Contents AMOS Bulletin Volume 23 Number 6
ISSN 1035-6576
Editorial
117
President’s Column News
117 118
Conference Reports News from the Centres
119 121
Articles J.W. Zillman – The InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC
122
Meet a Member Significant Mesoscale Oceanography
134 134
Snapshot Significant Weather
136 137
Charts from the Past Calendar
139 140
Cover picture: Mt Pelion East in morning light from Kia Ora Hut, the Overland Track, Tasmania, August 2010. To see if snow fell in Tasmania more recently, turn to the significant weather summary on page 137. Image: AMOS members Stewart Allen and Ailie Gallant. (Image and description reproduced with permission). Unless specifically stated to the contrary, views expressed in the Bulletin are the personal views of the authors, and do not represent the views of the Society or any other organisation or institution to which the author(s) may be affiliated. Printed on 100% recycled paper
Editorial “A problem shared is a problem halved”. This proverb applies to dirty dishes, moving furniture and stressful news. It turns out that it also applies to science. Citizen science is a relatively new concept that involves engaging the public in scientific projects that are too large or too unique to be handled by computers. Scientists can’t be everywhere to see exactly when different flowers bloom, for example. Nor can they wade through millions of images or pages of data on their own. Many research projects are turning to the power of the volunteer for help in data collection, computation or identification. One of the earliest projects of citizen science was Galaxy Zoo. The project asked people to sign up online and categorise pictures of different galaxies, something that computer programs were unable to do well. A robotic telescope had taken the photos, and so many of them had never been seen before by human eyes. You didn’t need to be an astronomer, or even a scientist; you just needed to be interested, and be able to tell the difference between a circle and an ellipse. This first Galaxy Zoo project went so well that they launched others, looking at images of the Sun and the Moon. The most recent project is the most exciting for this particular editor though, because it is looking at Old Weather.
The Old Weather project focuses on the records kept by English ships during World War I. There is a significant drop in the number of meteorological records available over the WWI period, and so the observations made in these logbooks are very valuable. The logbooks are hand written, which renders character recognition technology useless for the job of converting the observations into digital form. Citizen scientists are being asked to sign up and digitise pressure, temperature and wind records from scanned images of Navy ship logbooks. If you digitise the most records for a particular ship, you become the captain! Over 161,000 pages of data have been digitised already, and the Old Weather project only began in October. At this rate, all of the logbooks will be digitised by next July. So if you are looking for a project over the Christmas break, then, for a change, why not try some science? Have a great holiday, and a safe and happy new year. Linden Ashcroft Further information: www.oldweather.org
President’s Column A miscellany of AMOS news Arrangements for the AMOS & New Zealand Meteorological Society joint conference, to be held in Te Papa, Wellington, 9–11 February 2011, are proceeding quickly and smoothly. About 170 abstracts have been received and sorted into the themes of the conference, and authors notified. It looks like being an exciting conference, and it will be a great chance for us to catch up with our colleagues and friends “across the ditch”. I look forward to seeing many AMOS members in Wellington. The numbers of people following the AMOS Twitter and Facebook accounts are gradually building, thanks to the terrific flow of news about weather and climate being distributed through these mechanisms. They provide a great portal for the rest of us to keep up with what is going on in the atmosphere and oceans.
These mechanisms complement the news feed on the AMOS webpage (set up by Richard Wardle). This automatic feed provides links to stories about climate and weather in important parts of the conventional media, including the BBC, New York Times, and the ABC. I start each day perusing the stories thrown up by this news feed, and checking the Twitter and Facebook news. Facebook, Twitter, the automatic news feed, and the monthly president’s column (along with the AMOS Bulletin, and the monthly newsletter distributed by Jeanette Dargaville) are important ways in which AMOS is enhancing its value to members, improving the communication between members of the society (as well as alerting them to relevant news and opinions).
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 117
Another important aspect of what AMOS does is our links to other science societies (including other meteorological and oceanographic societies). The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) represents AMOS (and other societies) especially at a political level in Canberra. Its main activity in recent years has been Science Meets Parliament, an activity in which quite a few of us have been involved. The energetic new leadership team at FASTS is planning big changes to the organisation, to make it even more effective. On 24 November they will be announcing a name change, and other changes, which they expect will raise its public and political profile. Steven Phipps is our contact point with FASTS and will be representing AMOS at the FASTS AGM in Canberra on 25 November. I am sure Steven would be delighted to hear any opinions you have about FASTS, and its interactions with AMOS. Talking about AGMs, the AMOS AGM is usually held in conjunction with the annual conference. Since the conference for 2011 will be held in Wellington, we thought it best to hold the AGM in Melbourne (since many members will not be getting to Wellington). We are planning for a meeting in January (date and venue to be decided). There are a number of issues that should be discussed, and possibly
decided, at the 2011 AGM. Firstly, we have been discussing a new membership structure for nearly a year. Secondly, over the past few months there have been discussions about whether AMOS needs a statement on ethics, and how this should be linked to membership applications. We also want to discuss the enhancements we have made to communication within AMOS, our role in FASTS, possible changes in the design and distribution of the Bulletin, our subcommittee structure, and the ways regional centres operate. There are many issues that need to be considered by the AGM, and some of these will need to be decided by Special Resolution. We will be providing information very soon about the time and venue for the AGM – please try to get to the meeting, if you can. You may have seen our press release announcing the competition to name the hot, dry summer winds we see in Melbourne every summer (see the News section of this issue). This was Kevin Walsh’s idea and he and Mike Pook prepared the media release (even if the release did quote me!). We hope to get many, many entries. And a quotable name for the wind! If the competition is popular we will consider doing similar things for other parts of the country, and perhaps for other common meteorological events. Neville Nicholls
News Naming Melbourne’s Hot Northerly Wind Why doesn’t Melbourne have a name for its hot northerly summer wind?
southern Australia, but it certainly hasn’t caught on with the general public here.”
This is the question being posed by the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS). AMOS is launching a public competition to name the blistering breeze that afflicts Melbourne and its surrounding regions for several days each year, often causing the hottest of Melbourne’s summer temperatures.
AMOS is challenging Melburnians to come up with a name that is both easy to remember and descriptive. Entries in the competition can be made by sending an email to competition@amos.org.au with the subject heading “Hot wind name”.
“It is unusual that Melbourne doesn’t have a name for this wind,” says the President of AMOS, Professor Neville Nicholls of Monash University. “Many other locations worldwide have names for such winds, like the hot Santa Ana that affects Los Angeles. Sydney has a named wind: the southerly burster (or buster) for instance, and, in the old days they had their own name for their hot winds – the “brickfielder”. This name has also been used in the past for hot winds occurring across all of
Entries close on Friday December 17 and the winner will be announced before Christmas, “just in time for the first hot northerly of the year, we hope,” says Prof. Nicholls. The winning entry will receive a copy of the recent Bureau of Meteorology book “Climate of Australia”, as well as the satisfaction of having your idea forever associated with the hottest days of a hot Melbourne summer. Consolation prizes will include copies of the famous Australian Weather Calendar issued by the Bureau of Meteorology and AMOS.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 118
Tom Keenan becomes an AMS fellow The Director of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) Tom Keenan has been elected as a fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). The AMS constitution states that members who are elected to Fellow “shall have made outstanding contributions to the atmospheric or related oceanic or hydrologic sciences or their applications during a substantial period of years.” Dr Keenan was the leader of the Earth System Modelling and Climate Science Program in CAWCR before becoming the Centre Director in March 2010. He has published over 65 articles in his long career on tropical rainfall, radar meteorology and nowcasting. Dr Keenan was a past member of the World Weather Research Programme (WWRP) Joint
Scientific Steering Committee, in his capacity as chair of the WWRP Nowcast Working Group. He has been involved in a number of WWRP Forecast Demonstration Projects such as the Sydney 2000 committee, where he was Chair. He has also been a member of international committees including the NASA Precipitation Mission Science Team, as well as various American Meteorological Society Scientific and Technical Advisory Committees. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society. Dr Keenan's personal research is focused on radar meteorology, validation of satellite rainfall measurements, aviation weather, nowcasting, and forecast systems research. He will be awarded the fellowship at the AMS Annual Meeting in Seattle in January 2011.
Conference Reports The Indian Ocean Tsunami Modelling Symposium Stewart Allen Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Bureau of Meteorology. In the five years since the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, there have been considerable advances in tsunami observation, simulation and warning. The Indian Ocean Tsunami Modelling Symposium was held so that scientists from around the Indian Ocean and beyond could meet and share their progress in the field and identify future research directions. The symposium was held from 12–15 October 2010, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Coordination Group for the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System (ICG/IOTWS). The venue was the pleasant Esplanade Hotel in Fremantle, Western Australia. There were approximately 40 participants from many Indian Ocean nations, as well as countries further afield, such as New Zealand, the United States, Japan and European Union members. The structure of the meeting was carefully designed: there were no keynote presentations and each presenter was allotted a generous 30 minutes, allowing ample time for detailed presentations, as well as questions and discussion. There was also time provided at the end of some days for open discussion. There were many interesting presentations given, several of which generated extensive
IOTMS Participants (Photo: T. Welhena) discussion – a few highlights from selected talks are presented below. Dr Vasily Titov of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Tsunami Research opened proceedings, with a presentation noting that although significant progress has been made since 2004 in the field
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 119
of tsunami warning, particularly with numerical guidance, the goal of real-time modelling of a tsunami before it arrives at a coastline remains currently only possible for distant, trans-oceanic coastlines. Warning systems based on numerical prediction currently use (to varying degrees) precomputed scenario databases. He also identified a potential and significant stumbling block to further advances. The field is likely to see a gradual reduction of resources in coming years, as the cycle of funding for many hazard sciences like tsunami modelling is linked to significant natural hazard events. Dr Titov noted that a corollary to this is that though funding may slow, in contrast, the science will plateau, with the level of warning expertise displaying a direct benefit from the scientific and technological advances of the past five years. Dr Diana Greenslade of the Bureau of Meteorology presented some preliminary results on a study of forecast diversity for the Indian Ocean, using simulations provided by eight centres, most of which participate in the IOTWS. Without focusing on or identifying individual forecasts, the presentation used simple metrics to highlight the potentially high variability between tsunami forecasts for a given event. This spread arises from the different approaches to modelling and different bathymetric data sets employed. Ms Wendy Saunders from the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS) in New Zealand gave an interesting presentation on how tsunami risk is understood in selected Australian communities. A questionnairebased survey at sites in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia showed that communities displayed a good understanding of the cause and likelihood of tsunamis as well as sources of warning information. However they displayed only a moderate understanding of how a tsunami will appear when arriving at a coastline, particularly with respect to the timing of waves. Of more concern is that even though the majority of respondents believed tsunamis did pose a potential threat, most had a very limited understanding of preparedness, either at an individual or community level. Mr Tony Elliot, head of the ICG/IOTWS Secretariat within the UNESCO International Oceanographic Commission (IOC/UNESCO), gave an overview presentation that covered the structure, function and goals of the IOTWS. A significant current activity is the establishment of Regional Tsunami Watch Providers (RTWPs) within the IOTWS. The RTWPs are scheduled to assume warning responsibilities
for the Indian Ocean in 2011, taking over from the interim advisory services provided by Japan and the United States. It is planned that Australia, along with India and Indonesia and possibly others, will be one of the primary RTWPs for nearly 30 participating Indian Ocean nations. Mr Elliot noted that the interoperable structure of the IOTWS is different to the warning services established in other ocean basins. Therefore, IOC/UNESCO’s main role is to coordinate the member nations and maintain the pace of implementation. Overall, the presentations and subsequent open discussion sessions resulted in the identification of a number of issues that the scientific community needs to address. For example: • There is a need to develop a measure of tsunami forecast skill. • The importance of using the term model “validation” rather than “verification”, so that there is no perception that a numerical model may construe a measure of “truth”. • Having previously focused on estimating the maximum water level, the next goal of inundation modelling should be on the prediction of flow velocities. • Previous meetings of the ICG/IOTWS have noted the importance of increased sharing of data and models for the purposes of intercomparison and validation. This goal remains, even though practical difficulties encountered in the past continue. The IOTMS showed that in five years, there has been significant progress in the science of tsunami modelling and its implementation in warning systems. However, there remain significant challenges for the IOTWS, which must be faced with the knowledge of likely future funding trends. At the conference dinner, the principal convenor, Prof. Chari Pattiaratchi of the University of Western Australia, gave an interesting talk about the history of the ICG/IOTWS and the events that led to this symposium. The attendees took that moment to express their gratitude to Prof. Pattiaratchi and his staff for organising the meeting. The Bureau of Meteorology, IOC/UNESCO and the University of Western Australia are acknowledged for their generous financial and in-kind support for this meeting. This support enabled a number of fellowships to be offered to participants from the Indian Ocean region who would otherwise have been unable to attend.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 120
The 24th Victorian Universities Earth and Environmental Sciences Conference The 24th Victorian Universities Earth and Environmental Sciences Conference (VUEESC) was held on Friday 5 November 2010, drawing over 60 students and researchers to this great annual event. Run for students and by students, this year’s VUEESC was held at the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne. Attendees came from a wide range of disciplines, including land and water management, geology, engineering and climate science. The University of Melbourne and Monash University were the most represented, but students from La Trobe University and the University of Tasmania also attended. The day began with an excellent keynote address from Dr Robyn Pickering, a postdoctoral researcher from the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne. She spoke about her work with early human fossils, and her experience with the associated media coverage that her work received. Around 35 students throughout the day gave oral and poster presentations. Each presentation was judged on scientific content and communication technique. The judges commented that it was difficult to choose the winners this year, and that the standard of presentation had been very high. Muhammad Hassim from the University of Melbourne was awarded the AMOS prize for the best talk on climate or meteorology. His presentation looked at the jumping cirrus, a cloud phenomenon that forms above overshooting thunderstorms under the right conditions (see Figure 1). Jozua van Otterloo from Monash University won the best overall oral presentation for his talk on the Mt. Gambier volcano complex in South Australia. The award for best overall poster presentation was given to Julie Boyce, also of Monash
A still from Muhammad Hassim’s winning presentation on the jumping cirrus phenomenon. The white outline shows the area of cloud during a modelled thunderstorm, and coloured shades indicate total water perturbation. The positive perturbation at about 19.7km height is a jumping cirrus. (Image: M. Hassim) University, for her presentation on volcanology of Mt. Rouse in Victoria.
the
VUEESC was generously supported by the Geological Society of Australia Victorian Division, the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, The University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences, Monash University School of Geosciences, The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR), and AMOS. Many thanks to these sponsors for making the day possible. Thanks also to the judges, and all who attended, for making the 24th VUEESC such a success. Further information about the jumping cirrus: www.atmos-chem-phys.net/ 10/9833/2010/acp-10-9833-2010.html
News from the Centres Brisbane Centre update Michael Hewson Vice chair, Brisbane Regional Centre The committee of the Brisbane Centre has offered two small cash grants toward postgraduate student travel to attend the AMOS and New Zealand Meteorological Society “Extreme Weather” conference in
Wellington in February, 2011. The Brisbane Centre has traditionally supported Queensland students this way. This year we were invited to leverage the AMOS administration process – thanks to Jeanette in the office (as always).
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 121
Congratulations to PhD students Johanna Spiers (Climate Research Group of the University of Queensland) and Lawrence Hughes (Centre for Coastal Management of Griffith University). The Centre will again gather on Tuesday November 30. Dr Ann Farrell (and the Bureau of Meteorology) has very kindly invited AMOS members to attend a seminar at 1pm. The venue is the Bureau of Meteorology Brisbane office conference room – Level 21, 69 Ann Street. Professor Roger Smith will give a talk on “Tropical Cyclogenesis” following on
from international gatherings on this topic and the recent PRE-Depression Investigation of Cloud-systems in the Tropics (PREDICT) experiment. This is both tropical and topical given the predictions of extreme weather for Queensland this summer. The centre thanks the AMOS executive immeasurably for approving a $1000 grant toward our hosting of a day forum on 12 April 2011 entitled “SE Queensland’s Future Weather and Climate: What it Means for the Community and Government”. More on that event coming soon.
Melbourne Centre update Mitchell Black Melbourne Centre On the evening of Wednesday 27 October, the Melbourne Centre of AMOS organised a “Careers in Meteorology” event to provide information about the various career options available to graduates in meteorology. This event provided an opportunity for undergraduate and postgraduate students to interact with a number of professionals enjoying careers spanning from environmental consulting to operational weather forecasting. The evening commenced with Campbell Watson describing his experiences as a postgraduate student, describing it as a rewarding and challenging pathway that should be considered by dedicated and excited students. Following this, Ailie Gallant and Ian Simmonds provided insight into life as academic researchers, highlighting the
opportunities for working abroad and forming extensive networks. Science communication was identified as an important skill for all disciplines, with Imogen Jubb sharing her experiences working with a range of different audiences throughout her career. Richard Wardle concluded the formal part of the evening by re-emphasising that there is a wealth of opportunities for graduates in meteorology in both local and international arenas. Participating students found the evening to be very informative and successful, providing them with greater insight into the diverse career opportunities available in meteorology and inspiring them to continue studies in this field.
Articles The InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC John W Zillman School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne Address for correspondence: J.Zillman@bom.gov.au Abstract Over the period March-August 2010, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) carried out a commissioned review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IAC Review Committee “found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall” but offered 22 recommendations for improving the IPCC assessment process and enhancing the authority of its reports. The IAC’s key recommendations dealt with governance and management, the review process,
characterising and communicating uncertainty, and communications. Because of the short time available for its work, the Review Committee treated some important aspects of IPCC operations only briefly and it was not able to address several key issues included in the terms of reference provided by the IPCC Chairman and the Secretary General of the United Nations. At its 32nd Session in Busan, Korea, on 11–14 October 2010, the IPCC’s Member governments agreed with almost all of the IAC recommendations and responded positively to its report. Eight recommendations
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 23 page 122
were integrated into the IPCC’s ongoing improvement activities for the current Fifth Assessment Report now well underway. One recommendation was found to be already effectively fully implemented, and the remaining thirteen were referred for follow up by four intergovernmental Task Groups that will report to the 33rd Session of the Panel in the first half of 2011. While several difficult issues remain to be resolved through the work of the Task Groups, the IAC Review and the initial IPCC response should contribute usefully to the quality and authority of the Fifth Assessment and provide a sound foundation for new and enhanced procedures and governance arrangements for the Sixth Assessment. Introduction On 10 March 2010, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, and the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr Rajendra Pachauri, formally requested the Netherlandsbased InterAcademy Council (IAC) to conduct a thorough, independent review of the processes and procedures followed by the IPCC in preparing its Assessment Reports. The resulting IAC Report (InterAcademy Council, 2010) was released on 30 August for consideration at the 32nd Session of the IPCC in Busan, Korea on 11-14 October. It concluded, in summary, that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, it also identified a number of perceived deficiencies in the operation of the IPCC and provided 22 recommendations for improving the IPCC assessment process and enhancing the authority of its reports. Because of the scientific credentials and independence of the IAC and the eminence of its 12-member Review Committee, there was an unsurprising tendency, in the initial scientific and media reaction, for the IAC Report to be seen as a definitive response to the issues facing the IPCC. The IPCC is not, however, a purely scientific mechanism. It was established in its present form precisely because governments were not willing to entrust the assessment process entirely to the scientific community. The complementarity, balance and mutual reinforcement of its intergovernmental and scientific processes have been fundamental to the scientific authority, policy relevance and the political acceptability of its reports. It will be important, therefore, to ensure that such improvements as may flow from the IAC recommendations are not achieved at the
expense of some of the essential ingredients of the IPCC’s past success. The challenge for the IPCC community, over the next few years, will be to assess the IAC analysis and recommendations and reach agreement on, and commit to specific action on, those recommendations which are both implementable in practice and confidently expected to lead to real improvement in the operation of the IPCC and the quality of its reports. The Review Report has already served a useful symbolic purpose by providing authoritative, independent support for a number of procedural improvements that will be warmly welcomed by many IPCC stakeholders. But, while the initial intergovernmental response to the IAC recommendations from the October 2010 Session of the Panel was pleasingly positive, considered judgements on the Report and the usefulness of its recommendations must be expected to vary widely across stakeholder communities. Full intergovernmental and scientific consensus on follow-up strategy and its detailed implementation is likely to take some years. It may be useful, in these circumstances, to provide a few general reactions to the Review and its main conclusions and recommendations from the perspective of a long-time IPCC Principal Delegate, Bureau Member, Reviewer and Review Editor. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to: • • •
provide some historical context to the IAC Review; summarise and evaluate its conclusions and recommendations; and suggest how it might best be used to improve the IPCC processes and procedures and enhance the authority of its assessments.
Like the IAC Review, this paper does not address the current state of climate change science, which, locally, has recently been summarised in the Australian Academy of Science Report by Allison et al (2010). The IPCC The IPCC was established in 1988 as a joint intergovernmental subsidiary body of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (World Meteorological Organization, 1988). The first session of the Panel in November 1988 established three intergovernmental Working Groups. They focused on science,
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 123
impacts and response strategies respectively, and were each chaired by a different eminent expert. The role of each group was to involve the wider expert community in an assessment of the state of knowledge from the published literature. The conclusions from the three Working Groups would then be brought together and approved by the Panel as a whole. Following consideration of its First Assessment Report by the 1990 Second World Climate Conference and negotiation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the Panel settled into an effective working relationship with the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC. It became, in effect, a “policy neutral but policy relevant” interface between the international scientific observation and research programs such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) on the one hand, and the policy-oriented COP Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) on the other (Zillman, 2009). Early in its life, the Panel found itself in need of some IPCC-specific principles and procedures additional to those of its WMO and UNEP parents. While possessing no legal status beyond that provided through the WMO and UNEP resolutions which established it, the IPCC soon developed a distinctive mode of operation summarised in its short (2 page) and regularly updated ‘Principles Governing IPCC Work’, with three Appendices A-C as follows: (A) Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports: Annex 1: Tasks and Responsibilities for Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Expert Reviewers and Review Editors of IPCC Reports and Government Focal Points Annex 2: Procedures for Using Nonpublished/Non-peer-reviewed Sources in IPCC Reports; (B) Financial Procedures for the IPCC; and (C) Rules and Procedures for the Election of the IPCC Bureau and any Task Force Bureau. There are many general accounts of the origin, structure, operation and outcome of the IPCC assessment process including several by its successive Chairmen (eg Bolin, 1991; Watson, 2000; Pachauri, 2004). The definitive analysis is probably that by Bolin (2007). Among the most detailed ball-by-ball accounts of the operation of the IPCC through its first 20 years are the official Australian Delegation Reports
on Working Group and Panel sessions, which are summarised in the published biennial reports on ‘Climate Activities in Australia’ (Bureau of Meteorology, 1995-2007). These have provided the primary basis for a number of commentaries and critiques of the IPCC process over the years by the present author (e.g., Zillman, 1996; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2005; 2006; 2007a) and a general review of Australian participation in the work of the IPCC from 1988 to 2001 (Zillman, 2007b). Origin of the Review Although almost universally accepted by governments as the authoritative source of information on climate change and widely recognised for the quality and integrity of its assessment process, the IPCC has also been subject to vigorous criticism throughout its life from many sources. These include a minority of climate scientists (e.g., Singer, 1996; Kininmonth, 2004; Paltridge, 2009) who take exception to the IPCC consensus process in general or to particular conclusions of the majority or both; non-climate scientists (eg McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005; Plimer, 2009); non-scientists (e.g., Lomborg, 2001; Lawson, 2008; Booker, 2009) who believe its concept misconceived, its expertise too narrow or its methods insufficiently rigorous; and a range of individuals, organisations and community sectors who, for one reason or another, reject the concept, or at least the importance, of human-induced climate change. Its increasingly detailed and demanding writing, review and approval procedures have been designed to address the various criticisms levelled at its successive assessments and to ensure the rigour and integrity of its subsequent reports. This has not, however, in general, allayed the concerns of its most persistent critics. Each Assessment Report after the first has been subject to attack on individual iconic issues as part of the more general criticism aimed at discrediting either particular findings or the IPCC assessment process as a whole. The special focus of attack in the 1995 Second Assessment Report was the alleged “scientific cleansing” of the Working Group I chapter on “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” to bring it into line with the intergovernmentally approved Summary for Policy Makers (“the Chapter 8 Controversy” (Zillman, 1997; Oreskes and Conway, 2010)). For the 2001 Third Assessment, it was the Working Group I “hockey stick” representation of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures over the last
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 124
millennium (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005; Montford, 2010). The increased rigour of the writing, review and approval process for the 2007 Fourth Assessment, especially the more systematic approach to characterisation of uncertainties and the stronger role assigned to chapter Review Editors, appeared, initially, to have averted any obvious avenues of attack. Arguably, however, the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Gore, 2007) and the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the IPCC in 2008 sufficiently irritated the hard-core IPCC critics that, by mid-2009, the background level of anti-IPCC literature and media commentary showed no sign of abating. Then, in quick succession, the leaking of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) emails just before the December 2009 Copenhagen session of the COP (Pearce, 2010), widespread publicity for the Himalayan glacier melt rate error in the Asian chapter of the Working Group II Report, and media allegations of conflict of interest against the Chairman, suddenly put the IPCC into something of a state of siege and triggered renewed public and political questioning of the reliability of the essential conclusions of its reports. Despite repeated reassurances from the IPCC Chairman, the Working Group I Co-Chairs and other highly reputable IPCC figures that nothing in the renewed attacks on IPCC processes and personalities in any way impacted on the basic conclusions of the Fourth Assessment, pressures began to develop in several quarters for an independent review of the IPCC. These were given further momentum by the establishment of a series of national and institutional investigations into the controversies and arguably, also, by the failure of the IPCC’s parent organisations to spring to the defence of its procedures or establish some joint high-level mechanism for review and revalidation of its mandate and assessment process. On the initiative of the IPCC E-team (the Chairman and Vice-Chairs, the Working Group and Task Force Co-Chairs, the IPCC Secretary and Technical Support Unit (TSU) Heads), and in an effort to clear the air and rebuild public, political and scientific confidence in the process already underway for preparation of the Fifth Assessment, the IPCC Secretary advised all IPCC Member governments, on 16 February 2010, of the Chairman’s initiation of a thorough external review of the “Procedures for the Preparation,
Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports” (i.e. the “IPCC Procedures” with a Capital ‘P’). A review committee was established with terms of reference and a proposed start date of 1 March. However, following further consultation within and external to the UN System, the IPCC Secretary advised governments, on 12 March, that, while Environment Ministers meeting in Bali on 24–26 February had generally supported the proposed review, the recommendation resulting from these consultations was that such a review (should) be carried out independently of the IPCC. The Secretary advised that, on 10 March, the UN Secretary General and IPCC Chairman had written jointly to the Co-Chairs of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) requesting that the IAC undertake the review with the report to be submitted by 31 August 2010. In an attachment to their letter of request to the IAC, the Secretary General and IPCC Chairman provided background on the IPCC and its “Principles” and “Procedures” and set down the proposed terms of reference as follows: “1. Review IPCC procedures for preparing reports including: • Data quality assurance and data quality control; • Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature; • Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC material; • Handling of the full range of scientific views; and • Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and acceptance of a report. 2. Analyse the overall IPCC process, including the management and administrative functions within the IPCC, and the role of UNEP and WMO, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the assessment work and effectively ensure the consistent application of the IPCC Procedures. 3. Analyse appropriate communication strategies and the interaction of the IPCC with the media to ensure that the public is kept apprised of its work. 4. Prepare a report on the outcome of the consultations referred to above, including: • Methodology of the report preparation and measures taken to ensure high quality of the report findings;
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 125
• Recommendations for amendments to the IPCC procedures; • Recommendations concerning strengthening the IPCC process, institutions and management functions; • Any other related recommendations; and • Outline of a plan for the implementation of recommendations.” At its annual meeting in the Netherlands on 22 March 2010, the IAC Board (consisting of 15 IAC member academies and six ex-officio members and observers from other international science organisations) agreed to undertake the review and initiated a process for nomination of the members of the Review Committee. The membership of the Review Committee and the formal initiation of the Review were announced on 2 May. Conduct of the Review The IAC Review of the IPCC was undertaken in line with established IAC report procedures in support of its mandate “to produce reports on scientific, technological and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time, providing knowledge and advice to national governments and international organisations”. The Review Committee was chaired by Professor Harold Shapiro of the US with a Vice-Chair (Dr Roseanne Diab) from South Africa. The 12-member Committee was made up of two economists (including the Chair), four chemists, three physicists and three biological scientists with approximately half the total membership coming from the Earth and environmental sciences. Two of them (Drs Syukuro Manabe and Mario Molina) were highly respected climate scientists with significant Lead Author experience in IPCC Assessments. The Review Committee operated independently from the UN and the IPCC but received briefings and presentations from UN, IPCC and other officials and from a selection of IPCC and other scientists at Amsterdam, Montreal and London and sub-group meetings in Brazil, China and the US. It drew heavily on input from the more than 400 individuals who responded to its questionnaire or provided oral or written submissions. The Review Committee’s draft report was externally reviewed by twelve individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives, technical knowledge and geographical representation but included only one (the present author) with any substantial in-session experience in
interpretation and application of the IPCC processes and procedures. The reviewers were not asked to endorse the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations and they did not see the final draft of the IAC Report before its release. The Review Report The 103-page Review Report (InterAcademy Council, 2010) was released in pre-publication form on 30 August under cover of an IAC News Release recommending “Fundamental reform of IPCC management structure”. In his Preface to the Report, The Review Committee Chair recognises the achievements and strengths of the IPCC but tends to view it more as a large, long-established governmental organisation in need of reform than as the intergovernmentally-supervised scientific assessment mechanism that it actually is. He asserts that “The intersection of climate science and public policy is certain to remain a controversial arena for some time…”, and that “thoughtful controversy will remain a critical ingredient in stimulating further developments on the scientific frontier…”. He also expresses his judgment that the “IPCC can continue to remain a very valuable resource…” and nicely captures the conditions for its continued success but, in the view of the present author, he misses, and much of the Report misses, the essential concept of the IPCC as a finely tuned interface mechanism between climate science and policy. The Review Report itself consists of an Executive Summary which includes the Committee’s seven key recommendations and five chapters dealing, in turn, with: 1. Introduction (including an explanation of the Review Committee approach and methodology); 2. Evaluation of IPCC’s assessment process (including two “key” and six additional recommendations); 3. IPCC’s evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty (including two “key” and four additional recommendations); 4. Governance and management (including three “key” and five additional recommendations); and 5. Conclusions (bringing together the complete set of 22 (the seven “key” and 15 additional) recommendations and identifying a number of “Issues for further consideration”).
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 126
There are also six appendices including the letters of request to the IAC Co-Chairs from the UN Secretary General and IPCC Chairman, a questionnaire on IPCC processes and procedures and a list of contributors to the review. The key recommendations The Executive Summary records the Review Committee’s finding “that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall” but that “the IPCC must continue to adapt”. It sets down seven “key recommendations for improving IPCC’s assessment process”. The first two key recommendations address governance and management issues. In summary, they propose the establishment of an elected Executive Committee including independent members and the election of a senior scientist as Executive Director with more authority than the present IPCC Secretary. The Executive Director’s term would be limited to a single assessment. The issues these raise for the IPCC include whether: • the election of “independent” members to an Executive Committee will be accepted by governments relative to the roles of elected Vice Chairs and other members in terms of regional and other balance; • such an Executive Committee would be more trusted and more effective than the present inner Bureau consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairs and Working Group and Task Force Co-Chairs or the existing E-team; • the governing bodies of the IPCC cosponsors, WMO and UNEP, will be willing to cede responsibility for Secretariat support to a more independent IPCC; • IPCC Member governments will be willing to vest the proposed level of authority in a paid official; and whether • a one-term limitation for the head of the Secretariat would enhance or degrade the overall working of the IPCC. The next two key recommendations address the review process for the individual chapters of Working Group reports. They propose (in summary), full implementation of the originally envisaged role for Review Editors and insertion of a step in the review process in which the Review Editors prepare written summaries of the most significant issues raised by reviewers in order to reduce the burden on Lead Authors. The first has been widely supported in IPCC circles and is unlikely to
raise significant issues for the Panel apart from the practical constraint imposed by Review Editor skills and workloads. The second will raise issues of time delay and the ability of Review Editors to recognise the full significance of all review comments. Views will differ as to whether it would be likely to relieve or escalate the workloads and pressures on the Lead Authors. The fifth and sixth key recommendations address the characterisation and communication of uncertainty in IPCC Assessments. A single “level-ofunderstanding” scale is proposed for the Working Group Technical Summaries and Summaries for Policy Makers with the established IPCC likelihood scale used only when there is sufficient evidence for assignment of quantitative probabilities. It is not clear from the Report that the Review Committee fully appreciated the IPCC’s primary rationale for its established approach to communication of uncertainty which was introduced for the Third Assessment (Moss and Schneider, 2000) and refined for the Fourth. The Working Group Co-Chairs for the Fifth Assessment Report have, however, been working for some time on the further development of the Uncertainty Guidance which should, to a significant extent, address the concerns identified by the IAC. The seventh key recommendation proposed (in summary) that the IPCC implement an enhanced communication strategy. This seems likely to be widely supported in principle but will almost certainly raise many difficult procedural and practical issues in design and implementation, including especially the extent to which the IPCC Chairman, other IPCC Bureau members and Lead Authors should serve as advocates for the conclusions that emerge from their scientific assessments. To the extent that the Executive Summary is seen as capturing the essential outcome of the Review Committee’s response to its terms of reference, it is disappointingly silent on most aspects of the methodology of IPCC report preparation and on specific proposals for amendments to the IPCC Procedures. The Executive Summary concludes, somewhat ambitiously, that, “If adopted in their entirety, the measures recommended in this report would fundamentally reform IPCC’s management structure while enhancing its ability to conduct an authoritative assessment”. While considerable additional insight and advice is provided by the further 15 recommendations in the body of the Report,
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 127
those included in the Executive Summary do not appear to be quite what was hoped for from the Review. Of the seven key recommendations, two (on Review Editors and Communication Strategy) would seem likely to attract fairly general support and, to the extent that they prove implementable in practice, should enhance the overall operation of the IPCC. The remaining five, while sound and supportable in principle, will raise significant implementation challenges for the IPCC and it remains to be seen as to whether they lead to improved operation of the IPCC on both the short and longer term.
• formal criteria and processes for selection of Lead Authors; • achieving the right balance of local authors and outside experts for regional chapters of Working Group II reports; • improved procedures and guidance for the use of non-peer-reviewed literature; • explicit documentation of alternative views on scientific issues; and • governments to raise all issues in respect of Summaries for Policy Makers in writing in advance of the sessions at which they will be considered for approval.
IAC characterisation of the IPCC process
The supporting text for the recommendations in this chapter provides some useful background information and an interesting range of perspectives on the assessment process, based on submissions to the Review Committee. The chapter uses a mini case study of the failure of the IPCC review process to avert the Himalayan glaciers error in the Working Group II Report of the Fourth Assessment to argue the importance of its key recommendations on a strengthened role for Review Editors in future assessments. While not explicitly recognising the significance of the distinction between the status of the authored underlying chapters and the intergovernmentally approved Summaries for Policy Makers, the Committee acknowledges that “Although a few such errors are likely to be missed in any review process, stronger enforcement of IPCC procedures by the Review Editors could minimise these numbers”. Somewhat disappointingly, the Committee does not express satisfaction that the review process has worked so well that so few real errors have been found even in the detailed chapters of the published IPCC Reports. Nor does it address the practicalities of implementation of its key recommendations for a strengthened role for Review Editors.
The first chapter of the IAC Report provides some initial comments on the IPCC and the Review Committee task followed by a very brief elaboration of its understanding of the IPCC and how it works. This is broadly accurate, albeit with surprising omission of the roles of the three Working Groups in the summary of participants in the IPCC assessments, and some apparent misunderstanding of the process through which the detailed Working Group chapters are written, reviewed and accepted and how the Summaries for Policy Makers are reviewed and approved. The inclusion in Chapter 1 of the Review Committee “statement of task” with the key reference to the IPCC Procedures (capital “P”) in the terms of reference provided to the IAC replaced by “procedures” (lower case “p”) suggests that the Committee may not have fully appreciated that a (if not the) primary outcome initially sought from the Review was a set of practical recommendations for amendment of the IPCC Procedures document for the remaining steps of the Fifth Assessment due for completion in 2014. IAC evaluation process
of
IPCC’s
assessment
The second chapter of the IAC Report broadly responds to the second of its terms of reference, albeit with some major omissions such as analysis of the role of UNEP and WMO. It provides six recommendations on various aspects of the assessment process in addition to the two key recommendations on the review stage included in the Executive Summary. The additional recommendations call for (in summary): • increased transparency in selection of participants for scoping meetings;
On the basis of the supporting and elaborative text, it would seem likely that the general intent of the first five of the six additional recommendations on the Assessment Process will not prove particularly controversial. Their transformation from aspiration to practical amendment to the IPCC Procedures will however require considerable work and their eventual contribution to the assessment process will remain a matter of debate. The final recommendation on revision of the approval process for Summaries for Policy Makers to limit the freedom of governments to introduce new issues during the formal approval process, if eventually accepted by governments, would seem to have little prospect of enforcement in
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 128
the charged intergovernmental environment of an IPCC Plenary. Evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty The third chapter of the IAC report focuses on an aspect of the IPCC assessment process which was not explicitly mentioned in the Review Committee’s terms of reference. While it addresses an issue that has caused considerable confusion and debate amongst both producers and readers of IPCC reports, the IAC commentary and recommendations suggest some misunderstanding of both the rationale and guidelines for the approach adopted for the Fourth Assessment. Specifically, it was recognised well in advance of the Third Assessment that the process of communication of uncertain conclusions and expectations to the diverse audiences of IPCC reports would require that all the many commonly used terms for indicating confidence and certainty should be used in an internally consistent way within Working Group Reports and, as far as possible, across Working Groups (Moss and Schneider, 2000). The IAC Review Committee’s two key recommendations on uncertainty are supported by four other recommendations on: • •
• •
provision of a traceable account of ratings of levels of understanding and likelihood; avoiding use of the IPCC confidence scale for assigning subjective probabilities to illdefined outcomes; use of both numbers and words when applying the likelihood scale; and use of formal elicitation procedures to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
As a group, the six recommendations on uncertainty appear well intentioned towards a more consistent and better understood approach than in the past but they provide little useful guidance for the IPCC or its Lead Authors on how this might be achieved. Fortunately, the IPCC had already undertaken considerable work on more consistent treatment of uncertainties through a crossWorking Group meeting in Jasper Ridge (US) in July 2010 and development of new “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment”. Governance and management In addition to its three key recommendations on governance, management and communication and a substantial amount of background and commentary on real and
perceived management problems, the fourth chapter of the IAC Report provides five recommendations on (in summary): • limitation of the term of the IPCC Chair to one assessment; • adoption of formal qualifications, roles and responsibilities for the IPCC Chair and all Bureau members; • limitation of the terms of the Working Group Co-Chairs to one assessment; • redefinition of the responsibilities of key Secretariat positions; and • adoption of a rigorous conflict of interest policy for all participants in the assessment process. These recommendations appear to go well beyond the “strengthening IPCC…institutions and management” set out in the terms of reference for the Review and to be directed, rather, towards the “fundamental reform of IPCC management structure” which headlined the IAC News Release of August 30. To some extent, they challenge the basic concept of operation of a mechanism that, by most accounts, has worked extremely well. Whatever their intrinsic long-term merit, all eight recommendations must be expected to generate considerable debate within the IPCC over the next few years. They will present the Panel and its co-sponsors with the major challenge of reaching agreement on a consolidated response on IPCC election procedures, governance, management and communication in time for the initiation of the Sixth Assessment. The IAC conclusions The final chapter of the Report brings the Review Committee’s main conclusions and their 22 recommendations together in a more comprehensive and logical format than used for the Executive Summary but it does not attempt to align these with the assigned terms of reference of the Review. The “Summary of recommendations” included in the final chapter deals, in turn, with: • Modernising the management structure (with two key recommendations and four additional recommendations); • Strengthening the review process (two key recommendations); • Characterising and communicating uncertainties (two key recommendations and four additional recommendations); • Developing an effective communications strategy (one key recommendation);
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 129
• Increasing transparency (four recommendations); • Clarifying the use of unpublished and nonpeer-reviewed sources (one recommendation); • Engaging the best regional experts (one recommendation); • Expediting approval of the Summary for Policy Makers (one recommendation); • Reducing the growing burden on the scientific community (no explicit recommendation); and • Maintaining flexibility (no explicit recommendation). The final chapter suggests, rather ambitiously and also slightly ambiguously, that “most of the Committee’s recommendations can be implemented during the fifth assessment process…”. The final chapter also notes that, in addition to the matters in its terms of reference that could not be adequately addressed in the short time available for the review, other issues arose which will require future consideration as follows: • participation of developing countries and the private sector; • access to information; and • Working Group structure and phasing of reports. The initial IPCC response Following the launch of the IAC Report on 30 August 2010, the IPCC Chairman and E-team moved swiftly to facilitate an effective response to its recommendations by the 32nd Session of the Panel in Busan on 11–14 October (IPCC-32): • On 3 September, the IPCC Secretary wrote to all Member governments inviting written reactions to the Report with the 18 government responses received by 1 October distributed as an Information Document in advance of the session. • On 29 September, the Secretary distributed a session document providing essential background to the Review, consolidating the 22 recommendations under the Chapter 2-4 headings of the IAC Report and identifying other sources of information, issues and possible actions for consideration by the Panel. • Also on 29 September, the Chairman submitted a consolidated set of comments, on behalf of the E-team, on the IAC Report as a whole and on each of the
recommendations as summarised in the Secretariat Information Document. The Chairman’s document suggested the essential elements of an implementation strategy and drew attention to work already done by the E-team since March 2010 on several of the issues canvassed in the IAC terms of reference. The IPCC Bureau met in Busan on 10 October to consider, among other things, the practical sessional arrangements for developing the IPCC response to the IAC Report over the following four days. The implications of the Review featured strongly in the Chairman’s opening address at IPCC-32 and in several other statements in the opening ceremony for the session. Dr Pachauri expressed the IPCC’s collective appreciation for the IAC Review, noted its generally positive assessment of the work of the IPCC and foreshadowed a transparent process for prompt determination of the Panel’s response to the recommendations in order to strengthen the Fifth Assessment while noting that some of the recommendations, if adopted, could not be fully implemented until the Sixth Assessment. He also reminded governments that action was already well in hand, in response to earlier Panel and Bureau decisions, on several of the issues (e.g. characterisation of uncertainty) dealt with by the IAC recommendations. The Panel spent most of the afternoon of the first day of its session and most of the following morning in plenary discussion of the IAC Report and its recommendations. The discussion was considerably helped by a 35minute briefing and following question and answer session by Sir Peter Williams of the UK, a member of the IAC Review Committee, on the second morning. Sir Peter presented a generally positive view of the IPCC process, noted the limitations of the IAC Review, stressed that its aim was to help the IPCC to do an even better job in future and suggested that the IAC recommendations should be treated as indicative rather than prescriptive. The IPCC Secretary introduced the various session documents and the IPCC Chairman introduced the E-team paper and flagged a number of related issues for plenary consideration (especially the need to reduce the growing burden on the IPCC scientific community). He also flagged a number of important issues relating to improvement of the IPCC Procedures that had not been dealt with, or were mentioned only briefly, in the IAC Review.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 130
The plenary interventions from governments were led by the US who welcomed the IAC recommendations and spelled out a detailed strategy for preparing the IPCC response at the session. Altogether there were more than 50 plenary interventions from some 35 governments, many elaborating on their earlier written comments, along with written views from several other governments who did not intervene in the plenary. While many delegates expressed private reservations about various aspects of the IAC Report, the official statements were mostly supportive of most of its recommendations and there was a widespread sentiment (“The world is watching”) that it would be essential to the future credibility and effectiveness of the IPCC assessment process that the Panel respond, and be seen to respond, positively, decisively and quickly to the IAC recommendations. It was left to Russia, China and a few other (mostly developing) countries to express public reservations about the Report and to caution against undue haste in producing an IPCC response. In the light of the plenary debate and following off-line consultation, the plenary agreed to the establishment of three sessional contact groups to formulate the initial IPCC response as follows: • A “Procedures” Contact Group (co-chaired by Norway and Peru) to deal with Chapter 2 on the Assessment Process and Chapter 3 on Uncertainties; • A “Governance” Contact Group (cochaired by Korea and Spain) to deal with most of Chapter 4 on Governance and Management; and • A “Communications” Contact Group (cochaired by Canada and Madagascar) to deal primarily with the sessional agenda item on Communication Strategy but also to complement the work of the Governance Contact Group in developing a response to the IAC recommendation on communications. The first two groups worked sequentially with interpretation in the plenary room and the third worked off-line without interpretation. The discussion in the two main contact groups continued up to the early afternoon of the fourth and final day of the session with drafting sub-groups working on possible decision text during the lunch breaks, at night and in the early morning. By the time of the closing plenary meeting in the afternoon of October 14, effective closure had been reached
on the contents of an IPCC-32 “Decisions” document consisting of: • A short preamble, drafted by the Communications Contact Group, welcoming the IAC Review and announcing the Panel’s decision “to immediately implement many of the recommendations” and advising that “On others, the Panel has formed Task Groups to undertake further work with a view to completion at its next Session, in line with guidance from the IAC”. • A set of decisions on the eight Chapter 2 (Assessment Process) recommendations in which: o two were “agreed” with implementation strategy set out in approved guidance documents; o four were “agreed” with follow up work towards implementation referred to the Procedures Task Group; o one was “agreed in principle” and referred for further study to the Procedures Task Group; and o one was “acknowledged” but it was agreed that its intent was already covered by IPCC procedures and no follow up action was required. • Agreement with the six Chapter 3 (Uncertainties) recommendations and confirmation that the Panel is implementing them as part of a broader package of updates to procedures and guidance notes with the final document to be considered at IPCC-33. • A set of decisions on seven of the eight Chapter 4 (Governance and Management) recommendations: o agreeing with one (on implementation of a conflict of interest policy) but referring it to a Special Task Group on Conflict of Interest Policy to propose options for such a policy; and o referring six (with indicative comment) for further consideration by the proposed Task Group on Governance and Management and decision by IPCC-33. • Acceptance of the Chapter 4 recommendation to develop a communications strategy and referral to a special Communications Task Group to develop the Strategy. The “Decisions” document approved by the Panel included four appendices:
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 131
• General guidance on the use of literature in IPCC Reports; • General guidance on the role of Review Editors; • Proposed IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in Previous Assessment Reports; and • Draft Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. These capture the essence of the Panel’s response to those “Procedures” recommendations which were not referred to Task Groups for further study. The Panel also agreed on the terms of reference for the four inter-sessional follow-up Task Groups with final membership numbers (bracketed) and recommendations to be addressed as follows: • Task Group on Procedures (23) – five recommendations; • Task Group on Conflict of Interest Policy (9) – one recommendation; • Task Group on Governance and Management (25) – six recommendations; and • Task Group on Communications Strategy (15) – one recommendation. The Procedures Task Group was also charged with further analysis of procedures for handling errors identified in IPCC reports and with preparing consolidated amendments to the “IPCC Procedures” document. In summary, IPCC-32 integrated its generally positive response to eight of the IAC recommendations into its ongoing improvement activities, concluded that one recommendation is already effectively implemented and referred thirteen to Task Groups for further work with a view to decision at IPCC-33. The Panel noted some reservations on some aspects of the IAC report but avoided outright rejection of any of its recommendations. Implications of the IAC Review The damage done to public confidence in the IPCC and its findings by the publicity given to the leaked emails and the glacier melt error in the Fourth Assessment made it essential that a comprehensive review of IPCC processes and procedures be completed before the detailed writing stage of the Fifth Assessment. To ensure its public credibility, it was essential that the review be seen as independent. To ensure that it would contribute to improved
procedures for the Fifth Assessment, it was essential that the Review Committee be familiar with the overall concept and detailed operation of the IPCC. Arguably, the IAC Review has erred on the side of independence and fallen somewhat short of expectations as a basis for detailed improvement of the IPCC Procedures. There is, however, much interesting, insightful and challenging material in the IAC Review Report and its recommendations have already stimulated much constructive and productive debate within the IPCC community. While several of the recommendations that have been referred to the post-IPCC-32 Task Groups for further study will present IPCC Member governments with difficult decisions at its 33rd and subsequent sessions, the IAC Report and the positive and proactive initial response from IPCC-32 seem well geared to enhance the quality and authority of the Fifth Assessment and to place the Panel on new and much firmer foundations for its Sixth Assessment. The IAC finding that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall should serve as a source of considerable reassurance to the IPCC’s external user community, and Member governments’ positive response to the Review, and to the action which the Panel has already taken to strengthen its Procedures for the Fifth Assessment, should provide considerable encouragement to all those in the expert climate change community whose confidence in the IPCC process has suffered from the series of events that triggered the IAC Review. All in all, though, it must be expected that, no matter how closely the IPCC process eventually approaches perfection as a result of the IAC or other reviews, its conclusions will continue to attract detailed scrutiny from the wider scientific community and generate vigorous dialogue and debate across the science-policy interface. That, in itself, may be an important measure of its continuing value and success. References Allison I, Bird M, Church, J, England M, Enting I, Karoly D, Raupach M, Palutikof J and Sherwood S (2010). The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. 16pp. Booker C (2009). The Real Global Warming Disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group, London. 368pp. Bolin B (1991). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Proceedings of the
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 132
Second World Climate Conference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 578pp. Bolin B (2007). A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 277pp. Bureau of Meteorology (1995-2007). Climate Activities in Australia. Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne. Gore A (2007). An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Bloomsburg Publishing, London. 325pp. InterAcademy Council (2010). Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. IAC Secretariat, Amsterdam. 103pp. Kininmonth W R (2004). Climate Change: A Natural Hazard. Multi-Science Publishing, Essex. 207pp. Lawson N (2008). An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. Duckworth Overlook, London. 166pp. Lomborg B (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 515pp. McIntyre S and McKitrick R (2005). Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. Montford A W (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. Stacey International. 482pp. Moss R and Schneider S (2000). Uncertainties in the TAR: recommendations to Lead Authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In IPCC Supporting Material: Cross-cutting Issues Guidance Paper (Pachauri R, Taniguchi T and K Tanaka (Eds.). IPCC, Geneva, 33-51. Oreskes N and Conway E M (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press, New York. 355pp. Pachauri R (2004). Address to the Opening Ceremony of the World Climate Change Conference. In Proceedings of the World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, September 29, 2003. 571pp. Paltridge G W (2009). The Climate Caper. Connor Court Publishing, Ballan. 111pp.
Pearce F (2010). The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming. Guardian Books, London. 266pp. Plimer I (2009). Heaven + Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science. Connor Court Publishing, Ballan. 504pp. Singer S F (1996). A preliminary critique of the IPCC Second Assessment of Climate Change. In The Global Warming Debate. Bourne Press, Bournemouth, 146-157. Watson R (2000). Presentation to the Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, November 2000. UNFCCC, Bonn. World Meteorological Organization (1988). Fortieth Session of the Executive Council. Abridged Report with Resolutions. WMO No.707. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. 131pp. Zillman J W (1996). A critical review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment. Proceedings of “Australians and Our Changing Climate�, 25 November 1996. National Academies Forum, Canberra, 10-21. Zillman J W (1997). Atmospheric science and public policy. Science, 276, 1084-87. Zillman J W (1998). IPCC and the sciencepolicy interface. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 109, 2, xli-xlviii. Zillman J W (2001). The IPCC Third Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8, 43-59. Zillman J W (2005). Uncertainty in the science of climate change. Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA). Policy Paper 3, 3-26. ASSA, Canberra. Zillman J W (2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ATSE Focus, 140, 10-12. Zillman J W (2007a). Some observations on the IPCC assessment process 1988-2007. Energy and Environment, 18, 869-891. Zillman J W (2007b). Australian participation in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1988-2001. Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. 20, 30-35 and 92-96. Zillman J W (2009). A history of climate activities. WMO Bulletin, 58, 3, 141-150.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 133
Meet a Member Every issue, an AMOS member is selected at random and sent some questions about who they are and what they do. This issue we meet AMOS member and Norfolk Island resident Honey McCoy. Where does this email find you? On a small island, 1000 miles from the Australian coast. I’m actually sitting under a Norfolk Pine. What do you do? Environmental work: re-vegetation work on off-shore islands, banding migratory sea birds, working for the protection of sea birds in the current changing times. Why did you get into it? I started on Phillip Island (seven kilometres to the south of Norfolk Island) working on rabbit eradication. This led on to re-vegetation, banding and recovery of native and endemic plant species. What is the best thing about what you do? Perhaps it is the results, and seeing species brought back from “the brink” of extinction. What did you want to be when you were 10? I love what I am doing now! Outdoors work on remote islands, doing something worthwhile. When I was 10 I wanted to walk in the bush and swim!
Honey McCoy at home on Norfolk Island (Image: 2899 Magazine). How do you relax? Swim, bushwalk, explore cliffs, work on my property and garden. What is your favourite holiday destination? I like the island that I live on the best. Summer swimming is quite delightful. Snorkelling over the coral, rock fishing, great scenic views, BBQs on the cliff tops watching the Shearwaters come in, boat trips – there is so much to do! Note: During her time working on Phillip Island, Honey (whose first name is Marguerite) came across an unfamiliar plant species. The species has since been found to be endemic to the island, and was named Achyranthes margaretarum, after its finder! – Ed.
Significant Mesoscale Oceanography News
Ocean conditions
CAWCR workshop
The seasonal warming of the tropics has elevated sea surface temperatures in the northern Coral Sea to 29–31 °C (see Figure 1a). approximately 3°C above those reported for September. Warm and fresh water masses from the South Equatorial Current are being propagated westward through a series of transient eddies (see Figure 1b).
The third day of the annual CAWCR modelling workshop was devoted to mesoscale oceanography and forecasting. The session was opened by Dr Neville Smith who provided an enjoyable tour through the key developments that have laid the foundation for the ocean observing system that we enjoy today, and the many discoveries and systems that have followed. The day also featured two international keynote speakers: Dr Frank Bub from NAVOCEANO and Dr Nikolai Maximenko, IPRC.
The volume transport has essentially persisted over the past few months supporting an East Australian Current that is clearly traced by temperature along the edge of the continental shelf (see Figure 1a). The East Australian Current separation point has not propagated further south (see Figure 2a) and is still characterised by frequent coastal instabilities.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 134
(a) (a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) Sea surface temperature and (b) Sea surface salinity for the Coral Sea, 22 November 2010 from OceanMAPS. Image: www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts.
(b)
The heat transport however has increased with SST's 2–3°C warmer than reported in the previous issue. Much of the heat content in the Tasman Sea remains relatively shallow with only one deep anti-cyclonic eddy present (see Figure 2b).
Figure 2. (a) Sea surface temperature and (b) Sea surface salinity for the Tasman Sea, 22 November 2010 from OceanMAPS. Image: www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/ forecasts.
Coastal sea level - Southern coast event Australia’s south coast is exposed to propagating sea level anomalies that can contribute a significant signal to sea levels observed at coastal tide gauges. Although not a priori designed to predict coastal sea level, the Bluelink OceanMAPS routine forecasts have proven to be particularly skilful at forecasting such events and can be combined with tide predictions and weather forecasts to predict the “total sea level” several days in advance. A recent event where all the factors coincided to result in observed sea levels above ‘highest astronomical tide’ occurred in the week of November 4, 2010.
Figure 3. Forecast (black/solid), forecast with inverse barometer (blue/dot) and observed sea level (grey/solid) residuals and at three southern coast tide gauges.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 135
Figure 3 shows residual sea level time-series at three tide gauges along the southern coast. Arranged in order of location from west to east: Esperance, Ceduna & Portland. In the figure black (solid) is the forecast nontidal sea level, blue (dot) is the subcomponent of this that does not account for the effects of atmospheric pressure and grey (solid) is the observed tidal residual. The propagation of the non-tidal wave from west to east is most apparent in the OceanMAPS forecast alone, as the barometric pressure effect has slipped out of phase by the time it has arrived at Portland.
Esperance and Ceduna about one day later coincided with relatively large high spring tides. As a result the observed peak sea level at these two locations exceeded the highest astronomical tide (HAT) tidal plane (which is of relevance to coastal infrastructure) due to synchronous but individually non-extreme sea level phenomena. Further information: www.cawcr.gov.au/events/annual_work shop/workshop2010.php Colour versions of these figures can be found in the online version of the AMOS Bulletin – Ed.
Whilst the magnitude of this coastally trapped wave is not particularly large, its arrival first at
Snapshot
Rare solar pillar with conic shape Alexandre Bernandes Pezza The photo was taken on 15 November 2010 at 8pm facing west at Darebin parklands in Victoria. This is a rare manifestation of the solar pillar produced by cirrostratus reflecting the sunlight when the sun is very low. The reflection
occurred in the rare form of a cone instead of parallel lines. Thank you to Alex and all the members who sent in their snapshots for this issue. If you have any photos you would like to share, please send them to me via the address inside the back cover. –Ed
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 136
Significant Weather John Allen School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
October Thunderstorms Victoria/New South Wales On the 4th of October, thunderstorms occurred in southwest Victoria. Damaging winds, hail to 1 cm and heavy rainfall were recorded from an organised storm near Skipton. Thunderstorms occurred on the 5th across the northeastern ranges and the ranges west of Canberra, producing heavy rainfall. An isolated storm near Jerilderie produced small hail. On the 6th, severe thunderstorms affected large parts of Victoria and southern NSW. Storms formed early in the day and later produced a squall line with embedded supercells that produced very heavy rainfall, damaging winds and a possible tornado near Yarrawonga. West of this area, other storms developed and produced damaging winds and hail, while a discrete supercell formed and produced a likely tornado near Bealiba. Later in the day, areas west of Melbourne were affected by a squall line, associated with damaging winds and heavy rainfall. A supercell thunderstorm formed near Laanecoorie in Victoria on the 12th and tracked in an ESE direction towards Broadford over the next five hours. The storm produced strong rotation with numerous wall clouds and funnels observed near the Calder Freeway, south of Redesdale and near Broadford. Large hail to 3 cm occurred when the storm was near the Calder and later, 5 cm hail was observed west of Broadford, along with damaging winds. A squall line absorbed the storm and produced strong winds and heavy rainfall into the night through central Victoria. Severe thunderstorms occurred west of Sydney on the 22nd. Hail to 2 cm was reported from a storm near Dural, while hail was also reported in Bilpin and Maitland. On the 27th, a thunderstorm produced hail to 1.5 cm and heavy rainfall through the northwestern suburbs of Sydney. Queensland A long lived squall line formed near Roma in south central Queensland during the evening of the 15th and moved towards the coast over the
coming hours. Widespread near-severe gusts were recorded with the passage of the line, together with a number of reports of winds in excess of 90 km/h. As many as 22,000 homes in southeast Queensland lost power due to fallen branches, some as far west as Warwick. A number of roads were closed during the 16th due to fallen trees. A tornado was reported near Eidsvold with damage to native vegetation, while a second tornado possibly occurred near Nigi. Between the 22nd and 27th, thunderstorms occurred over much of southeast Queensland, although they were not particularly severe. Numerous storms caused flash flooding in the Brisbane region. A squall line formed on the 24th during the evening and moved through Toowoomba and the western suburbs of Brisbane, producing strong winds and heavy rainfall. Severe thunderstorms occurred near Beaudesert on the 28th with hail to 2 cm and flash flooding reported. Rainfall For much of the east coast and in central Australia there were a number of heavy rainfall events during October. Numerous record rainfalls were recorded both for daily and monthly totals. Victoria A low pressure system affected much of Victoria on the 15th and 16th, while a major rainfall event affected the state on the 30th and 31st. 24-hour totals of greater than 100 mm fell in the northeast of the state twice during the month. On the 16th, numerous areas in the northeast recorded totals between 100 and 110 mm, while in the second event, total daily rainfall reached as high as 140 mm. In the southwest, 88 mm was received with the lowpressure system on the 15th. Associated with the rainfall event on the 30th and 31st, Kyneton recorded 70.6 mm, while Moorabbin airport recorded 72 mm, both totals equivalent to the average monthly rainfall for that station. New South Wales Large areas of New South Wales experienced their wettest October on record or for a number of years, with several systems producing heavy rainfall and flooding, particularly along the
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 137
east coast. Early in the month (3rd–5th) a lowpressure system caused significant rainfall in the northeast with moderate flooding along the coastline. Associated with the same event that produced heavy rain in northeast Victoria on the 15th and 16th, very heavy rain occurred across southern NSW and produced flooding across much of the upper Murray Catchment. Queensland In Queensland, rainfall occurred for much of the month, with very high totals recorded in many areas. Nine weather stations experienced record 24-hour rainfall on the 9th and 11th of October in the southeast, with associated flash flooding. Flooding occurred along the Pine River in northern Brisbane due to persistent rainfall between the 9th and 11th. Tasmania In Tasmania, heavy rainfall occurred associated with the system on the 30th and 31st, with 40–80 mm in 24 hours. Erriba recorded 84.4 mm in the 24-hour period to 9am on the 31st. Northern Territory Much of inland Australia and the Northern Territory experienced unusually wet conditions, with a number of stations recording totals for the month between 100 and 450 mm despite the monthly average rainfall for these areas being less than 10 mm. Snowfall Tasmania The low pressure system that formed on the 15th and 16th drew cold air over Tasmania and allowed snowfall to settle down to 200 m in southern Tasmania on the 15th, with snow falling (but not settling) in central Hobart on the morning of the 16th. New South Wales
Winds Victoria Strong winds affected northeast Victoria associated with the rainfall event on the 30th and 31st with a peak gust of 139 km/h recorded at Mt Hotham. Queensland/New South Wales Strong winds associated with a low-pressure system off the east coast caused damaging winds to 90 km/h between the 3rd and the 5th in northeast New South Wales and southeast Queensland. Strong winds associated with the passage of an upper trough produced gusts to 90 km/h during the evening on the 15th in northeast New South Wales and southeast Queensland. They caused damage to vegetation prior to the arrival of a squall line. Acknowledgements Thunderstorm report summaries come from either first-hand observations or reports made on the following public forums: The Australian Weather Forum: www.theaustralianweatherforum.com/forum/ Weatherzone: forum.weatherzone.com.au/ The Australian Severe Weather Forum: www.australiasevereweather.com/forum/ Rainfall information is derived from Monthly Climate Summaries produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and maps of average rainfall conditions. Wind and snow reports are also drawn from these sources. The above constitutes a summary of significant weather. Further information and more comprehensive summary of weather during the October is available from: www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr
On the 17th, snow was reported from Oberon, Armidale and Orange associated with the cold air from a low-pressure system.
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 138
Charts From The Past by Blair Trewin 4 April, 1929 Troughs over eastern Australia are a common rain-producing mechanism during the summer half of the year. On occasions, these evolve into a southward-moving low which can bring heavy rain to areas under its influence, especially given the amount of tropical moisture which normally accompanies such systems. The summer of 1928–29 had been dry over much of eastern Australia from southern Queensland southward, but this changed in early April. A trough formed over Queensland on the 2nd with widespread rain in the eastern half of the state; falls were above 50 mm along much of the coast, and in inland areas between Moree and Roma. The next day the rain spread south to cover much of eastern Australia. The heaviest falls were in southeast Queensland and adjacent border areas of New South Wales (248 mm at Springbrook, 101 mm at Brisbane), but totals exceeding 25 mm were widespread near the east coast, and in much of central Victoria and the Riverina. Winds were also strong on the coast and one life was lost when a boat sank near Coffs Harbour. Catchments had been relatively dry, and flooding on the mainland was minor at most (the worst being in Canberra and around Gympie); indeed the rains were widely seen as welcome given the prevailing drought. The trough developed into a rapidly deepening low by the morning of the 4th, which was centred over central Victoria with a central pressure near 980 hPa. The focus of the heaviest rain had shifted into northern Tasmania, on the receiving end of copious tropical moisture in cyclonic northeasterly flow. The most widespread extreme totals were in Tasmania’s northeastern highlands. Several sites had two-day totals for 4–5 April in excess of 400 mm; Mathinna had 469 mm, including
336.6 mm on the 5th (a Tasmanian record at the time, subsequently broken in 1974). Extreme totals also occurred in a small region in the Burnie-Ulverstone area, possibly from a mesoscale system. Riana, about 15 km south of Burnie, had 460 mm over the two days, with 238 mm at Burnie and 236 mm at Ulverstone. Conditions were less extreme elsewhere, but the rain was remarkably widespread in a state where at least one coast is normally rainshadowed; almost everywhere except the far southwest had at least 40 mm on the 5th, and the state-wide average for the day was 89.0 mm. Temperatures were generally mild, as would be expected in a tropical air mass (15.4– 17.8°C at Launceston). The low moved southwest – an unusual track – to be west of Tasmania on the 5th before clearing to the southeast. Rain lingered in the north until the 7th. These were the most extreme widespread rains in Tasmanian history and brought correspondingly extreme flooding to many rivers. 22 lives were lost, 14 in a dam failure near Derby, and 8 when a vehicle was swept into floodwaters near Ulverstone. Many substantial bridges were destroyed on the north and east coasts. While Launceston escaped the heaviest of the rains (99.6 mm for the period 4–7 April), its position at the foot of the Esk catchments made it highly vulnerable to floods, which peaked late on the 5th. Over 1000 houses were inundated, some to a depth of 3 metres, and the Duck Reach power station in Cataract Gorge was completely swept away. Communications with southern Tasmania were almost totally cut off for several days, which may explain why the limited news of the disaster played second fiddle in the Hobart Mercury to the acquittal of a man on charges of stealing a tarpaulin valued at 10 shillings from the Tasmanian Railways.
Synoptic chart for 0900 AEST, 4 April 1929
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 139
Calendar 27–29 2nd International Conference on Physical Coastal Processes, Management and Engineering, Naples, Italy.
2010 December 13–17 AGU Fall meeting, San Francisco, USA. 13–17 EFS Extreme Environmental Events, Cambridge, UK.
June 27–8 July XXV IUGG General Assembly, Melbourne. August
2011 January 23–27 91st AMS Annual Meeting, Seattle, USA. February 11–13 18th AMOS National Conference (joint with NZMetSoc), Wellington, NZ. April 4–8 Greenhouse 2011: The Science of Climate Change, Cairns. 10–15 34th International Symposium Remote Sensing of Environment. Sydney.
1–4 14th Conference on Mesoscale Processes, Los Angeles, USA. September 4–9 10th International NCCR Climate Summer School Climate Change, Extremes and Ecosystem Services, Grindelwald, Switzerland. 19–21 19th International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution, Malta.
on
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal. Vol. 60 No. 4, December 2010. Articles: Mills. A westward propagating roll-cloud and cool change on Tasmania's north coast. Jakob. Challenges in developing a highquality surface wind-speed data set for Australia. Zeschke. Identifying early morning fog and low cloud predictors for northern parts of the Northern Territory of Australia, using satellitederived data. O'Grady and McInnes. Wind waves and their relationship to storm surges in northeastern Bass Strait.
Shaik. The tropical circulation in the Australian and Asian region - November 2009 to April 2010. Regular features: Tobin. Seasonal climate summary southern hemisphere (summer 2009-10). Wu. Quarterly numerical weather prediction model performance summary. Further Information: www.bom.gov.au/amoj
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 22 page 140
2010 AMOS Council Executive President VicePresident Secretary Treasurer Past President
Sub-Committee Convenors Neville Nicholls Blair Trewin
03-9902 0111 03-9669 4623
Ailie Gallant Ian Watterson Richard Wardle
03-8344 7304 03-9239 4544 03-9905 4411
Ordinary Members John Allen Stewart Allen Steven Phipps Robin Roberston Sandra Schuster Perry Wiles
03-8344 9596 03-9669 4341 02-9385 8957 02-6268 8289 02-9272 8025 03-9669 4664
Public Relations Awards Conferences Education
03-6232 5228
Mark Williams Val Jemmeson Phillip Reilly
03-9669 4968 03-9669 4095 03-9669 4530
Angela Maharaj Kelvin Michael Vaughan Barras Margi Bรถhm Merv Lynch Hakeem Shaik Hamish McGowan Caecilia Ewenz
02-9850 8357 03-6226 2977 03-9669 4045 02-6268 8749 08-9266 7540 08-8920 3814 07-3365 6651
Centre Chairs Sydney Hobart Melbourne Canberra Perth Darwin Brisbane Adelaide
AMOS Administrative Officer
Michael Pook
08-8366 2723
Representatives
Jeanette Dargaville GPO Box 1289, Melbourne VIC 3001 Phone 0404 471 143 Fax 03-9669 4660 (attn: AMOS admin officer) E-mail: admin_officer@amos.org.au
AMM Kathy McInnes 03-9239 4569 FASTS Steven Phipps 02-9385 8957 AMOS is represented on the relevant Australian Academy of Science committees.
2010 Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society ISSN 1035-6576 Editor
Editorin-chief Assistant Editors
Linden Ashcroft School of Earth Sciences The University of Melbourne VIC 3010 Phone: 03-8344 7672 Fax: 03-8344 7761 Email: l.ashcroft@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Stewart Allen Email: Stewart.Allen@bom.gov.au Diana Greenslade Blair Trewin Andrew Watkins
Regional Subeditors
Contributors
Advertising Manager Publisher
Michael Hewson (Brisbane) Caecilia Ewenz (Adelaide) Damien Irving (Melbourne) Sandra Schuster (Sydney) Blair Trewin Gary Brassington Paul Sandery Andy Thomas Please contact the Admin. Officer. AMOS, GPO Box 1289, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia
Contributed articles, news, announcements and correspondence for the Bulletin should be sent to the editor no later than the 21st of January 2010. They will be reviewed and the galley proofs returned to the author if requested. An ASCII version of the text is required via e-mail or digital media to minimise typographic errors. The Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society is produced and distributed with the assistance of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and the Bureau of Meteorology. AMOS Web Site: http//www.amos.org.au/