And the paradigm keeps crumbling

al-gore-settled-scienceHigher temperatures in Pacific attributable to natural wind shifts, not global warming.

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

“What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve,” said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

“So clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting those temperatures,” he added.

The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases.

It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

Johnstone and co-author Nathan Mantua, a research scientist with the NOAA Fisheries Service in Santa Cruz, California, pointed to the fact that one steep ocean warming period from 1920 to 1940 predates the big increases in greenhouse gases, and an ocean cooling period from 1998 to 2013 came while global average temperatures were at or near all-time highs.

They also noted that the wind changes consistently preceded the ocean surface temperature variations by about four months, showing the wind was causing the changes to temperature, not the other way around.

James Overland, a research oceanographer at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, said the study reinforced findings that the North Pacific has a lot of natural variability in 5- to 20-year time scales, and he reached the same conclusions on changes in the Bering Sea.

“Natural variability cannot be ruled out as an important mechanism,” he said in an email.

During the entire period from 1900 to 2012, there has been an increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit in ocean surface temperatures in the area from Hawaii to Alaska, and down the coast to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, according to the study.

The wind acts to change temperature through speed and direction. When the wind blows faster across the water, evaporation increases, and like sweat drying on the skin, cools the water surface. Winds from the south drive warmer air and water to the region. Winds from the north drive in colder air and water.

“It just seems to us it’s a pretty simple story,” Mantua said. “Yet it’s going to take people by surprise, because it is ingrained in our minds that if the climate warms up in the course of the century, it’s probably because of global warming, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other things humans have done that have pushed it in a warming direction.”

All of which explains the global warmists’ increasing hysteria. They sense the consensus the concocted is falling apart, and they are afraid.

UPDATE: Today the LA Times reports on this story, straight up. When global skepticism breaks through the media’s wall of silence, you know something is seriously afoot.

Psst! Wanna buy a magazine?

Psst! Wanna buy a magazine?


Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “And the paradigm keeps crumbling

  1. AJ

    “. . . It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change. . . .”

    That’s a good one. So now you have to prove that everything and anything is not related to climate change; otherwise by default, it naturally is. Sounds sort of like people who want to know what happened to the “plane” and the “people” on “flight” 93 when I tell them that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon because there are no marks from the wings or engines on the exterior brick wall where the “fuselage” penetrated the building, yet there are no wings or engines sitting outside; a car parked right next to the hole sits virtually undestroyed; and a fully fueled 757 that caused fires hot enough to melt steel girders in the WTC didn’t burn anything, not even furniture sitting at the edge of the hole, on the interior of the building — therefore, the official story is true. Useful idiots, all. Collaborators with the takedown of America.

  2. New Buyer

    The weekend edition of the Wall St Journal had a great article on Climate Change in the Review section this weekend. Thoughtful and intelligent. Is the climate changing? Yes. Patterns are always changing and shifting. Do carbon emissions have some impact. Yes. However, carbon emissions are clearly not the sole cause of climate changes. Maybe account for 1% of the factors involved. He noted that the climate is wildly complex, new discoveries are constantly being made, and that modern computer models are not sufficient to even properly document regional climates. He made an intelligent case for open discussion, reasoned debate, and full admission of the flaws in current scientific studies.

  3. Inagua

    “…and full admission of the flaws in current scientific studies.”

    Dream on. Lefties never admit error. They always double down on more. Look at Head Start — even HUD says it is totally ineffectual. But what do Lefties want next? Universal pre-K. Just as Head Start and Universal pre-K have nothing to do with education and everything to do with jobs and free day care, so does climate change have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the goal of a centrally controlled economy.

  4. New Buyer

    Interestingly, that was one of the author’s arguments, although more subtly stated. Title of article: “Climate Science is Not Settled.” Author was Steven Koonin, Under Secretary of Energy for Obama for 2 years. He argues that economic and energy policy can’t be based upon weak science or popular hysteria. He argues that stifling debate as to the nature and causes of climate change is anti-intellectual and ridiculous. It stifles scientific exploration. There is no one cause and much is unknown. Here is the link.

  5. or is it just politics

    One wonders what true good could be accomplished if all the effort of the Climate Change Cult and the Gun Control Drones was applied to a REAL issue?

  6. jB

    And if we could willfully affect the climate, whose to say what the climate should be?