This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -





\facepalm....
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6007/20140212/warmest-winter-oly...
Now who are you going to believe? Flakmeister or your own lying eyes? lol.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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]
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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....
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?
Zzzzz....
I just gave you two 30 year old predictions verified at the 10% level... You have offered nothing but spin and bullshit...
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.
Do you drive?
They have been haarping it for so long...
was it wrong to 'assume' they haarp to change the climate?
So, what say you?
tHAARPtf ?
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.
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...
"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.
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
It's the sun. Mini Ice Age may be coming if the sun doesn't kick in soon.
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.
the ice cores impeach your claim
Sorry to correct you, but CO2 is not pollution - it's necessary for every bit of life on this planet.
gmak - Damned right, lower carbon, no crops, no animals, no life. For those who don't believe, get a chemistry book.
And in case you were not aware too much will kill you...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
Here: Warming preceeds CO2 rise.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371
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.
I keep presenting results from peer reviewed papers convieniently organized at skeptical science...
Big difference...
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.
If it is such a mockery, why can't asshats like Tisdale get published anywhere...
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.
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/
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....
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?
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..
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.
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...
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
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...
IT'S A MODEL. It's not reality. It's something made up that is influenced by the prejudices of the modellers. lol. clown.
It clearly flew way over your head...
Just like the MBS, CDO, CDO-squared models. Yeah, that finished well.
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.