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.


  1. There's another thing wrong with this England stuff - failure to account for some very basic mechanics.
    The trade winds are the resultant of the thermal forces (radiation evaporation convection) and the Coriolis force (eg the slippage at the boundary layer between the earth and the atmosphere, most prominent at the equator where rotation is at its fastest). Trade winds are relatively constant. That is why they were called “trade” winds; they could be relied on to be there for traders. Trade winds are not going to vary that much, owing to the law of conservation of angular momentum.
    Wikipedia is not much help on this topic. The above is a summary from Szokolay, Manual of Tropical Housing & Building, Part 1 Climatic Design, 1974.

    I was wondering why England & co only show one small area of alleged accelerated trade wind north of the equator. Actually this is modelled accelerated wind – none of this stuff exists in the real world as far as I am aware. Maybe it is because the model contains angular momentum balancing and the effects show up operating in the opposite direction in the mid latitudes?
    Or the model can be tweaked for wind speed but doesn’t account for conservation of angular momentum in its processes? If the latter, then they are going to "find" another scary thing coming, like a massive tear in the atmosphere or earth's rotation is going wrong.
    Oh - I forgot - the earth doesn't rotate in these climate models. It is stationary and flat. Apparently, the excuse for not modelling the earth as a rotating obloid sphere was because the mathematics was too hard. This is the maths that has been allowing sailors to sail round the world and know where they are for centuries.

  2. Two years ago, Professor Matthew England appeared on the ABC’s Q&A to attack Nick Minchin, the former Howard government industry minister and a sceptic. Minchin had raised a puzzling fact: the planet had not warmed further since 1998.

    “Basically we’ve had a plateauing of temperature rise,” he said. CO2 emissions had soared, but “we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted”.

    England’s response?

    “What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.”

    England later even accused sceptics of “lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements”.

    So imagine my surprise when England admitted last week there had been a “hiatus” and “plateau in global average temperatures” after all. Startled readers asked England to explain how he could call sceptics liars two years ago for mentioning a “plateau” he now agreed was real.

  3. From Ben Pile


    A new hypothesis, however, claims to be able to fill in the missing gaps. According to scientists whose study was published in Nature Climate Change this week, the strength of winds that push colder air towards the equator has increased over the past two decades, forcing more heat into the ocean, and that this can explain why global warming appears to have stopped. Climate models have not taken this effect into account, say the authors; thus, ‘rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate’.
    This may be so. But it remains a single study, which science has not yet had a chance to scrutinise and test, much less assimilate and understand. Such necessary caution has not troubled environmental correspondents, who have been quick to leap on the study as a decisive development in the climate wars. ‘The findings should provide fresh certainty about the reasons behind the warming hiatus’, said the Guardian: ‘It is likely the current warming slowdown is only a temporary reprieve from brisk increases in global temperatures.’

  4. Thank you for this valuable information, I hope it is okay that I bookmarked your website for further references.

    Square and Stationary Earth Map


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!