Call that a Pause?

The length of the “pause”, “hiatus”, slowdown”, or “plateau”, whatever you wish to call it, is of great interest to sceptics and mainstream climate scientists alike, although Global Warming Enthusiasts such as John Cook try to pretend it doesn’t exist and/or is not important.

In this post I am showing the length of time during which the linear trend of temperatures is less than +0.01C per 100 years- i.e. zero or negative.  I use the UAH version 6 data to April 2015 which has been recently released, for various regions of the globe.  University of Alabama (Huntsville) data are derived from satellite radiosonde data for the lower troposphere.  These represent how the bulk of the atmosphere is behaving.

I am well aware of the criticism that commencing the trend calculation near the 1997-1998 El Nino may distort the trend, so these calculations merely show how far in the past we can go to find a zero or negative trend.  (In a future post I intend to exclude the big lump of data around this period for an alternative look at trends.)  In several of these plots there is very little discernible bulge around 1997-1998 at all, so I consider the trends are valid.

Firstly, how long is the pause globally?

Fig. 1:  Global data with zero trend (less than +0.01C/100 years) (Click to enlarge)

This includes the 1997-98 El Nino which may distort the trend calculation.  However, see several plots below which don’t show this effect.

Fig. 2:   North Polar (60 degrees North to 90 degrees North)

Despite claims to the contrary, during this admittedly short period the Arctic has not been warming.

Fig. 3:  Northern Hemisphere (Equator to 90 Degrees North)

Only slightly shorter than for the whole globe. Trend= +0.007C/100 years.

Fig. 4:  Southern Hemisphere (Equator to 90 degrees South)

This includes three years before the 1997-98 El Nino.  The trend is +0.006C/100 years.

Fig. 5: Tropics (20 degrees North to 20 degrees South)

The tropics include the Tropical Pacific where ENSO events are identified, and the pause extends well before the super El Nino.

Now you’ve heard that Antarctic sea ice is expanding to new records, but of course this is due to, variously, stronger katabatic winds and/or melt water filling the gaps and freezing over- all due to global warming naturally.  But you may have a suspicion that the Antarctic region is not actually warming as much as global warming enthusiasts would have you believe.  Has there been a pause in Antarctica?

Fig. 6:  South Polar region (below 60 degrees South)

Now that’s a Pause!

I also checked pause length for Australia and the USA.

Fig. 7: Australia

There does not appear to be an unusually large spike during 1997-98.

What about our North American cousins?

Fig. 8: Contiguous USA

The effects of the 1997-98 El Nino do not have a large influence here either.

Note to Global Warming Enthusiasts: The Pause is real!  Build a bridge and get over it!

Advertisement

Beef Week, PETA, and Dr Vertessy

Last week was Beef Australia 2015 in Rockhampton.  The bus trip and the day I attended were thoroughly enjoyable, very professionally run, and a credit to the organisers and the beef industry generally.  The way the beef industry adapts to changing conditions through technology is fascinating.

One incident is worth repeating.  A chap was wandering around Beef Week wearing a cap with PETA embroidered on it.  Naturally people were pretty suspicious of him until they read the words printed in tiny script- “People Eating Tasty Animals.”  I’d like a cap like that.

I was pleased to find the Bureau of Meteorology stall, and met the local observers as well as Jess Carey of the Brisbane office, who instantly remembered my queries to Dr Vertessy about his claims on ABC Radio.  A thoroughly nice fellow.  He assured me he had forwarded on my queries within minutes, but had no idea of the reason for the delay in replying.

Speaking of which, today is six weeks since I sent my query to the Bureau, and still no reply.

Dr Vertessy’s lack of response speaks volumes about his credibility as a scientist, a communicator, and the Bureau head, not to mention the evidence for his claims.

The longer the delay, the more sceptical I am of anything the Bureau says about climate.

Complaint re Dr Vertessy

On Sunday profile on ABC Radio on Sunday 29 March, Dr Bob Vertessy, the Director and C.E.O. of the Bureau of Meteorology was interviewed.  The whole interview is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/peyl3MNdrQ?play=true

In this interview Dr Vertessy made some alarming, questionable, and potentially misleading claims.

On Monday 30 March I emailed four questions for Dr Vertessy to the Bureau, requesting him to substantiate these claims.

On Tuesday 31 March, Jess Carey of the Queensland office of the Bureau emailed me to inform me that my questions had been forwarded to the Director’s office “for actioning”.

On Tuesday 28 April, four full weeks after my email had been forwarded to the appropriate office, that of the Director of Meteorology, I sent a reminder email to Jess Carey, stating that I expected a reply by 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 30 April.

No response has been received. Whatever the reason, Dr Vertessy has failed to substantiate his claims.  Probably they cannot be substantiated.

Perhaps the Director’s office is dysfunctional, with correspondence not being forwarded to the correct person, or simply inadvertently overlooked.  Perhaps officers in the Director’s office considered my queries to be inconsequential and not worth a reply.  Perhaps the Director, who is a hydrologist, not a climate scientist, has been poorly advised.  Perhaps the Director realises that in his rendition of the Bureau’s narrative he made some poorly thought through statements, and honest answers to my queries would be too embarrassing.

Or perhaps the Director’s office functions perfectly, he is well advised, he thought through his statements carefully and meant every word he said.  In this case, believing the science is settled and no questions need be considered, perhaps he has directed that queries from mere mortals such as I should be ignored.

As the Director and Chief Executive Officer for a large, trusted, and publicly funded organisation, Dr Vertessy is accountable and responsible not only for his own statements but also for the performance and behaviour of the whole organisation, and especially his own office.

I am seeking firstly an apology from Dr Vertessy for his discourteous refusal even to acknowledge my queries, and secondly, honest and complete answers that will permit substantiation of his claims and replication of supporting work.

As my past experience has been that difficult questions addressed to the Bureau are only answered following media or political attention, I am forwarding this complaint to media outlets, bloggers, and various Members of Federal Parliament, including The Hon. Bob Baldwin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment.

A copy of relevant correspondence (was) included below.

Yours sincerely