CSIRO State of the Climate Report 2018 / archived / read-only

MIR: I don't think we need the SOTC images, Peter. We just need to provide our own images.

Maybe where our explanation is not adequate without the SOTC image in view, you could insert the SOTC image for reader's understanding.

• PJB My list of Key Points was in error - the points from Ocean onwards were one level out to the left so missing.
• Agreed - for points listed under the heading Australia and under the heading Global. Plus a comment on those projections made under the heading Future.
• Now that I have almost finished my responses to the all the SOTC report's claims and comments, I think it most effective to respond with your graphs to the Key Points. My responses may be of assistance although may be made redundant or erroneous depending on the data you present.
• How about these additional topics, particularly those in green section headline boxes not covered in the Key Points:
  • PJB These should always have been in Key Points - my mistake.
• • Ocean Heat Content: ... and the southern hemisphere oceans have taken up the majority of this heat
• • Rates of sea level rise vary around Australia (probably already covered in global key point
• • Greenhouse gases: Emissions from burning fossil fuels continue to increase and are the dominant contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2. And, secondly, the upper graph on page 21 depicting CO2 fluxes.
• How about responding to the crucial errors in these sections as well?
• • Cryosphere: The ice sheets and ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice due to a warming climate; sea-ice extent has reduced in the Arctic
• • Ocean heat and coral reefs (text box):
  • PJB After some thought, I think the 2 text boxes are a distraction. They are not Key Points and neither are they part of the body. Just asides. Perhaps indirectly respond to points within them if they directly support some Key Points. Similarly with points from the main body that are not Key Points.
    • MIR: Yes, agreed. That makes sense. Address them indirectly as the opportunity arises rather than directly and widen the argument. Yes to points from the main body that are not key points.
• • Why are Australia and the earth warming? (text box). Please see my responses to this. These are fundamental points and illustrate CSIRO-BOM's ignorance and lack of understanding of fundamentals in the UN IPCC's supposed theory.
  • See above on Text Boxes. Keep the narrative of the battle as short as possible. They put up their Key Points, we sink them - end of story. The shorter the more memorable the victory.
    • MIR: Agreed
• What about a section listing tricks that SOTC uses to mislead or misrepresent or exaggerate or downplay?

• PJB Presumably this is by our response to each specific point of their's.
  • MIR: Yes. Maybe once we get a feel for it we can make a broad statement up front encompassing this concept as it is pervasive in CSIRO-BOM SOTC. Thereafter simply draw attention to it in a short phrase
• PJB Variability includes cycles, step changes, random noise. We should push cycles when appropriate.
  • MIR: Definitely. Cycles are pervasive in climate as you know. It is a key. It is in my view, a key to debunking the climate alarmists because they will then have to prove what is unique and unprecedented about the latest cycle and what are the specific signs of HUMAN CO2 as cause.

• PJB Agree - cost benefit is the basis for rational decision making.

• PJB Agree - Average over what period? Why choose that particular period for the average? Leads into cycles.
  • Yes :)

• PJB This point would be better under Ocean Acidification.
  • MIR: Agreed. Just stating it here as an illustration of the concept that can be applied to most of SOTC's claims.

• PJB Global trends are an academic construct, built from trends at points which are real. No individuals are affected by global trends.
• MIR: True. Yet UN has managed to get people to believe the trends are global. So if we can identify any differences between Aust'n/regional trends and the global trend it shows the lie to the global claim.

• PJB Every place has its own trend. Darwin and Hobart don't suffer some Australian trend.
  • MIR: Please see my reply (1.3.1.5.2.) to your point 1.3.1.5.1.

• PJB These terms only apply to data without a trend or cyclical component. CSIRO frequently take out the cyclical component of the seasons. They acknowledge the daily cycle but don't extract any other cycles. Particularly the 1000 yr one between warm periods.
  • MIR: True to a major extent. Yet all data is characterised at least visually by a measure of location (mean, etc) and a measure of range. A key side effect is that we focus people on variability and then people easily discover for themselves that much of the UN's climate claim is crap.

• PJB CSIRO are wedded to linear trends and ignore cycles. I do tend to harp on cycles.
• MIR: Cycles are often key to understanding data. Vital. Even more so in climate

• PJB There is a list of references for the Main Report. But there are no direct citations in the Report body.
• MIR: Yeah, I noticed that later after reading your posting the list of references. CSIRO-BOM is using a trick that we used at Uni - splashing with references but not specifying. It looks impressive yet is useless. We need to draw attention to the fact they have no specific references for each of their points. In effect they have no reference that we can check. Their list could simply be a collection of papers on climate-related issues. It is useless.

MIR: Having now read and responded herein to each SOTC statement I agree that the response needs to be limited to our responses to the SOTC's Key Points plus selected topics and claims on which SOTC is vulnerable.

Once this is done, we will be in a position to consider other fields such as the Media Release that is a punchy concise statement riddled with claims that contradict the empirical evidence. Secondly, this will illustrate to the media how CSIRO-BOM are misrepresenting climate to the entire population and to MPs.

It will then be possible to consider making a video to rebut Helen Cleugh's video. That should be fairly straightforward.

• PJB We agree that, in general, a rise in temperature might increase the danger of fires. CSIRO has not claimed this to be a dangerous increase.
• PJB We would like to know how much of this increase has been caused by the "adjustment" of data between 2016 and 2018.

• April to October rainfall across southeastern and southwestern Australia has declined.
  • PJB We agree that it is entirely possible that in some months the rainfall in some areas of Australia might have declined. This seems quite unremarkable, given CSIRO's statement that: Australian rainfall is highly variable and is strongly influenced by phenomena such as El Niño, La Niña, and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
• Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.
  • PJB We agree that it is entirely possible that rainfall might have increased in some parts of Australia.

• PJB We agree that it is entirely possible that some rainfall extremes ( perhaps in some areas or in some months ) might have become more intense.

• Streamflow has decreased across southern Australia since the 1970s.
  • PJB We agree that it is entirely possible that decreased rainfall could have contributed to decreased streamflow.
• Streamflow has increased in northern Australia, since the 1970s, in places where rainfall has increased.
  • PJB We are glad to hear that increased rainfall has resulted in increased streamflow at least in northern Australia and after the 1970s. We are a bit worried that, prior to the 1970s, increased rainfall might not have resulted in increased streamflow.

• PJB We are relieved to know that Australia need not worry about this particular type of "extreme weather event".

• PJB We are a bit surprised at this CSIRO Key Point: Warming reduces snow.

• Between 1910 and 2019, stations were continually being added to and removed from the data. The calculated average temperature obviously depends on which stations are included at the time.
• The included thermometer stations have never constituted a regular fine grid over all Australia in the way that the satellite data is measured.
• Comparing BOM thermometer data to satellite lower troposphere data post 1997 shows that BOM rates of warming are 2-3 times that of the satellite.
  • [img: BOMUAHpost_1997.png]
• Some of the raw values recorded from the thermometers have been greatly adjusted.
• In many cases the older values have been reduced and the recent values increased.
• The specific reasons for individual adjustments are not readily available.
• Between 2016 and 2018 the Bureau altered the adjustments applied to temperatures before 2016, increasing the apparent warming trend.
  • BOM provides a data set for Australian Monthly mean temperatures. This appears to be the basis for the previous graph. The same data was also provided in 2016 for the previous SOTC report. [img: BOMAustTemp_2018-2016.png] The temperatures before 1970 have been reduce and after 1970 increased to increase the warming trend by 25%.
• The BOM provided Australian temperatures to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) of NOAA in the 1980s. GHCN Version 3 has unadjusted data monthly mean temperatures from 589 Australian stations. Some of which go back to the 1850s. The 22 GHCN stations with records from 1880 to 1990 were selected. This old unadjusted data from mostly SE Australia suggests that the period 1880 to 1920 was warmer than 1920 to 1990. The density of stations 1880-1990 in SE Australia compares favorably with current parts of the outback.

  • [img: GHCN1880-1990.png] The plots suggest that the period from 1880 to 1910 contained some hot temperatures. The composite graph follows. [img: GHCN1880-1990_Composite.png] The number of active stations varies from 18-22 in this period with some slight wandering of the average latitude and elevation.

    [img: Map_1880-1990.png]

    This old unadjusted data from mostly SE Australia suggests that the period 1880 to 1920 was warmer than 1920 to 1990. The density of stations 1880-1990 in SE Australia compares favorably with current parts of the outback.

• Examining BOM's temperature plot from 1910.
  • The BOM graph from the State of the Climate report [img: BOMAustTemp.png]
  • BOM provides a data set for Australian Monthly mean temperatures. This appears to be the basis for the previous graph. The same data was also provided in 2016 for the previous SOTC report. [img: BOMAustTemp_2018-2016.png] The temperatures before 1970 have been reduce and after 1970 increased to increase the warming trend by 25%.
  • Comparison of Australian Monthly Mean temperatures from BOM and UAH satellite. [img: BOMvsUAH.png] The thermometer data is more varied than the lower troposphere satellite data. BOM's 2016 data has a lower warming rate than the satellite but the 2018 BOM data has been adjusted to exceed the satellite data.
  • Comparing BOM thermometer data to satellite lower troposphere data post 1997 shows that BOM rates of warming are 2-3 times that of the satellite. [img: BOMUAHpost_1997.png]
  • The Australian Mean Monthly temperature appears to be based on the ACORN SAT 2 stations. Simply combining ACORN SAT 2 station data appears to roughly reproduce the Australian Mean Monthly temperatures. [img: ACORNSATComposite.png] The number of active stations is relatively constant from about 1965 until 2012 and the average latitude and elevation of the active stations is also fairly constant. The stations active from 1965 to 2012 are mapped below. [img: Map1965-2012.png] It is not a regular grid and the stations are concentrated somewhat on the coast and populated areas. The stations active from 1910 to 1920 are below. [img: Map1910-1920.png]
• Examining records before 1910 because if Australia was hotter before 1910 then current temperatures are not unprecedented.

  • The BOM provided Australian temperatures to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) of NOAA in the 1980s. GHCN Version 3 has unadjusted data monthly mean temperatures from 589 Australian stations. Some of which go back to the 1850s. The 22 GHCN stations with records from 1880 to 1990 were selected. [img: GHCN1880-1990.png] The plots suggest that the period from 1880 to 1910 contained some hot temperatures. The composite graph follows. [img: GHCN1880-1990_Composite.png] The number of active stations varies from 18-22 in this period with some slight wandering of the average latitude and elevation.

    [img: Map_1880-1990.png]

    This old unadjusted data from mostly SE Australia suggests that the period 1880 to 1920 was warmer than 1920 to 1990. The density of stations 1880-1990 in SE Australia compares favorably with current parts of the outback.

• Australian temperature records began long before 1910.
  • Examining unadjusted data only.
    • There have been at least 589 Australian weather stations. Unadjusted data is available from the Global Historical Climate Network - Version 3. This data was presumably supplied by BoM in the 1980s or 1990s. There are four station beginning in the 1850s that continue with little or no interruption to the 1990s.
• PJB It is more likely that the Australian climate has cooled by more than a degree since 1890.
  • There are 589 Australian stations in the Global Historical Climate Network V3 - Unadjusted. 11 of these started before 1880 and were fully rural. These were combined to give the following chart. [img: AustTempGHCNV3Unadjpre1880.png]
  • The GHCN adjustment process dropped 2 stations leaving 9 whose temperatures were radically changed. These were combined to give the following chart. [img: AustTempGHCNV3Adjustedpre1880.png] The warm period from 1880 to 1900 has been totally removed by adjustments. It was well reported in the newspapers of the time. Even after the adjustment there is still a long cooling period before 1910.
  • Dropping the pre 1910 data gives something resembling the CSIRO graph.[img: AustTempGHCNV3Adjustedpre1880Trunc1910.png] CSIRO can now state that the last decade is the hottest since 1910.
• PJB This key point of CSIRO's did not claim that this warming was dangerous or that it is likely to continue or that it was accurately measured. We agree entirely with these omissions.
• PJB We agree that a warming climate would increase the frequency of extreme heat events as determined by the method described by CSIRO.
• PJB Australian monthly mean temperatures from BOM in 2018 were compared with same dataset downloaded in 2016. The Bureau of Meteorology has altered the publicly available climate data without explanation. [img: 2018Minus2016.png] The temperatures before 1970 have been cooled by up to 0.1°C and those after 1970 warmed by up to 0.1°C. This would do wonders for the 99 percentile extreme heat events but little for the reputation of the Bureau of Meteorology. This warrants extensive questioning in Senate Estimates.
• MIR:Relative to past cyclical variation this is remarkably low.
  • Relative to almost anything it is insignificant
• Peter's temperature graphs - Holocene
• Reference UN IPCC 1990 report showing Medieval Warming Period much warmer than today.
• CSIRO admitted to Senator Roberts' team that current temperatures are not unprecedented and relied upon a sole faulty paper for the claim that current rates of temperature rise are unprecedented - yet temperature has not warmed since 1995.

• PJB We agree that it is entirely possible that the ocean surface around Australia has warmed somewhat similarly to the land temperatures.

• PJB Perhaps the oceans are taking up heat and the southern oceans the majority, but the current ocean heat content is still the lowest in 8,000 years.[img: Ocean_Heat.png] Doesn't seem to be dangerous.

• Warming ocean temperatures and an increase in the frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves pose a major threat to the long-term health and resilience of coral reef ecosystems. Globally, large-scale mass coral bleaching events have occurred with increasing frequency and extent since the latter decades of the 20th Century. Bleaching is a stress response of corals, as the water warms the symbiotic relationship between the coral and its zooxanthellae breaks down, turning corals pale. Without these zooxanthellae, most corals struggle to survive, and can ultimately die if the thermal stress is too severe or prolonged.

  • MIR: On what basis is the claim of increased frequency and intensity of ocean heatwaves claimed? How do they know what happened before 1960? 58 years is an eye blink and less than two arbitrary climate periods as the UN defined (30 years).

    What evidence of HUMAN CO2 causing the heatwaves? What are the other factors causing heatwaves? Temperature, winds, ocean currents, salinity, ... as SOTC earlier admitted compounding of events.

    Coral bleaching - see Peter Ridd article above. The first bleaching discussed scientifically was around 1928. Yet now we know bleaching has occurred for millions of years and is natural.

• Bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef has occurred in the past, but with increased frequency and extent in recent decades. Widespread bleaching was observed in 1998, driven by higher summer temperatures associated with a strong El Niño combined with long-term warming trends. The last two years (2016 and 2017) have seen mass bleaching over parts of the Reef in consecutive years for the first time, with the northern Great Barrier Reef experiencing bleaching in both summers.

  • MIR: What is the specific data on which SOTC bases this claim?

    Peter Ridd's article as trigger.

    What about the Medieval Warming Period and past far warmer periods?

• In February to May 2016, the bleaching was associated with some of the warmest sea surface temperatures ever recorded, with temperatures well above the long-term monthly averages in February, March and April. As a result, 30 per cent of all coral cover across the entire Great Barrier Reef was lost, and 50 per cent in the northern third was lost between March and November 2016. This was four times greater than previous mass-bleaching events in 2002 and 1998.

  • SOTC does not specify the normal range of temperature in the areas discussed. Nor does it specify the presence or otherwise of other factors known to affect bleaching and known to need a confluence with water temperature. These are critical factors that must be assessed and presented before any valid conclusions are drawn.

    Bleaching is known to be due generally to a compounding of events.

    SOTC discusses events over just 20 years.

    And Peter Ridd shows that the reef coral increased 250% between 2011 and 2016.

    If climate change is global and causing global impact why does its impact vary regionally along the Great Barrier Reef? Why not the whole reef.

    I have personally seen the recovery of coral around Keppel Island that was bleached three years earlier.

• A second mass bleaching occurred in 2017 linked to another marine heatwave, with temperatures again well above the long-term mean.

  • MIR: Natural events follow such statistical distributions. Reportedly, Brisbane had three major floods in 1893 and two were higher than any recent flooding. To draw unfounded and supported conclusions from nature's vagaries and attribute them to HUMAN activity is not scientific. It undermines science.

    Wikipedia is unreliable on politics yet is somewhat reliable for historical natural events and basic data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood Although I would not cite wikipedia, it does confirm my earlier understanding of three major floods in Brisbane in 1893. In fact it says there were four. Quote: "The 1893 Brisbane flood, occasionally referred to as the Great Flood of 1893 or the Black February flood, occurred when the Brisbane River burst its banks on three occasions in February 1893. It was the occurrence of three major floods in the same month that saw the period named "Black February". There was also a fourth flood event later in the same year in June. The river runs through the centre of Brisbane in the Australian state of Queensland, with much of the population living in areas beside the river. It was flooded in the first flood on 6 February due to a deluge associated with a tropical cyclone, called "Buninyong"."

• Both events could have been more extensive in the Southern Great Barrier Reef if it were not for cooling winds associated with distant tropical cyclones Winston and Tatiana in 2016 and tropical cyclone Debbie in 2017.

  • MIR: SOTC shows its bias again in the way it reports the cooling winds that limited bleaching in the southern GBR.

    Had it not been for the confluence of needed compounding events or bleaching in the northern reef that bleaching would not have occurred.

• The primary cause of both marine heatwaves and mass bleaching events was very likely due to warming oceans as a result of anthropogenic climate change, compounded in early 2016 by a very strong El Niño event.
  • MIR: What evidence of HUMAN CO2 as cause is there, especially given that atmospheric temperatures have not warmed since 1995 and given that CSIRO could not provide any evidence of any climate factors being unprecedented in the last 10,000 climate record?
• x
  • Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching risk map, shown as Degree Heating Days: the accumulated (sum) of positive sea surface temperature anomalies with respect to the long-term average of 2002–2011 each day over the reef for December 2016 to March 2017. Green = OK. Yellow = watch. Orange = coral bleaching risk. Red = coral mortality risk. Box to side says: Sea surface temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef were very much above average in early 2017, leading to extensive coral bleaching.

    • MIR: Why wasn't the whole reef bleached? What were the specific temperatures and the range of temperatures in the BOM's records on which SOTC bases its claim of "very much above average". To be scientific it needs to be quantified. And cause identified with high certainty.

      The term "very much above average" is not scientific and cannot be until SOTC specifies the data over an extended period of time spanning more than a century. Or at the very least specifying the data on which it bases its claim.

• Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880.
  • PJB That is less than 15cm per century. Doesn't seem to be dangerous.
• The rate has been accelerating in recent decades.
  • The trend might have changed just after 2,000 but it hardly looks like acceleration.
    • The graph is for the 79 tide gauges around the world that started before 1960 and continued to 2018. [img: GlobalSeaLevel01.png]
• Rates of sea level rise vary around Australia.

• The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing).
  • 200 years of data for Arlington Reef off Cairns shows that pH frequently goes up and down.
    • [img: PH.png]
• The changes in ocean acidification have led to detectable impacts in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef.
  • The requirement for collegiate solidarity at James Cook University trumps scientific integrity.

• Burning fossil fuels certainly contributes to CO2 concentrations but those emissions are dwarfed by the huge natural flows in the far northern lands where natural processes emit huge quantities in some months then absorb huge quantities in other months. These natural processes are temperature dependent in complex ways.

  • Surface carbon dioxide concentration 2019 01 01. [img: CO2_July.jpg]

    The maximum is 476 ppm

  • Surface carbon dioxide concentration 2018 07 01. Six months earlier. [img: CO2_Jan.jpg]

    Minimum is 366 ppm.

• http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/196.rlrdata
• Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia  (NOAA 680-140, PSMSL 196) - SeaLevel.info
  • I disagree with this trend line. A better trend line would be to show cyclical variation from start of graph until 1952, then flat trend until 2000 and then slight rise in sea level similar to earlier cyclical trends. The trend line is misleading and shows the flaw with using an overall calculation. At the U of Chicago Graduate School of Business I studied under the internationally renowned stats professor Harry Roberts. Yes that's an appeal to authority yet it is relevant because he said that there are two key steps to analysing all data before applying statistical equations/methods/calculations. These are: 1. Plot the raw data; then, 2. use the world's most sophisticated statistical analysis tools, our eyes, to pick patterns and only after this use statistical analysis tools (over discrete parts of the data or over all the data.)

• MIR: Note that the words "and future changes" were omitted from the Report at a glance to which the link above took me compared with the section named "Report at a glance" in the full SOTC report. Hereafter I will use italics to identify such differences or to identify some key words that I see as significant.
• MIR: This is an important roles based on trust extended to BOM and CSIRO to accurately record climate and weather data, analyse it objectively and present it fairly and honestly.
• MIR: There are enormous decisions being made politically and economically based on CSIRO and BOM reports that are communicated through politicians and media. These decisions are already having devastating and costly impact on Australia's economy, politics and sovereignty and on families, individuals and industries.

• MIR: Pleased to see recognition of natural variability, at last. SOTC fails though to identify and specify the proportion of variability attributed to natural climate variability and that attributed to HUMAN CO2. To make projections CSIRO-BOM must be able to specify attributions quantitatively.

• MIR: Planning as SOTC acknowledges can only be done if the proportion of climate variability and danger/damage due to natural causes and due to HUMAN CO2 can be quantified specifically and accurately.
• MIR: SOTC claims to synthesise the science yet provides no scientific attribution in the form of scientific references/papers or substantiating data. Senator Roberts' team proved to CSIRO in 2017 that CSIRO had failed to do its due diligence on 'scientific' papers that CSIRO cited and that we re easily debunked as scientifically flawed. CSIRO admitted to Senator Roberts' team in 2016 that it had not done due diligence on BOM data. The federal Department of Environment and Energy admitted to Senator Roberts and his team members that it had never done any due diligence on CSIRO or BOM claims and had simply accepted CSIRO-BOM reports as accurate. We are pleased to see that in SOTC, CSIRO and BOM are admitting that the science underpinning their SOTC report will have enormous, costly and widespread influence affecting Australians. We are pleased that CSIRO-BOM are taking responsibility for the consequences of their comments, especially after CSIRO's climate team admitted in November 2016 that CSIRO has never stated and never will state that there would be danger as a result of HUMAN carbon dioxide.

• Australia
  • Australia's climate has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.
    • MIR: Temperature graphs for 2016 SOTC report and 2018 in a format that readers can easily see the tampering.
    • MIR: Can we have Temperature graphs since 1850: • Rural • City • Satellite The aim will be to show and mention that CSIRO-BOM has been veery selective in starting temperature graphs in 1910, the localised low in temperatures. We will need to justify why nineteenth century data is valid and mention that in selecting 1910 as its start date, BOM is maximising warming seen on graphs and that when the full extent of valid data is used it shows no warming at all. Ask them to quantify/specify the change due to HUMAN CO2.
  • Oceans around Australia have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.
    • MIR: Peter's sea temperature data. Including the graph from the paper showing the last 9,000 years cooling trend. Ask them to quantify/specify the change due to HUMAN CO2.
  • Sea levels are rising around Australia, increasing the risk of inundation.
    • MIR: Peter's sea level graphs. Include graphs of the long running tide gauge data. Ask them to quantify/specify the change due to HUMAN CO2.
  • The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing).
    • MIR: Peter's ocean alkalinity data. Use the term alkalinity. What is the natural range of pH? What are the natural limits of variability? Without an understanding of this and without specifying this there can be no significance to the graph. Why is Australian pH, according to CSIRO-BOM, decreasing yet global pH varying naturally? (Peter has graph) Ask why SOTC uses such incorrect data when global data shows only natural variability. Ask for specifics as to location of measurements representing the whole of our large continent. Ask them to quantify the change due to HUMAN CO2? And the significance of this for the future so that plans and policy can be made, if needed.
  • April to October rainfall has decreased in the southwest of Australia. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs Ask over what period does SOTC refer? Why? What is SOTC's baseline period? Why? Ask: please specify/quantify the decrease. And ask them to quantify the decrease attributed to HUMAN CO2.
  • There has been a decline of around 11 per cent in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs. What is it relative to the last 150 years? Ask them how they calculate regional impact? Ask what proportion is due to HUMAN CO2 and what is natural? Ask them how they can make projections based on such a short period and with such limited understanding of rainfall cycles. Ask if they are aware of the supposedly expert advice of the Gillard-Rudd government's Climate Commission Chief Commissioner Tim Flannery in third paragraph on page 37 here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/9_appendix.pdf Either Flannery or BOM will be discredited or doubt sown.
  • Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs. What is it relative to the last 150 years? Ask them how they calculate regional impact? Ask what proportion is due to HUMAN CO2 and what is natural? Ask them how they can make projections based on such a short period and with such limited understanding of rainfall cycles.
  • Streamflow has decreased across southern Australia. Streamflow has increased in northern Australia where rainfall has increased.
    • MIR: Hardly surprising given the BOM's rainfall claims. Peter's graphs if he has any on this climate factor or on its components. What is it relative to the last 150 years? How many measurement stations are involved? And for each over what time period? (Peter: they will have very little data.) Ask what proportion is due to HUMAN CO2 and what is natural? Ask them how they can make projections based on such a short period and with such limited understanding of rainfall cycles.
  • There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of Australia.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs if he has any on this index or on the component factors. What is it relative to the last 150 years? How many measurement stations are involved? And for each over what time period? (Peter: they will have very little data.) Ask what proportion is due to HUMAN CO2 and what is natural? Ask them how they can make projections based on such a short period and with such limited understanding of rainfall cycles.
• Global
  • Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO 2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO 2 equivalent (CO 2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years.

    • MIR: Where is the measurement site? Just Cape Grim? What about water vapour. It has far greater capacity than does CO2 to absorb and be warmed by long wave radiation from earth's surface and its quantity in the atmosphere is about 25 times that of CO2. Why is water vapour not mentioned? Especially because climate alarmists say that carbon dioxide's effect is small yet is magnified, so they say, by positive feedback with water vapour? Is it because water vapour has a net cooling effect on earth due to latent heat of evaporation and cooling?

      SOTC fails to mention that water vapour, due to latest heat of evaporation/condensation is a temperature modulator and has a net cooling effect.

  • Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2.
    • MIR: Is CSIRO-BOM not aware that production of CO2 from HUMAN activity decreased in the internationally extensive recession in 2009 following the GFC, yet the level of CO2 in the air continued rising.
    • MIR: Peter's graph, including industrial production of CO2 showing decline in 2009. In CSIRO's presentations to Senator Roberts' team in 2016 and 2017 CSIRO's climate team failed to prove empirically that HUMAN CO2 affected the level of CO2 in air. Present the evidence that shows there isn such evidence and there exists evidence that nature controls the level of CO2 in air. And the evidence that temperature is independent of CO2 level.
  • The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.
    • MIR: Why has CSIRO-BOM not stated specific quantities. Specifically: • Total amount of extra heat stored by the planet and proven to be due to HUMAN CO2. • Total amount of extra heat in the oceans proven to be due to HUMAN CO2. • Total amount of extra heat in the atmosphere proven to be due to HUMAN CO2. • Total amount of extra heat in southern oceans proven to be due to HUMAN CO2. Without these data and without specifying the methods used to calculate the data the SOTC statement is worthless.
  • Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs from various sources. SEAFRAME results being from the world's greatest study of sea levels in South Pacific. What does SOTC mean in using the term Tide Gauge Sea Level Reconstruction This may be specified later in the report
  • Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs:GHCN, etc and NASA satellite temperature measurements for the full extent of their data
• Future Australia is projected to experience:

  • MIR: This is in response to SOTC's statement in 2.6.1.5.4. Future: Note the use of the word projected and not forecast. The former can be used without substantiation. What is the basis for SOTC's projection? What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2? And on what basis is it made? References need to be specified that include methods used to make projections.

    Over what period are the projections made?

  • Further increases in sea and air temperatures, with more hot days and marine heatwaves, and fewer cool extremes.

    • MIR: What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2? And on what basis is it made - scientific logic and data? References need to be specified that include methods used to make projections.

      Show Peter's graphs using actual data: GHCN, Satellite, BOM-Australian temperatures. Central England Temperature showing cyclical nature of climate. Holocene temperatures including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age proving far greater variation in future.

  • Further sea level rise and ocean acidification.
    • MIR: What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2? And on what basis is it made - scientific logic and data? References need to be specified that include methods used to make projections.
  • Decreases in rainfall across southern Australia with more time in drought, but an increase in intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia.

    • MIR: What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2? And on what basis is it made - scientific logic and data? References need to be specified that include methods used to make projections.

      There seems to be a pattern arising already in use of the word intense: wherever a beneficial aspect is projected (increased rainfall) it is preceded with a word conjuring negative images (intense).

• Key point: Australia’s climate has warmed by just over 1 °C since 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.
  • MIR: Relative to past cyclical variation this is remarkably low. Peter's temperature graphs - Holocene Reference UN IPCC 1990 report showing Medieval Warming Period much warmer than today. CSIRO admitted to Senator Roberts' team that current temperatures are not unprecedented and relied upon a sole faulty paper for the claim that current rates of temperature rise are unprecedented - yet temperature has not warmed since 1995.
• Australia's weather and climate are changing in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910, with most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia’s top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.
  • MIR: No HUMAN CO2 as cause of climate variability has ever been proven. CSIRO failed to prove it to Senator Roberts' team in 2016 and 2017.
  • MIR: Comment and drought and temperature reverses the known association being that high temperatures do not lead to drought, instead drought leads to high temperature due to lower levels of moisture that has a net cooling effect.

  • MIR: In the graph, why does 1998 temperature now appear to be less than in 2006? And much less than in 2016 yet it is widely known that 1998 was similar to 2016 and well above 2006. What happened to the warm period in 1930s-40s? Peter's graph of Australian rural temperatures. Peter's graph of Australian city temperatures.

    The hard data shows that over the last 120 years the longest single temperature trend was from the 1930’s to 1975 when atmospheric temperatures cooled for 40 years. • From 1976 to 1995 temperatures rose modestly starting with the small step in 1976 due to the entirely natural Great Pacific Climate Shift. • Since 1995, notwithstanding the known natural cyclical El Nino events in 1998 and in late last year carrying into this year, temperatures have been flat with no warming for over 20 years. • Since the start of atmospheric temperature measurements using weather balloons in 1958 joined by satellites from 1979 onwards, 70% of the time has shown no warming, just stasis or cooling. • There has been no warming for 70% of the UN IPCC’s existence. • The 1880s-1890s in Australia were warmer than the current decade and the 1930’s-40’s were akin to current temperatures. • The world’s longest thermometer temperature measurement is the Central England Temperature from 1659 and its more than 350 years of data shows the warming cycle from the 1690’s to 1720’s had a greater and faster increase than the most recent warming cycle. The latest cycle showing no statistical change from other cycles since 1659. Weather records in Australia and globally reveal natural warming and cooling cycles. • The empirical data shows that over the last 120 years there has been only natural cyclical variation in temperature, rainfall, droughts, floods, snowfall, cyclones or storms. Despite some activists among the media, academics and politics telling us humans are to blame, the data show no unusual, unnatural or human cause of global climate variability and nothing is happening with temperature or climate.

    What caused the warming of the 1880s-1890s that predated human industrialisation? What evidence does CSIRO-BOM have to prove those same causes did not cause the latest warming from 1976 to 1995?

    Why has there been no warming since 1995 despite record HUMAN CO2 output due to economic growth in China and India?

• The year-to-year changes in Australia’s climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend, which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate.

  • MIR: We're pleased to see that natural climate drivers are now acknowledged - at long last. Peter's graphs showing past warming trends of higher temperature and some possibly longer. Latest warming trend was brief from 1976 to 1995.

    What are the specificproportions of warming due to HUMAN CO2 and due to natural climate drivers and factors?

• IMAGE
  • Anomalies in annual temperature over land in the Australian region. Anomalies are the departures from the 1961–1990 standard averaging period.
    • MIR: See my comments in response to item 2.6.2.1.2.3. above
• Increases in temperature are observed across Australia in all seasons with both day and night-time temperatures showing warming. The shift to a warmer climate in Australia is accompanied by more extreme daily heat events. Record-warm monthly and seasonal temperatures have been observed in recent years, made more likely by climate change.

  • MIR: Peter's graphs (if possible) on day-time and night-time temperatures. Peter's graphs (if he has such) on extreme heat events. Peter's graphs (if he has such) on warm monthly and seasonal temperatures. Specifically, what is the likelihood of HUMAN CO2 causing these?

    Why does SOTC use the term "climate change" to imply "HUMAN-caused climate change". Is it because the UN IPCC's definition of "climate change" refers specifically to HUMAN-caused climate change in a political attempt to exclude the study of natural climate change drivers? Is the SOTC aware that it has stumbled into forbidden territory? Is it aware that the study of climate generally reveals no signal of HUMAN CO2 driving climate variability - as the raw (untampered) data confirm?

• Examining the shift in the distributions of monthly day and night-time temperature shows that very high monthly maximum temperatures that occurred around 2 per cent of the time in the past (1951–1980) now occur around 12 per cent of the time (2003–2017). Very warm monthly minimum, or night-time, temperatures that occurred around 2 per cent of the time in the past (1951–1980) now also occur around 12 per cent of the time (2003–2017). This upward shift in the distributions of temperature has occurred across all seasons, with the largest change in spring.

  • MIR: Peter's graphs of data from 1880s-1890s if he has such available? Why are these attributed to HUMAN CO2 as cause.

    Why not compare with 1930s-1940s whose original data showed temperatures akin to recent decades?

    Are SOTC's claims abnormal, unusual or just natural variation? What specifically is the evidence for this? What specific evidence is there of HUMAN CO2 as cause?

• IMAGE
  • Number of days each year where the Australian area-averaged daily mean temperature is extreme. Extreme days are those above the 99th percentile of each month from the years 1910–2017. These extreme daily events typically occur over a large area, with generally more than 40 per cent of Australia experiencing temperatures in the warmest 10 per cent for that month.
    • MIR: See item 2.6.2.1.6.1. above referring to the SOTC text. Anecdotally press records show that heatwaves in the 1880s-1890s were hotter and longer and more severe than heatwaves in recent decades. Heatwaves are a known part of climate worldwide and especially in Australia. It is evidence of natural variation.

• Key point: There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather and in the length of the fire season across large parts of Australia since the 1950s.

  • MIR: Specifically which parts? Isn't that to be expected in the South-east since it has been naturally drier in recent decades?

    Why does SOTC not quantify and specify the changes?

    Why does SOTC again use the term "climate change" to imply "climate changed caused by HUMAN CO2"?

    In regard to the image of Trends from 1978 to 2017 why is the underlying natural variation specified. Specifically what is the proportions attributed to HUMAN CO2?

    Why does CSIRO not have data on area of land devastated by fire? If so, does it include relative baseline figures to compensate for increased population and the spread of urban and town footprints?

• Fire weather is largely monitored in Australia using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). This index estimates the fire danger on a given day based on observations of temperature, rainfall, humidity and wind speed. The annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI (i.e., the most extreme 10 per cent of fire weather days) has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia. There has been an associated increase in the length of the fire weather season. Climate change, including increasing temperatures, is contributing to these changes. Considerable year‑to‑year variability also occurs, with La Niña years, for example 2010–2011 and 1999–2000, generally associated with a lower number of days with high FFDI values.
• x
  • Trends from 1978 to 2017 in the annual (July to June) sum of the daily Forest Fire Danger Index—an indicator of the severity of fire weather conditions. Positive trends, shown in the yellow to red colours, are indicative of an increasing length and intensity of the fire weather season. A trend of 300 FFDI points per decade is equivalent to an average trend of 30 FFDI points per year. Areas where there are sparse data coverage such as central parts of Western Australia are faded.

    • MIR: See my comments under 2.6.2.2.1.1.1. Is the use of a short period of 40 years valid, especially when the arbitrary definition of climate is for a 30 year period. Would we not expect natural change over 40 years if the 30-year definition is used?

      At best these comments from SOTC show poor understanding of variation and are unscientific. At worst they are deliberately misleading. Regardless, they are unscientific.

• x
  • Area average of the number of days with FFDI greater than 25 (very high fire danger) in Victoria in spring for the years starting in July (1978–2017). Although there is considerable interannual variability in the index, there is also a clear trend in more recent decades towards a greater number of very high fire weather days in spring.
    • MIR: See comments under 2.6.2.2.3.1.1.

• Key points
  • April to October rainfall across southeastern and southwestern Australia has declined.

    • MIR: Peter's graphs for 150 years.

      Peter's graphs's of the sum of April-October rainfall and October-April rainfall for each year and assess the variability of this total annual rainfall. I wonder what is the variation in rainfall across September-November and across March-May? I wonder what is the variation if wet season months were used in the north and winter figures were used for the south? ie, in the north, December-March being wet season and April-November being the dry season and in the south May-September being winter and October-April being spring-summer-autumn?

  • Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.
    • MIR: Why is HUMAN CO2 implicitly the cause of both? What is the unspecified causal relationship for each to HUMAN CO2? What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2 and what to natural drivers?
• Australian rainfall is highly variable and is strongly influenced by phenomena such as El Niño, La Niña, and the Indian Ocean Dipole. Despite this large natural variability, underlying long-term trends are evident in some regions. There has been a shift towards drier conditions across southwestern and southeastern Australia during April to October. Northern Australia has been wetter across all seasons, but especially in the northwest during the tropical wet season.
  • MIR: What evidence does CSIRO-BOM have that such patterns are not natural long-term cyclic? What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2?
• Year-to-year variability occurs against the background drying trend across much of the southern half of Australia (south of 26° S). In 17 of the last 20 April to October periods since 1999, southern Australia has had below average rainfall. Recent years with above-average rainfall in this region were generally associated with drivers of higher than usual rainfall across Australia, such as a strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole in 2016, and La Niña in 2010.
• IMAGE
  • April to October rainfall deciles for the last 20 years (1999–2018). A decile map shows where rainfall is above average, average or below average for the recent period, in comparison with the entire rainfall record from 1900. Areas across northern and central Australia that receive less than 40 per cent of their annual rainfall during April to October have been faded.
    • MIR: Arbitrary blanking-out (fading) of northern and central Australia. We need to see the whole pattern In regard to the categories "Highest on record" and "Lowest on record", over what period does SOTC define as "on record"? Note that in South Australia and NSW there are areas with "Very much above average" rainfall and this highlights the natural variation in climate and rainfall.
• IMAGE
  • Anomalies of April to October rainfall for southwestern (southwest of the line joining the points 30° S, 115° E and 35° S, 120° E) and southeastern (south of 33° S, east of 135° E inclusive) Australia. Anomalies are calculated with respect to 1961 to 1990 averages.
    • MIR: Rainfall anomalies are calculated with reference to 1961-1990 averages. Why not simply present the actual raw rainfall data recordings for the entire BOM records? That would be most accurate and most scientific.
• The drying in recent decades across southern Australia is the most sustained large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. The drying trend has been most evident in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the country. The drying trend is particularly strong between May to July over southwest Western Australia, with rainfall since 1970 around 20 per cent less than the average from 1900 to 1969. Since 1999, this reduction has increased to around 26 per cent. For the southeast of the continent, April to October rainfall for the period 1999 to 2018 has decreased by around 11 per cent when compared to the 1900 to 1998 period. This period encompasses the Millennium Drought, which saw low annual rainfall totals across the region from 1997 to 2010.

  • MIR: What is the significance of these numbers? Relative to what? What proportion of the decrease is due to HUMAN CO2? Given that the Indian Ocean Dipole was only recently discovered and is now said to be significant, what confidence can anyone have in CSIRO-BOM's claims?

    The Gillard Labor-Greens government's Climate Commissioner Prof Tim Flannery said droughts were more severe in Victoria 20,000 years ago. See page 36 here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/9_appendix.pdf that quotes from Flannery's article entitled Seeing Red published in Australian Geographic, Issue 109, July-August, 2012. On page 61: “There is still much we don’t know about red kangaroos, including their evolutionary origins. They’re members of the wallaroo group, close to the antilopine wallaroo of northern Australia. But because their fossils are incredibly rare, when they arose as a distinct species is unclear. Some of the fossils that have been found have turned up in strange places, like the outskirts of Melbourne, where no reds exist today. These date back 20,000 years and tell of a time when conditions were much drier, the arid inland extending all the way south to Port Philip Bay. You may have to travel far inland to see red kangaroos today, but it’s well worth the effort, especially in a wet year such as this.”

    Do you have any data on this, Peter?

    SOTC presents no evidence that current alleged rainfall patterns is unnatural and unnormal.

• This decrease, at an agriculturally and hydrologically important time of the year, is linked with a trend towards higher mean sea level pressure in the region and a shift in large-scale weather patterns—more highs and fewer lows. This increase in mean sea level pressure across southern latitudes is a known response to global warming. There has been a reduction in the number of cold fronts impacting the southwest, and a decrease in the incidence and intensity of weather systems known as cut-off lows in the southeast regions of Australia. Cut-off lows bring the majority of rainfall and the most intense rainfalls in some regions of eastern Victoria and Tasmania.
  • MIR: Relative to what period and specific level is the current variation unnatural or unnormal?
• x
  • Northern wet season (October–April) rainfall deciles for the last 20 years (1998–99 to 2017–18). A decile map shows where rainfall is above average, average or below average for the recent period, in comparison with the entire national rainfall record from 1900.
    • MIR: Why does SOTC claim national records began in 1900 yet provide temperature data only form 1910 and ignore the existence of fine rainfall data going back 150 years to 1869(???)?
• x
• Anomalies of October to April rainfall for northern Australia (north of 26° S inclusive). Anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1961 to 1990 average.
  • MIR: What is the annual rainfall data over the entire period of BOM rainfall data?

• Key point: There is evidence that some rainfall extremes are becoming more intense.

  • MIR: SOTC fails to specify the evidence. SOTC fails to show why it is unusual. SOTC fails to provide causal analysis. SOTC lacks scientific rigour.

    What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2?

• Although the range of natural variability in heavy rainfall is very large, there is evidence from observed weather station records that a higher proportion of total annual rainfall in recent decades has come from heavy rain days.

  • MIR: SOTC fails to specify the evidence. SOTC fails to show why it is unusual. SOTC fails to provide causal analysis. SOTC lacks scientific rigour.

    What proportion is due to HUMAN CO2?

• As the climate warms, heavy rainfall is expected to become more intense, based on the physical relationship between temperature and the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere. For heavy rain days, total rainfall is expected to increase by around 7 per cent per degree of warming. For short‑duration, hourly, extreme rainfall events, observations in Australia generally show a larger than 7 per cent increase. Short-duration rain extremes are often associated with flash flooding.

  • MIR: SOTC also claims in this same report that higher temperatures lead to more drought yet now says higher temperatures lead to greater water-holding capacity.

    Expectations are different from facts. On what basis are the three expectations in this statement made?

    SOTC states the obvious in the final sentence.

• MIR: This text box sounds scary in places and implicitly assigns cause to climate change due to HUMAN CO2 yet never provides any evidence of cause.
• While scientists often report on changes in individual climate variables, such as rainfall, historically significant weather and climate events are often the result of the combined influence of extremes in multiple variables occurring simultaneously. These events are commonly the most impactful and hazardous, and planning for such events is a major component of disaster risk reduction and resilience.
• Compound extreme events can occur in various ways. This includes an extreme storm surge, combined with extreme rainfall, leading to extreme coastal inundation. Similarly, extreme rainfall and extreme high wind events along the New South Wales coast are often associated with the simultaneous occurrence of an intense low pressure system, cold front and thunderstorms.
  • MIR: These events are natural and SOTC provides no evidence of cause, let alone changes in these natural events. In doing this SOTC implicitly admits ignorance of climate fundamentals and their impact on humanity.
• Compound extreme events can also describe the confluence of climate and weather extremes of varying timescales, such as a drought period intersecting with a prolonged heatwave, or record high daily temperatures—an occurrence which typically results in large impacts on agriculture, human health, fire weather and infrastructure.
  • MIR: SOTC implies drought and heatwaves are separate events, thereby contradicting earlier statements implying that higher temperatures cause drought. In effect SOTC is admitting natural climate variability is complex and that CSIRO-BOM do not understand such variability.
• Climate change can have a significant influence on the frequency, magnitude and impact of some types of compound events.

  • MIR: This is a bold statement that is not supported with scientific data and that does not include the concept that some types of climate change could reduce the strength and occurrence of compound events. The examples are not balanced and are entirely of negative impacts on humans.

    Again, SOTC appears to use the term climate change to imply climate change due to HUMAN CO2.

• For example, the confluence of background warming trends, background drying trends and natural variability saw extreme heat and low rainfall across Tasmania during the spring, summer and autumn of 2015–2016. October 2015 saw the third highest mean monthly maximum temperature on record for the State, record low monthly rainfall and record high fire danger. These conditions rapidly transitioned to record atmospheric moisture and heavy rainfall in June. Tasmania experienced significant impacts from these events, including drought and fires, followed by flooding.
  • MIR: No evidence of HUMAN CO2 as cause. These can be explained by natural climate drivers.
• There is also a trend in some regions towards an increasing number of days when high fire danger ratings are combined with conditions that allow bushfires to generate thunderstorms. This can lead to extremely dangerous fire conditions as observed for the Canberra (2003) and Black Saturday (2009) fires, including generating additional fires from lightning strikes.
  • MIR: No evidence of HUMAN CO2 as cause. These can be explained by natural climate drivers.
• As climate change continues, the combination of increases in heavy rainfall and rising sea levels means that coastal and estuarine environments may have an increase in flood risk from multiple causes.
  • MIR: No evidence of HUMAN CO2 as cause. These can be explained by natural climate drivers.
• Projecting the occurrence and severity of future compound extreme events is a significant scientific challenge, as well as a very important one for future climate adaptation.

  • MIR: SOTC is admitting that CSIRO-BOM's level of understanding of climate variables and rivers is low and that CSIRO-BOM do not understand the natural causes of climate factors, and thus cannot understand any imagined human causes.

    The whole text box has said nothing yet dwells on the scary effects of climate and implies human climate change (due to HUMAN CO2).

• Key points
  • Streamflow has decreased across southern Australia since the 1970s.

    • MIR: Presumably because SOTC has made an associated claim about rainfall.

      On the basis of alarmist climate academics, some with conflicts of financial interest, governments across four states wasted billions of dollars on desalination plants with only one ever used. Additionally, huge increases in energy costs due to energy policies based on climate alarm make the future use of those energy-intensive desalination plants even less likely.

  • Streamflow has increased in northern Australia, since the 1970s, in places where rainfall has increased.
    • MIR: Presumably because SOTC has made an associated claim about rainfall.
• The observed long-term reduction in rainfall across southern Australia has led to even greater reductions in streamflows. For example, the mean annual streamflow into Perth water storages has dropped from 338 GL during the period 1911–1974 to 134 GL during the subsequent years from 1975–2017. During this latter period there is a continuing decline to a mean annual inflow of 47 GL during the last six years.

  • MIR: In earlier sections SOTC presents no scientific data showing that recent rainfall patterns are statistically significant and unnormal or unusual.

    Yet now assume them to be significant.

    No specific time-series streamflow data is provided or specifically referenced.

    Nor are other users of water along the water catchment discussed. Could these be diverting water from Perth water storages, if there is statistically lower streamflow?

    No evidence is presented specifying HUMAN CO2 as cause. Nor is the proportion of claimed variation due to HUMAN CO2 specified.

• Declines in streamflow have also been observed in four drainage divisions: the Murray–Darling Basin, South East Coast (Victoria) and South East Coast (New South Wales) (which include Sydney and Melbourne), and the South Australian Gulf (which includes Adelaide). In each of these drainage divisions between two thirds and three quarters of streamflow records show a declining trend since the 1970s.

  • MIR: In earlier sections SOTC presents no scientific data showing that recent rainfall patterns are statistically significant and unnormal or unusual.

    Yet now assume them to be significant.

    No specific time-series streamflow data is provided or specifically referenced.

    Nor are other users of water along the water catchment discussed. Could these be diverting water from streamflows, if there is statistically lower streamflow?

    No evidence is presented specifying HUMAN CO2 as cause. Nor is the proportion of claimed variation due to HUMAN CO2 specified.

• In the Tanami–Timor Sea Coast drainage division in Northern Australia, which includes Darwin and covers much of the Northern Territory, there is an increasing trend in mean annual flows at more than half of the gauging stations, following an increase in rainfall since the 1970s.

  • MIR: In earlier sections SOTC presents no scientific data showing that recent rainfall patterns are statistically significant and unnormal or unusual.

    Yet now assume them to be significant.

    No specific time-series streamflow data is provided or specifically referenced.

    Nor are other users of water along the water catchment discussed. Could these be diverting water from Tanami-Timor, if there is statistically lower streamflow?

    No evidence is presented specifying HUMAN CO2 as cause. Nor is the proportion of claimed variation due to HUMAN CO2 specified.

• Key point: There has been a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones observed in the Australian region since 1982.
  • MIR: This is contrary to past proclamations in the media and a refreshing and welcome statement. It is contrary to past climate claims that a warming world will lead to more cyclones and more severe cyclones. Yet no explanation is provided to support this reversal of opinion.
• Tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region, which is specified as the ocean and land areas from 90° E to 160° E in the southern hemisphere, has large variability from year-to-year, due to the influence of naturally occurring climate drivers. For example, the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region generally declines with El Niño and increases with La Niña.
• Observations since 1982 indicate a downward trend in the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region.
• In contrast to the number of tropical cyclones, cyclone intensity is harder to observe, so it is not currently possible to quantify any trends with a substantial degree of confidence.
  • MIR: Peter's graph on cyclone severity. Data on severity shows that cyclone intensity is not increasing

• Key point: A downward trend in snow depth has been widely observed for Australian alpine regions since the late 1950s.
• Downward trends in snow depth have been observed for Australian alpine regions since the late 1950s, with largest declines observed during spring. Downward trends in the spatial extent of snow cover in Australia have also been observed. Snow depth is closely related to maximum temperatures, and the observed declines are associated with the long term trend of increasing temperatures.

  • MIR: Yet the media has reported record early snowfalls and earlier than expected starts to ski seasons.

    Peter's graphs showing no rise in temperatures since 1995.

    Elsewhere SOTC claims that as temperatures rise precipitation increases.

    Would not snowfall decrease if the south-east is drier as SOTC earlier claimed?

    No specific attribution to the proportion due to HUMAN CO2.

• Key point: The ocean surface around Australia has warmed, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.

  • MIR: Peter's graph on ocean temperature showing cooling over 9,000 years.

    No evidence of frequency, duration or cause of marine heatwaves.

• The ocean surface around Australia has warmed over recent decades at a similar rate to the air temperature. Sea surface temperature in the Australian region has warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, with eight of the ten warmest years on record occurring since 2010. Part of the East Australian Current now extends further south, creating an area of more rapid warming in the Tasman Sea. This extension is having numerous impacts on marine ecosystems, including many marine species extending their habitat range further south.

  • MIR: Air temperature has not warmed. Satellite data. Does SOTC statement mean that BOM has warmed the ocean temperature data to?

    No evidence presented and no evidence presented of HUMAN CO2 as cause.

    Marine organisms and ecosystems have survived and thrived in past far warmer periods.

• x
  • Trends in sea surface temperatures in the Australian region from 1950 to 2017 (data source: ERSST v5, www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/).

    • MIR: Peter's graphs if any available.

      On what quality of data is this image based? ARGO? What is the method of taking measurements (eg, from ships?)? How many measurement stations were used in 1950? Do the measurements cover a significant or representative area of the oceans and the depth of the oceans?

• x
  • Anomalies in annual sea surface temperature in the Australian region. Anomalies are the departures from the 1961–1990 standard averaging period. Sea surface temperatures are for the Australian region (4–46° S and 94–174° E).

    • MIR: Peter's graphs

      What measurements were taken of ocean temperatures in 1910? What extent of Australia was covered? Are they valid as to depth to exclude other factors. Are they representative of Australia and the surrounding oceans?

      CSIRO does not specify data source and quality of measurement.

      Have the ocean temperatures been warmed through manual tampering at BOM like the atmospheric temperatures?

• Warming of the ocean has contributed to longer and more frequent periods when the sea surface temperature is in the upper range of historical baseline conditions for five days or more, known as marine heatwaves. There were long and intense marine heatwaves in the Tasman Sea and around southeast Australia and Tasmania from September 2015 to May 2016 and from November 2017 to March 2018. Scientific analysis shows that the severity of both events can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Recent marine heatwaves are linked to coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef (see Ocean heat and coral reefs box).

  • MIR: Warmer temperatures are known to be beneficial to coral.

    Great Barrier Reef researchers and tour operators say GBR is in healthy shape. Peter Ridd's article in The Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/coral-can-take-the-heat-unlike-experts-crying-wolf/news-story/8c156af5de30464dc29935a327869898 I don't know if Peter has some of the following excerpts available in a peer-reviewed paper: • death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures; • The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence; • A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast; • A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were ­serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years; • This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples; • I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.

• Key points
  • The world’s oceans are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, and the southern hemisphere oceans have taken up the majority of this heat.

    • MIR: Where is the specific quantified evidence of the extra energy stored in the oceans? Where is the specific quantified evidence of it being due to HUMAN CO2?

      Peter's graph of ocean temperatures over the last 9,000 years.

• The world’s oceans play a critical role in the climate system. More than 90 per cent of the additional energy arising from the enhanced greenhouse effect is taken up by the ocean, slowing down the rate of warming at the Earth’s surface. Heat is absorbed at the surface and then moves to the deep ocean in those regions where currents move water vertically. As a result, the ocean is warming both near the surface and at depth, with the rate varying between regions and depths.

  • MIR: Where is the specific quantified evidence of the extra energy stored in the oceans? Where is the specific quantified evidence of it being due to HUMAN CO2?

    Peter's graph of ocean temperatures over the last 9,000 years.

    Peter's graphs re temperatures at various ocean depths.

    What is the contribution of heat from undersea volcanoes? What is the contribution from the sun? And from other sources?

• x
  • Estimated change in ocean heat content over the full ocean depth, from 1960 to 2017. Shading provides an indication of the confidence range of the estimate. Note that data contributing to the early part of the record are sparse and trends estimated over this period are small compared to the error bars, hence considered unreliable.

    • MIR: Peter's graphs including 9,000 year trend.

      SOTC has not specified the data source nor method of measurement. Nor does SOTC specify how the confidence range was developed. Without that how can readers and policymakers know the reliability of the data and the confidence we can have in it?

• The upper ocean is more extensively measured than the deep ocean. Between 1960 and 2017 the global ocean between the surface and a depth of 700 m gained 24 x 1022 joules of additional heat. This is more than 60 per cent of the heat accumulated over the full depth of the ocean. Due to the location of currents that move water vertically, the southern hemisphere oceans have taken up the majority of the heat, including the Southern Ocean to the south of Australia.

  • MIR: Given SOTC's admission of implied sparse measurement of deep ocean how can readers have confidence in SOTC's claimed estimated change in ocean heat content?

    If the ocean is warming as SOTC purports, the ocean would be outgassing CO2 as it warms and that would more than account for the minor rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. The alarmists cannot have it both ways.

• x
  • Estimated linear trend in ocean heat content between 1970 and 2017 in the top 700 m of the ocean, showing the highest uptake of heat in regions where ocean currents move heat to the deep ocean such as the Southern Ocean south of Australia. Southern hemisphere oceans have taken up the majority of the extra heat from global warming.

    • MIR: On what basis is the estimate made? What are the data sources?

      Southern oceans are far greater in area (and likely volume) than northern oceans so we would expect southern oceans to have taken up more heat - if earth's oceans are warming.

• The rate at which the deep ocean below 700 m is warming is slow but steady, compared to the more variable rate of change in the upper ocean. Long-term trends in the deep ocean show a clear warming, however there are far fewer observations below 2000 m than near the surface, so the magnitude of this warming is less certain. The observation coverage in the deep ocean will dramatically increase in coming years as the newest generation of observing technology becomes operational, including the automated samplers known as ARGO floats with an extended depth range down to 6000 m.

  • MIR: Again SOTC speaks of its deficiencies/uncertainties in implicitly positive terms.

    If the magnitude of deep ocean trends are less certain how can there be a clear warming? How can the cause of the warming be known? How certain is the claim of deep ocean warming? On what is the claim based? What is the confidence level?

• Ocean heat and coral reefs
  • Warming ocean temperatures and an increase in the frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves pose a major threat to the long-term health and resilience of coral reef ecosystems. Globally, large-scale mass coral bleaching events have occurred with increasing frequency and extent since the latter decades of the 20th Century. Bleaching is a stress response of corals, as the water warms the symbiotic relationship between the coral and its zooxanthellae breaks down, turning corals pale. Without these zooxanthellae, most corals struggle to survive, and can ultimately die if the thermal stress is too severe or prolonged.

    • MIR: On what basis is the claim of increased frequency and intensity of ocean heatwaves claimed? How do they know what happened before 1960? 58 years is an eye blink and less than two arbitrary climate periods as the UN defined (30 years).

      What evidence of HUMAN CO2 causing the heatwaves? What are the other factors causing heatwaves? Temperature, winds, ocean currents, salinity, ... as SOTC earlier admitted compounding of events.

      Coral bleaching - see Peter Ridd article above. The first bleaching discussed scientifically was around 1928. Yet now we know bleaching has occurred for millions of years and is natural.

  • Bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef has occurred in the past, but with increased frequency and extent in recent decades. Widespread bleaching was observed in 1998, driven by higher summer temperatures associated with a strong El Niño combined with long-term warming trends. The last two years (2016 and 2017) have seen mass bleaching over parts of the Reef in consecutive years for the first time, with the northern Great Barrier Reef experiencing bleaching in both summers.

    • MIR: What is the specific data on which SOTC bases this claim?

      Peter Ridd's article as trigger.

      What about the Medieval Warming Period and past far warmer periods?

  • In February to May 2016, the bleaching was associated with some of the warmest sea surface temperatures ever recorded, with temperatures well above the long-term monthly averages in February, March and April. As a result, 30 per cent of all coral cover across the entire Great Barrier Reef was lost, and 50 per cent in the northern third was lost between March and November 2016. This was four times greater than previous mass-bleaching events in 2002 and 1998.

    • SOTC does not specify the normal range of temperature in the areas discussed. Nor does it specify the presence or otherwise of other factors known to affect bleaching and known to need a confluence with water temperature. These are critical factors that must be assessed and presented before any valid conclusions are drawn.

      Bleaching is known to be due generally to a compounding of events.

      SOTC discusses events over just 20 years.

      And Peter Ridd shows that the reef coral increased 250% between 2011 and 2016.

      If climate change is global and causing global impact why does its impact vary regionally along the Great Barrier Reef? Why not the whole reef.

      I have personally seen the recovery of coral around Keppel Island that was bleached three years earlier.

  • A second mass bleaching occurred in 2017 linked to another marine heatwave, with temperatures again well above the long-term mean.

    • MIR: Natural events follow such statistical distributions. Reportedly, Brisbane had three major floods in 1893 and two were higher than any recent flooding. To draw unfounded and supported conclusions from nature's vagaries and attribute them to HUMAN activity is not scientific. It undermines science.

      Wikipedia is unreliable on politics yet is somewhat reliable for historical natural events and basic data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood Although I would not cite wikipedia, it does confirm my earlier understanding of three major floods in Brisbane in 1893. In fact it says there were four. Quote: "The 1893 Brisbane flood, occasionally referred to as the Great Flood of 1893 or the Black February flood, occurred when the Brisbane River burst its banks on three occasions in February 1893. It was the occurrence of three major floods in the same month that saw the period named "Black February". There was also a fourth flood event later in the same year in June. The river runs through the centre of Brisbane in the Australian state of Queensland, with much of the population living in areas beside the river. It was flooded in the first flood on 6 February due to a deluge associated with a tropical cyclone, called "Buninyong"."

  • Both events could have been more extensive in the Southern Great Barrier Reef if it were not for cooling winds associated with distant tropical cyclones Winston and Tatiana in 2016 and tropical cyclone Debbie in 2017.

    • MIR: SOTC shows its bias again in the way it reports the cooling winds that limited bleaching in the southern GBR.

      Had it not been for the confluence of needed compounding events or bleaching in the northern reef that bleaching would not have occurred.

  • The primary cause of both marine heatwaves and mass bleaching events was very likely due to warming oceans as a result of anthropogenic climate change, compounded in early 2016 by a very strong El Niño event.
    • MIR: What evidence of HUMAN CO2 as cause is there, especially given that atmospheric temperatures have not warmed since 1995 and given hat CSIRO could not provide any evidence of any climate factors being unprecedented in the last 10,000 climate record?
  • x
    • Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching risk map, shown as Degree Heating Days: the accumulated (sum) of positive sea surface temperature anomalies with respect to the long-term average of 2002–2011 each day over the reef for December 2016 to March 2017. Green = OK. Yellow = watch. Orange = coral bleaching risk. Red = coral mortality risk. Box to side says: Sea surface temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef were very much above average in early 2017, leading to extensive coral bleaching.

      • MIR: Why wasn't the whole reef bleached? What were the specific temperatures and the range of temperatures in the BOM's records on which SOTC bases its claim of "very much above average". To be scientific it needs to be quantified. And cause identified with high certainty.

        The term "very much above average" is not scientific and cannot be until SOTC specifies the data over an extended period of time spanning more than a century. Or at the very least specifying the data on which it bases its claim.

• Key points
  • Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs of global sea level rise, Australian sea level rise, and prominent long-term Australian tide gauge measurements such as Fort Denison.
  • Rates of sea level rise vary around Australia.
    • MIR: Peter's graphs of sea levels in various locations around Australia. These will show the diverse performance and confirm that there is no global driver that dominates sea level.
• As the ocean warms it expands and sea level rises. This has contributed about a third of the observed global sea level rise of over 20 cm since the late 19th Century. The remainder comes from the loss of ice from glaciers and polar ice sheets, and changes in the amount of water stored on the land. The confidence range of global sea level change has continuously improved because there has been more analysis of satellite altimetry, the time series has lengthened, and the various contributions to sea level have now all been reliably quantified and accounted for. Since 1993 sea level has been rising at 3.2 cm per decade.

  • MIR: PJB and Tony Heller know the actual rate of sea level rise. Specify. Specify how NASA-GISS corrupted the data. Peter's graph.

    UN IPCC repeatedly downgraded its sea level projections for the year 2100. Each report reduces the expected sea level rise. NIPCC does this well

• x
  • High-quality global sea level measurements showing annual sea level change from 1880 in tide gauge data (1880–2014 blue line, light blue shading indicates confidence range), and annual sea level change in satellite altimetry (1993–2017, red line). The pull out figure shows monthly sea level change from 1880 in satellite altimetry from 1993 to July 2018 (updated from Church and White 2011). https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/
    • MIR: How does satellite show data from 1880?
• Sea level has been rising around Australia. Sea level rise varies from year to year and from place to place. This is partly due to the natural variability of the climate system from influences such as El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Based on the satellite altimetry observations since 1993, the rates of sea level rise to the northwest, north and southeast of Australia have been higher than the global average, while rates of sea level rise along the south and northeast coasts of the continent have been close to or slightly less than the global average

  • MIR: Actual rate of sea level rise around Australia according to Qld government Dept of Marine Safety around 2015 had been 0.3mm per year on average for previous 19 years. (Figures were removed after we started sharing them widely.)

    Regional variation indicates factors other than global temperature affect sea level. And temperature has not risen since 1995. And CSIRO admitted temperatures are not unprecedented.

• The longer-term satellite record is restricted to offshore (at least 25 km off the coast) and does not include estimates of sea level rise along Australia’s coasts, where changes are instead measured from tide gauge data. Changes in sea level measured by tide gauges may be different from those measured by satellites due to coastal processes, vertical land motion or changes to the surveyed reference level of the tide records (e.g. a site change). These factors introduce some uncertainty to rates of change in sea level experienced at the coast. Nevertheless, tide gauges with good long-term records around Australia show consistent sea level rise over time.
  • MIR: Peter's graphs. We are pleased to see SOTC admit that there are other factors determine coastal inundation. Peter's graphs of sea level at various long-term tide gauges show some areas very close to no sea level rise. SOTC's last sentence is a blatant lie without the word "some".
• x
  • The rate of sea level rise around Australia by satellite observations from 1993 to 2017. Source: CSIRO, update from White et al. (2014).
    • MIR: Peter's graphs on sea level rise and his comments on NASA-GISS satellite error.

• Key points
  • The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing).
    • MIR: Oceans are not acidic, they are alkaline. Ocean alkalinity (pH) continues to vary naturally within natural limits. There has been no change to alkalinity. CSIRO did not specify alkalinity/acidity as unprecedented.
  • The changes in ocean acidification have led to detectable impacts in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef.
    • MIR: SOTC makes another bold statement with no evidence and without even listing one of the claimed impacts. And never presented any evidence proving HUMAN CO2 is the cause.
• The uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans affects the carbonate chemistry and decreases pH, a process known as ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is the consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 levels and impacts the entire marine ecosystem—from plankton at the base through to the top of the food chain. Impacts include changes in reproduction, organism growth and physiology, species composition and distributions, food web structure, nutrient availability and calcification. The latter is particularly important for species that produce shells, or skeletons of calcium carbonate, such as corals and shellfish. The average pH of surface waters around Australia is estimated to have decreased since the 1880s by about 0.1, corresponding to a more than 30 per cent increase in acidity (the waters have become less alkaline). These changes have led to a reduction in coral calcification and growth rates on the Great Barrier Reef, with implications for recovery from coral bleaching events. The current rate of change is ten times faster than at any time in the past 300 million years. Due to the differences in ocean chemistry by latitude, the oceans to the south of Australia are acidifying faster than those to the north.

  • MIR: As there has been no change to alkalinity and no warming since 1995 none of the listed effects are due to HUMAN CO2. They are merely statements of possible biological effects if there were changes to alkalinity.

    SOTC makes this statement/claim: "The average pH of surface waters around Australia is estimated to have decreased since the 1880s by about 0.1, corresponding to a more than 30 per cent increase in acidity (the waters have become less alkaline)." Yet SOTC fails to specify the specific source of its supposed data and fails to specify the method of estimation. This is not scientific and not acceptable.

    It shows that CSIRO-BOM are not used to scrutiny - as CSIRO's presentations to Senator Roberts' team in 2016 and 2017 confirmed.

    Given that according to the UN IPCC itself (TAR, 2001) oceans contain, in dissolved form, 50 times the amount of CO2 in the entire atmosphere, CO2 is simply part of the ocean environment. Geologists advise that ocean alkalinity is controlled by the basal rocks at the ocean floor.

• x
• x
  • The pH of surface waters around Australia, top: change between 1880–1889 and 2003–2012, bottom: the average pH of water surrounding Australia. Calculations are based on present-day data on the carbonate chemistry of surface seawater around Australia from the Integrated Marine Observing System and other programs, and extrapolation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes since the 1880s. Source: CSIRO, Lenton et al. (2016).

    • MIR: Note the use of circular logic (illogical). SOTC says: "extrapolation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes since the 1880s." ie, the result is based on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 determines ocean alkalinity.

      What is the significance? SOTC needs to specify the relationship.

      Note the use of circular reasoning with no verification. This is another point for our summary. The SOTC's tricks in fooling a largely scientifically-illiterate media.

      Questions to ask: What is the scientific significance of the supposed decrease in alkalinity? What are the natural upper and lower limits around Australia? What are the upper and lower limits globally? Without knowing these there can be no scientific significance given to the graph.

      Another SOTC trick: truncate the graph's Y-axis to exaggerate the graph's slope. Secondly, this wrongly gives the impression that we are need the lower limit and about to crash through to disaster.

      Another CSRIO-BOM trick: combine a graph with two differing methods of measurement as if one continuous process.

      Another CSIRO-BOM trick: compare two periods of limited range (1880-1889 and 2003-2012) as representative of an overall pattern.

• MIR: Peter's graphs on polar ice extent and sea ice extent. Peter's graphs on temperature - atmosphere and ocean.

  How can any loss be due to a warmer climate when there has been no warming since 1995? And variability is less than in the past and now cooler than in the 1880s-1890s?

• MIR: Another unilateral unsupported statement/claim of changes being observed without specifying the specific changes and their amount. That's another CSIRO-BOM climate trick.

  SOTC fails to mention active volcanoes under parts of Antarctica. Peter's graphs on Antarctic ice sheet, Greenland ice sheet, Arctic ice cap.

• MIR: Another vague, unsupported and unspecified vague claim. Quote: "and can also be an indicator of wider climate changes."

• MIR: The significance of this statement is not specified: "The duration of the sea-ice season has changed by up to four months over the 38 years of record in these regions."

  This claim ("Sea-ice extent around Antarctica has significant inter-annual variability") would tend to show that any change must be compared with a comparison of inter-annual change and especially long-term time series data. Without such data claims are meaningless and worthless.

• Trends in the length of the sea-ice season each year (in days per year) around Antarctica, 1979–2017. The Antarctic land-mass is shaded grey. Each year sea ice around Antarctica expands (or advances) from a minimum extent in February to a maximum extent in September. Duration is a measure of the number of days that a particular location contains sea ice. The text box says, quote: "The length of the sea-ice season has increased in some regions around Antartica, while it has decreased in others."

  • MIR: The text box says, quote: "The length of the sea-ice season has increased in some regions around Antartica, while it has decreased in others." How then can the changes be attributed to global factors?

    SOTC fails to specify the changes. SOTC fails to specify any evidence proving HUMAN CO2 as the cause.

• MIR: SOTC admits that little of consequence is known about sea-ice in Antarctica and lists some factors that are thought to affect sea-ice extent. These same factors apply to the Arctic sea-ice extent that floats and location depends on wind.

• Antarctic and Arctic sea-ice extent (shown as the net anomaly from the 1981–2010 average) for the period January 1979 to May 2018 (106 km 2). Thin lines are monthly averages and indicate the variability at shorter time-scales, and thick lines are eleven-month running averages.

  • MIR: High inter-annual variation in sea-ice extent reveals there are many factors affect sea-ice extent.

    Peter's graphs. Tony Heller has information and graphs showing NASA-GISS's unsupported tampering with data to mislead Arctic ice.

    Climate alarmists tend to use only data starting in the 1970s. Observations show that the Northwest Passage was open in 1906 (or 1907?) and 1940s, a decade known to be the Arctic's warmest.

• MIR: I don't think we need to get into this in detail. On the other hand, SOTC devotes more space to "radiatively warmed gases" than to any proven climate factor with temperature given just one page. Maybe we should acknowledge that and if we can use Peter's graphs, challenge the SOTC claims. Peter has Mod-TRANS graphs and many graphs on CO2 Anyway, here are some brief notes:

  "Energy comes from the Sun." Agreed.

  "To maintain stable temperatures at the Earth’s surface this incoming energy must be balanced in the longer-term by an equal amount of heat radiated back to space." Agreed with provisos.

  "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, make it harder for the Earth to radiate this heat, so increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface, ocean and atmosphere. This is called the greenhouse effect." The term Greenhouse gases is not scientific. CO2 and methane are gases that absorb and warm when receiving long-wave radiation from earth's surface. This cannot increase the temperature of the earth's surface, ocean and atmosphere since the energy has left the surface which must cool. Why does CSIRO persist in reinforcing an unscientific and misleading term?

  "Without any greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface would be much colder, with an average temperature of about –18 °C." Peer-reviewed scientific papers show scientists disagree on the effect of CO2. Some claim as CO2 level increases earth will warm. Some say it will cool. Some say it will warm up to a relatively low concentration of CO2 and that for CO2 above that level the temperature will not be affected. Reality is that earth's atmosphere has not warmed since 1995 despite enormous increases in HUMAN CO2 output. The UN's model focusses on radiative warming and ignores the greater effects of cooling by condition, convection and water vapour's latent heat of evaporation and conduction. The atmosphere works as an air cooled motor - the air cools the land and water surface through contact and then through connection transports heat upward. Latent heat of evaporation and condensation transfers heat from the land and ocean surfaces to upper atmospheric levels where it is radiated to space. In greenhouses convection and latent heat transfer are prevented. This is not true of earth's open atmosphere. Although the UN, academics advocating climate alarm and others refer to the atmosphere as a blanket, the reality is that the surface is air cooled, the very opposite of a blanket.

  "For centuries prior to industrialisation the incoming sunlight and outgoing heat were balanced, and global average temperatures were relatively steady, at a little under 15 °C." The incoming heat from the sun and outgoing heat will always be balanced. The only change to temperature can be due to a change in incoming energy.

  "Now, mostly because of the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising and causing surface temperatures to increase, leading to an ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect." Some academics now advocating imminent catastrophic global warming due to hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, oil and gas in the 1970's were warning of imminent catastrophic global freezing due to the use of the same fuels. ie, same culprit, opposite effect.

  "There is now an energy imbalance at the Earth’s surface of around 0.7–0.8 Wm–2 (averaged globally). The atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm until enough extra heat can escape to space to allow the Earth to return to balance." The oceans are cooling, The atmosphere has not warmed since 1995. Warm years are easily explained through natural climate drivers such as the El Nino and La Nina decadal cycles and the interaction of many other natural cycles.

  "Because increased levels of carbon dioxide persist in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, further warming and sea level rise is inevitable." CO2's residence time in the atmosphere is known to be 2-5 years with some clearly resident less than 12 months due to seasonal fluctuations.

• Global average concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere, with carbon dioxide concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO2 equivalent of all gases reaching 500 ppm in 2017.

  • MIR: Peter's graphs of past CO2 levels. Peter's explanation of the fact that current rise of CO2 levels would be missed in the ice-core data that has a resolution of hundreds of years, not 60 years, or, in the case of Cape Grim, 42 years.

    Graphs showing nature dominates CO2 production on earth and controls its level in the atmosphere.

    Unless CSIRO-BOM can attribute specific proportion of increased atmospheric CO2 to HUMAN CO2 and attribute the increased temperature due to that HUMAN CO2 there is no justification for any action. CSIRO-BOM have repeatedly failed to specify these basic, fundamental and essential quantities.

    Another CSIRO-BOM trick: use of the term likely to convey certainty when it is not close to certainty.

    SOTC/CSIRO refers to CO2 as a pollutant yet it is a trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on earth and like oxygen is not toxic until levels far higher than current and not within the imagination of any climate alarmist. CO2 is colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-toxic natural gas essential to all life on earth and whose level in earth's atmosphere is determined by nature. It is not and cannot be a pollutant.

    SOTC, BOM and CSIRO imply that HUMAN CO2 is a major driver of global climate yet BOM has no plans to measure CO2 at weather stations the way rainfall, temperature, humidity are measured and recorded. Note that BOM measures temperature despite the urban heat island effect due to human-induced variables adjacent.

• Emissions from burning fossil fuels continue to increase and are the dominant contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2.

• MIR: See responses above to 2.6.6.1.1. To that consider the following: Water vapour is acknowledged as the atmospheric gas that has by far the greatest capacity to be radiatively-warmed for two reasons: 1. Compared with CO2 it is impacted by a far greater spread of wavelengths among radiative-warming, and, especially, 2. Its concentration in the atmosphere averages 25 times that of CO2.

  Notable climate alarmists have stated that water vapour is far more significant. Yet SOTC fails to mention it.

  In recognition of CO2's minimal effect due to being a trace gas at 0.04 per cent of earth's air, climate alarmists noted that CO2's effect is magnified due to their claimed positive feedback mechanism in which water vapour would supposedly increase in the atmosphere and dramatically raise the warming effect. Yet data shows that as CO2 level rises, water vapour remains constant, varying naturally around an unchanged mean.

• Background hourly clean-air CO2 as measured at the Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station through to September 2018. The blue hourly data represent thousands of individual measurements. To obtain clean air measurements, the data are filtered to only include times when weather systems come across the Southern Ocean, and thus the air is not influenced by local sources of pollution.

  • MIR: Peter's graphs: This SOTC graph is somewhat accurate for parts of the northern hemisphere. It is not accurate for the southern hemisphere.

    SOTC acknowledges that data is filtered and again calls CO2 pollution.

• MIR: While SOTC converts other radiatively-warmed gases to a CO2 equivalent, it fails to attribute any warming specifically to the HUMAN CO2 produced. The former is easy, yet possibly dubious. The latter is difficult yet scientifically fundamental and essential. Without it, SOTC's claims fail in that they are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

  SOTC states CO2 has the greatest impact yet CSIRO has failed to prove to Senator Roberts' team how HUMAN CO2 determines the level of CO2 in air and has failed to prove that the atmospheric level of CO2 determines global temperature.

  SOTC fails to mention the far more powerful radiatively-warmed gas, being water vapour.

  SOTC fails to mention that water vapour, due to latest heat of evaporation/condensation is a temperature modulator and has a net cooling effect.

  Another CSIRO-BOM trick: Neither has ever challenged the UN's climate claim and never allocated work independently to the sceptic position yet that is part of science's core duty. CSIRO has never questioned and scrutinised natural climate drivers as a result of the UN IPCC's specific tactic to exclude research into natural drivers of climate.

  In its presentations in 2016 and 2017, CSIRO eventually acknowledged that current temperatures are not unprecedented failed to prove that HUMAN CO2 affects global temperature and climate.

  CSIRO-BOM has never questioned the current lack of warming since 1995 after a brief period of warming from 1976 to 1995. BOM has never explained its tampering of data that has created the claimed warming of 1ºC since 1910.

• Left: Radiative forcing relative to 1750 due to the long-lived greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the synthetic greenhouse gases, expressed as watts per metre squared. Right: Global mean CO2 concentration and global mean greenhouse gas concentrations expressed as equivalent CO2 (ppm: parts per million). Data in both panels are from in situ monitoring by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (commencing Cape Grim, Tasmania, 1976) and the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (global, including Cape Grim, commencing 1978) and from measurements of flask air samples (global, including Cape Grim, commencing 1992), the Cape Grim Air Archive (1978–2017) at the CSIRO GASLAB (Aspendale, Melbourne) laboratory, and air from Antarctic firn (compact snow) and ice cores measured at CSIRO GASLAB and ICELAB (Aspendale, Melbourne). Equivalent CO2 is calculated from the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the suite of synthetic greenhouse gases.
  • MIR: SOTC fails to mention water vapour, the most potent radiatively-warmed atmospheric gas in its "suite of greenhouse gases."

• MIR: Peter's graphs. Data on CO2 levels. Explain how current measurements would not be seen in the analysis that CSIRO relies upon and cites. Senator Roberts' team rebutted CSIRO's claim and explained how the current short-term trend in CO2 levels would not have been seen.

  Disprove the isotope claim. It is difficult for us to see how SOTC report could include this comment because Dr. Cleugh was present in 2017 when the Senator's team disproved CSIRO's climate team's claim about isotopes. It is certainly not definitive proof of HUMAN CO2 determining levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and many factors and much evidence shows nature is highly likely to control atmospheric CO2 levels, not humans. Secondly, in 2009 industrial activity and HUMAN CO2 output fell during to the global recession after the GFC and yet atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise.

• MIR: Stating that, quote: "Emissions from land-use change are complex to measure but are estimated to have been stable over the past decade" is a ridiculous statement since land clearing reduces absorption of CO2. Secondly, the statement evades the truth because the graph of CO2 fluxes is derived from subtraction and not by solid physical measurement.

  USA EPA quoted UN IPCC advising that HUMAN CO2 output is 3 per cent of earth's total annual output with nature producing 32 times more.

  Studies of CO2's residency time in the atmosphere suggest CO2 remains in the air from 2-5 years with cyclicals seasonal changes showing less than 12 months for some CO2. Making a statement that implies certainty of knowledge is not scientific.

  Noting that HUMAN CO2 output has been at record levels for over two decades due to the industrialisation of China and India, it is significant that atmospheric temperature has not warmed since 1995.

  Area of forests in developed countries has increased over the last century. Tim Ball.

• The CO2 fluxes in the global carbon budget over the period 1900–2016.
  • MIR: The graph purports accuracy in measurement of CO2 contributions from various HUMAN sources yet there is no detailed knowledge of natural CO2 sinks and sources. This graph is at best misleading. It illustrates the fabricating of data and purporting that it is known and understood when that is not the case, as noted in SOTC's comment on estimates of CO2 due to land-use changes.

• MIR: See previous comment: Additionally, as an aside, there has been no analysis of the use of hydrocarbon fuels need to make solar and wind generators with their apparently net positive CO2 production over the life-cycle of wind and solar generators requiring so much more energy and materials to manufacture than do hydrocarbon electricity generators.

• Further increase in temperatures, with more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cool days.
  • MIR: SOTC gives no data as justification for this. Peter's graph?? No specific increases are specified and no proportions due to HUMAN CO2 are specified.
• Ongoing sea level rise.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM can explain the cause of pre-existing sea level rise for the last 100 years and apportion specific proportions in recent years to HUMAN CO2 this is unfounded.
• Further warming and acidification of the oceans around Australia.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM can specify and justify why they claim warming is ongoing when it has not warmed for 24 years and explain the causes of the supposed warming and of the supposed reducing alkalinity, and apportion specific proportions in recent years to HUMAN CO2 this is unfounded.
• More frequent, extensive, intense and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, suggesting in turn more frequent and severe bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, and potentially the loss of many types of coral throughout the tropical reef systems of Australia and globally.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM are able to specify and quantify to justify SOTC's claimed longer-lasting marine heatwaves and more frequent bleaching of corals and apportion specific proportions of these claimed events to HUMAN CO2 and explain which coral species will be vulnerable to specific levels of warming, SOTC should use the word "imagining" instead of the word "suggesting".
• A decrease in cool-season rainfall across many regions of southern Australia, with more time spent in drought.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM are able to specify and quantify to justify SOTC's claimed decrease in cool-season rainfall and more time in drought and apportion specific proportions of these claimed events to HUMAN CO2, SOTC should not be making such projections
• More intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia, particularly for short-duration extreme rainfall events.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM are able to specify and quantify to justify SOTC's claimed more intense rainfall events and attribute specific proportions of these claimed events to HUMAN CO2, SOTC should not be making such projections.
• An increase in the number of high fire weather danger days and a longer fire season for southern and eastern Australia.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM are able to specify and quantify to justify SOTC's supposed increase in the number of high fire weather danger days and a longer fire season for southern and eastern Australia and apportion specific proportions of these claimed events to HUMAN CO2, SOTC should not be making such projections.
• Fewer tropical cyclones, but a greater proportion of high-intensity storms, with ongoing large variations from year to year.
  • MIR: Until CSIRO-BOM are able to explain why the UN IPCC made past forecasts of an increase in frequency and intensity of cyclones and now SOTC projects fewer cyclones and is able to specify and quantify to justify SOTC's claimed reduction in cyclone frequency and higher intensity and attribute specific proportions of these claimed events to HUMAN CO2, SOTC should not be making such projections.

• MIR: SOTC fails to attribute specific proportions of specific climate factors to HUMAN CO2. This is fundamental to science as well as to engineering and policy making.

• MIR: Until SOTC can specify and justify the attribution of changes in climate factors each to HUMAN CO2 and to natural variability, these claims are unfounded and worthless.

  Action to cut Australian CO2 output is similarly unjustified and economically dangerous.

  SOTC has failed to explain, yet needs to explain and justify its claim that over the next decade climate-sensitivity to HUMAN CO2 is zero in its statement, quote: "The amount of climate change expected in the next decade or so is similar under all plausible global emissions pathways". Until CSIRO-BOM can explain and justify this claim there can be no scientific justification for any policy changes.

  Without a solid basis for its claims and projections, computerised numerical models are meaningless because they remain unvalidated and erroneous because actual measurements prove the models are wrong.

• Australia’s average annual temperature relative to the 1861–1900 period. The grey line represents Australian temperature observations since 1910, with the black line the ten-year running mean. The shaded bands are the 10–90% range of the 20-year running mean temperatures simulated from the latest generation of Global Climate Models. The grey band shows simulations that include observed conditions of greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar input and volcanoes; the blue band shows simulations of observed conditions but not including human emissions of greenhouse gases or aerosols; the red band shows simulations projecting forward into the future (all emissions scenarios are included). Warming over Australia is expected to be slightly higher than the global average. The dotted lines represent the Australian equivalent of the global warming thresholds of 1.5 °C and 2 °C above preindustrial levels, which are used to inform possible risks and responses for coming decades.

  Text box: The recent warming can only be explained by human influence.

  • MIR: Why does SOTC only present graphs of data supposedly from 1910 onwards?

    SOTC's stated thresholds of 1.5ºC and 2ºC above preindustrial levels are unfounded. Are CSIRO-BOM aware that such figures have never been proven?

    In its presentations to Senator Roberts' team, CSIRO admitted that it has never done due diligence on BOM climate data. The federal Department of Environment and Energy admitted that it had never done due diligence on CSIRO-BOM data. CSIRO-BOM have a history of accepting UN IPCC claims without doing due diligence. As was discovered in CSIRO's presentations to Senator Roberts' team, CSIRO-BOM have a history of accepting supposedly scientifically peer-reviewed without doing due diligence.

    SOTC and CSIRO-BOM have never explained why past, far warmer periods in Earth's climate history have been warmer than the period from 1976 to 1995 and the period from 190 to 1940.

    Past cycles in Earth's climate show no difference from recent warming. In its presentations to Senator Roberts' team CSIRO admitted that current temperatures are not unprecedented and failed in its presentations to Senator Roberts' team to present any aspect of climate that is unprecedented.

• It has now been almost 30 years since the first sets of climate model projections were published, providing the opportunity to compare those projections to observations of the actual climate. CSIRO (1992) produced projections of Australian temperature from 1990 to 2030 for Australia divided into three regions. Drawing the projections together as an Australian average, the linear trend in observed temperature has been tracking within this published range, and above ‘no change’. The fact that observations have been tracking within the envelope of projections builds confidence that climate models represent the key processes responsible for the warming trend and therefore these projections were a useful resource for future planning when they were released. It should be noted that factors such as unforeseeable changes to the atmospheric composition and variability from influences such as specific El Niño and La Niña events mean that we can never make a forecast of the exact time series of Australian temperature, and that the projections will differ from observations over short to medium periods.

  • MIR: The last sentence is SOTC's admission that it does not understand key events - their cause(s) and their impacts.

    Tampering with data to change actual BOM measurements is clear as Peter explains above. And as easily confirmed in this graph because for many years CSIRO presented 1998 temperatures as warmer than 2006 and on a par with 2016.

    Yet now 2006 is presented in SOTC as warmer than 1998.

    If trend lines were drawn statistically correctly on valid data it would eliminate the trend portrayed as an increase in temperature,

MIR: References are never footnoted and this makes it impossible to check SOTC's use of data and conclusions therefore. This is unscientific and prevents scrutiny of SOTC's claims.

SOTC cites UN IPCC reports yet these have been proven incorrect and based on flawed science, corrupted science.

SOTC relies on BOM data that has been tampered with. Peter proves using comparison of temperature data in SOTC 2016 with temperature data in SOTC 2018.