Leading Scientists Urge UK Newspaper The Times To Improve 'Sub-Standard' Climate Reporting

ABC News - Sara Phillips

The scientists say The Times has become a "laughing stock" for publishing poor quality science. (ABC News: Mark Doman)

Some of the world's most eminent scientists have written to the editor of UK newspaper The Times to complain about its coverage of climate science.
They suggest the newspaper may be unduly influenced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, despite its name, denies humans are causing climate change.
Baron John Krebs, a highly decorated biologist is behind the push, writing that the newspaper has become a "laughing stock" for publishing poor quality science.
"The implications for your credibility extend beyond your energy and climate change coverage," he said in the letter.

Key points: The scientists believe the paper is unduly influenced by a lobby group The claim the coverage has made the paper a "laughing stock" The say The Times has on occasions "misrepresented good science"

"Why should any reader who knows about energy and climate change respect your political analysis, your business commentary, even your sports reports, when in this one important area you are prepared to prioritise the marginal over the mainstream?"
The letter was signed by Krebs and 12 other peers, including:

• Baron Robert 'Bob' May, a former chief scientist of the UK
• Baron Martin Rees of Ludlow, the Astronomer Royal
• Baron Julian Hunt of Chesterton, former chief executive of the British Meteorological Office
• Baron David Puttnam, the Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Chariots of Fire and The Killing Fields

The peers took particular issue with two articles by environment editor Ben Webster, both of which were republished by The Australian.
One article - Planet is not overheating, says Professor - reported on science which was sponsored by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has five peers of its own on its board of trustees, describes itself as "open-minded on the contested science of global warming".
"[M]any of the sub-standard news stories and opinion pieces appear to concern, in some way, GWPF," it said.
"Whether any newspaper should involve itself repeatedly with any pressure group is a matter for debate; it would be deeply perturbing to find that a paper as eminent as The Times could allow a small NGO, particularly one whose sources of financing are unknown, a high degree of influence."
They said the second article -Scientists 'are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life' - misrepresented good science.
A follow-up opinion piece from a Times columnist "in either ignorance or disregard" failed to mention the scientist's criticism of the Times' report on his work.
"As Editor, you are of course entitled to take whatever editorial line you feel is appropriate. Are you aware, however, how seriously you may be compromising The Times' reputation by pursuing a line that cleaves so tightly to a particular agenda, and which is based on such flimsy evidence?" the peers wrote.
"Climate science has proven remarkably robust to repeated scrutiny, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that climate change and ocean acidification pose serious and increasing risks for the future."

Links

• Environment ministers hold 'heated' phone hook-up on climate change, Great Barrier Reef concerns
• Coral bleaching leaves reefs off WA coast badly damaged
• Politics of climate 'more like religion than science': CSIRO boss

George Brandis Says Climate Science Not Settled, But CSIRO Should Act As If It Is

The Guardian - Gareth Hutchens

Attorney general attacks 'illogic' of Labor's opposition to cuts and says taxpayers' money would be better spent elsewhere

George Brandis says Labor senators who think the science of climate change is settled should support the cuts to the CSIRO, not oppose them. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

The attorney general, George Brandis, has mounted a bizarre defence of the Turnbull government's funding cuts to the CSIRO, saying there is no need to keep funding climate science if the science of climate change is settled – but adding that he personally doesn't believe it is settled.
Brandis said the science body's decision to cut funding for its scientists, who have produced vital climate science research – in response to the former Abbott government's cuts to the CSIRO in 2014 – is what it ought to do if it believes climate change is real.
He said Labor senators who think the science of climate change is settled should support the cuts, not oppose them.
"If the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?" Brandis said on Tuesday.
"Wouldn't it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers' money and research capacity within CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science isn't settled?"
The attorney general's argument is similar to that used by the CSIRO chief executive, Larry Marshall, who said in an email to staff in February that further work on climate change would be reduced because climate change had been established.
The CSIRO is currently cutting hundreds of jobs in its oceans and atmosphere division, and its land and water division, according to according to reports.
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and Marshall have been heavily criticised by global climate scientists for allowing those cuts to go ahead.
Brandis – who spent more than $15,000 of taxpayer's money to build a new bookshelf in his parliament house office in 2014 – said he did not believe that the science of climate change was settled but he knew how to follow a logical argument.
He said it would be a better use of taxpayers' money to divert climate science funding elsewhere.
"It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled at all but I'm not a scientist," he said. "I'm agnostic, really, on that question. But I can follow a logical argument.
"I am simply challenging the illogic of the proposition being advanced by the Labor party who say, on the one hand, that the science is settled but, on the other hand, say it is a disgraceful thing that we should make adjustments to our premier public sector scientific research agency that would reflect the fact that the science is settled."
The CSIRO has had budget cuts from successive governments, including $110m in the Abbott government's first budget in 2014.
Late last year, the heads of its divisions were told to find millions in savings to support its funding shortfall.

Links

• CSIRO chief executive 'evasive' before Senate committee, say Greens
• Why Malcolm Turnbull should reverse the destructive, clumsy and dumb CSIRO cuts
• CSIRO cuts were about taking focus off 'public-good research', emails show
• CSIRO's use of private email looks 'dubious', says Senate clerk
• Joe Hockey on CSIRO cuts: former treasurer's letter to the New York Times dissected
• CSIRO climate cuts 'a catastrophic failure of public policy', Senate told
• CSIRO chief says row over climate science cuts 'more like religion than science'
• Australia's chief scientist says he was not warned about CSIRO climate cuts
• CSIRO climate cuts attack a national treasure when we need it most

The Great Barrier Reef: 93% Hit By Coral Bleaching, Surveys Reveal

Fairfax - Tom Arup

Although bleaching of the reef has occurred before, this event is by far the biggest.

A diver checks out the bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: XL Catlin Seaview Survey

Scientists surveying the mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef say only 7 per cent of Australia's environmental icon has been left untouched by the event.
The final results of plane and helicopter surveys by scientists involved in the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce has found that of the 911 reefs they observed, just 68 had escaped any sign of bleaching.
The severity of the bleaching is mixed across the barrier reef, with the northern stretches hit the hardest.
Overall, severe bleaching of between 60 and 100 per cent of coral was recorded on 316 reefs, almost all of them in the northern half of the barrier reef. Reefs in central and southern regions of the 2300 kilometre Great Barrier Reef have experienced more moderate to mild affects.
The mass bleaching event has been driven by significantly higher than average sea temperatures as a result of the current El Nino event, coupled with a long-term warming of the oceans due to climate change.
While the barrier reef has experienced mass coral bleaching events in the past – notably in 1998 and 2002 – Professor Terry Hughes, convenor of the bleaching taskforce, said the current event was by far the biggest.

"We've never seen anything like this scale of bleaching before. In the northern Great Barrier Reef, it's like 10 cyclones have come ashore all at once," Professor Hughes said.
"Towards the southern end, most of the reefs have minor to moderate bleaching and should soon recover."
Professor Hughes said the aerial work had been backed up by in-water surveys, which are still under way, of about 150 to 200 reefs.
The presence of bleaching does not necessarily mean that coral will die, as they can recover when waters return to cooler temperatures.
Just how much of the bleached coral across the barrier reef will ultimately die off will take months to be known. Once dead it can take a decade or more for many species of coral to return.

Coral bleaching around Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Eddie Jim.

Professor Andrew Baird, from the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said north of Port Douglas, "we're already measuring close to 50 per cent mortality of bleached corals".
"At some reefs, the final toll is likely to exceed 90 per cent."
But in the southern regions corals have largely escaped damaging levels of bleaching due to cooler sea temperatures, Professor Hughes said, and it is expected most will survive and regain their normal colour in coming months.
The damage on the barrier reef is part of a global mass bleaching event that has hit corals hard in many places including Hawai, Fiji and New Caledonia. It is only the third global event in recorded history, with the other two occurring in 1998 and 2010.
It is not just the Great Barrier Reef being hit in Australia. Coral bleaching is now also rolling out across western reefs.
Dr Verena Schoepf​, from the University of Western Australia, said the coastal area she was studying north of Broome was seeing up to 80 per cent of corals turning "snow white".
Coral bleaching has also been triggered as far south as Sydney Harbour, the first time in recorded history that has occurred.
Scientists and the conservation movement say the bleaching is stark evidence of the impact climate change is having on the Great Barrier Reef, which attracts approximately $5 billion in tourism each year.
Environment groups in particular have sought to link the bleaching event to the recent mining approvals by the Queensland government for the proposed Carmichael coal mine, which would be Australia's largest, saying the eventual burning of the mined coal would cause further damage to the barrier reef through its contribution to global warming.
In the taskforce's statement on its final survey results, released on Wednesday, the head of the Queensland Tourism Industry Council, Daniel Gschwind​, was also quoted as saying: "thankfully, many parts of the reef are still in excellent shape, but we can't just ignore coral bleaching and hope for a swift recovery."
"Short-term development policies have to be weighed up against long-term environmental damage, including impacts on the reef from climate change," he added.

Links

• Is this the end of the Great Barrier Reef?
• First coral bleaching in Sydney Harbour
• Sydney's corals now bleaching in 'pretty shocking' sign of warming waters
• Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching 'concerning' govt, week after mine approval
• Air pollution increases 69 per cent as coal named top polluter

Modelling Shows Move To 100% Renewable Energy Would Save Australia Money

The Guardian - Michael Slezak  |  Nick Evershed

Estimated cost of moving all electricity, industry and transport onto renewables by 2050 would be $800bn, a saving of $90bn

Three scenarios in which Australia moves to 100% renewable energy by 2050 show it would save money. Photograph: Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Transitioning Australia to 100% renewable energy by 2050 would cost less than continuing on the current path, according to a new report.
Building the infrastructure to supply renewable energy for all electricity, transport and industry would cost about $800bn between now and 2050, the report from the institute for sustainable futures at the University of Technology Sydney, found.
That's about $650bn more than continuing with the status quo. But by removing the need for fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, it would save the economy up to $740bn, saving $90bn over the period to 2050, the report found.
Fuel cost savings would cover 110% of the capital investment needed to transition the economy.
The report is the first comprehensive modelling study to examine a scenario where not just electricity, but also all transport and heat used by industry, is transitioned to 100% renewable energy in Australia. It uses a model developed by the German Aerospace Agency and Greenpeace, which was relied on to help inform how Germany would implement its 80% renewable target for 2050, and by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for some of its scenario testing.
Commissioned by GetUp and Solar Citizens, it examines three scenarios for Australia's energy system.
The first is based on a continuation of current policies and government forecasts, in which coal, gas and other fossil fuels continue to be used. The second scenario sees electricity generation is almost completely transitioned to renewable energy by 2030, but gas and oil continue to be used for heat and transport.
In the third scenario electricity generation is completely transitioned to renewable energy by 2030, and all transport and heat used in industry are transitioned by 2050. Renewable synthetic fuels replace fossil fuels in some cases where electrification is difficult, such as air travel and long distance freight.

Since many of Australia's coal-fired power stations are ageing, the first scenario requires considerable infrastructure investment, with $150bn being spent by 2050. Almost half that would be spent on infrastructure for fossil fuel-based electricity generation.
The model suggests that both renewable scenarios become cheaper than the status quo as early as 2020.
In the modest renewable scenario, about $600bn would need to be spent to source all electricity from renewables. Most of that would need to be spent on wind and solar PV – $258.1bn and $167.9bn, respectively.
In that scenario, significant investment in solar thermal and geothermal would also be needed, since they can provide power on demand and fill any gaps when wind and solar are not producing much electricity – $97.8bn is spent on a combination of those in the scenario.


In the ambitious scenario, most transport is electrified, so that it can run on electricity from renewable sources. That increases the demand for electricity, requiring more investment in electricity generation.
But Australia currently spends more on oil for transport, than it does on all other forms of energy combined. By almost completely eliminating the need for any oil, the ambitious 100% renewable scenario emerges as the cheapest, overtaking the less ambitious renewable scenario by 2035.
By using a mix of different renewable energy sources, the scenarios all maintain an electricity network that is as reliable as the current one.
The authors consulted with the Clean Energy Council to ensure the scenarios grew the renewables industries at rates that would be feasible. It involves increasing wind installations by 2,600MW a year for 15 years, which is in line with what Germany did between 1999 and 2014. And solar PV would need to be installed at a rate of 4,500MW per year to 2030, which is about four times what was installed in Australia in some previous years.
Study author Sven Teske from the University of Technology Sydney, said work that combined energy for transport and electricity was needed, since electrifying cars would have a huge impact on the electricity network.
"This models across all sectors, which gives us a very good overview of different technologies and the interaction of those technologies," Teske said.
The modelling work doesn't examine what policies will be needed to achieve the scenarios, although it does assume in the renewable scenarios that current coal-fired power stations are phased out by 2035.
Miriam Lyons, a senior campaigner at GetUp, said the $800bn investment needed to transition the economy could be boon for the economy.
"If we decide to go all the way to 100% renewable energy, Australia can get an $800bn slice of the global renewable investment boom. That's something that Australia is sorely in need of right now," she said. "There is a great big gap that's been left by the end of the mining investment boom."
"It turns out we can get to 100% renewable energy quite fast, and it turns out it saves us money," Lyons said.
Olivia Kember from the Climate Institute told Guardian Australia: "This modelling adds to the growing body of evidence that Australia is completely capable of decarbonising its electricity system. But this won't happen without a comprehensive policy package to replace our high-carbon coal stations with clean energy."
Mark Diesendorf from the University of New South Wales said the report was a valuable study for examining possible renewable energy futures in Australia. But he pointed out it did not model how fast Australia could transition its workforce to cope with the energy transition. "The studies to explore possible timescales of the transition are still to be done," he said.

Links

• Australia's defence force could run on sugar cane and tyres under biofuel plan
• Have we reached the tipping point for investing in renewable energy?
• Australia's 'future' fund should not consider financing the energy projects of the past
• Victoria renewables target of 30% is achievable, modelling shows
• Surge in renewable energy stalls world greenhouse gas emissions
• Solar and wind energy backed by huge majority of Australians, poll shows
• New South Wales and Victoria 'going backwards on renewable energy'
• 10 steps to save the Great Barrier Reef
• While Didcot B burned, renewable energy powered on
• Reserving gas for domestic users would hurt the renewable energy industry
• Renewable energy won't rid us of the horrors of coal

Air Pollution Increases 69 Per Cent As Coal Named Top Polluter

Fairfax - Josh Dye

Air quality across Australia has deteriorated to alarming levels with the coal industry the nation's worst polluter, new data has shown.
The most concerning rise in air pollution is from PM10, a coarse pollution particle about the width of a human hair. Nationally, total PM10 emissions have increased 69 per cent in one year, and 194 per cent in five years.
The figures come from the National Pollutant Inventory's 2014-15 report which collects information about toxic pollution. Non-profit legal practice Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) spent the weekend analysing the figures, which were released on Friday.
EJA researcher Dr James Whelan said the findings raise serious questions about the future of Australia's air quality and called for tougher federal government regulation, an urgent transition from coal to renewable energy, and a National Air Pollution Control Act.
"Watching the continuing escalation of air pollution across Australia, particularly from coal mines and coal-fired power stations, is like seeing a car speed faster and faster with no police response."
Air pollution kills more than 3000 people in Australian every year, almost three times the annual road toll, and costs the nation more than $24 billion in health care costs each year.
Dr Whelan said reducing particle pollution is critical to avoiding a public health crisis in mining areas.
"Particle pollution accounts for more than 90 per cent of the total health impacts of air pollution in general."
Dr Whelan said just like smoking, there is no safe level of particle pollution.
"Any reduction has direct health benefits including preventing premature death," he said.
While PM10 emissions from the coal industry have fallen 8 per cent in 2014-15 to just under 400,000 tonnes, they have increased 84 per cent over the past five years.
Other findings from EJA's analysis include:

• Coal companies reported almost 400,000 tonnes of PM10, an 84 per cent increase in the past five years
• Newcastle's three coal terminals account for 62 per cent of the city's PM10 emissions (295,000 kilograms this year)
• PM10 emissions from Maules Creek coal mine increased 187 per cent in 2014-15
• Emissions of toxic pollutants from coal mines including PM10, lead, arsenic and fluoride increased by 100-200 per cent during the last decade
• Australia's 20 most polluting coal mines are located in the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley
• Particle pollution emissions from Mackay's two coal terminals increased by 50 per cent in just one year and 254 per cent over five years.

Reporting pollution data is mandatory, but is not audited and data is often missing, inaccurate or blatantly false, Dr Whelan said.

Links

• Sydney's corals now bleaching in 'pretty shocking' sign of warming waters
• Is this the end for the Great Barrier Reef?
• Global temperature records tumble, including in Sydney

Fossil Fuels Could Be Phased Out Worldwide In A Decade, Says New Study

ScienceDaily - University of Sussex

The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank.

Coal-fired power plant. Although this study suggests that the historical record can be instructive in shaping our understanding of macro and micro energy transitions, it need not be predictive, the authors say. Credit: © chungking / Fotolia

The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank in the UK.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, believes that the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past.
But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.
In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science, Professor Sovacool analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture.
Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.
But this time the future could be different, he says -- the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.
The study highlights numerous examples of speedier transitions that are often overlooked by analysts. For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014; a major household energy programme in Indonesia took just three years to move two-thirds of the population from kerosene stoves to LPG stoves; and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.
Each of these cases has in common strong government intervention coupled with shifts in consumer behaviour, often driven by incentives and pressure from stakeholders.
Professor Sovacool says: "The mainstream view of energy transitions as long, protracted affairs, often taking decades or centuries to occur, is not always supported by the evidence.
"Moving to a new, cleaner energy system would require significant shifts in technology, political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes, and the behaviour of users and adopters.
"Left to evolve by itself -- as it has largely been in the past -- this can indeed take many decades. A lot of stars have to align all at once.
"But we have learnt a sufficient amount from previous transitions that I believe future transformations can happen much more rapidly."
In sum, although the study suggests that the historical record can be instructive in shaping our understanding of macro and micro energy transitions, it need not be predictive.

Links

• How Will Climate Policy Affect Energy Access Goals?
• Global Fossil-Fuel Emissions Predicted to Decline for 2015
• Closer Look Reveals True Cost of Coal
• Links in the Chain: Global Carbon Emissions and Consumption Difficult to Attribute
• Carbon capture analyst: 'Coal should stay in the ground'

March Was Earth's 11th-Straight Warmest Month on Record

Mashable Australia - Andrew Freedman

Image: Earth simulator 

NASA's March temperature data was released Friday, showing that it was the planet's second-most unusually mild month on record, only somewhat cooler than February 2016.
The NASA data shows the monthly global average temperature was 1.28 degrees Celsius, or 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 20th century average.
According to NASA, six straight months from 2015 into 2016 have had a temperature anomaly of at least 1 degree Celsius. That had not happened in any month prior to this record warm stretch.
Data released on Thursday shows that March 2016 was the warmest March since at least 1891, making it the planet's 11th consecutive month to set a global temperature milestone.

Global average surface temperature anomalies for March 2016. Image: NASA

The data, from the Japan Meteorological Agency, as well as a separate analysis using computer model data, means that if April also sets a monthly record, the Earth will have had an astonishing 12 month string of record-shattering months.
Other agencies will soon weigh in with their own analysis of March's temperatures, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UK Met Office, and their figures may differ slightly in ranking the month compared to the historical record.
The cause of the record warmth, scientists say, is a combination of a record strong El Niño event in the tropical Pacific Ocean and the increasingly apparent effects of long-term human-caused global warming.
The world was already setting more and more warm temperature records without the El Niño's assistance, but what El Niño has done was dial up the already elevated temperatures to damaging levels.
Right now, scientists around the world are witnessing the effects of this global fever. These include the third and longest-lasting global coral bleaching event, which is harming — and in some cases, killing — reefs from the Great Barrier Reef to the Florida Keys.
In the Arctic, Greenland commenced its melt season more than one month early when a freak heat wave swept in earlier this week, sending temperatures skyrocketing into the low 60s Fahrenheit in southwest Greenland and breaking records all the way to the top of the ice sheet itself, more than 10,000 feet above sea level.
In addition, Arctic sea ice set a record for the lowest winter maximum extent, potentially setting the ice pack up for a summer melt season with a largely open Arctic Ocean, depending on transient weather conditions.

Global average surface temperature anomalies for March 2016, based on the Climate Forecast System (CFSR). Image: Weatherbell analytics

According to the JMA, the global average surface temperature in March was 0.62 degrees Celsius, or 1.16 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 1981-2010 average.
When measured against the 20th century average, though, the month looks even more unusual, at 1.07 degrees Celsius, or 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit, above average.
The record warm March follows the most two most unusually warm months on record, which occurred in January and February.
The El Niño event is now fading, with a climate forecast issued Thursday showing a likelihood of a La Niña episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean beginning in the late summer or fall.
La Niña events tend to temporarily dampen global average temperatures since they feature unusually chilly ocean waters across a large swath of the tropical Pacific. This likely means that the string of record-shattering months may soon come to a temporary end.
While March's record is noteworthy, for climate scientists it is the longer-term trends that matter most, not an arbitrarily defined calendar period.
Whether one looks at a 12-month running average, 5-year average, or 30-year trends, all show stark increases in global average surface temperatures, which scientists have concluded is largely attributable to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Link

• Heat wave in Greenland triggers record early start to ice melt season