Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Figure 1. The Experimental Setup
I keep reading statements in various places about how it is indisputable “simple physics” that if we increase the amount of atmospheric CO2, it will inevitably warm the planet. Here’s a typical example:
In the hyperbolic language that has infested the debate, researchers have been accused of everything from ditching the scientific method to participating in a vast conspiracy. But the basic concepts of the greenhouse effect is a matter of simple physics and chemistry, and have been part of the scientific dialog for roughly a century.
Here’s another:
The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics.
Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.
The climate is composed of six major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.
Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.
As a result of this almost unimaginable complexity, simple physics is simply inadequate to predict the effect of a change in one of the hundreds and hundreds of things that affect the climate. I will give two examples of why “simple physics” doesn’t work with the climate — a river, and a block of steel. I’ll start with a thought experiment with the block of steel.
Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature changes with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?
To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.
So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.
After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.
And wait … and wait …
As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings.
For a more nuanced view of what is happening, let’s consider the second example, a river. Again, a thought experiment.
I take a sheet of plywood, and I cover it with some earth. I tilt it up so it slopes from one edge to the other. For our thought experiment, we’ll imagine that this is a hill that goes down to the ocean.
I place a steel ball at the top edge of the earth-covered plywood, and I watch what happens. It rolls, as simple physics predicts, straight down to the lower edge. I try it with a wooden ball, and get the same result. I figure maybe it’s because of the shape of the object.
So I make a small wooden sled, and put it on the plywood. Again, it slides straight down to the ocean. I try it with a miniature steel shed, same result. It goes directly downhill to the ocean as well. Simple physics, understood by Isaac Newton.
As a final test, I take a hose and I start running some water down from the top edge of my hill to make a model river. To my surprise, although the model river starts straight down the hill, it soon starts to wander. Before long, it has formed a meandering stream, which changes its course with time. Sections of the river form long loops, the channel changes, loops are cut off, new channels form, and after while we get something like this:
Figure 2. Meanders, oxbow bends, and oxbow lakes in a river system. Note the old channels where the river used to run.
The most amazing part is that the process never stops. No matter how long we run the river experiment, the channel continues to change. What’s going on here?
Well, the first thing that we can conclude is that, just as in our experiment with the steel block, simple physics simply doesn’t work in this situation. Simple physics says that things roll straight downhill, and clearly, that ain’t happening here … it is obvious we need better tools to analyze the flow of the river.
Are there mathematical tools that we can use to understand this system? Yes, but they are not simple. The breakthrough came in the 1990’s, with the discovery by Adrian Bejan of the Constructal Law. The Constructal Law applies to all flow systems which are far from equilibrium, like a river or the climate.
It turns out that these types of flow systems are not passive systems which can take up any configuration. Instead, they actively strive to maximize some aspect of the system. For the river, as for the climate, the system strives to maximize the sum of the energy moved and the energy lost through turbulence. See the discussion of these principles here, here, here, and here. There is also a website devoted to various applications of the Constructal Law here.
There are several conclusions that we can make from the application of the Constructal Law to flow systems:
1. Any flow system far from equilibrium is not free to take up any form as the climate models assume. Instead, it has a preferential state which it works actively to approach.
2. This preferential state, however, is never achieved. Instead, the system constantly overshoots and undershoots that state, and does not settle down to one final form. The system never stops modifying its internal aspects to move towards the preferential state.
3. The results of changes in such a flow system are often counterintuitive. For example, suppose we want to shorten the river. Simple physics says it should be easy. So we cut through an oxbow bend, and it makes the river shorter … but only for a little while. Soon the river readjusts, and some other part of the river becomes longer. The length of the river is actively maintained by the system. Contrary to our simplistic assumptions, the length of the river is not changed by our actions.
So that’s the problem with “simple physics” and the climate. For example, simple physics predicts a simple linear relationship between the climate forcings and the temperature. People seriously believe that a change of X in the forcings will lead inevitably to a chance of A * X in the temperature. This is called the “climate sensitivity”, and is a fundamental assumption in the climate models. The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models. But the models assume this relationship, so they cannot be used to establish the relationship.
However, as rivers clearly show, there is no such simple relationship in a flow system far from equilibrium. We can’t cut through an oxbow to shorten the river, it just lengthens elsewhere to maintain the same total length. Instead of being affected by a change in the forcings, the system sets its own preferential operating conditions (e.g. length, temperature, etc.) based on the natural constraints and flow possibilities and other parameters of the system.
Final conclusion? Because climate is a flow system far from equilibrium, it is ruled by the Constructal Law. As a result, there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make a large difference to the global temperature, and the Constructal Law gives us reason to think that it may make no difference at all. In any case, regardless of Arrhenius, the “simple physics” relationship between CO2 and global temperature is something that we cannot simply assume to be true.
Sponsored IT training links:
Download RH302 questions & answers with self paced 70-270 practice test to prepare and pass 646-985 exam.
I’m still waiting for “ThinkingBeing” to tell us where all the heat went that the oceans have been “absorbing” for twenty years.
Something tells me I’ll never see the answer to that… sigh.
Bart- Thanks for that link on fast and slow feedbacks. It looks like something I will want to work through and try to digest. It seems that “climate sensitivity” is shorthand for something quite complicated: like … the climate’s upward temperature sensitivity (expressed as a number) to increased CO2 in the atmosphere with numerous associated aftereffects including, paradoxically, an upward temperature sensitivity to upward temperature (via water vapor). Since the Supreme Court decision on Mass. v EPA specifically addresses the question of uncertainty, I am always interested in things that seem a little iffy.
Willis,
See my article on WUWT here for some evidence about how the earth responds to changing forcings. The reason that the evidence is thin is that people have bought into the “simple physics” mantra, so nobody is looking for evidence because “the science is settled™ ” …
Even you admit in the article you linked to that the temperature in the past half a billion years varied by +/-9 Celsius, or by +/- 3 Celsius in the Holocene period. And 20 or so Dansgaard-Oeschger events also point to a lack of thermostat on relatively short timescales.
But you are moving the debate away from your claim in this post that somehow because not all possibilities have been examined we ought to assume that a significant impact to earth’s radiation balance has no effect.
In your examples, the failure of the zeroth order predictions to come about teach us about the system. And certainly it is possible that the past dynamic nature of the climate will somehow be different this time.
So far though, most of the metrics, adjusted and unadjusted, satellite and ground based, proxy and observation, point towards a warming that is in line with the zeroth order predictions of the theory as encapsulated by the model projections. So while it is indeed a travesty that we don’t have the observation systems in place to detect the detailed effects of short term climate variability, a bit of evidence for any sort of thermostat or iris cannot be relied on.
CodeTech: see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
Steve Milesworthy (06:08:31) :
So far though, most of the metrics, adjusted and unadjusted, satellite and ground based, proxy and observation, point towards a warming that is in line with the zeroth order predictions of the theory as encapsulated by the model projections.
Wrong.
Once the projections of the models get away from the time period where the n ( where n is a large number) parameters of the models were adjusted to fit, they fail miserably. And as Von Neuman is supposed to have said: “with 4 parameters, I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him fly”.
I have explained as simply as I could in my anna v (12:22:47) : on this thread why zero order and first order predictions are meaningless when one deals with highly non linear solutions of many coupled differential equations.
I can also give you chapter and verse from the AR4 chapter 8 where supposedly the physics justification is given, where , away from the temperature versus time plots which diverges after about 2000, all other plots, even against the concurrent data, are nonsense and show random fits: some models fit some parts and others other, and by the spaghetti trick they try to fool the observer’s eyed that the models more or less project OK. It is all a large parascientific fraud, in my not so humble opinion, and future scientists will be laughing their heads off ; if our civilization manages to survive the AGW destructive mania and produce any science in the future stone age envisaged for all of us.
Willis, I have thought long and hard about your thought experiments complexity and simple science. They are very helpful in explaining the elements of Complex Adaptive Systems to the layman. I do, however, have a question/observation and hope you can comment on it. I come at this as a layman.
In the case of the flow of water down the earth-covered slope, you rightly say that it will meander and find its own preferred state or rate of flow, pressure, and trajectory down the slope. If you make a direct cutting through one of the bends the meander will readjust itself and lengthen in order to keep to its preferred equilibrium or state, so long as other variables remain the same.
However, if you change the key variable, namely the rate of flow (which I don’t think you mentioned), then the shape of the river will change. It will presumably shorten if you increase the rate of flow and lengthen if you decrease the rate of flow. Am I right? If you increase the rate of flow sufficiently then surely it will cease to meander and instead will burst its way through to a much more direct (even straight) path. This is what happens when rivers flood in real life situations. Heavy rains increase the rate of flow and eventually the water will find the line of least resistance to a new phase space or ‘attractor’.
There are other variables that can be changed. Instead of earth you could use very fine sand or ice or whatever… Each would change the state and behaviour of the system.
Your point is well made that if you scale this up in the complexity stakes to something as hugely complex and adaptive as the Earth’s climate you get something very profoundly unpredictable and adaptive. But even here we find over long enough time periods various cyclical patterns that repeat. I suppose my question or observation is that there are variables in the Earth’s climate that could flip the climate into a ‘bifurcation’ or change of ‘attractor’. This must have happened with the ice ages and in theory this could happen in a warming phase, if for example the sun for some reason got much hotter.
In other words the science of complex systems is necessarily complex and non-linear, but at some ‘far from equilibrium states’ the cause of a bifurcation or radical change of behaviour can be something quite simple.
Take the classical example of a snow slope on a mountain. Snow falls and the snow cover builds up, but it is in equilibrium. It is safe to ski on. But as time passes more snow falls and the slope moves away from equilibrium to more and more unstable states. Eventually it takes (in theory at least) just one too many snow flake to make the whole slope avalanche. There is a catastrophic event – a bifurcation and millions of tons of snow crash down the mountain side sweeping everything in its path. This lasts only a few minutes, but there is created a new equilibrium. The slope is once more stable.
This transition can happen to your meandering stream if the rate of flow increases too much. It can happen on a snow slope. And it happens to the climate on varying timescales.
I do not believe for a minute that moderate increases of CO2 in the atmosphere have any chance of creating such a bifurcation – what the alarmists call runaway global warming where we all get fried.
I will go and read the material on the Constructal Laws again to make sure I have understood this correctly.
CodeTech: see http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_COP15
Starting at 3:00 on the video. I can’t find the David H. Douglas, Robert Knox that he references though…. ThinkingBeing: Is that something you would know how to find for us?
[i]anna v (06:53:50) :
Steve Milesworthy (06:08:31) :
So far though, most of the metrics, adjusted and unadjusted, satellite and ground based, proxy and observation, point towards a warming that is in line with the zeroth order predictions of the theory as encapsulated by the model projections.
Wrong.
Once the projections of the models get away from the time period where the n ( where n is a large number) parameters of the models were adjusted to fit, they fail miserably. And as Von Neuman is supposed to have said: “with 4 parameters, I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him fly”.
I have explained as simply as I could in my anna v (12:22:47) : on this thread why zero order and first order predictions are meaningless when one deals with highly non linear solutions of many coupled differential equations.[/i]
You are demanding too much. The projections were that it would warm. It has warmed. Zero order prediction has been met. The warming is not monotonic and is perhaps a bit less than expected by a bit more than half the models. That is inconvenient, but not out of line with previous unforced variability of the climate.
So asking “what are the negative feedbacks that are cancelling out the warming?”, as implied by this post, is jumping the gun somewhat.
(By the way, model parameters are not tuned after the model is made ready for doing the warming projections; models are tuned to match a stable climatology. Aerosols and solar might have been tuned a bit to get the unfeasibly good matches between a lot of the models and 20th Century temperatures, but that doesn’t say much about whether the model physics is right or wrong.).
Anna V:
Perhaps Peter was responding only to the post by TB above him?
Willis Eschenbach (03:19:50) :
” … it has been said that until you make the hundred most common mistakes in a field, you can’t consider yourself an expert in that field.”
In other words, you have internalized a negative feedback loop, in which you perform a task, measure the result, and make corrections based on the observed error. In the forward loop is a neural network (your brain) which serves as an internal model for the real world. After many cycles through the loop, the neural network is programmed so that you may anticipate the actions of the real world, resulting in progressively smaller error signals which require less corrective action.
If your feedback gain is zero, you are like “ThinkingBeing”, whose dynamics are open loop, running on external inputs without corrective action from observations of the real world.
It is apparent that some of the climate scientists have positive feedback gains, in which observations are interpreted in such a way as to drive their neural nets to diverge ever farther from reality. Eventually, those loops will reach a saturation threshold, followed by full system crash.
That is also wrong.
There had been no warming for last 15 years. There was small cooling for last 10. The models had been falsified, by your own argument, even for zero-order predictions.
ThinkingBeing:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
The oceans are cooling. That’s some mighty amazing absorbing power.
Steve Milesworthy (06:08:31)
I find the opposite, that the D-O events indicate that there is a thermostat. Otherwise, the thermometer would have just kept going. Consider the complexity of the climate system. If I were to try to build a planetary climate system that depends on the average cloud cover not varying more than a percent or so on average, I’d find it very very difficult to even imagine doing so without some kind of feedback system, without some kind of governor.
I’m not “moving the debate”, I’m answering people’s questions, including yours. And the reason I quote people is to avoid misconceptions. What I actually said was:
I did not say we “ought to assume” CO2 has no effect, I said that the Constructal Law gives us reason to think CO2 may have no effect. This is a very different claim than the one you are fighting against.
The earth has seen some astounding changes in forcings. Meteor strikes, millennium long volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean chemistry, huge forest fires, and a 25% increase in solar energy have not changed the temperature by more than a few percent. How do you explain this without some kind of thermostatic mechanism? And since the Constructal Law says that every flow system has such a mechanism, that every flow system actively tends towards a preferred state, why should we assume that the climate is somehow unique and different?
1. What is “the zeroth order prediction” when it is at home?
2. What exactly are the “metrics, adjusted and unadjusted, satellite and ground based, proxy and observation” that point to warming “as encapsulated by the model predictions”? We have seen no significant warming since 1995. The proxy metrics are all over the place, and are all too often carefully picked to show a particular result. The satellite observations show that neither the tropics nor the southern hemisphere have warmed significantly since the beginning of the satellite record. The Arctic has warmed (although it is no warmer than in the 1930s) and the Antarctic has cooled (current sea ice is the highest on record). So which metrics are you talking about?
Remember that the issue is not whether the earth is warming during this part of the millennium. There is good agreement that the planet has been warming since about 1650. The issue is whether CO2 is causing that warming. Since it has been going on since 1650 …
From 1900 to 1940 the CO2 didn’t rise much, and the temperature went up by about 0.4C. This rise was about a tenth of a degree per decade. From 1940 to 2000, the CO2 went up a lot, and the temperature went up by about 0.2C … this is about a third of rate of rise in the earlier part of the century. You seem to think this is an indictment of CO2, but for the life of me I can’t make the numbers support that.
And since the model predictions extend from the floor to the ceiling (and that’s just the carefully selected results that didn’t end up on the cutting room floor), the fact that current temperatures are between the floor and the ceiling is meaningless. We are constantly being reassured that no significant warming since 1995 is consistent with the models … which should tell you something.
Louis Hissink (00:45:25) :
You have to be brain dead, or a otherwise a social scientist, to consider such a nonsense seriously…
Too funny! Because it’s true. My god, I still have no idea what the Climate Scientists are measuring, for the most part, except that it’s how they do it. Then in the case of the non-satellite surface temperatures, they don’t even bother to check the thermometers!
Roger Knights (09:36:14) :
Anna V:
Perhaps Peter was responding only to the post by TB above him?
I do not think so. TB is all pro modeling and so is Peter, unless his english sentence structure is bad.
Peter (22:30:50) :
Wow, this is one of the most befuddled posts that I’ve read for a long time. The prefix “pseudo” comes to mind. Do you really understand constructal mechanics? Do you understand climate modelling at all, or do you simply disagree with results that don’t sit well with you? Silly stuff.
Roger Knights (09:36:14) :
You made me check a previous threads, and there exists a Peter who is not a friend of AGW. If it is the same one, he should please quote the post he is replying to, to avoid misunderstandings next time.
CodeTech (10:23:49) :
“The oceans are cooling. That’s some mighty amazing absorbing power.”
On the link *you* provided, I presume you meant for me to find this page…
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
…with this graph…
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/levitus_2009_figure.jpg
…and this quote…
“Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cryosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere.”
…which rather clearly (to me) shows and states a rather undeniable and large uptake in heat by the oceans.
“Willis Eschenbach (00:40:49) ”
Man, I think everyone ought to read that one! Tremendous and entertaining deconstruction of what many of us thought from a long time ago didn’t need to even be explained or revisited. But it does!
It’s about as bad as you having to explain to me why – when you have just said you are reaching for the sugar, have so far always reached for the sugar only, and now appear to certainly be doing so – your real intent is not to kill me, as it “has been all along”. “You never ever really wanted the sugar anyway.”
The big question will be whether “ThinkingBeing” will have even understood what Willis just said, or act like s/he does in the future. There are just so many ways for people to get out of understanding an author’s intent and what a discussion is all about right from the start, if it’s going to get anywhere.
The ultimate escape for some seems to be “this whole interaction really didn’t happen at all”, or “You can’t make me!”, or “Well, my subjective understanding and use of words is just as good as yours”, blah blah blah.
I’ve thought of it as a problem needing total regression back to the womb or even to conception for a solution. But we’ll see.
ThinkingBeing (11:43:16),
From your ARGO link:
“Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content…”
So that is a computer model based estimate. Models are not evidence, and neither are the papers referenced above. Raw observations, properly recorded, are evidence.
As any thinking being should know, government grants are not handed out to those showing actual raw data proving that the ocean is cooling: click1, click2 [the peak is the el nino].
Grants are shoveled into the pockets of alarmists. That’s why there is such a discrepancy between the models and reality: click.
If you want birds, throw out bird seed. If you want alarmism, throw out grant money.
Thanks Smokey…
Actually, let me point out more of the obvious: if ARGO was showing that the oceans were heating, it would be the ONLY thing we heard about, night and day. When the results were first coming in, they seemed ready to announce that heating was happening, but it isn’t.
The result? Even many well-read people who follow the debate-that-isn’t-a-debate are unaware of ARGO.
It seems obvious to me that ARGO was intended to be a flagship (no pun intended) vehicle for alarmists. The site is laced with AGW alarmism language, but somehow manages to not actually give you the data. Instead you have to go searching. Because the data doesn’t support the hypothesis that the entire project was supposed to be supporting. Not even close. Not even the right sign.
So anyway, where’s all the heat? Is it in the “pipeline”?
ThinkingBeing (11:43:16),
“So that is a computer model based estimate. Models are not evidence, and neither are the papers referenced above. Raw observations, properly recorded, are evidence.”
Um, no, it’s not from models, it’s from actual data. Why would you think it’s from models? Because he used the word “estimated”? Yesterday’s temperature you see on a weather map is estimated by taking an average from nearby cities. That doesn’t mean it came from a computer model.
CodeTech (12:24:42) :
“Actually, let me point out more of the obvious: if ARGO was showing that the oceans were heating, it would be the ONLY thing we heard about, night and day. When the results were first coming in, they seemed ready to announce that heating was happening, but it isn’t.”
Um, no, there’s no reason to go trumpeting it. It’s just data. This whole thing is only perceived as a contest by the den… oops, sorry, I don’t want Mr. 1984 to edit me… This whole thing is only perceived as a contest by the people that believe in grand conspiracies and hoaxes and economic but not physical disasters.
For everyone else, there’s no need to go on and on about the ARGO data because it just provides confirmation for what other readings have been showing for a while. It’s no big deal.
Okay, I am totally done here. People here are plain and simply willfully ignorant. They call themselves skeptics, which implies having an open mind, but on the contrary, their minds are completely shut down. It’s a waste of energy.
REPLY: Thanks Rob for playing, too bad that you are taking your ball and heading home. -A
ThinkingBeing, I thought my last post was crystal clear. However, it appears you are either unimaginably stupid, or you are pretending to be unimaginably stupid. Let me make this completely evident to you, so there can be no mistake.
GO AWAY!
DO NOT POST ON THIS THREAD AGAIN!
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!
TAKE YOUR ARROGANT ATTITUDE ELSEWHERE!
Is that clear now?
Everyone else, if he is unable to decipher the message above, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. Let him blather on, but do not answer him. Let him wallow in his own idiocy, but please don’t reply to him.
w.
On Constructal Law
“For a flow system to persist in time (to survive) it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier and easier access to the currents that flow through it”. -Adrian Bejan
i.e. flow follows the path of least resistance……still trying to get my head around what exactly is ‘new’ about CL.
And yet, here in this thread Eschenbach argues that we cannot say water flows downhill, because rivers meander — never mind that the water flows downhill even with the meander. Worse is his assumption that because there may be a complex system of couplings between sunlight striking CO2 in the air and warming ultimately, that we cannot say that the well-known physics which works 100% of the time, every time (even better than Will Farrell’s cologne), works 100% of the time. Sure there are complications along the way — but the heat has to go somewhere. Pretending it doesn’t isn’t science, but foolishness. If Eschenbach can make a case that the heat reradiates into space, he might have a case. But in order to do that, he’s got to admit that the heat gets in in the first place. Once it’s in our Earth-bound system, it must go somewhere.
Eschenbach says blithely:
So what? He’s still not accounted for the energy input, and once it’s there, it causes warming. That systems rarely move in a linear way isn’t news, and it doesn’t negate the physics.
Water flows downhill. Heat put into a system must go somewhere, it doesn’t vanish like a ghost.
REPLY: Like I said folks, my best suggestion is to ignore this guy. His whole reason for existence is fomenting arguments. Nothing you can say will have any effect. Been there, done that, waste of time. – Anthony
W.
Please don’t get so upset abut trolls, they are always around. And best ignored.
For instance on another thread there is one who avers the wines of the MWP were very poor. How he might know that bemuses me. The same troll also forgets that by then England imported all its wine because the kings of England had vast possessions in France: and indeed claimed and contested the throne of France. How do we know of these imports? we have their edicts and import records at various ports.
Likewise the same troll avers that the Romans imported their wine into England, they did not. How do we know because we have many import and tariff records of those days from the original Imperial Roman sources. So the Romans established viniculture in England with considerable numbers of vineyards to avoid the import duty.
These matters are in the written record but trolls never bother with any hard evidence that contradicts their point of view.
So just ignore them for the arrogant fanatical ignoramuses they are.
Kindest Regards