Global warming weakens Pacific winds, dwindling circulation could worsen El Niño (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

Further indication of the delicate equilibrium to which global climates are effected by green house gases.
It's not just rising sea waters potentially flooding coastal cities, there're many more effects of global warming.
Dwindling the circulation would then weaken the very much needed monsoons in one of the richest rainforests in the world - indonesia. Thus in turn decreasing vegetative growth further decreasing the ability to absorb carbon dioxide and thus feeding even more net CO2 into the atmosphere, which feeds back into this loop. Source

Co-conspirator Moussauii was sentenced to jail because he did not inform authorities of impending dissaster that was the charge. By that same resolve then, oil companies that are trying to cover over the evidence are obstructionists to justice. As is the Bush administration for silencing and editing the consent of scientists over the issue.

This administration and apologetics went to war with Iraq on questionable evidence that was completely un-related to 9/11; yet till this day say that there is insufficient evidence supporting the notion of anthropogenic global warming even though there is a plethora of unquestionable evidence.

The issue about global warming is not a left vs right, or rep vs dem or for this matter the US vs the rest of the world or vice versa. This is a global issue that requires equal contribution towards resolving this issue. The Pacific climate system is the largest in the world and affects the largest economies in the world. The only method of resolving this is through immediate action through conservation of energy, significantly increasing efficiency of machineary through broader use of technology (ie hybrids, disel, so on), mass transit systems and carpooling initiatives for transportation, thermo efficiency through the proper insulation of commercial and private housing, as well as prevention of furthere housing development away from urban areas causing millions of hours of commute time for average americans to reach thier work place; in otherwords Urban Renewal.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to appropriate forum

 

[alphamale]

To get an idea of the source, check out this gem:

"Mortality and Political Climate: How Suicide Rates Have Risen During Periods of Conservative Government, 1901-2000." The subhead tells it all: "Do Conservative Governments Make People Want to Die?"

www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-17.html.)

 

[jfuh]

To get an idea of the source, check out this gem:

"Mortality and Political Climate: How Suicide Rates Have Risen During Periods of Conservative Government, 1901-2000." The subhead tells it all: "Do Conservative Governments Make People Want to Die?"

www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-17.html.)

So now instead of speaking of anything relevent to the topic you are bringing up of the reliability of the top scientific journal in the world?
Care to show of the conclusion in your study?

 

[alphamale]

So now instead of speaking of anything relevent to the topic you are bringing up of the reliability of the top scientific journal in the world?
Care to show of the conclusion in your study?

The "top scientific journal in the world"???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jfuh]

The "top scientific journal in the world"???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nature is by far the top scientific journal in the world yes, are you challenging this credibility?

 

[alphamale]

Nature is by far the top scientific journal in the world

Your proof?

are you challenging this credibility

Naaaaaaah - any journal that says conservatives cause suicide must be at the peak of intellectual credibility! lol: :2razz: :mrgreen: :rofl )

 

[jfuh]

Your proof?

Ask any scientist of how easy it is to publish in Nature, and how credible nature is. That again is ANY SCIENTIST and yes go ahead and quote me on it.

Naaaaaaah - any journal that says conservatives cause suicide must be at the peak of intellectual credibility! lol: :2razz: :mrgreen: :rofl )

What was the conclusion of that article alpha? CAre to enlighten us?

 

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by alphamale
Your proof?

Ask any scientist of how easy it is to publish in Nature, and how credible nature is. That again is ANY SCIENTIST and yes go ahead and quote me on it.

Translation: no proof. :lol:

Originally Posted by alphamale
Naaaaaaah - any journal that says conservatives cause suicide must be at the peak of intellectual credibility!

What was the conclusion of that article alpha? CAre to enlighten us?

HAR HAR! :lol: Notice the wussy "us"!

Uh, the conclusion was conservatives regimes cause suicide. Wanna hear it a third time? :roll:

 

[jfuh]

Translation: no proof.

Translation, you've no idea about science.

HAR HAR! Notice the wussy "us"!

Uh, the conclusion was conservatives regimes cause suicide. Wanna hear it a third time?

Based on what evidence, care to share more of how you understood that article? Why leave out the middle section of the explainations?

 

[alphamale]

Translation, you've no idea about science.

Unlike you, I know it's based on proof. Also unlike you, but like all Statistics 101 students who earned a "C" or better, that correlation doesn't imply causation, and that a vote by anyone, even scientists, is not proof. :mrgreen:

 

[jfuh]

Unlike you, I know it's based on proof. Also unlike you, but like all Statistics 101 students who earned a "C" or better, that correlation doesn't imply causation, and that a vote by anyone, even scientists, is not proof. :mrgreen:

I do not need contrasts to know of the credibility of articles published in Nature.
Yet still you have provided no further account of the article which you cite as "prooving" of Nature as unscientific.

But what's most interesting is that you have provided precisely zero with regards to the topic at hand except for your attack on the top source within the scientific community.
Care to talk about the topic now?

 

[tecoyah]

I do not need contrasts to know of the credibility of articles published in Nature.
Yet still you have provided no further account of the article which you cite as "prooving" of Nature as unscientific.

But what's most interesting is that you have provided precisely zero with regards to the topic at hand except for your attack on the top source within the scientific community.
Care to talk about the topic now?

It would seem the nice nice Alphamale has devolved back into its natural form. And thus is extremely unlikely to touch on the actual topic of this thread.

Welcome Back Alpha.....we missed you (not).


Nature is indeed, one of the foremost scientific publications in the world, and will therefore place diverse articles within its pages. Controversial yes, and sometimes biased. These articles are subjected to stringent peer review before acceptance into the journal.....to me at least, this adds some weight to the validity of the articles.

 

[Gill]

These articles are subjected to stringent peer review before acceptance into the journal.....to me at least, this adds some weight to the validity of the articles.

Yep, peer reviewed by people with the same political philosophy and leanings as the author. Would you accept as gospel an article that was "peer reviewed" by the White House?

 

[jfuh]

Yep, peer reviewed by people with the same political philosophy and leanings as the author. Would you accept as gospel an article that was "peer reviewed" by the White House?

Unfortunately Nature has 0 political agenda whatsoever.
Science has no political agenda. THose that do have political agendas and fake results?
Just look at the news these last two weeks
China Says One of Its Scientists Faked Computer Chip Research


This is why scientists can not mix political agenda with research and facts.
2 Disgraced Korean Cloning Scientist Indicted

The White house, a purly political body, hardly represents any form of scientific body nor for that matter has any scientist working within to be of any credibility. Your argument is completely invalid.
In fact with the argument you have given on peer review you have completely discredited any scientific knowledge as you clearly have no concept about it. This most likely explains why you are on the opposition side of the science of Global warming.

 

[alphamale]

Yet still you have provided no further account of the article which you cite as "prooving" of Nature as unscientific.

I didn't say Nature was "unscientific" (everyone stop, go back and read :mrgreen: ) - I took issue with your preposterous claim that Nature is the top scientific journal. Work on your reading comprehension.

 

[alphamale]

For anyone interested, here are some citations Re Nature's well-earned reputation for politicizing scientific topics.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/pd012199b.html

http://www.sepp.org/reality/medjourn.html

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/02/schelling_wall_street_journal.php

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/outlookstem.html

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/outlookstem.html

 

[jfuh]

I didn't say Nature was "unscientific" (everyone stop, go back and read :mrgreen: ) - I took issue with your preposterous claim that Nature is the top scientific journal. Work on your reading comprehension.

Go ahead, ask any other scientist in any academic or industrial institution and see whether or not Nature is top notch for scientific literature.
Perhaps this will educate you a bit on the reputation of Nature publications.

 

[jfuh]

For anyone interested, here are some citations Re Nature's well-earned reputation for politicizing scientific topics.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/pd012199b.html

http://www.sepp.org/reality/medjourn.html

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/02/schelling_wall_street_journal.php

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/outlookstem.html

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/outlookstem.html

Blogs, a right wing think tank and the personal opinion of Michael Fumento?'
Try again.

 

[faithful_servant]

Further indication of the delicate equilibrium to which global climates are effected by green house gases.
It's not just rising sea waters potentially flooding coastal cities, there're many more effects of global warming.
Dwindling the circulation would then weaken the very much needed monsoons in one of the richest rainforests in the world - indonesia. Thus in turn decreasing vegetative growth further decreasing the ability to absorb carbon dioxide and thus feeding even more net CO2 into the atmosphere, which feeds back into this loop. Source

Please explain why deep core sample of Antarctic ice reveal that CO2 levels rise after periods of GW and not during or before. It's a small unexplained phenomenon that basically makes ALL of the lies being spouted about the CO2/GW relationship for what they are - LIES!!
-
There's far too much evidence that doesn't support GW to consider the results of people who's livelyhood depends on the existence of GW as accurate. Most GW researchers would be teaching Jr. College math classes w/o GW, this is a strong motivation to make sure that the results sustain more research. If they came out and said that GW wasn't happening, they be back to "Mr. Smith, I lost my homework because my computer got infected with a virus while I was surfing for pics of girls. Can I have an extra week to turn it in?" At one point I was pretty solidly in the GW camp until I started looking at the evidence given by the GWs, the evidence to the contrary, and the flat out deceitful tactics of the GW crowd. The reports of retreating glaciers, while completely ignoring the advancing ones that out them; the constant doom and gloom predictions; the convenient ignoring of urban warming trends, the sunspot cycle and the normal cycle of cooling & warming.
I first started paying attention to these psuedo-scientists when they started in about the ozone layer. My 8th grade science teacher would have laughed his skinny butt off if he had heard this load of crap. Even in the 8th grade we were taught that ozone only stops a very small and narrow range of UV, that most UV is stopped by O2 and ozone is merely the result of a UV ray getting intercepted. If there was 0 ozone, we'd only see a microscopically small increase in UV, far less than the increase caused by moving south 100 miles (north if you live south of the equator).
There is a growing body of scientists who are more interested in the money than the accuracy of their research. They feed off of each other so badly that even "peer-reviewed" research is worthless because their peers are just as interested in keeping the cash flowing as they are. If you look at both sides of the issue, you will see more holes in the theory of GW than can be explained away. Unfortunately, the scientists have a strong ally in the media, who make money hand over fist off of GW as well.

 

[Gill]

the constant doom and gloom predictions;

Amen, there are always scientists that have some dire prediction about the end of life as we know it.

Have you noticed that the Weather Channel has completely abandoned actual weather during prime time? That's because they figured out that shows about catastrophes sell more than mundane weather forecasts. Every night there's a show about earthquakes, blizzards, floods and their very favorite, tornados.

Doom and gloom definitely outsells normal and the scientists have learned that.

 

[alphamale]

Blogs, a right wing think tank and the personal opinion of Michael Fumento?'
Try again.

What's wrong with blogs? And a "right wing think tank" = "a think tank you don't dare take on in debate". :mrgreen:

 

[cascadian]

You know it could have been an interesting debate whether or not GW affected El Nino.

It seems to have devolved into the typical generalized form of GW bashing, which has so far been unimpressive.

Please explain why deep core sample of Antarctic ice reveal that CO2 levels rise after periods of GW and not during or before.

Perhaps you could offer some evidence that c02 levels haven't risen during the global warming period.

They feed off of each other so badly that even "peer-reviewed" research is worthless because their peers are just as interested in keeping the cash flowing as they are.

I've seen this allegation before and it's never backed up with proof. People just seem to find it believable.

 

[jfuh]

Amen, there are always scientists that have some dire prediction about the end of life as we know it.

Have you noticed that the Weather Channel has completely abandoned actual weather during prime time? That's because they figured out that shows about catastrophes sell more than mundane weather forecasts. Every night there's a show about earthquakes, blizzards, floods and their very favorite, tornados.

Doom and gloom definitely outsells normal and the scientists have learned that.

Global warming, weather, global warming weather? hmmm yep, absolutely no connection here at all.
Global warming will not cause higher frequencies of strong weather patterns.:roll:

You know, the topic at hand is about a very specific occurance. I suggest you read the source provided and then start your argument.

 

[jfuh]

Please explain why deep core sample of Antarctic ice reveal that CO2 levels rise after periods of GW and not during or before. It's a small unexplained phenomenon that basically makes ALL of the lies being spouted about the CO2/GW relationship for what they are - LIES!!
-
There's far too much evidence that doesn't support GW to consider the results of people who's livelyhood depends on the existence of GW as accurate. Most GW researchers would be teaching Jr. College math classes w/o GW, this is a strong motivation to make sure that the results sustain more research. If they came out and said that GW wasn't happening, they be back to "Mr. Smith, I lost my homework because my computer got infected with a virus while I was surfing for pics of girls. Can I have an extra week to turn it in?" At one point I was pretty solidly in the GW camp until I started looking at the evidence given by the GWs, the evidence to the contrary, and the flat out deceitful tactics of the GW crowd. The reports of retreating glaciers, while completely ignoring the advancing ones that out them; the constant doom and gloom predictions; the convenient ignoring of urban warming trends, the sunspot cycle and the normal cycle of cooling & warming.
I first started paying attention to these psuedo-scientists when they started in about the ozone layer. My 8th grade science teacher would have laughed his skinny butt off if he had heard this load of crap. Even in the 8th grade we were taught that ozone only stops a very small and narrow range of UV, that most UV is stopped by O2 and ozone is merely the result of a UV ray getting intercepted. If there was 0 ozone, we'd only see a microscopically small increase in UV, far less than the increase caused by moving south 100 miles (north if you live south of the equator).
There is a growing body of scientists who are more interested in the money than the accuracy of their research. They feed off of each other so badly that even "peer-reviewed" research is worthless because their peers are just as interested in keeping the cash flowing as they are. If you look at both sides of the issue, you will see more holes in the theory of GW than can be explained away. Unfortunately, the scientists have a strong ally in the media, who make money hand over fist off of GW as well.

:lamo :lamo :lamo Perhaps you should go back to 8th grade then. You're completely out of your league here.
By the way, the topic at hand is not about ice cores, I suggest you read the source provided before you go on your rhetoric rampage.