
Is climate change supercharging Tropical Cyclone Alfred as it powers towards Australia?
Tropical Cyclone Alfred is due to hit south-east Queensland about 1am on Friday morning, bringing the risk of destructive winds, extreme flooding and storm surges to millions of people around Brisbane, the Gold Coast and northern New South Wales.
After last year was recorded as the hottest on record around the world, and the hottest for Australia's oceans, what role could the climate crisis be playing in Tropical Cyclone Alfred and its impacts?
Like all weather systems on the planet, tropical cyclones are forming in a world that is heating rapidly, mostly because of the burning of fossil fuels.
The planet – and the world's oceans – are retaining more of the sun's energy because of the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
But tropical cyclones are complex. They need ocean temperatures of at least 26.5C and the right setup of atmospheric conditions to form. In particular, they need low wind shear – that is, very little change in the wind, no matter how high they are blowing.
Studies have found that global heating is expanding the tropical belt – the region where cyclones can form – and other scientists have found that on average, the point at which cyclones achieve their maximum intensity has been shifting towards the poles.
Dr Savin Chand is an expert on tropical cyclones and climate change in the Australian region. 'Climate change isn't causing tropical cyclones to form because they have been forming for millennia, but the environment in which they're forming is becoming more hostile [to their formation],' the associate professor at Federation University said.
'But when they do form, we know that sea surface temperatures that are their source of energy are much warmer now than they used to be.'
Chand has led research that has argued the number of tropical cyclones has fallen by 13% in the 20th century. This was in line with expectations from climate scientists that global heating could actually reduce the total number of cyclones that form – but, of those, there will be a shift to higher intensity systems.
'These sea surface temperatures and warming in the atmosphere provide fuel to the systems so, when they do form, they have more energy to feed on and this tends to make them more intense than they used to be,' said Chand.
Cyclone Alfred formed in the Coral Sea towards the end of February when sea surface temperatures were almost 1C hotter than usual.
The same area of low pressure and rising air known as a monsoon trough that birthed Cyclone Alfred actually spawned two other cyclones, Rae and Seru, which moved east, while Alfred took a path south-east and off the Queensland coastline.
This year was the Coral Sea's warmest summer on record.
Data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows ocean temperatures off Brisbane and to the south have been between 0.5C and 1C hotter than normal in recent days.
On Tuesday, Tropical Cyclone Alfred was far enough south to come into contact with a weather system common at lower latitudes – an area of high pressure – that grabbed Tropical Cyclone Alfred and pushed it west towards the south-east Queensland coastline.
On Wednesday, Cyclone Alfred was moving through this area as it approached the coast, where it was expected to cross on Friday morning as a category two system.
There are three main impacts that scientists and authorities are concerned about from Tropical Cyclone Alfred's move to the Queensland coast: damage from extreme winds, flooding from intense rain, and damage at the coast from storm surge and damaging waves.
A warmer atmosphere can hold more water that can fall as rain, and generally, the atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture for each 1C of warming. But rainfall intensities can be greater than this because, as raindrops form, they also release energy into a system.
Dr Andrew Dowdy, an associate professor and expert on tropical cyclones at the University of Melbourne, and his colleagues have advised that for Australia, infrastructure or building planners should consider that each degree of warming could increase rainfall by as much as 15%.
Dowdy points to several characteristics from climate change that can make the impacts from Cyclone Alfred worse. 'Climate change has heated the oceans so the dice [are] loaded for a greater chance of hot water around Australia, like what we saw this summer,' he said.
'These hot ocean temperatures can help supercharge tropical cyclones with more extreme rainfall and flood risks.'
When ocean heat up from climate change, they expand, pushing up sea levels. The melting of ice attached to land like ice sheets and glaciers also raises sea levels.
Dowdy sea levels around the globe have already risen by 20cm due to climate change, 'which can make damages worse when storms like Cyclone Alfred hit.'
'This includes more severe flood risks in tidal waterways like around the Gold Coast and the Brisbane River, as well as more severe coastal erosion.'
Read more of Guardian Australia's Tropical Cyclone Alfred coverage:
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
When and where is Cyclone Alfred likely to hit?
How to prepare for a cyclone
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie scientist breaks down what CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen SPF results REALLY mean - and it might surprise you
An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem. The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths. The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use. However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: 'I don't think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens. 'It's tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.' When asked about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report - after it returned an SPF of just 4 - the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don't tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas. 'It's difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn't necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,' she told FEMAIL. She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score. Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: 'I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.' She did however add that she felt 'reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy'. FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle's video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results. Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: 'You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle's video.' The article, titled 'How we test sunscreens', explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). 'All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,' the CHOICE article stated. According to CHOICE, the products were 'blind' tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had 'skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products' ingredients. The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a 'tightly controlled and consistent process'. On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreen Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand's popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,' she said. The results she said, visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done'. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow,' she added. One of Ultra Violette's products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels. After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it's a 'lot less precise than it might seem' - which inherently leads to 'a lot of variation with SPF results'. The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle - who has more than 640,000 followers - ultimately reassured viewers: 'Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them'. Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score In an explosive recent investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp - essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it. Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that 'a lot of little things can change the results'. These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on. 'Even within the one test in the one lab, it's common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,' Michelle told FEMAIL. For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55. As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that '19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good'. She added: 'It's better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past'. Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report. Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle's claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many 'little variables'. She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE's report should be investigating 'exactly what had happened and why'. 'I don't want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They're trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for - and the consumer should get what they pay for,' Hannah said. 'So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.' Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren't cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly. 'The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we've had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,' Hannah said. 'Even now, the campaigns we have don't necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that's true, but there's still a risk. 'I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don't necessarily read, which is not the brand's fault either. 'There's a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.' Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying - or re-applying - sunscreen correctly in the first place. 'Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,' Michele said. 'This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.' Hannah agreed, saying: 'If you're not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you're not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.' That's why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection 'layering' strategy - which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.


Daily Mirror
04-06-2025
- Daily Mirror
Ultra rare 'Harbinger of Doom' fish washes up on popular tourist beach
A rare oarfish or 'doomsday fish' was found on a beach in Australia by a dog walker - and according to legend, the deep-sea species appearing on land is a very bad omen A fish claimed to be a sign of impending natural disaster has washed up on a beach in Australia. An oarfish - sometimes called the 'doomsday fish' - was found on Ocean Beach on Tasmania's west coast on Monday. The deep-sea creature lives thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean, and so is rarely seen by humans. In Japanese mythology, its appearance is seen as a bad omen, foretelling the later appearance of dangerous sea serpents or tsunamis. But Sybil Robertson, who was walking her dog along the beach when she spotted the nine-foot oarfish, said she was not aware of the apparent significance of her find at first. She was first alerted to its presence by a sea eagle, a bird of prey, which had taken interest in the washed-up creature. Ms Robertson, a resident of nearby Strahan, told the ABC: "I was watching a sea eagle flying around and I noticed it was coming down onto the beach and I thought, 'That's unusual, I don't often see them land on the beach. "I could see it was a long fish but I had no idea what kind of fish" "As I got closer, I could see the beautiful colouring around its head and the markings on it were fabulous." She snapped a few photos at the scene before later sharing them to a social media group called Citizen Scientists of Tasmania, where commenters identified it as an oarfish. Authorities were then contacted, and were urged to act quickly before more birds decided to feast on the fish. Samples were then collected and sent off to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), an Australian government research agency. Earlier this year, the oarfish's unexpected appearance on a beach in the Canary Islands s parked a social media frenzy, attracting hundreds of thousands of likes and comments. Many referred to the Japanese folk legend of 'ryūgū no tsukai', which claims that the fish dwell beneath Japan's islands, only surfacing as an immediate portent of major earthquakes. Some even claim they surfaced shortly before the devastating 2011 quake, which left nearly 20,000 people dead. Voicing their fears after the Canary Islands sighting, one Instagram user commented: "Something bad is going to happen." Another wrote: "Usually, it means that an earthquake is coming when it appears to the surface of the water." And someone else penned: "Put that back and run, may be a tsunami coming." Despite the persistent myths surrounding the oarfish, a 2019 study by Japanese researchers said there was no evidence of any link between sightings of the species on land and tectonic activity.


Time Out
02-06-2025
- Time Out
Aurora alert! Here's how and when to see the Aurora Australis in Australia
Update, Monday, June 2: Winter's first Aurora Australis lit up the sky on Sunday, June 1. It was visible to the naked eye from parts of the ACT, NSW, VIC, SA and TAS – even lighting up the night sky as far north as Tamworth in NSW. Bright, beautiful and bedazzling, the Aurora Borealis is a big-ticket bucket list item for pretty much everyone on Earth. Only those who have witnessed the Northern Lights with their naked eyes can truly understand its ethereal magic. But you don't need to fork out on a ticket to Scandinavia to see the dramatic natural light display IRL. Australia has its very own version, called the Aurora Australis or Southern Lights – and this year, we could be in for the brightest display in 20 years. Here's everything you need to know about seeing the Aurora Australis in Australia. Will the Aurora Australis be visible tonight? Australia's first big Aurora Australis of the season occurred on Sunday, June 1, sparked by a severe geomagnetic storm. While the storm is expected to weaken over the coming days, there's still a chance of catching the light display on Monday night (June 2) in parts of southern Australia. The Bureau of Meteorology's (BOM) Australian Space Weather Forecasting Centre has issued a geomagnetic warning that predicts increased activity will continue until Tuesday, June 3. To stay updated, you can subscribe to their geomagnetic storm alerts here, track Aurora activity using this real-time map, or join this Facebook group for posts about the most recent sightings around Australia. What is the Aurora Australis? The Aurora Australis is a breathtaking natural light display that glows across the southern skies, also referred to as the Southern Hemisphere's equivalent of the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights). It occurs when charged electrons from the sun collide with gas molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. These particles are first launched from the sun's surface, then accelerated again by Earth's magnetic field, creating glowing waves of colour that ripple through the night sky. Where to see the Aurora Australis? Your best bet for witnessing the Southern Lights is to be as far south as possible. Due to having the cleanest air in the world and being closest to the South Pole, Tasmania is the obvious choice. Favourite spots include Goat Bluff, Carlton Beach, Tinderbox, the summit of kunanyi / Mount Wellington, Highland Lakes and Dove Lake at Cradle Mountain. Chasing the Aurora from the mainland? You can check out our dedicated guides to the best spots in NSW here and Victoria here. How to see the Aurora Australis? You'll want to find a place far away from city lights, preferably regional, so you can see the dancing colours shine brightest in the dark, twinkling skies. For inspiration, you can read our guide to the most incredible stargazing locations across Australia. What time is the Aurora Australis? A Southern Lights display generally lasts one to three hours and is typically brightest between 10pm and 2am. The BOM issues Aurora watch notices when an Aurora is likely to be visible – so keep an eye out here if you're keen to catch a glimpse. When is the Aurora Australis? Like its northern sister, it's hard to predict when the Aurora Australis will show up in town. Sightings are fleeting and faint, but are most common during the cooler months (May to August) and during the spring equinox in September. Throughout this period, solar winds are more likely to interact with the Earth's magnetic field, creating a bright and beautiful light display. 🌈 🎥