Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

[Denny Crane]

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.



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

Read, dammit.

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.

The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-atlantic-turbocharges-pacific.html#jCp

It doesn't say, "the authors believe..."

 

[NewsSource]

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.

barfo

MarAzul was able to dispute the hypothesis, if not completely discredit it, by looking at historical data. You had to resort to stretching the word "currently" to mean a 20-year period to even try to prop it up, and even that doesn't work if you read the author of the study's conclusion.

 

[barfo]

MarAzul was able to dispute the hypothesis, if not completely discredit it, by looking at historical data. You had to resort to stretching the word "currently" to mean a 20-year period to even try to prop it up, and even that doesn't work if you read the author of the study's conclusion.

MarAzul doesn't even know what the hypothesis is, much less discredit it.

Have you read the study's conclusion? What is it?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Read, dammit.

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.

The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-atlantic-turbocharges-pacific.html#jCp

It doesn't say, "the authors believe..."

Not clear what point you are incompetently trying to make?

Seriously, I have no idea what your point was by posting that.

You do understand you are quoting a news story, right? And that news stories aren't scientific research?

Edit: Wait, I get it. You misunderstood my point. I was saying there was no one *in this thread* saying that this research that none of us has read is absolutely true (whereas there are a couple of you *in this thread* that have also not read the research that are saying it is absolutely false).

The anonymous author of the story might or might not be a true believer, we don't know. If you want to defend your irrationality by claiming that some anonymous author somewhere else on the internet is equally irrational, be my guest.

barfo

 

[NewsSource]

MarAzul doesn't even know what the hypothesis is, much less discredit it.

Have you read the study's conclusion? What is it?

barfo

You're flailing away, barfo. The idea behind this thread was to illustrate how AGW was impacting Pacific winds, because of record winds. That was easily disproved. Unless you have another study that shows greater strengths of wind than indicated in the OP's study, you're not adding any new information. Hell, even the OP abandoned this thread.

 

[NewsSource]

Not clear what point you are incompetently trying to make?

barfo

Can you say with confidence that AGW is primarily causing the trade wind season from the Pacific this year?

It's a simple yes/no.

 

[barfo]

Can you say with confidence that AGW is primarily causing the trade wind season from the Pacific this year?

It's a simple yes/no.

Me? No, I cannot say. Nor have I attempted to say.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not clear what point you are incompetently trying to make?

Seriously, I have no idea what your point was by posting that.

You do understand you are quoting a news story, right? And that news stories aren't scientific research?

Edit: Wait, I get it. You misunderstood my point. I was saying there was no one *in this thread* saying that this research that none of us has read is absolutely true (whereas there are a couple of you *in this thread* that have also not read the research that are saying it is absolutely false).

The anonymous author of the story might or might not be a true believer, we don't know. If you want to defend your irrationality by claiming that some anonymous author somewhere else on the internet is equally irrational, be my guest.

barfo

Back. Peddle.

 

[barfo]

You're flailing away, barfo. The idea behind this thread was to illustrate how AGW was impacting Pacific winds, because of record winds.

Only the OP knows the idea behind this thread, but I suspect that he thought it was an article that we might find interesting to talk about.

That was easily disproved.

It might have been disproved somewhere else, I don't know. No proof or disproof of anything at all has been presented in this thread.

Unless you have another study that shows greater strengths of wind than indicated in the OP's study, you're not adding any new information.

It isn't his study. He posted a link to an article about a study.

Hell, even the OP abandoned this thread.

Why wouldn't he? We are 68 posts into it and no one has posted anything of any value.

The question is really why the rest of us are still here.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Back. Peddle.

Yes, I am backpeddling when I agree that there are some people out there as irrational as you on this subject, but on the other side.

Congratulations on that win.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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.



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

Lol

The other side. You have both covered.

 

[barfo]

Lol

The other side. You have both covered.

No idea what you are even talking about. As far as I know, I haven't expressed an opinion about climate science in this thread at all, much less both sides.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

More bull shit!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-the-ocean/

How many times do we have to go over this, there is absolutely nothing humans can do to damage the environment. This is just getting silly.

 

[barfo]

More bull shit!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-the-ocean/

How many times do we have to go over this, there is absolutely nothing humans can do to damage the environment. This is just getting silly.

Why, computer models are mentioned in the second paragraph. I read no further myself, since that proves these researchers are corrupt.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why, computer models are mentioned in the second paragraph. I read no further myself, since that proves these researchers are corrupt.

barfo

I completely agree. Just taking free money from the government to produce lies. It's become a huge industry.

 

[Denny Crane]

No idea what you are even talking about. As far as I know, I haven't expressed an opinion about climate science in this thread at all, much less both sides.

barfo

You wrote a whole dissertation on how one side religiously believes the study is bogus and the other side doesn't believe it either.

I get it that you have no idea. But you wrote it.

 

[Denny Crane]

More bull shit!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-the-ocean/

How many times do we have to go over this, there is absolutely nothing humans can do to damage the environment. This is just getting silly.

Strawman.

Who argues that man can't harm the environment?

 

[barfo]

I completely agree. Just taking free money from the government to produce lies. It's become a huge industry.

It's a real problem. With the number of American kids flocking to graduate schools to get Ph.D.'s and rake in the easy money and power, the labor pool for McDonald's and other service industries is drying up. Where are the burger flippers of tomorrow? Who will press my patty onto the griddle?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Strawman.

Who argues that man can't harm the environment?

I get what you're saying, humans can hurt parts of the environment but not all of it.

 

[barfo]

You wrote a whole dissertation on how one side religiously believes the study is bogus and the other side doesn't believe it either.

I get it that you have no idea. But you wrote it.

Yes, I meant you Denny. You religiously believe that the study is bogus. You haven't read it, but you are absolutely certain that what it says is lies.

I haven't read it, and I therefore admit I have no fucking clue what it says or whether it is accurate or not.

barfo

 

[NewsSource]

Me? No, I cannot say. Nor have I attempted to say.

barfo

Well, then it's OK to be skeptical of the results of this paper. Why are you defending it so vigorously? Science used to be about defending one's research results against people trying to also replicate the results. These days, it's up to the "Deniers" to disprove studies, and then when the studies are at least proven to be correlated, at best, the bar gets moved by those whose own studies are laughable upon inspection.

Smear someone as a Denier if they try to replicate studies, and can't get the same results, or even know what the control group was supposed to be according to models. That's the new scientific method.

 

[MarAzul]

More bull shit!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-the-ocean/

How many times do we have to go over this, there is absolutely nothing humans can do to damage the environment. This is just getting silly.

Perhaps we have already addressed this issue, I has been known for many many years.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3014/

Probably more to take care of in some other countries though.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Perhaps we have already addressed this issue, I has been known for many many years.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3014/

Probably more to take care of in some other countries though.

Mercury has been on this planet long before humans. We can't just and create more of it out of thin air.

Just because we have mined gold doesn't mean we have created more it. The same goes for mercury.

 

[barfo]

Well, then it's OK to be skeptical of the results of this paper. Why are you defending it so vigorously?

I'm not defending it at all. I've stipulated that I (like you and everyone else in the thread) don't really know what it says.

It's fine to be skeptical of a paper you haven't read, but it's not very meaningful. There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers I haven't read, and I'm skeptical of all of them.

Because, you know, there's a global scientific conspiracy.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Mercury has been on this planet long before humans. We can't just and create more of it out of thin air.

Just because we have mined gold doesn't mean we have created more it. The same goes for mercury.

err, can't argue with impeccable logic.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

err, can't argue with impeccable logic.

 

[MarAzul]

Perhaps they is a good reason for all the research papers and articles. The Government is paying for the Research on Climate Change! About 2.5 billion in grants a years.
Check out the agenda

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=2O3Vh9uT6bWE6thLnng77Q&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGE

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=sgBflimRPXUfJKT7rp1m5g&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGE



How much do you think is spent on Grants to counter Climate Change? Or Grants to show it is happening with or without Homo Sapiens?

I find zero.

 

[NewsSource]

I get what you're saying, humans can hurt parts of the environment but not all of it.

Of course. If I pour Round-Up on my lawn every day, it's going to kill the grass. This has been proven. I'll pour it on my lawn in a spot and show you the results, if you'd like to see an actual experiment.

Group A: 1' x 1' area of grass on which I'll put Round-Up.
Groups B-Z: 1' x 1' areas of grass that I'll put the same amount of water on each day.

My "skeptical" study is that Group A will die faster than the other groups from the same back lawn. Would you bet $100 against that theory being proven correct?

 

[NewsSource]

I'm not defending it at all. I've stipulated that I (like you and everyone else in the thread) don't really know what it says.

barfo

You now understand scientific skepticism. Nice!

Welcome to the Denier Club! It's nice to have a new member.

 

[barfo]

Of course. If I pour Round-Up on my lawn every day, it's going to kill the grass. This has been proven. I'll pour it on my lawn in a spot and show you the results, if you'd like to see an actual experiment.

Group A: 1' x 1' area of grass on which I'll put Round-Up.
Groups B-Z: 1' x 1' areas of grass that I'll put the same amount of water on each day.

My "skeptical" study is that Group A will die faster than the other groups from the same back lawn. Would you bet $100 against that theory being proven correct?

I will fund this study, but I'd like a few changes. I'd like the control group to be of equal size as the study group, and evenly distributed. I think a checkerboard pattern of 1' squares across the entire lawn would do nicely, assuming the lawn is of a reasonable size.

barfo