Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 In Senate Committees, Senate Speeches

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:38, 30 August 2021): I rise to speak to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their so-called reporting of the temperature change in Australia since 1910, saying that the temperature has risen by 1.44 degrees. When I read that number, I nearly fell off my chair, because in estimates I asked the Bureau of Meteorology whether they report actual observations or their homogenised data. Their homogenised data is based on shoddy mathematical practices that were highlighted in the 2011 independent peer review that was commissioned by the then Gillard government and whose recommendations have been completely ignored.

I will break that detail down further. That 1.44 degree rise was in 2019. In 2020 the temperature had only risen by 1.15 degrees, so the actual temperature in Australia declined by 0.3 degrees. Of course, that decline was conveniently ignored. On top of that, the homogenised data runs at about half a degree hotter than the actual data. If we take the half a degree off the homogenised data, that brings it back to 0.65.

The homogenised data actually ignores changes in equipment. If you look at recommendation C4 of the independent peer review, it says that you cannot rely on reference stations when trying to detect network equipment changes. If we also look at their second recommendation, at the end, on the 10 best sustainable practices in measuring records, they say you should always do a new and old parallel run together. When I asked the bureau whether or not they had actually done parallel runs here in Australia, they had only done parallel runs at four out of 700 stations in Australia. That is not statistically significant.

In continuation. 

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:32, 1 September 2021): I rise today to speak again on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest release, just last month. I want to talk about TS17, where they say there is a ‘near linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and maximum global surface temperature’ caused by carbon dioxide. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who understands anything about mathematics or science knows that the relationship, at best, is logarithmic, not linear. What do I mean by that? Ultimately all the energy in the atmosphere, in the first place, comes from the sun. On average, across the 24 hours in the day, it hits the atmosphere at about 341 watts per square metre. About half of that gets reflected from the clouds in the atmosphere back into space, and about 160 watts hits the surface. That then bounces off the surface back up into the greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases do absorb and emit radiation. That is one form of heat transfer. But, as anyone who understands anything about physics will know, unlike conduction and convection, where Newton’s law of cooling applies and the difference between hot and cold is a direct relationship, radiation transfers basically to the power of four, so the faster it heats the faster it cools. So the idea that you have a linear relationship is completely wrong. The law is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It’s just another example of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is telling fibs. But, of course, it’s a lot more complex than that, because the carbon dioxide in particular only makes up 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere, so, even if it does absorb heat, through conduction it’s going to basically smash into billions and billions of other molecules in one second. (Time expired)

Recommended Posts
Contact My Office

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap. Please include your phone number if you would like us to call you back.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt