'Houston, we have a dumbass problem'

I’m truly sorry about the title, but nothing else really describes the ridiculousness of the pronouncement by the White House aide John Podesta over these two satellite images in a maddeningly idiotic story from the Washington Post.

snowpack13[1] snowpack14[1]

In a Feb. 24 Oval Office meeting, two of President Obama’s top climate advisers presented these sharply-contrasting images of California’s snowpack on Jan. 13, 2013 (left) and a year later (right), as a way to underscore how global warming is changing conditions on the ground in the United States.

The satellite images viewed by President Obama before a meeting with eight Western governors were stark, showing how snowpack in California’s mountains had shrunk by 86 percent in a single year. 

“It was a ‘Houston, we have a problem’ moment,” recalled White House counselor John D. Podesta, one of two aides who briefed the president that February day. Obama mentioned the images several times as he warned the governors that political leaders had no choice but to cope with global warming’s impact.

After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.


Story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-president-obama-a-renewed-focus-on-climate/2014/05/04/6b81412c-d144-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

Gasp! 86% change in a single year. More proof positive that ‘global warming’ is accelerating. /sarc

So tell me, oh geniuses, what will you show the President after the looming El Niño kicks in later this year, and California has a wetter than normal year during the winter of 2014/15 and the snow pack goes up to something like 146% of normal? What then? Blame that on global warming and call it another “Houston we have a problem” moment when we get flooding in California like in 1997/1998 after that big EL Niño changed the weather pattern in a single year to drench the state?

The lack of snowpack in 2014 is all about ENSO and resulting jet stream patterns, something well known for years.


Pattern shifts related to ENSO make California winters highly variable. For example, compare the snowpack change from 1880 to 1881 in the graph below from the Sierra Snow Lab and note some of the other low years highlighted in yellow.


Snowfall and snowpack data from the CSSL archive dating from 1878 to1945, and from 1952 to1957, were measured and supplied by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Snowpack and snowfall measurements were taken at Summit Station from 1878 through 1927, and at Norden from 1927 on. From 1879 to 1897, and 1901, the maximum snowpack depth was estimated. Current CSSL methodology mandates that new snow is measured twice a day, at 0800 and 1600 Pacific Standard Time. The depth of the new snow is probed with a rule at the four corners of a snow board. [The snow board is piece of plastic-covered plywood, .25m2 in area.] The four depths are recorded and averaged, the board is then cleaned off and replaced on the snowpack surface.
[Ref: Randall S. Osterhuber, Climatic Summary of Donner Summit, California, Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, October 1993]

Will these geniuses in the White House say global warming reached back through time to 1881 to cause this? How about 1977, was that “global warming” too? But let’s indulge them, let’s say it is ALL caused by ‘global warming’. What will they do about it? Tax it? Issue a presidential order? Make emitting CO2 a crime?

Like Nature cares what they think or do. Idiots.

“Some people are weatherwise, but most people are otherwise.”

— Benjamin Franklin





0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roy Spencer
May 5, 2014 3:09 am

and at the rate the Eastern U.S. has cooled and snowpack has increased, a new Ice Age will be upon us in no time! Egad! Sure glad we have informed politicians to represent us.

May 5, 2014 3:17 am

Idiots indeed.

May 5, 2014 3:18 am

I predict that Chicago winter temperatures will drop to absolute zero before the year 2060. After all December-February temperatures dropped 6K from last year! (according to NASA GISS)

Roy Spencer
May 5, 2014 3:21 am

and what happens if temps fall BELOW absolute zero? We’re in BIG trouble then!

May 5, 2014 3:26 am

If you want to make God laugh, tell him what your plans are. Currently God is rolling on the floor of Heaven Laughing his guts out, and now intends to send an ice age whilst saying, so its gonna get hot eh? Never gonna see snow again eh? arctic is going to be ice free eh? Bwahahahaha that’s a good one gorical, you really showed em your prophetic capability mate hahaha.

May 5, 2014 3:28 am

All you can do is hit them with the history. Over and over.
There really does seem to be a philosophy in the White House that allows the “adjustment” of the past to fit the present agenda. Where I come from that is called “lying.”
A lie doesn’t become more acceptable when you attempt to sugar coat it and call it “spin” or try to present it as “a different way of looking at things.” A lie is a lie, even if you call it a “white lie” or “a means justified by the end.” The end is never what you thought; the lie comes back to haunt you; the fib is eventually exposed and the people who trusted you feel fooled. A castle made of sand falls into the sea, eventually. Truth is the lone foundation you can trust.

May 5, 2014 3:35 am

“two of President Obama’s top climate advisers presented these sharply-contrasting images”
How many “climate advisers” does the World’s Smartest Man need? What other rankings are there, other than “top?”
This will soon be a Youtube Hitler video.

May 5, 2014 3:35 am

We had a 100% reduction in snow pack in just 1/2 year. And this is in Canada, where it’s supposed to be cold.
Yep, it was all snowy in February, but within just 6 months, in August, there was no snow. I’m now panicking. This is horrible! It’s unprecedented! It’s worse than we thought!

May 5, 2014 3:40 am

Finally someone other then me has quoted 1880-1881 weather partern and California drought.
Few things about the 1880-1881 winter and how simular it was the 2013-2014 winter.
Very dry conditions in CA.
Early October Blizzard happened almost exactly on the same dates in 1880 and 2013 in the Dakota’s. Early ice on the great lakes and very late ice like in 1881 and 2014. Very cold long winter and spring in the lakes.
One thing that stands out is solar cycle #5 and #24. Almost exact second peak spike and fall into spring timing.
CA dry pattern will last for 4 to 5 more years because it did after 1880-1881 winter.

Bill Jamison
May 5, 2014 3:42 am

If you look at the trends in California’s Sierra Nevada it’s actually wetter and colder over the last 100 years. Since about 1975 that trend has changed but the long term trend is there. In fact one fire expert said that one reason the fire danger has increased is the increase in precipitation resulting in more fuel load. He did mention that night time temperatures have warmed up over the last 30 years which also contributes and that the snowpack melts slightly earlier than it did previous to the 1970’s.
The 2010-2011 snowpack was one of the biggest on record. But that’s just weather. Only drought is due to climate change.

Chris Wright
May 5, 2014 3:44 am

So they’ve discovered that the weather can be different in two succeeding years.
To claim that a difference in weather over twelve months has anything to do with climate change is – well – words fail me.
When will this lunacy stop?

May 5, 2014 3:51 am

But Solar cycle 5 was from 1798 to 1810! Its first peak seems to have been in 1802 and the second, stronger one, in 1804.

May 5, 2014 3:57 am

Eventually you get a flake like Obama, law of averages demands it and there’s never a good time.
….as a President he makes a good comedian but there is no danger in showing faith in the publics’ ability to see through rubbish like the “before and after” photo especially this late in the piece.

Lawrie Ayres
May 5, 2014 4:00 am

In many respects the game is up but these turkeys are not going to admit being totally erroneous. The Presidents advisor is a dickhead and a fraud but will he tell the worst president in US history?

David A
May 5, 2014 4:01 am

During the last thirty years or so California population has gone up by many millions, and farmed land has also gone up by millions of acres, but virtually no new reservoirs are made. During rain years, and drought years, they purposefully release more water then reasonable to the oceans, costing jobs and production. The combination of lack of reservoirs and waste, plus many millions more in population and development of land and farming acreage, is a man made political disaster in such a variable precipitation location as California.
To then use that politically created situation as an excuse to propagate national energy policy, which will only compound and multiply the economic disaster that is California, is, in my view, evil.

Nick Stokes
May 5, 2014 4:06 am

Yes, one shouldn’t make too much of a yearly fluctuation in snow and ice.

May 5, 2014 4:14 am

That’s more than a weather vs. climate issue: it’s politically motivated science for you. Cherry picking the exceptional events to try to prove a point.

May 5, 2014 4:14 am

It’s all about control and nothing about science.

May 5, 2014 4:24 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 5, 2014 at 4:06 am
Yes, one shouldn’t make too much of a yearly fluctuation in snow and ice.
Did you mean
“THE ONE” shouldn’t make too much of a yearly fluctuation in snow and ice.

Earl Smith
May 5, 2014 4:24 am

And to pick nits:
The proper quote is
Houston, we HAD a problem.
(sent from Houston)

David A
May 5, 2014 4:27 am

How bad are the models in predicting the earth’s energy budget? Commonly it is said that per doubling of CO2, sans feedbacks, the earth will warm .8 degrees. (I think I got that right) Does this mean the earth would accumulate enough energy to raise the average T .8 degrees?
If so, then are the already failed models worse than we thought? Certainly it takes less energy to raise the T of the arctic two degrees, then it does to raise the same area of the tropics two degrees. So, since most of the warming is near the arctic, and some mid latitude, and almost none in the tropics, are the already failed models, worse then we thought?

May 5, 2014 4:31 am

These are the same tactics used to sell Intelligent Design.

David, UK
May 5, 2014 4:32 am

Idiocy or dishonesty? Let’s look at the evidence.
1. They’re politicians.

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2014 4:35 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 5, 2014 at 4:06 am
Yes, one shouldn’t make too much of a yearly fluctuation in snow and ice.
Glad that you agree that lying is something one shouldn’t do. Keep it up, and before you know it, you’ll become one of us. You know, the side that is interested in what is true, not what is politically expedient ideology.

Dave N
May 5, 2014 4:39 am

Hysterically screaming over a single data point is par for the course for alarmists; nothing to see here, really.

Peter Miller
May 5, 2014 4:40 am

Obama’s legacy will be one best forgotten about, very similar to that of Jimmy Carter.
As for Podesta, he is obviously a spin man, not a scientist. So purveying BS to the unwashed masses is his strong point. For spin doctors, facts only ever get in the way.
When are these idiots ever going to learn the difference between climate and weather?
Only the unwashed masses could be relied on not to notice the difference in last winter’s weather between California and the central and eastern US. And that is the target market for Podesta’s BS, what Aldous Huxley used to call the Epsilon Minus Semi-Morons.

May 5, 2014 4:42 am

When every major university in the land denies the existence of truth, why do we get pissed when they don’t tell it?
Of course science and every other discipline has been politicized, when truth is denied all that’s left is politics.

May 5, 2014 4:44 am

Not so dumbass a problem if the illusion of Climate Change and the fictitious but mesmerizing models get used to justify planning the economy and society. That’s precisely what is going on and Podesta and John Holdren were also involved with releasing this Big Data report last week that is not about privacy at all. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf

Tom in Florida
May 5, 2014 4:45 am

I don’t think you should be using the Donner Summit chart until it has been analyzed, adjusted and transformed. Otherwise you may be using real data.

Bloke down the pub
May 5, 2014 4:47 am

President O’Bama is certainly building a lasting legacy. A legacy of looking a complete chump.

May 5, 2014 4:49 am

Podesta: “Houston we have a problem”
Wattsupwithat: “This is Mission Control, we’ve analyzed your problem and determined you need to open up the blinds on your view screen while we give you a crash course in basic weather patterns.”

May 5, 2014 4:57 am

Idiots? Much too kind.
They are desperately trying to use the first principle of propaganda; tell a lie big enough and often enough and it becomes to be considered the truth. As implied, reality continues to be what it is in spite of the prancing, dancing, and posturing of our so called leaders.
The scene isn’t working for anyone. We the People are being sacked and robbed of our [wealth]. Our leaders are putting on a show that makes the Keystone Cops and the Three Stooges look like super competent geniuses. Their talking points are as ephemeral as a cloud. Transforming from inconsistency to contradiction to a denial of saying what was said only moments ago. Even Humpty Dumpty would be embarrassed if he used words the way our leaders do.
What difference does it make? It makes a life or death difference for We the People, our once great nation, and the existence of technological civilization. I suggest they want the despair, poverty, death, and destruction they have and are achieving. When someone keeps doing the same things and gets the same results, they actually intend to get the results they get. They are not innocent in the matter.

May 5, 2014 5:13 am

I hope California has its flood protection systems working well when the coming El Niño starts dumping flooding rains in the Fall.
There’s always landslides on the Pacific Coast Highway for example.

May 5, 2014 5:17 am

Appropriate title. Want to bet they do not show the same comparison next year?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
May 5, 2014 5:19 am

Like any material can exist in only three states (gas, liquid, solid) there are only three states that emerge from politics: truth, lies, and stupidity. So you have to think, is this lies, or stupidity?

Charles Nelson
May 5, 2014 5:23 am

America…beep…you have a problem…beep.

May 5, 2014 5:24 am

Ground control the the little ‘o” in the White house why not kick start something of actual use to your ‘Fellow Americans?”

David A
May 5, 2014 5:25 am

….is this lies, or stupidity? How about stupid lies?

May 5, 2014 5:32 am

If anything, there appears to be less year to year variation than there was in the late 1800s. Worse than I thought, indeed…

Bill Illis
May 5, 2014 5:36 am

This is a high resolution global map of what an El Nino does to precipitation in the period after it peaks. Notice the most impacted areas are Indonesia, Australia, and the Amazon which dry out, while California gets much more rain/snow. Green is more rain, Brown is less rain in this map.
Temperature impact. The area from Alaska to Minnesota gets the highest positive temperature impact and the US south is actually opposite, cooling off more than anywhere else.
The patterns are more-or-less opposite in a La Nina.

May 5, 2014 5:38 am

Fools? nope they achieved their ‘objectives’ by using a old trick knowing politicians can have short memories . I call that smart .

Jeff L
May 5, 2014 5:44 am

… an 86% drop in 1 year …. at this rate …. we will have no snow by this summer …. How alarming !!!

Mike M
May 5, 2014 5:52 am
North of 43 and south of 44
May 5, 2014 5:52 am

David, UK says:
May 5, 2014 at 4:32 am
Idiocy or dishonesty? Let’s look at the evidence.
1. They’re politicians.

May 5, 2014 6:11 am

David A
May 5, 2014 at 5:25 am
‘….is this lies, or stupidity? How about stupid lies?’
In all due respect, sir, you underestimate these people at your peril. Podesta’s birthplace is Chicago. Obama launched his political career in Chicago. Obama and crew have brought Chicago-style politics to the national stage. Nobody but a Democrat can ever be elected in Chicago.
Podesta was called to the WH in December 2013 after the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare exchanges and their fear of what that, and all the other failures of that program, would do to the Democrats in the midterms this November. This is a distraction from the mess that is Obamacare. They’re going to pound away at however many distractions they can find. And the MSM will assist them.

May 5, 2014 6:13 am

Meanwhile the rest of the country had it’s worst winter in history.

May 5, 2014 6:19 am

Again, the absurd proposition that driving cars less makes a mountain-chain snowpack bigger, or relieves a regional drought.
And again, I suggest throwing a virgin into the Mt St Helens caldera would be just as (non)effective.
Learn to deal w/drought the rational way, California/Wash DC. This isn’t the Dark Ages, yet.

Jim Bo
May 5, 2014 6:28 am

Lest this goes unremarked upon…

By Juliet Eilperin

…Podesta et als “go to guy” at the Washington Post.

May 5, 2014 6:29 am

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley – “Like any material can exist in only three states (gas, liquid, solid)“. Um, science has moved on a bit … but I’m not sure if politics has.

May 5, 2014 6:32 am

Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy
When people look back on the Obama era they will think fondly of Jimmy Carter.

May 5, 2014 6:32 am

Given all the problems, foreign and domestic, facing the nation, you have to wonder why this feckless administration and its Puppet President are pushing the Alarmist myth of the “climate change” (née “global warming”). The answer has to be that it fits into the overriding administration agenda: to gain control over every aspect of the nation’s economy, using the EPA, and to institute new taxes to fund the ever-expanding federal Leviathan, i.e. a ‘carbon’ tax. The tax may be difficult to achieve so long as the Republicans control the House of Representatives, but if the EPA can survive court challenges, it could possibly achieve the same end with draconian fees on energy production and any business that uses energy. Never mind that it would be unconstitutional—when has that stopped this administration?
That is why it is essential to maintain Republican control of the House, and to elect a Republican Senate. The rogue EPA has to be curtailed, if not completely abolished. It is not likely we’ll get a veto-proof Congress in 2015, but with Republican majorities the administration agenda can be stymied by withholding spending, until a more rational President can be elected in 2016.
/Mr Lynn

May 5, 2014 6:33 am

Well snow pack above Lake Powell not very alarming. Lots of data to access here

May 5, 2014 6:40 am

No apologies needed. It’s always a dumbass moment when a room full of Poli Sci types play with real science.

May 5, 2014 6:41 am

This will soon be a Youtube Hitler video.
certainly no lack of material.

Pamela Gray
May 5, 2014 6:43 am

Actually Nick, one shouldn’t make too much of DECADES long trends in weather pattern variations. Else those who fish for a living would be experiencing “the sky is falling” yearly panic attacks for 30 to 60 years of their lives. But that issue was solved in the 90’s when an intirely natural, intrinsic, oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection was discovered that caused the fishing industry to experience these West Coast shifts up and down the length of North America.
If such oscillations affect the fishing industry and its oceanic biome, it makes sense to base the climate change null hypothesis on intirely natural, intrinsic, land based oscillations. No?

George Steiner
May 5, 2014 6:43 am

Mr. Spencer you have too much time on your hands.

Patrick B
May 5, 2014 6:46 am

@ /Mr. Lynn
“That is why it is essential to maintain Republican control of the House, and to elect a Republican Senate. The rogue EPA has to be curtailed, if not completely abolished. It is not likely we’ll get a veto-proof Congress in 2015, but with Republican majorities the administration agenda can be stymied by withholding spending, until a more rational President can be elected in 2016.”
I have seen very little in the last 15 years to suggest that the Republican establishment would behave in a manner that different from the Democrats once they are in power.

May 5, 2014 6:46 am

So, send this web site info to the White House Situration Room.
The web cams and or the snow amount current 74 inch base and all runs open.
Help the helpless.

May 5, 2014 6:47 am

This is all about “shaping the battlefield” for the mid-term elections in 2014.
Remember, John Podesta is one of the creators of, and still the chairman of the “Think Progress” site which pays Joe Romm to be one of its “distinguished fellows”.
Fortunately, no one cares about, or is paying attention to, this particular story except California voters, and that state is lost to the democrat party already, so for the rest of the county, so what? It won’t change a single vote in any contested race, so all of the hype about this is for nothing. And as you say, within a year, snowpack will be back, and the story will be just as quickly forgotten.
On a side note, these stories are the reason it’s fun to say “climate change!!!” whenever we have a cold winter, because the dems and warmists (but I repeat myself) fall all over themselves proving that “weather is not climate!!!” which is fun to throw back at them every summer when they see one high temp somewhere and have a fainting spell while shrieking “climate change!!! climate change!!!”
There is not one shred of “science” left in this issue any more, it is all politics, meaning that the only way to fight it anymore is political.

Truth Disciple
May 5, 2014 6:48 am


May 5, 2014 6:50 am

Yes, it is true that in recent decades, El Nino years, big ones anyway, do give CA all the water it needs for a year or more.
But, the history of CA for the last 1300 years or so shows periods of drought that have lasted up to 250 years. See:
So the real issue seems to be long term natural variability. Whether El Nino brings huge rains again, or not, the issue, as Judith Curry consistently points out, is separating natural variability from stuff that happens because CO2 and black carbon and methane emissions are higher that historically. If CA has a big drought that lasts another decade, that would fit easily within the historical record.

May 5, 2014 7:00 am

Come unto me sayth the One Tax God you little tax payer ID numbers.

David A
May 5, 2014 7:00 am

Tom J says:
May 5, 2014 at 6:11 am
Yes Sir, evil lies it is then.

Rob Dawg
May 5, 2014 7:00 am

We can create a testable experiment. Create a series of maps showing sierra snowpack for the last 150years with the dates removed and ask climate scientists to arrange them in chronological order.

May 5, 2014 7:05 am

Buy stock in the whiskey companies as the American people will like the Russians have to stay drunk for 50 to 75 years just to keep their sanity intact due to all these dumb as& lies every one knows are total tax and spend trash.

David A
May 5, 2014 7:06 am

Has anyone noticed that one photo appears to have more clouds in it, or is that snow on the pacific ocean off California?

May 5, 2014 7:07 am

Roy Spencer says:
May 5, 2014 at 3:21 am
“and what happens if temps fall BELOW absolute zero? We’re in BIG trouble then!”
Someone better be going to jail for a Third Law violation…

May 5, 2014 7:11 am

Anthony, including “dumbass” in the headline is more than appropriate. In fact, I believe it should be used more often…maybe even create a category for dumbass statements.

May 5, 2014 7:12 am

May 5, 2014 at 6:47 am
‘Fortunately, no one cares about, or is paying attention to, this particular story except California voters, and that state is lost to the democrat party already, so for the rest of the county, so what? It won’t change a single vote in any contested race…’
Sorry to be blunt but I wouldn’t bet on that. The Republican primaries in Oregon are not over yet but Dr. Monica Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon, is favored to win it. If so, the initial indications are that she would be a very formidable challenger to the incumbent Democratic Senator, Jeff Merkeley. The rollout of that state’s Obamacare exchanges was an utter disaster. Note Wehby’s credentials: pediatric neurosurgeon. Of all places, true blue Oregon could actually be in play in November. I’m not from there but I strongly suspect they have an interest in what goes on to their South.

Tom Gesler
May 5, 2014 7:12 am

So we are to believe, in the two satellite photos that the one on the left is “snow pack” and the one on the right is an example of snow pack due to global warming? What absurdity! The picture on the left was taken after a major winter storm blew through. The satellite picture on the right; atypical for the eastern Sierra’s and Nevada. Snow does not stay on the ground in Nevada all winter long, because after a winter storm, the snow melts off within a day or two. Does anyone really want to believe there is snow pack in Death Valley? Cherry pick the dates and you can produce any imagery you want.

Jeff L
May 5, 2014 7:12 am

Just noticed the same article ran in the Denver paper this morning.
This is a new low in intellectual dishonesty. There can be no doubt this was purposely done to alarm the citizenry of the United States. This is a dis-service to the people of America & a dis-service to all of science. This president came in talking about how he would be a champion of science & making decisions based on science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am optimistic though that the vast majority will see right through this & this dishonesty will only further undermine the CAGW cause in the minds of most people. Hopefully it doesn’t undermine their confidence in science , in general, as well.

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2014 7:20 am

Charles Nelson says:
May 5, 2014 at 5:23 am
America…beep…you have a problem…beep.
Yes, and he’s in the White House.

Physics Major
May 5, 2014 7:22 am

What will they do about it? Tax it? Issue a presidential order? Make emitting CO2 a crime?

Please don’t give them any ideas.

Keith Sketchley
May 5, 2014 7:27 am

Some people are a special kind of stooopid, they don’t understand “w e a t h e r”.
Early this year ski hills in SW BC and NW WA were in trouble, had to close due lack of snow. Including Mount Washington on Vancouver Island, which sometimes cannot operate because there was too much snow.
But a couple of months later they had so much they hoped to operate into May.
The antidote lies with voters, who elected the irresponsibly ignorant control freaks.

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2014 7:29 am

Houston, we have a problem: record Antarctic sea ice.
Must be global warming.

May 5, 2014 7:31 am

These pictures are bogus. No question! I spend weeks each summer near the snow line in the Sierra Nevada doing geological field work, and I can promise you that anyone who claims a 80% decrease in snow pack is lying…not exaggerating, not fudging, Lying!
There has never been ( in the last 18 years of my study) more than perhaps a 40% difference in snow cover from year to year. While it is true that we are about half of the average this year that is a result of three less than Average years in succession .
It is hard to believe it is possible but this crew in Washington has even given politicians a bad name….
I would like to see a date stamp on those two photographs .
Doug D

Chris B
May 5, 2014 7:37 am

elmer says:
May 5, 2014 at 6:13 am
Meanwhile the rest of the country had it’s worst winter in history.
Worst, best, average, ….least, most, the same,…. hotter, colder, just right. All perfectly consistent with CAGW.
We will always be at war with Eurasia.

May 5, 2014 7:38 am

Jeff L
May 5, 2014 at 7:12 am
‘Just noticed the same article ran in the Denver paper this morning.’
Yes, and there are strong indications, currently, that the Senate Democrat for Colorado may be vulnerable in November. A wet winter 2014/15 won’t make any difference after the midterms in November. What Podesta says now will have been forgotten by then.
Moreover, Obama’s executive pen strategy was largely authored by Podesta.
P.S. Check out the carbon footprint of John’s darling brother Tony; co-founder of their powerhouse lobbying firm.

Chris B
May 5, 2014 7:42 am

Bruce Cobb says:
May 5, 2014 at 7:29 am
Houston, we have a problem: record Antarctic sea ice.
Must be global warming.
According to many adherents the reason for the record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is that the Antarctic Ice cap is melting so fast it’s reducing the salinity of the surrounding Ocean making it freeze at higher temperatures. I kid you not.

David A
May 5, 2014 7:49 am

May 5, 2014 at 6:47 am
‘Fortunately, no one cares about, or is paying attention to, this particular story except California voters…
They should care. This lies comes from the President, and he wants Calif policy on a national level.

May 5, 2014 7:49 am

David A: “Has anyone noticed that one photo appears to have more clouds in it, or is that snow on the pacific ocean off California?”
The picture on the left is noticeably lighter than the picture on the right. Lightening brings out both clouds and snow.

May 5, 2014 7:54 am

This is supa dupa cherry picking at its very finest. Since cherry picking season is well underway I would like to point them to the Great Lakes. Brrrrrrr.
Now that January picture over a one year period is called the weather. Since January is in winter here is North America’s snow extent since 1967, it’s been trending up. Spring extent has been trending down while Autumn / Fall has been trending up.

May 5, 2014 7:57 am

The most distressing thing to me that there are many who believe what they say….the blind belief in “authorities ” prevails in many non-thinkers. They are easily led. I suspect remaining in power is such a strong drive it trumps intelligence.
I agree that the only difference between the parties is the spelling of their affiliations.
Doug D

May 5, 2014 7:59 am

Hm . Where I’m sitting right now has gone from verdant green to copper red.
Funny…it looks the same to me.

May 5, 2014 8:02 am

Here is a sure sign of global warming. Someone call the President ASAP! It’s much worse than we thought!

Weather Network – Sunday, 4 May 2014
After record April, still ice on the Great Lakes
After an unseasonably cold April, no one will be surprised to find the Great Lakes saw its greatest April ice cover since record keeping began in 1973.
On April 1, almost 70 per cent of the lakes’ surface was covered, down to around 24 per cent at the end of the month. All this after a maximum ice coverage of 92.2 per cent, recorded in early March, that was the second-highest ice cover ever recorded.

May 5, 2014 8:15 am

Maybe the advisors to the president should have show him Antarctica. More signs of global warming.

Western Advocate – May 5, 2014
Snow white arrives early across Central West
SNOW fell across parts of the Central Tablelands on Saturday, as temperatures across the region plummeted.
CTV News – May 3, 2014
Blast of spring snow blankets Calgary
Residents in Calgary and southwestern Alberta woke up on Saturday to a winter wonderland after approximately 20 centimetres of snow blanketed the city in a period of about 24 hours.
The unexpected snowfall prompted groans across the city as Calgarians traded in their spring gear for snow boots.
(Europe – Georgia)
Unexpected snowfall destroys 2,000 hectares of crops in Adjara

May 5, 2014 8:19 am

Earl Smith @ 4:24 am

And to pick nits:
The proper quote is
Houston, we HAD a problem.
(sent from Houston)

And now, to really get pedantic, the actual proper quote is, “Houston, we’ve had a problem here.”

Oscar Bajner
May 5, 2014 8:21 am

Obama is now getting into the weed on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.
1. Too much weed is bad for ONE.
2. What legacy? Weed it and weep?

Mike H
May 5, 2014 8:24 am

“Make emitting CO2 a crime?”
You know if they do, they will write themselves an exemption. After all, they do it for the greater good and what emits more CO2 than a politician’s pie hole?

Joe Born
May 5, 2014 8:27 am

“[Obama] raised concerns with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye about their financing of coal-fired plants in the developing world, aides said.”
That’s not just stupid; it’s immoral. Even some on the loony left recognize this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mg=reno64-wsj

May 5, 2014 8:28 am

Tom J, you are correct, I forget about Oregon. So does most of the rest of the country.

May 5, 2014 8:32 am

Steve Goddard reports.

Coldest Year On Record In The US Through May 3
Posted on May 4, 2014

May 5, 2014 8:34 am

‘But let’s indulge them, let’s say it is ALL caused by ‘global warming’. What will they do about it? Tax it? Issue a presidential order? Make emitting CO2 a crime?’
Yes. They will do that. One of John Podesta’s key strategies is bypassing Congress and using presidential executive orders. He is far more than an aid. He was brought in as a key strategist, both to salvage the fortunes of the Democratic Party in November, and for the furtherance of Obama’s ‘vision’ for us. Their aim is to change this society, and their strategy is to do so by way of the bureaucracy.

May 5, 2014 8:45 am

Thanks, A. But I must point out that asses may appear to us as slow-witted, while in reality they are not. This willful attempt at deception is criminal. Asses are not criminal.
But there is no denying that we have a problem, a big problem, and it is not for lack of ice.

May 5, 2014 8:49 am

Joe Born says:
May 5, 2014 at 8:27 am
“[Obama] raised concerns with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye about their financing of coal-fired plants in the developing world, aides said.”
That’s not just stupid; it’s immoral. Even some on the loony left recognize this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mg=reno64-wsj

Thanks; I had not seen that column.
It’s nother example of why ‘sustainability’ might be the dirtiest word in the English language: using the myth of “climate change” to deny cheap and abundant electricity to the peoples of the developing world and keep them mired in poverty.
/Mr Lynn

May 5, 2014 8:51 am

Alberto Zaragoza
May 5, 2014 at 8:42 am
‘For those who don’t know the author of this thing:
The Center for American Progress was founded by John Podesta. You’re going to see a lot more of these scaremongering stories as the months go by. They’re taking their gloves off for November.

May 5, 2014 8:52 am

Those damned trees. They move uphill, then down and now maybe up again. Grrrrrr.

We reconstructed a 3500-yr history of fluctuations in treeline elevation and tree abundance in the southern Sierra Nevada. Treeline elevation was higher than at present throughout most of the last 3500 yr. Declines in the abundance of live trees and treeline elevation occurred twice during the last 1000 yr: from 950 to 550 yr BP and from 450 to 50 yr BP…….

Rain, rain go away. Please come back another day. Or is that snow?

A 1000-Year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada
Tree-ring data from subalpine conifers in the southern Sierra Nevada were used to reconstruct temperature and precipitation back to A.D. 800. Tree growth of foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis ssp. australis) is influenced by nonlinear interactions between summer temperature and winter precipitation. Reconstruction of the separate histories of temperature and precipitation is feasible by explicitly modeling species and site differences in climatic response using response surfaces. The summer temperature reconstruction shows fluctuations on centennial and longer time scales including a period with temperatures exceeding late 20th-century values from ca. 1100 to 1375 A.D., corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period identified in other proxy data sources, and a period of cold temperatures from ca. 1450 to 1850, corresponding to the Little Ice Age. Precipitation variation is dominated by shorter period, decadal-scale oscillations. The long-term record presented here indicates that the 20th century is anomalous with respect to precipitation variation. A tabulation of 20- and 50-yr means indicates that precipitation equaling or exceeding 20th-century levels occurred infrequently in the 1000+-yr record.

May 5, 2014 8:56 am

The winter of 04-05 is the one I remember because I was building my house that winter way north San Diego County on the Riverside County line. Big time nasty. Check this out:
There was a bridge in Temecula with huge culverts. It was just up the road from the Pechanga Casino. It washed out. TWICE. They rebuilt it and it washed out a second time a few weeks later.

Billy Liar
May 5, 2014 9:02 am

California snow pack shrunk by a factor of 7 in a year? That’s nothing.
Great Lakes ice cover has increased by a factor of 19 in the same year! (Data for 30 Apr)

May 5, 2014 9:04 am

That’s odd. Alarmists said global warming causes more snow. So tell me which of the 2 images depicts “global warming’s impact”?

Jon Jewett
May 5, 2014 9:09 am

Karim D. Ghantous says: May 5, 2014 at 4:31 am
These are the same tactics used to sell Intelligent Design.
The difference is that intelligent design will become no more than a curiosity; a footnote in history. On the other hand, CAGW can lead to the collapse of our Republic due do bankruptcy and the death of millions(?) due to energy poverty.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

May 5, 2014 9:15 am

One could argue that the purpose of orthodoxy is to appropriate assets for adherents from the unworthy. Given the absurd basis of Carbonism, appropriation seems to be its only justification. However, who is the dumbass, the appropriator or the appropriate?

May 5, 2014 9:16 am

Hate to get too much on my soapbox here…aw, what the heck, I’m already doing it. So, after that note of levity, may I say that John Podesta, John Holdren, and Barack Obama, will end up having provided society with not one damn thing, not one invention, creation, or profound source of insight, to be bequeathed to future generations.
But, then, in a society of individual freedom one generally is most favored to profit by what they provided to it. Queen Elizabeth did. James Madison did, Alexander Graham Bell did. Enrico Fermi did. Ayn Hirsi Ali has. JP, JH, and BO, on the other hand, apparently must profit by being advantageously networked, and by showing fancy, misleading pictures like the one above.

John F. Hultquist
May 5, 2014 9:17 am

When Jack Swigert called out to Houston about a problem, someone answered.
If you call the current White House, no one is home.

May 5, 2014 9:17 am

“The satellite images viewed by President Obama before a meeting with eight Western governors were stark, showing how snowpack in California’s mountains had shrunk by 86 percent in a single year.”
The idea of creating ecological “regions” in place of, or over, the current 50 states was covered here on WUWT recently. This has been done once already in the Regional GHG Initiative by the eastern states under Romney.
Here is a video of Kitty Werthmann, who shares her experience of Germany’s take-over of Austria in 1938. Yes it was by election. One of the first actions taken by the fa–ists was to turn the seven states of Austria into four regions:

5 minute mark: “So we got a new government…And H—– said, ‘Austria has seven states. We are going to merge the seven states into four states. That would save a lot of money. That way we only would have four governors, and that would save a lot of money.”
(She also discusses gun registries, gun seizures, nationalization of schools, and of churches through “building maintenance funds,” Sunday state programs for youth, nationalized healthcare, and other changes to Austria.)

Floyd Doughty
May 5, 2014 9:24 am

Dude, get with the program. You should know by now that ALL “bad” weather (snowpack variations, as well as tornadoes) is due to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Anomalies (or CACA, for short). As The Honorable and Brilliant Al Gore has determined, and explained to us in detail, all CACA is produced by humans releasing CO2 as a result of selfishly bettering their lives through the use of fossil fuels. Of course, the corollary to this is that all “good” weather is the result of natural climate processes.
We don’t need no stinking research projects: “GOOD” weather is always due to Gaia beneficently sheltering Her subjects; “BAD” weather is always due to human-produced CACA.

May 5, 2014 9:25 am

You will like this. It’s from the 1970s. Weathermen sceptical of the climate scientists who proclaimed a looming big chill – from the New York Times.
H/t Steven Goddard

May 5, 2014 9:57 am

Meanwhile, today and tomorrow will have additional snow in the Sierras. About six inches over two days.

May 5, 2014 10:04 am

This is a picture taken after a storm in a year that was skewed towards early snow compared to a picture not taken after a storm in a year that was skewed towards late season snow.
That picture was obviously taken right after a storm, because it shows and all of the Nevada desert under snow. So I don’t know how you get an accurate measure of the snow pack from that, since 90% of the snow in that picture is going to melt in a day. That timing is clearly for the scare effect. Snow pack in the sierras would be the snow on just the tops of the the thin strip of mountains intersecting lake tahoe which run northnorthwest – southsoutheast, and not that whole picture.
I live and ski in lake Tahoe. I was here trying to ski during both of those pictures. We had one nice storm in Dec 2013 that dumped 50% of our annual snowfall by Christmas. Contrast that with this year, which waited until late January to get going. We get our snow in big dumps at different times of the year and commonly have 6 week “droughts”. Around here, you could compare and contrast any November-February and you will get a large difference. That’s normal around here. I think that massive year in 2011 was a slow starter too. Someone should find a picture for that same period from that year.
Another factor that is going to affect snow pack this year was the # of wet snow/rain events we had. The mountains out here are low and warm in the range of 8-9 thousand feet only. We call our snow Sierra Cement. This year, we lost 10-20% of possible yearly snowfall because we got rain from storms that were 1-2 degrees too warm. In years past, we might have gotten luckier and it could have been a few degrees colder. You have to time the moisture from the pacific with the cool air from the north for the best chances for snow. We don’t make cold air here in the sierras, we import it.
We have a name for what brings us snow out here: the Pineapple Express. Unless we get a strong jet stream from Hawaii, we don’t get any moisture. When we do get one, we can get 10+ feet of snow in a week, otherwise, we have a drought.
So yeah, from the feet on the ground. La-Nina and El-Nino are in charge around here.

Mark Albright
May 5, 2014 10:13 am

Of course, what they should be emphasizing was just how cold it was in Jan 2013 over snow covered Nevada which looked like the Arctic when I flew over it on 14 Jan 2013. At Winnemucca NV in the heart of that snow-covered landscape they experienced their coldest January in the past 64 years (since 1949) with a mean temperature of 14.7 F which was -15.4 degrees F below normal.

May 5, 2014 10:19 am

1 day of snow is catastrophic climate change. The snow melting next day is man made global warming. heads i win tails you lose.

Mike Maguire
May 5, 2014 10:27 am

This is less dumb ass and more intentional fraud.
The president has people, including highly paid scientists working for him that have the job of using creative ways to manipulate/present information to support his agenda.
Do we really think anybody on his team would suggest “Mr. President, I think we should be more honest with the people and tell them about how increasing carbon dioxide is boosting vegetative heath, plant growth and world food production for all animals on this planet”
They would be out of a job.
The objective is to present things like Super Storm Sandy as unprecedented and tie it to increasing “carbon pollution”. Same with the drought of 2012(after a record stretch of 24 growing seasons without a severe widespread drought in this same area).
It started morphing into the land of absurdity when Northern Hemispheric snow increased several years back and the connection was established with global warming.
I can’t imagine a way to top Dr. John Holdren’s claim in January that we will see more extreme cold because of global warming.
Another way to think of this is that going so blatantly overboard connecting any anomalous weather pattern to climate change(from desperation because CAGW is not happening as predicted) has reached the point, like in the “Boy that cried wolf” story, where the village people are losing trust in the messenger.
There will always be a core group with such a strong confirmation bias, that they will interpret everything one way, with the same fervor and faith that somebody belonging to a cult or religion has.
It’s also likely that the blogosphere and places like this, are winning a battle to bring authentic science to the world vs the one which governments are using which is to manipulate science to obtain control of the people.
In order to stay in the game, there is no choice but to ramp up the propoganda to maintain the brainwash.
I find it hard to believe that they could be winning any new followers, since not being under the confirmation bias spell means you can see the lunacy of some of their arguments………thus, the main objective, realistically is more of a, “not losing those that have faith” vs “trying to convert new blind faith followers”.
But then…………..being realistic and projecting CAGW agenda don’t have a lot in common, so maybe their expectations of the results of the propogand are also exaggerated.

Tim Obrien
May 5, 2014 10:29 am

Unfortunately it won’t matter what you show them. They have their beliefs, their narrative and their experts. And a vested interest in all the tax money and power this could bring them.

Bill Parsons
May 5, 2014 10:56 am

Tough to find satellite images of 2014 Colorado snowpack. Wonder why.

Mark Albright
May 5, 2014 11:11 am

Some of the earliest weather records in Nevada come from the rural town of Winnemucca. During the period 1877-1889 the annual mean temperature was 49.2 F. Now 125 years later the annual mean temperature is a slightly cooler 48.7 F as measured over the past five years (2009-2013) at Winnemucca. Houston, I don’t see a problem!

R. de Haan
May 5, 2014 11:13 am

Obama is an emperor without clothes. Time to kick this sorry ass out of the White House.

Ralph Kramden
May 5, 2014 11:18 am

I wonder if this was just a dumb mistake or was the White House intentionally trying to mislead people.

R. de Haan
May 5, 2014 11:20 am
Joel O'Bryan
May 5, 2014 11:22 am

Calling Obama. Podesta, and Holdren dumbasses is a disservice to dumbasses everywhere. Dumbasses are mostly ignorant, but “ignorant” can be fixed with education. Obama and his gang are stupid. Stupid can’t be fixed.

May 5, 2014 11:22 am

Propaganda advisers.

May 5, 2014 11:37 am

An all time best “global warming” cartoon:
Bob Clark

Jaakko Kateenkorva
May 5, 2014 12:03 pm
george e. smith
May 5, 2014 12:09 pm

Well the trouble is that most of that California snow pack, is actually Nevada Snow pack, so it ends up going East when it melts.
So we in California have gotten used to being a natural desert State, except around Palm Springs, where we are now the Golf Course State, and we have plenty of water from Northern California to water the Golf courses, which are valuable habitat, for the endangered Southern California five toed gopher.
So don’t worry about that first picture; most of that excessive snow pack, is actually Harry Reid’s problem.

James at 48
May 5, 2014 12:11 pm

They’ve never heard of the PDO?

James at 48
May 5, 2014 12:13 pm

RE: george e. smith says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Well the trouble is that most of that California snow pack, is actually Nevada Snow pack, so it ends up going East when it melts.
That’s actually not true. Most of the drainage out of the Sierra is to the west, and most of the pack is West of the divide ridge. The Western Slope gets huge amounts of pack, the Eastern Slope not so much.

May 5, 2014 12:53 pm

I was wondering if there’s anyone on this earth that’s more tormented than an environmentalist. They are never happy and will never be. The most preposterous thing is that it’s all self imposed! Great Scott, Marty! It’s a human do loop…

May 5, 2014 1:02 pm

How do the klimatariat manage to bury memory of the long, intense drought before the Pluvial around 1825? And all those other droughts and possibly mega-droughts which have afflicted California just in the historical period…How does all that get buried?
The middle ages might have been good for some cathedral and civilisation building over in Europe, but California suffered drought that made the Dustbowl look like duck weather. I know it’s a terrible cliche, but this deliberate burial of the past really is Orwellian. How do you pretend that the relatively humid twentieth century conditions are any sort of norm when history and paleo tell you otherwise so clearly?

Barbara Skolaut
May 5, 2014 1:04 pm

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
“So you have to think, is this lies, or stupidity?”
No reason it can’t be both, Jim.

Barbara Skolaut
May 5, 2014 1:07 pm

“I wonder if this was just a dumb mistake or was the White House intentionally trying to mislead people”
No, you don’t, Ralph.

May 5, 2014 1:15 pm

This is what we can expect from Climate Change:
More snow, less snow. more rain, less rain. warmer, colder, more drought, less drought.
In each case the amount will be unprecedented.
Any questions?

May 5, 2014 1:17 pm

The rejection and active suppression of any skeptical questioning input is an unforgivable black mark on a president I voted for twice enthusiastically. Fellow liberals, come to your senses and reject this crackpot anti-science masquerading as “science.” It is the equivalent of bible-thumping creationism. It should be an abomination to anyone who knows anything about what science really is. It is truly reactionary and blindly anti-progressive, a contemporary form of extreme Ludditism. There is nothing liberal about it.

Larry Ledwick
May 5, 2014 1:41 pm

So tell me when do they plan on starting the virgin sacrifices to the weather gods?
If the public had any appreciation of the history of drought cycles in the west they would immediately recognize this as a snake oil pitch. Unfortunately there are no high profile geologists or archeologists who have a firm grasp on the historical facts to shake trees and expose the public to the history of water in the west. The Colorado River compact was negotiated during an historically wet period, it has only been in the last few years the the powers that be have begun to realize that the water promised under the compact never existed on a long term basis, but only during wet cycles.

May 5, 2014 1:55 pm

It is to be hoped the POTUS White House aides on national security are a little more astute than those on climate…

Reply to  Ben D
May 6, 2014 7:22 am

@Ben D – a false hope.

May 5, 2014 2:03 pm

“Houston we have a problem” is a misquote. What was said by the Apollo 13 crew was actually “Houston we’ve had a problem”.

David A
May 5, 2014 2:04 pm

Ben D says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:55 pm
It is to be hoped the POTUS White House aides on national security are a little more astute than those on climate…
Benghazi? Libya? Ukraine? Egypt? //Domestic security, Boston Marathon? Fort Hood?, Southern Border? Selling rifles to the Mexican Mob?

May 5, 2014 2:16 pm

I can imagine his punchline now, “If you like your climate, you can keep your climate”

May 5, 2014 2:21 pm

“Some of the earliest weather records in Nevada come from the rural town of Winnemucca. During the period 1877-1889 the annual mean temperature was 49.2 F. Now 125 years later the annual mean temperature is a slightly cooler 48.7 F as measured over the past five years (2009-2013) at Winnemucca. Houston, I don’t see a problem!”
That doesn’t count as it doesn’t fit the “talking points”
You not a climate scientist how on earth can you do analysis as something as simple as a thermometer.

V. Uil
May 5, 2014 2:34 pm

Probably just a coincidence that rearranging the letters of PODESTA gives A DESPOT.

May 5, 2014 2:36 pm

I think it is time to take a page from the alarmist camp play book.
Every time they highlight a particular weather event as proof of global warming, just say “Cherry picking”.

Gunga Din
May 5, 2014 2:52 pm

Most US politicians are ex-lawyers that have ex-advertisers as their staff. /sarc

Gunga Din
May 5, 2014 3:09 pm

David A says:
May 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Ben D says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:55 pm
It is to be hoped the POTUS White House aides on national security are a little more astute than those on climate…
Benghazi? Libya? Ukraine? Egypt? //Domestic security, Boston Marathon? Fort Hood?, Southern Border? Selling rifles to the Mexican Mob?

They are achieving their goal.
I remember Gail Combs made a comment once about the difficulty of herding goats. We need more goats and less sheepeople.
(A side note. Spellchecker flagged “sheepeole”. The suggested correction was “salespeople”.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
May 6, 2014 7:52 am

@Gunga Din – Good suggestion. One begets the other! 😆

May 5, 2014 4:28 pm

One has to keep in mind that the gods first make you crazy and trifle with you, before they kill you.

george e. smith
May 5, 2014 4:43 pm

“””””…..James at 48 says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm
RE: george e. smith says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Well the trouble is that most of that California snow pack, is actually Nevada Snow pack, so it ends up going East when it melts.
That’s actually not true. Most of the drainage out of the Sierra is to the west, and most of the pack is West of the divide ridge. The Western Slope gets huge amounts of pack, the Eastern Slope not so much……”””””
“””””……Well the trouble is that most of that California snow pack, is actually Nevada Snow pack, so it ends up going East when it melts…….”””””
“””””…..Well the trouble is that most of that California snow pack, is actually Nevada Snow pack…..””””
“””””…..most of that California snow pack,…..”””””
“””””…..of that …..”””””
Now James; nowhere do I find myself mentioning the Sierra; or the Sierra Nevada, or drainage out of either of those.
IDID mention …”” that “”…. snow pack ; you know, the stuff in the left hand photograph, that was shown to the President.
And only a small part of that snow covered area is in California, or in the Sierra Nevada, and they don’t even show where the northern and eastern edge of that snow covered region is.
I’ll have to go over there to Nevada, to see all those rivers, that bring that Nevada snow melt, back nto California.

May 5, 2014 5:23 pm

Brent Walker says:
May 5, 2014 at 3:51 am
But Solar cycle 5 was from 1798 to 1810! Its first peak seems to have been in 1802 and the second, stronger one, in 1804.
Sorry, typo from earlier today not cycle #5 but solar cycle #12 and #24 very much alike

May 5, 2014 5:36 pm

You can look even further back. Read Dana’s Two Years Before the Mast, set in the mid 1830’s. His description of Santa Barbara:
“The only thing which diminishes its beauty is, that the hills have no large trees upon them, they having been all burnt by a great fire which swept them off about a dozen years ago, and they had not yet grown again. The fire was described to me by an inhabitant, as having been a very terrible and magnificent sight. The air of the whole valley was so heated that the people were obliged to leave the town and take up their quarters for several days upon the beach.”
So it was so dry that the area burned to cinders in the 1820’s.

May 5, 2014 8:14 pm

I think it’s even stupider than that. Podesta seems to be under impression that the Sierra snow pack persists from year to year, sort of like the polar caps. The fact is, apart from a few small glaciers (e.g., Lyell Glacier), the pack pretty much entirely disappears every summer.

Jim Bo
May 5, 2014 8:35 pm

Where was it that we signed onto dictate by regulatory authority?

May 6, 2014 2:49 am

The real story is that Obama’s aides know, basking daily in his much vaunted intelligence, that peddling this pap will fly past the uncurious Zero

May 6, 2014 3:48 am

No need for apologies, I beleive title very was appropriate.

May 6, 2014 7:29 am

Look if you like your snow pack, under the White House guidelines for managing climate change you will get to keep your snow pack.

David Ball
May 6, 2014 8:12 am

Barbara Skolaut says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:04 pm
“No reason it can’t be both, Jim.”
And neither should be acceptable to anyone.

James at 48
May 6, 2014 12:42 pm

RE: I’ll have to go over there to Nevada, to see all those rivers, that bring that Nevada snow melt, back nto California.
Only the Carson and Truckee drain east, plus a few creeks. This is not even worth debating.

May 6, 2014 9:16 pm

My God, and these people have influence over your president? Who can order war and nuclear weapons. Don’t vote for them again. Or complain to the White house. I can’t I don’t live in your country.

May 7, 2014 12:08 am

Re: James @ 48 & george e smith:
James, while your point regarding the destination of the meltwater from the Sierra Nevada is correct, you still seem to miss George’s point. He does not dispute that the Sierra snowpack will got to California, but instead points out that the vast area of snow shown in one photo lies east of the Sierra Nevada. Any snow out in the Nevada deserts will either evaporate or wind up in a salt lake. (except for the small amount in the Colorado River drainage.) Of the snow west of the Sierra’s divide, a large portion would have melted off just as quickly, only the High Sierra holds snow all winter.

May 7, 2014 7:15 am

What kind of dumbass presents a single year change as evidence of a trend? Such a small dataset is so beyond useless when discussing climate due to the inherent variability of weather that it’s outright dishonest to even discuss it.

James at 48
May 7, 2014 12:24 pm

JohnC says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:08 am
The discussion is on Sierra snow pack, not Ruby snow pack, White snow pack, etc.

Keith Sketchley
May 9, 2014 7:53 am

Is anyone able to get through to Believer Barack to tell him there’s twice as much snow on the North Cascades Highway this spring?

Robert A Dorrough
May 10, 2014 4:13 pm

Always have wanted to hear someone say “Houston we have the solution.”
It is easy to call to call the President, any President an idiot. After all, who would want that job?
Weather is famously difficult to predict. A wet year for California you say? Let us hope. You know that too, may be wrong. In 1859 a solar flare of such magnitude occurred that the scale of measurement had to be altered, it was forty times more powerful than previously thought 40X. The new scale has a Z because of one observed event. I just throw that out there to show factors effecting our weather, our temperate climate are unpredictable.
What are you guys doing? Hanging about theorizing, criticizing, backbiting, smug in your own cleverness. I don’t hear any solutions. It appears Houston isn’t the only one with a dumbass problem. They’re everywhere.

Reply to  Robert A Dorrough
May 13, 2014 10:48 am

A Dorrough
It is easy to call to call the President, any President an idiot. After all, who would want that job?
Apparently more people want it than have gotten it. By a factor of at least 2-1, and probably 3 or 4-1

May 10, 2014 11:03 pm

Robert a bit harsh, but I can understand. I think by solutions you might aim at altering climate change a la Mann, Gore, the IPCC etc., to stop global warming.(That doesn’t exist either) It is certainly not green energy, or cutting down CO2 emissions that they reckon are causing climate change from purely human activity. Low atmospheric Pollution is another thing, that can be reduced. I do agree that alternative graphs and data offered for appraisal seem to me sometimes a bit pointless, without a conclusion. This global warming and causes is not scientifically correct, but it has become political rather than scientifically based.
I have always thought how can anyone take these scare tactics for real science, when evidence is there to prove the opposite, and why all the fuss about something that is not happening. If anything were to happen that hasn’t in the last 10,000 years considering archaeological and geological research, (excepting we had one MIA during the 14th and mid 19th Century in UK and Europe) would be an impending mini ice age or leading into another glacial episode that will last for thousands of years, change our landscapes and areas of habitation and will effect Northern Hemisphere the most populated hemisphere, more than in the Southern Hemisphere. It won’t be a shortage of fuel, it will be a shortage of food and alteration of warmer summer and spring temperatures that will effect agriculture.
So if any scientist or layman/woman states the planet is warming, are they avoiding the real future crisis that can face humankind? If they have lied about this warming, beside personal financial benefit, there must be a hidden agenda. If I ‘a’ mere BA majoring in archaeology and paleoanthropology could see what Gore was on about and got a Nobel Prize and Academy Award, for something just short of a fraud. Then more scientists must agree his predictions are not even valid, let alone correct. We can’t change weather patterns, solar flares, our orbit, volcanic eruption or ocean tidal patterns.
But their skeptical objections in print,other than books, are going unheard by the MMS and some politicians. If governments have spent collectively trillions of dollars on the say so of biased scientists and organizations, that by avoiding disasterous climate change a la the alarmists, how are they going to explain this to taxpayers when proven very wrong.
Science is on a back foot, and political agendas are being met. At least our new PM, The Hon. Tony Abbott, is starting off by trying to repeal the carbon tax and mining tax (that has produced no funds).but with new Senators in our upper house after July 1st, the Greens and Labor will not hold the balance of power. And getting rid of the Climate commission (headed by Tim Flannery) and clean energy commission whose funds have been stopped.

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  bushbunny
May 11, 2014 2:35 am

Any honest climate scientist will state global warming is happening and has been happening since the end of the last ice age, some 17,000+ years ago. We are in an interglacial and it is improbable that any human activity, intentional or otherwise, will be able to prevent the next ice age from occurring.
Global warming, which you have denied exists, comes in two flavors: Naturally occurring and AGW (anthropogenic global warming.) Acceleration of temperature change in the troposphere could be a natural phenomena vis a vis the snowball effect or perhaps it is something organic life contributes to the environment. AGW on the there hand, places responsibility, or blame if you will, on human activity. You haven’t chosen a flavor so, none for you.
One wonders if you will concede atmospheric nuclear weapons testing has had some effect on the environment. I mean, besides you having small traces of cesium, beryllium, strontium and polonium in your body.
Politics aside, I don’t care about politics or economics for that matter, illusionary but somewhat comforting that at least someone has power and the situation is under control. I care about truth. The truth doesn’t care what you believe, it remains unaffected by your perception.
The solution I was referring to was a solution to human stupidity and false beliefs.
Apparently, nothing personal, I’m not going to find it here. Good luck! Keep up the…whatever you’re doing.

May 11, 2014 11:53 am

To Robert A. Dorrough:
The central issue on GW is not whether it is happening or not. The evidence available from Hadley CRUT is that it has increased by about one degree over the last century and a half, even though that amount is not much, not alarming and not even harmful to human habitat. The central issue is whether or not human activity is to blame in any way for this rise. The evidence for this has to come from examining the pattern of increase over this time period, since there are increases, flat periods, and even downturns in the record. If we compare the last 50 years with the previous fifty, what do we find? We find n o difference either in pattern or amount of increase, none whatsoever, Compare the two graphs side by side and there is nothing to choose between them. If carbon is the guilty player in all this, the second period should have been higher and the curve steeper. Neither was the case, falsifying the theory. When we shift to the wobbly term “Climate change” using the same simple process of comparing two 50-year periods, there is likewise no statistically significant difference regarding storms, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, or hurricane intensity. The only difference we will find might be in terms of property losses, easily explained as increased development in vulnerable areas such as desserts and shorelines. These are simple data sets, easily demonstrable and fully open to straightforward statistical analysis, yet Obama is apparently blissfully unaware of them. It drives me crazy!

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  ronhave
May 11, 2014 8:20 pm

I sympathize. Politicians are strange parasitic animals tending to latch upon popular opinions, general misconceptions and even superstitions, promoting them as their own thereby benefiting. Conventional wisdom is nothing more than convention, popular opinion is generally wrong and common sense is actually uncommon.
A genius learns from the mistakes of others, the wise from their own and idiots never learn.
There are many genii trying to tell us what to do, very few wise people who know what to do and the majority are idiots who will cling to their misconceptions, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. It has always been thus. Try not to let it get to you.
The idea of climate change may prove to be a useful misconception for humanity as a whole. It may yet advance critical thinking, scientific understanding, transportation technology, energy efficacy and environmental awareness among unforeseen others. This isn’t the end of the world, it’s still in the beginning phase. We may have as much as 8,000 years before the onset of the next ice age and a billion years before the sun’s intensity drives us from the planet. In the meantime, politicians will continue to take advantage of the ignorance of the masses. Don’t let that change your focus.

May 12, 2014 12:32 am

Robert, I don’t know how to take your comment. You state the planet has been warming since 17,000 years ago. Might have but we usually state about 12,000 to 8,000 years ago. Sea bridges were swamped between Britain and Continental Europe, the Bering Straights and Bass straights and the bridge between the Torres Straight islands and New Guinea. Well, honest scientists, as you call them have disputed that the planet is still warming, sea levels are not rising and extreme weather events due to human activities and CO2 is untrue. And it is not been unusually warmer than average for the last 17 years, and certainly acknowledge that the Northern Hemisphere suffered a mini ice age from the 14th Century until possibly mid 19th century, well before the industrial revolution in UK and Europe. It has warmed up obviously but expect it to decline rather than increase as it has done in the past. If it doesn’t well we will live a bit longer as a species, as a full glacial period will not be nice. The causation factors and what forces the weather and climate is not human activities, pollution yes.

Robert A Dorrough
May 12, 2014 4:17 am

You may or may not realize that you have painted yourself into a corner with rather broad strokes. My first instinct is to leave you there shouting “dumbass, dumbass” at others. Honest scientists dispute, of course they do, wouldn’t be scientists if they didn’t….that the planet is still warming….It has warmed up obviously but expect…..the future is even more difficult to predict than the weather. The last sentence is somewhat vague. Do you mean that pollution is one of the causation factors effecting the weather and climate or that human activities such as pollution have no effect on the environment? It is clear to me that you will cling to your misconceptions in the face of overwhelming evidence. I respectfully disagree. You may return to your shouting.

May 12, 2014 5:00 am

You two are using lots of words for something I cannot see on a thermometer!
There are little pictures within the big picture and the light allows us to see the same coin from many angles. Don’t forget to kiss your kids goodnight while these are the best years in the life of mankind.

May 12, 2014 5:03 am

I didn’t use the phrase ‘dumbass’, it’s not an Australian expression, and I have not been shouting either. I don’t think we will convince you black isn’t white, you are fixated with the so called ‘overwhelming evidence’, that has failed to overwhelm many whose knowledge of climate and weather patterns etc., and CO2 the poisonous gas that we humans are making too much off and changing the climate, is far more scientifically based and factual than your lot. Have fun. But you won’t get much support on this blog.

May 12, 2014 5:08 am

On second thoughts, folks, Robert is one of those trusting people who would have faith in anyone in authority, as he sees them, without questioning them. Believing anyone in authority or is published is honest. One of the things I was warned about starting university, and other post scholars may agree, ‘Don’t believe everything you read in books, read widely to get a variety of perceptions and opinions and do your own independent research too.’ Anyway good night folks, I am off to bed.

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  bushbunny
May 12, 2014 5:34 am

You must have googled me to know so much. Are personal attacks part of your debate strategy or is that just for your sycophants? You can find me on Facebook or Google+. Do you know what you get when you search “bush bunny?” Try it see what you get. You may want to change your alias. I’m not judging, you may well be an anonymous homosexual male who enjoys outdoor sex. I don’t really care. Your position that the climate hasn’t changed, isn’t changing and won’t change seems a little outside reality that’s all. I agree that CO2 isn’t the biggest problem, even if this week we broke the historical all-time high of 400ppm. Oh, I am the authority. I try to be honest and I am open to questions. Good night bushbunny, have fun with your mates.

May 12, 2014 5:17 am

Andyj, what are you trying to convey. LOL

May 12, 2014 7:27 am

Robert, I see that you are going total ad hominem on poor bush bunny, but never mind. You have not answered my challenge. Can you cite any statistic that illustrates the presumed fact that there is a human footprint on any climate phenomenon, excepting only the soot particles from unfiltered coal and petroleum burning? How about my 100 year test? What’s the matter with it? Regarding your 400 ppm citation, it happens to be based on the exclusive work of two “scientists,” the father and son team of the Keelings, tested at one grossly unrepresentative spot on the earth’s surface (14,000 feet up on the Island of Hawaii, notable among other things for an ever increasing bustle of CO2-generating human activity. CO2 was measured in 1940 as above 400 ppm, but it was a different researcher using a different method. It was oh so convenient for Keeling Sr to throw out everybody else’s methods and claim his own as truly representative of the entire globe. Even then it is a puzzling fact that Keeling’s “curve” is not much of a curve, deviating hardly at all from linear. How come? and how come the alarmists don’t have the slightest interest in getting a wirkld-wide sampling of actual levels, expensive, perhaps, but panicky western governments are pouring billions into countermeasures for something that may not even be a problem.

Robert A Dorrough
May 12, 2014 8:31 am

Ok, “ronhave” or whoever you are. You and poor bush bunny have differences of opinion and are not presenting a unified argument. That said, I’ll accept your challenge. First, why would you insist on an exemption for soot particles from unfiltered coal and petroleum burning if your datum and belief in it were infallible?
As for your 100 year test, not sure what you’re talking about. A sampling of weather from someplace where the first 50 years is the same as the second 50 years as if that might have anything to do with the next 50 years. That test?
Do you have the name of that mysterious different researcher, any idea what the different method he/she used, I understand it was technology from 1940 but it is impossible to respond to such a generality.
The monitoring station on Mona Loa is part of ERSL and NOAA, I assure you it is not the exclusive work of only two scientists in parenthesis. And yes, the monitoring is being carried out wirkld-wide. And no, it’s not costing billions. Unless your calculations are in Zimbabwe dollars.

Reply to  Robert A Dorrough
May 12, 2014 11:46 am

Robert, you really seem to be an ad hominem predator, whoever else you are. I happen to be Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D., former professor of information science at American University and former Program Director and Research Professor at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. At the Institute we were proud to be empirical and we knew all about statistics
I once taught the subject at Boston University but that was a long time ago. I also devoted more than a chapter of my recent book, “Acceleration: The Forces Driving Human Progress” to the very subject of what science really is and how its emergence has accelerated progress. Thus I am painfully aware that the term “environmental scientist” is an oxymoron, connoting advocacy of one-sided green positions having nothing to do with science, and including, in many cases, deliberate faking and inappropriate merging of data sets to make it appear that there is some kind of emergency where none exists and where supporting data is either weak (as in the case of CO2 increasing) or absent (in the case of there being any unconfounded correlation between CO2 levels and any climatic phenomenon saving plant growth, a good thing) As for the 100 year test, it is simple statistics; that’s all, and I guess you just don’t get it.

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  ronhave
May 12, 2014 8:08 pm

Your right, I didn’t get it. Would you please be so kind as to provide a link or restate your 100 year test that I may answer you challenge.
That is the second time you have accused me of ad hominem attacks. Unjustly methinks. I would never answer a logical knowledge-based argument with a personal insult.
Now that I know who you are, where you have been and what you have published I should be able to provide you with a peer reviewed opinion. You do understand that you are out-numbered, surrounded and that this is your Alamo. Very well, I accept your challenge.

May 12, 2014 9:07 am

Robert I don’t know anything about you, nor have I Googled you, nor attacked you. Your suggestion I could be a homosexual male is rather weird. I think Anthony we have another argumentative troll who is negative attention seeking and picking on me again. Just to ruin this thread.

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  bushbunny
May 12, 2014 9:56 am

Seriously? Google bushbunny and click on the first result. As I said before , you may want to change you alias.
[Cut it out. Bushbunny is a recognized, frequent contributor here. Regardless of the meaning you want to assume, further distraction is off-topic. Mod]

May 12, 2014 7:30 pm

Actually Robert, although not shown my gravatar usually has a pic of a Australian pretty (well I think so) long haired lady waving an Akubra hat in a salute. I live in what people call the Australian bush, where we have a lot of rabbits, or bush bunnies. Actually where I live is a regional NSW town, not exactly in the bush, but surrounded by many deciduous trees and two cathedrals, and a very nice university. And besides education we are the centre of fine wool and beef cattle, and other crops, except wheat or cereals, so buzz off back to quagmire where you can happily spit insults to women as no one hears you.

May 12, 2014 8:57 pm

The bush bunny INSULT as you called to everyone’s attention and advised to change my gravatar (screen name) because of it was not just overtly sexist I was gravely suspicious of your intentions and overall mentality. It was unnecessary to the topic of this thread, I note you are not involved in other threads.

May 13, 2014 6:42 am
May 13, 2014 7:12 am

I am clumsy with posting connections. I could copy the graph onto my computer, but not then on to this list. Look up Climate charts and graphs and go to “Monthly Global SST Anomaly Trends (1/1880- Feb, 2014)”, then slice the graph at 1964 and 1914. Then compare the two graphs. Can you tell which is which? If not, then what is the new CO2 contribution to global warming over the last 50 years outside of natural forces? The answer is clear: nothing measurable.
I suggest that any skeptics (pardon me “deniers”) provide this graphic test to their friends and neighbors who want to laugh them down as crackpots.
But, oh, I forgot, it is not global warming any more, but “climate change.” OK, apply the same test. Last 50 versus previous 50. There are records for all of these. Which climate thing do you want to take: hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? Good luck!

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  ronhave
May 14, 2014 12:01 am

I thank you, sir. I understand that we all have our shortcomings. “To err is human” as they say, usually misattributed to Shakespeare, you can challenge anyone to try to find it there. Poor Richard’s might be a better place to look for the quote.
I would request more time as this is not my general focus. Be assured I shall answer your skepticism with reasoned criticism. One can only hope your position is the correct one and everyone else is wrong. A scientific debate cannot be allowed to devolve into a semantical argument. Having political or philosophical differences will not change cold hard data. Again you’ll be hearing from me soon not geological or astrological time soon, but soon.

May 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Well I don’t think Obama is an idiot, a clever manipulative man, but I have never taken to his wife, as a foreigner of course. Maybe it is because she is so tall, but she seems personal enough. We’ll see who is the next president, Hilary Clinton, I don’t think she will get in. She doesn’t appeal to me.

May 14, 2014 8:18 pm

ROBERT THAT’S WERE YOU ARE RIGHT! INDIRECTLY. Having political or philosophical differences dictates cold hard data to support a hypothesis. To give you a very good example. The Aryan race was linked to fair haired blue eyed Germans, the Aryan race where from the sub continent. Jews were sub human. The final solution. Differences in religious worship and theological questions and belief. The creationist versus the evolutionists. Sarah Palin, ‘humans walked with dinosaurs’. Politics rules human existence, always has. Even between men and women over the ages. And it is my belief and knowledge, that the main driving force between the alarmists and skeptics is not only political but a real scam to try to gain more financial help and political changes for many and they don’t have a case because of poor and deluded data that has driven their philosophical and political agendas. That is why democratic countries separate state from religious doctrines. Theological governments do not.

Robert A Dorrough
Reply to  bushbunny
May 15, 2014 2:21 am

I unequivocally agree, theocracy is not good government. I’m a technocrat myself. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am still formulating my response to ronhave. I request your indulgence.

Verified by MonsterInsights