# One Nation's response to the Chief Scientist #

1. Part of: [Points on Climate Change](https://checkvist.com/p/sTzmqmFO1Vw6l7LskEXMGN)
1. Introduction
   1. Thank you for inviting me to respond to your question, “On what basis do you believe that carbon dioxide from human activities affects climate and needs to be curtailed?”
   1. My written response here is consistent with my answer at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on 20 October 2016.
   1. To start, let me affirm, as you do, the importance of the scientific method. In particular, my confidence in scientific conclusions is particularly high when they are underpinned by 1) hypotheses based on principles of physics; and 2) evidence.
      1. Do you agree that the scientific method requires attempts to disprove a hypothesis rather than searching for supporting evidence?
   1. The answer to your question can be broken down into a series of sequential hypotheses and supporting evidence.
1. **First, human activity contributes to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.**
   1. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have increased because emissions from burning fossil fuels have exceeded the rate of uptake by the oceans and vegetation. The validation of this hypothesis comes from the evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, and supporting data confirming these elevated CO2 levels have originated primarily from burning fossil fuels.
   1. Confirmation of the hypothesis that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have been driven mainly by fossil-fuel combustion comes from:
      1.  measurements of the changing ratio of the isotopes Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 in the atmosphere and oceans (based on fossil-fuel CO2 having a distinct 13C:12C ratio from CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans);
      1. the observed dominance of the isotopic ratio changes in the northern hemisphere where most fossil-fuel emissions occur;
      1. a decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere mirroring the increase in CO2; and
      1. analyses of historical emissions.
   1. These multiple lines of evidence, taken together, confirm that the major source of elevated atmospheric CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, rather than from natural sources.
   1. Detailed accounting of emissions, natural sources and natural sinks of CO2 indicate that of recent annual emissions totalling about 37 billion tonnes of CO2, approximately 26% is absorbed by the oceans, 30% by vegetation and about 44% remains in the atmosphere.
   1. The evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is extensive. Ice-core air bubbles record atmospheric CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Era. Direct atmospheric measurement over the last fifty years from multiple locations around the world, such as Mauna Loa in Hawaii and Cape Grim in Tasmania, clearly show a continual annual increase. The rate of increase is itself increasing year by year.
   1. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is now above 400 parts per million (ppm), up from approximately 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era. This is the highest concentration in 800,000 years, as shown by ice-core records. Last year the atmospheric CO2 concentration at Cape Grim increased by 3.05 ppm, the most ever in one year.
1. We conclude human activity could contribute to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
1. **Second, high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 lead to warming of the oceans and atmosphere.**
   1. Consistent with fundamental principles of physics, the atmosphere is largely transparent to incoming radiation from the sun (visible light) but opaque to outgoing radiation re-radiated from the ground (infrared). This opacity arises from the absorption of infrared radiation by gases such as water, CO2 and methane, resulting in a ‘greenhouse effect’ that elevates temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere.
   1. The infrared-absorbing nature of CO2 was experimentally confirmed by British scientist John Tyndall in the late 1850s.
   1. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated the warming effect of CO2 on climate in 1896.
   1. The absorption and re-radiation of infrared energy within the atmosphere means that the average surface temperature is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without the heat-trapping molecules. Without these greenhouse gases our planet would be a very cold place indeed.
   1. The hypothesis is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect by trapping more outgoing radiation, thus raising the temperature of the oceans and the atmosphere.
      1. Do you agree that ALL emissions of CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect not just anthropogenic ones?
      1. Why doesn't the NOAA satellite measuring Outgoing Longwave Radiation show any correlation with CO2 levels?
         1.  ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/JywX2vWTqY0BjI/9e64215499c1f12d06900a084d366cdf1f00df24/preview/OLR-CO2.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=46f9212c7fb9438799487d611fff93181698161a74c85fbb0bc675785d5ad387)
   1. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, so too does its water-vapour holding capacity. This has the effect of amplifying the trapping of infrared radiation, thus warming the atmosphere further. This hypothesis is confirmed by observations of decadal changes in radiation above the atmosphere and at ground level.
      1. Why does the Precipitable Water Vapour lag the temperature rise by almost a decade?
         1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/YwDoYKpIjz39Gw/3a4bbf79c585d531f9422cc0bfa58ad4fc24fe2e/preview/Precipitable-UAH.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=79f1c1c4364dee5fd32076a159deaf0b25f680382b2c4d17113856322e64114c)
   1. Extensive ground-based temperature measurements from thousands of monitoring stations over land and the oceans reveal the expected warming of the atmosphere.
      1. Why do you assert that the "pause" from 1998 to 2013 was expected?
         1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/oOyO56N6IuNCNC/0c760da0cdd64752e6735373403b3f0175f7c437/preview/HadCrut4_Mauna_Loa.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=77d89160b041f87172ce5ab1e732eb945cdaed593f901980b3765a4ec3fab6f4)
         1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/Uzbz7sYjB1tMMR/df1b7065874836bb5e0ebbf50ce3a394e2d106bf/preview/CO2_Temp_1850.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=76d34517a98d3b1e65bbe50f4699d0ab0e82b6a3700b3059988c5bf2247d1d48)
      1. Have you personally done any due diligence on these thousands of monitoring stations?
         1. The Global Historical Climate Network V3 is the basis for the major temperature series.
During the period 1970-2010 the number of monitoring station fell from about 5800 to 2500.
The mean latitude of the stations varied from 37.7 deg to 35.5 deg.
The mean elevation of the stations varied from 435m to 370m.
Changes are still occurring.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/CAWbgsShUhPT4u/23f072542375fb0908ba5a7d78988fdf61e91938/preview/GHCN-V3_Stats.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=3242b948d8724883464b90322ff6c8379c7f259ad3b2c359615dc188ca6913f8)
         1. Are  you confident that a meaningful un-biased Global Mean Temperature can be determined from this data?
   1. Do you agree that the satellite and balloon temperatures do not reveal the warming of the atmosphere that is expected by the climate models? (With the possible exception of INM-CM4.0)
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/VzHEnBfsWmIH0J/e4dbf306d999b3f13678ca8a4e26f4112e62b4df/preview/Point_6-Model_Comparison.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=df8fc5e020cb1664de44300a9fe5d8894e29457f40801dfa5e2dddc73eff0ff0)
   1. Other signals of a warming planet include the rising heat content of the oceans and the accelerated melting of ice sheets and glaciers.
   1. Do you agree that the Pacific Ocean heat content is near the lowest levels for 8,000 years?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/W3UeOsoY5F2iwp/16375b0d3126f2ed4047c27e1772063d6ddcbc16/preview/Ocean_Heat_Content.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a2b25cd6db7c294b5cd33bc37c5d10f5345063097e7c022bb9be8cd0193420c9)
   1. Atmospheric and ocean surface temperature rises have been recorded by multiple, independent lines of evidence collected by institutions and agencies worldwide. These include the US agencies NASA and NOAA, the UK Met Office, and of course our own Australian scientists in universities, CRCs, and agencies such as CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.
      1. Please list each of the multiple independent lines of evidence, showing your conclusion from each line and how important you consider it.
      1. Are you concerned that the historical temperature records have been altered?
         1. Was NCAR incompetent in 1974 before Global Warming was an issue?
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/YqEASiwg1XyXVL/271d5646bd58a63ffd56620ef442fdc5d786b440/preview/NCAR_1974_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=5b569f539b51b1c2479152b0c2639e9981f00d74eee9c15fd3b7d062b9e088e2)
Was NAS incompetent in 1975?
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/f4QAeXwiJTp3w4/0b119b7b772613e7df637aad9755a4fa1c2d933c/preview/NAS_1975_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=de90e1b005579ccdc02ead93c7a5edca7ce7154d1defa888b3d99d519cb42ded)
Is NASA GISS now full competent and free of all bias?
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/6u62DEUTFdMeTQ/f2c6e9f419f0a70d740dcfb786ab2d4158bcf9ee/preview/NASA_2016_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=2c19f397c223c9c8469d856fcf18cc003406a84ac4e59912a4b9d91a28742872)
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/QNWF0POS7sUKHu/43887c4c64166e2fa90984d07df707017679434c/preview/NASA_-_NAS.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=4dd6faec84895ca7aeca7c6708ea75e1a677be21f4287b9ae8b68d73d605533b)
NASA's Current Temperature Graphs have been altered.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/9zh550HWByLPFx/7d68dbdee111e638c5ebe7af96e04b2872a0698b/preview/NASA_1981_2016_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=57cdc65df41dc1815e9df84ef4e1b361c785f46196e04676e1fb7dae83662eea)
         1. What happened to the cooling since WW2?
            1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/5LAPeGO5REC6YO/4d5e592487a116c450387cef1065987f870f62a2/preview/Cooling_since_ww2_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=9873b1c87cb4b2f61e3e54bf99515306c86d2358b2aee6626b8b7939bdc6d3f5)

The indisputable 1945-1979 cooling has been erased by NASA.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/GFVb1iqfDD786D/1050584c75102b5f50ad7b8a3db032fa79ed1e2f/preview/NASA_2016_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=5969525468ec5cdb88176a28eaebc54d48bab431f80c8584abe9c041327c99f1)
   1. Could you predict the weather 7 days ahead on the basis of a linear trend from 6am to 9am on one day?
   1. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)  includes extensive discussions of observations of the average temperature on Earth’s surface. The discussions include some statistical analyses of those observations . [This critique](http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf) considers the merits of such statistical analyses and includes an opinion by the UK Met Office Chief Scientist on the use of linear trend models. The IPCC states that the earth's climate is a non-linear, coupled, chaotic system, so why are linear trend models appropriate?  Also the latest IPCC Report (WG1 Chapter 12) shows a huge range of estimates for both ECS(Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) and TCR (Transient Climate response). These ranges are consistent with the diagram above, but the measurements are consistent with values which are stated in the IPCC reports as being extremely unlikely. It is quite clear that there is something seriously wrong with the physics used in the majority of the models. About the only agreement is that we don't know where the error is.
   1. Warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere and oceans has continued decade-by-decade over the past fifty years.
   1. Do you agree that the satellite temperature shows warming, cooling and pausing for the last 40 years?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/H8JKmYHluu5Sjx/3ab61fa176c2939a624f0ba97dffe8d8f8c7d8b9/preview/HadCRUT_UAH_CO2.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=4a5f872c7424816cdf2acd489273dc0c2c4f77f521a7a0bbabea7901ed675f8c)
      1. In that period, the average atmospheric temperature at the surface of the Earth has risen by approximately 0.6°C.
   1. The magnitude and spatial pattern of the observed warming cannot be explained by any alternative hypothesis, such as changes in solar output, internal variability, or volcanic activity.
   1. Please indicate in documents whose date can be determined, where your hypothesis has successfully predicted anything in the unknown future?
   1. On what grounds do you as a scientist say that the observations (which your hypothesis has failed to predict )  cannot be explained by any alternative hypothesis? This [link](http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/) lists 132 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, published in 2016, that investigate the Solar Influence on Climate.
   1. Significant as that warming of the atmosphere is, the biggest changes have been in the oceans. Of the extra heat trapped by the added greenhouse gases, approximately 90% has accumulated in the oceans, owing to their high surface area, low reflectivity, and higher density and heat capacity relative to air. Measurements from multiple institutions, based on multiple methods and over long time periods, indicate that the heat content of the oceans has continued to rise in the last fifty years. The measured accumulated heat of the upper 700 metres of the oceans provides further confirmation of the energy imbalance calculated from the known rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
   1. Do you agree that the recent rise in ocean heat content might not be important as ocean heat content is the lowest in 8,000 years?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/tpAz8tR0kfsTme/55047d06c92dfbfa0548891dc4768b6820c7fa22/preview/Point_6-PacificOcean.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=650d691b74326f4250f8f1440714e13e1e18057b0b4d3b49baa96f32d3d9ec3c)
   1. Apparently Southern Ocean temperatures have been falling since 1979?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/rOcyChD3J9jWo5/d06a262edd6e1e28c2e8a8fa8ab261a2318b89fa/preview/Point_5-Surface_tempsWarming.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a34941481f21ebe1bb676fd1067c394f465b42539f8e306c6d72218f1b686785)
Furthermore, Jones et al. (2016) have found that surfaces temperatures for the Southern Ocean – which surrounds the entire Antarctic continent – have dropped significantly since the late 1970s, as they show in the graph from their paper.
[Jones et al 2016](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html)
   1. Further confirmation of the warming of the planet derives from observations of changing sea levels. Over the last century, global average sea level rose by about 1.7 mm per year. Between 1993 and 2010 this rate has increased to over 2.6 mm per year.
   1. No single instrument has shown the alleged  increase in rate. Tide gauges (some starting in the 1800s) show no global rate increase at 1993. Satellite data started in 1993 so never measured the 1.7mm per year rate. The satellite data has never been reconciled with the tide gauges.
      1. **Satellites or tide gauges?** From Mirrors and Mazes p58 Dr Howard Brady
      1. In order to obtain global coverage, measurement of sea level rise using satellites commenced 25 years ago. This project has significant problems. The University of Colorado publishes altimeter recordings of sea level rise, and these have been derived from a series of satellites, replacing each other over time. The current satellite is Jason 2. In satellite altimetry, all measurements are made in reference to a mathematical shape, called a
      1. geoid, that represents the surface of the Earth, and known as a Terrestrial Reference Frame (TRF). Any error in calculating this TRF will corrupt the data. Using this method, the mean rate of sea level rise for the period 1992-2013 was 3.2 mm/year (32 cm/100 years) and then the rate slowed a little in the decade ending 2013 (Xianyao Chen et al., 2013).
      1. However, these data, as calculated by the present satellite Jason 2, has diverged so far from long-term and reliable tide gauges all around the world, it is evident there are serious problems with the instrumentation and computer modelling associated with the present  satellite altimetry systems. Professors Houston and Dean echo their concern about satellite altimetry:
      1. *... altimeter and tide gauge measurements were in good agreement up until 1999 and then began to diverge with the altimeters recording a significantly higher sea-level trend than worldwide tide  gauge record (Houston and Dean, 2011).*
      1. In July 2014 on behalf of the European Institute for Climate and Energy,  Klaus-Eckart Puls reported on its website that:
      1. *... Moreover, there are indications that the satellite data (showing a higher [double] rate of increase) are significantly over-corrected.*
      1. There is another means of measuring sea level, and that is by weighing the ocean. In 2002 a joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Centre launched twin satellites to measure the Earth’s  gravity. The mission is known as GRACE - the Gravity Recovery and  Climate Experiment. The Grace satellite measurements indicate sea level rise of 1.6 mm/year (i.e. 16 cm/100 years), and are close to the  average tide gauge sea level rise measurements of 1.7 mm/year (i.e. 17 cm/100 years).
      1. NASA publicly admitted in 2012 there are serious problems with the  present satellite system when it made its financial proposals to the US  Congress for a new satellite system called GRASP:
      1. *Thus, we assess that the current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level (i.e. one mm/yr is an error of 10 cm/100 years, and so forth) making observation of global signals  of this size very difficult to detect and interpret. This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea      level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognised as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS (Global Geodetic Observing System) (Yoaz Bar-Server et al., 2012. Jet Propulsion Lab. Caltech under contract to NASA).*
      1. Dr Yoaz Bar-Server, at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, Is leading the planning for the new GRASP satellite to replace Jason 2. In September 2014, he emailed to this author:
      1. *The discrepancy between long-term tide gauge records and ocean altimetry records is indeed a primary motivation for GRASP. I hope we’ll have good news in about a year from now.*
      1. The inherent problems with the satellite data highlight the importance of the long-term tide gauge data at regional sites like Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour. This is recognised as one of the world’s best kept tide gauges, supplying primary data. This tide gauge is also on a stable land mass that has not been subject to recent movements in the Earth’s crust.
      1. Despite problems with the sea level satellite data, some scientists use the satellite sea level rise data as a benchmark and then adjust tide gauge data upwards to the satellite data. But, once that tide gauge data Is averaged with or merged with satellite data it is being totally corrupted. Since the average Fort Denison sea level rise rate, as measured by the tide gauge over 100 years, is less than 10 cm/100 years, it is absurd to adjust that data upwards to the satellite data from the nearby Tasman Sea. It is equally absurd to average the Fort Denison tide gauge data (that are less than 10 cm/100 years) with the sea level rise estimates from the satellite data that are around 30 cm/100 years.
   1. Why is this rate increase not showing on the Port Dennison tide gauge?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/BHVFp4hnqtNtFn/02c9be06d2de56a55cd4581e01a81dd56b76ce18/preview/Fort_Dennison.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=4affa6e49609afcae78bff7bb0685400666cc9b16060b8c1b87ebd57204577f0)
   1. Why is this acceleration not obvious on 22 of the longest running tide gauges worldwide?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/QIDvu051c0m8Tp/da61819ab37ee55c1b900ce0b712bc82a66835e4/preview/Tide_gauges.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=635e811f350f03df87133b510672716c93e0568f3a8dcfca407abcdd7ccc82d7)
   1. Why have the NASA sea level records been changed from 1982 to 2016?
      1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/449uwpSXOJCcwf/beb8283fe86e2b54dd3856f935c8a9c4b3830bed/preview/NASA_sea_level_alterations_b.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=8aade781680f9590489f54971e8aaf0b5b404f02d77dd33d17fb9ece1525fa01)
   1. The rise in sea level is attributed partly to the thermal expansion of seawater as it warms, and partly to the net melting of ice-sheets and glaciers.
1. Do you agree that it was the initial low concentrations of CO2 that cause most of the warming, with the concentrations over 300 ppm contributing virtually no warming?
   1. This graph was produced using the ModTran6 Atmospheric Radiation simulation and shows the diffuse upward flux at 100km.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/TqJUukOY9HEWdp/f076839d4dbc9f651b04c08cdd314ea23e81acb7/preview/Upward_flux.png?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=77b5d74c0c65071ff079626ca5b1ad281a1ea47d8adebd80be2bbc4aaebf1c44)
The settings were Tropical, albedo 0.1, surface temperature 25 C
It shows that there is virtually no reduction in flux from the top of the atmosphere as CO2 is increased above 300 ppm.
1. Exactly how many degrees of warming do you attribute to the rise from 300ppm to 400ppm?
1. Why is the warming since the Little Ice Age any different to the warming leading to the previous Warm Periods when CO2 levels were below 300ppm?
   1. ![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/XoO2VA6CO0h8oq/1fdda6c260d81e7ccaabb42fdcc08be0afa8421e/preview/GISP2_Temp_EPICA_C_CO2.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=2d4b9c9b99818c4f66a7af20af811eb25db2f820143a8bce0be076a42a9678ae)
1. **Third, what is the climate impact of the warming atmosphere and oceans?**
   1. Understanding the climate changes that have and will result from the warming of the atmosphere and oceans is the extension of the science laid out in the first and second parts of this letter.
   1. A range of reconstructions and projections emerge from increasingly sophisticated computer models used to construct possible future scenarios. These models reproduce observed historical climate trends when they include the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They fail to reproduce the observed trends when they only include natural factors such as solar output, internal variability, and volcanic activity.
   1. Do you think that constructing a computer model to give particular known and desired outputs is an indication of deep predictive skill or is predicting into the unknown future what is required by the scientific method?
      1. In 2009, BOM's head of climate analysis predicted a permanent drought for southeast Australia.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/XK944NxKxw89vA/5d2a85bd8bf77d37c5c1e180a3728bf93c85361f/preview/BOM_drought.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=2a0d6cc175ece94937bd4cfb38ec7559492bfd134e4c7e5d7b5b038ff1252e62)
The scientific method requires a theory to make successful predictions into the future?
Have you discussed the "scientific method" with BOM?
      1. In 1988, NASA's top climate expert predicted Lower Manhattan would be under water between 2008 and 2018.
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/O1lPevMuAlxqlo/81c673bc38866361e326c32a09a759d1cf9cba50/preview/NASA_Hansen.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a56a99cbed2eb23a5a88bf6bfd93af95dd58b5dafc1a5d36a9b0aea59555d161)
      1. Is there no accountability in "government science".
      1. By Colin. I don't like comment 8.3.3 above, can it be reworded?The assertion that models reproduce historical trends is nonsense - see the graph at 4.8.1 in which the observations of bulk atmospheric temperature lie outside the 95% confidence limits of the predictions of the models. A. Does the CSIRO agree that model INM-CM4 is the only model with significant predictive skill? B. OIs the CSIRO aware that model INM-CM4 does not use CO2 Greenhouse theory in its calculations?
   1. Increases in the incidence of some weather extremes, such as heat waves and the incidence of fire weather (meteorological conditions conducive to fires starting and spreading rapidly), are already discernible in Australia. The underlying warming trends that contribute to the probability of these extreme events are linked to the greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere.
   1. Why are you convinced that extreme weather events are now more common than they were 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
      1. For example a recent paper in Nature looked at the cyclone activity index for the north west and north east coast of Australia. 
![](https://checkvist-prod-uploads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/u/hYbEBBllNUpOgU/32e56bfb20e0135dbaab2f8c80fb21c462dab3ee/preview/Cyclones.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Date=20260802T144921Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIPQDSU45IS7DDLBA%2F20260802%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=57216fea89e3408c0f40350dfb79b62661b5c4cf013e407c518b8208cddc36c0)
It doesn't look dangerous.
      1. Can you provide references to support your claim?
   1. The question of whether or not CO2 emissions from human activity need to be curtailed is a complex one. Our decisions about this question must be informed by the best available scientific insights, but they go beyond science into questions of politics and economics.
1. You have provided no evidence that human CO2 emissions have caused any significant amount of warming. 
You have provided no evidence that your computer models have any predictive skill.
The question becomes extremely simple: Why do anything when there is no evidence of danger?