Nine years after Pasha Bulker, we’re finally getting a handle on East Coast Lows
The Pasha Bulker ran aground amid the full force of an East Coast Low back in 2007 (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
In June 2007, Australia was pummelled by five East Coast Lows. The most significant of them, which struck on June 8-9, is still referred to as the “Pasha Bulker” storm, after the 76,000-tonne bulk carrier that ran aground near Newcastle. The storm caused major flooding, strong winds, high seas and A$1.6 billion in damage, making it Australia’s eighth most expensive disaster in the last 50 years.
East Coast Lows (ECLs) have been important features of the eastern seaboard for centuries, with the first case studies published back in 1954. But by June 2007 it had been ten years since the last serious scientific look at these storms. The damage suffered that month made it clear how much we still didn’t know about these weather systems, let alone about how they might behave in the future.
Instead of a whole bunch of scientists going off and doing their own thing, we formed the Eastern Seaboard Climate Change Initiative, in which local universities and state and federal governments could work together to identify the biggest scientific questions for the eastern seaboard, and start to solve them.
Nine years and a slew of research papers later, we know a lot more about ECLs than we once did. We have built a strong research network that can expand our knowledge still further and put it into practice. Today, a special issue of the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science highlights some of the things we’ve learned.
What do we know?
There are seven papers in the special issue, covering a broad range of topics.
Danielle Verdon-Kidd and her colleagues look back at the Pasha Bulker storm and reflect on the scale of the impacts, as well as issues for future flood planning, such as improved education about the dangers of entering floodwaters.
A group from the Bureau of Meteorology (including myself) has also developed a new online database of East Coast Lows over the past 60 years, to help emergency managers look back on the impacts of past storms or find out how many of the big events they remember were actually ECLs.
Going back still further, Stuart Browning and Ian Goodwin have looked at what sorts of ocean and atmospheric conditions influence East Coast Lows, as these storms tend not to be as strongly affected by big climate drivers such as La Niña. This research has helped to extend the record of East Coast Lows back to the 19th century and found that the numbers of ECLs can vary quite a lot over decades and longer. Interestingly, the past few decades (up to 2014) have been a period of relatively low activity.
Stormy times: the Sydney suburb of Collaroy bore the brunt of an East Coast Low in June (AAP/UNSW Water Research Laboratory)
Anthony Kiem and his colleagues have delved into the question of how coastal rainfall patterns and impacts can change, depending on the “type” of ECL that happens. This work, as well as the work by Browning and Goodwin, highlights how important it is to consider the different types of East Coast Lows – a storm that causes heavy rain in the Northern Rivers looks very different to one that brings downpours to Gippsland, and these might also change in different ways over time. This teases out important detail that can be washed out in studies that lump all storms in together.
Before we can use climate models to assess how East Coast Lows and their impacts may change on the eastern seaboard, we need to know whether our models are doing a good job. So Alejandro Di Luca and colleagues have assessed how well the NARCliM regional climate model ensemble is able to represent East Coast Lows. They found that regional models have real benefits over global climate models, particularly for the most extreme events.
Despite these promising results, studies led by Nadeeka Parana Manage and Natalie Lockart found that there is still a way to go before the regional models produce data of the quality needed for simulating river flows and dam levels, and how future changes to storm patterns might affect these.
So what's next?
We know a lot more than we did nine years ago about things like how the upper atmosphere influences East Coast Lows, and how severe floods and East Coast Lows have changed over the past century. We are also starting to get a handle on how they may change in the future. Climate change is expected to reduce their frequency during the cool months May-October (which is when they currently happen most often), but potentially make them more common during the warmer months.
But there are still a lot of things we don’t know. The papers in this issue are a start, but research continues and our group has many more questions left to answer. These include how ECLs have changed in the more distant past; how sea surface temperatures influence their frequency and impacts; and how changes in ECLs and other climate processes can affect our water security.
A whole bunch of research is also about to start into how ECLs interact with other climate extremes now and into the future, as part of the NSW Government’s Climate Change Impacts and Extreme Climate Events research programs and the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program.
So read the articles, have a taste and watch this space: there are still many more questions and researchers from around the country are working together to answer them, to help us better understand the special, complex climate of the eastern seaboard of Australia.
//ACACIA PEPLER, PhD student, UNSW Australia
This article first appeared in The Conversation
Comments
So you don't know jack, but the taxpayer is on the hook for your nonsense. Just present the factual data and let the rest of us draw the conclusions. Climate what....?
I love the contradictory thoughts posited - climate change spoke of more severe storms more often, yet at the same time you say there will be less storms when they most often occur - May - Oct. And then you have the gall to suggest that they will happen more often in warmer months yet say that your historical records show this hasn't happened? Pu------lease. I know there are a bunch of climate change drones on this site but if you cant even present a coherent view then you are whistling Dixie.
And of course all this must be looked at in terms of all your other made up stuff. Water security? Damns across the whole country are above 50%, most between 70-90%.Not that climate drones predicted any of this.
What utter tosh.
What utter bollocks. Phd? No wonder you cant find jobs in the real world except at taxpayer funded institutes for the blind.
Wow, Trump's first post on Swellnet.
Great research Anthony Kiem and Associates. The data collected and predicted rainfall patterns from ECL's should be used as one of the factors in determining the suitability of future development applications along the eastern seaboard. Wow Kiemy I haven't seen you since the Merewether Storm won the Grand Final in 2000.
To be accurate, there is no known correlation of ECL with climate change, as known. I suggest this research will provide knowledge of weather and it's impact. Early days yet but 9 years is still very early.
Blindboy, you are aptly named.
When Trump gets in, what will you do? Dig that hole you are living in a little deeper? Look for another one word retort?
I guess you believe that the world is getting hotter and that crafty heat is defying physics by not revealing itself on the earth's surface but is hiding deep down in the ocean and then moving off and hiding behind rocks each time a scientist goes down to measure the temp?
9years of research isn't enough?
Lets go through some of the phrases: " The storm caused major flooding, strong winds, high seas and A$1.6 billion in damage, making it Australia’s eighth most expensive disaster in the last 50 years."
Given everything costs more each year, that the cost of damage from a storm goes up does not require Einstein like intelligence. And the costs for the tanker were how much? Take the costs for the tanker out of the total costs and what have we got - regular and expected storm costs.
" The damage suffered that month made it clear how much we still didn’t know about these weather systems, let alone about how they might behave in the future."
So damage is a function of knowledge about ECLS? The answer is more gutters? Less trees next to homes? Given that the ECL record goes back to 1846, insurance companies know what to expect and there are on average 22 ECLS a year, who or what is NOT prepared? What is this "new" research going to tell us? And what specifically is this NEW research? Research extends back for 50 and 6o years. Sweet Fanny Adams is the answer.
What additional knowledge would a know-nothing bunch of wanna- be somethings generate that isn't already known? Poor justification for your taxpayer handout Acacia!
"Before we can use climate models to assess how East Coast Lows and their impacts may change on the eastern seaboard, we need to know whether our models are doing a good job"
Would these be the same models that cant predict the climate 20 years in advance let alone the weather in three days? Sheesh, what inane piddle.
The earth isn't getting hotter, the ocean isn't getting warmer and the ocean isn't rising. All facts. Just the facts.
You're right! Sign me up for your tea party......but take it it a bit easier with that stuff you're smoking. It's stronger than you think.
Here is a cat ( formerly a pidgeon ) amongst the pidgeons for you Tony Barber.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-inter...
Don't like facts do you Blindboy. As I say, aptly named.
I like the fact that you cant hide from what ails ya. That leftwing bent means you cant deal with facts, just got to take a cheap shot. No substance, no evidence, so lets put change the subject!
Owned is the expression I believe.
And so disco exactly what facts have you given us? Not a one. Unsubstantiated assertion is the prime indicator of the ignorant and that is all you have. " I am so special and clever that I know more than thousands of scientists who have spent decades studying the subject. ". It might work in the pub with your three quarter pissed mates but not here or anywhere else people have bothered to look at the subject. If you want the facts go to the IPCC report. So put up or shut up. We know what you think, now give us the evidence for that opinion.
Discostu, Are you a climate scientist?
We're only human! Pacific Ocean recorded wave buoy heights since '70's were totally smashed this year from China sea 17m > Gold Coast 15m > NSW 17m+. Here in Qld we're heading through 15th month of continuous record breaking monthly high temperatures. Turn on the TV..down in SA a Cyclone toy smashes monster megaliths. This small sample of 2016 alone, is enough to warn the world and guard against. Work of the devil nowadays to thoughtfully record and alert humankind to prepare for changing more life threatening weather .( For detailed Qld low chronology..nothin' suss) re; HARDENUP Known Impacts of East Coast Lows,1846-2009 by Jeff Callaghan....Good read swellnet,plenty here/there for everyone!Thanx.
You are a preposterous clown aren't you Wharfie. And I see your brother Spudbum seems to think that one needs to be a climate scientist to read graphs and data! wahahahahahha Pathetic.
Let me turn your argument back on you Spud, if you are NOT a climate scientist what the hell do you know? You equally have no place in the argument.
Alas, its simple stuff.
I love a challenge. So lets see if a 3/4 pissed dude can piss all over wharfie the widget:
Well here it is, the pause discussion is buried in Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.
The Final Draft of the IPCC 2013 report SPM summed up the pause correctly as:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
So, there goes your argument muppet!
For more, given that you clearly can hardly read and need a so called climate scientist who cant predict the weather next week with accuracy to rely on please enjoy direct from the IPCC report:
"Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)).
And as to you Truedumbo, the storm in SA was not a cyclone - windspeeds were the towers fell topped a whole 87km/h. Having been in numerous typhoons the winds were minor.
You may want to do a search for a huge pool of COLD water that is lurking around SA and WA. Does it have something to do with the rain? How would I know, I am not a climate monkey! wahahahhaha
You idiots should try using the internet for more than just surf reports.
Dear Discostu
I would point out that simple risk management would dictate that if there is any chance of global warming destroying the planet we must plan accordingly as we only have 1 (planet that is). Secondly, the increase in greenhouse gases is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (in large part, but also deforestation, meat prodn, etc) thus it seems reasonable since these fossil fuels are a finite commodity, unlike wind or solar, (yes I know the sun will eventually burn out but relative to a human lifespan we can assume it is infinite) that it would be quite reasonable to simultaneously end our reliance on fossil fuels (and those terribly unstable middle eastern countries that supply it) AND combat the possibility of destroying the planet, VOILA! you see it doesn't matter who is right or wrong only that global warming/weirding MIGHT be right
Also the 'hiatus' you're referring to represents a 'much smaller linear increase over the past 15 years than over the past 30 or 60 years'. IE, it is still getting warmer just not as quickly. Again to quote the IPCC report 'Even with this "hiatus" in GMST (global mean surface temperature), the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental records of GMST'.
-IPCC The physical science basis 2013
What you've written is a classic example of taking the parts you like out of context. Here 'hiatus' does not mean GMST didn't increase it means the GMST increased less than the models predicted. Call Pauline Hanson she needs you!!
I'm not a climate scientist. I have a friend who is. I guess I'd rather consult him on the subject of climate change rather than an internet troll. How's being an internet troll working out for you?
How is being an ignorant wanna be climate crusader working out for you Spudbum?
Clearly you are a loser. I don't try to beef myself up by alluding to so called "friends".
Stick to the facts. Don't try to big note yourself as an expert on the basis that you have a "friend" who might know just as little as you do.
If your "friend" knew something you would point it out. Just get your friend, or why not you to refute that IPCC report I put up. I mean those clowns are climate scientists like your friend. Let your friend talk to them because as you have pointed out clearly, you are unqualified.
Game, set, match. Thank you ball boys.
Facts? Not one in sight yet disco. One isolated quote from the IPCC is intellectually dishonest separated from the vast mass of accompanying data that irrefutably shows the warming trend. Now when was the warmest ever average global temperature for January? Oh yeh 2016. February? 2016! March? 2016! April? 2016! May? 2016! Are you getting the general idea there mate? I hope you are getting well paid for posting this crap, lots of people are. Try the Koch brothers if you aren't already on the payroll.
(News : South Australia ...Oct/2/2016 ) This is a cyclone,BOM regional director John Nairne.' It's a clockwise rotating system and in it's own right is a powerful system and not to be confused with tropical cyclones'.
Anyhow that'd be why the media kept calling it a Cyclone!
Cyclone # naturally lost speed making landfall where towers once stood.
Cyclone Kevin I'm naming it! After Kevin the Koala clinging to that tree.
Grow a brain you imbecile Blindass. Gawd mate, you are a deadest moron. I can tee off on you all day with facts. You have got nuttin.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/was-the-hottest-day-ever-in-australia-n...
A quick interjection: please stop the personal attacks. I'm happy for a robust debate on any topic, pushing any theory - but there's no need to get personal.
touche!
Transmission towers don't blow over at 87 kph, they are generally designed to last 100 years, meaning at least 1 in 200 year storm events. Not entering the argument on either side, just don't believe everything in the press. Possible that one tower failure caused multiple due to instantly changing tension. Could have been embedded tornado activity like in kiama a few years back
Given the emotion in this debate, it is hoped that the review of the SA power issue is held and factual.
To have a state's power dependent on another states is clearly flawed.
Back on article, ECL are not related to climate change.
Agree TB, to remove almost all rotating machine generation from a state is lunacy, it makes frequency control almost impossible, the issue now is that politicians are already blaming renewable energy not poor decisions and planning. I have no doubt that billions of people are having an impact on climate, the question is can anyone involved in an election cycle ever make reasonable decisions for the future.
Drods, yes, can anyone make a 'reasonable' decision given the emotion. But this episode does seem to demonstrate that the planning and design has been influenced by the renewable energy sector, in that high risk decisions have been made and failed. You will note that Wetherill did setup a royal commission in nuclear energy. I'm sure this was part of his strategy for reliable energy but unable to satisfy the masses.
To blame renewables for the blackout is just stupid and misinformed.
The blackout was a result of transmission failure likely due to one or several tornadoes.
What has to be looked at is that how the whole state went into darkness after one failure across the line, and also a national approach to renewable targets to preserve integrity in the grid.
Yep, agree. Let's hope the facts come out and we find out which towers, how many came down and why. Step one. How could the whole state go into darkness - that is a major issue.
We don't hear of this type of issue in the northern states.
The total energy supply design per state is obviously impacted by all of sources, including renewables.
For a state to be dependent on an external source , as in this case, is highly risk prone and with the free market, we have, is very costly.
Could the masses possibly be right tonybarber?
As to relying on vicco power, if the blackout has anything at all, even the tiniest tiniest , little most loose connection to SAs push for renewable energy (which it appears it doesn't!) I think most people are willing to risk a 24 hour blackout once In a while, like you know, 1 day out of a fifty year period, when a fifty year storm event comes along, so we can have wind turbines beavering away for the other 18 250 days with no dirty fossil fuel input, no big trains, trucks, tankers carting shit to burn, no smoke, no burning, very little input whatsoever, just clean clean power
Wind energy is almost like free energy, if you still feel resistance to it, or a longing for a stinky power station on the horizon go park under a wind turbine for an hour or so and soak it up, marvel at the energy being created with very little input.
BTW I think the little blackout was good for society, good for people to realise how reliant on electricity we are , and how manufactured our environment has become, you've just got to look at the people wigging out on social media about charging their phones, and actually having to talk to their families, to realise we are so disconnected from nature it's unhealthy.
Hmmm.. Have not heard that South Aussies are happy loosing power for a day or so.
Just demonstrates how fickle we've become TB. Where's the resilience? Tough gig living in Allepo at the moment......
Sypkan you have topped Wharfie! I new head MUPPET! Well done son!
Of course every manufacturer loves a blackout, because they have to pay staff and then have to explain what happened to their customers!
Where do imbeciles like you come from? World trade, business that is not reliant on taxpayer funding is not a game. Jobs, house purchases, cars are all built on reliability.
No reliability, no investment, no business, and no jobs unless you are on the taxpayer gravy train.
The taxpayer gravy train does NOT create wealth in the economy! Eff me. You must be Wharfie's bro.
emotional? hysteria?, religion?
all I see is enotional hysteric religious like reactions from a couple of economic slave morons
mate the comnents from the right are ridiculous regarding this issue. I still like to think turnball is an intelligent man capable of..... well, ...... somerhing, but jumping on the barnaby joyce bandwagon is not his finest moment.
did you see those towers that went over?
that was a pretty significant infrastructure incident, well beyond the norm. the storm that hit adelaide was significant with north of Adelaide , where the towers are, getting caned more.
it seems most south australians that sat through the storm, a storm well out of the norm, on the back of the previous significant storm, are pretty accepting that this was a well out of the ordinary event. meanwhile the usual liberal drongo reactionaries have either exploited an act of nature, or have had a hyserical emotional reaction to a rare, but somewhat unevitavble, lay day in the economy, grouping together with the religuous fervour to denounce that nasty renewable energy, most disappointing that malcolm lowered himself to that level, I thought he was better than that
yeh the whole state shouldn't go out, but occasionally things fuck up, it's more likely things fucked up because of ageing (liberal) privatised infrastructure that carries the power rather than the power itself....hysterical
Hey Dipshiyiiit, has this, does this happen in other states? NO!
Again, as most on this site seem to detest facts, if you go to the AMEO website you will find that those dills in SA were reliant for 1/3 of their power from those stupid windmills - about 700MGWH. When they stopped spinning, the SA grid had a sudden demand for 700MGW and where did they need to get it from? From the coal fired grid in Vic, which said NO WAY and shut down the interconnector.
This is not a hardware issue its a reliability and consistency issue. Clearly very few business people on this site. If you want to depend on power it needs to be 24/7 at a constant rate.
Facts. Just fact Dympkan.
Gee discostu glad I have made such an impression on you buddy.
Hey discostu, I appreciate you sacrificing your dignity and self-esteem and giving us something to laugh at with your lame trolling.
Cheers mate.
very selective facts discopoo
the towers? did you see the towers?
you don't think the geography, associated weather and topography are very different on the east coast compared to west of the great dividing range?
the population distribution in SA is very sparse along a very long craggy coastline which leads to a very one road in one road out kind of layout, and infrastructure that follows said pattern.
facts discopoo facts, many will come out over the following weeks, and if they find out it was a failure of renewables that did it, despite many people saying otherwise, we will all hail the nostrdamus like predictions from discopoo and immediately promote him as our leader because he's clearly smarter than anyone else in the country.
if this is not the finding in the coming weeks, we'll all look forward to an admission that discopoo was wrong, and we will enjoy the humble apology, because discopoo being all so sagely wise and all, he wouldn't just put his head in the sand and hope his stupid comments just go away, he'd be the big man he thinks he is and concede he was wrong
how is that socialist utopia working out for you Syktoiletpan?
as I said, go read the websites. I merely repeat what they do. Don't like it? Go challenge them.
Don't talk to me of towers when you know about as much as my shoe.
What you have done by stating the population distribution is shoed how moronic renewables are in a place with a lack of population density and the unreliable power source too far away from the end user.
So, no apology will be forthcoming. If you want one, hit up AMEO, or even better, why not tell us why if you tout renewables as being a godsend, that you would rely on coal fired power from another state when the shit hits the fan. Shows you to be a fraud doesn't it.
And its ok, no I don't want an apology from you. Your idiocy speaks for itself.
change takes time dancingman
Wow, this obstreporous, dancing incarnation of stunet is quite disturbing.
But that's what can happen when a man has surfing taken away from him due to a prolonged shoulder injury. Goes a little bit mad, then is just full blown angry with the world. I can fully understand.
Get well stunet, we still love you.
Just one thing discostu, just to clarify.
What is it you are actually against? It's hard to get to the nub of the matter with your scattergun approach.
Is it the scientific method, the secret cabal of scientists trying to take over the world and impose one-world government through bogus climate models, renewable energy and innovation in delivery of energy needs generally, the upsetting of the coal mining and fossil fuel business model, the threat to the entrenched multi-national corporates having carte blanche to do as they please regardless of environmental considerations?
From where does this opinion emanate? I'd actually like to know.