This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -





Yeah.....they sure nailed it with Obama didn't they?
So they believe that if the average temp was 1 degree less none of these storms would have occured? Idiots.
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...
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.
Well duh, the ice on land is what matters...
Are you deliberately trying to be thick?
right. that same ice that trapped the ship full of fools alarmists who had gone to observe the vanishing stuff in the summer. snicker.
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.
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.
Take a close look at figure 1 here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html
taken from
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
1 degree is enormous...
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.
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...
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
Ar you seriously bring that in as support?
Did you forget about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report
and yet their work was peer-reviewed. So much for the quality of that process, right?
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...
And Mann who still hasn't released his data. There is the biggest fraud of all.
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...
Add 1 to that 1 and you start having probs
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?
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.
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 ; )
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
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)
DOT
Whoooaaaa there cowboy. Don't be making Flak jump of the edge of the earth...
For a (zealot) everything is pretext.
Jump!
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'.
"El Nino and La Nina" . Are these some kind of magic events ?
If you want to capture carbon- plant coniferous trees.
You are on a roll... Don't stop now..
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
And as with everything else, momentum counts. The only question in my mind is have we crossed the point of no return? "YET!"
hmmmmm. is poffter priest one of your sock puppets?
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.
Polar bears are only found at the north pole, there are zero polar bears at the south end.
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...
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...
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.
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 Siwo, Okhotsk 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...
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?
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...
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....
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?
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???
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...
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
WEATHER MODIFICATION
CHEMTRAILING
HAARP
THE
TRUTH
WILL OUT
So why is there no snow in Sochi?
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.
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
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.
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.