This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 - 00:20 | 4441336 gmak
gmak's picture

15% of the population (alarmists) believe that CO2 has a greater impact on climate than the sun.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:50 | 4439506 gmak
gmak's picture

Good. When you remove all the CO2, come see us with the results. Clown. What a foolish argument. What does it matter what the termperature would be without CO2?  We'd all be dead.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:15 | 4439595 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Whats the matter, can't grasp the question? 

Idiot...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:33 | 4439651 gmak
gmak's picture

No. I get the question. You're asking what the termperature would be without CO2. The answer is that nobody cares. It's a moot point. You might as well ask what the temperature would be without oxygen.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:07 | 4440261 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Still evading the question....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 13:55 | 4442311 gmak
gmak's picture

You;ve already posted the answer.  Temperature would be lower without CO2 - so?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:27 | 4442692 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

How much lower is exactly what the question is about... If only to demonstrate how far a little C02 goes...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:24 | 4443007 gmak
gmak's picture

To the downside. Not to the upsdie. It's asumptotic there.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:54 | 4447156 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Asumptotic...

\facepalm

Somehow that seems perfect given the conversation....

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:54 | 4439235 weburke
weburke's picture

Changes 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:56 | 4439249 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

"The theater owners MUST have a plan for when they somehow get to a future that does not incude so much systemic living."

There...fixed it fer y'all ;o)

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:58 | 4439255 weburke
weburke's picture

indeed!

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:21 | 4439192 theliberalliberal
theliberalliberal's picture

yes, the weather is ALL climate change.

although what did we have before climate change? un-weather? 

 

the world is getting so hot its getting cold.  what a load of shit.  

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:56 | 4440533 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

theliberalliberal Up votes to infinity.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:37 | 4439320 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Leave it to the politicians to find a way to tax the weather.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-...

www.infowars.com/arctic-sea-ice-area-highest-for-the-date-in-over-ten-ye...

Goes perfectly with fascism:

www.infowars.com/australians-face-huge-fines-for-speaking-ill-of-new-car...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:54 | 4439360 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why don;t you stick climate gate into google trends and finally clue in to that no cares about or is buying that bullshit...

In fact, it looks like a hockey stick in reverse...

BTW, the Arctic ice looks to be at an all time low for this time of year:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:29 | 4440775 Crusader Rabbit
Crusader Rabbit's picture

double post

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:14 | 4440734 Crusader Rabbit
Crusader Rabbit's picture

I'm pretty sure I remember The Arctic existed before 1980 or maybe your chart is just missing the years before that "All Time Low" was set.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:42 | 4441484 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Usually, all time low is taken to mean "within the experiemental data record" which is is indeed... And as for 2 million years ago, that really isn't relevant to today...

It is the lowest in at least 1400 years and according to deniers, it was so much warmer backk then....

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

And while it is not about ice, here is direct evidece that the Arctic temps are the highest in the last 44,000 years..

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-warming-unprecedented-i....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:34 | 4441917 gmak
gmak's picture

You raise a valid point. That study in the scientific american article certainly is food for thought.

However, the study looked at only at Baffin Island. Judith Curry references studies that seem to indicate that one cannot conclude that the results are from AGW due to singular location. I believe that the conclusion is that the data varies depending on where one is in the Arctic and that a single island cannot be extrapolated across the entire arctic. Once again - apparently contradictory studies.

Here is a quote from Dr. Curry's article:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/25/unprecedented-arctic-warming/

[quote]

Miller et al. assume that the Baffin Island melting is attributable to AGW.  Maybe it is.  In the Chasing Ice post, I noted that the peak glacier discharge from West Greenland occurred in the 1930?s. The Ellesmere ice shelves also saw a melt back earlier in the 20th century circa the 1930?s.  The Miller et al. paper does not remark on any evidence of warming in the 1930?s, or the LIA or MWP for that matter, but note only a cooling over the past 5000 years, with marked warming in the past 100 years.  The reasoning behind the Miller et al. conclusions is rather complex, with a number of assumptions, I’m not sure what to make of their arguments.

[end quote]

Here is the abstract of one of the papers referenced. It seems that there has been climate variability including warming periods within the time frame you mentioned.

http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.html

and a main point from the abstract:

[quote] - emphasis added

In contrast, there is evidence of several abrupt warming and cooling events, such as in the 15th and 16th centuries, partly accompanied by corresponding changes in sodium concentrations. These abrupt changes are assumed to be related to sea-ice cover variability in the Barents and Kara seas region, which might be caused by shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns. Our results indicate a significant impact of internal climate variability on Arctic climate change in the last millennium.

[end quote]

 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:46 | 4441940 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The evidence keeps piling up on one side, mine, and the bullshit and blog spin on the other, yours...

Give it up buddy....

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 11:39 | 4442045 gmak
gmak's picture

Why are studies that you reference valid, yet studies that I reference you call spin and bullshit? Aren't they all valid peer-reviewed published scientific papers?

 

Is that sweat on your brow? Must be the global warming.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:26 | 4442687 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Because you only seem to pull out papers that support my position...

From the above

The long-term cooling trend in ?18O is related to a decline in summer insolation but also to the growth of the AN ice cap as indicated by decreasing sodium concentrations. Neither a pronounced Medieval Climate Anomaly nor a Little Ice Age are detectable in the AN ?18O record. In contrast, there is evidence of several abrupt warming and cooling events, such as in the 15th and 16th centuries, partly accompanied by corresponding changes in sodium concentrations. 

And quoting Judith Curry's blog is not peer-reviewed evidence...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 18:24 | 4443005 gmak
gmak's picture

The bold part is the essence in my quote. The quote is taken from a peer-reviewed published paper, I believe.  Here. I'll repeat it for you. INTERNAL climate variability.... 

 

Our results indicate a significant impact of internal climate variability on Arctic climate change in the last millennium.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 23:34 | 4443943 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And quantified, i.e. the actual data, the MWP doesn't show up... i.e. it was a local not global phenomena...

And that was your original point, so quit trying to move the goal posts...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:58 | 4439379 gmak
gmak's picture

ANd the Antarctic ice is at an all time high. Plus Lake Superior will freeze over for the first time in 80 years. Why are we seeing record snow falls and low temperatures?

By the way, here is a picture of the sea ice anomaly for the Arctic for 2014. As you can see, it's a very small difference.  Stop being an alarmist.

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent_hires...

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:55 | 4440052 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

gmak

Anomaly?

Comparing the record low point (not average) of sea ice cover in one year,

to the average sea ice cover in a following year to claim an INCREASE of sea ice

is no "anomaly". It is blatant attempt to deceive by a false use of statistics.

 

Moreover, not just the extent cover of ice has shrunk greatly, but the volume thickness of the ice has greatly shrunk.

http://news.yahoo.com/arctic-sea-ice-melt-season-getting-longer-14164733...

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:08 | 4440573 gmak
gmak's picture

As it has before, and as it will again. To think that the times we are living in are unique and due to CO2 is a facile argument at best.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 21:11 | 4440852 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

gmak

you invent a straw man argument

to avoid what my comment actually stated.

The alleged "anamoly" you referenced is bogus.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 00:18 | 4441334 gmak
gmak's picture

potato potahto. What is the definition of an anomaly?  That which is unique and out of the ordinary, right?  So either this is an anomoly or it has happened before. If it has happened before, then it is nothing to worry about because the planet and life on it has endured. The climate is a self adjusting system. 

If it is an anomoly then it is nothing to worry about because there will be reversion to the mean - otherwise the planet would be either a frozen waste or a hell-hole of fire. (we would never have gotten out of thelast ice age, or the last time the planet warmed up it would have kept on going). How is it that you don't see that these corrections must come from a source off-planet - ie the sun? 

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:27 | 4441463 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Playing semantics...

The definition of an anomaly is very clear and precise in measurement theory...

Not that you are interested in any objective evidence or truth for that matter...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:17 | 4441888 gmak
gmak's picture

So you are saying that the Arctic ice extent has NEVER been lower? 

or are you just referring to the last 30 years?  If so, then it might be an anomaly within those 30 years, but not within a longer time frame. shrug. Do you have data about the Arctic ice extent going back to, say, the middle ages?

 

 

 


anomaly

  http://static.sfdict.com/en/i/dictionary/newserp/Sprite_New.png); background-attachment: scroll; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; width: 17px; height: 19px; position: relative; top: 0px; left: 6px; z-index: 1; background-position: -177px -195px; background-repeat: repeat repeat;"> Use Anomaly in a sentence

http://static.sfdict.com/en/i/dictionary/newserp/Sprite_New.png); background-color: transparent; float: right; margin-top: 5px; width: 91px; height: 20px; margin-left: 17px; display: block; background-position: -619px -59px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">   

 

a·nom·a·ly

   [uh-nom-uh-lee] http://static.sfdict.com/en/i/dictionary/newserp/Sprite_New.png); background-attachment: scroll; background-color: transparent; height: 16px; width: 16px; position: relative; top: 2px; display: inline-block; background-position: -176px -215px; background-repeat: repeat repeat;" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html" target="_blank"> Show IPA noun, plural a·nom·a·lies.
1.
a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form. abnormality, exception,peculiarity. 2.
someone or something that is abnormal or incongruous, or does not fit in; an anomalous person orthing: With his quiet naturehe was an anomaly in his exuberant family. abnormality, exception,peculiarity. 3.
an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc. 4.
an incongruity or inconsistency.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:43 | 4441933 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yawn...

Science has very specific definitions: e.g.

http://mel.xmu.edu.cn/group/carbon/kcjs/Environmental_Oceanography/gloss...

Things like speed and velocity mean two different things to a physicist...

But keep flogging that dead horse buddy...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 14:25 | 4442396 gmak
gmak's picture

See point 2. in the definition above - it's the same as what you;re linking to.  Anomaly comes in context of the time frame under consideration.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:51 | 4441847 gmak
gmak's picture

No semantics. The earth is not a linear system. It is self-correcting. Maybe not in a time frame that we can perceive - but it is. 

Like I said. Climate has become a religion and you don't change anyone's mind. A case in point is yourself who ignores the evidence that climate change is affected by many other factors the most obvious of which is the sun.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:28 | 4440626 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you're claiming the extraction and emission of these elements including their volume in this geological "second" in time has been done by another ancient species? Is this the same ones who created weapons which could both destroy the earth and leave its orbit? The logic is lacking    

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:52 | 4440836 gmak
gmak's picture

No. I'm saying that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been higher in the past.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 00:34 | 4441363 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

brought on as quickly as this modern species has accomplished?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:58 | 4439876 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and the heat sink in the ocean and unprecedented rate of temperature rise (via the ice core readings)?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:19 | 4439604 Itinerant
Itinerant's picture

But where I live we have not yet seen snow this winter, so neither of these things means anything by itself. It's not just the Arctic/Antarctic sea ice extents, it's also the volume, which is tracking downwards. Sea ice extent may actually improve with more fresh water or increased wind and for a host of other reasons, but singular facts do no mean anything without a context and a framework to guage their significance.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:44 | 4439487 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

THe Antartcic sea ice extent has modestly increased, an increase that was predicted 20 years ago because warmer air holds more water vapor leading to greater snowfall (among other things)... 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf

Here is the Antarctic Land Ice, the stuff that really matters:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

and that is falling pretty fast...

And if you really want to look in detail, start here

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/antarctic-sea-ice-increase/

----

As for you, stop being a disingenous fool that clings to erroneously interpreted cherry picked data so as to satisfy your confirmation bias... 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:49 | 4439502 gmak
gmak's picture

DOn't you see the contradictions in whay you're saying?There is more moisture in the air, but somehow this causes ice loss in the arctic and ice gain in the antarctic. An you conveniently say that it's the ice cover that matters in the Arctic but not in the Antarctic. You must be one of those on Skeptical Science who are revisionists and erase past posts.

 

The science is not settled. Anyone can see that we are in a pause. Only a clown would deny that the sun is more important that a bit of CO2.  But, I guess to an Alarmist, no matter what happens it's due to man-made CO2. Why, they've even built that into all the models. 

You are such a clown.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:17 | 4439919 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Only a clown would deny that the sun is more important that a bit of CO2"

oh, the magic of words . politicians know their power - what do you mean by a bit?   

a bit relative to the sun or to the earth? to relative concentrations in the atmosphere or to some number pulled out - oh I' don't know

are you suggesting life forms on earth don't depend on physical and chemical balance, some quite fine?

 are you suggesting the most concentrated form of energy, the result of millions of years of chemical and physical concentration dug out in huge volumes and put into a fixed system in one hundred years won't have some effect. How much effect? Have we ever performed this experiment on earth before? 

Do you believe in polution? can it harm life on earth. What are the concentrations of polution? Is polution, like most things a relative term? Does it depend on chemical concentration of substances that could be harmless even "heplful in other concentrations? Other factors? 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 14:23 | 4441844 gmak
gmak's picture

god. it's so pointless. 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:48 | 4441842 gmak
gmak's picture

I;m suggesting that without CO2, plant life dies. Push that up the food chain. All energy used by all life on this planet comes from the sun. it enters the food chain through plants. Without plants - there is no conversion of the sun's energgy. ergo death for all species likely, except for those at the micro level that get their energy from another source - maybe warmth from the earth's core through fissures. <shrug>

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:51 | 4440833 gmak
gmak's picture

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been higher in the past.  

 

A bit relative to the total atmosphere.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 00:33 | 4441357 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

 How quickly did that transformation take? How much time did living systems, water systems, and many other systems have to adapt? 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:54 | 4441850 gmak
gmak's picture

I don't know. But that's not the point. The point is that you are implying that CO2 drives climate change when the ice core records show the opposite result. Isn't that what the topic is all about? Whether or not CO2 causes apocalyptic climate change? 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:14 | 4439592 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are saying that re: the Arctic, I am not...

You understand that artic is an ocean and the antarctic is a continent... Would you expect similar behaviour?

Demonstrate scientificallyt for us all how current variations in the solar output  is more important that C02 levels. Go ahead make my day...

In other words, explain why this is wrong

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-...

I fucking dare you to try...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:52 | 4440389 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Anyone with any understanding of the Beer-Lambert law for radiation absorbance by any gas or liquid knows its exponential form guarantees that initial additions of the absorbing entity cause the largest changes in absorbance and T rise.  For example, for CO2, the first 20 ppm of CO2 added results in 90% of the radiation absorbance (greenhouse) effect at its main IR absorption near 15 microns.  By the time you have 200 ppm CO2 you have acheived 99% of the radiation absorbance (i.e. you are near saturation, a phenomena well known to all spectroscopists who either dilute the system or decrease the path length so they can actually make a measurement at this high concentration).  Thus, all the atmospheric warming by CO2 was effectively achieved at pre-industrial levels of CO2. 

Log dependencies are tough to understand for the math challenged like yourself.  But Log dependencies are much weaker than linear dependencies!

 

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