This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:42 | 4439482 gmak
gmak's picture

Now who are you going to believe? Flakmeister or your own lying eyes? lol.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:52 | 4439367 gmak
gmak's picture

Because it's a summer resort destination with average historic winter temperatures above zero - even in the mountains. 

 

So why do 49 of 50 US states have record snow falls?  Why is the Antarctic ice extent at record levels. Why is Lake Superior going to freeze completely over for the first time in 80 years.  Wake up! You will be praying for warmer weather soon as people die of the effects of a drop in average temperature - including less food.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:11 | 4439406 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Because the the Jet Stream has been pinched and locked in place and Eastern North America and Siberia have been the only places on the planet with below average temperatures..

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/link_maps.gif

Get a fucking clue and quit projecting...

As far as Sochi goes, if weather control was so easy and ubiquitous as the poster suggested, then they would be making it snow there...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:42 | 4439477 gmak
gmak's picture

I suppose now you're going to blame 0.03% of the atmosphere as the key to 'locking the jetstream in place' . You really are a clown. That chart says nothing. It shows nothing. The jetstream moves on it's own. How do you lock it in place?

 

I think you should ask the MIdWest about cold temperatures. Your assetions are basically lies. But that is the first refuge of con artists, right>

 

Go peddle your lies of doom somewhere else. YOU are part of the problem.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:52 | 4439515 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you have anything but lame strawmen?

BTW, the midwest was a lot colder in the 70's...

Why don;t you google Blocking Pattern and get back to us...

Blocking patterns never used to sit in place for months...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 14:07 | 4442337 gmak
gmak's picture

http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_DunnSigouin_e...

 

Arctic warming and sea ice have NO impact on blocking.  Thanks for the suggestion to google.

 

[quote]

Abstract Observed blocking trends are diagnosed to test the hypothesis that recent Arctic warming and

sea ice loss has increased the likelihood of blocking over the Northern Hemisphere. To ensure robust results,

we diagnose blocking using three unique blocking identification methods from the literature, each applied

to four different reanalyses. No clear hemispheric increase in blocking is found for any blocking index, and

while seasonal increases and decreases are found for specific isolated regions and time periods, there is no

instance where all three methods agree on a robust trend. Blocking is shown to exhibit large interannual

and decadal variability, highlighting the difficulty in separating any potentially forced response from

 

natural variability.

 

[end quote]

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:57 | 4439529 gmak
gmak's picture

So what you are saying is that now we are back to temperatures of the 1970's when so-called climate scientists were warning us of an ice age?

clown.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:27 | 4439632 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

They were not saying that...

Papers predicting warming outnumbered cooling by a 6 to 1 margin

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediat...

Quit making shit up...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:47 | 4439683 gmak
gmak's picture

All I said is that YOU SAID we were back to the temperatures of the 1970;s - that is the important part of the sentence (cough - strawman - cough). In other words, we haven't had a temperature increase measured from this winter back to the 1970s. We are back where we started when your 6 to 1 (hah!) scientists in favour of global warming said we were going to have warming. They've also predicted wetter weather, drier weather, a melted arctic (completely() the death of all polar bears, beigger storms, more storms, yaddah yaddah yaddah. And yet none of the models have been able to predict what has happened for the last 15 years - and none certainly predicted this Winter.

There were papers on a coming ice age. Doesn't matter if they were in the minority. I didn't make it up. Scientists did predict it and it was picked up in the media. 

 

BTW you should really stop referencing skieptical scientist, home of the rabid revisonists. It does nothing for your credibility.

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:41 | 4439824 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If you were spinning any faster you would drill yourself in the ground...

And you really should stop making shit up or at least get better at it...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:43 | 4440024 gmak
gmak's picture

Google "global warming predictions wrong and you will see 2 million reasons why what I say is true. No one is making shit up except the global warming models.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:37 | 4440328 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Zzzzz....

You are now reduced to simplistic trolling...

Show me any verified prediction from a peer-reviewed paper that calls into question the role of anthropogenic C02... 

Show me anything as good as Hansen and Broeckers predictions from 30 years ago....

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:21 | 4440607 gmak
gmak's picture

Fort the third time

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...

By the way, none of the alarmist papers have verified predictions either.  Did they predict the last 15 years - NO! Why have none of them been able to replicate his prediction? 

I'm sure an adequate search of papers would find some predictions that are correct for any situation. But as anyone with a brain knows - he who predicts the future is lying, even if the prediction turns out to be right. (no one can know the future)

 

I don't have time to analyze his paper in detail - but the fact that he predicts 600 ppm to base his prediction on temperature rise shows that the prediction is wrong. We are not at 600 ppm , are we?

 

Again - he build a model. Has it predicted the last 15 years and the levelling off - no.

 

Stop trying to attrbute long range climate changes to a little bit of CO2. 

 

In the end, only time will judge who is exagerrating and who has their head buried in the sand. 

 

Before I go. Do you drive?

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 02:06 | 4441520 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Zzzzz....

I just gave you two 30 year old predictions verified at the 10% level... You have offered nothing but spin and bullshit...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 11:44 | 4442053 gmak
gmak's picture

Again. Why are papers you reference supposed to be vaild, and yet papers I reference that are peer-reviewed and published (yet contradict your hypotheses), you call spin and bullshit?

 

you can't even be consistent in what you accept as evidence. It's as if you can't face any reality other than the one you make up ... oh. wait.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:45 | 4441938 gmak
gmak's picture

Do you drive?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:34 | 4439219 old naughty
old naughty's picture

They have been haarping it for so long...

was it wrong to 'assume' they haarp to change the climate?

So, what say you?

tHAARPtf ?

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:26 | 4439205 Curt W
Curt W's picture

Since weather happens almost everyday, it has become the perfect scapegoat.

We missed our GDP numbers because. Pick one of the following.

It was too snowy

It was too cold

It was too wet

It was too dry

It was too hot

It was too windy

It was too cloudy

It was too sunny

 

And thats why we need to spend some of this money that we just printed.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:54 | 4439244 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

Here in UK David Cameron, our Dear Leader, has said that "money is no object" and he's going to "throw money at it".

So, no shortage of excuses for missing borrowing targets then...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:59 | 4440542 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

"Here in UK David Cameron, our Dear Leader, has said that "money is no object" and he's going to "throw money at it"."

Doesn't seem to be throwing money at the flooding.... for dredging and suchlike.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:38 | 4441478 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

You are correct sir -there was no money for dredging but there is now endless money for fixing the results of not dredging.

Welcome to the banana republic of (not so) Great Britain. Krugman must have creamed his jeans at the sheer broken windowness of it all 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:25 | 4439204 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

It's the sun.  Mini Ice Age may be coming if the sun doesn't kick in soon.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:39 | 4439332 boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

True.

It's not that there isn't "global warming", it's just that it's NOT from the pollution based causes the libs would promote.

It has to do with Sun cycles.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:02 | 4439895 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

the ice cores impeach your claim

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:48 | 4439353 gmak
gmak's picture

Sorry to correct you, but CO2 is not pollution - it's necessary for every bit of life on this planet.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:13 | 4440587 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

gmak - Damned right, lower carbon, no crops, no animals, no life. For those who don't believe, get a chemistry book.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:16 | 4439417 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And in case you were not aware too much will kill you...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 15:35 | 4442575 gmak
gmak's picture

tsk. Straw man. The point is CO2 is necessary for all life. More CO2 means more plant life, means more energy safely captured fom the sun.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:35 | 4439458 gmak
gmak's picture

And no CO2 will also kill you. How do you live if  all life dies on the planet?

Too much of anything will kil you. What's your point?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:50 | 4439505 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Lay off the strawmen...

It is very easy to discuss the role of C02 in the atmosphere in an abstract way without bringing up its role in plant life.. Very separate ideas... And nobody is arguing that there should be no C02....

Or are you delibertately trying to be thick?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:54 | 4439523 gmak
gmak's picture

Are you deliberately trying to be a clown. Your argument is a strawman. the termperature without CO2 doesn't matter. The argument at the heart of all these 'discussions' is whether or not the small amount of man-made CO2 is influencing the climate on the planet. 

 

History and real data shows that climate changes over long period of times have been due to other than CO2. There is no correlation between CO2 and rising temperature, except that CO2 increases AFTER termperature rises. 

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:22 | 4439620 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It certainly does matter as it demonstrates how power a small amout of C02 is in determining the temperature of the planet...

And do you think that a 40% anthropogenic increase is small you are truly a fool...

As for lagging, sorry you are woefully uninformed...

See figure 1 here from Shakun 2012

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

or here

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:44 | 4441935 gmak
gmak's picture

Here: Warming preceeds CO2 rise.

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:42 | 4439669 gmak
gmak's picture

You keep referencing skeptical science which is the clown of all alarmist sites. For every reference you pull up, I can show the opposite from somewhere else. This accomplishes nothing. Neither of us is going to change our opinion.

People have had to put up with the likes of you from the "Club of Rome" in the past, and we will again - no doubt.

I'm really not looking forward to the next mini-ice age, but at least I will have a bit of silence and not have to listen to you clowns any more. 

And for the record, I really hope that it doesn't happen, because Civilisation (which you seem determined to have end) has benefitted immensely from the increase in temperatures since the last ice age. To want society to go back to a time where there is not enough food to go around is the height of madness. But that says it all, doesn't it.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:38 | 4439816 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I keep presenting results from peer reviewed papers convieniently organized at skeptical science...

Big difference... 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:05 | 4439908 gmak
gmak's picture

some papers. and we've seen what a mockery 'peer-review' has become.  Yet you have the nuts to say I cherry pick. lol. clown.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:30 | 4439981 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If it is such a mockery, why can't asshats like Tisdale get published anywhere...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:40 | 4440015 gmak
gmak's picture

I have no idea. Perhaps because the process is a mockery and won't consider opposing points of view? It's a minor point. I'm still waiting for proof from you that your hypothesis is correct and I have seen none in spite of profanity and personal attacks on many here.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:29 | 4440324 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Here, this is the simplest model that shows without C02 you cannnot replicate the observed temperatures of the past 120 years

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/once-is-not-enough/

In the past I’ve explored simple energy balance models for the evolution of global average temperature. One of the important things to note is that a “1-box” energy balance model — in which the entire climate system is considered to have a single time constant — isn’t really sufficient. It can give a pretty good fit, but for a more realistic estimate you need at least two boxes. One represents rapid response to climate forcing — think of it as the “atmosphere” if you wish. The other is for slower response — think of it as “ocean” if you wish, or as “upper ocean,” or as “everything else.” One could be even more realistic with more than two boxes, after all the deep ocean certainly effects climate but with a longer time scale still, and there’s the cryosphere on top of it all, but rather than go the way of the full-blown computer simulation model, let’s see what happens if we just use a 2-box model with two time constants. We’ll think of box 1 as the atmosphere, so that it should correspond to the surface temperature we’re all familiar with.

 

Two simple coupled differential equations.... 

You can run it in Excel if you are capable enough to code it.....

Now run off and find somethings that the deniers have come up to explain the data so precisely....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 14:32 | 4442415 gmak
gmak's picture

Then how do you explain the chart showing the longest temperature record from the UK with CO2 overlaid - there is NO correlation (look at page 3 - I'll go get the link and bring it here in a bit.

 

 

A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied mathematics, University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance] and the longest continuous series of instrumental temperature measurements in the world, the Central England Temperature [CET] record spanning 350 years since 1659.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/05/new-paper-finds-remarkable-corr...

 

Here is that record. Note that it has been a steady regular and gentle upward slope since 1659. The first chart maps CO2 against it - no correlation.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/01/Centralenglandtemperatur...

 

Here is a more detailed graph. 

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Central%20England%20ai...

 

ANd before Flak gets going - yes, it's just one location on the globe but it is still part of the earth and there should be an impact from global climate change. The local temperature over almost 400 years should be long enough, no?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:46 | 4442744 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Any fool can pick inappropriate scales.... besides the dependence is logarithmic... \facepalm

----

As for Tung's paper, one of the oldest tricks in book is to subtract a quantity that implicitly has the signal in it..

Tung and Zhou also subtracted the AMO index, which is defined as detrended N. Atlantic sea surface temperatures. It mostly adds energy to the surface by cooling the deep ocean (see below). Note that the AMO index is defined solely on temperatures, so anthropogenicglobal warming can increase the AMO index. This means subtracting it potentially ignores AGW.

Their analysis concludes that:

"The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade..." [Tung and Zhou 2013]

First, that's unphysical. Anthropogenic warming is caused primarily by the radiative forcings of greenhouse gases, which didn't skyrocket until about 1950 when our population and energy use per person both skyrocketed. More comprehensive analyses also show total anthropogenic radiative forcings increasing dramatically after 1950. Basic physics show that the anthropogenic warming rate should be higher after 1950.

Second, their unphysical claim isn't really a conclusion; it's actually the assumption that (if true) would have justified removing the AMO to determine the anthropogenic warmingtrend. Their paper is a circular argument. Here's why:

"The removal of the AMO in the determination of the anthropogenic warmingtrend is justified if one accepts our previous argument that this multidecadal variability is mostly natural." [Tung and Zhou 2013]

No. Removing the AMO to determine anthropogenic warming would only be justified if detrending the AMO from 1856-2011 actually removed the trend due to anthropogenicwarming. But that's unphysical: basic physics show that the anthropogenic warming rate should be higher after 1950. As a result, their approach overestimates anthropogenicwarming before 1950, and underestimates it after 1950.

Warming the globe also warms the N. Atlantic. Tung and Zhou have subtracted N. Atlantic temperatures that contain an anthropogenic trend over the last 33 years from global temperatures, and seem surprised to find a lower anthropogenic trend over the last 33 years. I'm not.

Tung and Zhou implicitly assumed that the anthropogenic warming rate is constant before and after 1950, and (surprise!) that's what they found. This led them to circularly blame about half of global warming on regional warming. Where'd that heat come from, if not fromCO2?

Since the words "energy" and "heat" don't appear in Tung and Zhou 2013, let's approximate the energy they're ignoring. Warming a crude model of the atmosphere and upper layer of the ocean by 1°C requires about 10,000,000 megaton atomic bombs of energy. Tung and Zhou 2013 magic away 0.1°C/decade over the last 33 years, so they've ignored about 3,000,000 megaton atomic bombs of energy.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 00:31 | 4441352 gmak
gmak's picture

I don't see how this says anything about CO2. You may have posted the wrong link. see for yourself. In fact, the authour says as his main point:  (see no mention of CO2).  Neither of the boxes has CO2 as a parameter.

The salient point is that those who are trying to “explain” temperature change over the last decade are barking up the wrong tree. There’s nothing to explain. Temperature has continued to evolve according to climate forcing and known noise factors like ENSO. There is certainly no need to invoke a mysterious influence of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation or some mythical 60-year cycle. There’s nothing to explain.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 02:03 | 4441503 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So show a me a paper or link out lining the forcings and their values that explain what we measure...

A very simple request which is beyond your abilities:

-------

You clearly did not follow through the links within... Assuming you actually read it (which I doubt)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080501123432/http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...

http://web.archive.org/web/20090820163116/http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...

----

Hey, if your don;t understand it, ok... But keep your opinions to yourself...

 

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 14:18 | 4445199 gmak
gmak's picture

oops. I guess you misunderstood. I forgot to put the [quote] [end quote]. The second paragaph is pulled from the conclusion of the link to the article that you provided. It's not my opinion. So you are saying that you disagree with the article that you yourself put a link up to to support some obscure obtuse point?  Or are you just trying to be argumentative and insulting?  If you want me to go levels deep in links, post them - not some unrelated article. Otherwise you risk coming across as a troll, something which is totally unnecessary if you have a valid point.

By the way - so sorry to hear that water vapour has declined as CO2 has gone up - which appears to explain the pause we have seen. Ouch. That seems to be the opposite of what all those models (coug CDO cough) have built in.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

 

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 16:01 | 4445456 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yawn...

By the way the decline in water vapor is in the upper atmosphere, one of the predictions of C02 driven warming...

As for my CD0 modelling days, it was pretty clear that the assumptions about national housing prices always going up was bullshit..

We all knew it...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:11 | 4440582 gmak
gmak's picture

IT'S A MODEL. It's not reality. It's something made up that is influenced by the prejudices of the modellers. lol. clown.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:51 | 4441500 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It clearly flew way over your head...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:27 | 4443017 gmak
gmak's picture

Just like the MBS, CDO, CDO-squared models. Yeah, that finished well.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:25 | 4442120 weburke
weburke's picture

luckily for men in general, some men can move big swirly things around. (and for your cap and trade cause). Regrettably, no power is available to move vast amounts of water around, a need we now have.

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