Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In discussing President Obama’s latest boondoggle, the one billion (with a “b) dollar Climate Resilience Plan, The US Under-Assistant Minister of Scientific Silly Walks, John Holdren, wandered way off of the party line. The party line in question, of course, is …
“Although we can’t ascribe any given weather event to climate change, we still insist that blah blah blah …”
Perhaps Holdren’s teleprompter was broken, but anyhow, here’s what he said (emphasis mine):
During a call with reporters on Thursday evening, the assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.
Now, that quote was bad enough, since everyone from the IPCC to my cat agrees that
• There is no link between historical post-Little-Ice-Age warming and extreme weather, and
• Droughts are more common in colder times than in warmer times, and
• For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.
• We have neither the understanding nor the information necessary to ascribe ANY single weather event to climate change, and we’re a long ways from having either one.
But despite Holdren going way off piste in his comment, it wasn’t truly of the quality needed for a quote of the week. It wasn’t concise enough for an epigram … or for an epitaph, for that matter.
However, just when it all looked hopeless, Holdren rallied, came back and captured the gold by uttering the deathless words that will ring forever in the halls of climate academe:
Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.
There you have it, folks, Holdren’s Law of Climate Causation, all you need to know about droughts and such … weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.
…
… and people wonder why the alarmists are having trouble these days peddling their nostrums? Well, mostly it’s not a communications failure. Mostly, it’s because we’ve been lied to before by these same folks (including Holdren), and Holdren’s current pathetic shilling for the Obamaclimate program is just more of the same.
The issue is not how the science is being communicated, as Judith Curry and many others seem to think.
The issue is that what is being communicated is so obviously not science, but merely poorly framed and scientifically absurd scare tactics, that as in this case, the communication just makes people point and laugh …
Regards to all,
w.
Nick Stokes says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm
“For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.”
Warming is warming. Its effect is totally unrelated to statistical significance.
Very Stokesian… very deep — I shall contemplate your analysis with relish, perhaps mustard as well.
So how much has he changed since those halcyon days when he helped Ehrlich make up fairy tales? Well, he’s gotten slicker and closer to power. Abillity to reason? Not so much.
The depressing part is John Holdren is not a stupid man — far from it. He holds a BS from MIT and a PhD from Stanford. I don’t know whether he made that statement because he believes it, or because he thinks we will believe it.
The fact he was not instantly laughed off the podium by the audience in the room and the viewers at home indicates just how much work we have left to do.
Tom in Florida says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2014 at 12:50 pm
………… Successful politicians know damn well that so many people in the U.S. spend very little time on things that really matter. They only need to imply a problem and tell them that as long as you vote for me I will make sure the government is on top of it. Sadly too many people are more than happy to defer to the government without a thought………..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
Actually the politicians are starting to run into a major problem with that.
January 08, 2014 Congressional Performance: 8% Think Congress Doing a Good or Excellent Job
>
If that isn’t enough of a kick in the teeth:
47% Think a Randomly Selected Group Could Do a Better Job Than Congress
Something to mass mail to all politicians in Washington D.C……
It is really the Rain-man effect (idiot savant as once was). Expertise in one area does not guarantee insightful comments in another especially when the comment is flung off without much thought, but just happens to correspond to a politically popular position. Even the great Einstein was guilty of this in that he was totally taken in by socialism. Would any one be interested in say Bobby Fisher’s opinion on anything outside chess? I don’t see this as any different. You are only as smart as the last stupid thing that you have said. Not really true, of course, but I like the sound of it.
Nick Stokes says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Warming is warming. Its effect is totally unrelated to statistical significance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thanks for the confirmation that you haven’t got a CLUE as to how to handle data.
Willis
Can you please elaborate a little on this specific claim, because it is unknown to me.
There is a little less precipitation in cold times, but the evaporation rate also decreases with falling temperature. This means that the aridity is not necessarily more severe in colder times.
Do you have links to reports showing more droughts or more arid areas in colder periods?
/ Jan
Nick Stokes says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Egads, lock up the good silver, it’s the noted agent provocateur, “Racehorse” Nick Stokes.
Anyhow, Nick, let’s parse that claim of yours, shall we? Here are the propositions:
The effect of warming is a function of the amount of warming—more warming, more effect, and vice versa.
The effect of no warming is zero. If it doesn’t warm, it has no effect.
Warming which is “not statistically significant” is warming that cannot be distinguished from zero warming.
THEREFORE:
Warming which is not statistically different from zero has an effect which is not statistically different from zero, and thus, as I wrote in the head post,
• After seventeen years without statistically significant warming , the effect of said warming is totally related to its statistical significance, and
• Said warming is “certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.”
Q. E. D.
…
Now, for the backstory. Folks, Mr. Nick Stokes has a curious distinction. Despite various ones of his many claims being proven wrong by a variety of heavyweight folks in the past, including Steve McIntyre, Nick has never, ever once been caught admitting he was wrong in even the tiniest of details.
For this sterling quality and high achievement, he’s been christened “Racehorse” Nick Stokes, in honor of of the Texas lawyer Racehorse Haynes, who was famous for … well, I’ll let Haynes tell it:
So what I’m trying to say is that Nick will be back to tell us all about how he doesn’t have a dog in 3 … 2 … 1 …
w.
PS—Haynes was famous for successfully defending women accused of going for a “Smith and Wesson divorce” as a result of being abused. Once when he was congratulated on his record in those cases, he said something like “I got all but two of them off, and I’d have gotten them off if they hadn’t kept reloading and firing” …
“Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”
It’s the Martians what done it – War Of the Worlds starts today!
The end is nigh. Woe on us.
Fits right in…….
Louis Hooffstetter says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm
“You can’t argue with stupid.”
Even less with the fanatically stupid.
I looked out of the window, there is some weather, that’s climate change!
This is interesting…
People basing their story on “The Hill” (Blog) are using the word “caused”.
Reuters is claiming he said “influenced”.
Popcorn futures anyone?
Nick Stokes says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm
“For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.”
Warming is warming. Its effect is totally unrelated to statistical significance.”
That’s OK then. It looks like it has started to drop (as opposed to pause) already.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
P.S. Before you ask – S-G is the engineering equivalent of LOWESS and yes the curve follows the full kernel plot so I do know the parameter choice is validated.
And I also know that neither S-G or LOWESS are good, solid, guides to the future – Tamino’s version included.
DS says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm
What do the numbers mean? Inches of rain???
Steven Mosher says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“Does adding c02 change the weather? Of course. dont forget the butterflies wings.”
I don’t know – do we have enough data to say that CO2 on a Global scale can affect the weather in such a dramatic way. I thought the measurements weren’t long enough to show that yet – for absolute certain.
If the butterfly is under/inside a waterfall does it matter if its wings are flapping or not? Chaos is about those things that don’t change the picture just as much as it about those that do.
John F. Hultquist says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“It has been dry. The accepted index has not indicated La Niña . The last was ASO 2011 thru FMA 2012. See page 24
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Must be something else going on.”
You act as if the drought started 2 weeks ago.
It dates back to the JJA10-MAM11 La Nina that was directly followed by the ASO11-FMA12 you mentioned. Completely missing is a corresponding El Nino which generally follows La Nina periods. One attempted to develop mid 2012, but instead went right back into a mild La Nina during the Winter of 2012/2013. (-0.6, -0.6, -0.4 from DJF13-FMA13)
The current CA drought that has been going on for 3 years is the result of 3 Winters of La Nina conditions. That does not indicate “something else going on.” That’s just business as usual for California, a state which generally experiences drought every single time there are a few months without El Nino conditions (The last being the 2007-2009 Drought during that La Nina)
Gail Combs says:
February 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm
“What do the numbers mean? Inches of rain???”
No… Likelihood of Drought
Nick Stokes “Warming is warming. Its effect is totally unrelated to statistical significance.”
All we have is statistical warming. Where is the measurement of this “real” warming your talking about?
Mencken was right. It really IS a “commonwealth of morons.”
philjourdan says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Well, he is right. Climate does cause weather. Without a climate, there would be no weather.
And without an atmosphere, there would be no climate. And without a planet there would be no atmosphere. And without a solar system there would be no planet.
I guess the problem can be traced back to the Big Bang! Damn that thing! It caused all our problems!
Phil, For an instant consider the possibility that weather “causes” climate. If you recon that weather is driven by the minute to minute flux of energy arriving on and leaving the planet, then climate could be regarded as merely an emergent property of weather. Climate then is merely weather over time as it varies due to planetary geography and dissipative processes in the atmosphere and oceans.
philjourdan,
“MattS – which came first, the chicken or the egg? I did not say “caused” I said “without”. And it is true. If there was no climate, there would be no weather. Weather accumulated is climate, but no climate means no weather either.”
No you are still bass ackwards. You can not eliminate weather by eliminating climate. The problem for your statement is that there IS a causal relationship between weather and climate, but it is the other way around from your statement. Weather causes climate climate causes nothing.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Willis
Can you please elaborate a little on this specific claim, because it is unknown to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just put up several links:
HERE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/103183/#comment-1567751
It’s simple.
In the winter AGW causes more moisture which produces increased snow falls.
In the summer it produces less moisture which increases droughts.
Now that’s science!!!!
Willis Eschenbach says:February 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm
“Warming which is “not statistically significant” is warming that cannot be distinguished from zero warming.”
No, it’s warming that was measured. It happened. Last weekend we had a heat wave. Two days over 40°C. Probably not statistically significant. But no less hot for that.
“Not statistically significant” does not necessarily mean small. It means something that has a chance of happening through known or postulated variability. That doesn’t stop it being hot, cold, windy or whatever, and having consequences.
Climate is the sum of weathers.