Bulletin vol 24 no 5 oct 2011

AMOS

AustralianMeteorological & OceanographicSociety

All forcings except anthropogenic aerosols

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological & Oceanographic Society Vol 24, No.5, October 2011 ISSN 1035-6576

Contents Editorial ..........................................................................................................................................................................93 President’s Column ........................................................................................................................................................94 News ..............................................................................................................................................................................95 News from the Centres ..................................................................................................................................................96 Obituary — Dr Kevin Spillane......................................................................................................................................97 Conference reports .........................................................................................................................................................98 Articles ........................................................................................................................................................................ 101 D. Linforth — Melbourne’s early rainfall records ................................................................................................................101 M. Collier, S. Jeffrey and L. Rotstayn— The latest Australian CMIP climate model submission .......................................104

Significant Mesoscale Oceanography ........................................................................................................................ 109 Charts from the Past with Blair Trewin ....................................................................................................................... 111 Calendar ...................................................................................................................................................................... 112

ISSN 1035-6576 Cover picture: Observed and CSIRO-Mk3.6 simulated near-surface temperature changes, with all forcings (blue curve) and all forcings except anthropogenic aerosols (red curve). The observations (green curve) are from the HadCRUT3 dataset. Values are monthly anomalies relative to the 1850–1899 base period. The solid lines show the 10-member ensemble mean and the filled regions show the ensemble range. These results are from a new model submission to CMIP5, which will provide climatemodelling input to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. A special feature of this model submission is a set of attribution experiments, and as the cover image illustrates, warming is overestimated without the inclusion of anthropogenic aerosols. For more information on the CSIRO-Mk3.6 CMIP5 model submission, turn to page 104.

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.

Editorial

Geoengineering the Climate? A Southern Hemisphere perspective A symposium was held recently at the Australian Academy of Sciences (AAS) in Canberra to discuss the pros and cons of changing our climate. Not the pros and cons of climate change, but of purposefully manipulating the climate to cool the earth, or at the very least buy us some time to slow our CO2 emitting ways.

The presentations given at the Geoengineering the Climate?

A Southern Hemisphere perspective symposium make for very interesting reading, and are freely available on the AAS website. Most discuss the complex scientific and moral components of various geoengineering ideas, or as the symposium’s attendants decided to call them, climate remediation ideas. They looked at processes that draw carbon out of the atmosphere, or processes that increase the reflection of sunlight back into space. A whole afternoon was also dedicated to the very tricky but crucial topics of governance and ethics.

Some options are clearly more ethically palatable than others, while many approaches are simply too pricey, or too risky to consider right now. Adding more iron to the ocean to increase marine uptake of carbon is too expensive for example, as is putting solar reflectors in space. Painting everybody’s roof white, or reforestation can be done now, but neither technique does enough on its own. The technology for carbon capture and geological storage is not ready just yet, and storing carbon in soil will only help in a small way.

Injecting sulfur into the stratosphere, or whitening clouds to reflect more sunlight are both affordable options and will cool the climate, although not consistently across the globe, and with unknown impacts on rainfall and circulation patterns. Additionally, they need to be done continuously while CO2 levels remain high, as stopping would result in the Earth’s temperature quickly rising to the temperature expected for the amount of atmospheric CO2. Such a rapid temperature increase may cause even more catastrophic climate change than a slower increase to the same temperature.

All of these options and considerations are enough to get the smartest mind lost in a sea of questions. Is geoengineering playing God? Do we have a duty to learn about these possible climate remediation processes so if it becomes absolutely necessary to do something, then at least we will know what to do? Or will learning more about geoengineering make people think that reducing emissions is not important? Perhaps scientists should learn about it in secrecy, but then how would the public ever support it? And who should govern these decisions, and how?

The fi ndings of the symposium were similar to recent meetings and publications discussing the same topic in the Northern Hemisphere. Climate change mitigation is a much better, cheaper and safer option than geoengineering the climate. Climate manipulation should be seen as a very uncertain and unpredictable last resort, with research to be conducted openly and under highly controlled conditions. If geoengineering must be done, then reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a safer and more logical way to deal with the issue of climate change than solar radiation management.

These findings still obviously leave a lot of questions to be answered. As Greg Bodeker wrote in big red letters at the end of his presentation in Canberra, “WE DON’T KNOW ENOUGH”. It’s good to see we know that at least.

Symposium presentions are available at science.org.au/ natcoms/nc-ess.html.

An article by Monash University’s Graeme Pearman on the symposium can be found at theconversation.edu.au/geoengineering-should-we-change-the-face-of-the-planet-tocombat-climate-change-3483.

Note: Our esteemed editor-in-chief Stewart Allen is leaving for a years-long placement in Seattle. We wish him and fellow AMOS member Ailie Gallant all the best.

Linden Ashcroft

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 93

President’s Column

The first Melbourne newspaper weather chart and “prognostication” Last month was the 130th anniversary of the first publication of a weather chart in a Melbourne newspaper. On Monday 26 September 1881 The Argus published the chart on the right, with an accompanying article describing the process used in the preparation of the chart1.

Of course this was not the first Australian weather chart published in a newspaper — the Sydney Morning Herald published the first chart on 5 February 1877. But the article accompanying the 1881 chart in The Argus is interesting, I think. The article commences with the comment: “The Weather Bulletin which we have hitherto published is replaced today by a Weather Chart, the facsimile of a chart prepared at the Observatory from telegraphic reports received from the principal meteorological stations in Australia and New Zealand.”

The article concludes with: “Today’s map presents a tolerably complete view of the weather which prevailed on Saturday over the greater part of Australia and New Zealand, while the indications are such as to justify the prognostication, borne out so far, of generally fine weather in Victoria.”

In an earlier report published in same newspaper (11 May 1877) of a paper read to the Royal Society by Mr R. J. Ellery from the Observatory, Ellery foreshadowed the preparation and publication of weather charts, and indicated that: “…he believed it would be within the province of a careful observer to give good warnings of approaching storms for say, 24 hours ahead…In England immense loss of life and property had been saved by the predictions of storms, which were right in about 67 cases out of 100. During last year a terrible southwest gale came on which was unpredicted, and upon the south and south-west coast of Great Britain great loss of life and property had occurred.

The Meteorological department was blamed for not having predicted this storm, such great faith being placed in their warnings that the fishermen considered it safe to go out, seeing that there had been no warning.”

The first weather chart published in a Melbourne Newspaper, from The Argus, 26 September 1881 (Image: National Library of Australia).

Ellery’s comments from 130 years ago sound familiar: meteorologists carefully gathering data, preparing charts, and disseminating “prognostications”. Even today, despite huge increases in data and understanding, such forecasts are not 100% perfect. Yet the public expects 100% accuracy, and political and media focus turns onto the meteorologist whenever storms cause loss of life or fi nancial damage. Ellery’s comments 130 years ago, and our recent experiences, demonstrate how it remains important for society that we continue to improve the dissemination of weather information and “prognostications”, as well as their quality. In the late 19th century, newspaper publication of two-days–old weather charts was the best we could do. Now we have much better ways of providing weather information, and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology leads the world in providing data and prognostications to the public. But we must continue to improve — society demands this of us.

Neville Nicholls

1. The chart is available at nla.gov.au/nla.news-page260381.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 94

News

Calls for nominations: 2011 Priestley Medal and Christopher Taylor Award Mark Williams

Chair, AMOS Awards Committee Address for nominations and correspondence: mmw@internode.on.net no more than five of the most important ones (where there are multiple authors to these five the role of the candidate should be explained)

2011 Preistley Medal The Priestley Medal and the AMOS Medal are the two premier awards given by AMOS and are awarded in alternate years. The Priestley Medal will be awarded this year.

The Priestley Medal commemorates the life-long contributions of Dr C. H. B. Priestley to meteorological and oceanographic research. It is awarded to younger scientists (preferably under the age of 40) for personal excellence in meteorological, oceanographic or climate research carried out substantially within Australia. Significant weight is given to the quality of research publications and the initiation of significant new areas of research. Previous award recipients are listed in Table 1 (note that prior to 1990 the award was given for the best paper published in the Australian Meteorological Magazine).

A successful candidate who is not already a member will receive a complimentary membership for the remainder of the year of award. The successful candidate will also be an invited keynote speaker at the 2012 AMOS Conference in Sydney, if available.

The Committee’s preferred form of nomination comprises: t

a concise summary of the reasons for the nomination

t

a publication list in which the more significant contributions are identified and brief notes written on

t

a listing of the major achievements of the candidate including the initiation of new fields and a curriculum vitae.

If possible, the nomination papers should include copies of not more than three of the candidate’s most significant publications. Where work has been done in a group or has been published with multiple authors, the Committee would appreciate a brief comment on the role of the nominee.

The Awards Committee has limited ability to seek additional information other than that in the nomination papers and therefore depends on the nomination papers to provide a full and fair account of each candidate.

Nominations should be sent to Mark Williams, Chair of the Awards Committee no later than 11 November to the email address above.

2011 Christopher Taylor Award Christopher Taylor was a Bureau of Meteorology analyst and forecaster from the mid-70s until his untimely death at age 35 in July 1988. He had a natural curiosity in, and an enthusiasm and energy for investigating observed weather phenomena and operational forecasting

Table 1. Previous winners of the Priestley Medal Year

Recipient

Instituion

1983

N.H. Davidson and B.J. McAveney

Bureau of Meteorology

1985

R.H. Clarke

CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

1987

Neville Nicholls

Bureau of Meteorology

1989

Roger L. Hughes

1991

Ross Griffiths

Australian National University

1993

Roger Smith

Monash University

1995

Gregory Ayers

CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

1997

Peter Baines

CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

1999

Stephen Rintoul

CSIRO Marine Research

2001

Peter Rayner

CSIRO Atmospheric Research

2003

Andy Pitman

Macquarie University

2005

Matthew England

The University of New South Wales

2007

Amanda Lynch

Monash University

2009

Susan Wijffels

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 95

problems, which was largely carried out in his own time. The Award carries a prize of $500 very generously provided by his former wife Jacqueline Healy, and is open to professional meteorologists for contributions of all kinds to operational forecasting and supporting activities.

In the spirit of Christopher Taylor’s efforts, the Awards Committee will give extra weight to nominations for operational meteorologists who have either commenced or performed a substantial part of their investigative work, or other contribution to operational forecasting, outside of normal duties.

should be made that the contribution has exceeded the normal expectations of a person working in that position.

It should be noted that achievements of a more academic nature are recognised through other AMOS awards.

There is also a perpetual plaque held for the year by the appropriate regional or other office.

Nominations may be made by AMOS members or others, especially senior staff of the Bureau of Meteorology who will be familiar with the work of their regional operational staff. Winners of the award since its inception are listed in Table 2. Nominations should be emailed to Mark Williams at the address given by 11 November.

Meteorologists whose normal role is to support operations either through investigations or the development of operational tools may also be nominated, however a case

Table 2: Previous recipients of the Christopher Taylor Award Year

Recipient

Institution

1994

Geoff Feren

Victoria Regional Office

1995

Russell Stringer

Northern Territory Regional Office

1996

Milton Speer

New South Wales Regional Office

1997

David Thomas

Northern Territory Regional Office

1998

John Bally

Tasmanian Regional Office

1999

Robert Leighton

NMOC

2000

Greg Connor

Queensland Regional Office

2001

Phil Davill

South Australia Regional Office

2002

Stephen Pendlebury

Tasmanian/Antarctica

2003

Roger Deslandes

Bureau of Meteorology Training Centre

2004

Neil Adams

Tasmanian/Antartica

2005

Graeme King

Northern Territory Regional Office

2006

Peter Newham

Victorian Regional Office

2007

Grant Elliott

Western Australia Regional Office

2008

Jeff Callaghan

Queensland Regional Office

2009

Anthony Leggett

National Meteorological and Oceanographic Centre

2010

Matthew Collopy

South Australian Regional Office

News from the Centres

Queensland Centre Update Michael Hewson

Vice-chair and Secretary, Queensland Centre Address for correspondence: m.hewson@uq.edu.au In August the AMOS Brisbane Centre gathered for a lunchtime professional development seminar at the Bureau of Meteorology offices in Brisbane.

Lawrence Hughes from the Griffith University Centre for Coastal Management presented his coastal erosion case study offered at the 18th Annual joint AMOS/ Meteorological Society of New Zealand conference held in Wellington earlier this year. Lawrence had received some Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 96

support from the Brisbane Regional Centre to attend the conference.

Lawrence explained that apparently insignificant anthropogenic impacts on the landscape can result in expensive long-term environmental damage if coupled to severe weather or climate change or both.

Severe weather often results in extensive short term erosion and damage, with remedial costs covered

by Federal Government. Similarly, detrimental anthropogenic impacts are covered by State Governments.

However, slow detrimental environmental change, often considered natural, can obscure apparently insignificant anthropogenic impacts, leaving it unclear as to which government agency might be responsible to assist.

The presentation described a natural resource damage investigation into how major changes that occurred between 1948 and 1956 to a sub-tropical estuary located on the East coast of Australia eventuated in a tombolo breakthrough.

Over the next 60 years the consequential erosion resulted in the demise of local industries and the creation of a new island. Remediation estimates to repair the tombolo

were put at $2 million, to build a 600 metre long groyne containing 450,000 cubic metres of sand.

On another (but related) matter, thanks to those members in Queensland who contributed to a survey on how the Centre should structure its professional development meetings — you will have the results by now. The intention was to align the meetings to meet the expectations of members — hopefully the results help you join in the activity.

The Centre would be happy to hear from any AMOS member resident in northen NSW, at least so the Centre can stay in touch in case you happen to be up this way. By all means drop an email to Michael Hewson.

ACT Centre Update Clem Davis

Secretary/Treasurer, ACT Centre Address for correspondence: clem@bowtie.com.au

National Science Week — ACT

Branch Meetings

The ACT branch held a very successful one day workshop “A warming earth — what cost of doing nothing?” at the CSIRO Discovery Centre during National Science Week.

The ACT Branch held a meeting in July on Climate and Agriculture. Our speakers were:

There were around 90 people in attendance in the morning with 50–60 staying for the whole day. The talks were filmed and they are now available online. Check the ACT branch section on the AMOS website for links.

In particular, Dr Pep Canadell gave an excellent presentation on long-term climate change and his graphics were tremendous.

The branch wishes to thank Cris Kennedy at the Discovery Centre for his support both in providing travel arrangements and the refreshments during the day.

t

Dr Steven Crimp (CSIRO) who spoke on impacts of climate change on food supplies

t

Perry Wiles (BoM) who spoke on the Bureau’s role in the Murray/Darling Basin

Our next scheduled meeting is for 17 October at CSIRO Discovery Centre. It will feature speakers on things oceanographic.

If any AMOS member is in Canberra on this day, let Clem know — they are welcome to attend.

We plan to hold a similar event next year, but perhaps split it into 2 half days.

Obituary

Dr Kevin Spillane Mike Rosel Few meteorologists are memorialised with their name linked to a phenomenon they researched.

Kevin’s Bureau contemporary Bob Crowder described the Spillane Eddy in Wonders of the Weather:

The only Australian example that springs to mind is a midwinter fog phenomenon called the Spillane (or Melbourne) Eddy.

“The eddy forms in stable weather and typically has a diameter of 100 km. It is a horizontal eddy and has a very disconcerting characteristic—it takes pollution away from Melbourne, but later brings it back with some from the Latrobe Valley as well.”

Dr Kevin Spillane, a noted researcher for the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO in the 1960s and 1970s, was first to describe Melbourne’s peculiar wind eddy in the 1970s, when he wrote a scientific paper on the phenomenon.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 97

Kevin Spillane died in Melbourne on 16 July 2011, aged 82. How fitting that a dense fog linked to the Spillane Eddy blanketed Melbourne just 12 days later, ensuring that

Victorian forecaster Scott Williams got the Spillane story into the news again: “The phenomenon is not responsible for all the fog or low cloud events we get but it does cover a fair percentage of them. Conditions are ripe for it to occur when light easterly winds blow and the early morning or overnight sky is clear. Usually once or twice a year you get fog that doesn’t go away--the fog just drifts out onto the bay, doesn’t ever dissipate because there’s not enough grunt in the sun in June. It can then come back in with a bit of a sea breeze and inundate the suburbs in the afternoon.”

A Weather News profile from 1970 noted Kevin’s graduation with a PhD in Meteorology as “no mean achievement for a 41-year old father of five with the responsibility of heading the Physical Research Branch”. The report characterised him as “a man of wide scientific interests—and one ready to advise and encourage younger colleagues…described by contemporaries as ‘a provocative thinker, a real ideas man.’ He argues quietly, if urgently—with his dry wit always on standby.” Kevin came near to representing Australia in rugby union.

observer and theoretician. Kevin was always brimming over with ideas, often with great insight. The combination of his ideas and his humour brightened up life at BMRC.” “He liked to understand how things worked and to translate theory and observations into practical, empirical models. He had a wide range of interests, mainly determined by his desire to apply his knowledge in useful ways to real situations. Just to take one area: his work on clear air turbulence, jet stream analysis, downdrafts in thunderstorms, microbursts, horizontal wind shears, vertical wind shears, atmospheric vortices, including dust devils and waterspouts, and fair weather convection was undertaken with the goal of making aviation safer.”

“A remarkable person,” says Neville Smith, Deputy Director (Research and Systems).

Kevin leaves his wife Barbara, six children and nine grandchildren. His contribution to scientific research continues: his brain was donated for Alzheimer’s research.

Reprinted with kind permission from Weather News, the Bureau of Meteorology’s internal publication.

Former Research colleague Dale Hess has fond memories of “this unusual combination of scientist, engineer,

Conference reports

IUGG 2011 Earth on the Edge: Science for a Sustainable Planet 28 June –7 July 2011 Melbourne Simon Torok Communication Manager, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research One of the world’s largest meetings of earth scientists was held in Melbourne mid-year, with some 3600 participants attending the 25th General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG).

Delegates from 91 countries attended Earth on the Edge: Science for a Sustainable Planet from 28 June to 7 July 2011 to discuss recent natural disasters and the impact on human life and infrastructure. It was only the second time that the IUGG General Assembly has been held in the Southern Hemisphere, the first being in Canberra in 1979.

The conference could hardly have been held at a more crucial time for earth scientists. Recent natural disasters have included the Japanese tsunami, Christchurch earthquake, Chilean volcano, and extreme weather in Australia. Ironically, some delegates felt a magnitude 4.4 earthquake with an epicentre east of Melbourne during one of the Plenary Lectures, while others missed the start of the conference when volcanic ash clouds forced the cancellation of flights into Melbourne. The relevance of the science to current events contributed to significant media Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 98

Figure 1. A conference participant speaks with Channel 7 TV News (Image: Nathan Pearce)

interest, with more than 60 interview requests generating several hundred TV, radio, print and online news items.

The conference brought together the eight earth science associations of the IUGG, which cover both the solid earth sciences and the fluid earth sciences. IUGG and its constituent scientific associations foster collaborative research and information exchange between scientists to enable the discovery and responsible use of natural resources, the sustainable management of the environment, a reduction in the impacts of natural disasters and, to satisfy our curiosity about the Earth’s natural environment and the consequences of human activities.

Areas of focus at the conference included mitigation of natural hazards; environmental preservation; mineral resources; climate and atmosphere; water resources; oceans; polar regions; volcanoes; solar storms; earthquakes; avalanches; landslides and tsunamis.

Plenary talks included Greg Ayers from the Bureau of Meteorology, who spoke on “Environmental observations as a basis for environmental intelligence”; Anny Cazenave from France’s Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, who spoke on “Present-day sea-level rise — how unusual and can we explain it”; and Markus Rothacher from Switzerland’s Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, who spoke on “The challenge of Earth observation: from the fast response to catastrophic events to the reliable detection of very small trends”.

The Conference Local Organising Committee included Prof. Ray Cas, Monash University (Chair); Dr Tom Beer, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; Mr Gary Gibson, Environmental Systems and Services; Dr Steve Chiswell, NIWA; Prof. Peter Dyson, LaTrobe University; Prof. Ian Allison, Australian Antarctic Division; Prof.

Chris Rizos, University of New South Wales; Dr Peter

Figure 2. IUGG delegates at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (Image: Sara Jakica) Manins, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; A/Prof. Stewart Franks, University of Newcastle; Dr Adrian Pittari, University of Waikato, and Dr Simon Torok, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

Presentations and further details can be found at www.iugg2011.com.

What is it like to be a Fresh Scientist?

Andrew J Dowdy1 and Prasanth Divakaran2 Bushfire CRC and the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

1 2

Fresh Science is an annual event that showcases the research of early-career Australian scientists, with the goal of highlighting the role of science in Australian society and providing role models for the next generation of Australian scientists. The program is a four-day-long boot-camp in media training and brings together science, the media and the public through media interviews and public speaking events. It has been running for 14 years.

There is a “use by” date on being selected as a Fresh Scientist, with one of the selection criteria being that it must less than 5 years since the completion of a PhD. The following stories are from two recent participants who met this criteria: Dr Andrew J. Dowdy was one of 16 scientists selected to participate in 2010 and Prasanth Divakaran was one of 15 scientists selected in 2011.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 99

Wind — the key factor for dangerous bushfire weather Dr Andrew J. Dowdy The research that led to my involvement with Fresh Science was based on examining the different atmospheric factors contributing to extreme fi re weather conditions.

The results showed that wind speed plays a bigger role in creating dangerous fi re weather conditions than temperature. In fact, temperature was the third-ranked factor in predicting severe bushfire weather conditions behind wind speed and low humidity.

The research also examined fi res caused by lightning, particularly “dry-lightning” that occurs without significant rainfall. The results identified a set of atmospheric and fuel moisture conditions that could be used to forecast the

chance of fire given the occurrence of lightning. A greater understanding of weather conditions associated with bushfires will result in better preparation, faster response and a reduction in the damage they cause.

Fresh Science was a great opportunity to communicate this research to a wide audience. We gave presentations about our work at a variety of different venues, including a museum, a school and a pub. The most rewarding part of Fresh Science for me was gaining experience working with the media. Part of the Fresh Science program involved a training course about interacting with the media. This was followed by a media release which led to a number of radio interviews, magazine publications and online articles. It is hoped that in the future people may think, “Tomorrow is going to be windy, dry and hot so it could be dangerous for bushfires” rather than putting too much focus just on the temperature.

Ocean arteries — new patterns in ocean circulation Prasanth Divakaran In 2011, Fresh Science was held in combination with the biennial Tech-on-Tap event in Sydney. The research that got me into both of these events was based on my PhD work on a new pattern of mean ocean circulations in the southeast Indian Ocean, the so-called “ocean arteries”.

Figure 1. Andrew presenting science in the pub – the challenge was to explain your research in the time it took for a sparkler to burn. (Image: Mike Coulson)

The basin-wide time-averaged ocean currents in the southeast Indian Ocean are organised into alternating bands that look a bit like the surface patterns seen on Jupiter. In other words, the mean ocean currents in the southeast Indian Ocean fl ow approximately east-west in bands, and these newly discovered circulation patterns are found to influence the entire water column, from the surface to the bottom of the ocean. These mysterious current systems make us rethink our understanding of the ways heat and salt are transported within the Indian Ocean.

The ocean circulation can be divided into two parts; circulation resulting from the surface wind stress, and circulation due to changes in density caused by changes in temperature and salinity of the ocean water. But we miss things like ocean eddies — the marine analogues of atmospheric weather events such as high and low pressure systems. Most of the energy of the ocean is concentrated in these eddies. Using a high resolution ocean model, we found that the influence of these oceanic weather systems in the southeast Indian Ocean doesn’t average to zero over long periods of time. They combine to form arterial patterns on average, with persistent depth signatures.

Fresh Science and Tech-on-Tap provided opportunities and challenges to communicate this work to a general audience, media, schools, at the Melbourne Museum and in an entertaining way in at a pub. We received media training and tips for science communication for all forms of media including print, radio and television. One of the memorable experiences was working with comedian Barry McLeod on stand-up comedy and stage performance.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 100

Figure 2. Prasanth presenting stand-up science comedy at Tech-on-Tap. In Tech-on-Tap, I dressed up as an “ocean cardiologist” — complete with snorkel and scrubs — and presented my work in a stand-up comic way. The main output from Fresh Science is a media release on your research, which leads to media interviews, both in print and radio. Th is year, the Fresh Science team also took all of the 15 winners to “Science meets Parliament”. We were all encouraged to talk to parliamentarians about the importance of science education and peer review process of literature.

Overall, Fresh Science and Tech-on-Tap were pretty good experiences, ones that will live long in my memory.

More information about Fresh Science can be found at www.freshscience.org.au.

Articles

Melbourne’s early rainfall records D. J. Linforth

Address for correspondence: linforth@iprimus.com.au

1840–1851 The earliest official records of meteorological observations at Melbourne are those published in the Government Gazette of New South Wales in the form of “Monthly Abstracts from the Meteorological Journal kept at Port Phillip”. The observations were taken on Flagstaff Hill (point A in Figure 1) which offers a clear view of Hobson’s Bay 5 km away. A signal station was established there and by means of flags the staff on the hill could “speak” to the various ships in port. The electric telegraph was still a few years away.

The type of instrument used is not known and the precise location at which the observations were made cannot be determined with certainty. For these reasons the results are not accepted as part of the official record.

Of interest is November 1849, when 12.13 inches fell (308 mm). Although there is no doubt that very heavy rain fell at the end of November, causing extensive flooding, it is unlikely that the consecutive daily falls of exactly 3.50 inches (88.9 mm) on the 27th and 7.00 inches (177.8 mm) on the 28th were accurately recorded. It is likely that figures are estimates because of either the loss or inadequacy of the instruments.

1855–1858 Observations were made under the supervision of Mr R. Brough-Smythe, the observatory being administered as a branch of the Public Lands Office (point B in Figure 1). No original manuscripts for this period can be located, but for each month from April 1855 to December 1858, a record of the daily observations was published in the Victorian Government Gazette. Observations were only made at midday in April 1855, but thereafter they were made three times per day. At fi rst these times were 9am, 3pm and 9pm, but from February 1856 they were altered to 9.30am, 3.30pm and 9.30pm “in accordance with the hours at stations of the Royal Engineers”. Rainfall was recorded for the 24 hours to 9am or 9.30am.

Details of instruments used and discussions of results are contained in three reports by Mr R. Brough-Smythe presented to the Victorian Parliament. The fi rst report covers the eight months to 31 January 1856, the second the remainder of 1856 and 1857 and the third 1858.

The 8-inch diameter rain gauge was not considered to be sufficiently accurate, as a certain amount of water is required to wet the interior of the rain gauge and the glass vessels and the results were generally 0.005 inches below those of the accepted instrument. It was known that a Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 101

simple method of counteracting this was to place a glass bottle within the gauge which could be taken out and read every day. Many instruments of this construction were issued by the Royal Society or under its authority. One of these gauges was installed at a height of four feet above the ground, but the results were not published.

The accepted instrument in 1855 was made after a design

by Mr George Foord. The diameter of the receiving surface was 7.82 inches, the area thus being one-third of a square foot. The edge of the funnel was inclined slightly inwards and gradually tapered to an opening about a quarter of an inch in diameter. A tube attached to the funnel fitted closely inside the neck of a glass bottle, and at the end of this tube a small water joint was placed to prevent evaporation and to enable the observer to compute the amount of loss. The bottle was graduated by weighing in distilled water. Each division equalled 242.405 grains which fall on one-third of a square foot area and that equals 0.02 inches fall per square foot area. The bottle was thus graduated upwards to two inches. The glass bottle was encased in flannel and packed in a wooden box which was secured to the stand by a small padlock. The instrument was placed at a height of five feet above the ground.

The instruments were well-exposed but not sufficiently far removed from buildings. The site was the best that could be chosen under the circumstances.

The third report of Mr Brough-Smythe states that this gauge was four feet ten inches above the ground. A third gauge had now been installed, also four feet ten inches above the ground and eight feet from the other. Th is gauge, of a type adopted by the corps of Royal Engineers, had a receiver 13.5 inches in diameter, and the rain fell into a cylinder, containing water exactly one tenth of the area of the receiving surface. The rainfall was indicated by a graduated rod attached to a fl oat. The differences in readings between this gauge and that of Mr Foord’s construction were found to be extremely small.

Meanwhile, from May 1856, the eight-inch gauge had been placed at a height of 42 feet. The bottom of the gauge was convex and a piece of gas pipe was brought down from the lowest point of the bottom of the gauge to the wind room where measurements were made with a graduated glass vessel. Results from this gauge were published and were consistently lower than those from the official gauge. Over eight months the difference amounted to three inches.

1858–1863 On March 1 1858 observations began at Flagstaff Hill under the direction of Professor Georg Neumayer of

Bavaria. (Bavaria was then a separate kingdom, unification of Germany did not occur till 1871.) Although Professor Neumayer had recommended late in 1857 that a site near the Botanical Gardens would be most suitable, it was not till 1862 that the observatory was established there (point C in Figure 1).

The observations were published by Neumayer in three books: t

Results of the Magnetical, Nautical and Meteorological Observations March 1858 to February 1859.

t

Results of the Meteorological Observations made at Flagstaff Observatory, Melbourne 1858–1862 (both published in Melbourne)

t

Discussion of the Meteorological Observations made at Flagstaff Observatory, Melbourne 1858–1863 (published in Mannheim, Germany).

Rainfall as measured at Neumayer’s observatory was accepted as the official record from March 1858, and manuscript entries are available in the Commonwealth Archives of hourly and daily observations from 1 January 1859 to 28 February 1863.

The hourly observations had to be signed by the person taking the observation, and one of the signatures is that of W.J. Wills who was soon to lose his life on the Burke and Wills expedition. He was employed at the Observatory to give him practice in taking meteorological and astronomical observations.

Neumayer’s instruments were in French measure (not metric) and all results had to be reduced to English measure. That this was a complicated procedure may be judged from the fact that, after the tables for Neumayer’s first volume had been printed, a slight error was found and errata had to be included in the volume.

“The rain gauge, placed seven feet above the ground, consisted of a copper vessel cased externally with wood, and offering an open horizontal section for the reception of rain of one square foot (Paris measure). The funnel terminated below in a glass tube, 18 inches long, which conveyed the water through a closely fitting cork into a bottle the weight of which had been accurately determined.

At six o’clock morning and evening the bottle was removed and weighed, and from the weight of the water the height of the fall upon the square foot (English) was calculated and expressed in inches, tenths etc.”

The twice-daily entries on the sheet of hourly observations were made in grains and only the twenty-four hour total was converted to inches for entry on the sheet of daily observations. Observations were made at 6am and 6pm to determine if there was any difference in the amount of rain falling by night and by day. The rain day was taken from 6pm to 6pm.

In order to convert these results to a 6am to 6am basis, to achieve as close a consistency as possible with modern practice, the twelve-hourly readings were converted from Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 102

grains to inches. According to Norie’s Nautical Tables, one English foot is equivalent to 0.939 French feet, and as 7000 grains equals 1 avoirdupois (or American) pound, then 10 grains is equivalent to 0.00242 inches. Examination of the twenty-four hour falls shows that the factor actually used varied between 0.00241 and 0.00244. Either there were small arithmetical errors or slight additional corrections were applied which have not been documented in Neumayer’s calculations. The 13.5-inch diameter Royal Engineer gauge was retained a check gauge. The rainfall was finally recorded to 0.001 inches.

During the period when Professor Neumayer was in charge the calendar month was not adhered to in the calculation of monthly totals. “In accordance with the plan of the Meteorological Institute of Prussia” the year was divided into periods of five days. Six of these periods were taken as a meteorological month, beginning with 1 January. Thus March began on the 2nd, June began on 31st May. Twelve months of 30 days equals 360 days and the remaining five days were added to the meteorological month of June, which consisted of 35 days. In 1860, the 29th of February was included with February.

In the 1970s, when the monthly totals were corrected to modern practice, it was found that the rainfall for the calendar month of June 1858 was a record low 0.31 inches (8.0 mm) instead of the previously published 0.76 inches which included 0.45 inches which fell on 4 July when June was counted as 35 days.

On September 21 1862 the instruments were transferred to the new Observatory in the Domain where the height above sea level was 91 feet compared to 120 feet at Flagstaff Hill.

1863–1907 Hourly observations ceased on February 28th 1863 and observations were then taken only at 6am, 9am, 3pm and 9pm with the daily rainfall being measured on a 9pm to 9pm basis. From October 1863 the twelve-hourly rainfall had been converted from grains to inches, so that adjustment to 9am to 9am rainfall was then relatively simple.

The Prussian 30 day month system was continued until 31 March 1864, thereafter the calendar month was used as the basis for monthly rainfall. The type of gauge in use has not been specifically documented but must be inferred from various sources. On the manuscript daily sheets entries are made in grains on occasions till April 1872, and thus probably the gauge brought by Neumayer was still being used. According to the published monthly records of observations from 1872 to 1881 the gauge was placed seven feet above the ground.

The Government Astronomer, in his Annual Report for 1878, states that two new rain gauges had arrived: a standard gauge and a self-registering gauge. In 1879 records began to be tabulated from a variety of rain gauges: t

the official gauge placed 7 feet above the ground

t

a rain gauge (Kew pattern) placed two feet above the ground

with earlier records, it was still read at 9pm on the last day of the month until the end of 1898.

t

the old 13.5-inch diameter Royal Engineers gauge with rod and float

t

a gauge placed on top of the new thermometer house.

Rainfall continued to be measured to 0.001 inch (0.025 mm) until the end of 1896 when measurements to 0.01 inch (0.25mm) were considered to be sufficient. However, for some years before 1896 it is evident that readings were often made to the nearest 0.005 inch.

As readings from the last-named gauge showed large discrepancies from the other three it was abandoned after a few months. In 1885 readings from the Royal Engineers gauge ceased to be taken, and from 1 January 1882 the Kew pattern eight inch gauge, two feet above the ground was taken as the official gauge. Readings from the gauges at two feet and six feet were maintained till 1914.

Official readings were now in accordance with a resolution of the Intercolonial Meteorological Conference of 1881, recommending that private observers use only certified eight-inch rain gauges.

In 1893 the exigencies of depression caused a reduction of Observatory staff and the 6am observations were abandoned from February 1. From October 1 1893 the rainfall was read at 9am only, but to maintain continuity

1908 – present The Commonwealth Government took control of meteorological services on January 1st 1908 and observations were then made at Victorian Royal Society Grounds on the corner of Victoria and Latrobe streets (point D in Figure 1). Observations continued at the Melbourne Observatory until June 1914. Statistical tests applied to the comparative results showed that, while there is a significant difference in the monthly rainfall, there is no significance difference in the annual totals.

FIgure 1. The four locations where rainfall observations have been taken in Melbourne since 1840. A) Flagstaff Hill, B) Public Lands Offfice, C) Melbourne Observatory and D) Victorian Royal Society Grounds. Image adapted from Google Maps, using an original map by Don Linforth.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 103

The latest Australian CMIP climate model submission Mark Collier1, Stephen Jeffrey2 and Leon Rotstayn1

The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland Address for correspondence: mark.collier@csiro.au 1 2

1. Introduction

2. Modelling

The fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) is a new set of coordinated climate model experiments, designed in part to provide the modelling input for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5)1. The aim of CMIP5 is to promote a standard set of model simulations in order to:

CSIRO-Mk3.6 is the most recent version of the CSIRO Global Climate Model (GCM) which can be traced back to the two-layer model developed by Hal Gordon some 30 years ago (Gordon, 1981). It differs from its immediate predecessor (Mk3.5; Gordon et al., 2010) by inclusion of an interactive aerosol scheme, an updated radiation scheme and other changes to the atmospheric physics package. The ocean model is based on version 2.2 of the Modular Ocean Model (MOM2.2; Pacanowski 1996) with several improved physical parameterisations. The model also includes dynamic sea ice and a soil-canopy scheme with prescribed vegetation properties (but no carbon cycle); see Gordon et al. (2010) for further details. Mk3.6 was described and evaluated by Rotstayn et al. (2010), whose assessment of the model’s simulation of Australian climate was generally favourable.

t

evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past

t

provide projections of future climate change on two time scales: near term (out to about 2035) and long term (out to 2100 and beyond)

t

understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections, including quantifying key feedbacks.

In early 2009 CSIRO and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence (QCCCE) formed a collaborative project to prepare a joint submission to CMIP5. The project used the CSIRO-Mk3.6 OceanAtmosphere General Circulation Model (OAGCM) and the Queensland Government’s High Performance Computing facilities to perform a selected subset of the CMIP5 experiments and subsequently submit the model output to CMIP5. The aim was to ensure that Australia would provide a comprehensive submission to CMIP5 in time for inclusion in IPCC AR5, due for release in 2013.

For brevity we will hereafter refer to the model as Mk3.6.

This article is designed to give an overview of the project and to inform interested readers of how they can explore and download the data. We gently remind analysts that publications intended to inform AR5’s Working Group 1 must be submitted for publication by July 31 2012, and published or accepted for publication by March 15 2013.

A Mk3.6 wiki has been created to provide technical information on the submission and news updates.2 Important news items on data errors or replacements will be published here. It is recommended that anyone with a CSIRO Nexus account or External Partner account access the wiki using their personal credentials. Other interested people can login with the username csiromk36.131 and password Gkgfpgk3. The wiki is intended to provide specific information regarding the model, data sets or analysis activities that are of special interest to local analysts. It is complementary to the errata page on the CMIP5 web site, which is intended to contain information that is of relevance to the wider community.

1. See cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/index.html for an overview 2. https://wiki.csiro.au/confluence/display/CSIROMk360/Home.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 104

In September 2009 the Mk3.6 model was ported to QCCCE’s new High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities. A multi-century pre-industrial control run showed the model to be stable on the new system.

Operational modelling for CMIP5 commenced in January 2010 and most of the key simulations fi nished in July 2011. A small number of model runs are being extended to support projections through to 2300; for these runs the modelling is expected to be completed by December 2011. Further details on the technical aspects of the Mk3.6 submission can be found in Collier et al. (2011a,b) and results of a preliminary analysis in Syktus et al. (2011).

The computational demands of the project have been substantial. More than 19,000 years have been simulated, with an average wallclock time of 11 hours per year.

Roughly 20 terabytes (TB) of data have been generated and published for use by model analysts. A much larger amount of data (76 TB) has been saved, but the majority has not been post-processed and published, since it was not requested as part of the CMIP5 protocol. These additional data may be made available to Australian researchers by arrangement.

3. Experiments A significant change from the previous Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) has been the application of a new range of forcing scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), rather than the earlier SRES scenarios (IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios). The SRES scenarios were based on a set of socioeconomic assumptions that lead to estimations of anthropogenic emissions. In contrast, the new RCPs are based on a range of assumed year 2100 radiative forcing

Figure 1. Comparison of CO2 concentrations from SRES (A1B, A1FI, A2, B1) and RCP (3, 4.5, 6, 8.5) approaches. Figure courtesy of Martin Dix. values. Plausible representative time series of emissions were developed to arrive at those end-points. See Moss (2010) and Inman (2011) for further details.

Although the approaches used in designing the RCP and SRES scenarios were different, the projected global concentrations of carbon dioxide under the various scenarios are still broadly comparable. The temporal profiles for CO2 concentration under various scenarios are shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the trajectories under both high-end (RCP 8.5 and SRES A1FI) and lowerend scenarios (RCP 4.5 and SRES B1) are similar. Figure 1 shows the profiles for four RCPs: 3, 4.5, 6 and 8.5.[3] The suite of CMIP5 experiments conducted using the Mk3.6 climate model is shown in Table 1. The experimental setup followed the description provided by Taylor et al. (2011a) with additional naming conventions given in Taylor et al. (2011b). Experiments are labeled as either AOGCM (coupled atmosphere-ocean) or AGCM (atmosphere only). A brief description of each experiment is given in the final column of Table 1 and elaborated on in Taylor et al. (2011a). Forcing agents treated in Mk3.6 are long-lived greenhouse gases, ozone, anthropogenic aerosols (direct and indirect effects), volcanic and solar forcing. The historical ensemble with “all forcings” thus includes all of the CMIP5-recommended forcings except for land-use change. Other historical simulations were formed by treating subsets of these forcings, as shown in the last few rows of Table 1. These attribution-focused experiments are included in CMIP5 (Experiment 7.3 in Taylor et al., 2011a), but the experimental design is not prescriptive about the selection of forcings that are treated in these runs.

The modelled global-mean near-surface air temperature for the period 1850–2055 and observed data from 1850– 3. RCP 3 peaks at 3.1 and declines to 2.6 W/m2 at 2100 and is often referred to as RCP 2.6.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 105

2010 (HADCRUT3; Brohan et al., 2006) are shown in Figure 2. The data are presented as anomalies relative to the 1850–1899 base period. The results for four historical experiments are presented: 1.

the historical run with all forcings extended to 2100 by projection data from RCP 4.5 (HIST/RCP4.5)

2.

natural forcings only (NAT)

3.

long-lived greenhouse gas forcings only (GHGAS)

4.

anthropogenic aerosol forcings only (AA).

The NAT, GHGAS and AA experiments are driven by the historical values for the relevant forcing (natural, greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols, respectively), with all other forcings held constant at preindustrial (1850) levels. All historical experiments have 10 members. The HIST experiment shows the best agreement with the observations, as also seen in earlier simulations that include aerosol forcing.

4. Publishing Post-processing the raw model output into a form suitable for submission to CMIP5 was an important and challenging component of the project, owing mainly to the quantity of data and the strict formatting requirements.

Post-processing the raw output from the Mk3.6 model began in earnest in late 2010 and most of the high priority datasets (as described by Taylor et al., 2011a) are now available in published form via the Earth System Grid (see Section 6). Owing to the ongoing experimentation, some post-processing will continue through to January 2012, by which time all the data are expected to be publicly available.

The list of experiments and their parameters for which data publication is complete are provided on the Mk3.6

Table 1. The CSIRO-QCCCE CMIP5 Experiments.

Notes: † ensemble members 1–3 are extended to 2300; †† ensemble members 2–12 are 5 years in length consistent with the CMIP5 specification; and ††† experiment commenced in 1950 as ozone changes prior to 1950 were considered negligible. See Section 3 for further details.

Experiment

CMIP5 Name

Coupling

Ensemble Size

Years

Description

piControl

3.1

AOGCM

1

1-500

Pre-industrial control

historical

3.2

AOGCM

10

1850-2005

Historical – all forcings

amip

3.3

AGCM

10

1979-2009

AMIP – observed SSTs

midHolocene

3.4

AOGCM

1

1-100

Mid-Holocene

rcp45

4.1

AOGCM

10

2006-2100†

Projection forced by RCP4.5

rcp85

4.2

AOGCM

10

2006-2100†

Projection forced by RCP8.5

rcp26

4.3

AOGCM

10

2006-2100

Projection forced by RCP2.6

rcp60

4.4

AOGCM

10

2006-2100

Projection forced by RCP6.0

1pctCO2

6.1

AOGCM

1

1-140

1%/year increase in CO2 up to 4x

sstClim

6.2a

AGCM

1

30

SST climatology from piControl

sstClim4xCO2

6.2b

AGCM

1

30

SST climatology from piControl + 4xCO2

abrupt4xCO2

6.3

AOGCM

12

1-150††

4xCO2

sstClimAerosol

6.4a

AGCM

1

1-30

SST climatology from piControl + anthropogenic aerosol forcing from 2000

sstClimSulfate

6.4b

AGCM

1

1-30

SST climatology from piControl + anthropogenic sulfate aerosol forcing from 2000

historicalNat

7.1

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical - natural forcing only

historicalGHG

7.2

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical - greenhouse gas forcing only

historicalAnt

7.3a

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical - anthropogenic forcings only

historicalNoOz

7.3b

AOGCM

10

1950-2012†††

Historical - all forcings except changes in ozone

historicalNoAA

7.3c

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical – all forcings except changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing

historicalAA

7.3d

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical - anthropogenic aerosol forcing only

historicalAntNoAA

7.3e

AOGCM

10

1850-2012

Historical – all forcings, but anthropogenic aerosol forcing only within the Asian region

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 106

Figure 2. Global-mean surface air temperature anomalies (°C) for four CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 experiments and HadCRUT3 observations. Filled areas show the range based on the 10-member ensemble and solid lines are ensemble means. wiki. Data which have been published can be downloaded by any registered user. For more information on each of these parameters please refer to the standard output document (Taylor, 2011).

6. Data availability There are 3 methods of obtaining Mk3.6 CMIP5 data: 1.

The official method is directly from an ESG node through the web interface. To download data you will need to apply for an account through the ESG gateway4. It is, however, possible to see the data from the other ESG gateways/nodes5 as the metadata have been harvested and distributed.

2.

The most efficient method of analysing the data for many people will be through direct access at the NCI National Facility. To access the datasets using this method, you will need to have an account on the National Facility and be registered with the NCI ESG gateway.

3.

For users with special needs or those who cannot access the data using the two previous methods, the data can be accessed through collaboration. As shown in Table 1, the Mk3.6 submission includes a comprehensive set of historical attribution experiments (experiments named 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3a–e) all having 10-member ensembles. Initially, only the

4. esg.nci.org.au/esgcet/home.htm 5. e.g. the gateway at PCMDI, pcmdi3.llnl.gov/esgcet/home.htm

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 107

first five members of these will be made available for general users, but the remaining members may be accessible via collaboration.

To access additional datasets you can contact Leon Rotstayn (Leon.Rotstayn@csiro.au) and Jozef Syktus (Jozef.Syktus@climatechange.qld.gov.au) to discuss the possibility of undertaking joint research. For Mk3.6 wiki enquiries contact Mark Collier (Mark.collier@csiro.au).

7. Conclusions In this article we have described the CSIRO-QCCCE CMIP5 submission using the Mk3.6 climate model. The submission includes data from 21 unique experiments and more than 150 uniquely defined parameters. We have provided details of several ways to access the data, as well as a description of attribution-focused historical experiments that are available for collaborative research projects. We believe the Mk3.6 submission to be an exceptional achievement for a team of nine mostly parttime research and support staff.

8. Acknowledgements The Mk3.6 team consists of Stephen Jeffrey6 and Leon Rotstayn7 (project leaders), Mark Collier7, Stacey

6. Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland.

7. The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria.

Dravitzki7, Carlo Hamalainen6, Chris Moeseneder8 , Jozef Syktus6, Nathan Toombs6 and Kenneth Wong6.

The aforementioned Mk3.6 wiki provides a biography of each team member and their respective role in the Mk3.6 submission. The Mk3.6 team would like to thank Martin Dix, Hal Gordon, Tony Hirst, Didier Monselesan, Siobhan O’Farrell and Eva Kowalczyk for providing technical advice regarding the CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 model and its predecessors. The Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resource Management provided the high performance computing facilities for the CSIROMk3.6.0 experimentation. The National Computational Infrastructure National Facility in Canberra provided storage and processing resources for the post-processing, hardware for hosting the Mk3.6 CMIP5 data via the Earth System Grid, and their specialised support.

9. References Brohan, P., Kennedy, J.J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.

Collier, M.A., Jeffrey, S., Dix, M.R., Hirst, A.C and Rotstayn, L.D.,2011a. Dealing with and contributing to the CMIP5 data ‘tsunami’ and beyond from an Australian perspective. Greenhouse 2011, Cairns, Australia 4–18 April 2011.

Collier, M.A., Jeffrey, S., Wong, K.K-H., Dravitzki, S.M., Moeseneder, C., Hamalainen, C., Syktus, J.I., Suppiah, R., Antony, J., El Zein, A. and Atif, M., 2011b. The CSIROMk3.6.0 Atmosphere-Ocean GCM: participation in CMIP5 and data publication. Submitted MODSIM11 Extended Abstract, Perth, Australia, 12–16 December 2011.

Gordon, H. B., 1981. Flux formulation of the spectral atmospheric equations suitable for use in long-term climate modelling. Mon. Weather Rev., 109, 56−64.

Gordon, H.B., O’Farrell, S.P., Collier, M.A., Dix, M.R., Rotstayn, L.D., Kowalczyk, E.A., Hirst, A.C., and Watterson, I.G., 2010. The CSIRO Mk3.5 Climate Model, Technical Report No. 21. The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Aspendale, Vic., Australia, 62 pp. Available online at www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/ technicalreports.php.

Inman, M., 2011. Opening the future. Nature Climate Change, 1, 7–9. doi:10.1038/nclimate1058.

8. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 108

Moss, R.H., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A., Manning, M.R., Rose, S.K., van Vuuren, D.P., Carter, T.R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G.A., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith, S.J., Stouffer, R.J., Thomson, A.M., Weyant, J.P. and Wilbanks, T.J., 2010. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747–756. doi:10.1038/ nature08823.

Pacanowski, R.C., 1996. MOM 2 Version 2, Documentation, User’s Guide and Reference Manual, GFDL Ocean Technical Report 3.2. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/ NOAA, Princeton, NJ, USA. 350 pp. Available from www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action?file=model_ development/ocean/manual2.2.pdf.

Rotstayn, L.D., Collier, M.A., Feng, Y., Gordon, H.B., O’Farrell, S.P., Smith, I.N., and Syktus, J., 2010. Improved simulation of Australian climate and ENSO-related rainfall variability in a GCM with an interactive aerosol treatment, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1067–1088, doi:10.1002/ joc.1952.

Syktus, J., Wong K.K-H., Rotstayn, L.D., Jeffrey, S.J. Zhang, H., Toombs, N.R. and Collier, M., 2011. Australia’s hotter and drier future: climate change projections using representative concentrations pathways and the CSIRO Mk3.6 climate model. Greenhouse 2011, Cairns, Australia, 4–18 April 2011. 28pp. Available from www.greenhouse2011.com/UserFiles/Presentation/ presentationUrl_44.pdf Taylor, K.E., 2011. Standard Output Document. 167 pp. Available from cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/ standard_output.pdf.

Taylor, K.E., Balaji, V., Hankin, S., Jukes, M., Lawrence, B. and S. Pascoe, 2011b. CMIP5 Data Reference Syntax (DRS) and Controlled Vocabularies. 14 pp. Available from cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/cmip5_data_reference_ syntax.pdf.

Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., and Meehl, G.A., 2011a.

A Summary of the CMIP5 Experiment Design. 33pp.

Available from cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_ CMIP5_design.pdf.

Significant Mesoscale Oceanography

September 2011: Nyai Roro Kidul Paul Sandery, Andy Taylor and Gary Brassington Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Melbourne

Coastal upwelling off southern Java is a seasonal phenomenon associated with the monsoon climate of the Indian Ocean. It is an important source of nutrient rich waters for the region and creates a significant difference in primary productivity between Indonesia and Australia (Murgese and De Deckker, 2005). The region of upwelling is the mythical home of Nyai Roro Kidul, “Goddess of the Southern Ocean” or “Goddess of the Ocean and the Sky”, who is a well known and important Javanese folk figure.

Wessing (1997) writes: “As queen of the spirits she is often associated with demons and death, but at the same time she is seen as responsible for the welfare and protection of Java. For this protection, and perhaps especially for that of the fishermen who go out into the quite dangerous Indian Ocean, she is thought to demand every year the lives of several young men, whom she is said to take to her palace below the waves.”

Nyai Roro Kidul probably gains her notoriety from the reliability of the upwelling system that attracted fishermen

to the sea, which is thought to have been present since the late Quaternary (past 0.5–1.0 million years, Spooner et al., 2005). During the southeast (SE) monsoon (June to October) its variability depends on the seasonal characteristics of alongshore easterly winds and the strength and water mass properties of the Indonesian throughflow (ITF, Dwi Susanto et al., 2001), which is the link between the Pacific and Indian oceans. The ocean’s response to the prevailing SE winds along Java’s southern coast at this time of year is evident in the relatively cold coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and lower than usual sea-surface height (SSH) anomalies.

Mean sea-level pressure (MSLP) anomalies for September from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis (not shown) show the presence of positive anomalies over Australia and a structure representative of a high pressure system centred over the continent. This indicates there has been anomalous easterly flow over the northern tropical oceans and westerly flow south of the continent. The anomalous

Figure 1. OceanMAPS2 seven-day ensemble average centred on 21 September 2011. See text for details.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 109

Figure 2. Meridional density (σT) section through 109.15°E with zonal velocities from OceanMAPS2 seven-day ensemble average centred on 21 September 2011. Dashed contours are negative, contour interval is 5 cm/s and heavy line is zero contour. wind patterns appear to have enhanced the seasonal upwelling off Java.

Figure 1 shows fi elds from an OceanMAPS2 ensemble average seven-day temporal mean centred on 21 September 2011. The upper left panel shows cool SSTs from the upwelling off Java and Sumatra and the upper right panel shows sea surface salinity (SSS). The lower left panel shows SSH and the lower right represents surface currents for the same period. Together, these plots show geostrophic surface jets associated with the upwelling and finer jets (~50 km width) emanating from the Indonesian Straits that have been enhanced by the upwelling. The latter have warm SST and fresh SSS expressions.

These jets appear to be enhanced by perturbations to the oceanic pressure fi eld induced by the upwelling, which seems to have had a significant accumulated impact on heat content (compare SST with SSH). It should be noted that OceanMAPS2 does not include explicit tides, which can have a large effect in certain locations on the mean geostrophic transports of the ITF through mixing processes (Schiller, 2004).

Excluding these processes leads to biased mass and volume fluxes discharged into this region. The data assimilation of remotely sensed altimetry and SST observations adjusts the model toward the true state, partially compensating for these biases. Figure 1 also indicates that the density front for the south equatorial current (SEC) has begun to break down under mixed barotropic/baroclinic instability (Feng and Wijffels, 2002). Th is breakdown appears to be responsible for accelerating the meridional surface transport of warm and fresh water.

Figure 2 shows a meridional density section through 109.15°E with zonal current velocities in the upper 500 m for the same data used to construct Figure 1. This analysis

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 110

is typical of several other sections through the upwelling zone. There is strong (1.5 m/s) surface westward flow and equatorward lifting of isopycnal surfaces (surfaces of equal potential density). Several hundred kilometres offshore westward flow extends to below 500 m, whereas under the westward flow of the upwelling zone a subsurface eastward counter current is present. The upwelled water appears to have come from around 100 m depth, which suggests that the Palace of Nyai Roro Kidul could be located around 8°S on the shelf ledge.

References Dwi Susanto, R., Gordon, A.L. and Zheng, Q., 2001.

Upwelling along the coasts of Java and Sumatra and its relation to ENSO. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(8), 1599–1602.

Feng, M. and Wijffels, S., 2002. Intraseasonal Variability in the South Equatorial Current of the East Indian Ocean.

Journal of Physical Oceanography, 32, 265–277.

Murgese D. S. and De Deckker, P., 2005. The distribution of deep-sea benthic foraminifera in core tops from the eastern Indian Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology, 56(1–2), 25–49.

Schiller, A., 2004. Effects of explicit tidal forcing in an OGCM on the water-mass structure and circulation in the Indonesian throughflow region. Ocean Modelling, 6, 31–49.

Spooner M. I., Barrows, T.T., De Deckker, P., and Paterne, M., 2005. Palaeoceanography of the Banda Sea, and Late Pleistocene initiation of the Northwest Monsoon. Global and Planetary Change, 49, 28–46.

Wessing, R. T.,1997. A Princess from Sunda: Some Aspects of Nyai Roro Kidul, Asian Folklore Studies, 56(2), 317–353.

Charts from the Past with Blair Trewin

30 September 1980 1980 was a somewhat unusual year for Australian climate, in that there were some notable extremes without any substantial signal from large-scale climate drivers such as ENSO. At the time, it was easily Australia’s warmest year on record and was not surpassed until 1998 (it now ranks fourth).

The spring in particular was more characteristic of an El Niño, with generally dry conditions in NSW and Queensland and numerous significant heatwaves.

September was especially warm and dry. It remains Australia’s warmest September on record for mean maximum temperatures, with a national anomaly of +2.49°C. Anomalies were in the +4–5°C range in much of central Australia and in an area straddling the NSWQueensland border. It was also a very dry month, with most stations in Queensland and the northern half of NSW receiving no rain; for Queensland it was the second driest month on record after August 1913. In contrast, it was an extremely wet month in western Tasmania, where Strathgordon was nearing the end of a run of 140 wet days out of 141 and Lake Margaret had a monthly total of 829.2 mm.

Extreme heat made an early visit to South Australia when Oodnadatta had the state’s earliest-ever spring 40°C temperature on 14 September, but the most significant heat developed from the 29th onwards, as high pressure became established over the Tasman and a northwesterly airflow strengthened over southeastern Australia. The first

September records were set on the 29th, most notably at Ceduna which reached 39.7°C. Oodnadatta peaked at 40.5°C the next day, a state record for September at the time (since broken).

By the 30th, the main focus of abnormal heat had shifted to eastern Victoria and the southern half of the NSW coast, ahead of a weak approaching front. Some exceptional temperatures occurred at locations such as Bega (36.6°C), Orbost (35.0°C) and Lakes Entrance (34.6°C); all were not only September records by at least 1.8°C (and remain so today), but exceeded October records as well. The early arrival of the front prevented extreme warmth across central Victoria (28.1°C at Melbourne). The dry lead-up and hot, windy conditions on the day resulted in many bushfires in east Gippsland and southeastern NSW, with one life lost in a fire near Moruya.

There was little cooling for another two days in northern and central NSW; Williamtown had three consecutive days over 35°C, something which has not happened earlier than mid-November before, and Canberra’s 29.6°C on 2 October was an early-season record. Temperatures in the mid-30s were also common in western Sydney but sea breezes kept Observatory Hill to 29.3°C. Substantial cooling didn’t arrive until a system crossed the southeast on the 6th and 7th. It wasn’t the last heatwave of the spring either, with many more records set in mid-November.

Synoptic chart for 0000 UTC (1000 AEST), 30 September 1980.

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 111

Calendar

2011

2012

November

January

7–10 2011 IYC O3: Symposium on Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Change, Washington, USA.

22–26 AMS Annual Meeting, New Orleans, USA.

8–11 The International Conference Energy Meteorology (ICEM), Gold Coast, Queensland.

and

15–17 CAWCR Annual Workshop 2011 Atmospheric Composition Observations and Modelling, and the Cape Grim Annual Science Meeting, Melbourne.

December 1–7 5th International Verification Methods Workshop, Melbourne.

4–8 International Congress of Biometeorology, Auckland, New Zealand.

5–9 AGU Fall Meeting, San Fransico, USA. 12–14 First International Symposium on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Small Island Developing States, Zanziba, Tanzania.

12–16 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM), Perth.

31–3 Feb AMOS 2012 Conference: Connections in the Climate System, Sydney.

February 20–24 2012 Ocean Sciences Meeting, Salt Lake City, USA. 24–28 Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, New York, USA.

April 22–27 International Polar Year 2012: From Knowledge to Action, Montreal, Canada.

23–27 10 ISCHMO, Nouméa, New Caledonia.

25–30 AMS 30th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Florida, USA.

June 24–27 35th International Conference — International Association for Energy Economics — Energy markets evolution under global carbon constraints, Perth.

July 8–13 20th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence and 18th Conference on Air-Sea Interaction, Boston, USA.

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal

Articles — Vol 61 No. 2, June 2011 Risbey, McIntosh and Pook. Evaluation of rainfall drivers and teleconnections in an ACCESS AMIP run Kuleshov, Hettrick, Mackerras, Darveniza and Jayaratne. Occurrence of positive and negative polarity cloud-to-cloud lighting flashes: case study for Brisbane, Australia Nicholls and Larsen. Impact of drought on temperature extremes in Melbourne, Australia Le Marshall, Seecamp , Xiao, Steinle, Sims, Skinner , Jung and Le. The Generation and Assimilation of Continuous AMVs with 4DVar

Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol.24 page 112

Regular features: Ganter. Seasonal climate summary southern hemisphere (winter 2010): A fast developing La Niña Wu. Quarterly Numerical Weather Prediction Model Performance Summaries – October to December 2010 and January to March 2011 Book review: Hess. Turbulence in the Atmosphere.

2011 AMOS Council Executive

President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Past President

Neville Nicholls Blair Trewin Damien Irving Ian Watterson Richard Wardle

Ordinary Members John Allen Stewart Allen Robin Roberston Sandra Schuster Perry Wiles

03-8344 9596 03-9669 4341 02-6268 8289 02-9272 8025 03-9669 4664

AMOS Administrative Officer

Jeanette Dargaville GPO Box 1289, Melbourne VIC 3001 (attn: AMOS admin officer) Phone 0404 471 143 E-mail: admin_officer@amos.org.au

03-9902 0111 03-9669 4623 03-9239 4685 03-9239 4544 03-9905 4411

Sub-Committee Convenors Public Relations Awards Conferences Education

Centre Chairs NSW Hobart Melbourne ACT Perth Darwin Brisbane Adelaide

Michael Pook Mark Williams Val Jemmeson Phillip Riley

03-6232 5228 03-9669 4968 03-9669 4095 03-9669 4530

Steven Phipps Kelvin Michael Vaughan Barras Margi Bรถhm Merv Lynch Hakeem Shaik Hamish McGowan Caecilia Ewenz

02-9385 8957 03-6226 2977 03-9669 4045 02-6268 8749 08-9266 7540 08-8920 3814 07-3365 6651 08-8366 2723

Representatives AMM Science & Technology Australia

Kathy McInnes

03-9239 4569

Steven Phipps

02-9385 8957

AMOS is represented on the relevant Australian Academy of Science committees.

2011 Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society ISSN 1035-6576

Editor

Linden Ashcroft School of Earth Sciences The University of Melbourne VIC 3010 Phone: 03-8344 7672 Fax: 03-8344 7761 Email: l.ashcroft@student.unimelb.edu.au

Editor-in-chief

Stewart Allen Email: Stewart.Allen@bom.gov.au

Assistant Editors Diana Greenslade Blair Trewin Andrew Watkins

Regional Sub-editors Michael Hewson (Brisbane) Caecilia Ewenz (Adelaide) Damien Irving (Melbourne) Sandra Schuster (NSW) Clem Davis (ACT)

Contributors Blair Trewin Gary Brassington Paul Sandery Andy Taylor

Advertising Manager Please contact the Admin. Officer.

Publisher

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 18 November 2011. 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 Website: www.amos.org.au