Hot and dry weather on the west coast and frigid conditions on the east coast have had the scientists baffled. While initially, most scientists were of the opinion that the conditions may be due to melting in the arctic, but a new study suggests that it is due to the warming in the Pacific Ocean. There has been a large blob of warm water that has been on the west coast for the past 18 months.

pacific ocean

While most scientists around the world still believe that global warming has upset the “Polar Vortex”, the group in Seattle still does not put the blame on global warming. The blob of water stretches from Alaska to Mexico and is 7 degrees warmer than usual.

This development has raised the temperature of the surrounding areas as well, up to 3.6 degrees. The climatic models predict that the case would remain the same for the rest of the year.

The changes have not been limited to land alone, as the marine ecosystem was found to be different as well. There has been an increase the in the number of sunfish and tropical species in the area, which has subsequently lowered the nutrient levels causing mass starvation of seabirds.

Additionally, this has changed the type of microorganisms that can survive in this type of water as well. February had the most prominent temperature spike in the past 30 years.

The winds have been responsible to carry this effect from the shores to the North West by humidifying onshore flows. The results of this effect could be seen in last year’s muggy summers and the biggest wildfire the state has seen.

A climate scientist at University of Washington, Nick Bond, commented that the group does not say that this is the only reason, but they still believe that it is at least a secondary cause. Another scientist from the same university, Dennis Hartmann, published his own research recently saying that the cause of this blob lies towards the south side of the equatorial pacific, near New Guinea.

53 Responses

  1. Candid Curmudgeon

    We know more about the surface of the Moon than most of our planet underlying the oceans. We do not fully understand the mechanics of the ocean, its currents, and the effect on the climate. We do not fully understand its capacity as a carbon sink.
    Instead of blaming climate change for a warming ocean, it seems more likely to me that it is the other way around.
    However, that is inconvenient to the political agenda which underlies the entire discussion.

    Reply
    • VendicarDecarian0

      Poor Curmudgeon. He doesn’t know how the measure of the isotopic ratios of Carbon and oxygen have identified the Carbon and Oxygen in the ocean as very old and not consistent with the carbon and oxygen found in the ocean.

      In his tiny little brain, any lack of information means that any related science he wishes to imagine is wrong.

      Sorry old man…. Logical reasoning doesn’t work that way.

      Reply
  2. McBearsNY

    Its a result of global warming and reflects what had been mentioned in the most recent IPCC UN climate report, the report by climate academics doing serious factual research mentioned other effects of global warming including increases in rapes, violent crime, POLAR VORTEXES, ebola, sex-ratio disruption in aquatic reptiles, MORE FREQUENT COLD SNAPS AND RECORD COLD (amazing conclusion from WARMING and quoted by John Holdren Obama science advisor), The Rise of ISIS, The Syrian Civil War, eskimo bar room brawls, prostitution, monster SNOW STORMS (Al Gore/institute), eye cataracts, Egyptian soccer violence, THICKENING of Antarctic sea ice (due to man made shifts in Antarctic wind currents), weakening of Euro, auto theft, deterioration of south American mummies, illegal immigration over FROZEN great lakes (I can attest to this living near lake erie it froze again from global warming 2X in 3yrs not seen in decades)………., also in mexico astonished to learn about an unprecedented rash of hypothermia deaths from global warming

    Reply
    • BobA

      It is clear from your post that you have no understanding of the scientific method in general or climate change in particular. Climate change is causing more extreme weather events world wide. If you read some real reports you may begin to understand this. As it is your post reads like a seven year old arguing with her father why she deserves another ice cream cone. The arguments are clearly fanciful and self serving with no basis in fact.

      Reply
      • PanchoVilla5000

        the al gore crowd warned years ago of extreme weather and nothing is trending worldwide, in our hemisphere its being called a hurricane drought with no cat 3 or larger hurricane hitting in over 10 years not seen since the 1900s or even since the civil war era

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Sorry Pancho, but 3 years doesn’t make much of a trend.

        Get back to us in another 27 years when you have enough data to hold a statistically valid opinion.

      • PanchoVilla5000

        10+ YEARS, maybe you have forgotten the junk science predictions of hurricanes galore after katrina

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Climate change is defined over a minimum period of 30 years.

        Sorry Pancho, but 3 years doesn’t make much of a trend.

        Get back to us in another 27 years when you have enough data to hold a statistically valid opinion.

      • BobA

        Sorry Pancho but you are cherry picking data. Climate change is a statistical trend in a very noisy data set. That means if you pick one event type like hurricanes and pick a time span that suites your goals then you can “prove” almost anything. That’s called advertising.
        The changes to the environment over the past 30+ years are irrefutable and the majority contributor has been proven to be human sourced. Climate change is both a proven fact and a theory. The changes to the climate and the source of those changes being related to the addition of carbon dioxide by human activity are proven to be true using thermodynamics and weather pattern science. The models used (and there are many of them) to explain the dynamics and to predict future trends of climate change are theories. In science, a theory is a model that accurately reproduces observed facts. It’s not a guess or proposal. Those are called a supposition.
        If you want to really understand climate change I suggest you stop listening to coal company’s and other’s denials and Gore’s embellishments and start reading scientific studies. They can get a but heady but that is where you will find real information.

      • Bonita Hamilton

        Thank you, BobA for some sanity in all of this discussion.

      • VendicarDecarian0

        “That means if you pick one event type like hurricanes and pick a time span that suites your goals then you can “prove” almost anything.” – BobA

        Pancho knows nothing about statistical analysis, because if he did, then he would realize that there are statistical tests for validity and methods of determining the statistical significance of a sample,

        For example, after performing a fit to a dataset, the fit can be tested for validity by subtracting the fit from the data and checking to see how the data is distributed around the fit. Confidence limits on the parameters of the fit can be estimated from the standard deviation of the resulting modified data, and a visual inspection of the modified data can be used to judge if there are any first order statistical biases in the fit.

      • BobA

        Vendicar,
        This is interesting. The reply that came to my email doesn’t match what is posted here. I would love to see the algorithm used to moderate a discussion like this.
        With 30 years of statistical analysis under my belt I fully agree with your explanation of testing the validity of an assumption. That’s how a hypothesis becomes a theory. Politicians and advertisers use under-sampled systems all the time to “prove” their position. That is one of many tools they use to distort facts.

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Your response to Poncho was actually directed to me.

        My response was written on that basis, and on a cursory reading of the first paragraph.

        The response was edited before posting after the misstep was noticed and the entire response read twice in detail.

      • BobA

        I see. I’m new to responding in blogs. I’d rather write code than emails. Guess I’m a better engineer than debater. Sorry for the confusion. (I must be new, I’m too polite for my own good!)

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Each site has it’s own unique layer of stupidity and censorship.

        Comment sections are typically broken in many ways.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        There has been NO statistically relevant “warming” since 1880. FAIL

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Science exposes your comment as a lie.

        A Multimodel Update on the Detection and Attribution of Global Surface Warming – Journal of Climate – Volume 20, Issue 3 (February 2007)

        DáithíA. Stone – Department of Physics, and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

        Myles R. Allen – Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

        Peter A. Stott – Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Reading, United Kingdom

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        That’s what you have? DISCREDITED clowns who were exposed for soliciting grants?
        FAIL
        You are retarded

      • VendicarDecarian0

        I see, so you are just opposed to all science that isn’t corporate funded.

        You had better get rid of your computer, and virtually all of the medicines and medical procedures that have been developed over the last 150 years.

        Koooooooooooooooook…

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        It’s the OCD kook who has no brains

      • VendicarDecarian0

        I have posted the same response to the same idiotic claim you have repeatedly made.

        By repeatedly making the same idiotic claim, by your own logic, wouldn’t it be you who is suffering from OCD?

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        Sure…from your discredited grant seekers..

      • VendicarDecarian0

        I see, so you are just opposed to all science that isn’t corporate funded.

        You had better get rid of your computer, and virtually all of the medicines and medical procedures that have been developed over the last 150 years.

        Koooooooooooooooook..

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        Do you have OCD and have to post the same message over and over until you start foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards?
        FAIL

      • VendicarDecarian0

        I have posted the same response to the same idiotic claim you have repeatedly made.

        By repeatedly making the same idiotic claim, by your own logic, wouldn’t it be you who is suffering from OCD?

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Having lost the argument, You now resort to insults and name calling as you run away with your tail between your legs.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        It’s the OCD clown with no intellect again..

        FAIL

      • socalbeachdude

        BREAKING NEWS: The weather always changes and always has and always will. Hellllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooo?

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        The trend is over 100 years. Nothing statically relevant
        FAIL

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Liar Liar… Pants on fire…

        A Multimodel Update on the Detection and Attribution of Global Surface Warming – Journal of Climate – Volume 20, Issue 3 (February 2007)

        DáithíA. Stone – Department of Physics, and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

        Myles R. Allen – Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

        Peter A. Stott – Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Reading, United Kingdom

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        Sure…from your discredited grant seekers

      • VendicarDecarian0

        I see, so you are just opposed to all science that isn’t corporate funded.

        You had better get rid of your computer, and virtually all of the medicines and medical procedures that have been developed over the last 150 years.

        Koooooooooooooooook.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        No, I’m opposed to clowns like you who have no intellect.

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Having lost the argument, You now resort to insults and name calling as you run away with your tail between your legs.

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Are you 12 years old?

        You act like it.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        Keep mirror walking clown face.
        You have no brains

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Awwwww… You lost the debate and now you is vewy, vewy upset.

        Awwwwwwwwwwwwww…

      • VendicarDecarian0

        Please save your childish playground banter for your 12 year old peers at your public school.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        It’s the OCD clown with no intellect again.
        FAIL

      • VendicarDecarian0

        How long have you been a 12 year old?

        Most Republicans never leave that age.

      • TheTruthAsIKnowIt

        It’s the OCD clown with no intellect again.
        FAIL

    • socalbeachdude

      False. There is NO “GLOBAL WARMING” AT ALL and the average temperatures globally are within one-half of one degree of what they were 100 years ago.

      Reply
      • VendicarDecarian0

        Do you think that lying will alter the fact that the Global average temperature is now 0.84’C higher than historical norms?

        If you do then you are a koooooook.

        If you don’t then you are a liar.

        Which is it?

      • TruthDetector

        … asks the illiterate, hypocritical liar.

      • socalbeachdude

        Indeed. THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH NOW IS WITHIN ONE-HALF OF ONE DEGREE OF WHAT IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO. That is an immutable and irrefutable fact.

      • Joel Martin

        The leftie ideaologues and pseudo scientists dependent on govt grants for funding, that push the global warming/climate change hoax (excuse for Big Govt) HATE facts.

    • VendicarDecarian0

      The Central and eastern regions of North America comprise about 2 percent of the Earth’s surface, and while it has been remarkably cold there, it has been remarkably warm elsewhere like Alaska and Siberia.

      Taken over the entire globe, 2014 was the warmest on record.

      Taken over the entire globe, the first three months of this year have also been spectacularly warm.

      It is quite clear that the generally clockwise circulation of the warm air over the Pacific West Coast of Canada and California has kept the west coast and Alaska warm while keeping the central and east coast cold.

      Unless this warm patch of water dissipates, next winter for North America will follow the same pattern.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.