West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes

Source

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.

I feel compelled to also quote:

"There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change," Trenberth said. But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

I've discussed this in several other threads. I think human caused warming via green house gases has little to no impact on the overall climate of the earth. I think we are a drop in the bucket, and any damage we could ever do would only be to the detriment of ourselves and some species unfortunate enough to live in our habitat.

a reply to: raymundoko

I heard this today as well. Oh how I love logical explanations of things. How long until somebody claims the wind can be altered if we could just figure out a way to tax it.

TPTB will still find a way to make money off of this.

Go talk to the plants and animals and see if they think we're a drop in the bucket. There was a post recently about how the 6th mass extinction has already begun.

There is no doubt that the earth can counteract whatever problems we cause. The problem is that this natural correction may result in our own extinction.

a reply to: tavi45

If you really think a mas extinction has already started you are seriously caught up in the propaganda.

a reply to: raymundoko

Where is the link to the study the article is making claims about?

I am always cautious of articles that don't provide a link to their source it is like they don't want you to see it for some reason. The article doesn't even give the name of the study so I ask why.

If true though it would account for a large percentage of the current warming in that region and will need to be figured into current climate models for that region.

The article does mention.

Trenberth said. But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

So I am guessing Trenberth was part of the team involved in the study, though I am not sure.

I agree that climate change or global warming or what ever they call it this week isn't caused by man but the earth has had it many times in the past. They have even found fossils of plants and dinosaurs in the Antarctic under the ice. But the politicians are trying to blame people for the weather changes. The fossils I read about in the Antarctic were 150 million years old and I don't think the dinosaurs had coal powered power plants back then. But you never know there might have been a Obamasaurs wanting a carbon tax back then.
But there will be a lot of people wanting to disagree with you soon. Good luck.

originally posted by: irgust
I agree that climate change or global warming or what ever they call it this week isn't caused by man but the earth has had it many times in the past. They have even found fossils of plants and dinosaurs in the Antarctic under the ice. But the politicians are trying to blame people for the weather changes. The fossils I read about in the Antarctic were 150 million years old and I don't think the dinosaurs had coal powered power plants back then. But you never know there might have been a Obamasaurs wanting a carbon tax back then.
But there will be a lot of people wanting to disagree with you soon. Good luck.

No - you are absolutly right.

Mother Earth is changing her climate in order to make it uninhabitable for humans (and many other species) because she is pissed off at humans. Humans that foul their own nest, Humans that piss poison on her land and in her oceans, Humans that crap in her waterways.

She's tired of putting up with us. And so would you be if your teenager still # in his pants.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I've discussed this in several other threads. I think human caused warming via green house gases has little to no impact on the overall climate of the earth. I think we are a drop in the bucket, and any damage we could ever do would only be to the detriment of ourselves and some species unfortunate enough to live in our habitat.

Your are absolutley correct there is no way Humans can influence a whole planet. I mean just look at the Ozone layer and increased UV......oh hang on, that was us and we took action and the damage was reversed.

YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG. Human action CAN detrimentally influence the whole planet.

I am sending some sand in the post so you can top up that bucket your head is stuck in.

This link might help out . www.pnas.org... a reply to: Grimpachi

It always, or rather never, ceases to amaze me, how little of reality makes its way into scientific studies.

All of the 'models' are about atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations... what about water vapor?

My 1972 Pontiac 6.2L Firebird, getting around 14MPG put out about as much CO2 per mile as my 1981 VW Scirocco getting 30MPG.

What's up with that, by the way? How did we manage 30MPG in the 80's and now we're struggling to get to the 30's? My mom's 1973 Dodge Coronet, 318CID V8, could pull 25MPG if one was easy on the pedal.



I face palm any time I see, hear or read someone blaming CO2 emissions as the cause of 'climate change'.

One hundred years ago, with a global human population of a Billion or so, we generated heat to take a train, cook our food and that was about it. One hundred years later, and now we're at NINE billion, give or take. We generate HEAT here, simply by being alive. We generate HEAT here, simply by cooking our food and driving our cars, much like before, but only 9 times as many people.

Is it not logical to assume a commensurate increase in heat?

/me waits for the logical discussion.

a reply to: abecedarian

and now we're at NINE billion

It's only 7 billion, but fair enough.

We generate HEAT here, simply by being alive. We generate HEAT here, simply by cooking our food and driving our cars, much like before, but only 9 times as many people.

Tell me that's not a lot of extra heat generated here, at the surface.

That is explained here actually.
You wont become stupid from reading these 10 pages, trust me

a reply to: abecedarian

My 1972 Pontiac 6.2L Firebird, getting around 14MPG put out about as much CO2 per mile as my 1981 VW Scirocco getting 30MPG.

What's up with that, by the way? How did we manage 30MPG in the 80's and now we're struggling to get to the 30's?

Well I am not sure how you figure out the c02 per mile it would be interesting to see those figures and source but as for your other question about gas milage that is pretty easy to explain.

The 1981 VW Scirocco model came with these sized engines.

1979–1981 1.6 (1,588 cc), 1980 USA model available with a 1.8L Diesel, 1981 USA models 1.7 (1,715 cc)), all featuring a single-overhead camshaft and two valves per cylinder.

The 1.7L had 74 hp try comparing that to a comprehensible size engine today. I looked up a 1.7L Corsa 5 Door Hatchback and it has 125 HP and gets 49 combined MPG with even stricter emissions regulations.

Well I hope I at least cleared up your MPG question.

BTW world population is at about 7.2 billion.

a reply to: Mianeye
So farming increases albedo, and therefore results in more heat reflected from the surface.

a reply to: abecedarian

The document explains a lot more than just farming, like deforestation and urbanization and more, but it's a part of it.

a reply to: GrimpachiWikipedia is wrong. Go figure?


The diesel variants were either 1.5 and 1.6L, as found in the Rabbit/Golf and Passat/Dasher, with later 1.6L variant including a turbocharger.

Good luck finding any diesel Scirocco's in North America.

It's worth noting, as well Audi used these engines in the 4000 model, both standard and Quattro, and that marque is equivalent to the Dasher / Passat.

There were two gasoline variants available in 1981: one a 1.6L and the other 1.7L. Both were similar, as in many parts would interchange; cylinder block and head were mostly identical save for cylinder bore changes and a few changes to the head port geometry. The former disappeared, and the latter gave way to the 1.8 and 2.0 16V engines used in the A2 generation Scirocco, including the turbocharged Scirocco Callaway marketed in the '84 model year; too much power for a front-light / tail-heavy FWD platform.

I always maintained Global Warming had some thing to do with the weather.............

a reply to: abecedarian

Well that is even further apart.

For the diesel engine 1.6L golf you have the HP below.

1.6L 54 PS (40 kW; 53 hp) I4
1.6L 70 PS (51 kW; 69 hp) I4 TD

Here is a link to VW releasing the 1.6L diesel again.green.autoblog.com...

The 1.6-liter will be available at power levels ranging from 74 to 103 hp.

I can guarantee the MPG will be higher than 30.

So there you have an apples to apples comparison. Engine technology has increased both in performance and MPG and at the same time the cars have reduced their emissions while adding more features into them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: abecedarian

Well that is even further apart.

For the diesel engine 1.6L golf you have the HP below.

1.6L 54 PS (40 kW; 53 hp) I4
1.6L 70 PS (51 kW; 69 hp) I4 TD

Here is a link to VW releasing the 1.6L diesel again.green.autoblog.com...

The 1.6-liter will be available at power levels ranging from 74 to 103 hp.

I can guarantee the MPG will be higher than 30.

So there you have an apples to apples comparison. Engine technology has increased both in performance and MPG and at the same time the cars have reduced their emissions while adding more features into them.

In reality, even the turbo diesel had problems achieving more than 30MPG.
So?

Global Warming is supposedly caused by Human beings. Bill Gates devised a formula at TED and let the convention know about this. Theyre currently planning depopulation using Ebola and similar viruses. Heres More (thanks Kadinsky)

Population Council (Eugenics Council) Bill Gates Foundation Lucis Trust

and what they have been doing with Ebola and other Vaccines to prevent

Global Warming PSEC (30GigaTons of CO2)/ Over populating (TED Convention).

Theyre Currently doing this in Africa.

www.youtube.com...



Global Warming to increase:
Africa Population to double by 2050 (2.4 Billion People)
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Glenn Thomas was trying to prevent this new ebola virus from getting out to become a new method of depopulation and this is what they did to MH17.

osnetdaily.com...

Family Planning and Depopulation with viruses to stop it as based on the speech at the TED convention on vaccines. Heres pictures directly from his webpage. The population council hes investing money into is a Eugenics council and he's also involved with Lucis Trust along with the Rockefellers. Thus the trust is doing this.





Lucifer Publishing= Lucifer