Posts

Natural Cyclical Events Impact More Than Human Activity

,

Recently, I spoke in the Senate regarding the impact of this summer’s flooding on the coral reef. Coral polyps are saltwater creatures. When floodwaters impact the reef, it introduces fresh water, cold temperatures and sediment, all of which cause coral bleaching. El Niño (ENSO cycles) causes a reduction in clouds, resulting in higher solar radiation, higher temperatures, and coral bleaching.

Both of these are cyclical and not caused by human activity. Yet the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) appear to be focusing solely on the “climate change is causing warming temperatures and coral bleaching” argument instead of presenting the broader picture.

I was reassured that the GBRMPA accepts that ENSO cycles play a role in coral bleaching. I look forward to more honesty and transparency on this issue from the BOM, CSIRO and the globalist controlled Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Let me start with a simple question: can floodwaters entering the reef from the 28 river systems that discharge onto the reef in a rain event, such as a tropical cyclone, cause coral bleaching, either through fresh water itself, through very low floodwater temperature, or through high nutrient levels or turbidity or sediment?

Mr Thomas: There can certainly be initial freshwater bleaching from flood events.

Mr Quincey: And we did see some of that this year with the cyclones in the north.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s true that corals also bleach from water that is too cold, isn’t it? I can remember that in June 2008 that there were record cold temperatures in various parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory, including southern Queensland, and the southern Great Barrier Reef bleached because of the cold weather.

Mr Thomas: I’m not sure of that particular example. But, yes, bleaching is certainly a stress response that can be triggered by a range of different things. Most recently, though, our biggest concerns have been about warmer waters, not colder waters.

Senator ROBERTS: Was any of the coral bleaching that was evident on the reef in the first quarter of 2024 caused by freshwater and salt intrusion?

Mr Thomas: Yes, as Mr Quincey said. Probably because of flood events prior to and post Christmas in in the north, there would have been some initial freshwater bleaching. I don’t have specific details of that in front of me, though.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was any of the coral bleaching in the first quarter caused by pesticides or other chemical run-off from farming areas?

Mr Thomas: Direct attribution of those impacts would be difficult for me to provide here today, but we could take some of that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Please. According to a paper from the University of Queensland, simplified: The most devastating mass coral bleaching has occurred during El Niño events … However, El Niño itself does not cause SSTs— sea surface temperatures— to rise in all regions that experience bleaching. Nor is the upper ocean warming trend of 0.11°C per decade since 1971 … sufficient alone to exceed the thermal tolerance of corals. This paper shows that a major contributing factor is El Nino reducing cloud cover, causing ‘higher than average air temperatures and higher than average atmospheric pressures’ and playing ‘a crucial role in determining the extent and location of coral bleaching’ on the reef. Is that a fair statement?

Mr Thomas: I’m not aware of that particular paper. Did you say it was the University of Queensland?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Thomas: I’m not aware of it. I’m sorry. But we would be very interested to read more about it.

Senator ROBERTS: We can get it to you.

Mr Thomas: Yes, please.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you accept natural, cyclical ENSO events play a crucial role in coral bleaching?

Mr Thomas: We would have to defer to climate scientists around the particular localised impacts and how they’ve played out on the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator ROBERTS: Localised impacts, not global?

Mr Thomas: For how those significant meteorological phenomena impact the Great Barrier Reef in particular, I would need to consult with other relevant experts.

Senator ROBERTS: According to the Bureau of Meteorology document ‘124 years of Australian rainfall’, there’s no trend. There’s no pattern. It’s just cyclical. There’s no trend whatsoever, down or up. It’s just natural variation, influenced by cycles. In the last five years, we’ve had three La Ninas. Your website, under the heading ‘What causes coral bleaching?’, makes the comment: The biggest cause of coral bleaching in the past 20 years has been rising water temperatures. On notice if you wish, please provide how much water temperature has increased in the last 20 years, including average and range, showing any spikes that may have occurred.

Mr Thomas: Thank you. We will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Something like that, maybe?

Mr Thomas: I’m not sure I can reproduce that exactly, but we’ll certainly take that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wouldn’t expect you to reproduce it.

Mr Thomas: We will certainly try to take an—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you tested those spike temperatures that may have led to bleaching against the ENSO cycle? Have you correlated them?

Mr Quincey: I couldn’t answer now, but we would most likely consult with our colleagues not only in the Bureau of Meteorology but in the CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, who do some of that work.

Mr Thomas: We’re not the authors of some of these reports. We work with those relevant institutions. We pull that information together. We try to synthesise it and make the best assessments we can on how we can hone our programs and better manage the Great Barrier Reef into the future. With some of the specificity and science you’re referring to, we really would need to speak to some of our experts.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is the last question. The bleaching impact statement on your website, which you describe as ‘a framework to describe and categorise coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef’, only includes one factor: heat stress, which you attribute to climate change, ignoring these other crucially important factors. Is this about blaming bleaching on climate change, which is well-funded, and ignoring the role of natural cycles, which carries no funding? We’ve heard the United Nations say that the planet is now boiling.

Mr Thomas: Is your question about whether our framework for understanding coral bleaching is limited to heat stress?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it seems that it’s only limited to heat stress.

Mr Quincey: It has it there as heat stress, but the exposure blocks the subtleties of exactly what you’re talking about—about light intensity and exposure and cloud cover. Also, on our website, we really try to convey that local and regional weather in particular places has a large bearing on the outcomes that we see each summer, and those factors play into that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/2 Comments/by

BOM’s Climate Forecast Failure

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has consistently issued weather forecasts that align with their promotion of the climate change scam, which appears independent of likely weather outcomes.

In 2023, BOM came unstuck when they spent the year forecasting a hotter and drier summer, prompting farmers to reduce their cattle numbers and alter planting schedules. What actually occurred was a wet and cool summer. This inaccurate forecast by the BOM resulted in significant financial losses for farmers and graziers, and rural provider Elders saw a $300 million drop in their share price when earnings were announced last month.

Despite this, BOM and other media outlets claim that their forecasts were accurate and that Elders’ earnings reflected other issues as well.

Supporting Research

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive.shtml

EYCI Report | Meat & Livestock Australia (mla.com.au)

Archive – Climate outlook maps (bom.gov.au)

Read the Transcript HERE

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you to the bureau for appearing today. I’ve handed out some documents for circulation. They’re copies of BOM forecasts versus actual. I think you’ll be familiar with them, for sure. That’s a contradiction in terms, ‘think’ and ‘for sure’. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with them.

On 19 September 2023 the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather forecast read, ‘Warmer and dryer conditions would be more likely over spring and summer,’ linking the Indian Ocean Dipole with El Nino using the words, ‘The last time this occurred was 2015,’ which was a very dry year, especially in Queensland. The bush listened to that, and a lot of other people did too—investors as well.

On 30 November the Bureau of Meteorology predicted ‘a high chance of warmer than usual days and nights across Australia, below average rainfall likely for much of the tropics’. The actual weather: northern Queensland was flooded in December—big floods—by Tropical Cyclone Jasper; inland Queensland was flooded in January by Tropical Cyclone Kirrily; South-East Queensland was flooded in December and January.

I’ve circulated your entire forecast for 2023 split into five periods. Each period forecast, except one, was for drier weather than occurred. One was about right. None predicted more rain than occurred, much less than I would have hoped. My question is simple: is your weather model fundamentally flawed?

Dr Johnson: No, Senator, it’s not.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s costing nearly $1 billion to upgrade your computer system, the ROBUST Program as it’s called. Is that still the cost, and can you provide an itemisation? It appears a ridiculous amount of money.

Dr Johnson: Firstly, as I’ve answered to senators in this chamber over many years, the costs associated with the ROBUST Program are cabinet in confidence; they’re not for publication. As I also answered—I think it was at the previous hearing or perhaps the one before—in response to a question from Senator Pocock, the upgrade of the Australis computer system is not part of the ROBUST Program; it is a separate program of work.

Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain the Australis versus the ROBUST, and which one is—

Dr Johnson: ROBUST is a complex program to upgrade the bureau’s ICT and observing systems, fundamental ICT—

Senator ROBERTS:What’s ICT?

Dr Johnson: Information and communications technology.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you.

Dr Johnson: It upgrades our underlying information and communications technology infrastructure, our observing networks—all sorts of things.

Senator ROBERTS:And recording devices?

Dr Johnson: I’ll get to that in a second. That includes radars, automatic weather stations, automatic balloon launchers—all sorts of things that observe the environment—as well as our underpinning technology infrastructure.

The ROBUST Program, again, has three dimensions. It has a security dimension—in other words, investment to improve the security of the bureau’s systems from threats from our country’s adversaries. There’s stability. Prior to the investment in ROBUST, many of the bureau’s systems were very old, many decades old, and we were experiencing challenges in keeping them stable and operational. And then there’s resilience so that, in the event of an outage, the capacity of the bureau to respond and have our systems back online is improved. So there are three dimensions to ROBUST: security, stability and resilience.

There is a supercomputer dimension to ROBUST, which is a second supercomputer, a disaster recovery machine. Prior to ROBUST, our disaster recovery functions were executed within a single machine in a single place. The arrangements going forward will be different. I’d rather not disclose those in detail, for security reasons, but the ROBUST program funded a second supercomputer for disaster recovery purposes. That is a different machine to the Australis machine, which has often been asked about in Senator Pocock’s questions. That was a separate program to Robust, Senator. You’re conflating two bits of technology uplift in two separate programs.

Senator ROBERTS:The total cost is a billion dollars for both?

Dr Johnson: No. As I said, I’m not going to speak about the cost of ROBUST. The cost of the Australis upgrade is roughly, I think, $44 million—something of that order.

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, you’re required to produce any information or documents that are requested to this committee. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this Senate committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. You’re protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that’s also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister. Can you please take on notice to produce that document to the committee and the cost—

Dr Johnson: Which document are you referring to, Senator?

Senator ROBERTS: The cost.

Dr Johnson: Of ROBUST?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Johnson: The decision around the cost of ROBUST—

Senator McAllister: Just take it on notice.

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Minister. David Burton of Inigo Jones, long-term weather forecaster, uses sunspots and planetary cycles to correctly forecast weather decades in advance. He’s got a track record because he’s got investors who invest as a result of his successful forecast. He posted 12 months ago that the good rains would start after 20 November 2023. There was no El Nino, and cyclones were likely. David Burton has no computer models and uses a $20 calculator because he understands the cycles. He got the weather right; you got it wrong. Hayden Walker, another long-term weather forecaster, correctly forecasted severe storms in the areas where they did occur. Will you talk to these private forecasters to work out why their systems are right and yours was wrong? Theirs are actually history. Yours are models—aren’t they?

Dr Johnson: I reject the whole premise of your questions. Our forecasts, as I’ve indicated at the previous hearing on this subject, were remarkably accurate. I’m happy to go through them again. What we said is on the Hansard in terms of the seasonal outlook. We were very clear, as the year progressed, that we were moving out of a dry warming trend into a moistening trend. We were also very clear in our messaging that, irrespective of the ENSO status and the seasonal forecast, we know that in northern Australia, in particular, there is always the risk of severe weather—cyclones and floods—under any climatic situation. I don’t agree with the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not just northern Queensland, where we know that it’s prone to storms, but western Queensland and southern Queensland. We know that your bureau declares El Nino and positive Indian Ocean Dipole events. David Burton said there was no El Nino and cyclones were likely. David Burton quite often gets it right. He’s paid a considerable amount of money because David Burton’s, Hayden Walker’s and, prior to them, Inigo Jones’ and various other people’s methods have been in use for decades. Farmers, investors and businesses pay for their forecast. They have to go out into the market and sell.

Dr Johnson: I understand that, and millions of Australians rely on our forecasts every day, including farmers and folks in the business community. I just reaffirm to you, as I did at the previous estimates, just how remarkably accurate our forecasts were over the period. I’ve certainly said in previous hearings and in other forums that we acknowledge that some of the messaging that we gave during the previous spring and summer didn’t get through in a manner that we would like.

That’s not to blame the recipients of that messaging. It’s just a fact. People heard a message around an ENSO status and thought, ‘That’s it; it’s going to be hot and dry.’ We update our forecasts every week, and we regularly updated our outlooks, and those outlooks proved to be very accurate.

We also affirmed, in all those messages that, particularly during the summer and irrespective of the ENSO status, the risk in this country of thunderstorms, floods and tropical cyclones remains. In fact, at the national severe weather forum here in Canberra, I made that very clear in my own presentation: one thing that this country has taught us is that severe weather can occur at any time. We’re very clear in our messaging around that. I’m only going to comment on our forecasts and warnings. Others are welcome to comment on those made other parties, but I stand by the quality of our forecast. I did so at the previous hearing, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator ROBERTS:Well I do agree with you—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS:I note that your own forecast—

Dr Johnson: I’d like to have a look at this—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s produced by you.

Dr Johnson: I know, but a very quick and cursory—and maybe it’s not helpful, Chair—is that you’re comparing two different measures of data there. One’s talking about chance of exceedance and another one talks about actuals. The two are fundamentally different concepts. Just because you have a map of Australia with colours doesn’t mean to say that the two datasets are comparable. Let me have a look at it. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Your faulty forecast caused farmers to offload cattle. The benchmark Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator sat as high as 1,192 cents per kilogram of carcass weight in 2022, but by late 2023—after your forecast hit the streets—it had tumbled all the way to 349 cents per kilogram. That’s less than a third. Do you accept responsibility for that loss to the Australian capital market as graziers sold stock because they feared overstocking in the looming dry?

Dr Johnson: Let’s just get the data right here. The Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator was about 1,200 cents per kilogram in January 22, and less than 400 cents by October 23. We released our El Nino declaration on 18 September, so by 18 September that particular measure of cattle prices had dropped somewhere by around 80 per cent. To somehow draw a conclusion that because we issued that declaration on 18 September that resulted in a run on the cattle markets, is just not supported by the data.

As I said at my previous hearings on this matter—in response to, I think, a question from Senator Davey—there are a whole range of factors influencing the decisions of primary producers. I’ve talked to a lot of primary producers and absolutely our advice and our outlooks contribute to their decision-making. But to a person to a farm business that I’ve spoken to there are a whole range of other things that they take into account in making a decision to sell their cattle. So this notion that the bureau declaring an El Nino at 18 September can explain an 80 per cent drop of the cattle prices from January 22 to October 23 is just a nonsense, frankly.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair, can we come back?

— *** —

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, could you please repeat your dates and cattle prices? Eastern Young Cattle Indicator—

Dr Johnson: I’ll try if I can. Let me just find the brief that I have and the advice I have received. I’ve been advised of Rural Bank data that shows the Easten Young Cattle Indicator declined from approximately 1,200c a kilogram in January 2022 to less than 400c a kilogram by October 2023. As I said, we declared an El Nino on 18 September. So, just to reaffirm by that calculation, I’m advised that the cattle price had completed more than 80 per cent of its downward run by the time we declared that El Nino in September.

Senator ROBERTS:Great. Thank you very much.

Dr Johnson: That’s the advice I have.

Senator ROBERTS: The Financial Review blames the Bureau of Meteorology: ‘How the BOM’s big dry weather forecast cost millions’ and ‘Bureau of Meteorology’s botched weather call crushes Elders’ earnings’. There’s ‘BOM mistakes hit farmers but slash inflation’, and then we’ve got others there. Your botched prediction cost more than just farmers; it cost mum-and-dad investors in Elders millions, with the share price dropping 25 per cent. Do you accept that this was the fault of your forecast?

Dr Johnson: Again, I’ve already answered this question. We absolutely stand by our forecast. Our forecasts are remarkably accurate. As I’ve said at previous estimates hearings, commentary in the media, frankly, has been largely ill-informed and inaccurate, and we’ve sought to correct the record where we can. Take, for example, the Australian Financial Review article which asserted that our El Nino declaration had been linked to Elders’ earning advice. I’ve had a look at the Elders’ advice, and it was not stated or even implied in their earnings outlook. I don’t care what the Australian Financial Review reported. My reading of what Elders actually said was that it didn’t state or even imply that the bureau’s El Nino declaration affected earnings for the period 1 October to 30 September. There are lots of things written in the media. Again, we talked about this last time. If you actually have a look at the facts of what we said and when we said it, our forecasts were remarkably accurate given how complex it is and the sheer area that we’re seeking to provide forecasts for. The forecasts are not perfect; they will always contain uncertainty.

Also, the long-range forecasts can’t explicitly predict the emergence of cyclones—individual, specific events. There will be times when you’ll have an anomalous specific event, and hence why, in our public commentary, we seek to affirm to the public and to industry that there’s always the risk of severe weather in this country and there is always the risk of cyclones in the tropics and subtropics in this country. It is a forecast. It is an estimate of a point in time in the future based on the data at a particular point in time. We update it every week. I strongly encourage those who follow our services—and many millions of people do—to continue to check those updates. The situation changes all the time. We continued to update a point-in-time statement back in September as more information came to hand.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up, so can you please make this your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of people who are saying that the Bureau of Meteorology colours its diagrams to make it look hot and dry but we actually see—and this is rainfall over 124 years—no pattern or trend, no declining trend or increasing trend, just natural variation. And that’s from the BOM. Why the doom and gloom? Why depress expectations for rural output, which also depresses investment, training and employment in the bush, reduces the standard of living and increases the cost of living?

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure I understand your question, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS:Why are you so negative and preaching fear and doom when there’s nothing to suggest that, and why do you use colours to exaggerate it?

Dr Johnson: I don’t agree with your statement that we are preaching doom and gloom. We’re simply reporting the observations we’re making of the environment around us, and we’re reporting, to the best of our ability, what our guidance is for the time ahead. We do that objectively, using world-class, internationally peer reviewed, highly regarded scientific methods, and we’ll continue to do so. I think we’re entirely objective in our pronunciations and our public statements.

/4 Comments/by

Will Cutting Human Production of Carbon Dioxide Affect Atmospheric Temperatures?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are impacting the Earth’s climate above and beyond natural variation. The climate activists’ solution to that perceived problem is to drastically reduce the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and the grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs.

Given that BOM claims carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia is contributing to a global situation in such a way that we must cease these activities, I asked the Bureau to provide me, on notice, with the total number of BOM weather stations such data is collected from.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term have continued to rise, even during the global financial crisis of 2009 and in 2020 during COVID lockdowns. In fact, real-world empirical evidence proves drastic cuts in human carbon output have no effect on atmospheric carbon levels.

I have put several questions on notice with Dr Andrew Johnson, Director of BOM, and look forward to receiving his responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here again. You and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are detrimentally affecting climate and that, as a consequence, carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, necessitating cuts in the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and farm grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Given what you claim about carbon dioxide from human activity, could you please provide me, on notice, with the total number of bureau weather stations from which weather data is collected for the bureau to use, both those that the bureau operates and those that other individuals or entities operate, and, of them, the number that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?

Dr Johnson: Okay. I can probably answer that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Johnson: The CO2 levels for our region are measured at Kennaook/Cape Grim, north-west Tasmania. That’s one of three, I think, global baseline CO2 measuring stations. That’s where those stations measure. There
are many, many, many pieces of equipment in the field that measure local CO2 emissions for all sorts of reasons, but in terms of the global baseline station, that is at Cape Grim—Kennaook.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know how many stations you have, how many your colleagues—

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And how many measure carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the locations of any other entities’ stations that are measuring carbon dioxide levels whose data the bureau relies upon for its climate reports and claims, both within Australia
and overseas? You’ve already mentioned three.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: That won’t be a problem. Now, if you look at the document I’ve tabled—

Dr Johnson: I’m sorry, I’m not in receipt of it—I’m now in receipt.

Chair: You may want to talk to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. These are graphs from—the source data is Scripps institute and CSIRO. These are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at those 10 points around the world. Now, it’s claimed that we need to cut the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, and to do that we must cut carbon dioxide from human activity, correct? That’s what the claim is.

Dr Johnson: Senator, I’m not in a position to pass an opinion on that. Direct that to the department. All I can tell you is that, from our measurements of the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, it couldn’t be clearer, in terms of the trends we’re observing, and our science—

Senator ROBERTS: I want to ask you about those trends.

Dr Johnson: And our science is very clear that the causes of those trends, to a very large extent, are human activities.

Senator ROBERTS: You claim that cutting human production of carbon dioxide will cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: No. Just to reaffirm, it’s not our role to do that. Our role is to measure the atmospheric, oceanographic and, in some cases, terrestrial phenomena. We’ve never made such claims. All we’ve said is—

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t—

Dr Johnson: that all of these parameters are rising and that the cause of that increase, to a very large extent—a predominant extent—is human activity. That’s all we’ve said.

Senator ROBERTS: So carbon dioxide from human activity is causing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr Johnson: And other emissions—methane and so on—are causing the escalation in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, we experienced severe global recessions. During those recessions, energy use fell dramatically and the use of
hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for transport, residences and industry was cut severely, leading to dramatic reductions of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet, despite those cuts in human carbon dioxide production, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.

Dr Johnson: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: All the Scripps and CSIRO measurement stations reveal no decrease or downward inflection, just continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This real-world empirical evidence proves
that drastic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Making the drastic cuts is pointless and is damaging economically and socially. On notice, could you please
specify the dates, quantity and duration of any inflections or downturns on those graphs?

Dr Johnson: I’m happy to, Senator. But, very quickly—with the chair’s indulgence—the premise of your question is false. It is a well-established fact that the consequences of human activity have long lag periods
between when they occur and when they’re observed in the atmosphere. So, even if CO2 emissions were to stop today, the atmosphere is loaded, as is the ocean, and it will take centuries for that signature to work its way through; hence the urgency around the challenge to reduce emissions now.

Senator ROBERTS: How well is carbon dioxide mixed in the atmosphere?

Dr Johnson: How well is it mixed?

Senator ROBERTS: How well mixed is it?

Dr Johnson: I’m not an expert on carbon dioxide atmospheric mixing.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it vary temporally, spatially and with regard to surface cover—for example, vegetation type?

Dr Johnson: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not in expert in those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take the next question on notice as well. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Could you just put them on notice now? Could it go to us, because people are waiting?

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get this to make sure I’ve got the question right for Dr Johnson. I’ll put the other two on notice after this. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term and without
spatial and temporal context have increased substantially, what impact has this had on global and national atmospheric temperatures? Specifically, what is the rate of temperature increase over the period 1995 to today?

Dr Johnson: Again, you’re asking me a specific question on a specific set of dates. I don’t have that number with me.

Senator ROBERTS: No, on notice. I’m happy for you to do that on notice.

Dr Johnson: If we have that data, I’ll provide it, sure.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’ve got the temperature data. Could you please specify in your answer the statistical methods and procedures, as well as the data periods and sources of data. Could you please use the
global and national atmospheric temperature data from the following sources: from the Bureau of Meteorology, obviously, atmospheric temperature data for Australia and the world—

Chair: Senator Roberts, you can log them in writing, if you would like. And, if you’re asking for an answer, you probably shouldn’t specify where they get the data from. It would be entirely up to them if you’re asking-

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not specifying the data. I just want some alternatives because there’s variation between—

Chair: But I will speed you up, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to put them on notice.

Chair: That would be lovely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll also be asking you for NASA’s University of Alabama, Huntsville, and RSS data.

Dr Johnson: You’d probably best direct your questions about NASA data to NASA.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/14 Comments/by

Same place, same time, different temperatures. What’s the BOM hiding?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology has been in the process of replacing mercury temperature probes with digital probes at weather stations across the country.

After a long Freedom of Information process, we now have field logs from the Brisbane Airport station showing that the two different devices can record different temperatures at the same place at the same time.

The Bureau have said both of these sets of data has always been available but I don’t believe them and I think they’ve been caught out. We need a transparent inquiry into all of BOM’s temperature measuring.

Click Here for Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, over to you for 10 minutes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you again for being here, Dr Johnson and Dr Stone. I would like to table these two articles, Chair.

Chair: Certainly. What are they?

Senator Roberts: They are newspaper articles.

Chair: Given they are public documents, we probably don’t need to table them; we can just circulate them around the committee.

Senator Roberts: The first document is about two articles in the Australian newspaper about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport—following on from Senator Rennick. The other one is about forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology that have been inaccurate. Going to the first one, I’ve tabled some important news about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport, showing that your temperature probes do record different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same location at the same time. If I could please go to Freedom of Information 30/6155, regarding the daily maximum and minimum temperature parallel observations for Brisbane Airport, which the stories relate to, what date did you first receive the FOI request? I think you said 2019.

Dr Johnson: It was received on 12 December 2019.

Senator Roberts: What date did you release the documents to the applicant?

Dr Johnson: Well, the documents were released, as agreed with the respondent, on 6 April 2023, but, as I said in my earlier response to Senator Rennick’s question, the documents released were the ones that we were quite happy to provide in 2019 to the respondent, but the respondent didn’t wish to avail themselves of that material back in 2019.

Senator Roberts: Why did you fight to keep this information a secret?

Dr Johnson: We didn’t fight. Again, I reiterate my response to Senator Rennick: we didn’t fight anything. We were unable to fulfill the request that we received in 2019 because the information that was requested did not exist in the form that the respondent requested it. So we offered the respondent the material we had. They declined and sought to appeal it through the various appeals processes. Our decisions were reaffirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the information that we offered to provide the respondent back in 2019 was provided in April this year. So this notion that the bureau’s withholding information is a fallacy.

Senator Roberts: So we’d have to look further into that, but not here.

Dr Johnson: That’s the record and the truth.

Senator Roberts: You’re paid by the taxpayer, Dr Johnson, just like I am. You’re meant to serve the

taxpayer, as I am. You have a remuneration package of over half a million dollars a year from taxpayers. The information you have, the work you do, belongs to the taxpayer, correct?

Dr Johnson: As I said in my response by Senator Rennick, all of the bureau’s data records are available to the public, either in digital or analogue form. They’re held in the analogue form in the National Archives, and the digital records are available on the bureau’s website.

Senator Roberts: I’ve heard that before, but I’ve also seen people who can’t access the information.

Dr Johnson: I can only tell you the truth, and the truth is that those records are available on our website or in the National Archives by request.

Senator Roberts: Why did it take an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for you to back down?

Dr Johnson: I reject that comment. The information that was requested by the respondent or the proponent—I’m not sure how you want to characterise it—was not available. We can’t create something that’s not available.  We offered the respondent a set of alternatives, which they declined initially and then subsequently agreed to take. So, again, this notion that the bureau is withholding information from the public or from this particular respondent is just not true; it’s inaccurate. I can’t be any clearer on that.

Senator Roberts: No; you’re clear. Do you disagree that your temperature probes are recording different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same place at the same time?

Dr Johnson: I’ll let Dr Stone address that.

Dr Stone: No, you actually expect pairs of measuring instruments to have different measurements.

Senator Roberts: So if we had two probes, they would be slightly different. I understand the natural

variation.

Dr Stone: Within tolerance, yes.

Senator Roberts: Would the difference between the two probes be less or greater than the difference between a probe and a mercury thermometer?

Dr Stone: I’ll reiterate that liquid-in-glass thermometers have a tolerance, an acceptable error, of 0.5 of a degree. Our electronic probes that we’ve been using for 30-odd years have a tolerance of 0.4 of a degree. The electronic probes that we’re about to roll out have a tolerance of 0.2 of a degree. You can expect a difference between the two probes that is the sum of the tolerances of the two probes.

Senator Roberts: I understand that. So there is a difference between the mercury in glass and the probes?

Dr Stone: In which sense? In tolerance?

Senator Roberts: No, in the actual measurement. There’ll be difference in the two measurements?

Dr Stone: Sometimes, because they operate within that tolerance.

Senator Roberts: I understand about tolerances.

Dr Stone: For the ones operating at Brisbane Airport, for example, I have the figures on the distribution of readings and the mercury-in-glass. I don’t have the exact figures, I’m sorry, but approximately 40 per cent of the time one of the probes measured a higher amount than another.

Senator Roberts: The figures are 41 per cent—

Dr Stone: About 30 per cent of the time, they measured below, and the balance of the time they measured very similar.

Senator Roberts: So there is a difference. There has to be.

Dr Stone: Correct, and we expect the difference—

Senator Roberts: So 41 per cent of the time it recorded a warmer temperature, and cooler temperatures were recorded 26 per cent of the time.

Dr Stone: Something like that, yes.

Senator Roberts: So are you saying that the analysis of Marohasy and Abbot is incorrect? Or are you

saying that it may be correct but it’s within allowable tolerances, so you don’t care?

Dr Stone: Which part of their analysis? They did quite—

Senator Roberts: The 41 per cent warmer and the 26 per cent cooler.

Dr Stone: If they are the figures. Sorry; I’ve got them here. Yes.

Senator Roberts: 41 per cent and 26 per cent?

Dr Stone: That is correct.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Do you think it’s significant that your new temperature probes are, on

average, recording warmer temperatures than the mercury thermometers in the same locations at the same times?

Dr Stone: They are not, on average. There is a difference of two-hundredths of a degree, which is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: I said on average they’re recording a warmer temperature.

Dr Stone: No, sorry. On average, there was a difference of two-hundredths of a degree between the liquid-in glass-thermometers—

Senator Roberts: So, on average, the probes are recording a warmer temperature.

Dr Stone: 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: On average, they are recording warmer temperatures than the mercury.

Dr Stone: No. 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: Graham Lloyd is a credible journalist; I’ve seen his work many times. The story also

says that you, Dr Stone, claimed in response to these issues—presumably he asked you—

Dr Stone: No, he didn’t.

Senator Roberts: that all temperature data is publicly available on your website, including the parallel data. Is that true?

Dr Stone: All of our digitised data is available on the website, and, as Dr Johnson mentioned to you earlier, data that hasn’t been digitised is available from the national archive.

Senator Roberts: The temperature data that was released in the freedom of information request was not available on your website, was it?

Dr Stone: There were two pieces of information provided. One was scans of field books which hadn’t

previously been digitised. Those were digitised upon request and provided. Then the electronic data is available on the bureau website.

Senator Roberts: Well, why were you in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal trying to keep it secret?

Dr Stone: Sorry?

Dr Johnson: Senator, with respect, I think we’ve addressed this. This notion that we are withholding

information from the public is just false. The administrative appeals process was instigated by the proponent, who disagreed with the decision that both the bureau and the Information Commissioner had made in respect of the freedom of information request. Again, I reiterate that the bureau’s actions were affirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So this notion that the bureau withholds data is false, and it’s very important that it’s on the record, because, as you say, taxpayers have a legitimate expectation that the data that is generated with their money—

Senator Roberts: Can you take me—

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Dr Johnson: is available. I just don’t know how much clearer we can be on this.

Senator Roberts: Can you provide the URL where the parallel temperature data was available on your website prior to the FOI?

Dr Stone: This is a key point. The applicants asked for ‘the report’ in which parallel data was recorded. I’ve just explained the data existed in two places. The respondent refused the offer of data on the basis that we couldn’t provide it in one form. It doesn’t exist in one form: there are field books that have the manual temperature readings written down, and there’s electronic data. Bring those two together, and you can construct the parallel dataset, but they specified that they would only accept reports of parallel data, which don’t exist.

Senator Roberts: I know—

Chair: Senator Roberts, we need to move on. Your time is up.

Click Here for Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, you have one or two questions?

Senator Roberts: Yes, that’s it. I just have three very short questions.

Chair: Go ahead.

Senator Roberts: The information you scanned from the field book for the freedom of information request—where was that available before the FOI request?

Dr Johnson: That would have been available as a paper record in the National Archives.

Senator Roberts: The scanned information from the field book and the FOI information—where is that available on the bureau’s website today?

Dr Johnson: The scanned information from the bureau’s field books is not on our website. That was a specific request undertaken for a particular proponent.

Senator Roberts: So it’s at the National Archives.

Dr Johnson: But, to my comment earlier: if anyone from the public wants to access our field books they can put a request in through the National Archives. There’s no issue in doing that.

Senator Roberts: Science thrives on debate—open debate based on objective data. A truly scientific body would be encouraging people like Marohasy, Abbott, Bill Johnson and others to actually challenge the Bureau of Meteorology. So why do you run from those challenges? You’ve had many, many scandals—

Dr Johnson: Senator, I just can’t agree with the premise of your question. We don’t run. We welcome engagement with all sectors of society in the work that we do. I think this has been an ongoing subject of public discourse for a long time. Our records are available to anyone who’d like to access them. We welcome all members of the public if they have an interest in our records. There’s no impediment to them accessing them.

Senator Roberts: There’s a list of scandals, if you like, or accused scandals, involving the BOM and global weather agencies. The question—

Dr Johnson: Sorry—Senator, I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Senator Roberts: I’m questioning your data.

Dr Johnson: What are you referring to by ‘scandals’?

Senator Roberts: Questions about temperature fabrications lead to a call for a full inquiry. That inquiry was not held.

Dr Johnson: There have been assertions about these which have been tested in independent inquiries on at least two occasions since I’ve been Director of Meteorology.

Senator Roberts: One of them was just tea and bickies! It looked at the process, not the data.

Dr Johnson: Senator, these are independent—

Chair: Let’s not speak over each other, please.

Dr Johnson: These are independent reviews commissioned by the Australian government into our practices.

Senator Roberts: One of them I know was a cursory look over the processes and did not go into the data.

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure what you’re referring to—

Senator Roberts: The one under Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.

Dr Johnson: but all I can say is: in response to community interest in our practices, certainly since I’ve been Director of Meteorology, or aware of it, or within the vicinity, 2017 was the last one. It was commissioned by then minister Frydenberg. An esteemed panel of national and international leaders—

Senator Roberts: It looked at the process.

Dr Johnson: confirmed that our methods were fit for purpose and sound. These are world experts.

Chair: Senator Roberts, maybe, if you would like, you could catalogue the issues that you’re detailing here and place that on notice for Dr Johnson to respond to.

Senator Roberts: I am happy to.

Chair: It could be that we have a difference of opinion here. Just so that we have the facts on the record, that would be really handy.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, I’ll do that.

Chair: Thank you very much.

/7 Comments/by

Today’s weather and floods not unprecedented – Bureau of Meteorology

, ,

In my questioning at Senate Estimates the Bureau of Meteorology confirmed that we’ve had bigger floods before. Our recent weather has been severe and affected many people and my heart goes out to them. But greenies claiming that our recent weather is unprecedented are abusing these people’s grief for political gain.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask some questions about the distressing floods, but first of all I want to commend you for admitting that you don’t know everything. That’s so refreshing to hear. I don’t know everything, and someone who’s talking about weather certainly doesn’t know everything. Nature’s highly variable, and natural variation is enormous. Coming to the floods, they’re very distressing for people and it’s important to give them the right information. According to the Bureau of Meteorology’s graphs, in the last 100 years there have been two major floods and in the previous 90 years there were 11 major floods.

Dr Johnson : Sorry, just to be clear, where are you talking about? In Brisbane?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Brisbane, yes. In 1974, which is the highest recent flood in the last hundred years, the flood levels reached were much less than in 1893 and much, much less than in 1841.

Dr Johnson : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government, state or federal, discussed anything about doing some research with regard to flood mitigation?

Dr Johnson : Maybe I can respond to the two parts of your question. You’re right, there have been bigger floods in Brisbane since records have been kept, and records have only been kept since the 1840s, so who knows how big the floods really get in Brisbane. When you look at the historical narratives, if you read George Somerset’s writings on where the traditional people of the Brisbane Valley used to have their summer camps, one could reasonably possibly reasonably draw a conclusion that flood levels have been even higher.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re familiar with where the university’s experimental mine is at Indooroopilly?

Dr Johnson : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, geologists say that the floods were five metres higher than the 1841 floods. That’s unfathomable.

Dr Johnson : All of these things are possible. But to correct the record, there have been 12 major floods in Brisbane since 1840 and three since 1970, including the most recent ones. We had the 1974, the 2010-11 and the one the other day, so three major floods in Brisbane since 1970. Certainly, of the most recent ones, the 1974 flood was the biggest.

Senator ROBERTS: I was going off the bureau’s graphs and it had lines across the major—

Dr Johnson : We probably haven’t put the line on for the one the other day yet, but—

Senator ROBERTS: No, it was on there.

Dr Johnson : Was it? But there are three: 1974, 2010-11 and 2022. For the record, that is the flood history in Brisbane. The second part of your question is about flood mitigation. That’s not a responsibility of the bureau. That’s the responsibility of state governments and local governments, indeed. As you know, obviously Wivenhoe Dam being put in, although its primary purpose is not for flood mitigation—it’s for water security—it does perform a flood mitigation function. The Brisbane City Council also undertakes significant flood mitigation works. As you’re probably aware, since the 2010-11 flood they’ve installed extensively throughout Brisbane engineering works to try to reduce the backflow of water from the river up into the suburb. It was one of the experiences from the 2010-11 flood that people were getting flooded through water coming back up through the stormwater system. The flood mitigation work is their responsibility. Certainly the flood mitigation works draw heavily on bureau historical data.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at: it’s not your responsibility to—

Dr Johnson : It’s not our responsibility to do the mitigation.

Senator ROBERTS: But they do consult with you?

Dr Johnson : Correct. And the state and local governments also heavily utilise not only their own in-house capability but also significant capability in the private sector. So we make all that data available. People are welcome to use it—and we hope they use it—to keep our community safer in the future.

Senator ROBERTS: My question wasn’t going to any attempt to pin you down and blame you for the floods—that’s ridiculous.

Dr Johnson : No, I wasn’t reading it that way.

Se nator ROBERTS: Good. But I can’t imagine that the bureau has any responsibility to correct politicians or media that produce stories saying the floods in 2022 were due to climate change caused by humans or anything like that. That’s their responsibility, not yours.

Dr Johnson : We just report what we see happening in the environment. We try to do so to the best of our abilities and as factually as we can. So we don’t choose to speculate on what we’ve said. What we’ve said very clearly is that, with climate change, we can expect the frequency of high-intensity rainfall events to increase—

Senator ROBERTS: Based on models?

Dr Johnson : Based on models and also based on our recent experience. What we can also see, just as a basic law of physics, is that, for every one degree the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds about seven per cent more water. The Australian temperature record is around 1.47—plus or minus 0.2—since records have been kept. I’m not an engineer like you are, Senator, but the atmosphere is holding roughly 10 per cent more water than it might have had in pre-industrial times. That water has got to go somewhere. It circulates around the planet as part of a mass balance with the oceans and the rivers. I think it’s absolutely reasonable to expect that, as the climate continues to change, the likelihood of high-intensity events like those we have seen will increase. And, all other things being equal, there will be an increased risk of flooding for those communities live on active flood plains. A lot of people live really close to rivers that are still very active—

Senator ROBERTS: And some people say that Brisbane is a city built in a river.

Dr Johnson : Indeed. I think the title of the book is A River with a City Problem.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Dr Johnson : I know the book you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Some argue—and there is a lot of conjecture about this—that an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere leads to a cooling effect, for all kinds of reasons. So there are a lot of uncertainties in forecasting the weather and forecasting the climate. I want to quote from the transcript from the Senate estimates in February. I asked whether the State of the Climate reports scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You responded: ‘I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there’—that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report. I happen to agree with you. I’ve been through many of your reports. Later on, you said: ‘I think we made it really clear what the purpose of the document is. It’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans.’ Previously you said: ‘I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.’ I compliment you on your clarity and I appreciate your clarity. It’s not the Bureau of Meteorology’s responsibility to correct politicians when they say that the state of the climate contains evidence of cause and effect, is it?

Dr Johnson : Certainly the bureau is not in the habit of making public comment around statements that our elected officials make. As you know, our job is to advise. Elected representatives are free to say whatever they wish to say. You, of everybody, would probably know that best. We provide our best scientific advice to you and you’ll form your own conclusions on that advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

, ,

The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?

[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.

[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.

[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.

[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?

[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?

[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.

[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-

[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.

[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.

[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.

[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.

/1 Comment/by

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

, ,

Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.

This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.

Senate Estimates Sessions: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/category/senate-estimates/march-2021/

Transcript

[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.

[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.

[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.

[Marcus] Not bad.

[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.

They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.

The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.

The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?

[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.

How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.

[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.

Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.

There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.

[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?

Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.

You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.

[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.

[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.

[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.

[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.

[Malcolm] Correct.

[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…

/by

Questioning the Bureau of Meteorology at Senate Estimates

, ,

I’m down in Canberra at Senate Estimates this week. Over many years now I have consistently grilled the Bureau of Meteorology at Estimates over their methodology in ‘homogenising’ or changing raw temperature data. These changes include adjustments to make the recorded temperatures colder in earlier years and warmer in more recent years, making the supposed warming trend seem worse.

Transcript

Thanks Senator Green, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair. Thank you all for attending today. You got my questions in writing, Dr. Johnson?

[Johnson]

I did Sir.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The first question was please confirm whether you agree that any data adjustments need to be rigorous, independently replicable, and accurately supported with metadata.

[Johnson]

Senator, I might just ask my colleague Dr. Stone to take those questions. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure.

[Dr Stone]

Yeah, thanks Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Nice to see you again.

[Dr Stone]

Yeah, likewise The Bureau does agree that homogenization adjustments need to be rigorous and homogenization needs to be independently replicable using agreed peer reviewed methods, but it doesn’t actually need, it’s not a requirement that it’s supported by metadata as you’ve suggested. The purpose of the homogenization is to adjust for discontinuities where they’re detected, as I was describing earlier, in comparison with nearest neighbours. Metadata such as documentary evidence of a site move tells you that you might like to check for discontinuity, but it doesn’t tell you to make the adjustments themselves. So adjustment occurs only where a discontinuity in observations crosses what I referred to earlier as a threshold of significance. So it’s possible for homogenization to occur without metadata. And it’s also possible that metadata can describe a situation where there has been a change in observation practise, but homogenization isn’t required because that change doesn’t result in a discontinuity in observation. So it’s actually the discontinuity in observation that’s critical in the determinant of whether or not a homogenization occurs and the scale and direction of the change.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to some we’ve got data on many more which are similar, but the Townsville Weather Station according to the BOM’s metadata said it’s had one move. Whereas in fact, it’s had eight. The Rockhampton Weather Station has had according to BOM, one move. Whereas in fact, it’s had four. The Cairns Weather Station has had according to BOM. two moves the fact that it’s moved six times and the Chaliver Weather Station, BOM says it’s moved twice and it’s at four moves. Why did BOM and the various peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these inaccuracies?

[Dr Stone]

Sorry, I missed the last part.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Why did the Bureau of Meteorology and the various peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these inaccuracies in the metadata?

[Dr Stone]

Yeah, no, thank you. They’re not inaccuracies in metadata. So the metadata that either exists or it doesn’t, and in the cases you’ve described, there is instances where a shift in the med station has occurred and there’s not metadata that describes that. So it’s not actually in an inaccuracy in the metadata. And third of what I was saying too earlier, whether or not there’s metadata doesn’t impact on the integrity of their marginalisation process because it’s actually looking for that discontinuity in observations that determines whether or not there is a marginalisation that occurs.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That surely if there’s data about the movement of stations and that data is inaccurate, then the metadata is wrong.

[Dr Stone]

Now, in this case that the metadata is not present. It would be wrong if it said that there was a shift and there wasn’t one. What you’re describing is where a change hasn’t been recorded. So there’s not metadata that relates to it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Right.

[Dr Stone]

There’s a difference.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the BOM’s claim that has moved once in Townsville where the station moved once is not accurate because there’s no metadata on them?

[Dr Stone]

Sorry, we don’t claim it’s been moved once but we have metadata that shows that it was moved once.

Yeah. So we wouldn’t claim that there have I haven’t been shifted. We don’t have that data.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you’ve got metadata for only one move. Whereas in fact, we know it’s been eight moves.

[Dr Stone]

We have metadata for Townsville. I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how many of those that we have metadata for but the principle remains the same. There are instances in the historical record where there’ve been changes made and they weren’t recorded at the time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So what are the consequences of these areas specifically in terms of recording weather, data such as temperature?

[Dr Stone]

Yeah. I know there is. I just want to be clear about that. So the presence or absence of metadata, doesn’t imply an error.

[Malcolm Roberts]

If the station’s been moved and it hasn’t been noted in the metadata, then it’s not even recognised.

[Dr Stone]

Correct. But if we’re talking about the impact of that on the homogenization process, it doesn’t result in an error because the homogenization only occurs where there’s a statistical discontinuity in the data detected. So you can have moves that don’t result in homogenization being triggered, whether or not there’s metadata and vice versa. So it doesn’t be, I can be crystal clear. It doesn’t result in inaccuracies in the estimation of climate trends. If there’s metadata or not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has or not. Has BOM done any analysis to quantify the effects of the station moves especially the ones that it didn’t know about?

[Dr Stone]

No, absolutely. So, as I say, the process of homogenization actually looks back through the records for a given station, looks for discontinuity and measurements compared with nearest neighbours. So it steps through. And does that, so a high proportion of the homogenization changes that are made aren’t triggered by metadata they’re triggered by, as I mentioned, a discontinuity in the observations. And that’s determined by comparing with a large number of nearest neighbours, which we can do with temperature because temperature is reasonably conservative across geographic space. And it’s why, for example, you can’t really homogenize for rainfall because it’s much more spatially viable.

[Chair]

So do you have anymore questions Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes. I’ve got a couple of more questions, Chair. You said you’ve been able to analyse these past records. Could you please provide for each of the four sites that I’ve mentioned that’s Townsville, Rockhampton, Cairns, and Charleville the quantified analysis that Bureau of Meteorology has done and document the independent peer review process used just on notice, please.

[Dr Stone]

That’s all on the website. Yep, no problem.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Last pair of questions, Chair. What are the specific quantified consequences of BOM’s inaccuracies on CSIROs use of BOM data? I’m particularly interested because CSIRO has admitted to me that it does no due diligence of its own on temperature data that it merely accepts from the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Dr Stone]

Yeah. Thanks for the question. As I described, the presence or absence of metadata doesn’t result in inaccuracies in the homogenization process. So inaccuracies have not been passed on to CSIRO or any other user because of concerns about metadata. It’s fundamentally a statistical process.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What are the consequences on the government policy and the general assumption that Australia temperatures are increasing?

[Dr Stone]

Yeah. As I said, so if the question is about the accuracy or otherwise of the estimates, presence or absence of metadata isn’t material. And, you know, I can confirm the global trend for warming is around 1.1 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial period.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And when you say pre-industrial, what year?

[Dr Stone]

1850.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you.

[Dr Stone]

And–

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’s just at the end of the little ice age.

[Dr Stone]

What I’m seeking to do is describe the difference between the global trend, the homogenized trend and the raw observation trends. So the global trend is around 1.1, the unadjusted trend is 0.95 Degrees Celsius plus or minus 0.24 over the same period. And the homogenized trend is 1.44 plus or minus .24 So neither the raw nor the homogenized trend differ from the, significantly from the estimate of the global trend.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. Are you aware just by coincidence that CSIRO has admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented? And then after it admitted that it said that what is unprecedented is the, they claimed is the rate of recent rates of temperature rise. Yet the papers they gave us, not one of them shows that. And two of the papers show that past temperature rise, rate of past temperature rise has been warmer than the recent temperature rise which ended about 1995.

[Dr Stone]

Yeah. Thank you. I haven’t seen the CSRO papers or–

[Malcolm Roberts]

We’ll have to have a chat.

Thank you.

/by