24/08/2015

Extreme Weather

Catalyst, ABC Television

TRANSCRIPT
Bookmark and Share
download segment mp4 (average size 10 MB)

NARRATION
Heat waves that kill tens of thousands. Apocalyptic floods. Blizzards in the Middle East. How is it that a slightly warmer atmosphere can create weather that swings from one extreme to the next? From lazy jet streams to baking soils, in this report we explain the mechanisms behind some of the most catastrophic events of the decade.

Anja Taylor
Understanding exactly how a warmer world drives weather wild is crucial to predicting just how bumpy a ride we're in for.

NARRATION
In 2003, a heatwave settled over Europe. But this was no ordinary heatwave. By the time it was over, more than 40,000 people were dead.

Dr Erich Fischer
So 2003 was remarkable in many aspects. It was far warmer than ever before - two to five degrees on average over the whole summer.

NARRATION
It was likely the hottest weather event in Europe in 500 years. Yet, just seven years later, an even more intense heatwave hit Russia, setting the country on fire. Summer temperatures reached up to 13 degrees above average, and the death toll from heat stress and respiratory illness was estimated at more than 50,000.

Dr Erich Fischer
It was much larger in spatial extent, so it covered almost two million square kilometres. Really, we're not that used to such extremely hot summers. So it is surprising to see a clustering of such strong events. It wasn't only the two, there were three other very warm summers within the same decade.
Anja Taylor
Global average temperatures have only increased by 0.8 of a degree Celsius. One would think that this would just lead to slightly warmer summers. But, actually, it's greatly increasing the chances of extremely hot weather.

NARRATION
This past year in Australia, we've seen plenty of heat. At the Bureau of Meteorology, forecasters have been watching record after record tumble.

Dr Karl Braganza
January was the hottest month on record. The summer was the hottest on record. And the sea surface temperatures around Australia were the hottest on record. We had temperatures in Bass Strait, south of Melbourne and south of Adelaide, up to six degrees above average. But, in terms of heatwaves, what we find is the elevated ocean temperatures reduce the amount of cold outbreaks we get. And, particularly during April, we had a prolonged heatwave with very hot night-time temperatures, and those sustained night-time temperatures are indicative of warmer waters to the south of Australia, and that's what we saw.

NARRATION
Although an exceptional year, it's not outside the range of what's now considered normal. If you plot temperature records, they fall in a typical bell-curve pattern, with the majority only a small deviation from the average, and the outliers representing extreme hot or cold events. With a 0.8 degree rise in temperature, a much larger portion now sits in the warmer-than-average section, and hot to extremely hot days are far more frequent.

Dr Karl Braganza
Suddenly, you've actually doubled the frequency of those events - and, in Australia's case, up to five times an increase in the frequency of extreme heat compared to the middle of last century. And that has all sorts of implications. Just in January alone, we did about 1,600 spot-fire forecasts. That's this very detailed forecast for the firefighters. And that's the equivalent of the last several years.

NARRATION
Worldwide, heatwaves have been increasing in duration and frequency since the 1950s.

Dr Lisa Alexander
What we thought as kind of exceptional in the past has really started to become the norm.

NARRATION
But even in the context of global warming, the European and Russian heatwaves are way off the charts. Is this just natural variability, or is something else happening to make temperatures soar? The Swiss Institute of Technology is a world leader in climate modelling. Here, Dr Erich Fischer has focused intensive research on the causes of the 2003 scorcher and other recent severe heatwaves in Europe.

Dr Erich Fischer
What's mainly the key factor is always the atmospheric circulations, so there needs to be a high-pressure system in place to get such an extreme heatwave.

NARRATION
But there was something else they all had in common - dry soils.

Dr Erich Fischer
All of them were actually preceded by very dry conditions in the spring. So we think that these conditions were already preconditioning the later heatwave.

NARRATION
Low rainfall in the spring months led to an early and rapid loss of soil moisture. And dry soils can be a double whammy on an evolving heatwave.

Anja Taylor
When the sun's rays hit the land surface, a lot of their energy goes into evaporating moisture from the soil and from plants as they transpire. But when soils dry out and plants stop transpiring, the sun's energy is no longer channelled into that process. Instead, it's free to heat the surface.

NARRATION
The result is a jump in temperatures. It was dry soils that turned the European heatwave of 2003 into a deadly scorcher.

Dr Erich Fischer
With the very same conditions in the atmosphere, but wet soils rather than dry soils, the 2003 summer would have still been a very warm summer, but much less extreme, with much less devastating impacts.

NARRATION
An early snow melt and dry soils also amplified the Russian heatwave of 2010. What's disturbing is that many regions appear to be trending to patterns of lower rainfall in winter and spring months, making those areas more prone to mega heatwaves.

Dr Erich Fischer
Europe and central Europe was always thought to be always humid basically. So, it was a surprise that in that event more dry conditions was actually enough to amplify the heatwave - something that usually only occurs over dry regions, such as the Mediterranean or the central US or Australia, for instance.
Anja Taylor
From where I'm standing, heatwaves seem a long, long way away. So do dry soils. And although this summer has been the hottest on record, it's also had some torrential downpours. So how is it that it can be getting hotter, drier and wetter at the same time?

NARRATION
It's simple physics. When air gets warmer, it can carry more water vapour - much more. So any rise in temperatures should lead to considerably more moisture being sucked from the Earth's surface. But what goes up must eventually come down.

Dr Susan Wijffels
Rainfall, as we all know from personal experience, is really spotty. I mean, it can be raining, you know, in your suburb, and next door not raining at all. And so that spatial sort of graininess of rainfall makes it an incredibly hard thing to measure - and, in particular, to measure over larger areas accurately.

NARRATION
To find out if a warmer climate is cranking up the water cycle, scientists have been searching for clues in the restless, churning oceans.

Dr Susan Wijffels
Most of the evaporation and most of the rainfall in the world actually cycles through the ocean surface, not through the land. Because it covers 75 percent of the Earth, most of the action's actually happening over the ocean.

NARRATION
Every time rain falls or water evaporates from the sea, surface salinity changes.

Dr Susan Wijffels
When we look at the ocean salinity field right now, we see this beautiful reflection of what happens in the atmosphere. So the places that are very rainy - say, the Tropics, where there's a large amount of rainfall all the time - the surface salinity field is very fresh. When we go to the parts of the atmosphere where we find deserts on land, there are desert equivalents over the ocean, where evaporation dominates, and that's where we find the surface of the ocean is very, very salty.

NARRATION
Keeping track of how salty seas change, more than 3,000 ocean robots called 'Argo floats' have been bobbing about on the global currents, beaming back data over time. The oceans are always mixing, so results are smoothed out instead of patchy like land records. Argo data and long-term records from research vessels reveal an unmistakable trend.

Dr Susan Wijffels
Over the last 50 years, that contrast has gone up quite markedly. So, for instance, the Atlantic Ocean is becoming saltier and saltier and saltier. And the Pacific is becoming fresher and fresher. Essentially translates to the fact that the wet areas have become wetter and the dry areas have become drier.

NARRATION
The big surprise is how fast the change is occurring. For every degree rise in air temperature, the water cycle is intensifying by percent. That's double the climate-model predictions.

Dr Susan Wijffels
The intensity of the storms are likely to go up, because the moisture in the atmosphere is actually the feeder energy stop that drives storms. And we expect droughts and floods to amplify as well.

NARRATION
And that's what's happening. These days, when it rains, it really pours. In January 2011, Toowoomba set a terrifying example of what can happen when too much water comes down too fast.

Man
The house... We are moving!

NARRATION
The town experienced an inland tsunami as 100mm of rain fell in under an hour.

Dr Lisa Alexander
You get very intense rainfall events in a very short period of time, like you did in Toowoomba. The soil just can't absorb that much water. And then you do start getting these very large inland flooding events.

NARRATION
By studying over 8,000 rain gauges across the world, Australian scientists have confirmed that extreme rainfall events have also been intensifying. That means we're getting more water from a big storm than we would have 30 or 40 years ago. Around 7 percent more per degree rise in temperature.

Dr Lisa Alexander
It surprised us all, I have to say, that we got the answer we expected. So... Because usually, in science, you don't always end up with the answer you expect. So, to sort of see this coming out consistently in the data, was... was somewhat of a surprise.
Dr Susan Wijffels
We're already starting to detect and see big changes in the extreme events. And we've only really warmed the Earth by 0.8 of a degree. If we were to warm the Earth by 3 or 4 degrees, the changes in the hydrological cycle could be near 30 percent. I mean, that's just a huge change, and it's very hard for us to imagine.
Anja Taylor
Well, that explains heatwaves and floods, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that higher temperatures don't set the scene for blizzards. In marked contrast to a sweltering March last year, this year the US suffered through nailbiting cold. In fact, much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried under record-breaking snowfalls. How can global warming possibly explain that?

NARRATION
To understand how, you need to consider the basic drivers of climate. As the sun heats the Earth unevenly, it sets up temperature gradients on many different scales. These create the winds and currents that influence weather.

Dr Karl Braganza
All the ocean currents are driven by basically the temperature gradient between the Equator and the Pole, and it's the same in the atmosphere.

NARRATION
The atmospheric gradient between the Tropics and the Poles creates the major westerly winds called 'jet streams'. Wind rushes down a slope from a warm, puffed up atmosphere to a cold, compressed atmosphere.

Dr Jennifer Francis
The stronger that gradient, the stronger the force that that wind is being pulled by, if you will, and then, because the Earth is spinning, instead of flowing directly from the south to the north, it actually gets turned to the right by the spinning of the Earth.

NARRATION
These fast-moving wavy winds encircle the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and mark the divide between cold, polar air and warm, tropical air.

Dr Jennifer Francis
They swing north and then they swing south, and the weather that you experience is completely related to where you are relative to one of these waves.

NARRATION
But what happens when you mess with a temperature gradient? It's a hotly debated topic, and, right now, we're running an extraordinary real-world experiment by turning up the thermostat in the Arctic.

Dr Jennifer Francis
It's hard to get your mind around how fast the Arctic is changing. It's really mind-boggling - even to someone like me, who's been studying it for decades now.

NARRATION
The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere on Earth, largely to do with the feedback effect of melting sea ice. White, bright ice bounces the sun's rays back into space before they have a chance to warm the surface. But when a small rise in temperatures melts some of the ice, the dark ocean below is exposed. This absorbs almost all the sun's energy, and heats up, causing more ice to melt, leading to more warming and so on.

Dr Jennifer Francis
What we're seeing is the Arctic sea ice disappearing at just an amazing rate. This is the ice that's floating on top of the Arctic ocean. This past summer, it was half as big as it was only 30 years ago.

NARRATION
Research by Dr Jennifer Francis has shown that Arctic summers with a low sea ice extent leads to a gentler atmospheric gradient.

Dr Jennifer Francis
The force that's creating those winds in the jet stream is getting weaker as well.

NARRATION
Like fast-flowing mountain rivers meander when they slowly cross the coastal plain, Jennifer predicted a weaker, slower jet stream would display a much wavier pattern.

Dr Jennifer Francis
We were able to determine that, in fact, these waves are actually getting larger in the north-south direction, which we know through weather theory that those waves then tend to move more slowly from west to east.

NARRATION
And a lazy, meandering jet stream can have an extraordinary effect on weather.

Dr Jennifer Francis
A big dip south, for example, will allow that cold air from the Arctic to plunge farther south. And, conversely, if you have a big swing northward in one of what we call a 'ridge', then that allows the warm, tropical air to extend farther northward. So, in both of these cases, we tend to get more unusual weather patterns setting up.

NARRATION
That's exactly what happened when frigid Arctic weather plunged into Europe and south-eastern US this March, bringing record snowfalls and leading many to wonder what happened to global warming. The year before, the US was caught in a jet-stream upswing. Unprecedented heat smashed over 1,000 temperature records and set the scene for a staggering drought and massive agricultural losses. This decade the Northern Hemisphere has seen some catastrophic results from a highly deformed jet stream. While a big, stagnant high settled over Russia in 2010, cold air from Siberia plunged into Pakistan, colliding with warm, wet air from the Bay of Bengal. As Russian burned, Pakistan drowned under a deluge that lasted nearly two months.

Dr Jennifer Francis
As the jet stream takes on this wavier character, what this means is that the weather that you're experiencing in your location is going to stick around longer. It's going to feel like those weather conditions just won't give up and bring something else. It feels like it's stuck.

NARRATION
How jet streams are being affected by a warming Arctic is still highly unpredictable, with many other interactions affecting their speed and movement. But one thing's certain - we'd better get used to wacky weather.

Dr Karl Braganza
And we talk about climate change in the future of 1, 2, 3 degrees - that's actually hard to imagine.
Dr Jennifer Francis
It's going to be a difficult next few decades, I think.
Anja Taylor
When it comes to extreme weather, the connection is pretty clear. The warmer the world, the wilder it gets. And, with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognisable future.

Ice Loss Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae Glacier

MashableAustralia

One of the world's most rapidly flowing glaciers may have just set another record, and it's not one not that bodes well for low-lying coastal cities and nations around the world, which are vulnerable to sea level rise.
During the past month, a NASA satellite captured images showing a sudden loss of ice, also known as a calving event (or in this case, possibly multiple events) from Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae Glacier between July 31 and August 16, 2015.
Images posted on the Arctic sea ice blog, which closely tracks developments in the Arctic, narrowed the timeline of the ice loss to between August 14 and 16.

Jakobshavn RetreatNASA satellite images on July 31, 2015 (first) and then on August 16, 2015 (second), showing the movement of the calving front further inland, or to the right.

It's unclear if this sudden ice loss set a record, according to NASA.
"Some observers have speculated that the area of ice lost could be the largest on record. However, these estimates are preliminary, and satellite images from before and after an event cannot show whether the ice was lost all at once, or in a series of smaller events," NASA stated on its Earth Observatory website.
Nevertheless, the event was significant because it once again signaled the rapidly changing ice conditions in Greenland as air and ocean temperatures increase.
“The calving events of Jakobshavn are becoming more spectacular with time, and I am in awe with the calving speed and retreat rate of this glacier,” said Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in a statement.
Studies have shown that Jakobshavn's summer flow speeds have sped up dramatically during the past few decades, and this one glacier was responsible for raising global average sea level by about 1 millimeter, or .04 inches, between 2000 and 2010, a figure that is likely to increase as global warming continues.
Jakobshavn retreated more than 25 miles between 1850 and 2010, and since 2010, the retreat has sped up dramatically.
In fact, a 2014 study published in the open access journal Cryosphere found that the glacier was moving at average speeds of about half-a-mile per year, or more than 150 feet per day, during the summers of 2012 and 2013.
“We are now seeing summer speeds more than four times what they were in the 1990s, on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest, if not the fastest, glacier in Greenland,” said study author Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington, in a press release when that study was published.
Jakobshavn is not just any old glacier. It's important because it helps drain a large portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet. As it moves faster, it transports more ice at a faster rate into the sea, adding to sea level rise.
"This glacier alone could contribute more to sea level rise than any other single feature in the Northern Hemisphere," NASA stated on its website.
Given its rapid movement, Jakobshavn has been the scene of several famous large calving events, including one in July 2010, when the glacier shed a 2.7 square-mile chunk of ice in the span of 24 hours, pushing the calving front one mile further inland.
Scientists think the ice loss has sped up so much because of a combination of warmer air temperatures during the short Greenland summers, as well as warmer ocean temperatures, which are undermining the glacier's ice tongue — the part that sticks out into the ocean and serves as a brake to all the ice behind it — speeding up the ice's movement into the sea.
Climate scientists have raised alarms about such outlet glaciers in recent years, both in Greenland and Antarctica, because when they become unstable and move more swiftly into the sea, the ice they hold back begins to move as well, endangering low-lying coastal cities and countries around the world.

Massive calving event seen on the Ilulissat Glacier in western Greenland in 2008, as shown in the film "Chasing Ice."

In the case of Jakobshavn, as the ice has retreated, the calving front has reached a deeper area of the fjord, and this has further sped up the melting.
The calving front is now located in an area where the base of solid rock that it rests upon is more than 1,000 feet below sea level, making the glacier especially vulnerable to intrusions from relatively mild water as ocean currents in the regions change in response to global warming and other factors.
“What is important is that the ice front, or calving front, keeps retreating inland at galloping speeds,” said NASA's Rignot, in a statement.

Worries about Greenland's stability
Greenland is the world's largest island, extending more than 1,200 miles from its southern to northernmost points, and if all of its ice were to melt — which would likely take many centuries — the oceans would rise by more than 20 feet.
Already, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global sea level rise, accounting for about .02 inches of the .13 inches per year global average sea level rise (local rates of sea level rise vary significantly).
A study published last year found that glaciers long thought to be stable and resistant to rapid melting in northeastern Greenland, which tends to be colder than the area where Jakobshavn is, may nonetheless share the latter glacier's fate.

Retreat of Jakobshavn GlacierRetreat of the calving front of Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland. Image: NASA

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that three glaciers holding back a vast ice stream in northeast Greenland, are now thinning and moving more rapidly into the sea.
The most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that global average sea level is likely to increase by 10.2 to 32 inches by the year 2100, with a highest emissions scenario showing a sea level rise of between 21 and 38 inches by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unabated.
The recent observations from Jakobshavn and the glaciers in northeast Greenland, plus data showing the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be increasingly unstable, suggest that sea level rise is likely to be at the higher end of the predicted range, if not significantly higher than that.

Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999


The Canberra Times - Professor Don Anton, Centre for Climate Law and Policy, ANU College of Law
George Brandis' recently announced plans to repeal a key provision in the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – a provision that allows the public to challenge the legality of decisions made by government – cannot stand scrutiny. It runs against the rule of law, democratic accountability, and history. It should be seen for what it is – another attempt to stop environmental concerns from getting in the way of economic priorities. It is a reactionary response to the successful challenge, by the Mackay Conservation Group, of the decision to approve the Carmichael coal mine. It builds on the government's draconian funding cuts already made to public interest environmental litigation.
The EPBCA is the Commonwealth's flagship environmental legislation. It was enacted (by the Howard Coalition government) to improve on Australia's first-generation environmental laws dating back to the early 1970s. It was touted by the Coalition government for its efficiency and streamlined approached. It was the product of some very hard political bargaining between the government and the now defunct political party of the Democrats, which at that time held the balance of power in the Senate.
The Democrats supported the establishment of the GST in exchange for significant amendments to the exposure draft of the EPBC Bill before its enactment. Those amendments are reflected most prominently in a host of section numbers peppered through the act that are followed by capital letters (eg, sections 146A–146L on strategic impact assessment).
One innovation in the EPBCA is reflected in section 487 of the act. Note that there is no capital letter following the section number because it was enacted in terms drafted by the government. Until section 487 was passed, environmental decisions of the Commonwealth were generally non-justiciable under ancient common law rules to which the Attorney-General seeks to return.
An individual or group concerned with ensuring compliance with environmental law had to establish special interest over and above the general public (ordinarily a direct injury to an economic interest) caused by the alleged breach before a court would entertain a lawsuit. Without a special interest, a person or group did not have "standing" – a sufficient connection with the alleged breach of law – to complain before a court. This was a very high hurdle and, not surprisingly, few individuals or green groups could meet the test.
Section 487 relaxed this standing requirement in connection with judicial review of decisions made under the EPBCA. Individuals and groups are deemed to have a special interest (are "persons aggrieved") if at any time within the two years prior to the decision challenged, they have engaged in activities associated with environmental protection. In the case of a group, its explicit purposes must include some form of environmental concern. It is true that the Democrats wanted more than this limited expansion of standing, but it was accepted for other trade-offs.
The Democrats were pushing of the sort of "open standing" provisions pioneered by NSW and other Australian states in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For a long time now, the default position in many environmental laws found in the states is to allow "any person" to seek judicial review of decisions. Many also allow "any person" to sue to restrain or remedy a breach of environmental law. No track record necessary. It is not hard to understand why. The environment is a public good, deserving of public protection in cases of government failure. State parliaments saw this, so did the international community.
By 1992 we had Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration in which every country in the world proclaimed with unequivocal certainty that "environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens … In order for participation to be effective, Principle 10 makes clear that access to judicial … proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided."
This approach rests on the sound view that environmental protection cannot be left to governments alone. Rather, it requires and benefits from civic participation, including by way of standing to challenge environmental decisions. This is now a firmly entrenched principle in international environmental law and policy today, reflected in a host of laws around the world.
It is not difficult to see why generous standing provisions are the norm in an environmental context. They bring more brains to decision-making and promote the rule of law. In an open democracy, it is essential that the citizenry be able to test the validity of governmental decisions about the environment in order to check what would otherwise be naked power.
In the mid-13th century, Bracton famously proclaimed the superiority of the law over the king as a norm necessary to eliminate arbitrary rule. So by giving the public a right to seek redress when the government fails execute environmental laws as required, the rule of environmental law is strengthened.
Moreover, by providing generous standing provisions and third party appeal rights, the legitimacy of the governmental decision-making process is enhanced. People have a strong sense that losing is not quite so bad if they have had a fair chance at playing the game. Sir Robert Megarry once observed that the most important person in a courtroom was the litigant who was about to lose, and it was the primary duty of the court to convince that person that his or her point of view had been heard and understood, even if the court found it necessary to reject it.
Why, then, does Attorney-General Brandis want to repeal a law enacted by his political forebears and recognised as salutary by state governments and countries around the world? This question becomes more perplexing when one considers recent data from the Australian Institute. Since the EPBCA began in July 2000, it has been used a total of 33 times to challenge 27 projects out of a total of the 5500 referred to the minister for a decision.
In only two cases of those 33 did a green group challenger succeed in obtaining the relief it sought. That's a success rate of 0.04 per cent, rounded up. Add to that a miserly denial rate of 1.3 per cent of applications made for approval under the EPBCA – yes, developers currently have a better than 98 per cent chance of approval – and one is left with a sense that we have environmental law, but we do not have environmental protection.
Nevertheless, according to Senator Brandis, a repeal is urgently needed. Some worn-out arguments have been used to try and turn back time. The biggest criticism levelled against section 487 standing has been clothed with pejorative language. Suddenly, it supposedly permits "vigilante" litigation and "lawfare". Putting the rule of law to one side, existing rules have long prohibited vexatious and frivolous litigation. You can be sure that if the Mackay Environmental Group had been a vexatious, "vigilante" litigant engaged in "lawfare", then government and highly paid mining lawyers would have disposed of the challenge to the decision on the Carmichael coal mine post haste with little trouble.
Another complaint by Senator Brandis is that "statutory language is extremely loose" so that "virtually anyone" has legal standing to challenge developments. That is the point, of course. That is what is desired and intended. The complaint is really an appeal to the old "flood-gates" argument; that every man and his dog will rush to the courthouse and sue with open standing.
The reality behind the statistics above makes this complaint absurd. It's been recognised as false since at least 1989 when a judge with direct experience, former Chief Judge Harold Cripps of the NSW Land and Environment Court, wrote: 'It was said … in 1980 that the presence of [open standing] would lead to a rash of harassing and vexatious litigation. That has not happened and, with the greatest respect to people who think otherwise, I think that that argument has been wholly discredited'.
The long-recognised, simple fact is that the environment is just too important to be left to the government alone. Public participation and open standing provide critical input from those who actually live in the environment subject to controversy. The public provides both an essential source of information about the environment and, with open standing, in ensuring that the government's feet are held to the fire in the proper implementation of the law. The people of Australia should accept nothing less.