Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

21 November 2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Answer:

Question Number: 104
PDR Number: BI-70
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

1. CSIRO researchers are developing new and novel ways to understand mosquitoes and how they spread viruses by:  Use of genomic sequencing to investigate population movements,
– Develop novel technologies to improve surveillance of mosquito-borne diseases,
– Application of traditional population control and suppression tools in novel ways,
– Developing new digital technologies to optimize and support large-scale field interventions,
– Exploring next-generation technologies to detect and reduce the impact of mosquito borne-diseases.

CSIRO’s mosquito-borne disease interventions provide next-generation tools that are efficient, environmentally friendly, culturally sensitive and scalable for controlling and eliminating disease in vulnerable communities. For example, CSIRO’s Vector Safe Communities program provides tools that are efficient, areawide solutions for controlling disease vectors in Australian communities and elsewhere. This program involves the sterile insect technique (SIT). The SIT applies mass releases of sterile male mosquitoes that locate and mate with wild-type females. These females lay unfertile eggs and over several months the mosquito population is suppressed to near zero levels thus significantly reducing the risk of disease spread to virtually eliminate the risk of disease transmission. The SIT method has been used successfully over many years in different insect systems in Australia and internationally. Working with national and international collaborators, as well as local communities, our researchers develop tailored and sustainable approaches to address this important public health issue.

Example projects include:
– In partnership with the University of California, CSIRO has engineered and tested the first breed of genetically modified mosquitoes resistant to spreading all four types of the dengue virus. There is ongoing research to reduce mosquitos ability to transmit dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses using cutting edge technology.
– The Aedes aegypti as an invasive, disease-carrying mosquito which is responsible for spreading dengue, yellow fever and Zika. The Wolbachia bacteria can successfully sterilise and eradicate this mosquito species.

In 2021, CSIRO researchers published a paper on a trial that involved releasing three million male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Northern Queensland, sterilised with Wolbachia, across three trial sites over a 20-week period during the summer of 2018. The sterile male insects search out and mate with wild females, preventing the production of offspring. Scientists returned the following year and found one of the trial sites, Mourilyan in Queensland, was almost devoid of mosquitoes. The trial was an international collaboration between CSIRO, University of Queensland (UQ), Verily Life Sciences, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute and James Cook University (JCU). CSIRO is now collaborating with partners to trial the use of Wolbachia in overseas locations to stop transmission of dengue and other viruses. The World Health Organisation has adopted the risk assessment process developed by CSIRO to assess the use of Wolbachia technology to better manage disease transmission by mosquitoes.
– CSIRO is working with local governments across central Queensland to eliminate dengue mosquito vectors through managing rainwater tanks.
– In partnership with Griffith University, CSIRO is undertaking surveillance around Australian piggeries to inform risk and guide optimal management strategies for Japanese encephalitis mosquito vectors and vertebrate hosts.
– Experiments are underway to determine whether local Australian mosquitoes can transmit Japanese encephalitis virus. This information will help determine whether the virus will cause continued outbreaks in South-eastern Australia.
– The Foundation of the National Institutes of Health/Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has identified CSIRO as the preferred provider for undertaking risk assessments for the use of novel genetic mosquito control technologies to stop malaria transmission in Africa. Answers to questions 2-17 Research conclusions regarding the earth’s energy budget are continually updated as information becomes available. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment provides the most recent summary of these updates. Refer Chapter 7 of Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (ipcc.ch) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/for further information. For questions relating to fundamental physics, the relevant information is captured in the following scientific reference material: The IPCC ARG6 WG1 report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (ipcc.ch) The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate 2022 report – https://www.csiro.au/en/news/News-releases/2022/State-of-the-Climate-Report-2022 The Academy of Science The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers report from 2015 – 2015 – https://www.science.org.au/education/immunisation-climate-changegeneticmodification/science-climate-change Mathez, E.A., & Smerdon, J.E. (2018). Climate Change: The Science of Global Warming and Our Energy Future. (2nd Ed.). Columbia University Press: New York – http://cup.columbia.edu/book/climate-change/9780231172837 Krauss, L.M. (2021). The Physics of Climate Change. Post Hill Press: New York – https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Physics-of-Climate-Change/LawrenceMKrauss/9781642938166

Relevant links to calculators:
– Evaluate the Planck Function: https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/data/planck.html
– Wiens Law (+ many others): https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
– Integrals of Plancks function: https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php (background info at: https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/blackbody.html)

Please also refer to these previous responses which address similar themes and include relevant references: AI-92 2019-2020 Additional Estimates AI-57 2020-2021 Additional Estimates BI-34 2020-2021 Budget Estimates BI-7 2021-2022 Budget Estimates SI-73 2021-2022 Supplementary Estimates BI-30 2022-2023 Budget Estimates