The coastlines of China, Korea and Japan in particular have experienced increasingly stronger cyclones, which the researchers have attributed to increasing sea surface temperatures and a change in atmospheric circulation patterns over the coastal seas.

According to the study, the changes in sea surface temperature and wind flows meant that cyclones were more likely to track along coastal seas from the South China Sea upwards, meaning that by the time the cyclones hit the north-east coast of Asia they had gathered more energy than usual and were at their maximum intensity.

The study, which has been published today, 16 January, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, involved an analysis of five separate data sets that documented the evolution of tropical cyclones across the north-west Pacific between 1977 and 2010.

The researchers also found that in south-east Asia, in countries such as Taiwan and Vietnam, there was no substantial change in the intensity of tropical cyclones. Here, they found that tropical cyclones had started to generate too close to land in the South China Sea to gather enough energy to reach maximum intensity as they approached land.

In addition to increasing sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific, which have notably warmed over the past 30 years, the researchers also attributed the changes to the strengthening of the Walker circulation — an ocean-based atmospheric circulation system that exists over the Pacific.

According to the researchers, the Pacific Walker circulation strengthens as the difference in sea surface temperature between the warmer western Pacific and the colder central-eastern Pacific increases. The result is that the wind flows associated with the circulation pattern force the tropical cyclones towards the north-east coast of Asia, where they reach maximum intensity.

Although the study only accounts for natural variations in sea surface temperature and the Walker circulation retrospectively, over the past 30 years, the researchers do predict that the tropical cyclones hitting East Asia will only strengthen under human-induced climate change.

Professor Chang-Hoi Ho, from Seoul National University, said: “Noticeable increases of greenhouse gases over the globe could influence rising sea surface temperature and change large-scale atmospheric circulation in the western North Pacific, which could enhance the intensity of tropical cyclones hitting land over East Asia.

“If the past changes of large-scale environments are evidence or a result of global warming, it can be assumed that, in the future, more catastrophic tropical cyclones will strike East Asia than ever before.

“The next stage of our research is to use climate models to predict future tropical cyclone landfall intensity in these regions.”

In a striking attempt at a media blackout, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has just upped the ante. Yesterday, the Minister confirmed that he has no plans to tell the public what’s happening – not when refugees are arriving, not the conditions they live in, not when boats are turned back, and not when asylum seekers in our detention centres are suffering.

The goal, it seems, is to keep any meaningful stories about asylum seekers out of the media and strangle all sources of information, in the hopes we’ll all just forget about our detention centres and the people within them. If Minister Morrison is going to suppress information and refuse to be held accountable for asylum seekers under Australia’s care, there’s only one thing left to do: get these stories out in any way we can.

If enough of us chip in now, we can end the media blackout and fund investigations into places like Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island. We can uncover the truth about our offshore detention centres and the genuine stories of the people within them. Can you pitch in to end the secrecy around our asylum system?

https://www.getup.org.au/help-end-the-secrecy

Those who have been inside Australian-run detention centres have witnessed conditions that qualify as torture – including limited access to water, and more than a hundred young men housed in the stifling heat and humidity of corrugated iron sheds. Worse still, Minister Morrison’s changes mean that our government will refuse to be transparent about even basic information and statistics, nor incidents of asylum seeker self-harm or suicide.

The Australian Government has already made it difficult for journalists to pursue these harrowing facts, and the costs are becoming prohibitively high for most journalists. The Nauru Government has played its role too, by increasing the cost of a journalist visa by 3900% – from $200 to $8000 – for, essentially, a gag visa^[1]. Reporting on these places might be expensive, but it’s vital. With our Immigration Minister refusing to be accountable, how else are we to find out about human rights abuses that happen in our name?

Getting these stories out won’t happen easily, and won’t happen fast. But we’ve already spoken to journalists who’ve expressed interest in being involved – and the more that GetUp members chip in, the more these journalists will be able to do. Chip in, and you’ll make it possible to publish journalism that lifts the veil on our government’s secrecy:

https://www.getup.org.au/help-end-the-secrecy

This we know: if we let Minister Morrison’s actions continue unchecked, the honest stories about asylum seekers could evaporate from media sources entirely – our government could be free to get away with untold atrocities.

We can – and should – expect our government to be scrutinised. If you can help cover the costs of investigations into what happens inside Australian-run detention centres in Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island, we can ensure the centres are subject to the scrutiny they deserve, and release real stories from the asylum seekers who are under our watch and care.

Thank you for being a part of it,

The GetUp team

PS – This is another piece in a familiar puzzle. Past and present governments have gone to great lengths to put asylum seekers out of our sight, and out of mind. Last year, GetUp members responded by giving national coverage to the powerful stories, drawings and words of asylum seekers being held in Manus Island’s detention centre. Now let’s prove again that strangling information sources won’t deter us from finding the truth: https://www.getup.org.au/help-end-the-secrecy

[1] An $8000 Gag Visa, Nick Olle for The Global Mail, January 8, 2014

Lack of research linking climate change and floods is a ‘scandal’

By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

Flood events in the UK have impacted both coastal areas and towns near rivers like Tewkesbury

Questions about the link between flooding in the UK and climate change could be answered within two years, according to a leading scientist.

Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University said the only thing holding back the work was the lack of investment.

Around £10m a year would provide a real-time attribution system on the role of humans in extreme weather.

He said it was a “scandal” that the public should be denied clarity on this issue.

Scientists are notoriously cautious about linking single weather events, such as the recent storms and flooding in the UK, to rising global temperatures.

Researchers can discern a human fingerprint in extreme weather, but it has required huge amounts of computing power to calculate all the possible outcomes.

Definitive answersSpeaking at a news conference in London, Prof Allen said that an investment of around £10m a year would solve that problem.

“You’d actually have definitive answers to these questions as events happen so that we don’t end up flapping our hands and saying we’re not quite sure. We’d be able to quantify how much human influence on climate has made some events more likely.

“It is a matter of investment from the UK government that we are not able to answer your questions at the moment – and that’s a scandal frankly,” he said.

Prof Allen explained that his research team had carried out an analysis of the climate change influence on the UK floods of 2000. It had taken 10 years.

“We had to rely on computing resources donated by the general public. If these questions matter, it shouldn’t be down to university research projects using spare computer capacity donated by the public.

“This needs to be part of what we ask our weather forecasting services to do.”

His views were supported by Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office who said that the science of attribution was advancing.

“There is a lot of variation in UK rainfall and storminess – can we link it yet [to climate change]? Yes, we have not made an attribution study of the recent events, but we could do that.

“It would be a probabilistic-based conclusion; this would be saying that the risk has increased or not, or maybe decreased as a result of anthropogenic climate change.”

A number of British universities are now involved in a European climate and weather attribution initiative, said Dr Stott. The aim would be to provide reliable information on the climate impact on heat waves, cold spells, floods and droughts.

The flood waters are still rising in many parts of England despite a change in the weather

Both Prof Allen and Dr Stott agreed that the Prime Minister was essentially correct when he linked a rise in extreme events to climate change in the House of Commons this week.

Prof Allen said that Mr Cameron had got the balance “about right” in his comments. But the public needed to have clarity on the issue.

“There are also the very substantial sums being spent on decarbonisation. The public is paying that money in the name of doing something about climate change. They deserve to know what climate change is doing to them.”

While developing an attribution system wouldn’t “save any lives”, it would improve our understanding of weather and would help ensure that decisions about future flood defences were more accurately made.

The question of resources in this area was put in the spotlight recently when the chief executive of the Environment Agency told a magazine that government cuts would impact mapping and modelling.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.

So after a week of speculation and rumour, Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings acted today to move Tasmania towards the next state election.

Giddings met with the Governor this morning, and then proceeded to sack the two Greens ministers from her cabinet and announce an election date of March 15.

Parliament will be recalled to consider legislation in regard to the Tamar Valley pulp mill in late January, which has caused Greens MP Kim Booth to announce plans to move a motion of no confidence.

While Giddings now leads a government without necessarily commanding the support of a majority of the House of Assembly, the impending election makes that status largely irrelevant.

If a motion of no confidence was to pass before the planned date for the issuing of writs on February 19, then Giddings would have the choice of either advising the Governor to ask another member of Parliament to attempt to form a government, or to call an election. Since an election is already planned for March, it would not be unreasonable for the Governor to stick with the planned date of March 15.

March 15 is the closest date to the four-year anniversary of the 2010 election, but many election observers had hoped that Tasmania would vote on a different date, to avoid a clash with the South Australian state election. This will be the third successive election to be held on the same date as the South Australian election.

South Australian elections are fixed to be held on the third Saturday of March. While plans for fixed terms in Tasmania were floated prior to the last election, nothing has come about on this regard. The choice of March 15 keeps open the possibility that Tasmania will eventually fix its election date to the same date as South Australia.

Giddings’ decision to drop the Greens from the ministry is unexpected, but rings hollow so close to the election. After governing with minimal discord in an effective coalition since 2010, she has decided to make a change at a point when her government has run out of time. Giddings has claimed that she would not form a government in the future which would include Greens ministers, but such promises have been made before and could well be forgotten if the numbers require Greens’ support.

The most likely outcome remains the Liberal Party gaining the three seats they need to form a majority, with their best chances being in Bass, Braddon and Lyons. Having said that, there remains the possibility of the Liberal Party failing to win a majority, at which point one of the two major parties will need Greens’ support to form government.

The Tally Room guide covers all five electorates, and conversations have started about the campaigns in each electorate.

Read the Tally Room guide to the Tasmanian election.