You talking to me Agro?

I don't try to shut down debate; I encourage it. So far I haven't got any but apart from your censorious attempt which seems to define the pro-AGW crowd, at least you provide some semblance of a counter-argument. So curtail your inclination to close me down and focus on the issues.

It is true that both the Roderick [McVicar] papers linked to in the article deal with terrestrial winds and not winds over water such as the Trade Winds. But they are still relevant because they point to a slow down in energy transfer generally which the earlier Vecchi paper supposedly found.

The Vecchi paper of course dealt specifically with the Trade Winds and as you say data up to 2000 but made firm predictions about that decline in wind speed further declining by a further 20% up to the year 2100.

More importantly Vecchi reported a decline of 3.5% over the preceding 140 years.

England uses data up to 2011. So, we are led to believe that in the 11 years since Vecchi did his study the situation has turned on its head?!

In any event Vecchi has written subsequent papers confirming his 2006 findings:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/markus/ENSOCLIV.pdf

In this 2010 paper Vecchi uses data up to 2009 and still concludes [page 4]:

"Because of the reduction in the vertical circulation expected as global temperatures rise, we also expect a reduction in the surface trade winds associated with a weaker Walker circulation
(figure 1d). Refs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 find a consistent picture of weakening trades in both observations and models as measured by the reduction in the east-west mean sea level pressure gradient across the tropical Pacific (figure 1c)."

As for England he doesn’t use NEW data, his paper is a reanalysis which is just NEW computer model interpretation of the data. Even England concedes:

“although estimates of observed winds are not well constrained by measurements previous to the satellite era”

So there you have it, England is just another modelling expedition.

Now say something sensible about the OLR.

I see the standard hasn't improved around here.

Shame.

(Couldn't agree more, Ozdoc)

The IPCC was supposed to find evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (especially of carbon dioxide) are causing dangerous global warming. However, try as they might, the IPCC and its hangers-on ( including Matthew England) have failed to come up with the desired empirical scientific evidence.

The climate models that have been developed to reflect the hypothesis, have been proved to be invalid for projection purposes. Despite the continuing increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there has been no statistically significant global temperature rise in the last 16 or so years.

England et al argue that intensification of the wind-driven circulation in the Pacific is an explanation for what is described as a warming hiatus.

Until now, climate scientists promoting the AGW hypothesis have assiduously defended it by strongly asserting that natural variations in climate have only a very minor effect, and that the dominant determinant of climate change is anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Ironically, England et al unwittingly demolish this key AGW theory , by effectively acknowledging that climate change caused by natural variation is now very significant.

Oi! Enough of that! Us adult entertainers care about the environment too!

Oh what an absolute blast.

Firstly to ozdoc. Thanks mate for pulling up Cohenite. I have develop an unhealthy propensity to throw back what has been chucked my way or chucked at others. It isn't the most edifying response though, and you attempting to force some action through more appropriate channels was the right thing to do. Sorry if the name stymied the effort.

But I must confess finding the name Steele Redux linked to a porno star, or at least a handsome womaniser, has made my bloody night. Some decent food and lagers at the local, a pretty silly (but in a quirky way enjoyable) play at the local amateur theatre, chased down with some excellent desert and beverages then capped off with this. Tremendous!

Graham asks what I was thinking. Would love to have said it was my intention from the start, unfortunately no. The Redux came from my copy of Apocalypse Now, one of my all time favourite movies and my edition is the Redux one with nearly an hour of extra footage and released in 2001.

Redux in general use means 'brought back' or 'resurgent' which I thought was appropriate for my return to the forum. Not sure how long I will be around this time but I have no intention of changing it now. What a ripper!

My guess is Cohenite went looking me up on Google and found this at the top of the list;
http://steeleinlove.com/grapplingredux.html Pretty tame for a porn star though. It actually appears to be a character used in writing challenges of some sort. Note the different authors;
http://krebsfiles.com/challenge2.html

Not going to let Cohenite's little inaccuracy spoil the fun though.

Dear Poirot,

I'm sorry you felt the need to leave this place and was feeling kind of like I had abandoned you and Foxy to the usual suspects. I'm not sure how long I'm back for but jump in if you feel that way inclined. The sharks may look scary but on the whole they are pretty toothless.

That's the spirit steele, better to be a porn wannabe then not to try at all.

I hate to disabuse you though; I didn't google, your name just rang a bell and I remembered that great movie set in a time when porn was something more innocent and was at worst a tool for the left to oppose the staidness of the conservative deniers. So I spent about as much time on your name as you guys do on the AGW science, which is to say zilch.

Speaking of the science there is some really meaty stuff in England's paper. Raycom has raised another very valid point, which is England's paper is evidence that natural factors can dominate AGW.

The notion of the heat penetrating the ocean skin and being thrust down to the bottom by the winds though is just grade z schlock.

I'm also disappointed with agro; he comes across as all dominant and scientifically virile yet runs away at the first sign of a bit of resistance. He has his way and promises much but rarely delivers and can dish it out but not take it. I mean I still carry the psychological welts from his descriptions of me as a chump and as dumb. I'm tearing up even as I write this just thinking about his hurtful comments and his preference for silly little poirot. But I still forgive him and even now find comfort in the good times we had.

Turning back to the article I'd really like someone to have a crack at the OLR surging up from the surface and erupting into the black void of space. After all if that heat is OLR it can't also be warming the ocean bottom.

Looks like its all up to you steele; let's see if you can get on top of the OLR heat.

Graham Young,

You know full well how abusive Anthony Cox through his nom de plume is - a history of vitriol and invective.

So yes, I can agree with you (to some extent) - you are naive.

Either that or it's one rule for them and one rule for cohenite and his acolytes.

Ok, it's a way to make a 'buck' - pitting one opinion against another - you do it well.

However, I would also agree that this "opinion" site is a waste of time.