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.
Good work Senator. My complaint with all this argument is, besides the agendas of wanting to kill a vast majority of the worlds population , is if they try to lower the CO2 levels too much . you would affect the greening of the world, so its quite hypocritical and of course then you have moron Bill Gates trying to block out the sun. Why can’t people see this. Senator CO2 is the one of the heaviest gases known to man and I would say that when they say the CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere are increasing. Well I call BS on this, and that’s because of the common sense argument that is not even in the upper atmosphere. How does the average Joe prove this, well he can’t and thats the problem. Its all a depopulation agenda Senator and I’m quite sure that your well aware of that. thank you for your persistent good work, there needs to be more like you in the governments around the world. cheers .
Great work Malcolm. A question, does all these solar farms help heat up the atmosphere . Just by the glides getting thermal lift and thunder head’s seem. To build where they didn’t normally
In the 1890s australia had the worst flood known. If that happens again sydney western neapean will lose 20,000 houses.
In 1907 australia had the worst drought ever on record. Kangaroos dropped dead in the paddocks. Yet there was very low population no cars , no coal power stations.
Two years ago a volcano in the Canary Islands put out more co2 than the entirety of co2 emissions of USA in a whole year.
As a soil fertility consultant the harm has been to our soils. We are losing our organic carbon from the soil at a phenomenal rate. We need to work with farms to start putting it back. A 1% increase to hectare of soil is 160 tons. The amount of water stored in organic carbon is staggering. This is where our climate damage is coming from. A 1% increase on 10% of farming land will pay for every carbon used for ten years. That’s in 1 year. Our labor gov is ignorant and just following wef destructive plots
Humans are not responsible for the slight increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 120 years. Even the IPCC showed this in its 2007 report AR4 at Figure 7.3. This diagram shows the annual flux of CO2om its emissions to the sinks which absorb it, mainly the ocean and vegetation. The diagram clearly shows human emissions of CO2 are only 3% of the annual total:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
The alarmists usually dismiss this by saying natural emissions of CO2 and sinks were in balance before humans starting emitting and therefore the relatively small human emissions are responsible for all of the increase but this is nonsense; nature is NEVER in balance; if it were we would not have weather and a climate.
Malcolm
Dr Johnson runs an ideologically driven science free organisation which provides no benefit to the Australian people.
There are countless examples of this – see below. Dr Johnson needs to be terminated and the BOM shut down.
1. Change from Glass to Electronic probes
FOI data finally got by Jennifer Marohasy showed clearly, contrary to lies (yes lies) from BOM that there was no difference. From their data this change has increased measured temperatures by up to 0.7 degrees. But no corrections to ACORN data series, no apologies and no error bars added.
2. Over half of weather stations do not meet WMO standards
This is disgusting. A review of all weather stations by a retired school principal shows only 30% compliant. So how can we trust the bad results from all these non compliant stations, sited where temperatures will be elevated (like on roofs, in enclosed yards, next to bitumen roadways etc)
Garbage in, garbage out
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2020/01/16/australias-wacky-weather-stations-final-summary/
3. Indiscriminate and reckless use of Homogenisation
The BOM incorrectly applies homogenisation to adjust temperatures, always upwards, when the way they do it has no basis at all. Instead of doing this with stations in close proximity, they apply it across thousands of kilometres with stations in completely different geographic locations.
I can keep going, but the BOM needs to be closed permanently and its activities done by a contractor under very strict conditions of compliance, where they report accurately and remove the political garbage on “climate change” from any communications.
In, out, in, out. A lovely balance of flora and fauna working in harmony, keeps all, animal and vegetable, healthy and happy. Oxygen in, carbon out with one group, vicky verka with the other.
Could it be we have too many koalas eating too many gum tips before they’ve had a chance to do their part in the cycle?
I’m sure we could find some pseudo academic to write a thesis on that, statistics and graphs included as absolute proof.
So. Should we add koala to our diet or plant a tree?
Climate science claims carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts as a thermal insulator by trapping heat and therefore causes both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to become warmer.
However, carbon dioxide is used a coolant in refrigeration. Two of the properties of this gas which enable this cooling are: it has a high heat transfer co-efficient and has high thermal conductivity. Both these properties are the opposite of a good thermal insulator.
You could also ask BoM why they have failed to acknowledged INDOEX – the largest climate related field study performed in the Indian Ocean during 1999. Encyclopedia Britannica does under the heading The Asian Brown Cloud.
Thanks for all the good work at ‘ keping the Ba*tar*s honest.
The world has been cutting down trees since Adam was a pup
so what about a world widw program where every country plants a
billion trees every year.
CO 2 is essntial for every living thing on this planet.
The way I see carbon levels is loose the thought of where our food is coming from because this negative approach got labour to where they are carbon and mostly toxic gas from manufacturing around the world has thinned our atmosphere
As CO2 consists a minute 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans contribute just 3% of that I suspect some people are not being entirely honest with us. Before The Little Ice Age, 1350 to 1850, temperatures were warmer than the present for 10.000 years, yet CO2 levels were considerably lower at 260 – 280ppm compared to today’s 420ppm. This scheme will cover hundreds of thousands of hectares with windmills and solar panels and go through farmlands and forests with 29,000 kms of transmission lines at huge expense with NO proven scientific evidence.
BoM/CSIRO make the claim that their ACCESS climate model is “useful”. The model output bears no resemblance to the measured data. The model produces a warming trend in the Southern Ocean and the Nino34 region. The SO has a sustained cooling trend while the Nino34 region has slight cooling to zero trend over the past 4 decades.
The model is based on unphysical parameterisation. It is nothing better than curve fitting to the overall trend. It cannot forecast cooling trends anywhere on the globe.
It will have zero effect. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philiooimes for an entire year iy produced more carbon dioxide than all of human history. And there are more than a million undersea volcanoes. Plus, Carbon dioxide is not a poison.
Carbon dioxide comprises 0.04 percent of the atmosphere (i.e., 420 ppm). Nitrogen comprises 78 percent of the air, oxygen comprises 21 percent, and trace gases – including carbon dioxide, just 4 percent – and always has since it was possible to measure them. The atmosphere exists in a steady state due to feedback inhibitions on the rate of chemical re-actions affecting the atmosphere. There is no out-of-control climate change to be concerned about, and claims that there is are duplicitous. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow and the higher the level in the air the less water they need to grow. Plants also photosynthesize to split oxygen from carbon dioxide. This all stops at 160 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air. At 160 ppm carbon dioxide in the air all plants and animals will die. All plants will die because their stomata will remain fixed in the open position and all will dehydrate to death. On average, for every car-bon dioxide molecule that enters the stomata the plant loses 100 water molecules. Animals and humans will all choke to death at 160 ppm in the air because respiration (carbon dioxide is exchanged for oxygen in the alveoli of the lungs) ceases at 160 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air. This exchange of gases is governed by Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures (gases move from areas of higher concentration of that particular gas (partial pressure) to lower concentration of the same gas (partial pressure). When we exhale the carbon dioxide in our lungs is circa 40,000 ppm. The average school and university lecture room has about 7000 ppm or higher of carbon dioxide in the air with no ill effects providing ventilation is adequate. Carbon dioxide is therefore our friend. My understanding is that so far, on this issue, perhaps USD 20 Trillion (maybe more than 100 trillion by some counts) has been squandered to enrich the few, largely in the past two decades. Surely Y2K, another non problem, was merely a test run to gauge the credulousness of the population. Also, the willingness of some politicians to never waste a supposed crisis if there is a dollar to be made, and the cupidity of the few who always have an eye to the main chance?
The CO2 information can be gained through Wikipedia.The amount in 2022 was 14 PPM of CO2 which is .04% of 1%.
The next question would probably have to be what can we do to get more CO2 into the atmosphere? I would suggest stop cutting down trees and make sure plants can grow and put CO2 back into the atmosphere.