Climate Change Could Shrink Australia's Ski Season By 80 Days A Year By 2050, CSIRO Says

ABC News - James Thomas | Alison Branley

The CSIRO has found there has been significant decline in snow depth in the past 60 years. (AAP: Perisher, file photo)

Key points: CSIRO predicts average snow season will shorten by at least 20-55 days CSIRO warns if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, snow cover and duration will rapidly decline Popular ski resorts at high altitudes are not immune to the reduction in snow falls

Australia's ski season could shrink by up to 80 days a year by 2050 under worst-case predictions for climate change — but there are no plans to restrict ski resorts in national parks.
The CSIRO's climate change modelling predicts, under a low-risk scenario, the average snow season across Victoria and some of New South Wales will become 20 to 55 days shorter and, under a worst-case scenario, 30 to 80 days shorter — all but obliterating the 112-day ski season.
The CSIRO has found significant decline in the past 60 years in the southern slopes and Murray-Basin areas and current predictions are for continued decline in snow depth and duration of snow cover.
However, it also notes snow dumps vary season to season and can be unpredictable.
"Snowfall is projected to experience a reduction that increases with time, with the magnitude dependent on the emission scenarios and the altitude," its 2015 report predicted.

A graph shows estimated snow fall in Cabramurra in the Kosciuszko National Park. (Source: CSIRO Climate Change in Australia 2015)

Kosciuszko ski resorts 'should be phased out'
Despite that, there is a standing concept plan approval for an 800-bed resort at Perisher.
The Colong Foundation for Wilderness's Keith Muir said he was concerned it could become a "stranded asset".
His organisation was considering a legal challenge against the proposed development inside the national park.
The foundation argues it should be reconsidered in the context of climate change and resorts are better placed in nearby Jindabyne.

"We think the ski resorts in Kosciuszko should be phased out by 2030, when there will be no snow that's viable for the commercial operation of snow resorts, even with snow making," Mr Muir said.

"We say the resorts will not have a moral licence to operate when the snow is gone, because that's why they're there.
"It really is going to end."


CSIRO climate projections scientist Michael Grose speaks to the ABC. (ABC News)

There is a standing concept plan approval for an 800-bed resort at Perisher. (Supplied)

It comes as the NSW Government considers two key reports on the future of Kosciuszko National Park, including a review of bed limits as a measure of impact and potential head lease for Perisher.
CSIRO Climate Science Centre research director Kevin Hennessy said snow dumps depended on the rate of climate change, which in turn depended on the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions increased.
"If we continue to increase greenhouse gas house emissions at the current rate there will be a relatively rapid decline in snow cover and snow duration," he said.
"We are looking at a committed warming of at least one or two degrees over the next decade so an amount of change is unavoidable.
"But beyond about the 2030s, it does depend on how our greenhouse gas house emissions are managed."

The Irvine family on the road between Sponars and Smiggin Holes in 1969. Supplied: Perisher Historical Society
GALLERY: PERISHER THROUGH THE YEARS 10 IMAGES

Higher ski resorts 'not immune'
Mr Hennessy said higher ski resorts such as Perisher would stay open longer, but would not be immune to reductions in snow falls.

"In future we expect a reduction in the number of snow days, the depth of that snow across that season and the duration of the ski season, so we expect a later start to the ski season and an earlier finish," he said.

"In the Kosciuszko region, which has fairly high elevation, we expect there to be good years and bad years right through this century and not until the end of this century might we see really, really low snow levels."
But Mr Hennessy said snow making would become very difficult by 2030, because it would be too warm.
"To make snow you require wet bulb temperature below minus 1 or minus 2 degrees Celsius," he said.
"We anticipate by 2030, the opportunities for snow making might be halved with the exception of some of the high resorts where opportunities might be halved by 2040s.
"The ski industries both in Victoria and New South Wales are factoring in climate change into their projections. The question is how long is that financially viable?"

Kevin Hennessy said higher ski resorts would stay open longer, but would not be immune. (ABC News: Gregory Nelson )

National Parks and Wildlife Service acting deputy chief executive Robert Quirk said the organisation was focused on making use of the existing infrastructure in the park to draw people year-round.

"We are going to see less snow," Mr Quirk said.

"We have been seeing that for 20 years, and there is a little bit of an interest in how the business runs through the whole calendar year, not just for four months of the year.
"We do want people to get out and understand environmental values, they're not going to get that in their lounge room."
He said the organisation was cognisant of climate change.
"We talk to the resorts about it all the time and we're watching and waiting to see how it shapes up over the next 50 years," he said.
"The practical reality is we have a lot of businesses based there now which are focused on the snow still falling, and our principal responsibility is to make sure that we manage those sites for the benefit of the park and the community."
Vail Resorts did not respond to questions put to it about the impact of climate change in the park, but said it was committed to preserving the natural environments in which it operated.

There is a standing concept plan approval for an 800-bed resort at Perisher. (Supplied: The Colong Foundation for Wilderness)

Links

• Environmentalists fear Perisher development will turn small village 'into a town'
• Is your Kosciuszko holiday damaging the environment?
• Earth On The Edge’: EU Agency Confirms 2016 As Hottest Year On Record
• 2016 Was The Hottest Year Ever On Australia’s East Coast, Confirms Bureau Of Meteorology
• Annual climate statement 2016
• Australia Had Extreme Weather and Fourth-Hottest Year in 2016
• 2016 was Sydney's hottest year on record
• Record-breaking extreme weather in Australia in 2016 devastates ecosystems
• Earth on the edge: Record breaking 2016 was close to 1.5°C warming
• 2016 'hottest on record' in new sign of global warming, Copernicus organisation says
• 2016 an 'eventful year' of extreme weather events, bureau says

Science Loses Out To Uninformed Opinion On Climate Change – Yet Again

The Conversation - Phillip Williamson

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That’s a matter of fact. We don’t know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won’t be good news.
The journalist James Delingpole disagrees. In an article for The Spectator in April 2016, he took the sceptical position that all concerns over ocean acidification are unjustified “alarmism” and that the scientific study of this non-problem is a waste of money. He concluded that the only reason that the study of ocean acidification was ever funded at all was because there was insufficient (and decreasing) evidence for global warming and it acted as a “fallback position”.
Having had the role of science coordinator for the UK Ocean Acidification research programme and being involved in relevant national and international projects for around ten years previously, I know such claims – which Delingpole presented as facts – to be false. I also spotted a range of other errors and inaccuracies in his piece.
Having first gone to The Spectator with my concerns, in late August I submitted a formal complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). The key issues were whether or not due care had been taken to avoid publication of inaccurate information, and whether comment and conjecture had been clearly distinguished from fact.
At the end of a long and frustrating process IPSO’s final ruling was published on January 5 and it doesn’t seem we are much further forward. My complaint was rejected on the basis that the article was “clearly a comment piece” and that it was not IPSO’s role to resolve conflicting evidence for contentious issues.

Facts are sacred
Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, extremely precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors’ Code of Practice – which IPSO claims to uphold – requires the “highest professional standards”. Let’s remind ourselves of what this means when it comes to accuracy:

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.

That would seem clear enough. So let’s look at just one of Delingpole’s paragraphs and judge for ourselves whether these standards were met:

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO₂ levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections? When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last century.

That might look like a plausible argument based on fact. But the Feely/Sabine chart which was of concern to Wallace was published in 2006, not 2004; the chart didn’t start in 1988, but covered the period 1850-2100; and no data had been omitted, since it showed an idealised, theory-based relationship between atmospheric CO₂ and ocean pH. Meanwhile the “real-world evidence” was from extremely unreliable early measurements, uncorrected for natural variability, that when combined gave physically impossible year-on-year changes in global pH. And Wallace’s analyses have not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Delingpole did not contact any of the individuals mentioned to obtain first-hand accounts of the issues of concern.

How ocean acidification works according to the experts. UK Ocean Acidification Programme

To be fair, several of Delingpole’s inaccuracies, such as NERC (the Natural Environment Research Council) rather than Defra being the main funder of the UK Ocean Acidification research programme, were acknowledged by IPSO – but the regulator ruled that they were not “significantly” misleading, neither cumulatively nor individually. It didn’t seem to matter to IPSO that calling science’s approach to acidification “alarmism” – and implying that researchers have said that everything in the sea will die – is rather different from the well-established scientific knowledge that ocean acidification really does affect sensitive species, such as corals, and will therefore disrupt ecosystems.

Fair comment?
The Editor’s Code of Practice has this to say about opinion and comment:

The press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

So read this statement from Delingpole:

Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.

Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact, or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by “evidence”. If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that’s an increase, right?
All these issues may seem technical or unimportant to anyone but scientists or most of the public. But IPSO’s overall message is that ocean acidification is just a matter of opinion – not a hard-won, testable understanding of the likely effects of human-driven changes on the marine environment. This view of science is pernicious and has serious policy consequences. Why support any research if 250 peer-reviewed papers produced by the UK Ocean Acidification research programme can all be summarily dismissed as worthless?

IPSO: a watchdog with few teeth?

From a back of the envelope analysis of IPSO’s published statistics on its adjudications on complaints it appears that about 18% of those investigated are upheld. I can’t pretend to be an expert on the nature of complaints about the press and don’t know what proportion is vexatious or can be dismissed out of hand, but it’s important to note that the overwhelming majority of complaints received by IPSO – at least 95% by my calculation – are not investigated or taken further, since they come under the heading complaints IPSO could not deal with. This might be good news for publishers, but seems a very depressing statistic for those who feel wronged by the press.

IPSO annual report 2015. Author provided

Does this really mean that anything goes if it is presented, however tenuously, as “comment” or “opinion”? Doesn’t “care taken” involve basic fact-checking and making a proper effort to contact quoted or maligned individuals before publication? Are political blogs, disputed newspaper coverage and think-tank reports reliable information sources, while properly peer-reviewed scientific literature can be disregarded?

IPSO annual report 2015. Author provided

There’s a passionate debate going on in journalism at the moment about regulation – and most journalists believe, probably correctly – that the industry should be its own watchdog. But these sorts of decisions make you wonder whether they are up to the task. All this is in my opinion, of course.

Links

• Why managing ocean acidification is crucial for South Africa
• Jumps in ocean acidity put coral in more peril
• The Great Barrier Reef faces a mixed future in acidifying oceans
• Ocean acidification leaving fish in the dark: study

The People Taking Trump’s Secretary Of State Pick To Court Aren’t Who You’d Expect

Mashable Australia - Andrew Freedman

Julia Olson, center, executive director of Our Children's Trust, holds a copy of U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken's decision on Nov. 10, 2016, in Eugene, Oregon. Image: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard via AP

Alex Loznak is about to head into the second semester of his sophomore year at Columbia University, but he's not your typical student. He's one of 21 people, ages nine to 20, suing the federal government for failing to protect them from the damaging effects of climate change.
Loznak, 19, and his fellow plaintiffs are hoping to advance their case, which is set to go to trial as early as this summer, by deposing current ExxonMobil CEO and Trump administration secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson.
According to Loznak and the legal team fighting the case, Tillerson is in the best position to speak to the "collusion" between fossil fuel companies and the government to maintain a fossil fuel-centric economy despite well-known evidence that burning fuels like coal and oil cause global warming.
Tillerson served on the board of the American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups that have long opposed policies to reduce emissions, although he says he is in favor of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson pauses during a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2017. Image: AP/EVAN vucci

Tillerson's deposition is scheduled for Jan. 19, just one day before Trump's inauguration. The notice requesting the deposition asks for all documents relating to Tillerson's participation with a group known as the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel industry-backed group which conducted an effective climate science disinformation campaign during the 1990s through 2001.
It also seeks information on his role in particular decisions the George W. Bush administration made, such as walking away from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.
The case, brought by the nonprofit group Our Children's Trust, has already established a landmark precedent when a U.S. District Court Judge, Ann Aiken, ruled that the case can proceed to trial sometime this year.
Her ruling stated that the federal government and fossil fuel industry's failure to stem global warming may violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
"This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case," she wrote in her ruling.

Global surface temperature departures from average during Nov. 2016. Image: nasa giss

"It alleges that defendants' actions and inactions — whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty — have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty."
The court said that the plaintiffs had asserted a right "to a climate system capable of sustaining human life," and that the defendants may be endangering that.
The effects of climate change are becoming more evident each year, with 2016 almost certain to set the record for the warmest calendar year on record. The year was marked with a devastating global coral bleaching event that killed parts of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, along with record low sea ice and unusually high temperatures in the Arctic.
Loznak and his fellow plaintiffs are seeking to hold the federal government, fossil fuel companies and their trade associations accountable for failing to act swiftly and effectively to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases causing human-caused global warming, despite their knowledge of the science of climate change.

Five of the 21 youth plaintiffs in a federal climate change lawsuit against the federal government, seen on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016, in Eugene, Ore. Image: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard via AP

The fact that the case is likely to proceed to trial is a surprise to many legal scholars, who thought the case would have been dismissed like many other climate lawsuits.
"The fact that we're going to trial has surprised a lot of people," Loznak said in an interview with Mashable.
Loznak, along with his legal team, see Tillerson's testimony as key to their case.
"Nobody knows better than Rex Tillerson, I think, how much collusion has gone on between the fossil fuel industry and the government in this country," Loznak said.
Investigative reporting during the past two years from the Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism School and InsideClimate News has shown that Exxon researched climate change as early as the 1970s, yet chose to ignore the dangers of its fossil fuel products, and instead funded disinformation campaigns to confuse the public and politicians about the issue.
The implications of a victory in this case could be unusually far-reaching.
"If we win at trial that means the court is going to order the government to reduce emissions [at rates] consistent with science," Loznak said, which means about 6 percent reductions per year, far faster than what is currently planned.

Exxon Mobil's Billings Refinery in Billings, Mont., seen in Sept. 2016. Image: AP

The case, known officially as Juliana v. United States, takes a different approach than previous climate change litigation in the U.S., which have mainly focused on violations of specific legal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act.
Tillerson could try to change the date or avoid giving a deposition entirely, but so far his lawyers have not requested either of those outcomes, according to Julia Olson, executive director and chief counsel of Our Children's Trust.
Michael Gerrard, who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School, said it's unlikely Tillerson will end up testifying, given his position at the company.
"It would be common procedure in such a case for a corporation to resist the deposition of its CEO," he told Mashable. "And often such motions are granted."
Mashable reached out to Exxon for comment but did not hear back by deadline.
"Mr. Tillerson needs to show up for the deposition on the 19th absent a court order allowing him not to be deposed," Olson told Mashable. "We have every expectation we will be deposing him on Jan. 19th and we look forward to it."

"All of this evidence is going to come out in ways that will shock people"

Environmental groups are vehemently opposed to Tillerson's nomination to lead the State Department, although most of the media attention so far has focused on his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, rather than his history dealing with climate change.
Olson said the discovery process has produced documents detailing the extent of the influence that the fossil fuel industry and its trade groups have had over government decisions on energy policy.
"All of this evidence is going to come out in ways that will shock people," she said. "It is beyond what has already been published."
For his part, Loznak sees the court case as a way to fight back against the political environment which has suddenly turned hostile to climate action.
"All hope is not lost. It may seem like it, especially with some of the president-elect's cabinet picks, but I think this is the worst possible time to be apathetic," he said.
"This is the time to really get involved, to get organized."

Links

• Teenagers Take the US Government to Trial Over Climate Change
• Norwegian Youths Sue Their Government Over Climate Change
• Judge: Youth Climate Change Lawsuit Against Feds Can Proceed
• Judge Sides With Kids Suing The Government Over Climate Inaction: 'These Kids Can't Wait'
• Call for giant Arctic ice-makers to prevent climate 'catastrophe'
• Climate change scientist fears more death threats under Trump
• Trump urged to scrap Obama's climate change strategy by 24 states
• 'America's only hope' urged to defy Trump over climate change
• California says it will sue if Trump ignores climate science