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..."
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
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
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.
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.
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. 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. It isn't his study. He posted a link to an article about a study. 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
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
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
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
I completely agree. Just taking free money from the government to produce lies. It's become a huge industry.
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.
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
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
