Feed aggregator

This summer, bushfires ravaged thousands of hectares of world heritage forest in Tasmania. Ancient species are in grave danger. We go to visit the fire fields.

From the first direct evidence for black holes, to a rocky planet circling a neighbouring star, 2016 was packed with amazing science stories.

An Arctic iceberg, pictured in 2015. This year, ice coverage has reached record lows for the early northern winter. AWeith/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

For the Arctic, like the globe as a whole, 2016 has been exceptionally warm. For much of the year, Arctic temperatures have been much higher than normal, and sea ice concentrations have been at record low levels.

The Arctic’s seasonal cycle means that the lowest sea ice concentrations occur in September each year. But while September 2012 had less ice than September 2016, this year the ice coverage has not increased as expected as we moved into the northern winter. As a result, since late October, Arctic sea ice extent has been at record low levels for the time of year.

These record low sea ice levels have been associated with exceptionally high temperatures for the Arctic region. November and December (so far) have seen record warm temperatures. At the same time Siberia, and very recently North America, have experienced conditions that are slightly cooler than normal.

Extreme Arctic warmth and low ice coverage affect the migration patterns of marine mammals and have been linked with mass starvation and deaths among reindeer, as well as affecting polar bear habitats.

Given these severe ecological impacts and the potential influence of the Arctic on the climates of North America and Europe, it is important that we try to understand whether and how human-induced climate change has played a role in this event.

Arctic attribution

Our World Weather Attribution group, led by Climate Central and including researchers at the University of Melbourne, the University of Oxford and the Dutch Meteorological Service (KNMI), used three different methods to assess the role of the human climate influence on record Arctic warmth over November and December.

We used forecast temperatures and heat persistence models to predict what will happen for the rest of December. But even with 10 days still to go, it is clear that November-December 2016 will certainly be record-breakingly warm for the Arctic.

Next, I investigated whether human-caused climate change has altered the likelihood of extremely warm Arctic temperatures, using state-of-the-art climate models. By comparing climate model simulations that include human influences, such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations, with ones without these human effects, we can estimate the role of climate change in this event.

This technique is similar to that used in previous analyses of Australian record heat and the sea temperatures associated with the Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching event.

To put it simply, the record November-December temperatures in the Arctic do not happen in the simulations that leave out human-driven climate factors. In fact, even with human effects included, the models suggest that this Arctic hot spell is a 1-in-200-year event. So this is a freak event even by the standards of today’s world, which humans have warmed by roughly 1℃ on average since pre-industrial times.

But in the future, as we continue to emit greenhouse gases and further warm the planet, events like this won’t be freaks any more. If we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we estimate that by the late 2040s this event will occur on average once every two years.

Watching the trend

The group at KNMI used observational data (not a straightforward task in an area where very few observations are taken) to examine whether the probability of extreme warmth in the Arctic has changed over the past 100 years. To do this, temperatures slightly further south of the North Pole were incorporated into the analysis (to make up for the lack of data around the North Pole), and these indicated that the current Arctic heat is unprecedented in more than a century.

The observational analysis reached a similar conclusion to the model study: that a century ago this event would be extremely unlikely to occur, and now it is somewhat more likely (the observational analysis puts it at about a 1-in-50-year event).

The Oxford group used the very large ensemble of Weather@Home climate model simulations to compare Arctic heat like 2016 in the world of today with a year like 2016 without human influences. They also found a substantial human influence in this event.

Santa struggles with the heat. Climate change is warming the North Pole and increasing the chance of extreme warm events. Climate Central

All of our analysis points the finger at human-induced climate change for this event. Without it, Arctic warmth like this is extremely unlikely to occur. And while it’s still an extreme event in today’s climate, in the future it won’t be that unusual, unless we drastically curtail our greenhouse gas emissions.

As we have already seen, the consequences of more frequent extreme warmth in the future could be devastating for the animals and other species that call the Arctic home.

Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Marc Macias-Fauria, Peter Uhe, Sjoukje Philip, Sarah Kew, David Karoly, Friederike Otto, Myles Allen and Heidi Cullen all contributed to the research on which this article is based.

You can find more details on all the analysis techniques here. Each of the methods used has been peer-reviewed, although as with the Great Barrier Reef bleaching study, we will submit a research manuscript for peer review and publication in 2017.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

How do people feel about coal seam gas (CSG) in the regions where the industry is active? In 2014 we surveyed residents in Queensland’s Western Downs region, at the end of a major construction phase.

According to our new survey, now that the industry has started operating, Western Downs residents have maintained their moderate or lukewarm views on CSG. And even though overall community wellbeing has remained similar, some aspects declined and some improved.

There was no single community view on CSG, with 68% saying they either “tolerated” or “accepted” it. A minority (19%) “approved” or “embraced” CSG and a smaller minority (13%) “rejected” it. Even though most people have a moderate or lukewarm view on CSG development, the 2016 survey showed that on average there was a tendency towards more negative views than in 2014.

While around half of residents thought their communities were resisting or struggling to adapt to changes (51%), the other half (49%) thought their communities were “adapting to changes” or “changing into something different but better”. This is similar to how residents perceived their communities back in 2014.

However, there were pockets across the region where considerable proportions of residents indicated that their community was “resisting” or “only just coping”.

Nevertheless, residents’ perceptions of their overall community wellbeing in the Western Downs region were favourable and remained relatively unchanged between 2014 and 2016. This meant that residents still thought that their community was a good place to live overall.

Slightly more negative attitudes Towns surveyed in inland Queensland. Western Downs Regional Council

As in our 2014 survey, we conducted a telephone survey asking 400 people living in and around the towns of Chinchilla, Dalby, Miles and Tara about their attitudes to CSG, as well as their opinions on the wellbeing and resilience of their communities.

This time we surveyed 500 people as we also included 100 residents from the eastern Maranoa region for comparison, an area next to the Western Downs which has had CSG wells since the mid-1990s and has less intensively cropped farmland. It includes the towns of Roma, Injune, Surat and surrounding areas.

In both the 2014 and 2016 surveys people had mixed feelings about CSG development. However, attitudes tended to be slightly more negative in 2016 than in 2014 (see figure below).

Attitude toward CSG development. Note: There was a tendency for attitudes towards CSG development to shift to the left between 2014 and 2016. %s are rounded to nearest whole figure. CSIRO

Residents’ overall feelings about CSG development in the region – such as being angry, worried, pleased or optimistic – also became more negative in 2016. They declined from 3.0 out of 5 in 2014, which reflected a neutral feeling on average, to 2.8 (slightly negative on average) in 2016. However, more than 10% of residents had extremely negative feelings about CSG in both 2014 and 2016.

These differences probably reflect people’s previous experiences and current situations, individual needs and wants, and personal world views and beliefs about gas development. They include perceptions of community functioning, environmental management, trust and fairness.

When asked about how they saw their communities responding to change, only half (49%) thought their communities were “adapting to changes” or “changing into something different but better”, which is similar to how residents viewed their communities back in 2014.

Community perceptions of adapting to CSG development. Note: Differences between 2014 and 2016 were not significantly different. CSIRO

Perceptions of community adaptation to CSG development in different subregions: 2016. CSIRO Creating a positive future

Overall community wellbeing in the Western Downs was favourable. But wellbeing in the neighbouring eastern Maranoa was higher than in the Western Downs. This suggests that while overall community wellbeing in the Western Downs is robust, it can be improved.

The biggest change in wellbeing from 2014 was the decrease in satisfaction in relation to jobs and employment opportunities. The biggest improvements were in roads and the quality of the environment (such as dust and noise levels).

Perceived management of the environment for the future also improved. However, residents were still dissatisfied on average with the management of groundwater in the region.

Community wellbeing dimensions. Note: Scores: 1 = lowest and 5 = highest; scores below 3 indicate dissatisfaction and scores above 3 indicate satisfaction. * indicates a significant difference between 2014 and 2016. CSIRO

This report offers a valuable snapshot of the range of views that exist in a CSG community and how these have changed over time.

It highlights four key drivers for people to view their community as a great place to live: the level of services and facilities; the social aspects of community life; feelings of personal safety; and employment and business opportunities.

How can we help people cope with and adapt to CSG development? We identified several factors, including good planning and leadership, access to relevant information, trust, being listened to, and employment and business opportunities.

Other key drivers include good environmental management for the future, community commitment, and working together with government and industry to resolve problems and make the most of opportunities.

Making sure key aspects of community wellbeing remain strong, as well as improving processes for responding to changes associated with CSG development, will drive a sense of optimism and confidence about the future of these communities and others.

This research received funding from National GISERA (National Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance). This is a collaborative vehicle established to undertake publicly-reported independent research addressing the social, economic and environmental impacts of Australia's onshore gas industry. GISERA receives funding from the Federal and NSW Governments, Australia Pacific LNG, QGC, Origin, Santos and AGL. Research is reviewed and approved by Regional Research Advisory Committees and overseen by a National Research Management Committee. These committees are comprised of CSIRO, independent, industry and government representatives. The governance structure for National GISERA is designed to provide for and protect research independence, integrity and transparency of funded research. Visit http://www.gisera.org.au/governance.html for more information.

This research received funding from National GISERA (National Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance). This is a collaborative vehicle established to undertake publicly-reported independent research addressing the social, economic and environmental impacts of Australia's onshore gas industry. GISERA receives funding from the Federal and NSW Governments, Australia Pacific LNG, QGC, Origin, Santos and AGL. Research is reviewed and approved by Regional Research Advisory Committees and overseen by a National Research Management Committee. These committees are comprised of CSIRO, independent, industry and government representatives. The governance structure for National GISERA is designed to provide for and protect research independence, integrity and transparency of funded research. Visit http://www.gisera.org.au/governance.html for more information.

This research received funding from National GISERA (National Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance). This is a collaborative vehicle established to undertake publicly-reported independent research addressing the social, economic and environmental impacts of Australia's onshore gas industry. GISERA receives funding from the Federal and NSW Governments, Australia Pacific LNG, QGC, Origin, Santos and AGL. Research is reviewed and approved by Regional Research Advisory Committees and overseen by a National Research Management Committee. These committees are comprised of CSIRO, independent, industry and government representatives. The governance structure for National GISERA is designed to provide for and protect research independence, integrity and transparency of funded research. Visit http://www.gisera.org.au/governance.html for more information.

Trump has installed people in key environmental protection positions who seem to care more for profits than people. Now we fear for our safety

Corpus Christi, Texas, calls itself the “sparkling city by the sea”. But lately it doesn’t feel very sparkling. The city imposed a four-day ban on consuming any tap water last Wednesday. No one could drink the water, shower, bathe, do dishes, wash laundry, hands, faces or children with it. There were fears that a corrosive asphalt emulsifier Indulin AA86 had snuck all the way from the city’s industrial district into our homes due to a “back-flow incident”. There was water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.

On 1 December, the Corpus Christi city hall received the first report of dirty water from Refinery Row. On 7 December the city hall received their second, on 12 December their third. By then the water was shimmery, sudsy – just the kind of sheen we would soon fear creeping into our commodes.

Continue reading...

Temperatures in parts of the Arctic are expected to rise above 0C for the second winter in a row

Scientists are forecasting ice-melting temperatures in the middle of winter for some parts of the Arctic for the second year in a row. And analysis shows such recent record temperatures there would have been virtually impossible without human greenhouse emissions.

Continue reading...

Japan scraps a 22-year-old experimental nuclear reactor that has cost $9bn but barely ever worked.

Rodrigues fruit bats and Amur tigers are among the species supported by WCS, which operates five wildlife parks in New York City and works to save wildlife and wild places in nearly 60 countries and all the world’s oceans

Continue reading...

Baby gorilla Afia born in a rare emergency caesarean section cuddles up to her surrogate mother.

Reducing wood-burning, gas-flaring and global diesel emissions would be ‘quick win’ in combating irreversible climate change, scientists say

World leaders should redouble efforts to cut soot emissions because it is the cheapest and fastest way to combat climate change, climate scientists and advocates have told the Guardian.

Deposits of soot – unburned carbon particles – have stained parts of the Arctic black, changing the ice from a reflector of sunlight to an absorber of heat, and accelerating the melting of ice and snow, which itself is starting to alter global weather patterns.

Continue reading...

What now for Straddie?

The haze caused by industry’s reliance on coal and emissions from old, inefficient cars is affecting nearly half a billion people

Continue reading...

Tired of endlessly debating Australia's energy future? Here are 10 things we really know about energy to guide us through the policy fog.

Community groups will unite with legal and energy experts, business and government to supercharge Australia’s renewable energy future at next year’s Community Energy Congress.

Senvion has signed a contract with Pacific Hydro to supply, install and service 14 MM92 turbines at the Yaloak South Wind Farm near Ballan, Victoria.

RenewEconomy is taking a break over the holiday season. We will be back soon...

ESCOSA decision to remove the minimum price for solar exports shows lack of understanding in the South Australian electricity market.

Two major forces stand opposed in 2017. One is the falling cost of solar, wind, storage and other smart controls – heralding an "unstoppable" energy transition away from centralised, polluting fossil fuel plants. The other is political.

Barack Obama has permanently banned offshore drilling in the "vast majority" of northern US waters.

If you can't taste the difference, why the backlash against recycled water? Water image from www.shutterstock.com

In light of climate change and a growing population, water authorities around the world are looking at the treatment of recycled water to achieve water security and sustainability.

Recent authors on The Conversation have raised the possibility of expanding the use of water recycling in Australia, noting the potential benefits for domestic, agricultural and industrial water supply.

Some contributors have noted that the major roadblocks to water recycling, in places where it could be beneficial, are not technical issues, but public reluctance to use recycled water.

Emotional Responses

In the past, our aversion to recycled water has been explained by the “yuck factor”. Some people have an emotional response of disgust to using recycled water, even when they know it has been highly treated and is safe. There are large individual differences in the strength and type of different people’s disgust responses.

Psychologists have tried to understand why our thought processes can lead some people to think of recycled water as unclean. One explanation is contagion thinking, the idea that once water has been defiled it will always remain unclean, regardless of treatment, at least according to the mental models that underlie our emotional responses. What such approaches often neglect is that cognition does not occur in a cultural vacuum, but is affected by the associations and stigmas of society.

It is important to note that these emotional responses are often in conflict with our rational thinking. Some theorists, such as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, have argued that we make judgements using two contrasting systems. One of these systems is slow and operates according to a formal risk calculus. The other is fast, based on positive or negative emotional responses.

Because of this, how we feel about someone or something (positively or negatively) is often as important as what they are being judged on. In other words, the fact that a person understands that a highly treated sample of recycled water is safe to drink may not be enough to stop the emotional response, as we often tend to think intuitively, drawing on our social and cultural values.

The most important question, however, is whether the emotional responses some people have to recycled water can be changed. And what role do stigmas associated with cultural norms play in shaping these?

Sustainable communities and water recycling

In places where water recycling has been introduced, it has simply become a fact of life. In Singapore, citizens of the island nation have widely accepted NEWater (as the Public Utilities Board has branded it). It’s even celebrated at a visitors’ centre that has become a minor tourist attraction.

In Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, various forms of drinkable recycled water have been in use for almost 50 years, with no significant impact.

If these communities can accept recycled water, perhaps our aversion is simply a passing phase, which will disappear when people get used to it? If so, then cultural norms must also play a role, with acceptance building with increased familiarity.

Culture change and recycled water

Cultural cognition is an approach that suggests that our beliefs and judgements about risk and cleanliness are determined by social norms, as well as more innate processes of cognition. As cultural norms, peer pressure, stigmas and the public scientific consensus all affect our beliefs and judgements, then emotional responses to recycled water are strongly linked to our cultural classifications.

The anthropologist Mary Douglas coined the term “matter out of place” to refer to things that do not easily fit into our known systems of classification, and thus often come to be thought of as dangerous. Recycled water fits into this category, as it straddles our conceptions of both clean and polluted. As water recycling is a fairly new concept and most people have no direct experience with it, they revert to inferring from the categories that they do know about.

Thus our emotional responses to water recycling are associated with uncertainty, even though our rational scientific understanding tells us it is no different to any other treated water.

It is our cultural beliefs that determine whether we see recycled water as clean or dirty, and these categories are not fixed but are a reflection of our society at that point.

Looking to the future

If we are to understand how to use new water technologies effectively for social and environmental benefit, we need not only to understand the scientific case for these technologies, but also to change the social and cultural values that inform our attitudes to them.

Culture is dynamic. Our acceptance of any particular new technology is based on norms that are current at a particular time. The “yuck factor”, which has been the focus of so much research over the years, may well change with increasing exposure to recycled water.

Daniel Ooi has received research grants from the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence (AWRCoE) and the National Centre of Excellence in Desalination Australia (NCEDA). Both the AWRCoE and NCEDA were funded by the Federal Government as part of the Water for the Future program.