Chris Turney's Blog, page 3

The First Marine Park in the Antarctic

Around one-third of the world's Adélie penguins live in what will become Antarctica's largest Marine Protected Area (credit: A. Turney/Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014)It’s taken more than five years of bruising negotiations but on Friday the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources made the wonderful announcement that the Ross Sea will become the first ever Marine Protected Area in the south. In Hobart the European Union and 24 nations hammered out a deal that more than one million square kilometres – the largest remaining pristine marine ecosystem left on the planet – will be protected for at least 35 years, a first in international waters. The practical upshot is fishing will be banned in a region equivalent in size to the combined areas of France and Spain where one-third of the world's Adélie penguins, one third of all Antarctic petrels, and over half of all South Pacific Weddell seals live. This new marine park will create a vast natural laboratory for studying Antarctic life and the impacts of climate change. Perversely, a major stumbling block was Russian concerns over access for its fleet to catch the highly valued Antarctic toothfish. This new deal will direct the Russian ships to other areas where they will catch fewer immature toothfish, protecting future stocks and reducing competition with orcas (more popularly known as ‘killer whales’).

This is a massive first step in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s call for 30% of the world’s oceans to be protected and is the first of several proposed marine protected areas off the Antarctic continent. A fantastic achievement that show’s how Antarctica can bring the world together. A huge congratulations to all!

If you would like to learn more there is an excellent article on The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...




Understanding what happened when at the end of the last ice age

We're very excited. We have a new research paper out using swamp kauri called 'Decadally resolved Lateglacial radiocarbon evidence from New Zealand kauri'. Using ancient trees buried in bogs in Northland, we've been able to stitch together a decade-by-decade record of atmospheric radioactive carbon levels during the end of the last ice age. The result is we have tied together tree-ring records from Europe and New Zealand to significantly improve the radiocarbon timescale, allowing archaeologists and Earth scientists to better understand what happened when over the past 14,200 years. It's taken more than ten years of research but it feels like we've made a big step forward!


Swamp kauri over 10,000 years old
If you'd like to learn more, the research paper is published in the Cambridge University Press journal Radiocarbon at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/decadally-resolved-lateglacial-radiocarbon-evidence-from-new-zealand-kauri/3EC4FD0DD8A0B70E7B9D9CB778790699

Rapid Warming and Humans Drove the Ice Age Extinction of Patagonia's Megafauna

At the end of the last ice age (11,000 to 18,000 years ago), the world suddenly lost some of the most remarkable creatures that ever roamed our planet. Patagonia in southern South America was particularly rich in creatures that could only be labelled bizarre today: elephant-sized sloths, giant jaguar, powerful sabre-toothed cats and an enormous one-tonne short-faced bear (the largest ever land-based mammalian carnivore). What caused their demise is  one of the big geological whodunnits. 

Last year you may remember we had a research paper published in Science that looked at megafaunal extinction in North America and Eurasia. Whilst warming looked like it was a driver of the extinctions in the Northern Hemisphere, there was a tantalising hint that humans had also played a role. But disentangling the effects of both was challenging.  To test their roles we have extended our work to Patagonia and the results are now published in the The American Association for the Advancement of Science journal  Science Advances. The article is called Synergistic roles of climate warming and human occupation in Patagonian megafaunal extinctions during the Last Deglaciation and can be downloaded for free. 

The Americas are the only place in the world where we have a north-south transact along which humans migrated very quickly. The important difference is at the extreme ends of both continents during the end of the last ice age, the climate was wildly different. As the planet warmed up, the climate veered violently from one extreme to the other, often at different times and places. When it was warm in the north, it was often cold in the south, and vice versa (something loosely described as the 'bipolar seesaw').

Photo of an ancient guanaco jaw excavated from Cueva del Mylodon (or Mylodon Cave), Patagonia, which was used for ancient DNA analysis. Photo by Alan Cooper/Malmö Museum.

In this study headed up and led by Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD) Alan Cooper and Jessica Metcalf (with an awesome international team), we've undertaken the most intensive carbon dating and DNA analysis of ancient Patagonian bones yet undertaken. The results are a revelation. We've been able to identify new species that became extinct and confidently line them all up against the archaeological evidence and climate records. As a result we can finally disentangle the role of humans and climate in extinction. The headline is both seem to play a role...together. When climate first warmed at the end of the last ice age in Patagonia the megafauna suffered no extinction. Humans arrived during a later 2000-year long period of cooling known as the Antarctic Cold Reversal (or ACR for short) and there was still no extinction. But when the ACR ended and warming resumed, the mix of climate and humans was a perfect storm that led to widespread mass extinction. We're really excited. It finally feels we're getting a handle on what actually happened thousand of years ago and in the process hopefully a step closer to better managing the impact of current and future warming.

CSIRO cuts: as redundancies are announced, the real cost is revealed

CSIRO cuts: as redundancies are announced, the real cost is revealed Chris Turney, UNSW Australia

The unfortunate manner in which the latest phase of restructuring of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has played out has raised questions about Australia’s scientific capability and our ability to meet international responsibilities.

Faced with a budget cut of A$115 million, some 275 staff have apparently been identified for redundancy (though the final number may be as high as 317). Many of them are scientists contributing to long-term sea, air and climate science programs. The restructure is geared towards focusing CSIRO’s attention on the question, as framed by chief executive Larry Marshall, of “how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?”

The problem is that the programs at threat form the backbone of national and international research efforts. Virtually all of them are critical for helping us mitigate and adapt to future climate.

In 1979, the great scientist Carl Sagan wrote:

We live in an extraordinary age. These are times of stunning changes in social organisation, economic wellbeing, moral and ethical precepts, philosophical and religious perspectives, and human self-knowledge … Had we been born fifty years later, the answers would, I think, already have been in.

Australian scientists do indeed live in extraordinary times, but not necessarily for the best of the reasons. We may be living through a remarkable period of discovery, but recent events are a timely reminder that we must all work harder to manage the precious resources available to science if we’re not to threaten decades of investment and hard work.

Global response

The cuts have been met with very public protests, including those by former US vice-president Al Gore and the World Climate Research Program.

The most public of all staff to be earmarked (so far) for redundancy is Dr John Church. He is arguably the world’s leading expert on global sea level rise, a role that is more important than ever for adapting to the effects of climate change. It’s a decision so extraordinary it was even reported in The New York Times.

The facilities at risk from CSIRO cuts are used by research teams around the world.

The threat to close the “Ice Lab” involves a facility unique in the world for analysing ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, helping understand future climate-carbon feedbacks.

The Tasmanian Cape Grim atmospheric station is crucial for monitoring greenhouse gas levels in the southern hemisphere. Only last week it confirmed CO₂ concentrations now exceed 400 parts per million, likely the last location on the planet to do so.

And just last month, CSIRO staff (of which Dr Church was a senior author) led a Nature Climate Change article showing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have dominated global sea level rise since 1970. This is crucial work for understanding the source(s) of sea level rise. Such work can inform major infrastructure projects such as Brisbane Airport’s new runway, which is being constructed four metres above minimum required standards to accommodate future coastal flooding.

A wider problem

The funding gap CSIRO faces is a story common to many in the scientific community. Some sectors in the 2016 budget continue to enjoy some funding increases, such as the A$200 million for Antarctic science and A$100 million for Geoscience Australia.

But others have experienced cuts, most notably the Australian Research Council. The ARC has received a further 10% cut on the back of a succession of cuts over recent years.

Putting aside the effect on staff morale and the observation that government science spending has a strong multiplier effect on economic growth, the shortfall of funding in some quarters has immediate implications for how we best co-ordinate our efforts as a community.

Targeted, industry-focused projects are an essential part of a thriving scientific culture in Australia. But the threatened erosion of public science and the loss of capacity in areas of expertise CSIRO has taken decades to build represent a loss to all.

While the recent focus has been on climate science, there are salutary lessons from events of recent months if we are to minimise the impact on this research field and others in the future.

Where to from here?

Like any sector, science needs stability. The cuts have to stop and ideally reverse. If we keep trimming budgets, there will come a point where whatever capacity we have will only be a token effort.

The recent announcement that a CSIRO climate change centre will be established with 40 staff in Hobart is most welcome, but details are sketchy. A major concern regarding all these decisions are how these cuts and developments align with the efforts of the rest of the community.

Reports that the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Antarctic Division learnt of the proposed cuts in capacity only after the decisions had been made are remarkable if true.

If a realignment of priorities in an institution is to take place, we need to make sure that these decisions are made with wider consultation and as much lead-in time as possible so the scientific community can make the best of a bad situation.

Recently, the Australian Academy of Science announced a welcome, urgent review of national climate science capability. (If you’re part of the community, submissions must be made by June 5, so hurry.)

Announcing cuts that have implications for others without discussion doesn’t help science, it only stifles findings. I hope the CSIRO climate change science centre has been developed in consultation with others and the 40 staff identified are the number truly required.

We need to make sure everyone is talking to one another. Only last week, the CSIRO released its Australia 2030 report, modelling various scenarios for Australia’s future. One scenario is called “weathering the storm”, in which geopolitical instability increases, driven by climate change and regional conflicts.

Faced with this situation, CSIRO suggests that “the energy market relies on tried and tested energy sources such as coal rather than further developing the potential of renewables”.

To suggest under future climate change we should continue to exploit fossil fuels is a remarkable statement from a national scientific body.

We may be half-way to the great leaps in knowledge Sagan prophetically described by 2030, but our understanding of the planet and how we mitigate and adapt to change has to be better co-ordinated as a community. We need to do a lot better.

Chris Turney, Professor of Earth Sciences and Climate Change, UNSW Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Scientists need to engage more with the public to secure funding

Scientists need to engage more with the public to secure funding Chris Turney, UNSW Australia and Christopher Fogwill, UNSW Australia

We live in an age when society is crying out for scientific solutions to global problems. Just a few of the many considerable challenges we face include the urgent need to transition to a carbon-free economy, the need for new drugs to combat disease and improved agricultural yields to meet the needs of a growing world population.

But in parallel to this increasing demand for science we face worrying trends in Australia and across the wider Western world. From high schools to universities, there is a long-term decline in students in the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

Meanwhile, government funding in many Western countries is also falling, with Australia continuing to reduce the total science budget.

Repeated studies demonstrate public science investment has a strong multiplier effect on the economy, with estimates suggesting a minimum 10:1 return.

With governments fixated on economic growth, the cutting of science funding seems particularly perverse. Science needs to flourish if it will continue to innovate for future generations.

Looking back to go forward

So what to do? Ultimately, science has a communication problem. We need to redouble our efforts engaging with the wider community to help it understand why science matters.

We don’t just need more scientists in society, we need people to better understand how science works. Making observations, testing ideas and reaching the simplest explanation can be applied to all walks of life but is woefully applied in public debate.

Before the Second World War, governments were not the big spenders they are today. In the history of intellectual endeavour, it’s only the last few generations who have taken state-funded support as the norm.

Business and private benefactors were previously far larger supporters. And in the Edwardian era, this created a golden era of science communication for many fields of endeavour.

For instance, Antarctic expeditions electrified the public, putting science and adventure on the front pages of newspapers. Exploration off the edge of the map was the Edwardian equivalent of space travel and the public could get involved. If you wanted to head south and learn more about Antarctica, you had to raise the funds by engaging the public.

They had to be excited by the endeavour. The result was a public frenzy to learn more about Antarctica. Fast-forward today, and the scientific questions have changed, but the spirit of enquiry remains.

As Earth scientists, we explored the Edwardian funding model to support a unique concept: to take an interdisciplinary research team to a region of rapid and unprecedented environmental change, with the aim of engaging the public in scientific endeavour.

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 was supported by a unique combination of government, private and commercial funding to raise the necessary A$1.5 million.

Through engagement with Google, sponsorship and selling berths to interested members of the public (who signed up to be citizen scientists embedded in the science program), the expedition sought to explore changes in remote parts of the Southern Ocean including the rarely visited New Zealand subantarctic islands, and south to the site of Sir Douglas Mawson’s 1912-1914 Antarctic base on Commonwealth Bay.

The authors standing by Mawsons hut in Antarctica, partially funded by private citizens and businesses. Chris Turney, Author provided Intrepid science pays off

The two-month expedition is delivering a rich scientific trawl. We measured the amount of mixing across the Southern Ocean and discovered significant changes in circulation; we investigated the role of Southern Ocean carbon in past global change; and we documented the devastating impact of more extensive sea ice in Commonwealth Bay on marine benthic communities and local penguin populations.

We’re on target to produce more than 20 research papers as a result. Critically, the expedition saw extensive public engagement through social media under the banner of Intrepid Science, using state-of-the-art satellite technology throughout the expedition, reporting our findings when they happened.

With a significant following on social media we received more than 60,000 views of the expedition website, highlighting both the excitement and difficulties of working at the “ends of the Earth”, and shining a light on Antarctic research rarely seen since the times of Mawson.

Frustratingly, we were caught by sea ice on the way home, but the expedition shows how even relatively modest amounts of money can help make major discoveries.

Recent research has found that scientific impact is only weakly limited by funding and that the return on investment decreases with monetary value. If so, public funding of small science may deliver major findings in the future.

As scientists we just need to engage. And perhaps a modern twist on Edwardian funding could be part of the solution.

Chris Turney, Professor of Earth Sciences and Climate Change, UNSW Australia and Christopher Fogwill, ARC Future Fellow in Glaciology and Palaeoclimate, UNSW Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.