A new study suggests that the warming trend on the West Coast over the last century was not caused by human activity but more so by a change in the winds.
The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences acknowledged in the study significance that warming trends are “often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.” Using independent data from 1900 to 2012, researchers showed that the temperature change is “primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.”
This, they wrote, “presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins.”
“Surface winds and wind-driven ocean currents have large effects on temperatures in and around the northeast Pacific Ocean; they dominate the overall temperature variability and also account for a large fraction of the warming trend,” Jim Johnstone, lead author of the study, said in a statement. “West Coast sea surface and coastal air temperatures evolved in lockstep with changing patterns of atmospheric pressure and winds.”
Read more at The Blaze
Do I hear this correctly? If scientists discover any evidence that fits the conservative agenda it’s immediately adopted as true? But if it doesn’t fit their agenda it’s immediately adopted as false? It sure seems that way.
That ocean currents drive the climate is no news to me. 90% of the warming goes into the oceans. My question here is, what is driving these warm waters? They don’t seem to be clear about that one. Is there some connection with the El Nino that seems to be weaker than forecasted? All fascinating questions which no doubt science will answer in time.
Last year a paper said the opposite to this paper.
So I guess . . . to be continued.
I totally get that you’re confused! And, I don’t care.
I don’t think this was “immediately” adopted as true. I’m sure it has gone through the same, if not a more rigorous, process than anything else published there. If you have any questions regarding its authenticity, or voracity, I suggest you contact the National Academy of Sciences.
“My question here is, what is driving these warm waters?” -Feister.
This is a good question. What indeed. That is one of the things I think is fundamentally wrong with climate models. We don’t know, and we never may know all of the variables. We are going to learn things from modeling, but the model should never be taken as hard science. Sure, the computer science behind making the model is top notch, but the results are really a graphic representation of what our best guess is according to the entered parameters of the model. That’s a long way of saying the model only represents any data, fact, or formula that is programmed into it.
Guess, you need to again update that ‘settled science’ alarmist research that gets parroted about at the UN, EPA and other government sources who derive revenue from scaring people into believing its their fault the world is warming. Doesnt appear, according to NASA, that the oceans are warming. So what now?
Just a question… How is oil in the ground made? That’s right, it comes from large forests spending millions of years underground. Where is most of todays oil located? In the desert of the middle east and in Alaska and Siberia and Texas. All DEVOID of forests. Magically, without the help of man, those climates changed from primordial forests to deserts and tundra.
Climate change is real. The cause and rate of change is the issue. Considering the little ice age and the medieval warming period those changes have happened quickly and dramatically over the last 500 years prior to the industrial age. Current changes are within those limits so AGW is simply a guess and a bad one at that. When you consider that the medieval warming period brought about the renaissance and the little ice age brought about the plague I prefer warming to cooling.
Interesting how the false meme of the “97%” is accepted as gospel but anything contradicting it is attacked and ridiculed.
So ultimately the “science is settled” argument is completely FALSE.
The American public is skeptical and has every right and reason to be, the liberal left and the radical environmentalist have proven time and again they can not be trusted.
They are more about emotion then fact and just the idea of questioning them brings about hostile aggregations.
Hardly. The scientific case for Anthropogenic Climate Change was first broached in a peer reviewed article in the 1930’s and there is a vast body of multi-disciplinary studies from thousands of scientists in dozens of nations over 80 years leading to where we are now in our state of knowledge. Nothing emotional about it. The anger, bitterness and vitriol on the part of the Deniers (word used intentionally and accurately) are VERY emotion based and, really, not to be trusted.
Actually, they didn’t call it Anthropogenic Climate Change. They called it global warming. Come to think of it, that’s the first time I’ve heard it called ACC. So, it was globalwarmingclimatechangedisruption, now it’s, hmmm.
Boy, it’s already got climate change in it. How bout’ globalwarminganthropogenicclimatchangedisruption? No, too long.
I think from now on I’m going to call it’ AGWCCD.
Look you people need to knock off trying to change the name every week.
The original name was Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is the theory by the way. And there is no evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere to the degree that it was claimed it would. Stop trying to make it sound more ominous with every reduplication of the name!
Stop global warming nomenclature change!!!!!!
A little obsessive and hung up on the name of it all, aren’t you? All the names have meanings and all are appropriate in the appropriate context. AGW, ACC, Climate Change,Global Warming….all accurate and appropriate. Why are you hung up on this of all things?
Well, stop changing the name! And no, the names are meaningless other than to evoke foreboding and dread, and they are not accurate or appropriate. Take anthropogenic climate change for example. That is saying that humans are causing the climate to change. Upon what fact is that statement based? There is no evidence that the planet is warming at a dangerous rate, which is the entire premise for AGW. How do you make the leap from human caused warming, which does not exist, to we’re changing the climate? Prove that there is warming first, and it was caused by us. Then you can try to make the case that we are changing the climate.
I am not obsessive about it, what I am is a person who takes the less than popular view that words mean things. And in order for something to be called a certain thing, it has to actually exist in reality. Otherwise it is fiction.
Take this Anthropogenic Climate Change for example. Anthropogenic means caused or influenced by humans. Climate means meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region. Change means, well there are actually a lot of definitions for the word change but the one that applies here is a transformation or transition from one state, condition, or phase to another:
I think it is ridiculous to believe that humans are causing the climate to change. What aggravates me the most is that the presumption that we are changing the climate is predicated upon the belief in anthropogenic Global Warming. You have to believe that in order to believe that we are changing the climate because it has been proven in your head that CO2 is warming the planet. The trouble is that for almost 20 years there has been no significant warming while CO2 levels climb, so it is actually impossible that we are changing the climate and the evidence is that the globe did not warm despite an increase in CO2. There is no AGW, so ACC can not exist. Stop being led around by the nose.
Can you please tell us ‘deniers’ of AGW what the optimum thermostat for mother earth should be set at so we can get there and get on with our lives? Once we hit that temperature and the climate changes, is it again mans fault and then you need to reset the thermostat? How is that mini ice age the earth is coming out of the past several millennia? Should we be warming coming out of an ice age or cooling? Does the Sun have any impact on earth or is the biggest energy source in our solar system void of impact to our climate? What happened to the warming the past15, say 17 years? Didn’t go to the oceans (according to NASA this week) and its not in the atmosphere (IPCC). So where is it?
Hey, can you post a link to the story about the ocean heat and NASA?
” The anger, bitterness and vitriol on the part of the Deniers (word used intentionally and accurately) are VERY emotion based and, really, not to be trusted.” -Orcabait
Do I seem angry, bitter, or vitriolic? Why would I be any of those? Everything that I have said over the last 10 years has been pretty much on the nose. There is no warming despite rising CO2 levels. Nothing predicted by the computer models has been right.
I’m happy as a clam! And how can it be denial? It seems that it’s people like you who are the ones in denial, calling climate change anthropogenic. That’s rich! I’ll believe that when someone can show that we have actually warmed the climate by releasing CO2.
You need to stop throwing the “peer reviewed” phrase around when you’re talking about AGW, It is akin to using a ISIS recruiting pamphlet to support a warped view of how to make a marriage work. The well that was once “peer review” has been poisoned and I fear there is little hope for cleaning it up. Wealth and prestige are too compelling for too many scientist. When observations do not correspond with predicted outcomes, it is not the outcomes that are incorrect. When the computer model’s prediction does not match the observed data – quit adjusting the observed data and start throwing out the computer models!
The earth wiill begin warming again; we all may be 1000 years gone but the earth will warm and it will cool just as it always has. As soon as it does there will be another Al, Mann or some equally skilled charlatan who will again gain wealth and prestige with doomsday predictions that only taxes and sacrifice will prevent. Neilio is correct, the “deniers” of AGW have been correct all along, CO2 is not the devil, it cannot cause a runaway greenhouse effect and any warming that was seen in the last century is better explained as a natural variability of the earth’s climate that had absoultely nothing to do with CO2 levels. We have proof, observed proof – CO2 levels have continued to rise and the earth’s temperature has not – that is observed, not predicted by some computer but reach out and touch it, proof. You can change the name of what you are calling it as many times as you care to but the whole of your argument is CO2 has caused the earth to continue to warm and more will cause more warming – the earth has debunked that hypothesis all by itself.
We “flat earth deniers” have always been the minority in the beginning. We have been ridiculed and even persecuted but we were still correct. All the faux peer review in the world will not change the fact that AGW has been debunked and the “deniers” were once again correct.
This paper is not a refutation of AGW at all. Those who have embraced it as a nail in the coffin of human influenced climate change don’t understand it, or, more likely, have not read it.
I don’t see how you can say that. Everything that happens, rain, snow, hurricanes, drought, flood, is blamed on global warming. This does refute that.
Actually if you were smart, you would have already figured out that this can be easily explained away. I don’t know if I should say it yet, I’ve been waiting for someone else to say it. I don’t want to give ammo to the opposition.
Yeah, I’m not going to share it. I wrote it out, then decided not to. It would just be too traitorous to my side if I say it. It’s good though, if I do say so myself. Genius really….
We’ll just leave it at this; a few parts per million of CO2, which is a naturally occurring compound, that has been a part of our atmosphere from the beginning, added to the humongous mass of the atmosphere, is not going to drastically change the climate. The theory is wrong. It’s like throwing a glass of water in a lake. Or impacting a high velocity ice cream cake against a mountainside.
And, I should add, the climate changes naturally. Every time there are changes, and that’s actually pretty often because the climate is constantly changing, it is easy to see it as being caused by us. Us bast*rds!! But it isn’t! If you pee in the ocean, can that cause a tidal wave? We are talking about the atmosphere of Maw Terra! It’s actually a pretty large volume. Probably a lot bigger than you think it is. Well, it’s been here kicking Humanity’s a*s for as long as Humanity has been around. Do you really think we are going to disrupt the atmosphere by adding a few hundred parts per million of anything to it, and it’s going to throw the whole system into chaos? I think the system can handle a slight increase in any amount of any gas that is naturally occurring like CO2, for instance.
“a few parts per million of CO2, which is a naturally occurring compound, that has been a part of our atmosphere from the beginning, added to the humongous mass of the atmosphere, is not going to drastically change the climate. ”’
…and you have the vast body of research papers and experiments to back this up? Or is this mere speculation on your part…?
No, actually I don’t need vast bodies of research. And it is not speculation. It is a matter of record. The, ummm, temperature record. No speculation is needed, it is clear that the planet is not heating up rapidly. Stop looking at the climate through the eyes of the computer model, and look at its performance. Good science means checking your results against reality in time. You have to ask if what was predicted matches the real time behavior of the climate. The climate models, and climate modeling in general in my opinion , have a terrible track record. The best fit for today, on a model timeline, was I think it was HADCRUT4, I could be wrong about the name, but the model that had the different scenarios. Best/worst case scenarios. The best fit for what is happening today, looking at which models fit reality, the best fit is from the best case scenario. It is a model a lot of people use when accused of not having any right predictions. And it is really close. But the model has as parameters things like an overall reduction in global greenhouse gasses, nations cooperating and following all UN accords, blah blah blather blather, stuff like that.
My point is that the climate is not doing what the vast majority of models predicted. There is no runaway positive feedback loop. There has been no actual warming where most models predicted there would be. All you have to do is stop looking at the climate from a modeling perspective, and look at what the actual climate is doing. Pull out the predictions that have been claimed, and compare them to real time actual conditions. Or you can take the blue pill.
Blue pill it is then.
It would be very beneficial if the proponents from both sides would get together and agree to scientifically generate scientific models that will address the the issue of climate as a purely scientific problem. I do not suggest this as a means to settle the ‘climate change’ issue, but as a method to create a scientific model that will capture agreed upon reliable parameters for whatever is going on in the World’s climate. The bickering is getting us nowhere and the scientific community should be done with it.
Sure that would be nice. But in reality, where the rest of us live, that ship sailed 20 years ago. It’s a little too late to be wanting to reach across the isle to hold hands. Us so called “deniers” have been trying to debate the issue for 20 years +. While the warmists have been saying the debate is over, and the science is settled, and for us to shut the *uck up! So with all due respect, go to *ell.