Let’s reiterate that the debate is primarily about causation: Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, especially our use of fossil fuels (which Warmists mostly refuse to give up themselves). Skeptics say the warming during the Modern Warm Period is mostly/solely natural. At that point we can get into the debate about Man’s contributions, such as true global changes, land use, urban heat island effect, etc. Warmists state that this warm period is utterly and completely different from previous warm periods because of industrialization, whining as they type on their corporate made laptop/tablet/smartphone as a they sip a corporate made latte made with beans shipped from another country, made in a corporate built building which has evil ice makers, which they picked up in their fossil fueled vehicles, while they sit on their corporate made couches in their homes which use lots of electricity. Anyhow, another dagger in the heart of the screeching about man mad global warming/climate change/climate disruption
West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes
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.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
These are changes that have been going on for billions of years. Little changes in natural forces can have large effects.
This latest research shows that similar changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation can drive trends that last a century or longer, overshadowing the effects of human-generated increase in greenhouse gases, the study’s authors said.
Of course, the LA Times had to reach out to a hyper-alarmist (and fossil fuels using hypocrite)
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable. The results may also reflect the fact that the northeast Pacific is an area of the globe where past studies have shown the “signal” of climate change is low relative to the “noise” of natural variability.
Oh, OK, so now data from the early 20th century is meaningless. But, of course. Another excuse when Science shows Warmist idiocy is wrong.
And Teach is a hypocrite for not fighting the wars he supports and for not following Jesus Christ’s commands concerning the poor. But his hypocrisy does not make him wrong, his poor command of the facts does.
Trenberth didn’t say the early data were “meaningless”, only that the local data from that area were unreliable.
Your “billions of years” quote is irrelevant. The Earth has existed as we know it for some million years.
From the article:
“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.”
Where does this “new” heat come from that is being redistributed by the winds and ocean currents?
“These changes have been going on for billions of years.” That is quite relevant, J, because it’s true. “The earth has existed as we know it for millions of years.” That’s the point. Not “knowing” what happened the rest of the time matters- because “climate change” was obviously occurring even then.
Well if course coldists have always treated warmer temps not as. ” natural ” but as SUPERNATURAL
i.e . Caused by God
Winds are caused by temp differences uou should have learned that in first year Earth Science
Hypocrisy
We often fault others loudest in what failures we see in ourselves
Guns are good, but you don’t see Teach welcoming open carry people into his stores are even open carrying himself
Teach didn’t enlist to fight in Iraq
Or do anything to really stop the ” murder ” of abortion
If Gore et al led carbon neutral lives it would have essentially no impact on total carbon pollution However his activism which does increase his carbon footprint will reduce the total planet carbon pollution
When Teach are YOU going to live 100 % in line with what you espouse for others. ?
You know john, we’ve been down this path before and all it shows is that you are incapable of an intelligent discussion.
There is a difference between advocating that people be able to exercise their rights and choosing to exercise that right or not.
For example, people can advocate the right of free speech and not say a word without being a hypocrite/
That reasoning escapes people like you because you think that forcing things on people is the same as a choice. You think that you not living by the things you force on others is not hypocrisy.
Thanks for showing your stupidity.
So right-wing cheerleaders who want others to fight and die in their stead are not hypocrites?
Right-wing Christianists who oppose abortion and gay marriage are not hypocrites because they ignore some of Jesus’ most direct admonitions?
Right-wing seniors on Social Security and Medicare are not hypocrites for opposing other social services?
Jeff,
Please explain how I am a hypocrite for using SSI and Medicare when I was forced to pay into both systems for over 40 years. I don’t care for either system and think they are causing substantial damage. But at the same time that is like saying that I should not take the proceed of and annuity plan that I had been servicing for decades. The only difference is that it is government run and compulsory. Now, on the other hand, you desire for us all to pay an excessive tax burden, but you refuse to do so yourself and even form corporations that shield your income and you take advantage of handouts (your words) in the form of depreciating expenses and other business cost.
Now, john riles against the evil fossil fuel industry, but he drives a truck for a living and thus has an enormous carbon foot print.
Then you go on about those of us that see a need for military intervention and you think we can’t have an opinion unless we have served. How do you know what I have done? Or for that matter any of my family? I think that I have paid my debt and that my family can most definitely have a major voice. But I don’t want military involvement because people like you expose us to unreasonable danger due to your bizarre attitudes and limitation of brave men and women in harms way to defend themselves and fight the enemy with a free hand. Just look at the enormous increase in war dead and injured secondary to our idiot president and his ROE’s.
For that matter, if you say that Teach can not have an opinion on the military, then I would turn it back on you that you have not paid your due and you and john clearly don’t have the ability to judge anything or express your opinions.
No one is advocating that anyone “fight and die in their stead.” Therefore the premise of your question is moot.
Some may be hypocritical. That is why the lesson of the splinter and the log applies to some people. Of course, there is still a difference between advocating choice for people and not choosing to make that choice yourself, but that distinction is lost on you.
As david notes, how is it hypocritical to want back that which is taken from you at the point of a government sword with the promise of it being returned?
The depth of your argument is as shallow as saying a person who loans a lawnmower to someone with the promise the person will return it is a hypocrite because they want the lawn mower back.
I know that you are having problems with this because you are either dense, intellectually corrupt or just so locked into a liberal mindset, but there is a difference between advocating for freedoms then choosing not to exercise that freedom and forcing restrictions on others while not observing those restrictions yourself.
I’ll use an analogy that a 5 year old can understand:
A mother brings home a bag of cookies and the biggest kid in the house says “no one can have any cookies!” Five minutes later, the other kids see the bigger kid eating the cookies.
Most people call that hypocrisy.
You might call it “liberalism.”
dave,
“… if you say that Teach can not have an opinion on the military, then I would turn it back on you that you have not paid your due and you and john clearly don’t have the ability to judge anything or express your opinions.”
And that is my point for making my outrageous accusations of hypocrisy (that match Mr. Teach’s outrageous claims of hypocrisy). Of course you paid into Medicare and Social Security, but you will take out much more than you paid in. You disdain government but drive on Interstate highways and enjoy the freedoms paid for with the lives of government workers, our brave (and underpaid) soldiers.
Mr. Teach (and other commenters; and conservatives in general) smear the climate realists for having cell phones and driving. But how else can you live in modern America? It’s an unreasonable request. But it’s the only remaining “argument” that Mr. Teach has.
It’s also unreasonable of me to ask that anyone who supports US military action to be willing to fight. It’s a smear. It’s unreasonable to ask someone who criticizes the size of the Federal gov’t to not use any Federal resources.
Calling someone a hypocrite for their views is a device for limiting an argument. It’s an ad hominem attack on the opposition.