This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

White House: "Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"

Bruce Krasting's picture




 

 

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

 

elninorain_edited-1

 

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:

 

 

noaadata

 

 

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???

U.S. President Obama gets direction from White House science adviser Holdren during event on South Lawn at White House in Washington

 

 
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:00 | 4441791 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Yeah.....they sure nailed it with Obama didn't they?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:21 | 4439300 kenny500c
kenny500c's picture

So they believe that if the average temp was 1 degree less none of these storms would have occured? Idiots.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:29 | 4439313 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Stuid is as stupid does...

What they believe is more along the lines of if you fuck with the Jet Stream by having the Arctic Ice melt (loosing the temperature gradient) you will get all kinds of unintended conseqences...

Also if sea level is higher and the atmosphere has more water vapor...

BTW, globally 1 degree is a shitload of energy...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:48 | 4439688 raeb
raeb's picture

BTW, how does melting ice raise the water level?  Put some ice in a glass full of water and watch it melt.  The water in the glass will not rise.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:50 | 4440376 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well duh, the ice on land is what matters...

Are you deliberately trying to be thick?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:45 | 4442057 gmak
gmak's picture

right. that same ice that trapped the ship full of fools alarmists who had gone to observe the vanishing stuff in the summer. snicker.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:32 | 4439990 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Melting ice to a rise in ocean level?

The reference is often to the melting ice/glaciers over the land continent of Antarctica slipping into the ocean.

It may also refer to water increasing in volume when warmed.

Even a slight increase, magnified over the volume of the oceans could be significant.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:47 | 4439494 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

A one degree change up or down is statistical noise. If we're going to restrict/reorganize our entire way of life over a one degree change, we truly are idiots on a global scale.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:01 | 4439545 Flakmeister
Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:12 | 4439582 gmak
gmak's picture

Any point that begins with "confirms hockey stick" which is a model that generates a hockey stick no matter what the inputs - is just not worth reading.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:36 | 4439657 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hee, hee, hee...

And do you want to see how McIntyre and McKittrick pulled off that bit of fraud? Wegman of all people inadvertantly outed them

http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-s...

Besides, the Hockey stick has been verified by many studies using different techniques...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstruct...

That dog of your's done quit hunting a while ago...

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:16 | 4439940 gmak
gmak's picture

Cherry picker. What about this.

 

Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect

 

Taken here:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:35 | 4439997 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ar you seriously bring that in as support?

Did you forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report

Wegman's institution, George Mason University, confirmed in October 2010 that they were investigating misconduct charges, following a March 2010 formal complaint by Raymond S. Bradleyalleging plagiarism and fabrications in the Wegman Report. A 250-page study by computer scientist John Mashey, posted on the "Deep Climate" website, claims that 35 of the 91 pages in the Wegman Report were plagiarized, and "often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." Wegman responded that he was "very well aware of the report", but at the university's request would not comment further until all issues were settled.[72] Reviews by outside experts contacted by USA Today found the plagiarism obvious and inappropriate, with social network analysispartly copied from Wikipedia. Wegman said there was "speculation and conspiracy theory" in John Mashey's analysis, and said that "[t]hese attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar." He stated that the Wegman Report never "intended to take intellectual credit for any aspect of paleoclimate reconstruction science or for any original research aspect of social network analysis."[73]

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:47 | 4440033 gmak
gmak's picture

and yet their work was peer-reviewed. So much for the quality of that process, right?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:49 | 4440368 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep, mistakes are made and quickly weeded out, that is how peer review and science works...

Outright fraud can be harder to ferret out like McIntyres.  Fortunately sunshine is a great cleanser.... 

Don't believe me?

http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-s...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:39 | 4441265 gmak
gmak's picture

And Mann who still hasn't released his data. There is the biggest fraud of all. 

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 10:21 | 4441534 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It is completely in the public and has been for years...

Here for example

http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-2-2012-07-24-...

and here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

It;s not Michaels fault that you don;t understand how to analyse it...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:53 | 4439519 akarc
akarc's picture

Add 1 to that 1 and you start having probs

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:42 | 4439480 DOT
DOT's picture

BTW, you are just pure bull-shit if you give a delta without the baseline.

Study question for Flakmeister: What is the mean enthalpy for the planet Earth?

Extra credit: How many of the models produced and agreed upon by the IPCC have been accurately predictive?

PHD level: What is the derived corelation on predictive accuracy given in the IPCC Report on Error ? And how does this compate to the heteroskedasticity of other regressive models?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 15:58 | 4442623 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Predictive? Hell, I'd settle for models that simply identified all the relevant system states and were capable of using this set to merely ANALYZE (and perhaps explain) our observations. I'd even spot these idiots some cred and further lower the bar to accept population stats instead of specific events as useful outputs from these hackneyed monstrosities. As some of us might recognize though, it CAN NEVER be.

AGW claims are writing checks our limited knowledge of nonlinear dynamics just can't cash. This is especially true if one's goal is to use the information obtained from these ill-posed and ill-conditioned systems to change fundamental human behavior over the whole of its civilization. No doubt the whole argument relies on a dishonest use of mathematics. I call fatal conceit.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 19:32 | 4443215 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

I think you're conflating the politicians involved with the scientists involved.

Idiots? I would like to see you stand in a room with any one of the AR5 working group's men and women, let alone all four together, and suggest to their faces that their efforts have produced hackneyed monstrosities that are ill-posed and ill-conditioned implying they are conceited idiots. They would likely ask "what were you expecting?" Tell them that the science serves no purpose whatsoever and should stop immediately and that they should confess to being dishonest because you have no doubts. You are settled, no doubts at all.

The science is attempting to provide the best information possible. What the politicians do with it is another matter.

I read an interesting book last summer called 'The Science Of Liberty' by Timothy Ferriss. Amazing what one can learn from a discount book at the grocery store ; )

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 00:02 | 4444085 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

From rtcc.org:

Opening a weeklong conference in Stockholm, where the IPCC report will be scrutinized by governments and policymakers, Thomas Stocker said that the world still had a choice in whether to avoid climate-related catastrophe.

“Our assessment shows that we do have a choice in shaping our future,” said Stocker, who along with Dahe Qin is responsible for chairing Working Group 1 of the enormous international report, which deals with the physical science of climate change.

“Scenarios that have assumed determined interventions and strong mitigation offer a chance of keeping global mean warming under 1.5C.”

He added: “On the other hand, scenarios that envisage continued CO2 emissions or postponed reductions of these emissions indicate that options of limiting global warming to 2C may become unobtainable.

Stocker's statements are absent any doubt. Furthermore, he's not reluctant to suggest what the pols "should do". I on the other hand, reserve alot of doubt, particularly where global "determined interventions and strong mitigation" are concerned.

http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/95-01-001.pdf

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 02:15 | 4444299 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Stocker's talking about AR4 but regardless with AR5 WG1 the doubt about AGW stands at 3% which I recall is a slight decrease from AR4WG1. Would you quantify in % what you mean by "i... reserve alot of doubt."

"The procedures address all steps leading to the preparation of IPCC material starting with the scoping process, nomination process and selection of authors, preparation of drafts by the writing teams, the review by experts and governments and finally the approval, adoption and acceptance process in plenary sessions." IPCC Principles and Procedures

After everything that goes into these Assessments, do you really expect the guy to stand up and state: "ummm we're not 100% sure so please ignore/reject this report."? 

I got punched in the face with the Libertarian, "don't tread on me" attitude over this 25 years ago so it's ok, I get it. I kinda like Gary Johnson and the Fairtax. But after watching things unfold for 25 years, it's time we all accept that the greater meaning of free speech is that  it's not just about having and voicing your own opinions, it's about sharing information in an effort to gather as much as possible then sift through it to get the info needed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for everyone. Environmental destruction on the scale these reports indicate are denying people on this planet the very thing America claims to want to bring to the rest of the world (that freedom and democracy stuff)


Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:11 | 4439573 Kayman
Kayman's picture

 DOT

Whoooaaaa there cowboy. Don't be making Flak jump of the edge of the earth...

For a (zealot) everything is pretext.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:21 | 4439616 DOT
DOT's picture

Jump!

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:05 | 4439271 Poofter Priest
Poofter Priest's picture

I'm not really sure what this article is about.

Of course 'climate change' would affect all weather.

Yes, California is having a drought as El Nino has not come up. But El Nino has not arrived three years running and that could be due to climate change. Although historically, El Nino and La Nina take turns.

But there is a larger drought cycle occurring in the entire south west that is about 25 years old and things are about (within the next three years) to get 'dry' for some places that pull water from the Colorado River.

And THAT is really going to suck.

Yes....I believe in climate change. The earth has always had climate change. To me the question is 'is mankind now contributing to climate change?' to which I strongly suspect the answer is yes. The answer I don't know is 'to what degree'.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:07 | 4439559 Kayman
Kayman's picture

"El Nino and La Nina" . Are these some kind of magic events ?

If you want to capture carbon- plant coniferous trees.  

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:30 | 4439641 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are on a roll... Don't stop now..

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:25 | 4439430 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

A well measured post...

It is actuallly worse than that:

Given the many factors that affect the global average temperate, e.g. the sun, orbital cycles, the underlying trend would be slight cooling. We have dumped so much GHG into the atmosphere that essentially all of the observed warming is due to us. And if it were not for the S02 an other aerosols that we emit (they are a negative forcing) it would warming even faster...

And yes, climate is always changing very slowly, but it is now occuring at incredible pace and speed kills...

 

If you are interested, I suggest this:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-intermediate.htm

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:57 | 4439531 akarc
akarc's picture

And as with everything else, momentum counts. The only question in my  mind is have we crossed the point of no return? "YET!"

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:43 | 4439484 gmak
gmak's picture

hmmmmm. is poffter priest one of your sock puppets?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:59 | 4439258 f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

Fuck You Obama/Holdren! Nobody gives a Flying-Fuck about anything you two retards have to say. Do the world a favor and move to the South Pole. Save a Polar Bear or two if it's so important to you.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 22:09 | 4441037 Curt W
Curt W's picture

Polar bears are only found at the north pole, there are zero polar bears at the south end.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:51 | 4439241 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

Would the four exposed cores running uncontrolled 24/7 on the north-eastern Japanese seaboard have anything...anything... to do with conditions in the Pacific?

 

Like interrupting usual currents with a knock-on effect?

 

I'm no meteorologist or oceanographer but I'd like at least for someone to have looked at at... 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:37 | 4439330 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I can assure that if it mattered in the way you think it might, someone competant would have commented...

Scientists are sortof up on this kind of stuff...

And I am being far kinder to your comment than it deserves...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:03 | 4439549 Kayman
Kayman's picture

According to Flak "scientists"- inferring a majority of scientists- agree that the earth is warming/ climate change- being caused by nasty people.

Naturally the earth is still flat, since a majority of "scientists" once believed it.

The earth's climate has never been static but Flak would have you believe we can control the climate to what he thinks climate ought to be.  Good luck with that.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:48 | 4439685 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

Yeah well, Flak, you seem to have a strong opinion on this so I presume you speak from a position of knowledge. All I can find (in about 30 seconds of research) is this: 

 

"Oyashio (???, "Parental Tide"), also known as Oya SiwoOkhotsk or the Kurile current, is a cold subarctic ocean current that flows south and circulates counterclockwise in the western North Pacific Ocean. The waters of the Oyashio Current originate in the Arctic Ocean and flow southward via the Bering Sea, passing through the Bering Strait and transporting cold water from the Arctic Sea into the Pacific Ocean. It collides with the Kuroshio Current off the eastern shore of Japan to form the North Pacific Current (or Drift). The current has an important impact on the climate of the Russian Far East, mainly in Kamchatka and Chukotka, where the northern limit of tree growth is moved south up to ten degrees compared with the latitude it can reach in inland Siberia. The waters of the Oyashio Current form probably the richest fishery in the world owing to the extremely high nutrient content of the cold water and the very high tides (up to ten metres) in some areas - which further enhances the availability of nutrients. However, the Oyashio Current also causes Vladivostok to be the most equatorward port to seasonally freeze and require icebreaking ships to remain open in winter. Nonetheless, this has relatively little effect on the fish yield through the Sea of Okhotsk because the large tides mean freezing does not occur so easily.

Another important feature of the Oyashio Current is that during glacial periods, when lower sea level causes the formation of the Bering land bridge, the current cannot flow and in the regions the Oyashio affects today, the level of cooling with the onset of glacial conditions (after an interglacial) is much less than in other areas of the Earth at similar latitudes. This allowed T?hoku and Hokkaid?, which were the only areas of East Asia that receive enough snowfall to potentially form glaciers, to remain unglaciated except at high elevations during periods when Europe and North America were largely glaciated. This lack of glaciation explains why, despite its present climate being much colder than most of Europe, East Asia has retained 96 percent of Pliocene tree genera, whereas Europe has retained only 27%."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyashio_Current

 

Seems to me this current might be fundamental to the operation of the North Pacific Current and hence the balance of the Pacific in general. Of particular note would be the interaction of the Oyashio Current with the warmer Korushio Current which it usually deflects eastwards into the North Pacific Current.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuroshio_Current


Still, what the fuck do I know? Hopefully our resident expert Flak can fill us in... 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:43 | 4439833 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The current moves ocean heat around... it doesn't change the overall level..

And the current has been in play for a long time, what exactly is your point?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 16:19 | 4440133 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

Well...duh?

Four melted nuclear cores, plus associated cooling pool contents, being cooled with seawater which is then dumped into the ocean - oh, sorry, you probably believe its being stored up in tanks for "disposal", do you?

So for sure that would not affect the sea temperature after two years of barely sub-critical fission...

Then again, you are probably right and there would be no discernable effect which will be why all nuclear power stations dump their radioactive heated water into the sea...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:42 | 4440358 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you realize that the Earths oceans are gaining heat at the rate of 2 Hiroshimas Bombs per second and have been for 50 years...

And the rate is getting faster, now up to 12, every second..

Summarized very nicely here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-...

Feel free to follow the links to the original research papers....

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:37 | 4441251 gmak
gmak's picture

And how many Hiroshima bombs of energy hit the earth every second?  Here. You do the math.

 

The Sun deposits 61.34 billion Hiroshimas worth of energy onto the Earth every year.

each day the Sun hits the Earth with the equivalent of 125 million Hiroshima bombs, and greenhouse gases (most of which come from natural sources) hit the Earth with the equivalent of another 230 million Hiroshima bombs.

So every day, the Earth’s surface receives with 887 times more ”Hiroshima bombs of heat” than the net increase SkS attributes to human enhancement of the greenhouse effect. 

ie your 2 hiroshima bombs per second (actually your precious Skeptical Science - are you the owner? - said 4 per second - but why quibble. ) is just round off error - no matter how scary you want to make it sound with that metric. 

The third refuge of a con man is to create a danger where none exists with a horrible-sounding base line for the measurement. 

 

Read this:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/11/27/skeptical-sciences-hiroshima-bom...

And this. Note the comparison between the scare mongers and alarmists and how much energy the sun itself dumps on our planet. 

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/sun-dumps-500-times-as-many-hiroshima-b...

and in case you don't get the point, The sun's output kind of makes your 2 per second look like a limp dick, no?

 

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 02:07 | 4441524 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Psst..

Ask Jo how many Hiroshimas the Earth emits every second and how many are incident?

Do you really thing that everyone is that stupid???

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:29 | 4439637 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Flak thinks no such nonsense....

You might think it, but then again someone has to be dumbest cluck in the room if you catch my drift...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:35 | 4439221 wonderatitall
wonderatitall's picture

i blame chris christie. i mean bush or romney. its why only retarded people vote democrat. the christers will save us, oh hell, we're doomed

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:26 | 4439206 kurt
kurt's picture

WEATHER MODIFICATION

CHEMTRAILING

HAARP

THE 

TRUTH

WILL OUT

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:26 | 4439305 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So why is there no snow in Sochi?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:57 | 4440405 Your Creator
Your Creator's picture

Sochi is getting it's normal weather. It's not cold in Sochi.  49F is their normal daytime temperature for this time of season.  Use your brain and look it up yourself and don't just parrot leftist insanity.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:44 | 4441820 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

So why is there no snow in Sochi?

 

Sochi is a city in Krasnodar Krai, Russia, located on the Black Sea coast near the border between Georgia/Abkhazia and Russia. 

 It is one of the very few places in Russia with a  subtropical climate, with warm to hot summers and mild winters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:19 | 4439425 fedupwhiteguy
fedupwhiteguy's picture

For the last week i've been hearing that this is "no snow in Sochi"!!!! And yet, yesterday i watch some HD vid of the snow boarding events and low and behold in the background were some beautiful, nearby mountains filled with the white stuff!! And those mountains had ski runs on them. Maybe some of the events are being held at the base of said mountains and the snow is machine created to preserve what little snow there is.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:03 | 4439853 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

Peaks in the background are higher than where the events are set up.  Temperature decreases roughly 3-5 degrees per 1,000' of elevation gained.

Like most Olympics, location was chosen for "political" reasons, aka money.  Even in a good year, Sochi is a sketchy location.  Sochi's on snow events are being held at a relatively low elevation in a sub-tropical climate.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!