CSIRO-BOM State of the Climate 2022 report and what it says about the World, Australia & the NSW Coastal Zone

“There are no surprises here and the story hasn’t changed. It’s happening, it’s serious and we need to do something about it.” [CSIRO Ocean & Atmosphere Business Unit, Research Director at Climate Science Centre, Dr. Jaclyn Brown, The Guardian, 23 November 2022]

Yes, the story hasn't changed. However, the details are becoming clearer as to how, when and to what degree there will be disruption to Australian society, the national economy and food security — along with increasing risks to the health, safety and well being of the entire population — before national collapse occurs.

Once every two years the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in partnership with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) produce a State of the Climate report.

The current 2022 report is the seventh report in the series. Previous reports can be found here.

The key points in State of the Climate 2022 are as follows:

Australia

• Australia’s climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910.

• Sea surface temperatures have increased by an average of 1.05 °C since 1900. This has led to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events over land and sea.

• There has been a decline of around 15 per cent in April to October rainfall in the southwest of Australia since 1970. Across the same region, May to July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 19 per cent since 1970.

• In the south-east of Australia, there has been a decrease of around 10 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.

• There has been a decrease in streamflow at most gauges across Australia since 1975.

• Rainfall and streamflow have increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.

• There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s.

• There has been a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones observed in the Australian region.

• Snow depth, snow cover and number of snow days have decreased in alpine regions since the late 1950s.

• Oceans around Australia are acidifying and have warmed by more than 1 °C since 1900, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.

• Sea levels are rising around Australia, including more frequent extremes that are increasing the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities.

Global

• Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with global annual mean carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reaching 414.4 parts per million (ppm) in 2021 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all greenhouse gases reaching 516 ppm. These are the highest levels on Earth in at least two million years.

• The decline in global fossil fuel emissions of CO2 in 2020 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic will have a negligible impact on climate change. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, and fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the principal driver of this growth, were back to near pre-pandemic levels in 2021.

• The rate of accumulation of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (both greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere increased considerably during 2020 and 2021.

• Globally averaged air temperature at the Earth’s surface has warmed by over 1 °C since reliable records began in 1850. Each decade since 1980 has been warmer than the last, with 2011–20 being around 0.2 °C warmer than 2001–10.

• The world’s oceans, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, have taken up 91 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet (as heat) as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.

• More than half of all CO2 emissions from human activities are absorbed by land and ocean sinks, which act to slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

• Global mean sea levels have risen by around 25 cm since 1880 and continue to rise at an accelerating rate.

Future

In the coming decades, Australia will experience ongoing changes to its weather and climate. Australia is projected to experience:

• Continued increase in air temperatures, more heat extremes and fewer cold extremes.

• Continued decrease, on average, in cool season rainfall across many regions of southern and eastern Australia, which will likely lead to more time in drought, but with ongoing climate variability that will give rise to short-duration heavy-rainfall events at a range of timescales.

• Continued increase in the number of dangerous fire weather days and a longer fire season for southern and eastern Australia.

• Further sea level rise and continued warming and acidification of the oceans around Australia.

• Increased and longer-lasting marine heatwaves that will affect marine environments, such as kelp forests, and increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe bleaching events in coral reefs around Australia, including the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef.

• Fewer tropical cyclones, but a greater proportion is projected to be of high intensity, with large variations from year to year.

• Reduced average snow depth in alpine regions, but with variations from year to year.

On a more local level for many North Coast Voices readers........

KEY MESSAGES FOR THE NSW COASTAL ZONE IN 2030     (8 years into the future)

• Average temperatures will continue to increase in all seasons (very high confidence).

• More hot days and warm spells are projected with very high confidence. Fewer frosts are projected with high confidence.

• Decreases in winter rainfall are projected with medium confidence. Other changes are possible but unclear.

• Increased intensity of extreme rainfall events is projected, with high confidence.

• Mean sea level will continue to rise and height of extreme sea-level events will also increase (very high confidence).

• A harsher fire-weather climate in the future (high confidence).

• On annual and decadal basis, natural variability in the climate system can act to either mask or enhance any long-term human induced trend, particularly in the next 20 years and for rainfall. 

[https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/regional-climate-change-explorer/sub-clusters/]

The full State of the Climate 2022 biennial report can be read and downloaded at:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2022/documents/2022-state-of-the-climate-web.pdf. - Presentation Style A

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate - Presentation Style B

Turning to the next three months across Australia.......

Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Long-range forecast overview

Issued: 24 November 2022

December to February rainfall is likely (greater than 60% chance) to be above median for the Queensland coast, north coastal and southern New South Wales, all of Victoria, south-eastern South Australia and eastern Tasmania. Below median rainfall is likely for parts of Western Australia.

December to February maximum temperatures are likely (greater than 60% chance) to be warmer than median for Tasmania, and most of northern and western Australia. Below median temperatures are likely for south-eastern parts of Queensland, central and eastern New South Wales, parts of Victoria and the south coast of Western Australia.

December to February minimum temperatures are likely to very likely (greater than 60% to greater than 80% chance) to be warmer than median for most of western, northern and south-east Australia. Below median temperatures are likely for parts of north-east New South Wales.

This wet outlook over northern and eastern Australia is consistent with several climate drivers, including La Niña, a weakened negative Indian Ocean Dipole event, a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, and record warm waters around Australia. A Madden–Julian Oscillation pulse is strengthening as it moves into the Western Pacific region, which may also contribute to wetter conditions for parts of north-eastern Australia.

[my yellow highlighting]

Cartoons of the Week

 

Megan Herbert

Mark David

Cathy Wilcox

Meme of the Week

via @RickWatt9

A PERSPECTIVE: The petulant 'child king' Elon Musk

 

Elon Reeve Musk
IMAGE: The Wall Street Journal, 11 July 2022

Tumblr, 22 November 2022:

numberonecatwinner

I was an intern at SpaceX years ago, back it when it was a much smaller company — after Elon got hair plugs, but before his cult of personality was in full swing. I have some insight to offer here.

Back when I was at SpaceX, Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didn’t have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions.

Managing Elon was a huge part of the company culture. Even I, as a lowly intern, would hear people talking about it openly in meetings. People knew how to present ideas in a way that would resonate with him, they knew how to creatively reinterpret (or ignore) his many insane demands, and they even knew how to “stage manage” parts of the physical office space so that it would appeal to Elon.

The funniest example of “stage management” I can remember is this dude on the IT security team. He had a script running in a terminal on one of his monitors that would output random garbage, Matrix-style, so that it always looked like he was doing Important Computer Things to anyone who walked by his desk. Second funniest was all the people I saw playing WoW at their desks after ~5pm, who did it in the office just to give the appearance that they were working late.

People were willing to do that at SpaceX because Elon was giving them the money (and hype) to get into outer space, a mission people cared deeply about. The company also grew with and around Elon. There were layers of management between individual employees and Elon, and those managers were experienced managers of Elon. Again, I cannot stress enough how much of the company culture was oriented around managing this one guy.

Twitter has neither of those things going for it. There is no company culture or internal structure around the problem of managing Elon Musk, and I think for the first time we’re seeing what happens when people actually take that man seriously and at face value. Worse, they’re doing this little experiment after this man has had decades of success at companies that dedicate significant resources to protecting themselves from him, and he’s too narcissistic to realize it. …...

A perspective on one of the serious flaws to be found in the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act

A perspective on one of the serious flaws in the NSW Perrottet Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act which was offered in a last ditch effort to get at least one meaningful amendment to the Bill through the Upper House....

 

NSW Parliament, Legislative Council Hansard, 17 November 2022:

Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:23): I move Independent amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-241:

No. 1Disaster prevention areas

Page 18, clause 41(2)(c), line 2. Omit "potential". Insert instead "imminent".

The amendment goes to the issue of the extraordinary powers in the bill to override the planning Act in New South Wales. To be really clear for members who may not have taken notice of the extraordinary powers that the bill confers on the planning Minister, the bill entirely switches off the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In fact, there appears to be no limit on the sort of development that could be approved at the stroke of a pen by the Minister. There seems to be no limit on the extent of the proposal, including a proposal that would otherwise be State significant infrastructure requiring very detailed planning and assessment, and there seems to be no limit on where that development could occur in New South Wales.

Under proposed section 68, the planning Minister is authorised to undertake a development without the need for an approval under the Act. This applies under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are my concern. The authorisation may be given "in relation to a declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area". This is a critical point. If you take note of the specifics in the bill, a disaster prevention area could be incredibly broad. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances. There is no requirement for a disaster to be underway or even likely to be underway in a particular area. If the authority, via the Minister and the Premier, decides that an area is a disaster prevention area, that in and of itself empowers the Minister to authorise the undertaking of a particular development.

In the second reading debate, I raised the example of the Warragamba Dam. I do not for a moment expect that the planning Minister will just authorise the construction of the Warragamba Dam using the provisions of this bill but, to be clear, there is no prevention in the bill. The bill would allow for such a significant development to be undertaken should the Minister, with the concurrence of the Premier, declare the area around the dam to be a disaster prevention area.

Rather than such an extreme example, let us consider a levee around a particular town. Questions around levees are often incredibly controversial. They are raised from time to time and they are highly politicised. Often they must go through extraordinary degrees of community consultation and planning before they are even considered. But, particularly on councils, you will hear some voices arguing strongly for a levee to be increased or a levee to be added. You will hear others warning that there will be incredible downstream impacts as a result that might impact businesses or homes or the environment. I can envisage that these sorts of powers to authorise a development with no restriction could be used to circumvent normal political disputes.

It would be better to resolve the disputes and design such infrastructure, if we were going to proceed with it, in a considered and methodical way using the planning system and all its provisions for consultation in order to go through the potential impacts. But here we have the power to simply declare a disaster prevention area. It is important for people to note just how broad this is. The Minister may make a declaration for such a prevention area if they are satisfied that part of the State is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have had, in the past four years, enough experience to know that any part of New South Wales is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have seen it happen, and we know it is only going to get worse. In my mind, there is no constraint about where this could apply.

The second aspect requires that the authority has recommended making such a declaration. I can envisage that it might arrive at that conclusion because the Minister is satisfied the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community. Not only is it broad in its scope as to where it could apply, the only test is whether the Minister considers that such a development could help prevent or mitigate potential disasters for a community. We have heard the Government make arguments like that for Warragamba Dam. We have heard certain representatives and communities make those sorts of arguments for levees around their towns. We hear those arguments when it comes to clearing of vegetation for fire mitigation, no matter how misguided and not supported by the science that is.

There is a very low test, no threshold, no oversight, no transparency and a very broad remit for an area to be declared a disaster prevention area. Once that is done, the Minister has the power to switch off the New South Wales planning Act entirely and approve a development. That might seem extraordinary, but I have tested it with the Government. The Government has acknowledged that it is true. That is the extent of the powers in the bill, but the Government says, "We don't intend to use it." I would love for the Parliamentary Secretary to clearly put on the record in his response to this amendment that the Government does not intend to use it that way. I agree that the Government would not intend to use it in some of those ways, but I ask this fundamental question: Should emergency powers be used to do preventative work at all? In fact, that is an important consideration. I raised it in my speech to the amendment regarding the climate adaptation plans.

If it is a good idea for the prevention of risk in the instance of a potential disaster, let us do it now. Let us do it in a collaborative and coordinated way. Let us engage the planning system in the way that is intended, which is to raise issues, highlight potential impacts and then mitigate or avoid them where possible. One would expect that that is how it would be done. I have been told by the Government that is not what it intends with disaster prevention areas. The Government described the situation in Lismore with the potential requirement to clear the drains and said that it would have been able to act in advance of that. I do not buy that. There are other provisions in this bill and other elements of the law that would not allow that but, if that is the case, my amendment is clear and simple. Instead of requiring the Minister to be satisfied that the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community, let us omit the word ''potential" and insert instead ''imminent".

There has been sufficient time to understand the potential risks associated with flood and fire impacts in recent years and to give time for an authority, once established, to act at that level to implement projects that could help mitigate risks. But giving it carte blanche with a broad definition "some potential disaster somewhere that it might be likely to directly or indirectly affect", would be open to abuse. This reasonable amendment will bring the bill into line with what the Government says is its intention in the first place. I commend the amendment to the Committee. [my yellow highlighting]

"What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes."

 

IMAGE: The Young Naturalist Australia

Environmental activist Lauriston Muirhead writing in The Border Mail, 23 November 2022:

Our numbers alone will not protect us

Biodiversity is the diversity of life found in an ecosystem. The more biodiverse, the more balanced and resilient the ecosystem.

A diverse ecosystem is more resistant to shocks and will last longer.

What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes.

The oxygen was created by cyanobacteria that were able to live in an early atmosphere without oxygen.

Cyanobacteria still work in green plants using the sun's energy to turn the CO2 animals breathe out, back into oxygen (and carbon to help them grow). This is photosynthesis and all life depends on it. Remember, all our food is either plants or animals that ate plants.

The biodiversity of the planet provides all our food, as well as much of our clothing, building materials and erosion protection.

OK, apart from the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and shelter, what did biodiversity ever do for us?

Well, there are the medicines. Where would we be without the willow tree that gave us aspirin or the mould that gave us penicillin.

We can now make many drugs synthetically - but without nature's blueprints, we would not have been able to create these and so many other medicines.

Who knows how many more "cures" exist in the plants and animals of the world?

Our tool-making ability has turned our sticks into bulldozers, our stones into bombs and our boomerangs into bomber aircraft. We have the power to hunt not just one animal but entire species to extinction.

If we think our numbers will protect us, just take the example of the passenger pigeon.

In the 19th century, there were more passenger pigeons than people on the planet. By 1914, they had been hunted to extinction.

We are losing species through direct killing and habitat destruction - now exacerbated by human-induced climate change.

If we keep on playing "species roulette", someday, one of the extinction bullets we pick up might have the name Homo sapiens written on it. We must do more to preserve all species in order to preserve our own.

So go forth, and make the world more biodiverse.

IMAGE: Living Links

On 17 November 2022 the NSW Perrottet Government and the state parliament passed into law a bill which creates the NSW Reconstruction Authority - an authority that will allow government, industry, business & property developers to control & exploit all land across the state if they so wish under the guise that they are doing a public good

“The powers of the Authority include the power to carry out development on certain land in particular circumstances and the power to direct a government agency, a State owned corporation, a local council or a person prescribed by the regulations (a relevant entity) to take particular actions in certain circumstances, with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units for failing to comply with a direction. The Authority may work in cooperation with other government agencies and other persons and bodies if the Authority thinks it appropriate and may delegate the exercise of a function of the Authority to certain persons…..

the Minister may declare the following by notice published in the Gazette—

(a) a project for proposed development to be a declared project,

(b) a part of the State to be a reconstruction area,

(c) a part of the State to be a disaster prevention area.

The proposed Part also sets out the matters to be established before the Minister makes a declaration under the proposed Part, and provides that the notice for the declaration may specify that an Act or statutory instrument does not apply in relation to the declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area.” [NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022: Explanatory Note, excerpt]

Seeing the writing on the wall, the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government found a way to manoeuvre the state parliament into allowing every individual, industry or business which would otherwise have to make a case to gain consent to mine, drill, clear fell forests, pollute land or waterways and/or eradicate wildlife to the point of extinction in order to make money speculating on land, a free pass to do so. By way of the NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022.

Why? Because the O'Farrell-Baird-Berejiklian-Perrottet NSW Coalition Government — ably assisted by the the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Coalition Federal Government — having spent the last eight years refusing to face the fact that climate change was real, climate change was here and climate change was very quickly escalating, now has to act. 

However, rather than create a genuine in the public interest Reconstruction Authority, Perrottet and his mates decided to rush through, in the last two parliamentary sitting weeks before the 25 March 2023 state election, the creation of an authority which would allow those mates and their mates and their mates' mates to make fortunes out of the people's misery.  

Communities across New South Wales will rue the day this 

bill was passed.

ABC News, 18 November 2022:

The NSW government is having another crack at setting up a natural disaster authority — but this time the body will have some far-reaching powers that have some on edge.

On Thursday, the parliament passed a bill to create the NSW Reconstruction Authority to assist communities recover from disasters as well as prepare for them.

It's designed to cut through red tape but to do so, it will have a broad remit which includes the ability to develop in national parks or on native title land.

Let's look at what it means for the state.

Why was this bill introduced?

The idea for the authority came from Lismore MP Janelle Saffin during the devastating floods her community faced earlier this year.

She said the now-dismantled Resilience NSW, which was led by Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons, didn't have the necessary powers, and the state would be better off with a model based on the Queensland Reconstruction Authority.

The independent flood inquiry earlier this year also recommended a permanent state-wide agency dedicated to recovery and preparedness.

The Opposition's Penny Sharpe told the Upper House yesterday the "status quo" wasn't working and although this new model was "radical", Labor was willing "to give it a go".

But the Greens and Independent MLC Justin Field argued the new authority had "unfettered powers" which were unprecedented in NSW.

What powers will this authority have?

The Reconstruction Authority will be permitted to carry out development on land that's likely to be directly or indirectly affected by a natural disaster.

This includes developing land within national parks, protected marine areas or land subject to native title claims, so long as the development is necessary and appropriate.

This also includes the habitat of threatened species.

The authority will be able to do anything that is "supplementary, incidental or consequential" to these functions and the CEO will be able to take whatever steps they deem "necessary or desirable".

Communities across NSW are enduring more severe flooding as the state deals with the largest flood-related emergency response in its history — this is what it looks like.

It will however be subject to the minister for planning's control and direction, who can authorise development without assessment under the Environmental Planning Act.

The environment minister does not have any oversight over the authority but a "joint select committee" will be formed, made up of 10 MPs, who will be responsible for reviewing the authority's actions following any disaster.

A successful Greens amendment this week means the authority must now also take into account how their decisions will impact climate change.

What does all this mean?

Gundungurra elder Sharyn Halls said she's confused about where this legislation leaves Indigenous people who have land agreements, as there's no requirement for consultation.

The government's push to make sure the bill was passed before the parliamentary year finished also left Ms Halls uneasy, as she believes many people won't have even heard of it yet.

"It seemed to be too much of a rushed job," she told the ABC.

"I'm sad that no one's possibly looked into the consequences of this bill properly."

The National Parks Association (NPA) of NSW supports the idea of an authority, but says it's disappointed amendments proposed by the Greens and Mr Fields were rejected.

These included:

• A ban on clearing native vegetation

• A ban on developing within a national park

• The ability for National Parks and Wildlife to intervene in the case of unnecessary environmental impact

• Excluding property developers from the authority's advisory board

NPA president Grahame Douglas said the proposed amendments would have ensured the state's key environment assets were protected by future governments...

"An example of that is the potential abuse of a future government wanting to raise the Warragamba Dam wall in a World Heritage area using this legislation."

[my yellow highlighting]