake Fishermen's Cooperative)

"Two bleaching events in a row, that's devastating," he said.

"It's like being slapped twice and not having a chance to recover.

"You can see there's a bit of a gap between them, but now we're now talking 2016-17 and if we get 2018 as well ... uncharted waters is a good way to put it."
NSW fishermen have also registered more frequent storms, the latest in January damaging processing facilities, retail outlets and slipways on the state's north coast.
Ms Beattie said the Wallis Lake Cooperative suffered a lot of damage.
"They lost their roofs, they lost their slipway ... pipes were broken, it was like a small hurricane had gone through the area," she said.

Links

• Kelp forests of Tasmania dying as water warms, dive operator says
• 'No longer casual observers': Global warming making oceans sick, scientists warn
• Current and future impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity
• Barrier Reef coral bleaching 'could cost $1b in lost tourism'
• Dramatic images show bleached coral covered in slime
• Next term of government will seal Great Barrier Reef's fate, report warns
• Only 7pc of Great Barrier Reef escapes bleaching: survey