Tuesday, 11 February 2014

England Passes Wind and Discovers Heat at Bottom.

Rebuttal By Anthony Cox

You have to pinch yourself to see if you are awake when you read the lengths believers in man made global warming (AGW) go to avoid accepting evidence against their belief.

Matthew England is an academic and fervent believer in AGW. He has written a new paper which supposedly shows that increasing trade winds are responsible for the hiatus in temperature increase. 

According to England increased Trade wind speeds are causing the “missing heat” to be carried down to the ocean bottom. Apparently when the Trade winds resume their normal speed the heat will spring out of the ocean and AGW will continue with a vengeance.


Seriously, that’s what his paper says.

The hiatus in temperature, that is temperature has stopped, is a complete contradiction to AGW. Lord Monckton shows this in his usual elegant fashion:



Even Skeptical Science has warmed to the idea:



So there it is, temperature as measured by the most reliable of the temperature indices, the satellite RSS shows temperature flat for over 17 years which according to Ben Santer, a leading pro-AGW scientist, makes it climatically significant.

Santer says this:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature

The converse of this of course is that 17 years is also sufficient to identify NO human effects on climate.

This 17 year threshold obviously explains why England 2 years ago denied there was a “pause” in the temperature trend.

But he’s now on board and he accepts that the temperature has stopped rising.

But like Trenberth before him he cannot face this fundamental contradiction of AGW. Trenberth in the infamous emails said:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
And like England now Trenberth also headed for the winds to explain how the pesky heat sunk to the bottom of the ocean. For Trenberth the “missing heat” was moved to the ocean bottom by “surface wind variability”.

In one of the AGW debate’s greatest ripostes Roy Spencer provided a graph showing that wind variability had actually declined:


Trenberth’s mechanism for the transfer of heat to the bottom of the ocean was contradicted by the reality of the data and that is as good a symbol of the AGW debate as possible: theory and assumptions defeated by reality.

This graph also defeats England’s paper, but there are further dimensions to how wrong his paper is.

In 2006 another of the leading AGW scientists, Gabriel Vecchi wrote a paper which concluded the Trade winds were not strengthening but weakening. Vecchi said: 
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100.
This is a profound contradiction to England’s conclusions. In fact Vecchi concluded every aspect of the climate system was weakening including the Walker Circulation the World’s greatest energy movement system. Astoundingly, the ABC, just as they reported England as gospel this time, also reported Vecchi in 2006!

But even Vecchi’s conclusions, contrary though they may be to England, are not certain with other research showing the Walker is not weakening.

To complete this totally confusing picture about winds leading Australian researcher, Michael Roderick, has published research showing global winds are declining in a process termed “Stilling”.

The final nail in the coffin to England’s confusing paper is strong evidence that the radiation that both England and Trenberth claim to be wind-driven to the ocean bottom doesn’t exist. NOAA records show Outgoing Long-wave Radiation is increasing:



There it is. That heat which England and Trenberth and all the rest think is at the bottom of the ocean has left the planet. It’s a pity the climate scientists couldn’t leave too and leave the rest of us alone.

Wind and solar are not reliable enough

Greens Cr Michael Osbourne
Opinion by Anthony Cox


NEWCASTLE Greens councillor Michael Osborne raised legitimate concerns about the coal industry and the Newcastle Port in his recent article.

But Cr Osborne also raised what I consider to be more doubtful points about renewable energy and man-made global warming.

The Pasha Bulker storm was not caused by global warming. An almost identical storm occurred in 1974, leading to the Sygna beaching.

These storms are the result of natural cycles produced by El Nino and La Nina and larger cycles called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

 Prominent global warming scientists such as Richard Muller and science journals such as Nature are saying that global warming may decrease extreme weather events.



Globally-extreme weather events, particularly storms and cyclones, are decreasing. Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. And, in Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology’s conclusion that 2013 was a record hot year for Australia is contradicted by three other main temperature indices that showed 2013 was not the hottest year.

Given the questions this information raises, it is premature for Cr Osborne to declare: 
‘‘There is no doubt that unmitigated climate change will damage our economy, transform our lifestyles and irreparably impact on our natural environment.’’ 
Cr Osborne’s advocacy of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, is also problematic.  Wind and solar are unreliable. 

If you have a week of cloudy, windless conditions you would have no power if your only energy sources were wind and solar.

Wind and solar produce their power in surges. They can go from zero to maximum power and back again almost instantly.

 This surge power cannot be easily transformed into the regular, even electricity flow that grids require. (see also Germany's Renewables a menace to Industry)

This unreliability and surge nature of power from wind and solar renders cost comparisons irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is to build something if it doesn’t work. 

The objections to coal by people such as Cr Osborne would be more helpful if they offered a better energy alternative to coal than the problematic energy sources of wind and sun.

One such alternative is thorium. Thorium reactors were operating in the late 20th century and have the immense advantage over conventional nuclear reactors of having much less radioactive waste. Thorium reactors are also not susceptible to meltdown scenarios.
Another advantage of thorium as an energy source is that it is plentiful, with Australia having the second largest reserves after India.

Putting aside what I believe to be the unsettled science about global warming, it would be an advantage to Australia and Newcastle to have a diversified energy mix with the alternative to coal being a proven and feasible one. 

Thorium fits that description.

There is No Global Warming and Will Be None for Decades

A post from Alan Caruba's Warning signs © 
republished with permission 
There is No Global Warming and Will Be None for Decades



I recently received an unsigned email about my Sierra Club commentary in which I pointed out that it opposes traditional forms of energy and made a passing reference to Obama’s lie that “climate change”, the new name for global warming, was now “settled science.” 

Global warming was never based on real science. It was conjured up using dubious computer models and we were supposed to believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could actually predict what the climate would be twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now.

The writer of the email disagreed with me. “lol you are a f**king idiot. you don’t believe there is global warming going on? you need to let your prejudices go and stop basing your views on what your political stance is…do you research you f**king faggot.” 
                                                                                                                        
Now, not everyone who believes in global warming is as rude as this individual and certainly not as ignorant, but his message suggests that those who do not believe in it do so as the result of “a political stance” when, in fact, our views are based on science.

Anyone familiar with my writings knows that a lot of research is involved. In my case, it dates back to the late 1980s when the global warming hoax began to be embraced by politicians like Al Gore who made millions selling worthless “carbon credits” while warning that “Earth has a fever.”

A small army of scientists lined their pockets with government grants to produce data that supported the utterly baseless charge that carbon dioxide was causing the Earth to warm. They castigated other scientists or people like myself as “deniers” while we proffered to call ourselves sceptics. They were joined by most of the media that ignored the real science. And the curriculums in our schools were likewise corrupted with the hoax.



Then, about 17 years ago the Earth began to cool. It had nothing to do with carbon dioxide—which the Environmental Protection Agency deems a “pollutant” despite the fact that all life on Earth would die without it—and everything to do with the SUN.

A few days after the email arrived, two-thirds of the contiguous U.S.A. was covered by snow. As this is being written, Lake Superior is 92% frozen, setting a new record. As of February 5, the entire Great Lakes system was, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 77% covered with ice.

On February 1st, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”

Both of these government agencies, along with others like the EPA and the Department of the Interior are staffed by people who understand that their employers are deeply committed to the global warming hoax. One should assume that almost anything they have to say about the “pause” is based entirely on politics, not science.

Then, too, despite the many measuring stations from which data is extracted to determine the Earth’s climate, there is a paucity of such stations in COLD places like Siberia. Stations here in the U.S. are often placed in “heat islands” otherwise known as cities. If you put enough of them close to sources of heat, you get thermometer readings that produce, well, heat.

People in the U.S., England, Europe and other areas of the world who do not possess Ph.ds in meteorology, climatology, geology, astronomy, and chemistry have begun to suspect that everything they have been told about global warming is false. Between 1300 and 1850 the northern hemisphere went through a mini-ice age. After that it began to warm up again. So, yes, there was global warming, but it was a natural cycle, not something caused by human beings.

Nature doesn’t care what we do. It is far more powerful than most of us can comprehend.

This brings us back to the Sun which determines, depending on where you are on planet Earth, how warm or cold you feel. The Sun, too, goes through cycles, generally about eleven years long. When it is generating a lot of heat, its surface is filled with sunspots, magnetic storms.

When there are few sunspots, solar radiation diminishes and we get cold. Scientists who study the Sun believe it may encounter another “Maunder minimum”, named after astronomer Edward Maunder, in which the last “Little Ice Age”, between 1645 and 1715, occurred. The Thames in England froze over as did the canals of Holland froze solid.

There is no global warming and scientists like Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.” I agree.


© Alan Caruba, 2014