Readers of course recall the latest claim in a series of excuses about “the pause” in global warming with the new paper from Professor Mathew England of the University of New South Wales (home of the award winning Chris Turney “ship of fools”) that is getting media attention, where he concedes there has indeed been a pause, and offers “trade winds” as the explanation. But if there was a pause in “climate change” , why then back in 2011 did he blame it for flooding?
“I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change,” said Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
That’s about as scientific as saying my cat produces more hairballs in winter due to “climate change” But wait, there’s more! He’s part of the Lewandowsky alternate universe of made up data correlation:
Australian Research Council (Linkage Grant, with Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency). Creating a climate for change: From cognition to consensus. (Ben Newell, Brett Hayes, Marilyn Brewer, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andy Pitman, Matthew England, Chris Mitchell), A$216,000 (plus matching contribution from DCCEE), 2012-2014.
From Stephan Lewandowsky’s vita here:
Back in January in a Eurekalert press release, England claimed that there would be more heat waves in Australia due to El Nino:
“This latest research based on rainfall patterns, suggests that extreme El Niño events are likely to double in frequency as the world warms leading to direct impacts on extreme weather events worldwide.”
“For Australia, this could mean summer heat waves, like that recently experienced in the south-east of the country, could get an additional boost if they coincide with extreme El Ninos,” said co-author, Professor Matthew England from CoECSS.
That’s some trick in the middle of “a pause” where the winds just aren’t cooperating per his recent press release.
“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear” said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.
“This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.
It seems this guy will say just about anything, as long as he gets press and the press are too stupid to start asking him questions.
Andrew Bolt also takes him to task.
Why did warmist Matthew England deny the dud predictions he now concedes?
What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.
And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.
Lead author Professor Matthew England, a climate scientist and oceanographer at the University of New South Wales, says since 2001 global surface temperatures have remained steady despite an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases…
“Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires … it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
And England suggests an excuse for this warming pause:
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…
“We want the community to have confidence in the climate models,” he said. “They are very good but in this instance the wind acceleration has been that strong and that much stronger than what the models projected.”
Those models have actually vastly overestimated the warming, but England still wants us to have “confidence” in them. Could his own “wanting” explain why England vilified sceptics as liars for saying what he now admits is true: that the warming of the world’s atmosphere has paused for at least 13 years, contrary to the IPCC predictions?
How can we trust him? And will he say sorry?
(Thanks to readers wiley, isobar and Straight Talk.)