If the trade winds weaken they will say "That's what we predicted. The only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change."
If the trade winds strengthen they will say "That's what we predicted. The only plausible explanation for the speed-up is human-induced climate change."
@ClimateRealist...ROFL... If anyone gives you a thumbs up for that response they either have Parkinson's disease and meant to give you a thumbs down and their mouse moved or they are a brain dead alarmist sheep who has lost all touch with reality.
"Globah...ahh..ahh..ahh...ahhl warming has weakened the trade winds, making them stronger, which in turn is masking man made globah...ahh...ahh...ahh...ahhl warming."
< UCAR had another take on this: …
The Matthew England Paper is about the effects of trade winds. The UCAR paper is about the cause of trade winds.
Ian
Fortunately, when I gave you a thumbs down, my mouse did exactly what it was supposed to do.
I think you have a good point(s) and I therefore think most alarmists will call you callous. You surely wouldn't expect the trade winds to decrease with increased energy. I will remain skeptical of that claim even though I am sure it is backed by their models and terabytes of computing power. There seemed to be hints that he was trolling for funding which makes me somewhat skeptical of the sincerity of his claims anyway.
Everything is caused by global warming, and this has consistently been the case.
What you say is not inconsistency but lying, and America deserves a President who knows the difference.
Check these links out
http://grist.org/news/theres-no-warming-...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/c...
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-pacific-sta...
I find myself back to looking the Matthew England paper on Pacific trade winds and the hiatus:
"Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades―unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models―is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake." http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
In a nutshell, increased trade winds have caused increased upwelling of cool Pacific water which in turn has pulled down the average global surface air temperatures.
UCAR had another take on this:
"The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change." http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml
In a nutshell, global warming will cause a weakening of the trade winds.
Here are couple of consistency questions:
1. Does trade wind strength drive cooling (or warming) or does warming drive trade wind strength? Which drives the other?
2. England claims Pacific trade winds show "a pronounced strengthening" since 1993 whereas UCAR mentions a long term weakening. I realize the UCAR is 2006 but 1993-2006 should have been plenty of time to notice "a pronounced strengthening". So which is it?
