It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:36 PM
What propaganda? The human race affects the earth. We've destroyed habitats and altered ecosystems. Look at the history of the rabbit in Australia (rabbit proof fence) for a SINGLE example out of thousands.

Human beings clearly affect planet earth. You can deny specific studies or ideas but if you think our effect is negligible then you are clearly uneducated. We dam rivers, cut down forests, and drive animals out of their habitat.

Global warming/climate change might not be human driven but I still don't see why that means we should do whatever the hell we want with no thought. Were you raised to believe that throwing your garbage all over your house is good? Just scale that lesson up.

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:41 PM

originally posted by: PowerStruggle
Global Warming is supposedly caused by Human beings. Bill Gates devised a formula at TED and let the convention know about this.


That is the most ridiculous formula I have ever seen.

What's the definition of a "service"? How many of these "services" does the average man, woman and child consume?

That's a nice picture for the media to regurgitate, and it pretends to make sense.


posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: abecedarian

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

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.

What are you talking about. Can you show some actual figures that you are comparing.

You were complaining about fuel mileage comparing your 1.6L diesel to todays cars and I showed you that today's cars with the same Liter engine have increased their HP to nearly 150% what they were in 1981 and almost the same with MPG so what exactly is your complaint.

Engines today are more powerful, economical on fuel and have higher emissions standards than your 81 car.

I just gave you an apples to apples comparison of engines from the same manufacturer different years.

Anyway I am having a hard time finding your car with engine listed from 1981, though I did find the engine made by VW for that year do you have a link? Everyone I have looked up does not list the 1.6L. This is the most comprehensive I found.

The only way to truly compare performance and mileage is by matching engine to engine and factoring weight as well as matching the transmissions because transmission and weight affect MPG drastically.
edit on 23-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:30 PM
I can't have a rational discussion with someone predisposed to the condition where everything I say is false.

Stating I've said things I haven't stated exasperates the issue and only makes it more apparent people are grasping at straws.

edit on 9/23/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:35 PM
It is really hard to have a discussion on such a topic when the only information offered is based on an unknown person saying "trust me" and offers nothing else to back up their assertions.

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:12 PM
Good find Ray...

I believe this is the source of the original publication:

Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012


Over the last century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ∼0.5–1 °C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST, and SAT, this study investigates northeast (NE) Pacific coupled atmosphere–ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86). We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century-long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with the strongest trends observed from 1910–1920 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900–2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

I've emphasized some very important details.

The first point being that they use a linear stochastic time series taking observed measurements.
Not a smoothed or filtered function.

Those observations show that temperature changes can be explained by oscillations in Pacific circulation.

The multitude of climate models and global circulation models, FAIL to show this behavior and cannot reproduce what is observed.

Circulation models are what trend upward and are what show warming trends, but they can't explain the observations seen along the West Coast of the US and can't reproduce the effect with the existing variables. That's probably because they are all built around CO2 being the driver.

But as this paper shows, observations can be explained directly by variations in Pacific circulation patterns, and have little to do with CO2 other than it being part of the atmosphere.

I'm sure the discrediting of James Johnstone or the journal, the merits of his past work, etc. is already being prepared on SkepticalScience and ClimateDepot.


posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 09:43 PM

originally posted by: abecedarian
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.

I'm sorry-- there can be no comparing milage between vastly
dissimilar cars like an anemic police stock and Little Big Chief.
Apples and Pontiacs: specifically a tank with 225 BHP and Mr.
destroked-winder motor 400/335HP?
Heap strong medicine, that 14MPG... I'm sure you got it, but
it was supposed to be fun in some earlier time too.

Not to berate one of the most dependable Mopars ever, but
it was your mom's car: and the winder block was yours. I'm
also willing to bet that properly jetted, the 400 made half the
Carbon MONoxide of the widebody.

Where the Hell did that come from? Oh yeah Bruce's '69.. it
was the fastest stock E-body I ever got nightmares from.
Anyway, back to the thread. By the way, where did he GO? LOL

Could it be possible that the mainstream media is deliberately
ignoring the maritime wildlife and vegetation being decimated
in the Pacific by The Fukishima Daiichi meltdowns-- that could
affect currents from just the food chain being fubar'd from the
plankton on up? I hear either horror stories from lifelong fisher-
men or nothing. With anything in the middle of the noise being
the truth somehow, how can anybody adjust data from a
technically unknown quantity of influence?

PS And it sounded like Royal Oak, Michigan at low tide. 14 ...
more like the low 13's with stock tires. Sigh.

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 01:41 AM
a reply to: abecedarian

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

Yeah, what about water vapor?

More water vapor in the atmosphere doesn't cause the temperature to rise, the temperature rise allows more water vapor to stay in the atmosphere.

There is a 100% natural way to limit the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere: when too much H20 gets into the atmosphere it just comes back out again. It is called 'rain' or 'snow' or 'sleet' or 'hail'. So adding 'too much' water to the atmosphere doesn't make the atmosphere warmer because it doesn't just build up and up with no place to go.

But when the atmosphere warms up, more water can stay in the atmosphere for longer. This means drought in some places where 'normal' rain patterns are expected; and when the water does eventually come out, you get floods in other areas.

The take away is that more water vapor in the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to warm up, warmer atmosphere allows the water vapor to build up, stay longer, and eventually come out faster. That is climate change in action.

With reference to the article (which gives only a rough idea of what the paper actually says), it says the winds shifted do to ocean temperature rises. It doesn't appear to say what is causing the ocean temperature to rise, but it does point out that the study is in reference to local conditions. In fact, the cause is pretty well documented beyond doubt: it is man made 'green house' gases being pumped into the atmosphere, the ocean can absorb a lot more energy than the atmosphere. The ocean is global; a rise in ocean temperature is not local it is global, but it will certainly have local effects on local weather. Local weather effects caused by global changes is GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN ACTION.

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 03:09 AM
Now I can tell Og and Ook Ook that they won't have to move out of their cave to go to higher ground when great water rises. The sky Gods won't make heat and chase rain clouds away, either. Hunting good, find plenty plants and fruit. Shaman wrong, no global warming.

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:49 AM
a reply to: tavi45

I am not taking a side here, I just don't know much about this. Which animals are going extinct?

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 10:37 AM
a reply to: 222mockingbirdlane

You probably won't hear much from him. No extinctions these days have anything to do with climate change and everything to do with Man poisoning his habitat. Global Climate Change (AKA Anthroprogenic warming) has not claimed a single species on this planet.

Hunting/poaching, sprawl/encroachment (Suburbs, Farming), water diversion, mining, deforestation have all done far more to harm the biodiversity of this planet than Climate Change has.

The bottom line is man can actually completely reverse his effect on co2 increase by stopping deforestation and re-planting forests.

Moving to Nuclear/Wind/Solar from Water/Coal alone would almost immediately level off our carbon footprint as humans.

If human cities weren't so large and coastal, the ice caps melting would be a GOOD thing as we would actually GAIN habitable land as we would GAIN coast lines. Humans need to adapt to the planet, not the other way around.

Edit/P.S. If that's you in your avatar you look just like my wife...if that is your girlfriend/wife in your avatar we may have a problem...If my wife is posting on these forums then this is embarrassing as it means we both hide it from each other...
edit on 24-9-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

You don't live in Florida, do you? The entirety of this state would be submerged with a complete melting of the ice sheets. This cause me to question how we would prosper due to 'more 'coast'.

One last thing the fisheries along the Maine and eastern provinces of Canada have suffered because the warmer waters no longer permit cold water flow into the back bays. This current has a name but forgive my forgetfulness. The fishery has moved completely away from being a productive ground for fish we like to eat. They have been replaced by a much less desirable SPECIES. One funky fish has prospered and the rest have left. A direct result of warming.

Found it-

edit on WednesdaypmWed, 24 Sep 2014 15:14:19 -050032014 by largo because: added link

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 03:13 PM
It has certainly been a long hot summer here in Cali.

Starring hal huemn ha humn harmarifn hetest hactors? lmao

But any ways it 's all el natural' if you ask me.

As long as it's livable.

edit on Rpm92414v25201400000048 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 04:44 PM

originally posted by: raymundoko

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.

They do know that human-caused climate change is predicted to change the jet streams (and the jet streams are changing), which affects most all wind patterns in the world right?

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:51 PM
You obviously didn't read my post.

And Florida is the taint of the USA. I'd be happy if it went under.

a reply to: largo

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:52 PM
Oh man, that's a riot. I'm afraid you're going to have to source that.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:44 PM
Climate change exist, Thats a fact. on a side not black holes don't

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:06 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

The climate change models they currently use do not have the ability to factor in all the variables. Really, they are today's equivalent of Nostradamus looking into a pot of water.

Gradually Global Warming will be proven wrong, and the only thing global about it will be the fact the Global Elite want to use it to maintain their 1st world status and keep the 3rd world from exploiting cheap resources.

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:52 PM
a reply to: Stuship

The climate change models they currently use do not have the ability to factor in all the variables.

I am not sure if you are making a statement or asking a question because as I stated already if the study in question is found to be accurate they will factor it into the models. If it a question the answer is yes they can factor in the current variables as they become available. Great things those computers they can do so much more than post on forums. As more information comes available they will keep adding it luckily computers are becoming more powerful each year. If you are interested here is a thread on one New Type Of Computer Capable Of Calculating 640TBs Of Data In One Billionth Of A Second of course programs must be writen to account for the new information but they are doing a pretty good job of doing that.

Really, they are today's equivalent of Nostradamus looking into a pot of water.

I am fine with simply disagreeing with you I am sure nothing I say would change your mind so we can leave it at that.

Gradually Global Warming will be proven wrong, and the only thing global about it will be the fact the Global Elite want to use it to maintain their 1st world status and keep the 3rd world from exploiting cheap resources.

You predict that with such authority even while facing the mountains of evidence and the contrary views of thousands of scientists that specialize in that field. I think thats pretty interesting on your part I can only conclude you have made such a prediction from mimicking Nostradamus looking into a pot of water because your prediction sure isn't based in the sciences.

edit on 24-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 10:03 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Source which part?

How the jet streams control weather?

Or that climate changes control the jet stream?

I can posts 1000's more, but I think you can do your own research. Once you know what the jet stream is, and what causes it to change (temperature differences between different parts of Earth), then you will know what I stated is basic truth.

This is actually basic science.

-note- I provided videos because I don't expect you to read scientific papers. If you want scientific papers, let me know. Or google them yourself.
edit on 24-9-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in