Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

[Denny Crane]

Here's a great article about the same subject.

http://www.science20.com/news_artic...y_the_pacific_trade_winds_didnt_weaken-141836

Global Warming Puzzle: A New Hypothesis On Why The Pacific Trade Winds Didn't Weaken

(note the word Hypothesis)

Climate models predicted that the equatorial Pacific trade winds should weaken with increasing greenhouse gases, yet satellites and climate stations have instead revealed a rapid and unprecedented strengthening of the Pacific trade winds since the 1990s.

(Those models really work, don't they?)

 

[Denny Crane]

Science.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ubtle-body-language-communicate-thoughts.html

Forget neighing! Horses talk with their EARS: Creatures use subtle body language to communicate their thoughts

Horse whisperers take note: If you want to better understand your equine friends, then study their ears.

A study has revealed that just like humans, horses read each other’s faces. But, unlike us, they gain important information by specifically examining the ears.

It seems that when a horse is interested in something, it pricks up its ears and swivels them towards whatever has caught its attention.

This movement is so important that, if its ears are covered up, another horse struggles to know what it is thinking.

The finding comes from University of Sussex researchers who studied what makes one horse pay attention to another horse.

They began by taking photos of a horse looking to one side at bucket of food.

They then placed a picture on a post between two buckets of food, led another horse into the barn and watched which bucket it went to.

They almost always took their cue from the pictured animal and chose the bucket it seemed to be looking at.

However, when the photo was manipulated, so that the horse’s eyes were covered up, the results were no better than chance.

This suggests the horse’s gaze conveys important information.

(blah blah blah global warming!)

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Science.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ubtle-body-language-communicate-thoughts.html

Forget neighing! Horses talk with their EARS: Creatures use subtle body language to communicate their thoughts

Horse whisperers take note: If you want to better understand your equine friends, then study their ears.

A study has revealed that just like humans, horses read each other’s faces. But, unlike us, they gain important information by specifically examining the ears.

It seems that when a horse is interested in something, it pricks up its ears and swivels them towards whatever has caught its attention.

This movement is so important that, if its ears are covered up, another horse struggles to know what it is thinking.

The finding comes from University of Sussex researchers who studied what makes one horse pay attention to another horse.

They began by taking photos of a horse looking to one side at bucket of food.

They then placed a picture on a post between two buckets of food, led another horse into the barn and watched which bucket it went to.

They almost always took their cue from the pictured animal and chose the bucket it seemed to be looking at.

However, when the photo was manipulated, so that the horse’s eyes were covered up, the results were no better than chance.

This suggests the horse’s gaze conveys important information.

(blah blah blah global warming!)

The funny thing is you use scientist to disprove other scientist's data with regard to global warming.

So basically only scientists that agree with your position have credibility.

 

[Denny Crane]

The funny thing is you use scientist to disprove other scientist's data with regard to global warming.

So basically only scientists that agree with your position have credibility.

Not at all. I find this research to have been a waste of money. Since it didn't mention global warming anyhow.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Not at all. I find this research to have been a waste of money. Since it didn't mention global warming anyhow.

I figured you posted that to mock scientists.

 

[Denny Crane]

I figured you posted that to mock scientists.

Why would that be mocking scientists? This study was done by a PhD, so it all must be true (or something).

 

[MarAzul]

Here's a great article about the same subject.

http://www.science20.com/news_artic...y_the_pacific_trade_winds_didnt_weaken-141836

Global Warming Puzzle: A New Hypothesis On Why The Pacific Trade Winds Didn't Weaken

(note the word Hypothesis)

Climate models predicted that the equatorial Pacific trade winds should weaken with increasing greenhouse gases, yet satellites and climate stations have instead revealed a rapid and unprecedented strengthening of the Pacific trade winds since the 1990s.

(Those models really work, don't they?)

Weird! Where are they getting their data?

Pulled a Grib file for the Kriibati Islands, winds from the east 5 knot.

Kiritimati Island (Christmas Island) 4 knots

http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/KB/Kiritimati.html

Tarawa 5 - 10

http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Tarawa/forecasts/latest

This photo taken during a storm for the desired effect.

 

[barfo]

now go look up accuracy.

Now go look up 'I didn't write that article, or post it here, and I don't really give a shit whether the writer used the English language perfectly or not. The meaning was clear. Your objection on the basis of one word is ridiculous and petty'.

Should be able to google that shortly...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Go skim the first paragraph in the article. This time realize the words are strung together to make sentences. I know you're lazy, it shows. The first paragraph says, "New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s."

 

[Denny Crane]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-paper-finds-excuse-8-for-pause-in.html

New paper finds excuse #8 for the 'pause' in global warming: Pacific trade winds

A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the 'pause' in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were "not captured [simulated] by climate models." On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate.

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

09.02.2014

Trade winds may be a significant cause of the so called global warming pause, according to new research.

An article published online today in Nature Climate Change investigates how strengthened Pacific trade winds can account for 0.1C- 0.2C of cooling through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake - this is enough to account for much of the temperature slowdown in the so called global warming pause.

Global average surface temperatures rose sharply during the second half of the 20th century before leveling off since the late 1990s despite a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists have yet to fully explain the recent slowdown in the rise of air temperatures attributed to the so called global warming pause that, on at least one measure, has lasted for over 17 years.

 

[Eastoff]

^^why are you posting that article Denny? I'm confused.

 

[Denny Crane]

^^why are you posting that article Denny? I'm confused.

Excuse #8.

Get it?

 

[barfo]

Go skim the first paragraph in the article. This time realize the words are strung together to make sentences. I know you're lazy, it shows. The first paragraph says, "New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s."

Yeah. It's a story Denny. It's not the original research. Just because someone writes about science and uses a word imprecisely, that doesn't invalidate the science.

If it did, all of science would have long since been invalidated by the posts on this forum.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I know you're lazy, it shows.

Where's SlyPokerDog when you need him?

 

[barfo]

Where's SlyPokerDog when you need him?

Yeah! Personal attack! Personal attack! Denny must be banned!

Actually, he's right. I am lazy.

That reminds me of a time (way back before the internet) when a typesetter (yeah, that far back) at the school paper modified a quote about the QB from the football coach. The coach was quoted as saying something like 'He needs to work on his passing game'. The typesetter added "Actually, he's the laziest son of a bitch I've ever known".

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Where's SlyPokerDog when you need him?

LOL! I'll send Denny a PM.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah! Personal attack! Personal attack! Denny must be banned!

Actually, he's right. I am lazy.

That reminds me of a time (way back before the internet) when a typesetter (yeah, that far back) at the school paper modified a quote about the QB from the football coach. The coach was quoted as saying something like 'He needs to work on his passing game'. The typesetter added "Actually, he's the laziest son of a bitch I've ever known".

barfo

I was quoting you. You said you are lazy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah. It's a story Denny. It's not the original research. Just because someone writes about science and uses a word imprecisely, that doesn't invalidate the science.

If it did, all of science would have long since been invalidated by the posts on this forum.

barfo

So I bet they figure the trade wind is "stronger" by measuring only on the windiest days.

The scientists do plenty to invalidate their "science." Like looking for excuses why their models produce horribly inaccurate results.

 

[barfo]

So I bet they figure the trade wind is "stronger" by measuring only on the windiest days.

You bet? You mean, you are just going to leap to that conclusion without actually studying the science? Somebody here besides me is lazy...

The scientists do plenty to invalidate their "science." Like looking for excuses why their models produce horribly inaccurate results.

That's pretty much the scientific method you are criticizing there. What's the alternative you'd prefer? Give up if the first hypothesis didn't work perfectly? No, that's probably not what you'd prefer. Your method would be to insist that your original idea was completely correct in every way no matter what evidence suggests otherwise.

Seems to me you could be trumpeting this work because they are pointing out a flaw in climate models, which is something you want to do. But instead of hailing them, you are assailing them. It's as if you don't actually want climate science to improve, you just want to complain about how bad it is.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Lol. The science is settled. Not the scientific method, just snake oil.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's a great article about the same subject.

http://www.science20.com/news_artic...y_the_pacific_trade_winds_didnt_weaken-141836

Global Warming Puzzle: A New Hypothesis On Why The Pacific Trade Winds Didn't Weaken

(note the word Hypothesis)

Climate models predicted that the equatorial Pacific trade winds should weaken with increasing greenhouse gases, yet satellites and climate stations have instead revealed a rapid and unprecedented strengthening of the Pacific trade winds since the 1990s.

(Those models really work, don't they?)

You've been plunked, barfo. Again!

 

[barfo]

You've been plunked, barfo. Again!

Plunked? Yesterday you were saying punked.

You wouldn't currently be misusing words, would you?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Plunked? Yesterday you were saying punked.

You wouldn't currently be misusing words, would you?

barfo

Stupid autocorrect.

You were punked.

Not by me, but by those hawking the broken models and coming up with excuse after excuse why they fail.

They're up to 8 excuses. You think they'll adjust their models for those 8 and all will be well?

I know there are billions of excuses and fixes to the models that are sure to come and none of them, or combined, will make the models work. Literally billions, and that's an understatement.

A geometric equation will generate a graph as "accurate" as the models. So does a graph of the US debt over time.

 

[barfo]

Stupid autocorrect.

You were punked.

Not by me, but by those hawking the broken models and coming up with excuse after excuse why they fail.

They're up to 8 excuses. You think they'll adjust their models for those 8 and all will be well?

I know there are billions of excuses and fixes to the models that are sure to come and none of them, or combined, will make the models work. Literally billions, and that's an understatement.

A geometric equation will generate a graph as "accurate" as the models. So does a graph of the US debt over time.

Well, I expect neither of us is going to live long enough to settle this debate (if you want to call it that) on the climate.

But I surely do admire your certainty that you are correct about things you don't know about.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, I expect neither of us is going to live long enough to settle this debate (if you want to call it that) on the climate.

But I surely do admire your certainty that you are correct about things you don't know about.

barfo

I am certain that computer models are bullshit because I actually do know more than enough about them.

Wrong again.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I am ... Wrong again.

Indeed you are.

 

[MarAzul]

Why do you guys believe this shit? I mean warming is turbocharging the Pacific trade winds???

Why believe that rather than take a look for yourself? They show you a picture of storm then insinuate stronger trade winds??? But then you can get the actual winds blowing there and it's nothing like they show on a regular basis. The historical data for every 5 mile quadrant of any ocean is there (NOAA) for all to see that care. You can compare that with what you can see today and everyday here forward and see if you are being enriched with bullshit.

What's up with this blind belief in bogus agenda fertilizer put out but some phd???

 

[NewsSource]

Why do you guys believe this shit? I mean warming is turbocharging the Pacific trade winds???

Why believe that rather than take a look for yourself? They show you a picture of storm then insinuate stronger trade winds??? But then you can get the actual winds blowing there and it's nothing like they show on a regular basis. The historical data for every 5 mile quadrant of any ocean is there (NOAA) for all to see that care. You can compare that with what you can see today and everyday here forward and see if you are being enriched with bullshit.

What's up with this blind belief in bogus agenda fertilizer put out but some phd???

It's called confirmation bias, with a dash of either willful ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance included. The crazy part is that MarAzul and Denny Crane aren't actual trying to "prove" anything, other than in this case, the hypothesis isn't proven by the research, let alone the actual data. In science, that used to be called skepticism, and was accepted and even encouraged. Now, it's called being a Denier or a Flat-Earther. It would be comical if governments and corporations weren't trying to scare citizens into accepting a higher cost of living, while gov't and corporations become further enriched.

 

[Denny Crane]

Indeed I am wrong.

Funny how that works.

 

[barfo]

It's called confirmation bias, with a dash of either willful ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance included. The crazy part is that MarAzul and Denny Crane aren't actual trying to "prove" anything, other than in this case, the hypothesis isn't proven by the research

How would they know? As far as I can tell no one in this thread, including me, has even so much as glanced at the actual research referenced 2nd hand in the OP.

In science, that used to be called skepticism, and was accepted and even encouraged. Now, it's called being a Denier or a Flat-Earther.

It's called that because they haven't actually looked at the research, they are just saying, well, I have faith it's wrong.
That's less skepticism and more religion.

Meanwhile I haven't seen anyone on the other side say they know, believe, assume, or even suspect this particular research is correct.

barfo