And speaking of AGW hysteria, new geologic study drastically undercuts AGW by pointing out long history of droughts caused by (wait for it) "natural forces".

[LateForLunch]

http://ktla.com/2016/09/15/the-new-normal-californias-severe-drought-could-last-indefinitely-new-study-says/

In making the case for a possible "new normal" for drought conditions in Mexifornia, this geologist strongly undercuts the increasingly popular hysteria that any and all significant warming or weather problems are linked directly and predominately to AGW.

[Suppressed]

You didn't use the article's actual title.

Anyway, the fact that there were pre-historic mega-droughts doesn't mean that AGW won't be responsible for a current one. 

Those prehistoric mega-droughts were caused by natural phenomena, such as changes in ocean temperature and volcanic activity, according to the study.

Artificial forcings such as increasing ocean temperature, for example, could have the same result as it did when it was natural.

[LateForLunch]

You didn't use the article's actual title.

Anyway, the fact that there were pre-historic mega-droughts doesn't mean that AGW won't be responsible for a current one. 

Artificial forcings such as increasing ocean temperature, for example, could have the same result as it did when it was natural.

No, I didn't use the title. Why do you mention it? Is that some sort of requirement or do you see that as being deceptive?

BTW, atmospheric CO2 black-body radiation-forcing is not proven science, or are you referring to another form? I am not a Physical Geographical scientist so some terms from that lexicon may not click with me immediately. I do know that there is absolutely no strong evidence that AGW is a real phenomenon. Zero. Where do you stand on that, BTW? I promise not to be unpleasant about it if you are pro-AGW, but I like to know where people stand when I am exchanging posts with them.

[GtHawk]

In California back in the 70's we had what was then called it's most severe drought, and the words climate change and globull warming were never uttered, as a matter of fact int year before and during the drought the alarm bells were being rung over global cooling and predictions of the coming ice age. My observation is that most climatologists are scare mongers and suffer from such a severe case of cranialrectumitis and make their predictions based on nothing more than WAG.

[DB]

You didn't use the article's actual title.

Anyway, the fact that there were pre-historic mega-droughts doesn't mean that AGW won't be responsible for a current one. 

Artificial forcings such as increasing ocean temperature, for example, could have the same result as it did when it was natural.

Well if "artificial" forcing can cause the same thing as natural events that's bordering pretty closely as a distinction without a difference. It is just all noise at that point... To spend trillions to prevent something that happens anyway - and well beyond our control - is pretty pointless.

[Oceander]

You didn't use the article's actual title.

Anyway, the fact that there were pre-historic mega-droughts doesn't mean that AGW won't be responsible for a current one. 

Artificial forcings such as increasing ocean temperature, for example, could have the same result as it did when it was natural.

Artificial forcings could; however, there is precious little evidence that any significant artificial forcing exists.  The models that "predict" it - heck, even the models that postdict it - do not work unless they are stuffed with so many fudge factors and specious "normalizations" that for all intents and purposes they're no more useful than phrenology.

[DB]

Artificial forcings could; however, there is precious little evidence that any significant artificial forcing exists.  The models that "predict" it - heck, even the models that postdict it - do not work unless they are stuffed with so many fudge factors and specious "normalizations" that for all intents and purposes they're no more useful than phrenology.

That's why I put artificial in quotes. It is a claimed forcing not in evidence.