This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 - 18:48 | 4440505 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Does that look like saturation?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg

Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 ?m (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure. Did this energy disappear forever? Surely not, radiatively or convectively this energy "is spread around and transferred upward". But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.

 Upon increasing CO2 concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

And we are a long long way from the top of the Troposphere at these concentrations...

Math challenged? Lulz...

For shits and giggles, the Air Force would love you to hear you lecture them about how there heat seeking missles and IR technology shouldn't be working as well as they do...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:31 | 4439644 gmak
gmak's picture

What? No "Dog double dare"? 

 

Here. Published in 1991. A peer-reviewed published paper BEFORE the clowns chasing grant money made CO2 such a big case.

 

ftp://ftp.spacecenter.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Friis-Christensen1991(Sun-climate).pdf

You can find more here.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=sunspots+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=...

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:47 | 4439681 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No one is disputing that the Sun does have a role...

You have to demonstrate the the variations observed over the past 1000 years are greater than the effect of adding 200 ppm of C02....

And on that front, you have made an epic fail...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 14:21 | 4442381 gmak
gmak's picture

Here. Read one of the other comments with a link. You claim to be a physicist. You should be ashamed of your abuse of the science.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/comment/edit/4442185

 

and in case that link doesn't work....

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE...

 

Apparently the laws of physics and thermodynamics have something to say about how it all works. Note in particular the sentence about the main influences when there is an active water cycle and high transparency in the atmosphere. Yes, that's right: solar irradiance is one of the main factors. Or are you suggesting that Newton was wrong as well?

[quote]

 Abstract

In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is

transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different

components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same

conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces

and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their

mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's

atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,

Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle,

including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.

Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis

and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’

thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of

 

thermodynamics.

[end quaote]

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:21 | 4442678 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are really clutching at straws. So the GHE is now not real? Hah, hah, hah...

Maybe you could explain the Earths IR spectrum meausured by satillite...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/conrath1970IRspectrum.png

First published in 1970...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:02 | 4439894 gmak
gmak's picture

No I don't. You still have to prove AGW that the small amount of CO2 emitted by people is somehow causing a climate change. That's your hypothesis and the jury is still out. 

 

* crickets *

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:06 | 4440255 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Its up to you then to explain 800,000 years of climate data....

Go ahead, explain the Ice Ages for us...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:01 | 4440413 Anglo Hondo
Anglo Hondo's picture

You know, the bit 800,000 years ago (or even the last ice age) that was caused by man burning all that oil and gas.  I'm not even going to mention all the 8-horse all-wheel carts that they were driving around in.

Or was the last ice age caused by man NOT burning all that stuff.  Never quite sure which came first, ice ages or the warm periods between the ice ages.

The floods in England now are 'apparently caused by man made global warming, but all the historical floods were just nature doing its thing.

 

C'mon, climate scientist, tell me the answers to all of this.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:31 | 4440470 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What are you babbling about?

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:12 | 4441426 forexskin
forexskin's picture

i bet you avoid mirrors when posting your drivel. much easier to keep a straight face, but at least you get attention with a good rolling 'debate'. isn't the word for that, mmmm let me think, TROLLING?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:28 | 4439634 gmak
gmak's picture

I;m still waiting for you clowns to demonstrate that CO2 causes climate change - and not all of it, only the small portion emitted by humankind. 

 

You are the ones who have to prove something. Not me. You are the ones with the hypothesis. I'm merely pointing out the presence of a giant nuclear furnace nearby in space that provides all the energy for this planet.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 02:47 | 4441575 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, that's why 97% of the professionals agree that AGW is the only viable hypothesis to explain the 800,000 year temperature record...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:51 | 4441841 gmak
gmak's picture

double post

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:44 | 4441840 gmak
gmak's picture

I'm sorry but that study did not mention the 800K temperature record at all. Secondly, it included "implicit" agreement - which brings in a subjective element. Who did the survey - oh, Skeptical Science which which is well-known as an impartial scientific blog (snicker - /sarc off).

In the end, we are talking about 1,400 papers taking a position on global warming - NOT ALL PROFESSIONALS. Here are over 1300 papers with the opposite point of view about AGW. I guess somehow those were overlooked in the 'study'

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

 

And you've quoted this web-te yourself, so why not sauce for the gander as well. Here is an article with examples showing how the 'study' papers were mis-classified. A bit of a smoking gun. The site wrote to scientists whose papers were included in the 'study' and they responded that they were mis-classified. A small group due to resources, but indicative of possible greater misrepresentation. And yes, I've seen the ad-hominem attacks on this. The point is that the science is not settled and there are many divergent opinions and papers on both sides of the divide. It's become a religion and you don't change a person's beliefs.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-c...

 

I'd bring up OISM but alarmists are attacking it in the same way that non-believers are attacking the cook study. 

And from Judith Curry - pointing to other articles that indicate divisiveness even among the so-called 'alarmists'

IPCC and other leading climate scientists can’t agree on the cause of the lack of surface temperature increase for the past 15+ years (i.e. see the recent article in the New Republic). Where is the consensus? 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-di... Here is an article about that article. It makes the point about the vagueness of the study you mention and how it is so broad that no one could help but include themselves in it.   http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/18/the-new-republic-on-the-pause/ So now we have a debate about how many believe one thing or another -by both sides. When are we going to get back to the science? Occam's razor - big ball of sun versus complex models that are impossible to validate and, while they fit the past (like any curve fitting) - they don't fit the present.  Take the simple explanation. The sun's output is not constant and has periods with higher and lower output. If these periods are long enough, they affect the climate. Doesn't that make sense? (could it be other than the sun that helped the earth out of the last ice age?)
Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:37 | 4441923 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Begging the question ain;t going to cut it...

The only pause that exists in the minds of the deniers...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:25 | 4439625 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

uh, "I fucking dare you to try"

LOL

wanker

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:45 | 4439675 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I wanted to see him make shit up...

Now run along, you are in way over your head as has been demonstrated time and time again...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:15 | 4439936 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

flakmeister

*sigh*

Dude, sorry man. I used to think you were interesting. But every single one of your posts is some kind of silly faux-internet tough guy "I fucking dare you to disagree with me" kind of thing. It's a bunch of nonsense.

So unfortunately you're moving toward a sort of irrelevence.

So go ahead and insult me, internet tough guy. "I FUCKING DARE YOU," LOL

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:20 | 4439948 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Dealing with disingenous idiots and trolls does tend to wear on one...

And if someone is making shit up, it is perfectly acceptable to call them out....

You should lay off the concern trolling angle, it ain't your schtick...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:50 | 4440829 john39
john39's picture

this just in, global warming is causing the earth to get colder. its science you luddites, so pay the fucking nwo its carbon tax and stfu.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 02:45 | 4441571 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Isn't Jesus calling you?

http://www.thenewgospel.org/john-39.html

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_39.htm

BTW, was John316 already taken? Just curious...

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 08:19 | 4441755 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

 

Stopped into a church
I passed along the way
well, I got down on my knees
and I pretend to pray

you know the preacher likes the cold
he knows I'm gonna stay

 

California Dreamin'
on such a winter's day

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:32 | 4439986 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

LOL

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 08:02 | 4441748 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Don't you see....he's an intellectual...he's got a pipe and everything.

 

You need to stop asking questions....and just go with it.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:40 | 4439474 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Thankfully, Al Gore's footprint will be so much lighter when he hangs on a Tennesse tree.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:17 | 4440286 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

with a rope made of Hemp.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:20 | 4439606 mofreedom
mofreedom's picture

It's matters not what the peoiple think of global warming now, the transformational damage has been done and they are all laughing at us, though the useful idiots may one day rue their lack of a check.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:45 | 4439227 lordbyroniv
lordbyroniv's picture

 

 

I wont read Mr. Krasting's musings anymore.

 

He has proven himself a statist commie in too many of his prior pieces.

 

SKIP !!!!!!!!

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:18 | 4439296 Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

I worked on Wall Street for 25 years. Played hard ball - did pretty well. So "Commie" does not describe me very well.

That said, a lot of my views lean to the 'pink' side of the equation.

I'm not a deep blue, nor am I a dark red. Purple...

Sincerely,

Statist

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:03 | 4440421 max2205
max2205's picture

Welcome back Bruce...hows it going?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:37 | 4440348 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

Pink/purple but also logical/rational.  It is exactly what we need more of.  

Unfortunately most progressives are innumerate,cherry pick facts to support their visions, haven't got a clue how to create jobs, increase incomes or add to the nation's wealth and couldn't see reality if it poked them in the eyes.

So keep writing Bruce.  

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 16:38 | 4440192 booboo
booboo's picture

Bruce, a real statist would promote higher state spending on proven worthless giveaway programs like Head Start while at the same time hide every farthing they could from the Feds, I'm sure you claimed everything while doing "pretty well".

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:33 | 4439802 lordbyroniv
lordbyroniv's picture

At least I got Mr. Krasting to acknokledge that he is a filthy statist.

 

PS - Pounding your chest about how successful you were on Wall St. is not germane to anything btw.  Small penis much?

 

PPS -  ZH'ers who down me really do a disservice to what once was in the independence of this site. I get that BK is a laureate here but get fucking real.  Read his words.   Group think much?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 19:09 | 4440578 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Zzzzzzzz

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:46 | 4439678 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Bruce, 

The most interesting thing is taking place right now. The fed is tapering. The stock market is rallying and the bond market is steady, as is the dollar. Soon we will get to see whether foreign CB treasury purchases are stepping in for the fed as Yellen backs away. If other CB's step in and pick up the slack and the fed exits QE this year (employment be damned) and the markets hold up....can we say the fed managed to stick the greatest landing in monetary policy history? Like I said, forget employment, the fed, like everyone else, could give a shit about the dying middle class.

Anyway I hope you have some thoughts on this and will write about it. Because if the fed pulls it off people like Schiff (take the fed away and you lose the bond market) and ZH (It's the flow, not stock that matters) will be left scratching their heads at best, and more likely getting some serious ridicule. 

Also, it would indicate that all this geopolitical tension is really theatre, and we are truly witnessing a globally coordinated monetary policy in action.

I look forward to your thoughts

Thanks

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 03:23 | 4441598 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

fonz;

RE - your comment - "we are truly witnessing a globally coordinated monetary policy in action."

I have come to believe that the primary reason for the Fed's creation, was to enable Congress to bypass their need to ask permission to tax the American people. The FED has been happy to oblige Congress for 100 years.

Since probably 1971 this need has been broadened into the need to keep the petro dollar supreme and to re liquify the World Wide Financial System when necessary. The FED provides the financial fingers to plug any problem on the financial system dike. Their ability to provide unlimited liquidity to all in need through the purchasing of bonds and other assets, also creates AAA collateral for anyone holding those bonds/assets. As interest payments are made, very few ask any questions.

As long as entities do not look behind the FED curtain - then all is well. Their ability to create collateral, hold assets to maturity, provide petro dollar SWAPS and plug any financial holes in the world wide financial dike are the things that other Central Banks and sovereigns are counting on. How long will this continue? I do not have a clue.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 08:37 | 4441762 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

All I know is it's fucking comedy hour on here now.

Bruce seems like a good dude. He writes an article about the weather and immediately gets called a "commie statist" which is standard now for his threads. He replies that he "played hardball on wall street for 25 years" and gets a shit ton of upvotes for it, from the fuckin crowd that hates wall street more than any other. So we are off to a shaky start.

I then jump in and bring the conversation over to what he/zh spent the last 4 years writing about, and how we may want to pay attention to the fact that there is a chance that all of us could end up standing in awe at the fact that the fed may end QE (anyone on here ever hear "QE4eva" a few thousand times, with a side of "reserve currency does not last forever") with the markets intact. So this would be like...I don't know....the biggest fucking deal ever? and Bruce gets 6 up arrows for bailing on the whole topic and rattling off that the EM's (like Argentine/Venezuela which always end up starved for dollars) might blow up?

Lame.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:31 | 4441827 negative rates
negative rates's picture

I think your more like a day late a dollar short. Or soon to be.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:35 | 4440002 Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

I have said that QE3 had very little consequence to economic activity. I don't think ending it should be of great importance. It's 'priced in'.

We are two Fed meetings away from being able to say:

"We're half-way through!!" Let's party!

Then again, the whole fucking EM market might tank, that would bring down China, Japan, the EU and ultimately the US. 

 

Once again in its history, the Fed has teed up a situation where the outcome is uncertain, and the risks are high. What else is new?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:14 | 4440046 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

"I have said that QE3 had very little consequence to economic activity"

  What about all this?

 

Hello Bruce,

I would like to ask you a few questions. What is this growing list of “things” that are suggesting that the Fed is pondering a change in direction? 

Bruce Krasting says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Things:

- The minutes from the last Fed meeting started off the talk of ending QE by the end of the year.

- Housing has bottomed. In most areas of the country there is a turn-around happening.

- The US will make/sell 15m cars this year. There is no way the US can have a recession and sell that many cars. Can’t happen!

- Part of the RE recovery is due to rising rents. Rents are big part of the inflation calculation. This suggests that inflation is going to be increasing.

- The Stock market is at a 5 year high. There is no need for emergency monetary measures any longer.

- Bernanke is leaving the Fed at the end of the year. He does not want to leave while there is a big QE program ongoing. He wants to give the new guy a (relatively) clean slate.

I could go on, but this is a good start on that list of “things”.

http://brucekrasting.com/to-the-fed-defer-this/

Anyway, ending QE is not of great importance? Wow, really?

I did not expect you to have the answers but what is going on right now is huge. After 4 years of writing about it, we get to perhaps the most critical juncture of this grand experiment and you would rather punt the subject and sum it up with "what else is new?" 

sorry, lets get back to the weather.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 09:29 | 4441826 negative rates
negative rates's picture

They change direction all the time, but then (like the next day), and like a person who has had a stroke, they forget and revert back to the orignal plan. If you blink, you could miss it.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:09 | 4440721 john39
john39's picture

One small problem in analyzing this issue, what data is trustworthy? Do we really know how much money the fed is putting into the system? What it is buying? What it's proxies are buying?

Yeah I know that I'm paranoid, but still... How do you truly know anything for certain these days?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:20 | 4440750 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

good question, i tried to open this up for discussion but Bruce decided to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG4nfnBokvQ

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:38 | 4441927 EhKnowKneeMass
EhKnowKneeMass's picture

Fonzannoon,

That was a darn good question, 'tis sad that the so called "experts" will dodge such questions. One thing I have learned in life - folks who were right will never stop bragging and those who are wrong will never acknowledge they were wrong. I have been here a long time, rarely comment though. One by one, the folks who are/were wrong are "disappearing". I still remember the end-of-the-world predictions from the sages of the internet. Listed below are few of the events that were supposed to end the world, but all of them turned out to be nothing burger.

Dubai sovereign debt crisis
CIT bankruptcy
Chrysler/GM bankruptcies
Crisis in Greece, Italy, Spain
Cyprus
Iran
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Turkey
Fukushima
China is imploding tomorrow
Japan
Detroit
Jefferson county
New York City storm
Linda Green
MF Global
That insider trading bald hedge fund dude
"Taper and the world/market will implode. They can never taper and will print like mother fuckers."

There are a lot more, but what would be the point listing them.

The gentleman/lady form SA, who was banned turned out to be right. All hail the Bernank!

I don't suffer from any illusions that everything is coming up roses. Facts point to something else entirely. However, in a make believe world, facts have no place. Hence, don't make predictions; only approximate the future, be nimble, be self-sufficient, take care of your family and friends, enjoy a good beer, a good steak, fuck and be merry. One day the make believe world will collapse, but it could be 'x' days/weeks/months/years from now. We need to run away, no, flee, from anyone claiming they can predict 'x'. And many here have tried to do just that and gotten burned.

One again, all hail the Bernank and a complementary fuck you, Bernank.

Good day, Sir!

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:55 | 4441954 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

"The gentleman/lady form SA, who was banned turned out to be right". 

It's a dude and he would have elevated the discussion on here bigtime. Caused a lot of people to reboot their brains and look at things a bit differently. But he, lke many others is gone and replaced with Michael Snyder's daily top 20 signs....

good day to you as well.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:09 | 4442098 EhKnowKneeMass
EhKnowKneeMass's picture

Well, in that case, a tip of the hat to that gentleman and a huge kick in the groin to the Michael Snyder's of the world and their X signs of collapse. I fart in their general direction. This place has turned into a giant echo chamber. Differing views and thoughts are guillotined. And all of them claim to be "awakened", and they can't even entertain a thought that differs than theirs.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

If the fed is able to land this ship without a crash, then this place could end up like Detroit - bankrupt and a hollow shell of its original self. And all the experts who sold the idea of a giant crash or reset will be nowhere to be found.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:35 | 4440346 kito
kito's picture

Wait, Bruce said the bottom was in on housing, and that there is no need for emergency measures? And that stockpliling cars means there is no recession?!!

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:00 | 4440414 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

I do not understand all of the transmission channels for QE money, but what I do know is that last year the Feds added $1,020 billion.  That is a shit load of $$$ and it must be having a measurable impact somewhere, somehow on USA & global economic growth.  They are still printing quite a bit at the present.  Once it tapers out, my intuition is telling me that it is going to suck (tech term) unless other CBs take up the slack.  We'll soon find out.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:41 | 4439823 lewietheparrot
lewietheparrot's picture

Fonz,

I think that you should write the article you asked bruce to write

you seem to have a pretty good scenario already lined up

so, I want to see it fleshed out---it is pretty intriguing from the comment above

Please, Fonz-----please?

no sarc here

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:16 | 4439939 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I appreciate that. Let's see what (hopefully) Bruce has to say. This is his show. It's a big deal to me because what is going on (it's early) calls into question everything that has been presented here and by many others (Schiff etc) should the fed continue down this road. I'd like to see a bunch of us flesh this out.

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