Yet another excuse for The Pause

Age-old excuses

Age-old excuses

UPDATE: One of the other ABC reports (and there are plenty) leaves no room for any doubt:

Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperatures increases, an Australian study reveals.

Note: “are” the main cause. Not might be, or perhaps, but “are.” And if that weren’t enough, we have a D-word alert:

The authors reject the study gives impetus to climate change deniers and instead suggest that when the winds ease, global warming will accelerate rapidly.

The ABC really is a piece of shite.

The ABC breathlessly reports that a well-known warmist has worked out yet another reason for The Pause, and another factor that the climate models apparently didn’t know about.

Matthew England of the University of New South Wales (see here and here, for example of his impartiality on the matter) proposes a variation on the ‘Dog Ate my Warming’ excuse, accepted uncritically as usual by the ABC:

Scientists have come up with an explanation for the pause in global warming, which has long been a point of contention raised by climate change sceptics.

Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled.

Sceptics say the slowdown suggests warming is not as bad as first thought, while most climate scientists say it is just a natural climate variability.

Now an Australian-led team of researchers has found strong winds in the Pacific Ocean are most likely to be behind the hiatus.

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) researcher Matthew England said oceans were much more dominant in terms of their heat uptake.

“Obviously we have implications of that such as sea level rise,” Professor England said.

Professor England led a team of researchers from around the world that has come up with an explanation for why the oceans soak up the heat.

Their research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, has found the answer lies in stronger than usual trade winds whipping across the Pacific Ocean.

It was found the winds were churning the Pacific like a washing machine, bringing the deeper colder water to the surface and pushing the warmer water below.

“The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said.

“We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field.

“It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse back to their normal levels we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise.” (source)

Note how the day of reckoning, when warming is set to resume, has been pushed out to some unspecified point in the future. Personally, I think it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster that’s tinkering with the climate, reaching out with his noodly appendage to fool the warmists… no more ridiculous than the above, I would say.

Add it to the list.


  1. Simon Colwell says:

    Why is it when you jump into a swimming pool or the ocean on a hot day that the water near the surface can be quite warm, almost like bath water, but when you sink down to the bottom it is noticeably colder ?

  2. Even the IPCC admits the Physics in the “Climate Models” is wrong. In v3 of their report their comment was “We know the Physics is wrong but hopefully cancellation of errors will yield the correct results.”.

    There is so much Physics left out of, or incorrectly modeled in, the Climate “Models”, “The Dog Ate My Warming” excuse is going to be perpetual.

    • Nowhere in the article do they reference any data showing that the ocean temperature has risen in fact even the Argo buoy system only measures it to about half its average depth. They are pissing in the wind.

  3. A couple of points to ponder:

    1. If the pause in warming can be explained, according to the “experts”, by natural variability, then maybe the warming can be too?

    2. Could one of the “experts” who is fully versed in the physics of fluid flow, both liquid and gaseous, explain how wind can exert sufficient force on the surface of the ocean to overcome the resistance of the natural buoyancy of warmer water and rotate the water body to bring the cold, deep water to the surface? Or does an “expert” have an alternative explanation for how denser cold water can “float” on less dense warm water in obvious defiance of the accepted LAWS of physics in order to support a new hypothesis?

    Like many “climate change” hypotheses, these dreams again defy accepted LAWS of physics.

  4. Why do these “climate scientists” incorrectly and stupidly refer to us as “climate change sceptics?”

    I know that climate changes as do all the people I know how dispute the falsified AGQ hypothesis:

    • mainspring101, I don’t have a problem with being called a sceptic. My entire life position is based on rational scepticism. I also don’t have a problem with warming. A warm planet is a happy planet. So I don’t “deny” that temperatures are about a degree Fahrenheit warmer over the past century.

      Most of the warming appears to be natural, caused by increased solar irradiation. Some of the increase MAY be due to humans emitting more CO2, although the promised positive feedbacks have failed to come to the party and negative feedbacks have made their unwelcome presence felt instead. (Unwelcome if you’re a warmist, that is.)

      My own hypothesis voiced at this site before is that the planet takes a couple of decades to reach an equilibrium state after any major change in a forcing. Solar irradiation more or less leveled out in the late 1960’s and the pause started around 30 years later. Solar irradiation now appears to be on the way down, and that might bring a reduction in temperatures in a decade or three.

  5. Reposting my comment on Hockey Schtick –
    Wouldn’t trust anything Matthew England is lead author of …
    ” … strengthened Pacific trade winds can account for 0.1C- 0.2C of cooling … “. Uhuh … Only NH illustrated apparently?
    Here 19°S 146°E, 60% of airflow is from the north-east, off the western Pacific. That’s a trade wind. Has the average strength increased? I’d say no, and I would know, since my premises have unmitigated exposure to this airflow. Diminished if anything. Has the temperature gone up? No. Noticeably cooler compared to 1990-2000.
    Of course, wind direction and speed is monitored here and other places nearby, and the results are readily obtainable. Maybe that’s why they stick to NH?

  6. Looks a lot like Trenberth’s excuse, just with an added “explanation”.

    Perhaps they’d like to outline how exactly the winds above the water line manage to push the heat below the colder water and keep it there. An experiment that can be replicated, perhaps? I await their results and independent verification; I’m not holding my breath, though.

  7. Pops up on NBC News – yep, being promoted as “surprisingly balanced”.
    It should be easy to test this using actual wind direction and intensity records, and plot these with temperature. I have ten years of records that cover this. Hopefully someone like Willis Eschenbach will beat me to it 🙂

  8. So they’re now saying that natural variation is the driver of our climate and not CO2 concentration. Interesting.

  9. And these upstarts refer to themselves as “scientists”? UNSW likes to refer to itself as the No.3 university in the country, yet these climate researchers belong in the School of Astrology. So the story now is that:
    1. The only excuse we have for the missing heat is that it’s hiding at the bottom of the ocean where we can’t find it. Let’s not try and find the heat because we can’t. We’ll just surmise it’s there and base our research on its surmised existence.
    2. We can’t find it, but our research has determined the mechanism behind the missing heat being conveyed to the bottom of the ocean.
    3. Our research can’t be duplicated or tested; in fact we don’t even know if the any heat, excess or not, is being conveyed to the ocean depths, but trust us, we know the missing heat is there…even though we can’t find it.
    Go back to 8th grade!

  10. Charles Johnson says:

    I was taught at school that wind causes evaporation and cooling. This is why you blow on a cup of hot coffee to cool it. The high winds should be cooling the surface layer, not absorbing heat – very strange indeed.

    • @Charles ” … wind causes evaporation and cooling … ” Yep, that’s why the north-easterlies up here in NQ are “target winds” eg if you can, try and make use of them.

      Trade winds are generated by the resultant of thermal forces and the Coriolis effect. The law of conservation of angular momentum applies, eg if the wind is west-east in one place, it has to be reciprocated somewhere else blowing east-west.

  11. From the northern half,
    What used to be a Rossby Wave is now a Polar Vortex.
    Much more exiting.

%d bloggers like this: