This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
White House: "Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"
So Obama went to California to talk drought and climate change. He brought some cash with him to help the state cope with the water shortage. The Prez is right to be worried about this drought, after all, Cali is 15% of the US economy. The only question is how big the hit to CA/US GDP is going to be.
The President's new plan is have the Ag department come up with $100 million for cattle farmers. There is also $5m for communities that are literally running out of water. So it's 20 to 1 in favor of the cattlemen. Great plan...
As Obama headed west, the White House's Science Assistant, John Holdren, had this to say about the California drought:
"Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"
Really? It's all climate change?
There are many forces that shape weather patterns. One of the most significant is the El Nino/ La Nina cycles. this is what NOAA has to say about the connection between El Nino and rainfall in the South West:
El Niño results in increased precipitation across California and the southern tier of states
The California drought has persisted for the past three years. It's no coincidence that there have been no El Nino conditions during this time period:
The WH has a climate agenda - this is payback for a lot of support (money). Okay, but when the chief scientist at the WH ignores the scientists who actually look at weather patterns, then one is forced to doubt everything the WH says on the topic.
Misdirection By Holdren???
- advertisements -





Quit with the misleading semantics, the ENSO cycles shuffle heat between the atmosphere and the oceans.. It does not change the overall energy of earth...
Here is ~130 years of data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soi.svg
You can correct the temperature record for the variability induced by the ENSO as discussed here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-war...
Here is the original paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Let me say this about energy and losses. If Flakmeister is located in DC, and has a giant hookah with tubes going to DC, Virginia, Maryland and Maine, than lights a bowl of really good ganja, he would accuse the person at the end of the tube going to maine of being a bogart.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything..
Please show your work...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/
Yep, so why doesn't Bob Tisdale try to publish that wonderful analysis? It's been almost 2 years...
Could it be that it would be laughed at and dismissed as crap? And he knows it...
Afterall, eyeballing time lags is so much more precise that using an unbiased least squares estimator....
You are aware that scientific journals fully realize that credibility is their most important asset....
Flakmeister
"Former professional Higgs Boson hunter and Wall St. refugee. Now keeping close tabs on the Energy sector and Climate change and anything else of note.."
How's that god particle thingy working out for ya? I guess you are being paid to do gods (al gores) work too.
http://qz.com/177690/the-chase-for-the-higgs-boson-is-about-to-get-bigge...
Keep pissing that money away.
Actually, God's work is Lloyd's comment. You know, vampire squid.
Wow, you are capable of doing a google search...
That must be why they published all of these.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
Why don't you pick out a few that back any of the conclusions that you have claimed here today?
And the last refuge of the con man. Turn things around instead of providing proof to your alarmist claims. Many of us are just pointing out that there are two sides to the argument - but it is hard to argue against the religious with fervent belief.
I haven't claimed any conclusions. I've stated that the science is not settled, as much as the charlatans want to close the debate before anyone looks too closely under the kimono.
I've also stated that it seems to me that a giant fusion reactor nearby in space probably has more effect that less than 1% of all the atmosphere (ie total CO2) and therefore a lot more impact than that which is puported to be 'man made'.
And I've tried to point out how you are using propoganda and fear to try to manipulate people's brains through their emotions. Why is it that alarmists seem to use the same techniques as con men? Quote 2 hiroshima bombs a second? = round off error compared to the numbers of actual energy from the sun.
Make Mann a saint? St. Random number generator. Why no MWP? (see at end for proof that it was global in scope).
Quote 40 year old predictions. What nonsense. No one can predict the future and it's that hubris that will lead to so-call 'climate scientists' deciding that they can control the weather - then we really will be screwed royally.
Ignore that this winter is near as cold as 40 some years ago? Whatever. Ignore the pause for the last 15 years - how convenient. Decide that minor changes in ice is only important in the Arctic? Whatever let's you sleep at night. Forget that the Arctic was warmer during the MWP? Don't pick your cherry, it'll break.
Further ignore the MWP, which has many peer-reviewed papers demonstrating it as a global phenomena (not by climate 'scientists' but by geologists and paleontologists). Here are a few.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Medieval_Warm_Perio...
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Here's a list of the scientist whose work is cited in documenting the MWP as a global phenomena.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
Making shit up just makes you seem more pathetic...
A list of names but nary a link to any papers that are relevant... Do you take us all for fools?
Show a reconstruction that demonstrates that the MWP was warmer than the present... Go ahead, surprise us...
Good god this is from the 2nd paragraph of your princeton link
click on the 2nd link from the bottom in my prior post that takes you to the introduction to MWP project.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Show me something besides shoddy blog science...
You mean like that 97% consensus 'paper' done by Skeptical Scientist BLOG that you are so fond of quoting. You may or may not be but you come across as a hypocrite with one set of rules for your point of view and a different standard for everyone else. I can only feel sorry for you. There must have been some major failures that you faced to be so dogmatic and rabid about a losing subject. But, that's religion.
I have not quoted the SkS concenus paper, which did pass peer review incidentally...
Whereas you have fire bombed this thread with a blantant make up piece of crap from Principia denying the GHE.... Why don't you find a physics text book used at the college level to back your assertions instead?
And any cursory examination of the papers you do "quote" reveal that you clearly did not read them closely or that you have cherry picked a sentence to be used out of context...
Here it gets better, since November 2012,
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scienti...
+1000 and thanks.
Many papers are not published due to political or financial bias and this article in nature shows that. The scientists and others who have differing views based on real science usually are shut out for political expediency.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v9/n2/full/nn0206-149.html
This is like saying "Sex everywhere is being caused by changing positions."
What awkward sentence structure, What a dumbfuck..
Well,at least the drought in the southwest has the propensity to dehydrate that libturd cesspool called Kalifornia.
I don't know the exact quote, but assuming that was what was actually said, what should have been said is that the weather is being affected....
If AGW enthusiasts had been around in the 1930s they would have probably claimed that the decade-long dust bowl drought was caused by "climate change."
Poor farming practices combined with drought caused the dust bowl.
Today we're farming more land around the world, feeding more people than ever. That has to influence climate.
But giving Obama money isn't going to "fix" the climate...
And of course, there were the huge droughts that drove the Anazazi Indidans out of their pueblos much earlier, (i.e. before White explorers arrived) in the SW. So low precipitation is likely the norm in the desert SW.
The interesting thing is that both climate and weather are driven by the same natural processes on the time periods are different (weather = shorter term, typically 1 day-1 year). These processes are non-linear with multiple feedback loops. In many cases scientists don't even know the signs, much less the magnitudes of these feedbacks. And that's why predictions of both temperature and precipitation are so poor. (If its raining right now, it will likely be doing so in 5-10 minutes, but in a week is anyones guess)
I'm confused. Farming influences climate now?
Yes. Yes. Yes it does and is, in fact, the driver of man-made climate change for the last 7,000 years. It is keeping us out of the next ice age.
All the current discussions of man-influenced climate change are deficient without incorporating the effects of agriculture since its inception. Prof William Ruddiman nailed this in the early 2000s prior to the climate change hysteria. Read his Scientific American article and your views on what is really happening regarding climate will never be the same.
They certainly are incorporated...
Do you have a link?
Stewart Brand brings this up in chapter 8 of 'Whole Earth Discipline' "It's All Gardening". He recommends Charles Mann's (not Micheal Mann lol) 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005).
Brand says:
"No wonder the reforesting of the continent caused the drawdown of atmospheric CO2, noted by climatologist William Ruddiman. Before Columbus arrived, according to Mann,
Agriculture occured in as much as two thirrds of what is now the continental US, with large swathes of the south west terraced and irrigated. Among the maize fields in the Midwest and Southeast, mounds by the thousand stippled the land. The forests of the eastern seaboard had been peeled back from the coasts, which were now lined with farms. Salmon nets stretched across almost every ocean-bound stream in the Northwest. And almost everywhere there was Indian fire."
------
I think the idea is that regrowth of American forests gave us the little ice-age?
------
Whole Earth Discipline:Why dense cities, nuclear power, transgenic crops, restored wildlands, and geoengineering are neccessary. 2009/2010 Stewart Brand, founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog
Thats hilarious. Thanks for sharing that one.
"Thats" funny. Thanks for the six properly spelled words. That's really elevated our understanding...
Thanks for that bit of information. Ill look into it.
+ 1/2 for promising to look into it. get back to us in a timely manner for the other +1/2
And a 1/2 point to you if you read the above abstract (a couple of posts above) to a paper that invokes thermodynamics and physics to show that GHE does not apply to a body such as the earth (If I understood it correctly) with a high transparency of atmosphere and an active water cycle.
Gong! Sorry mak, we were talking about agriculture and how it does not apply to the moon, remember?
You are clearly very confused...
Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impact+of+agriculture+on+climate+change
Clown. Your google points to articles of climate impact on agriculture.
Funny. The google search results I got from Flak's link returned articles that discuss BOTH climate change impact ON agriculture and the impacts of agriculture ON climate. ie it's symbiotic.
Your comment is a half truth. Error of omission. Gee, I wonder why. Care to comment?
I looked at the first page.
so did I. And only the first page.
Its funny how people that accuse scientists and the like of various transgressions are always the ones that are shown to be using those very techniques to try and make their point...
You clearly having a reading comprehension problem...
Here is one of the links
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html
You can lead a horse to water....
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. clown.
Was anyone ever disputing that?
The AGW propagandists do their level best to distract from it, because most people know the planet is mostly covered in it, on average some few kilometers deep. It's going to be a bitch doing anything about that.
So explain to us how WV is a net forcing given that it condenses out of the atmosphere?
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE...
Apparently the laws of physics and thermodynamics have something to say about how it all works. Note in particular the sentence about the main influences when there is an active water cycle and high transparency in the atmosphere. Yes, that's right: solar irradiance is one of the main factors. Or are you suggesting that Newton was wrong as well?
[quote]
Abstract
In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is
transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different
components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same
conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces
and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their
mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's
atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,
Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle,
including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis
and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’
thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics.
[end quaote]
Tom Perkins and Al Gore deserve each other
must watch clasic Obama Press Conference on Debt Ceiling he looses his cool .
http://youtu.be/w3UaeC6AdGs
What do Franlin Raines, Goldman Sachs, the SEIU, Democratic Party control of Congress and 9/11 have in common?
The patent for Carbon Trading aka 'Cap & Trade' in the United States.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/franklin-raines/9/4a9/16b
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/05/14/crime-inc-what-greening-america-...
You appear to be an easily fooled muppet...
Quoting a Fox news Op-Ed? really?
Ad hominem- now there's a response. Fox has plenty of shit, unlike CNN, MSNBC or CNBC which are 100% shit.
Wow...
So we agree that MSM has serious issues... At least CNN and MSNBC can get science issues sort of right....