West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes (3 Scientific groups - LA Times)


#1

touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81450930/

(Many emphases below, boldings, italics, underlining and color are mine … CaptFun)

BY TONY BARBOZA
September 22, 2014, 4:46 p.m.

Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.

The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.

The difference between analysis and assumptions have to do with:

  • what IS and has been and is able to be examined (past and present hard data) and

  • what computer projections and predictions speculate MIGHT be (in the future).

“Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term,” said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist who did most of the work when he was at the University of Washington’s Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.

The other two scientific groups involved per the headline callout are:

– the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and

– the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which published the study).

If global warming had been the most powerful influence on land and sea temperatures, those temperatures would have been different, the study’s authors said.

Most of the warming in the region occurred before 1940, :eek:

when greenhouse gas concentrations were lower and winds were weaker,:eek: the study found.

In contrast, winds have strengthened since 1980 and coastal ocean cooled, :winter: even as the rise in greenhouse gases has accelerated. :hmmm:

Side note: Around 1940 there was a tremendous increase in marching around the globe.
It is hard to prove that the marching is what stopped the pre-1940 warming trend - and of course the marching done then was with other goals in mind - still. There is at least the coincidence. :wink:


#2

:confused:

I don’t know if I’m being dense or if your reference is too obscure, but I don’t know what you’re talking about here.


#3

This is land warming, and has nothing to do with the global warming of the Arctic and Antarctic,which will increase the estimated sea level rise. by 1-3 feet in the next 20 years. Just as there is drought in in the US West ,but not the East Coast, land warming is regional.

But let’s just say this totally demolishes the global warming theory. Then we can just burn all the coal we want, and increase the Co2 in the atmosphere all we want.

India and China are planning on tripling the amount of cola they burn anyway as they set up new power plants for electrcity.

But I wouldn’t buy any beach front property in California in the near future…


#4

=BlueElf;12371099]This is land warming, and has nothing to do with the global warming of the Arctic and Antarctic,which will increase the estimated sea level rise. by 1-3 feet in the next 20 years. Just as there is drought in in the US West ,but not the East Coast, land warming is regional.

I’ve been hearing about reports about of record ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

But let’s just say this totally demolishes the global warming theory. Then we can just burn all the coal we want, and increase the Co2 in the atmosphere all we want.

The fact that “global warming” as caused by man is largely a HOAX doesn’t give *carte blanche *to pollute the planet.

India and China are planning on tripling the amount of cola they burn anyway as they set up new power plants for electrcity.

I guess not being called Western imperialists or racists is more important for the alarmists?

They seem so eager to regulate conservatives and Big Oil. :shrug:

But I wouldn’t buy any beach front property in California in the near future…

Like Al Gore did, huh? :smiley:


#5

You can’t call this a fact until you have established it. Currently it is just an opinion, and one that is not shared by that many people or scientists.


#6

:blushing: - you’ve probably figured some of it out by now … but I was adding a dash of absurd humor to the serious take (when your name is CaptFun you feel obliged to toss in a joke or a jibe once in a while).

Last weekend there were many ***marches ***around the country to end global warming.

The article noted that some warming hit its peak in 1940.

I remembered that there was a lot of marching going on in 1940. (World War II).

But DID that marching stop the global warming at that time? A silver lining? :nope: <IMO

BUT how much more fun to speculate that the coincidence that warming went away in 1940 WAS DUE to the marching … with a big :yup: **- yep, that’s what did it! **

Sooo … thanks to all you climate marchers who saved the rest of us from global warming yet again! :wink:

PS: Pardon the tease any of you who DID march last weekend. CaptFun once marched for a cure for AIDS. :sad_yes: It was a nice sentiment, a sacrifice, and I met some nice people. But on reflection I didn’t do much. And after turning in my pledge $ at a collection table manned by outspoken leftist activists - I left suspecting the money I raised for the cure - really went to political candidates who voted the exact opposite of me on most issues. :doh2:


#7

Indeed.

Wasn’t it just a few years ago that most people were celebrating Christmas when a tsunami struck and killed thousands?

I am sure there is a computer model that will fit.

We should stop Christmas.


#8

Shh. They’ll hear you. The people who already ARE trying to stop Christmas.
We’ll hear more from them about two months from now.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdxXxYCn4hztH-KhOJIaH2Og--K0pfiLTZewWd-B5f5IQKD_oOcfsQKg

… Why, for fifty-three years I’ve put up with it now. I must stop Christmas from coming… but how?

While the idea of citing a computer model referencing Christmas and that Tsunami is just as absurd as my tongue in cheek relating of the 1940 slack off in warming being due to all the armies marching … I half way expect someone to cite something like it in the drive to eliminate Christmas (and really more directly Christ) from any public mention.

On a more serious note, regarding the climate, my philosophy is: God knows what He’s doing. I’m OK with it. I think when I was young and freezing my toes off in Northern Illinois I used to pray for warm weather too. Though my ambitions at the time didn’t extend to the whole globe. I don’t really believe in the coincidence of the marching and the cooling in 1940. Or that my prayer was answered (though I can’t tell - coincidentally my parents did move us to Southern California in '63 and my toes have been warmer ever since). :smiley:

As per man made global warming … I did find this study interesting.

touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81450930/

If global warming had been the most powerful influence on land and sea temperatures, those temperatures would have been different, the study’s authors said. Most of the warming in the region occurred before 1940, when greenhouse gas concentrations were lower and winds were weaker, the study found. In contrast, winds have strengthened since 1980 and coastal ocean cooled, even as the rise in greenhouse gases has accelerated.

The study focused only on trends at the regional level and did not offer conclusions about the influence of naturally occurring winds on warming throughout the world. If anything, the results reinforce what scientists have known for years: that global climate projections fall short in predicting how temperatures are actually changing at the regional scale.

Besides all this the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere and global warming is starting to be questioned, as there is more carbon dioxide than ever before being charged into the atmosphere … and yet statistically warming is on a hiatus. :shrug:


#9

Local and regional weather patterns can differ from global warming and there are many factors involved in weather and climate, so there may be some truth in this study, … or not. Others seem to disagree with it.

See:
[LIST]
*]realclimate.org/?comments_popup=17447#comment-599001
*]climatecentral.org/news/west-coast-warming-natural-variability-18067
*]journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00218.1
[/LIST]
Time will tell who’s right on this non-issue-when-it-comes-to-global-warming.


#10

Sounds like the standard disclaimer: If it matches the model-of-the-week, it’s AGW. Otherwise, it’s just weather. :rolleyes:


#11

Correct. It is a great field to be in. if you produce a model that is wrong it proves you are right!


#12

Exactly right. Time will tell. So let’s hold off on the taxation, the prohibitions, and the extra regulations until time DOES tell.


#13

Whatever gave you the idea that ANY model is right. All of them are wrong.

When I took Economics 101, the prof threw a balsawood airplane toy and it sailed over the students’ head before crashing. He explained it was a model, not a real airplane, and that economics uses models. They are not true representations of reality, but they work fairly well.

As an expert who briefly joined the conversation on AGW here at CAF explained, what counts is the model has skill – predict the ups and down better than a flat line, due to being ladened with as many contributing variables as feasible.

The climate models are better than a flat line (which is the skeptics’ model, which includes zero effect of GHGs on global climate), so they have more skill than the flat line of the skeptics :slight_smile:


#14

So you expect us to turn the economy upside down over models that are never right?


#15

Amen. It is interesting that the supposed solution to the mythical problem is the same far left agenda they have been pushing for the last 100 years,


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.