Lack of climate policy threatens to trip up Australian diplomacy this summit season



File 20180907 190656 1qu49hy.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Australia’s climate stance risks its standing on the world stage.
Shutterstock.com

Christian Downie, Australian National University

Australia has navigated a somewhat stormy passage through the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru. Scott Morrison’s new-look government faced renewed accusations at the summit about the strength of Australia’s resolve on climate policy.

Australia is neither a small nation nor one of the most powerful, but for many years it has been a trusted nation. Historically, Australia has been seen as a good international citizen, a country that stands by its international commitments and works with others to improve the international system, not undermine it.

But in recent years climate change has threatened this reputation. This is
especially so among our allies and neighbours in the Pacific region, who attended this week’s Nauru summit.




Read more:
For Pacific Island nations, rising sea levels are a bigger security concern than rising Chinese influence


With Australia’s new foreign minister, Marise Payne, attending instead of
the prime minister – not a good look, albeit understandable in the circumstances –
the government came under yet more international pressure to state plainly its commitment to the Paris climate agreement.

Pacific nations may be divided on many issues, but climate change is rarely one of them.

Before the meeting, Pacific leaders urged Australia to sign a pledge of support for the agreement and to declare climate change “the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing” of the region.

Australia ultimately signed the pledge, but also reportedly resisted a push for the summit’s communique to include stronger calls for the world to pursue the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5℃.




Read more:
Pacific pariah: how Australia’s love of coal has left it out in the diplomatic cold


The government now has a chance to catch its breath before international summit season begins in earnest in November with the East Asia Summit in Singapore, followed quickly by APEC in Papua New Guinea and then the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on November 30 and December 1, not to mention the next round of UN climate negotiations in Poland in December.

The G20 is arguably the most important summit, bringing together the leaders of the 20 most powerful nations in the world. It is a forum at which Australia’s
position on the climate issue has already suffered significant diplomatic damage under the Coalition government.

When Australia hosted the G20 Brisbane talks in 2014, the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, worked to keep climate change off the formal agenda. Stiff opposition from several of Australia’s allies forced him to back down.

Other nations will be wary of Australia’s stance at the G20 this time around,
especially following the leadership turmoil in Canberra.

Indeed, with climate policy continuing to divide the Coalition, there is a
significant risk that further missteps on climate change will undermine Australia’s international standing.

A better option

It doesn’t have to be this way. Australia could easily meet its Paris target of cutting emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030 with a national climate and energy strategy. But right now Australia is without one, and with Malcolm Turnbull’s passing as prime minister and the demise of the National Energy Guarantee, it looks unlikely to have a strategy in place by the time the G20 rolls around in November.

Australia’s overall greenhouse emissions have been rising for several years now, and many independent projections have Australia overshooting what is in reality a modest target.

But, rather than rectifying the situation, Morrison and his new cabinet have yet to make it completely clear whether Australia will stand by the Paris Agreement at all.

Even if the scenario of a US-style pullout is avoided, Morrison will face mounting pressure from the vocal band of conservatives in his party room not to commit to anything on climate change, be it symbolic or tangible.




Read more:
The too hard basket: a short history of Australia’s aborted climate policies


What the government chooses to do next could have reputational repercussions for years to come.

Australia may not have the might of other nations, but what it has had at times is a reputation as a constructive international partner. This needs to be restored if Australian diplomats are to successfully navigate a disruptive international landscape.

Climate policy is clearly a threat to our domestic politics and to the job security of Australian prime ministers. With further missteps it could upend our diplomacy as well. Summit season will go a long way towards determining how much of a threat it really is.The Conversation

Christian Downie, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

What Australian states can learn from Trump dismantling climate change policy



File 20180821 30590 1yz2gr2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
President Trump is challenging the US states’ right to set their own emissions targets.
Photo by John-Mark Smith on Unsplash

Sarah Graham, University of Sydney

The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement was greeted with dismay around the world. Less well known, but probably just as damaging to emissions reductions, was freezing standards for carbon dioxide emissions from cars in July.




Read more:
Why Trump’s decision to leave Paris accord hurts the US and the world


The erosion of US federal climate policy has made action from individual states far more important. As Australia grapples with yet another failure to implement a national emissions policy, what can we learn from America?

And is it time for Australian states to reach out directly to like-minded states in other parts of the world to tackle global climate issues?




Read more:
Malcolm Turnbull shelves emissions reduction target as leadership speculation mounts


Strong state action

From the outside, the US often looks like a bastion of climate change denial and very large cars, but a group of US states has nevertheless made some of the most dramatic progress in curbing emissions of any jurisdictions in the world.

Consider New Jersey. In 1998, while the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated (and ultimately rejected by George W. Bush), Governor Christine Whitman ordered that the state pursue an emissions target of 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2005.

Since then, New Jersey has consistently adopted emissions reduction targets in line with global agreements, effectively bypassing the weaker standards at the federal level. Several other, mostly Democrat, states across the nation took similar action during the Bush administration, placing caps on emissions from power generation, establishing internal carbon trading systems, and adopting ambitious state emissions targets.




Read more:
The Trump administration, slanted science and the environment: 4 essential reads


California’s regulation of air quality goes back even further. In response to Los Angeles’ smog problem – arising from a confluence of geographical conditions, warm weather, and high automobile use – Sacramento introduced smog restrictions on automobiles in 1960. This predated both the establishment of the US Environmental Protection Agency and any meaningful federal effort to regulate air quality or car pollution. In 1970, when President Nixon established the EPA and Congress gave teeth to the Clean Air Act, California was granted special waivers to adopt stricter anti-smog measures. The state has done so ever since.

Under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and as part of a much broader climate change initiative, reduction targets for CO₂ emissions from automobiles were added to the existing anti-smog rules. By this time, a number of states were also following California’s more stringent standards. These included states bordering California where auto dealers wished to sell California-compliant cars, but also East Coast progressive states pursuing ambitious climate change plans of their own.

Australian states

Australia is not in exactly the same position as the the US – for example, we are virtually unique in the developed world for having no fuel efficiency standards for cars – but there are some striking similarities.




Read more:
Emissions standards on cars will save Australians billions of dollars, and help meet our climate targets


The policy deadlock at the federal level has made action from states, and even local councils, vitally important.

At the same time as the federal government is struggling to put emissions reduction on the national agenda, Victoria has made a huge commitment to rooftop solar. South Australia, which leads the country in renewable energy generation, is now a net energy exporter for the first time.

While the Queensland state government grapples over the Adani coal mine, a May report found that billions of dollars in renewable energy projects are underway.

The Trump effect

The Trump administration is widely expected to repeal many Obama-era limits on pollution. Auto emissions standards came onto the chopping-block in July, when the administration unveiled its plan to “Make Cars Great Again” by freezing fuel efficiency standards at 37 miles per gallon.

The EPA has also announced that it will revoke California’s waiver to set more stringent standards, which 13 other states including New York now also follow.

In both cases, the Trump administration is seeking not just to relax federal climate standards, but to prevent states from setting more stringent policies should they wish to. And in both cases, these matters will be settled by the courts.

California announced it would lead a legal challenge to protect the waiver on the same day as the administration announced it would revoke it. When the EPA moves to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the same set of states will likely sue to protect it.

Why this matters globally

These legal fights have global ramifications. The 13 states that follow California’s waiver have a population of 130 million. These states have pledged, through auto emissions standards and clean energy targets, to meet the Paris Climate goals – using their own policy autonomy to circumvent Trump’s withdrawal.

These states have also pledged to pursue independent diplomacy with other national and sub-national jurisdictions around the world, sharing best practise and pursuing climate cooperation.

The EPA has so far lost a number of legal challenges, and is by no means guaranteed to win its case against California. Should these states prevail, Australia has an opportunity to pursue meaningful climate diplomacy directly with the American states.




Read more:
I’m suing Scott Pruitt’s broken EPA – here’s how to fix it


A 130 million-person market for sustainable technologies also presents a substantial opportunity for Australian businesses in the renewables sector.

<!– Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. –>
The Conversation

American states have a framework in place for international partnerships on climate. State governors and city mayors across the country are eager to brand themselves as international climate change leaders. As Australian federal politics grinds through another round of energy policy and climate change debate, it might be time for Australian states to look outside our borders for inspiration and co-operation.

Sarah Graham, Honorary Associate, University of Sydney

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

The too hard basket: a short history of Australia’s aborted climate policies


Marc Hudson, University of Manchester

Less than three years ago, after Malcolm Turnbull had wrested the prime ministership from Tony Abbott, I wrote an article entitled “Carbon coups: from Hawke to Abbott, climate policy is never far away when leaders come a cropper”.

Less than two weeks ago I wrote again about climate policy’s unique knack of causing leaders to falter, with terminal results for the policies and, often, the leaders themselves.

Now Turnbull has added a new chapter to this saga. He has abandoned the emissions component of his beleaguered National Energy Guarantee, in what has been characterised as a capitulation to a vocal group of backbench colleagues. The climbdown may still not be enough to save his leadership.




Read more:
Emissions policy is under attack from all sides. We’ve been here before, and it rarely ends well


A workable, credible climate policy has been the impossible object that has brought down every prime minister we’ve had for a more than a decade – all the way back to (and including) John Howard.

Howard’s way

Howard had spent the first ten years of his prime ministership denying either the existence of climate change or the need to do anything about it. In 2003, virtually all of his cabinet supported an emissions trading scheme. But, after meeting with industry leaders, he dumped the idea.

The following year Howard called a meeting of large fossil fuel companies, seeking their help in destroying the renewable energy target that he had been forced to accept in the runup to the 1997 Kyoto climate summit.

However, in 2006, the political pressure to act on climate became too great. The Millennium Drought seemed endless, the European Union had launched its own emissions trading scheme, and Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth cut through with the Australian public. Late in the year, Treasury came back for another bite at an emissions trading cherry.

In his book Triumph and Demise, journalist Paul Kelly describes how Treasury secretary Ken Henry convinced Howard to adopt an emissions trading policy, telling him:

Prime Minister, I’m taking as my starting point that during your prime ministership you will want to commit us to a cap on national emissions. If my view on that is wrong, there is really nothing more I can say… If you want a cap on emissions then it stands to reason that you want the most cost-effective way of doing that. That brings us to emissions trading, unless you want a tax on carbon.

The moral challenge

Howard’s problem was that voters were not convinced by his backflip. In November 2007, Kevin Rudd – who had proclaimed climate change “the great moral challenge of our generation” – became prime minister. A tortuous policy-making process ensued, with ever greater concessions to big polluters.

In late 2009, according to Kelly’s account, Rudd refused to meet with the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull to resolve the outstanding issues around Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Then, in December of that year, Turnbull was toppled by Abbott and the legislation was doomed.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen climate conference ended in disaster, and although advised to go for a double-dissolution election, Rudd baulked. In April 2010, he kicked emissions trading into the long grass for at least three years, and his approval ratings plummeted.

In July 2010 Julia Gillard toppled Rudd, and the prime ministership has never been safe from internal dissent since. Not since 2004 has a federal leader won a general election from which they would survive to contest the next.

In the final days of the 2010 election campaign, Gillard made the fateful statement that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

That election resulted in a hung parliament, and after meeting climate policy advocates Ross Garnaut and Nick Stern, two crucial independents – Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott – made a carbon price their price for supporting Gillard.

The carbon tax war

Gillard steered the legislation through parliament in the face of ferocious opposition from Abbott, who declared a “blood oath” that he would repeal her legislation. After winning the 2013 election, he delivered on his pledge in July 2014. Gillard, for her part, said she regretted not taking issue with Abbott’s characterisation of her carbon pricing scheme as a tax.

Abbott also reduced the Renewable Energy Target, and tried but failed to rid himself of the Australian Renewable Energy Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Abbott’s demise as prime minister was not as directly tied to climate policy as Howard’s, Rudd’s or Gillard’s. Far more instrumental were gaffes such as giving the Duke of Edinburgh a knighthood.

But as Abbott’s government was descending into chaos, Turnbull seemed to many middle-of-the-road voters like the perfect solution: Liberal economic policy but with added climate concern. On today’s evidence, he seems to have been willing to trade that concern away to stay in the top job.

The future?

As of the time of writing – Monday 20 August (it pays to be specific when the situation is in such flux) – it is clear that the NEG is dead, at least in its original incarnation as a means of tackling the climate issue. No legislation or regulation will aim to reduce greenhouse emissions, with the policy now addressing itself solely at power prices.

It is not clear how long Turnbull will remain in office, and one could make a case that he is no longer truly in power. Thoughts now inevitably also turn to what a Shorten Labor government would do in this area if the opposition claims victory at the next election.




Read more:
It’s ten years since Rudd’s ‘great moral challenge’, and we have failed it


The first question in that regard is whether Mark Butler – an able opposition spokesman on climate change – would become the minister for a single portfolio covering energy and environment. The next is the degree of opposition that Labor would face – both from members of the union movement looking out for the interests of coal workers, and from business and industry. If Australia’s environment groups win the battle over Adani’s planned Carmichael coalmine, will they have the heart to win the wider climate policy struggle?

As ever, it will come down to stamina and stomach. Would Shorten and Butler have the wherewithal to face down the various competing interests and push through a credible, lasting policy, in an area where all their predecessors have ultimately failed?

<!– Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. –>
The Conversation

Will the Coalition government formulate a new emissions policy – one that can withstand the feet-to-the-fire approach that has killed off every other similar effort so far?

Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of Manchester

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

Exit Paris climate agreement: Tony Abbott


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Tony Abbott has called for Australia to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, in a swingeing attack on Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee.

Abbott said the NEG was not about reducing prices but about cutting emissions. “The only certainty that the National Energy Guarantee as it stands would provide is the certainty of emissions reduction.”

Delivering the Bob Carter Commemorative Lecture in Melbourne, Abbott said: “Withdrawing from the Paris agreement that is driving the National Energy Guarantee would be the best way to keep prices down and employment up – and to save our party from a political legacy that could haunt us for the next decade at least”.

“As long as we remain in the Paris agreement – which is about reducing emissions, not building prosperity – all policy touching on emissions will be about their reduction, not our well-being. It’s the emissions obsession that’s at the heart of our power crisis and it’s this that has to end for our problems to ease.”

Abbott played down the importance of the government’s much-vaunted tax cuts in comparison with the implications of energy policy.

“These are strange times in Canberra when there’s a hullaballoo over modest tax cuts that only take effect fully in six or seven years’ time, while mandatory emissions cuts that start sooner, that mean more for the economy, and whose ramifications will be virtually impossible to reverse are expected more or less to be waved through”.

In the party room last week Abbott had little support for his attack on the NEG. But his constant agitation is unhelpful for the government as it tries to win backing from the states and territories for the scheme. It also reinforces the impression of division in government ranks, even though the majority of the backbenchers now just want the energy policy settled.

Abbott said that his government in 2015 had set a 2030 emissions reduction target “on the basis that this was more or less what could be achieved without new government programs and without new costs on the economy.

‘’There was no advice then to the effect that it would take a Clean Energy Target or a National Energy Guarantee to get there,” he said.

“My government never put emissions reduction ahead of the wellbeing of families and the prosperity of industries”.

When the world’s leading country exited the Paris agreement “it can hardly be business as usual,” he said. “Absent America, my government would not have signed up to the Paris treaty, certainly not with the current target”.

Abbott said he could understand “the government would like to crack the so-called trilemma of keeping the lights on, getting power prices down and reducing emissions in line with our Paris targets – it’s just that there’s no plausible evidence all three can be done at the same time”.

“If you read the National Energy Guarantee documentation, there’s a few lines about lower prices, a few pages about maintaining supply, and page after impenetrable page about reducing emissions.

’‘The government is kidding us when it says it’s all about reducing prices when there ’s an emissions reduction target plus a reliability target but no price target”.

The government said it wanted to give certainty but the only certainty was that any NEG approved by state ALP governments at COAG would be “massively ramped up to deliver even more emissions reduction under the next Labor government”.

The ConversationAbbott repeated his call for the government to subsidise the boosting of baseload power. He again suggested threatening to compulsorily acquire Liddell coal-fired power station, which AGL is refusing either to keep going or to sell.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

South-East Queensland is droughtier and floodier than we thought



File 20180620 137734 1bzxjzp.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
South-East Queensland residents need to prepare for more regular floods, according to new data.
Shutterstock

Jack Coates-Marnane, Griffith University; Joanne Burton, Griffith University; John Tibby, University of Adelaide; Jon Olley, Griffith University; Joseph M. McMahon, Griffith University, and Justine Kemp, Griffith University

New data recording the past 1,500 years of flows in the Brisbane River have revealed that South-East Queensland’s climate – once assumed to be largely stable – is in fact highly variable.

Until now, we have only had access to 200 years of weather records in South-East Queensland. But our new research used marine sediment cores (dirt from the bottom of the ocean) to reconstruct stream flows and rainfall over past millennia.

This shows that long droughts and regular floods are both prominent features in South-East Queensland’s climate.

This is concerning. Decisions about where we build infrastructure and how we use water have been based on the assumption that our climate – especially rainfall – is relatively stable.




Read more:
Old floods show Brisbane’s next big wet might be closer than we think


Archives of past climates

Natural archives of climate are preserved within things such as tree rings, coral skeletons, ice cores, lake or marine sediments. Examining them lets us extend our climate records back beyond documented history.

We can then undertake water planning in the context of a longer record of climate, instead of our short-term instrumental records.

In this study, we used sediment cores from Moreton Bay (next to the mouth of the Brisbane River) to reconstruct the river’s flow over the past 1,500 years. In these cores we measured various indicators of fresh water to reconstruct a record of streamflow and regional rainfall.

At the turn of the last millennium the region was in the middle of a prolonged dry spell that lasted some six centuries, from roughly the year 600 to 1200. After about 1350 the region became gradually wetter, with peaks revealing a series of extreme floods in the late 1600s and early 1700s. Large floods in the 1700s have also been documented in the upper reaches of the catchment, in the Lockyer Valley.

These broad shifts in regional rainfall and streamflow are linked to drivers of global climates, including hemispheric cooling and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.




Read more:
Explainer: El Niño and La Niña


A cool La Niña-dominant climate that persisted from roughly 1350 until 1750 caused increased rainfall and reduced evaporation.

In addition, the southward displacement of monsoon troughs at this time may have increased the likelihood of cyclone-related weather systems reaching southern Queensland.

This information helps us contextualise the climate of the last 200 years and gives us some insights into how regional rainfall responds to shifts in global climate.

Wet and dry extremes

Over the past 20 years, South-East Queensland has experienced its fair share of extreme weather events. Severe floods have caused deaths and damaged infrastructure. Flooding cost the Australian economy some A$30 billion in 2011.

Regular droughts may mean South-East Queensland needs to rethink water resource strategies.
Shutterstock

The millennium drought, which in this region was most severe from 2003-08, resulted in widespread water shortages. This prompted major investment in the South-East Queensland Water Grid, a connected network of dams, water treatment plants, reservoirs, pump stations and pipelines.

So far Queensland has coped with everything Mother Nature has thrown at it. But what if extreme floods and droughts became the norm rather than the exception?




Read more:
Floods don’t occur randomly, so why do we still plan as if they do?


Water quality is getting worse

The 2011 and 2013 floods highlighted the vulnerability to these extreme events of Brisbane’s major water treatment facility at Mt Crosby. The drinking water supply to the city in 2013 became too muddy for purification. The 2011 flood was also alarmingly muddy.

Such events also threaten the ecosystem health of downstream waterways, including the iconic Moreton Bay

Our reconstruction found that big floods over the past 1,500 years rivalled the size of floods in recorded history (1893, 1974 and 2011), but the level of sediment in the water of more recent floods seems to be unprecedented.

This indicates that historical and ongoing land-use changes in the Brisbane River catchment are contributing to more abrupt and erosive floods.

This will continue unless better land management techniques are adopted to improve the resilience of catchments to extreme weather events.

What does this mean for the future?

We are learning that over the last millennium natural climate and rainfall have been more variable than previously thought. This means that modern anthropogenic climate change may be exacerbated by a background of already high natural climate variability.

In addition, our water infrastructure has been built based on a narrow understanding of natural climate variability, limited to the last 200 years. This may mean the quantity of reliable long-term freshwater resources in eastern Australia has been overestimated.


The Conversation


Read more:
Droughts & flooding rains: what is due to climate change?


Jack Coates-Marnane, Post-doctoral research fellow, Griffith University; Joanne Burton, Adjunct Research Fellow, Griffith University; John Tibby, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Change, University of Adelaide; Jon Olley, Professor of Water Science, Griffith University; Joseph M. McMahon, PhD candidate, Griffith University, and Justine Kemp, Senior Research Fellow in Geomorphology, Griffith University

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

Winter is coming, and it’s looking mighty mild



File 20180531 120502 ay6jq9.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Brrr! It’s cold in here!
Alpha/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Jonathan Pollock, Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Andrew B. Watkins, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

After an exceptionally warm and dry autumn, it’s time to look ahead to see what’s in store for winter. The Bureau of Meteorology’s climate outlooks for winter, issued today, shows above-average temperatures and below-average rainfall are likely across southern Australia. While some of us will relish the prospect of a mild winter, the dry isn’t necessarily good news for everyone.




Read more:
When is it going to snow? Getting a fix on what can make a good season


Warm lead-up to winter

Summer-like conditions continued into early autumn for much of southern Australia, including an exceptional heatwave in early April. Temperatures in autumn were warmer than average across much of the continent. New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria all experienced one of their warmest autumns since at least 1900. Overnight temperatures have also been warmer than average in most parts.

Autumn maximum temperature map.
Bureau of Meterology

Very dry autumn for the southern mainland

For many southern areas autumn wasn’t just warm, it was also extremely dry. New South Wales, Victoria, southwest Western Australia and South Australia all had one of their driest autumns on record.

Many farmers in southern Australia look to the autumn break – the first significant rain event (25mm or more) after summer – to kick off the crop and pasture growing season. The autumn break arrived by mid-May across southern Victoria, eastern New South Wales and southwest coastal Western Australia. However, farmers in northwest Victoria, inland New South Wales, eastern South Australia and much of inland Western Australia didn’t receive an autumn break this year.

One of reasons for the warm and dry autumn in the south was higher than average pressure over southern Australia. The high pressure meant rain bearing cold fronts from the Southern Ocean couldn’t push up into southern Australia.

Autumn rainfall map.
Bureau of Meterology

No strong influence from Pacific or Indian Ocean this winter

So, will this pattern of warm and dry continue? Two of the major drivers of Australia’s climate, the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific Ocean, and its equivalent in the Indian Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), were neutral during autumn, and are likely to remain so throughout winter.




Read more:
Droughts and flooding rains: it takes three oceans to explain Australia’s wild 21st-century weather


Of the eight international climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology, seven predict winter will see ENSO-neutral sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific, with only one model forecasting a warming to El Niño levels by August.

Models also suggest the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) will remain neutral through winter. But there is quite a range of scenarios from the international modelling centres the Bureau assesses. One model is predicting a positive IOD over winter, one model predicting a negative IOD in spring, and the other four are neutral. Typically, when the ENSO and IOD are both neutral there is no strong shift in the outlook towards widespread wetter or drier conditions across most of Australia.




Read more:
Explainer: El Niño and La Niña


Most international model outlooks for the ENSO sea surface temperature index in the central Pacific Ocean (NINO3.4) remain neutral in August.
Model outlooks provided by: BoM (Bureau of Meteorology), CanSIPS (Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System), ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency), Météo France, NASA (National Aeronautics
Most international model outlooks for the IOD sea surface temperature index remain neutral in August.
Model outlooks provided by: BoM (Bureau of Meteorology), CanSIPS (Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System), ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), Météo France, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), and the

However, when these major drivers are neutral, other factors can have a greater influence on Australian rainfall and temperature patterns. For instance, forecast warmer-than-usual temperatures in the Tasman Sea and the associated lower-than-normal air pressure this winter is likely to contribute to a weakening of westerly winds over southern Australia that would normally draw cold fronts up from the Southern Ocean.




Read more:
The BOM outlook for the weather over the next three months is ‘neutral’ – here’s what that really means


So, what’s the outlook for winter?

As a result of the weakened westerly winds, below-average winter rainfall is likely for western parts of Western Australia, and for most of New South Wales extending across the border into southern Queensland and northern Victoria. For most other parts, the outlook is neutral, meaning roughly equal chances of above- or below-average rainfall.

The outlook for June is looking particularly dry across most of the southern mainland.

The likely reduction in cold fronts, and clearer skies over much of the continent means warmer-than-average temperatures are favoured across southern Australia, with the strongest likelihood (about 80%) in the southeast.

The model suggests there is also an above-normal likelihood of winter “mildwaves” – periods of very mild weather – along Australia’s southeast coast.




Read more:
Winter heatwaves are nice … as extreme weather events go


So, what does this all mean? For farmers and those working in the agricultural sectors, the warmer temperatures mean soils will stay warm longer. This is likely to keep the crop and pasture growing window open a little longer before the cold of winter. Dry conditions are likely to mean a slow and possibly late start to the growing season, potentially pushing the crop harvest later into the warmer months of 2018, when heatwaves can become a problem.

What does this mean for the snow season?

For skiers, a later start to the season becomes more likely with a warm and dry June expected. On the other hand, neutral ENSO conditions typically bring snow cover that’s a little deeper than average by mid-season.

This is a contrast to strong El Niño or La Niña phases, which both typically mean less snow than usual, but for different reasons. El Niño phases mean less rainfall and warmer days during the snow season. La Niña years usually have more rain, but temperatures can be too high for snow to form.

This has happened more often in recent decades because of climate change. Historically, neutral years have had more consistent good snow depths than either El Niño or La Niña years, so late winter should be a good time to hit the slopes.


The ConversationFor more details on the long-range forecast for winter, visit our Climate Outlooks website and subscribe to Climate Outlooks to stay on top of what’s happening with the climate. A complete set of Climate Summaries covering May and autumn 2018 will be available on 1 June.

Jonathan Pollock, Climatologist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Andrew B. Watkins, Manager of Long-range Forecast Services, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

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