Archive for the ‘temperature’ Category

More on the absurd ACORN adjustment process

September 29, 2015

This is a Letter to the Editor of The Australian I sent recently, but not published.


Dr Jennifer Marohasy (Ideology adds heat to the debate on climate change, 29/9)  claims that sites prone to Urban Heat Island effect, such as Melbourne, have been used to adjust the temperature records at sites such as Cape Otway.

This is indeed absurd, but true.  Of the 104 sites used for climate analysis, 22 have been adjusted at least in part by comparison with sites whose artificially raised temperatures make them unsuitable for use in that same climate analysis.

The Bureau of Meteorology lists eight sites which are not used in climate analysis because their records exhibit Urban Heat Island effects: Townsville, Rockhampton, Sydney, Richmond (NSW), Melbourne, Laverton RAAF, Adelaide, and Hobart.

According to the Bureau’s “ACORN-SAT Station adjustment summary”, seven of these sites are still used as comparison sites when adjusting raw temperatures at other locations.  Adelaide is used at Snowtown and Port Lincoln; Townsville at Cairns, Mackay and Charters Towers; Rockhampton at Townsville, Mackay, Bundaberg and Gayndah; Sydney at Williamtown, Bathurst, Richmond, Nowra, and Moruya Heads; Laverton at Orbost, Sale, Wilson’s Promontory, Melbourne and Cape Otway; Melbourne at Orbost, Sale, Wilson’s Promontory, Laverton, Kerang, and Cape Otway; and Hobart at Launceston, Eddystone Point, Cape Bruny, Grove, and Butlers Gorge.

Richmond (NSW) is apparently the only site not used in the adjustment process.

Greg Hunt’s faith in the credibility of the Bureau of Meteorology is touching, but just as absurd.

More Rutherglen Nonsense

August 15, 2015

Jennifer Marohasy had an interesting post this week on further explanations by the Bureau for their weird adjustments at Rutherglen.  I was particularly interested in this graphic, which is Chart 3 on the Bureau’s station adjustment summary for Rutherglen.

rutherglen comp BOM

The Bureau is comparing Rutherglen’s raw minima with the adjusted data from Wagga Wagga, Deniliquin, and Kerang.  Three questions immediately spring to mind:  1. As Dr Marohasy points out, what is the Bureau doing comparing raw with adjusted data?  Of course they’re going to have different trends!  2.  Why is Kerang shown, when Kerang is NOT included as a neighbour station used to adjust Rutherglen?  And 3.  What difference does this make?

Time for a reality check.

This graph compares like with like: raw minima for Rutherglen and the same neighbours.  Note that only Kerang is warming, and Wagga Wagga is flat, but Deniliquin and Rutherglen are cooling.

rutherglen comp raw

This graph again compares like with like, the same stations but with adjusted data.

 rutherglen comp adjusted

You might think that this shows Rutherglen is now homogenised with the others correctly.  However, when we examine the differences in anomalies from the 1961-1990 means between Rutherglen and the others, we get this:

rutherglen comp differences ADJ

They still got it wrong!  The trend in differences should be close to zero.   Rutherglen’s adjusted record is warming too fast (+0.5C per 100 years) relative to the three neighbours used by the BOM in their explanation.

And note that since 1974, Rutherglen’s minima have been cooling relative to the others.  Perhaps that cooling they corrected for was real after all?

Even if Rutherglen needs to be adjusted; even if these three sites are adjusted correctly; even if Kerang is one of the stations used by the Bureau to adjust Rutherglen- the adjustments at Rutherglen are over cooked.

The “scientists” in charge of the climate change department in the Bureau deserve all the ridicule they get.

More than that- they are not to be trusted with the nation’s climate history.  We don’t trust their data; we don’t trust their methods; we don’t trust their results; and we don’t trust their motives.

Global Warming in Antarctica

August 10, 2015

Global Warming is supposed to have greater effect in polar regions, but for some time the apparent refusal of the South Polar region to comply has been of some interest.  Sea ice area increase can be explained away by various mechanisms, but actual temperatures are more difficult to explain.

Using UAH V6.0 data, here is the graph of the Temperature of the Lower Troposphere (TLT) for the South Polar Region, below 60 degrees South, since satellite records began in December 1978.


For as long as we have records, Antarctica has not warmed at all.  The trend is -0.04 degrees Celsius (+/- 0.1C) per 100 years.  Zero trend, (or slightly cooling if you want to annoy your Global Warming Enthusiast colleagues).


Heatwaves: From One Extreme To Another

August 8, 2015

When Is A Heatwave Not A Heatwave?

When the Bureau of Meteorology defines it out of existence.

In his reply to me on behalf of Dr Vertessy, Bob Baldwin wrote:

“The Bureau has adopted a particular operational heatwave definition motivated by human health considerations, defined as a period of at least three days where the combined effect of high temperatures and excess heat is unusual within the local climate.  ……….The bulk of heatwaves at each location are low intensity with local communities expected to have adequate adaptation strategies for this level of thermal stress.  Less frequent, higher intensity heatwaves are classified as severe and will challenge some adaptation strategies, especially for vulnerable sectors such as the aged or the chronically ill.”

After some digging, I found this paper which describes the Bureau’s methodology used in their Pilot Heatwave Forecast:

The Excess Heat Factor: A Metric for Heatwave Intensity and Its Use in Classifying Heatwave Severity, John R. Nairn and Robert J. B. Fawcett (2015)

The method is quite easy to follow and implement, and I was able to replicate results for the 2014 Melbourne heatwave exactly and use it successfully for other single locations.   It is designed for use with AWAP gridded data of course to give forecast maps.  Note this is raw data, not homogenised.  I downloaded all data from Climate Data Online.

There are several steps.  Readers should read the paper for full details.  Briefly, using a daily mean temperature calculated by averaging the day’s maximum and the following night’s minimum, three-day means are calculated.  These are then compared by subtracting the previous 30 days’ daily means (as people acclimatise to changed temperatures in this period).  Differences that exceed the 95th percentile of all three-day means from 1971 to 2000 are multiplied by the three-day mean to give the Excess Heat Factor, which indicates heatwave.  This is then compared with the 85th percentile of all positive EHFs from 1958 to 2011 to give a severity index, and if it exceeds 3 times the 85th percentile this becomes an extreme heatwave event.

From the paper:

The intent of these definitions is to create a heatwave intensity index and classification scheme which is relative to the local climate. Such an approach is clearly necessary given the abundant evidence that people and supporting infrastructure are largely adapted to the local climate, in physiology, culture and engineered supporting infrastructure.”

Here are the results for Melbourne- with all its UHI effect of course.

Fig. 1: Decadal (running 3653 day) count of positive Excess Heat Factor (heatwave) days in Melbourne

Decadal cnt pos EHF days Melbourne

Fig.2: Decadal count of Severe Heatwave Days

Decadal cnt severe HW days Melbourne

Fig.3:  Decadal Count of Extreme Heatwave Days

Decadal cnt extreme HW days Melbourne

Notice how Melbourne heatwaves of all types have been increasing and extreme events are currently at the highest level “ever”.

How does this apply to various other Australian locations?  I decided to check with the extremes- the hottest and the coldest Australian locations, Marble Bar in the north west of W.A. and Mawson Base in Australia’s Antarctic Territory.

Fig. 4:


The old Marble Bar station closed in 2006.  I have concatenated the old Marble Bar data with the new, from 2003. This makes very little difference to the calculations but extends the record to the present.

Fig. 5: As for Melbourne, decadal count of heatwave days

pos EHF days marble bar 2

Fig. 6:  Severe heatwaves

count severe HW days marble bar 2

Fig. 7:

count  extreme HW days marble bar 2

It is clear that local climate does make a big difference to heatwaves by this definition.  In fact, Melbourne has more extreme heatwave days than Marble Bar!

How does this method of detecting and measuring heatwaves deal with Marble Bar’s record heatwave of 1923-24?

According to the Australian Government’s website, Disaster Resilience Education for Schools at

“Marble Bar in Western Australia holds the record for the longest number of hot days in a row: the temperature was above 37.8°C for 160 days in 1923-24.”

I count 158 days consecutively from daily data at Climate Data Online.  The total for the 1923-24 summer from 13 October to 19 April was 174 days.  That is indeed a long period of very hot weather.

Surprisingly, the BOM does not class that as a long or extreme heatwave.  Apparently, according to this metric, there were only four short heatwaves, one of them severe, and none extreme.  For the entire period, there was only one severe heatwave day – 3 February.

Fig. 8:  Marble Bar 1923-24 summer.  I have marked in the old “ton”, 100 F, or 37.8C.  Squint hard to see the “severe’ heatwave around 3 February, but the heatwave around 22 February is invisible to the naked eye.

EHF Marb Bar 1923 1924 2

Yes, the old timers at Marble Bar were pretty tough and would be used to hot conditions.  But not to recognise this old record heatwave when every day in over five months was considerably above body temperature is laughable.

For comparison, Figure 9 shows 182 day counts of days that were over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, or 37.8 degrees Celsius.  (The old record finishes in 2006.)

Fig. 9:  Running 182 day counts of days over 100 F.  1923-24 is circled.

Days 100F Marb Bar

Note there were two other years when there were more than 170 days over 100F.

Figure 10 is from Figure 16 in the Nairn and Fawcett paper, and is a map of the level of Excess Heat Factor across Australia during the heatwave of January-February 2009.

Fig. 10:  Figure 16 from Nairn and Fawcett (2014)- Excess Heat levels across Australia 21 January – 11 February 2009.

Fig16 from paper max ehf 2009

The area around Marble Bar has a level of between 0 and 10.  My calculations show this is correct- EHF reached 0.08 on 23 January- a mild heatwave.  Readers may be interested to know that maximum temperature was above 40 degrees Celsius from 1 January to 24 January, and minima were not below 24.3.

The authors, and their employer, the Bureau, are in effect telling Marble Bar locals their heatwaves don’t rate because they’re used to the heat.

Now I shall turn to the other extreme- Mawson.

Firstly, plots of the range of minima for each day of the year:

Fig. 11:  Scatterplot of minima for each day of the year at Mawson Base

minima v day Mawson

Fig. 12: maxima:

maxima v day Mawson

Fig. 13:  Decadal count (running 3653 day count) of days with positive Excess Heat Factor, i.e., by definition, heatwave days

Decadal cnt pos EHF days Mawson

Fig. 14:  Decadal count of days in severe heatwave:

Decadal cnt severe HW days Mawson

Fig. 15:  Decadal count of days in Extreme heatwave:

Decadal cnt extreme HW days Mawson

Apparently, Antarctica gets more extreme heatwave days than Melbourne, or Marble Bar!

Of course, critics will say this metric was never intended for use in Antarctica, and I agree: no one would seriously claim there are heatwaves there.  However, if heatwaves are to be defined as “a period of at least three days where the combined effect of high temperatures and excess heat is unusual within the local climate”, and NOT by comparison with any absolute threshold, then this analysis of its use there is valid.  “High” temperature by this definition is relative to the local climate, wherever “local” is. If this metric fails in Antarctica, it fails everywhere.


The Bureau of Meteorology’s metric for heatwaves is a joke.  It may accurately detect heatwaves in the southern fringe of Australia, and a further use may be to support Dr Vertessy’s outlandish claims.  However, it fails to cope with different climates, particularly extremes.  A methodology that fails to detect heatwaves at Marble Bar, and creates them in Antarctica, is worse than useless- it is dangerous.

“Pause” Update

July 9, 2015

With the release of June data, showing the marked impact of a moderately strong El Nino, using UAH v. 6.0 data I have calculated the longest period back that the length of the pause in tropospheric temperature has been less than +0.01 degrees Celsius per 100 years:


uah pause globe 0615

North Polar:

uah pause npol 0615

Northern Hemisphere:

uah pause nh 0615


uah pause tropics 0615

Southern Hemisphere:

uah pause sh 0615

South Polar:

uah pause spol 0615


uah pause oz 0615


uah pause usa 0615

The El Nino will affect the length of the pause in some regions, but not all.  The pause continues!

The effect of two adjustments on the climate record

June 24, 2015

The warming bias in Australia’s ACORN-SAT maximum dataset is largely due to just two adjustments.

Last week’s Report of the Technical Advisory Forum’s review of the ACORN-SAT temperature reconstruction produced some rather bland, motherhood type statements.  However, hidden in the public service speak was a distinct message for the Bureau of Meteorology: lift your game.  Two of the areas I have been interested in are (a) whether individual adjustments are justified, and (b) the effect of these adjustments on national and regional temperature trends.  In this post I look at adjustments at just two sites, which are responsible for the single largest increase in national trend.

On page 17 of the Report we find the following graphic:

Fig. 1: Scatterplot of difference between AWAP and Acorn annual mean temperature anomalies.

scatterplot awap acorn mean diff

This is a clear statement of how much Acorn adjustments have cooled past temperatures, as AWAP is regarded as being only “partially homogenised”, and close to raw temperatures.   There is a considerable difference- more than 0.2 degrees- between the two interpretations of temperatures 100 years ago.

Mean temperature is the average of maximum and minimum.  In this post I shall look at just maximum temperatures, from 1911 to 2013.  The following graph is a plot of the difference between monthly Acorn and AWAP maximum anomalies, which I think is much more informative:

Fig. 2:

scatterplot awap acorn max months

Note there is a trend of +0.22 degrees / 100 years in the differences, indicating a predominance of cooling of earlier data; there is a very large range in the first 50 years, from about -0.7C to +0.3C, and one outlier at +0.4C, reducing to a much narrower band in the 1960s before increasing in the last 20 years; and the bulk of differences are negative before 1970.

Now let’s look at what has been happening in the past 35 years- in fact, in the satellite era:

Fig. 3: Monthly differences between AWAP and Acorn before and after December 1978

scatterplot awap acorn max phases

The trend in differences for the first 67 years is 0.33C / 100 years, but there is a very small tendency for Acorn to be cooler than AWAP recently- and the range of differences has been increasing.

That’s an interesting find, but I want to examine in more detail the effect of the adjustments which cause those differences.  Here are annual maxima in AWAP compared with Acorn.

Fig. 4: Annual mean of monthly maximum anomalies: AWAP and Acorn

graph awap acorn max

Again we see that Acorn has increased the warming trend from +0.59C to +0.81C per 100 years, an increase of +0.22C, or 37.3%.

However, the difference appears more marked before the mid 1950s.  The next graph shows the trends from 1911 to 1955 compared with the trends from 1956 to 2013.

Fig. 5: Comparison of trends in maxima before and after the middle of the 20th Century.

graph awap acorn phases

Note: while the trends of AWAP and Acorn are very similar (+1.32 to 1.4C per 100 years) since the 1950s- which the Bureau never tires of proclaiming- before then the plot tells a different story.  Acorn reduces the cooling trend by 0.44C per 100 years, a reduction of 86%.

How was this achieved?

On page 44 of the technical paper CTR-050 we find this explanation:

Returning now to maximum temperature, the differences between the AWAP and ACORN analyses show a marked drop in the early 1930s, with a sudden decrease of about 0.15 °C. This is most likely attributable to substantial negative adjustments between 1929 and 1932 in the ACORN-SAT dataset, indicating substantial discontinuities (expressed as artificial cooling) at a number of individual locations with a large influence on national analyses, because of the sparsity of data in their regions in that period. These discontinuities are mostly related to site moves that are associated with concatenated records for single locations. These include Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie and Meekatharra. Alice Springs, where the adjustment is associated with a site move in late 1931 or early 1932 from the Telegraph Station to a climatologically cooler site in the town, has a notably large “footprint”; at that time there were only two other locations within 600 kilometres (Tennant Creek and Charlotte Waters) which were observing temperatures, while the nearest neighbours to the west (Marble Bar and Wiluna) were more than 1200 kilometres away.

This large change between AWAP and Acorn is shown in the next graph.

Fig. 6: 12 month mean difference in monthly maxima anomalies

graph awap acorn diff 1930 drop

As I explained in my post in September 2014, Acorn sites are homogenised by an algorithm which references up to 10 neighbouring sites.  A test for the validity of the adjustments is to compare the Acorn site’s raw and adjusted data with those of its neighbours, by finding the differences between them.  Ideally, a perfect station with perfect neighbours will show zero differences: the average of their differences will be a straight line at zero.  Importantly, even if the differences fluctuate, there should be zero trend.  Any trend indicates past temperatures appear to be either relatively too warm or too cool at the station being studied.  My aim is to check whether or not individual adjustments make the adjusted Acorn dataset compare with neighbours more closely.   If so, the trend in differences should be close to zero.

I have tested the three sites named above.  I use differences in anomalies calculated from the mean of maxima for the 30 year period centred on 1931, or for the period of overlap if the records are shorter.  The neighbours are those listed by the Bureau on their Adjustments page.

Fig. 7:  Meekatharra differences from neighbours (averaged)

Meek acorn v neighbours avg

Note that the Acorn adjustment (-0.77C at 1/1/1929- the adjustment of +0.54C at 1/1/1934 does not show up in the national signal) is indeed valid: the resultant trend in differences is close to zero, indicating good comparison with neighbours.  However, since Meekatharra’s record starts only in 1927, two years of the Meekatharra adjustment cannot have had a large influence on the national trend as claimed.

Fig. 8:  Kalgoorlie differences from neighbours

Kalg acorn v neighbours avg

Kalgoorlie’s steep cooling compared with neighbours (from 170 km to 546 km away) has been reversed by the Acorn adjustment (-0.62C at 1/1/1930- the adjustment of -0.54C at 1/12/1936 does not show up in the national signal), so that Kalgoorlie now is warming too much (+1.02C / 100 years more than the neighbours).  Kalgoorlie’s adjustment is too great, affecting all previous years.

I now turn to Alice Springs, which ‘has a notably large “footprint”’.  Too right it does- its impact on the national climate signal is 7% to 10%, according to the 2011 Review Panel, p. 12.

Fig. 9:  Alice Springs differences from neighbours

Alice acorn v neighbours avg

Alice Springs, cooling slightly compared with neighbours, has been adjusted (-0.57C at 1/1/1932) so that the Acorn reconstruction is warming (+0.66C / 100 years) relative to its neighbours.  The adjustment is much too large.

And exactly where are these neighbours?

Tennant Creek (450 km away), Boulia (620 km), Old Halls Creek (880 km), Tibooburra (1030 km), Bourke (1390 km), and Cobar (1460 km)!

The site with the largest impact on Australia’s climate signal has been “homogenised” with neighbours from 450 km to 1460 km away- except the adjustment was too great, resulting in the reconstruction warming too much (+0.66C / 100 years) relative to these neighbours.  The same applies at Kalgoorlie.  Meekatharra’s record only starts in 1927 so its effect can be discounted.  These are the only remote Acorn sites that had large adjustments at this time.  All other remote Acorn sites open at this time either have similar trends in raw and Acorn or had no adjustments in this period.

The 37.3% increase in the trend of Australian maxima anomalies in the “world’s best practice” ACORN-SAT dataset compared with the “raw” AWAP dataset is largely due to just two adjustments- at Kalgoorlie and Alice Springs- and these adjustments are based on comparison with distant neighbours and are demonstrably too great.

If it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable.

Open Letter to Bob Baldwin

June 15, 2015

Dear Mr Baldwin

What does it take to get action following a formal complaint?

I draw your immediate personal attention to this matter.

It is now fully 11 weeks since I submitted four simple questions to Dr Vertessy’s office (Reference REF2015-089-17) , nine weeks since my follow up request with a copy to you, and four weeks since I made a formal complaint to you.  Sam Hussey-Smith of your office emailed me on Tuesday 19th May, saying he would “seek to get a response as soon as possible”.

Still nothing.

I may be a mere insignificant individual with a minor query, but surely I deserve to be treated with a little respect, and surely the Bureau of Meteorology, the Environment Department, and the office of its Parliamentary Secretary, all need to demonstrate transparency and public accountability.

Perhaps Dr Vertessy hopes I will get sick of waiting and will lose interest, saving him the embarrassment of an apology and a probable retraction.   He should not underestimate my determination.  The longer he delays, the more it looks as if he has something to hide.

I seek your urgent personal intervention to ensure an immediate response.

Yours sincerely

Ken Stewart


Here is my formal complaint, sent 4 weeks ago (18 May).

Dear Mr Baldwin

Formal Complaint re: Dr Bob Vertessy, Director and C.E.O. of the Bureau of Meteorology

It is seven weeks since I submitted four questions to Dr Bob Vertessy, Director and C.E.O. of the Bureau of Meteorology, through the Bureau’s feedback channels, and two full weeks since I followed this up with a complaint with a copy to your office.  The Bureau acknowledged receipt (ReferenceREF2015-089-17) and an officer of the Bureau has confirmed that my queries were indeed passed on to the Director’s office.  However, there has been no other response at all, either from the Bureau or from your own office.

Seven weeks, Mr Baldwin, seven weeks!  This is beyond simple negligence.  It is now in the realm of conscious breach of the Bureau’s own Service Charter for the Community proudly displayed at .

Dr Vertessy demonstrably fails to meet several elements of his own Charter, in that:

  • I have not been treated with respect and courtesy;
  • The Director has not been clear and helpful in his dealings with me, and has given no reason for delay;
  •  My enquiries, which it appears the Director cannot answer, have not been referred to an appropriate source;
  • The Director has not dealt with my enquiries and subsequent complaints quickly and effectively;
  • The Charter claims the Bureau will “Reply to your letters, faxes and e-mails within two weeks – on more complex issues, our initial reply will give you an estimate of the time a full response will take, and the cost, if any.”  While lower level officers reply courteously well within this time (usually within hours or at most days), it seems the CEO is above this requirement.

It seems the Bureau has a long way to go in its aim to “Develop a more streamlined system of handling your enquiries and feedback on our services”.

I therefore request that you act to obtain for me an immediate reply to my queries from Dr Vertessy.  I also expect his apology and an explanation for not meeting “acceptable standards of quality, timeliness or accuracy”.

Until then, Dr Vertessy’s lack of response speaks volumes about his own credibility as a scientist, a communicator, and the Bureau head, as well as the credibility and accountability of the Bureau of Meteorology as a whole.

Yours sincerely




Ken Stewart

Call that a Pause?

May 13, 2015

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)

uah pause apr 15 globe

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)

uah pause apr 15 npol

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)

uah pause apr 15 NH

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

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

uah pause apr 15 SH

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)

uah pause apr 15 Tropics

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)

uah pause apr 15 spol

Now that’s a Pause!

I also checked pause length for Australia and the USA.

Fig. 7: Australia

uah pause apr 15 aus

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

What about our North American cousins?

Fig. 8: Contiguous USA

uah pause apr 15 usa48

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!

Beef Week, PETA, and Dr Vertessy

May 11, 2015

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.

Still No Reply From Bureau Boss

April 28, 2015

On Monday 30 March I asked Dr Vertessy five questions about his claims on ABC Radio the day before.  So far, not a word in reply.

This afternoon I sent a reminder email to Jess Carey of the Brisbane BOM office, who had passed on my queries on Tuesday 31 March to the Director’s office.

Good afternoon Jess

As it is now four weeks since you passed my queries to the Director’s office and there has been no response, I can only assume that
(a)  this has been inadvertently overlooked and a reminder memo from you will prompt an immediate, apologetic, and informative reply,
(b)  no reply will be forthcoming, as an honest reply is not possible without embarrassing the Director.
I will expect a reply by 5.00 p.m. Thursday 30/04/2015.
Yours sincerely (and I do not imagine the delay is at all your personal responsibility)
Ken Stewart


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers