EMBARGO LIFTED at 00.01am AEDT Tue 29 November

A new report details the importance of the Southern Ocean for Australia. Scientists are realising just how much protection the ocean offers us by acting as a sink that absorbs huge amounts of heat and carbon dioxide, slowing down the rate of climate change. Australian researchers are investigating how this protection may be lost due to the impacts of climate change and what that may mean for the future. Climate models suggest that changes in the Southern Ocean could lead to increased melting of sea ice and ice sheets, a less salty ocean and a more rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing the globe to warm even faster. The report summarises over 40 peer-reviewed publications as the authors give the first definitive statement on the state of the Southern Ocean.

The Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) has released the first position analysis on climate change and the Southern Ocean. The report reviews papers published mainly since the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

Listen in to the briefing to hear from two of the report’s authors who are both IPCC coordinating lead authors and to ask questions such as:

• How much more heat and CO₂ can the Southern Ocean take?
• How much CO₂ does the Southern Ocean store compared with the other oceans of the world?
• What happens when the sink fills up?
• What impact will melting of ice sheets have on sea level?
• Why are less salty waters a big problem?
• What action does Australia need to take?

To follow a full recording (audio and visual) of the briefing, click here.  If you have problems with the link, the audio only is available here

SPEAKERS: (Bio notes available here)

• Dr Steve Rintoul, Leader of the Oceans Program at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC and Research Team Leader at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
• Prof Nathan Bindoff, Professor of Physical Oceanography at CSIRO and the University of Tasmania and Project Leader within the Oceans Program at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE:  Monday 28 November
START TIME: 10am AEDT
DURATION: 40 min
VENUE:  Online

To interview presenters, please contact Miranda Harman on 03 6226 2265 or by email

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email us.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

The New Zealand SMC has set up a Rena Oil Spill resource page which will be updated throughout the next few days as expert information comes to hand.

———–

Impact of the oil spill:

Dr Norm Duke, Professorial Research Fellow, Mangrove Hub, James Cook University comments:

“There needs to be great care taken in mitigating the impacts of large oils on coastal ecosystems – and in selecting the chemicals and methods applied.

“Petroleum oil will naturally break down – but this takes time and oxygenation. So, the longer the oil remains floating at sea – the safer it becomes. And, the rougher the weather – the better also.

“My results in Australia and in Panama with studies of major oil spills – and experimental studies – clearly show that oil can persist in tidal sediments for 20-30 years. And, the effect of this persistence is longer term impacts on biota growth – and its genetic makeup. For the latter, we know for instance, that there are mangrove plants can have increased genetic mutations with increased levels of oil in sediments.”

———–

Dr. Barbara Bollard-Breen, senior lecturer in marine conservation biology at AUT University’s School of Applied Science comments:

“This morning Maritime New Zealand indicated that up to 350 tonnes of oil have spilled from the Rena and more is expected over the next several hours.”

“While the oil spill from the Rena has placed the marine and coastal regions in the Bay of Plenty at great risk, all of New Zealand’s coastal areas are vulnerable to this sort of disaster.”

“It highlights the urgent need to develop rapid response protocols for ship groundings and oil spills and mechanisms to prevent this from occurring again. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to marine ecosystem management in New Zealand.

“This has turned into an environmental disaster with widespread implications.  It has the potential to not only affect some of our most pristine coastal areas in the Bay of Plenty region, but also estuaries and already threatened marine habitats, sea birds, shellfish, marine mammals and other marine life.It will also impact upon commercial, amateur and customary fishing, tourism, surfing and other recreational activities in the area.”

———–
Legal jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act:

Joanna Mossop, Senior Lecturer and maritime law expert, School of Law, Victoria University comments:

“My understanding is that [Rena] is within the territorial sea because it is less than 4 nautical miles from Motiti Island which generates its own territorial sea of 12 nautical miles.

“The RMA provisions in respect of pollution offences applie up to 12nm.  Beyond that, the Maritime Transport Act contains offences in relation to pollution. As far as I can tell, section 65 is not limited to beyond the territorial sea because the MTA is the primary source of regulation of shipping and maritime activities.”

———–

Dr Simon Boxall, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, comments:

“The main concern now is securing the containers on the ship.  A couple of years ago the container ship Napoli ran aground off Devon and Dorset in England and lost a significant number of containers.  These are potentially more worrying now than the fuel oil leaking from the ship.  Once they break away from the ship they present a hazard to shipping – often floating just below the surface and difficult to see and track until they finally fill with water and sink.

“Containers can remain afloat for weeks at a time. There should also be concern as to the contents of the containers. This could range from household good to chemicals and in the case of Napoli there were several tonnes of herbicides amongst other materials. The emergency will remain until the vessel is finally towed to safe haven.”

On the growing oil spill:

“The volumes of oil have evidently increased over the past two days but even at 350 tonnes, when this is 12km offshore the damage will be short term. The focus should be on securing the ship and its cargo and dealing with oil as and when it reaches shore.  There will be blobs of material (emulsified oil we often call mousse) on the beach which will require mechanical collection by hand.”

On use of dispersant Corexit 9500:

“Scientists will argue over the use of dispersants, for and against, but given the one used in this case the discussion is rather academic. [That is because Corexit 9500] is one of the less toxic dispersants and the volume used so far (under two tonnes) should not cause undue concern.”

———–

On the weather:

Winds now pushing oil onto the Bay of Plenty coast could turn offshore on Thursday, forecasters say.

State science company NIWA is providing Auckland City Council’s emergency management staff with weather and sea state (currents and waves) forecasts from its EcoConnect forecasting system relevant to the salvage and clean-up operation for the grounded container ship Rena.

NIWA Principal Scientist Dr Mike Revell said:

“Our forecasting system EcoConnect indicates that winds over the Tauranga harbour entrance region should peak from the north -north-east at about 35 kmh gusting up to 50 kmh during the early hours of Wednesday morning gradually easing and turning more easterly during the day – onshore winds for Tuesday and Wednesday  with frequent periods of rain. On Thursday and continuing into Friday winds are expected to turn to the westerly quarter – offshore – and reduce to 20 km/h gusting to 30 km/h with the rain clearing”.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) marine ecologist Dr Drew Lohrer comments:

“There are naturally occurring micro-organisms that break down hydrocarbons. However, oil will arrive at the coast much more quickly than the bacteria can break it down. In areas where the oil arrives in thick slicks or clumps, it may take years or decades for it to disappear naturally. This is why it is imperative to clean up as much of the spill as possible”.

“I don’t have any information on how rates of degradation will differ in different types of habitats. However, rates of breakdown were expected to be much faster in the Gulf of Mexico (Deepwater Horizon spill) than in the Gulf of Alaska (Exxon Valdez spill) due to the much warmer water and air temperatures. The Gulf of Mexico may have higher populations of hydrocarbon consuming bacteria due to numerous natural hot and cold hydrocarbon “seeps” present on the seafloor”.

“A significant slick of black oil has the potential to damage wildlife and the functioning of the ecological systems in coastal systems including sandy and muddy intertidal flats. It can smother the small creatures living on and in the sediments, and the oil’s toxicity can cause longer term problems for the animals that do not immediately succumb. Estuarine tidal flats and wetlands are ecologically important areas that contain an interconnected web of invertebrate, fish and birdlife”.

“(Spraying of) dispersants may help the birds and larger fauna by breaking up the larger thicker slicks and globules. However, the effects of more diffuse and widespread toxicity are unknown. There could be negative effects on organisms including the invertebrates and plants that live in coastal and estuarine areas”.

———–

University of Southampton lecturer in oceanography Dr Simon Boxall, who has experience of the Erika oil spil on France’s Brittany coast in 1999, and the MV Braer oil spill in the Shetland Islands in 1993, comments:

“There is nothing positive about an oil spill, they shouldn’t happen. A ship going aground and spilling its fuel oil is inexcusable. So far it is a relatively small volume. The stormy weather is both a pro and a con.  The bad news is that it hampers the clean up and access to the stricken vessel.  The good news is that it helps the oil disperse naturally. A good example of this was the Braer spill off the Shetlands … very large volumes dispersed very quickly by heavy storms. Tides and currents will also help.

“Microbe activity will act quickly and break the oil that is naturally dispersed in about 4-6 weeks given current temperatures and increasing daylight.  Add to that a team of beach clean-up personnel and the impact of the (estimated) 30 tonnes will be minimal. There will be some distressing sights of some sea birds killed and of oil on beaches but it will be short-term.

“Some experts disagree on the dispersants. Dispersants do have a role to play but only in a few cases (but) there is a tendency to use them regardless.

“Contrary to what is coming out, they are more harmful than the oil itself and they are NOT less toxic than dishwashing liquid!  Fairy dishwashing liquid doesn’t carry hazchem advice and you don’t wear protective clothing and masks to do the washing up. In their raw form some dispersants can be very toxic and I believe will do more harm than good.  Most of the Corexit dispersants were banned from use by the UK Government in 1998 for rocky shore areas and can only be used offshore after consultation with govt., and if no alternatives are available. Sweden has a blanket ban on all dispersants in the marine environment. In this case – with limited knowledge of the region – I’d advise caution on use of dispersants.

“Nature did a lovely job of Braer and very little human intervention took place (no dispersants).  The Erika involved substantial mechanical beach clean up but we did a study 5 months after the spill and levels of hydrocarbons on the beaches of France that had been impacted were below background levels (and in fact were better than one or two control beaches). The Rena spill needs containment as first priority, booming where possible to contain the marine based oil. Beach clean-up will be important and the oil breaks down more slowly on the beach than at sea.  At sea, nature will disperse and break the oil down very quickly, without use of chemicals.

———–

CSIRO research scientist Professor Nic Bax, who leads the Biodiversity Hub at the University of Tasmania,  comments:

“Responding to oil spills is a very complex, high pressure situation requiring decisions to be made based on whatever data are available at the time. One of the difficulties in assessing the environmental impacts of oil spills is the lack of environmental baselines against which to measure the changes. Hydrocarbons impact the environment and plants and animals through several different pathways – physically through smothering or the external oiling of birds and marine mammals, and chemically through the toxicity of the compounds entering the animal itself causing different levels of short and long-term poisoning. The most visible impact of oil spill is through smothering and this is often the one that gets most attention. The chemical impacts are harder to quantify being less visible, although tainting in commercial species (or the perception of tainting) can have immediate commercial impacts”.

“While the impacts of oil spills are visually alarming with high local impact, far more oil enters the global oceans through other mechanisms. Local environmental impacts of oil spills will continue after the obvious tarry oil has been removed or dispersed. This is at least in part because some oil seems to usually remain hidden at depth in the sediments. The time this oil remains depends on the environment, with cold, low energy environments being the slowest to recover”.

“Dispersants when applied on reasonably fresh oil can disperse the oil though the water column. Dispersants do not change the amount of oil but they redistribute it. They can be used to alter the parts of the environment that are affected from surface creatures and sensitive shorelines to the water column and bottom creatures. Where they are used in deep water and high energy environments they also serve to spread the oil over a wider area (or volume),  diluting it and reducing its immediate impact. Dispersants used to be quite toxic but now are considered to be much less toxic than the oil itself, so the main environmental decision regarding their use is determining where the oil will have least harm i.e. concentrated at the surface and on sensitive shorelines, or dispersed through the water column. There does not seem to be much evidence to indicate that dispersing oil leads to greater uptake by organisms, although this would be very hard to measure”.

“It seems that oil will eventually be broken down by natural processes including microbial activity. Microbial activity may be especially important after oil has entered habitats such as sub-surface sediments where physical weathering can no longer occur. It seems to be a long-term process as oil has been detected in sediments a decade after oil spills have occurred. The more volatile components of the oil are typically considered to be the most toxic, but they are also the components that will boil off or evaporate most rapidly. Typically heavier crudes hang around longer are harder to disperse and have a greater visual and aesthetic impact. Evaporation of the oil will be increased in warmer temperatures thus reducing impacts. Dispersion in the water column will be increased in high energy environments (such as high wave action) which will dilute the oil … reducing its local impact”.

“In low energy environments, such as there is little opportunity for physical processes to operate. Areas of high tidal energy will again serve to spread and dilute the oil, but may make it harder to prevent the oil reaching sensitive areas. Spilt oil that remains at the surface will gradually be dispersed by natural physical processes at least in high energy environments. Oil that reaches low energy environments or gets buried in sediments may persist for several years”.

———–

Use of oil dispersants and the ability of marine microbes to break down oil pollutants:

Professor Ravi Naidu, Managing director of the Co-operative Research Centre For Contamination Assessment And Remediation Of The Environment, in South Australia, comments:

“This spill could impact on the sensitive aquatic environment and life cycle of the marine ecosystem. The oil will not disappear quickly… it will be in the aquatic environment for a while. There are volatile hydrocarbons in the oil which will disperse but the oil which is not removed will continue to have an effect. There will be some natural remediation by microbes in the coastal environment, but it may be found that these are not as active as they are in warmer tropical waters. Oil which is bound to organic matter in the sediments may be the easiest to break down — the wave action will be an advantage.”

Marine ecologist Associate Professor Mark Costello, at Auckland University’s Leigh Marine Laboratory, comments:

“[Effectiveness of the microbes] seems to depend on what type of oil it is, and what type of environment it is, as the physical environment breaks it into smaller pieces. Dispersants, like a lot of detergents, will kill animals and plants as well. Some of the new ones may be safer, but I don’t know how safe they are.

“You do get natural oil and gas leaks in various parts of the world. The marine microbes which break down oil slicks seem to be pretty cosmopolitan and they break down lumps of oil in other places.

“I know people have sprayed nutrients such as nitrogen on beaches to try and speed up the growth of bacteria that would help degrade the oil — but as far as I know this has been experimental and it’s not yet clear whether it has any effect in degrading the oil faster. The nutrients could have their own knock-on effect”.

———–

More on oil dispersants:

Last month, a project based out of the University of Houston in Texas was launched to research new types of oil dispersants that would be friendlier to the environment and appropriate for use in deep sea oil releases – such as that experience in the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ramanan Krishnamoorti, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Houston is leading the research. He said:

“Safety has been a big issue in dispersant technology. We already know they can be highly toxic, so the challenge is to make them less so. We hope to make safer and more efficient dispersants.

“My efforts will be focused on coming up with novel, particle-based and biological dispersants,” Krishnamoorti said. “I’ll be working on developing dispersants that we can use less of and are more biocompatible with the water, plant life and wildlife.”

———–

Rena oil spill Resources:

- Latest updates from Maritime New Zealand

- Real time satellite location data for the Rena and nearby ships

- Bay of Plenty Regional Council information on the Astrolabe Reef

- Cawthron Institute guidelines for Maritime NZ on oil dispersants

- Northland Regional Council backgrounder on oil pollution
- Backgrounder on past oil spills in Australia

———–

International research

- Community Attachment and Negative Affective States in the Context of the BP Deepwater Horizon   Disaster (log into the SMC Resource Library for the full paper)

- Acute health effects of the Tasman Spirit oil spill on residents of Karachi, Pakistan

- FAQ on microbes and oil spills With fist-sized “patties” of clumping fuel oil washing up on New Zealand’s Mt Maunganui beach and tonnes more expected to land on Bay of Plenty beaches further south, authorities say they face difficulties dealing with the estimated 50 tonnes of oil already in the water.

———–

Ocean acidification (where the water becomes more acidic) is often called ‘the evil twin of climate change’ and is considered by many to be as great a problem as increasing temperatures. The oceans not only support the nutrition and livelihoods of millions of people but also play an incredibly important role in locking down carbon, and scientists are concerned about the impact that acidification may have on both marine life and future climate change.

Here four expert speakers will be on hand to discuss the current state of knowledge, release a new report card on the Southern Ocean and discuss the impact on coral reefs and what can be done to stop it.

The experts are all presenting at, or are associated with, Greenhouse 2011, the science of Climate Change conference in Cairns, 4-8 April 2011. Journalists attending the conference may attend the briefing in person.

Listen in to the briefing to ask questions such as:

• How big an issue is ocean acidification and what can be done to stop it?
• What is the Southern ocean report card and why does it matter?
• Is ocean acidification the biggest threat to the Great Barrier reef or should we be more worried about something else?
• Are there any areas or animals that will actually benefit from ocean acidification?

Watch the full presentation here (Webex)

SPEAKERS:

• Dr Tony Press, Chief Executive Officer position at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) | Listen (mp3)
• Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor of Marine Studies and Executive Director of the Global Change Institute, at the University of Queensland | Listen (mp3)
  
• Dr Paul Marshall, Director of Climate Change Group, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) | Listen (mp3)
  
• Dr Donna Roberts, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (by phone from Tasmania) | Abstract (pdf) | Listen (mp3)
• Listen to the Q and A session here (mp3)
  

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE:  Tue 5 April 2011
START TIME: 10.30am AEST
DURATION: 40 min
VENUE:  Online (presenters are at the Greenhouse 2011 Conference in Cairns)

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email.

ONLINE BACKGROUND BRIEFING – Tuesday 14 December at 9.30am AEDT online

The scientific research vessel JOIDES Resolution will today dock in Auckland Harbour, carrying with it a cargo of deep sea sediment cores that could answer big questions about the limits to life on Earth and the possibility of life on other planets. Collected from an area often dubbed ‘the desert of the oceans’ because of the harsh and remote conditions, it is hoped the samples will contain new species of ‘extremophiles’ – tiny life forms that can live and thrive in extreme environments. The cores, which have been drilled from up to 130 metres below the seafloor in water up to 5.5 kilometres deep, come from an area between New Zealand and the South American Coast known as the South Pacific Gyre and have been collected as part of the $A217 million a year Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP).

Scientists believe the harsh environment of this region may have driven the evolution of unique life forms and previous research by expedition leader Professor Steven D’Hondt suggests that organisms in this region may even live on hydrogen generated by natural radioactivity. The Australian efforts in the expedition have centred on understanding whether microbes might live on seafloor volcanic rocks, areas without sunlight or organic matter.

The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program is the world’s biggest international earth sciences research program and Australia contributes almost $2.2 million annually to the project.

Follow the full presentation by clicking here

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE:  Tuesday 14 December
START TIME: 9.30am AEDT
DURATION: 35 min
VENUE:  Online

SPEAKERS:

• Professor Steven D’Hondt, University of Rhode Island (USA), expedition co-chief scientist. Steven will join us live from Auckland. Listen (mp3)
  
• Dr John Moreau, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne. John is one of the shore based scientists working on the project. Listen (mp3)
• Listen to the Q and A session here (mp3)
  

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email.

Expert reaction from the Science Media Centre (UK) to Nature paper on sea surface temperature*

EMBARGO lifted 6pm UK Time Wednesday 22 September 2010

——-

Prof Gabi Hegerl, Professor of Climate System Science at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“This research draws attention to the interesting variability in the North Atlantic. The findings show that climate variability can cause quite rapid changes, and that the ocean may be involved.

“In my opinion, this research does not question our current interpretation of the overall causes of 20th century warming – the assessment that greenhouse gas forcing contributed likely more than half of the warming since 1950 accounts for climate variability such as seen here.

“Therefore, estimates of aerosol forcing from the changes observed also account for the variability in climate, enhancing or mimicking part of the pattern expected from aerosols.

“The event described in the paper has a really interesting parallel to warming seen in the early 20th century. Then, as in the event discussed in the paper, we probably had North Atlantic SST changes and a contribution from external drivers.  Both are important in explaining the findings.”

——-

Prof Mark Maslin, Director of the Environment Institute at University College London, said:

“David Thompson and colleagues have published an important paper which adds to our understanding of global warming but provides a stark warning.  They confirm yet again the long term warming trend over the last 100 years, which we know is due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“What they have done is added a deeper understanding of the brief cooling phase that occurred in the early 1970s.  Most of the cooling observed in the global temperature records, it seems, is driven by a drop in ocean temperatures.  Though all the oceans seem to have cooled it is most pronounced in the North Atlantic Ocean.  So this early 1970s cooling, instead of being due to increased sulphate aerosols or decadal cycles in ocean circulation, was probably caused by the rapid freshening of the North Atlantic during the so called ‘great salinity anomaly’.

“This paper is important in that it shows how sensitive the climate of the Northern hemisphere is to the salinity balance in the North Atlantic ocean, providing a stark warning of what may happen in the future with larger releases of freshwater into the North Atlantic.  Thompson and colleagues also show that these events may briefly interrupt the century-long warming trend; but they have had no long term effect on the continued rise in global temperatures.”

——-

Prof Andrew Watkinson, Director of the Living With Environmental Change programme, said:

“Whilst the human fingerprint on climate warming over the 20th century is clear, there is still much to learn about reasons for global and regional variations in temperature.  The reasons for short term changes on the scale of less than a decade are, in particular, often difficult to attribute to specific causes.

“Here we see new methodologies being used to show that mid-century differences in temperature change between the northern and southern hemispheres are due to a discrete cooling event in the northern oceans.   This highlights the importance of understanding short-term, regional fluctuations in sea-surface temperature, as ocean/atmosphere interactions may drive rapid change.”

——-

* An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970, Nature 467:7314, September 23 2010