The eyeroller you knew was going to happen – California winter storm caused by "changing climate"

People send me stuff. This “never let a good crisis go to waste” dreck was sent to me today from a Madison Avenue PR outfit called “Climate Nexus” who doesn’t seem to know much about climate, or weather, or California. But, they can spin a good yarn. The storm impacting California today is just like hundreds of previous storms in recorded weather history, the only thing that is new is the desire to link it to climate change for political purposes. In my opinion, it’s bullshit of the highest order.

sat_pacific_640x480[1]

The Winter storm hitting California today, claimed to be driven by “changing climate”.

FYI FOR JOURNALISTS

Northern California Super Storm Linked to Changing Climate

To: Journalists

From: Climate Nexus

Date: December 11, 2014

Re: The Climate Context of California’s Atmospheric River Storm

With the drought-causing high-pressure zone dubbed the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” pushed aside for now, a powerful storm associated with what are called “atmospheric rivers” is currently drenching the California Bay Area. Atmospheric rivers are relatively narrow, long streams of clouds and atmospheric water vapor that are associated with major storms in the Pacific. These streams, many of which originate from Hawaii or beyond and are known as the “Pineapple Express,” bring moisture from the Tropics into the West Coast. “It’s essentially a fire hose of water brought up from the tropics that comes up and crashes into the West Coast,” said Michael Dettinger, an atmospheric scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.

Atmospheric river storms are responsible for 30-50 percent of all the precipitation in California and are also responsible for over 80 percent of major flooding events. Climate research indicates that the impacts of these storms are expected to escalate dramatically if carbon emissions continue along the business-as-usual path, and that atmospheric rivers may already be impacted by current warming:

  • As the world heats up and more heat is carried in the atmosphere as water vapor, heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense.
  • Climate models project that atmospheric river storms in California will become more frequent and intense in the future, which means it is likely that the current storm is a taste of what’s to come.
  • Surface temperatures off the coast of California during this particular storm are much warmer than usual, helping to pump even more moisture into the storm.

A Severe Storm

The current storm is expected to be one of the most severe in five years, with high wind speeds up to 65 mph and 2 to 6 inches of rain expected through Friday for San Francisco, Sacramento, and other northern cities. Conditions are so severe that the San Francisco Unified School District announced on Wednesday, December 10 that it would close schools on Thursday, when the heaviest impacts will likely be felt. At least four local rivers in Northern California are forecast to peak above flood stage late Thursday or early Friday, adding up to 32 feet of water to their nearly dry banks, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration charts. With this amount of rain at the tail end of California’s driest year on record (and in at least the last 1,200 years), which led to a devastating wildfire season, NOAA has also advised locals to watch out for periods of heavy rain over recent burn scars that could cause debris flows and flash flooding.

A Charged Atmosphere

In the past half-century, climate change has charged the atmosphere with more water vapor, fueling extreme precipitation and loading storms of all types with additional moisture that ends up as rain and snowfall. The fingerprint of global warming has been firmly documented in the shift toward extreme precipitation already observed in the northern hemisphere. In the particular case of atmospheric river storms in California other factors, especially wind strength, can also influence how much rain is wrung out of the storm. We are still learning how climate change may be affecting those factors.

The atmospheric rivers that arrive in California collect moisture over a large swathe of the tropics, including the extra water vapor added to the atmosphere by global warming. This water is then delivered to California through the end of the storm hose, creating torrential rain and floods.

Since 1950, atmospheric river storms have been responsible for 81 percent of the most well-documented levee breaks in California’s Central Valley and 80 percent of the flooding in California rivers. In delta areas, such as the San Francisco Bay, climate change puts the region in double jeopardy. Climate change contributes to sea level rise, which adds to the flood levels pushed up by the atmospheric river storms. Since 1854 sea levels have rise about a foot in the San Francisco Bay.

A Warmer Ocean

Temperatures off the California coast are currently 5 to 6°F warmer than historic averages for this time of year—among the warmest autumn conditions of any time in the past 30 years—which could intensity the current atmospheric river storm. While connections between global warming and the current, unusually warm waters off the California coast are not fully understood, the warm coastal conditions are known to be linked to rare changes in wind patterns. Winds that normally blow from the north, trapping warm water closer to the equator, have slackened since the summer, allowing the warm water to move north.

And a More Intense Future

Looking ahead, the computer models predict that climate change will cause the very worst atmospheric river storms hitting California to become much more frequent and larger. One model illustrating the impacts of a large-scale atmospheric storm, similar in scope to the infamous river storm of 1861 that turned the Central Valley into an inland lake, found that such an event would inflict over $400 billion in damages in modern day California.

For more information or to be connected with experts on the link between climate change and atmospheric rivers in California contact Paige Knappenberger at pknappenberger@climatenexus.org.

Climate Nexus is a strategic communications group dedicating to highlighting the wide-ranging impacts of climate change and clean energy solutions in the U.S.

Contact information: Climate Nexus, Climate Nexus, 171 Madison Ave Suite 901, New York, NY 10016

Advertisements

293 thoughts on “The eyeroller you knew was going to happen – California winter storm caused by "changing climate"

    • Except that the person who violates Godwin’s Law loses the argument, while the researcher or journalist who invokes CAGW wins funding.

    • Only “one of the most severe in five years”? Wow. Damning with faint praise. Not really making the case that “the times, they are a chang-ing”, what?

  1. The Pineapple Express never reaches Mad Av in NYC. For that, we need to arrange another ‘Superstorm Sandy’. See essay Sandy was Weather in ….
    So the follow the money question is, who are these guys, and who hired them as climate change flacks.

    • Well my local Radio talk show morning host, who just happens to be a fully accredited member of the American Meteorological association specifically said yesterday, and today, that THIS storm is NOT a pineapple express storm.
      In any case, where I am in Silicon valley it has been just a ho hum bit of rain. Hardly a rustle of leaves in the trees. It was a piece of cake driving my car to the Subaru dealer this morning to fix an automatic Transmission oil temperature problem, which evidently is a stuck valve of some sort. Luckily a warranty fix anyhow, and didn’t cause any major problem.
      But up in San Francisco and environs they had apoplectic fits, as people drove their Beamers into four foot deep underpass lakes, and got them full of water.
      Being able to afford a beamer, does not endow one with enough sense to not drive a car into a lake.
      And like all 100 year storms of this intensity, this one will be soon forgotten, by the time the next one arrives in three or four years.
      But no, if you though anyone was thinking about how to connect the local drainage systems to some pumping center, where the bulk of this water could be recycled into some of the many empty reservoirs we have around the Bay area, you would be mistaken. Nobody ever thinks of useful ideas in this region.
      My guess is we got enough deluge in the bay area to fill to the spillway, every single water storage reservoir in the area, but virtually all of it, will end up out in Monterey Bay, where it will alter the salinity for a while.
      But nobody was talking about the Bush era war crimes, that Di fi and Madam (check bouncer) Boxer, and Nan Pelosi all signed off on today; so as they say, we should never let a class A storm go to waste.

      • I find it fascinating the way some people insist on believing that any time someone does something they disagree with it, it’s a “war crime”.

      • MarkW December 12, 2014 at 5:48 am

        I find it fascinating the way some people insist on believing that any time someone does something they disagree with it, it’s a “war crime”.

        Tell us please MarkW, how you would characterize a war based on a lie?

    • Putting an end to a regime actively engaged in persistent slo-mo genocide is not usually considered to be a war crime.

      • Ah, regime change is OK as long as it’s to end one “actively engaged in persistent slo-mo genocide.” Can you refer us to a legal document where this is inscribed, or are you just making it up as you go along?

  2. What they should be saying is, “Thank God for this rain in our drought, and thank God and the Greatest Generation that we have a huge reservoir system in California to capture and control it. God, what can we do to express our gratitude and appreciation to you?”
    I’m not holding my internal 14.9 psi atmosphere for these lying New York spin doctors to actually do that, but I’ll do it, and you never know!

  3. For those of us who have included the SW US drought in their prayers, please tell us if it is over.
    Droughts always end with localised floods – a price worth paying. Short-term pain for long-term gain.
    So is this “climate change” good or bad? And why?
    How can every change be bad?
    And how is it linked to CO2?

    • And how is it linked to CO2?

      Easy answer.
      The models that predicted what hasn’t happened said it was caused by CO2. Since virtual reality always trumps real reality then droughts are always caused by only Man-Caused CO2.
      To sum up, “change” is always bad and the Omnipotent Ape (better known as “Man”) is the only one capable of causing it.
      Man equals Paradise Lost. We just need the better, elite men to regain it us.
      To paraphrase, “All Men are created equal…but some men are more equal than others.”

  4. oh my god its like reading that weird British paper – gruinead or whatever.

    • That’s the great thing about the Grincheaid. Even when they’re not making complete idiots of themselves, you can always get an extra laugh by spelling it a different way. It’s been a source of amusement in the UK for decades.

  5. so more rivers in the air for California. Let’s see, a drought stricken state gets more rainfall in future winters filling all those reservoirs in the Sierra foothills. plus more winter snow for recharging the water system in the spring runoff, what is not to like about this scenario. More co2 please.

  6. If you’re a f*ckwit, it’s unprecedented. It’s been five years since it last happened.
    .
    (Sitting looking out of my window at it BTW. I thought it was going to be worse).

  7. One model illustrating the impacts of a large-scale atmospheric storm, similar in scope to the infamous river storm of 1861 that turned the Central Valley into an inland lake
    So they had a monster storm in 1861, the likes of which has not been repeated since. I can’t remember. Was it warmer then than it is now? Or colder? 😉

    • Well for your information, the California central Valley IS (or WAS) an inland lake. (ALL lakes are inland) Tulare Lake; AKA the Central Valley, was the largest lake west of the Mississippi river, until they channeled it to the San Joachin river and ran it all off into SF bay and out to sea.
      They wanted to grow Thompson seedless grapes on the bottom of the lake, which was ground. They also have the Lemore NAS air base in the middle of Tulare Lake, near Hanford / Visalia CA.
      My house is on the shore of Tulare lake, so I need flood insurance, even though I have a moat surrounding my house which is elevated four feet above the entire central valley.

      • I understand your pain, george. I’m at 4,500 elev on a ridge top jutting westward toward the Valley just south of the San Joaquin River Canyon. If memory serves me, a part of my real estate taxes go to support a flood control district! I think this ridgetop was probably high and dry in Noah’s time. I also happen to be on top of a granite massif. Earthquake seismic waves zip past me virtually unnoticed to the best of my knowledge. Don’t get me started on Earthquake Insurance. My neighbors and I have been praying for this storm event for years as we watch the pines die and the beetles move in. Bring it on!
        Oh, BTW, I marvel at the productivity of your neighborhood each time I drive down Hwy 41 toward the beautiful little hamlet of Kettleman City.

      • Thanks Ed, I know the place well. As I recall it is exactly halfway from Si valley to my SIL’s house in Glendale. Well she escaped California and fled to Oregon last month. Must like these 100 year storms that happen every four or five years.
        You probably then know just where George Smith Road is up there on the way to Kings Canyon Nat Park. I’ve been meaning to flog one of the street signs, to put up on the Alcan Hiway at Watson Lake.
        But they might get a clue as to whodunit, and I wouldn’t want all that exposure.
        Since my house is floating on the underground reservoir of central valley, I figure that an earth quake won’t do much sloshing around my house.
        But if you have a granitized hull under your boat, then you are more likely to shake than sink.

      • PS I had a really nasty prang on Hiway 41 a few years back (my fault entirely). Misjudged a stop sign at 5AM coming up to Si valley, and overshot the edge of 41 North bound. Ended up T-boning the front wheel of some poor chap’s Pickemup truck. My car did a 450 degree right turn about the drivers seat; hardly felt a thing, but totaled the car.
        Poor victim of my misjudgement, was on his way home to Oregon, and was now stuck in the valley till he got his rig fixed. Coulda been worse. If I had been one second sooner, he would have T-boned my driver’s seat, and this post would be coming from a warmer place than California.
        G

      • George Smith….
        Heaven is not warmer than California… unless you meant the warmth of loving hearts.
        Merry Christmas!
        Janice
        #(:))

      • What Wiki says is:
        “It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains (or snows in the very high elevations) that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862.”

      • “This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12, and contributed to a flood which extended from the Columbia River southward in western Oregon, and through California to San Diego, and extended as far inland as Idaho in the Washington Territory, Nevada and Utah in the Utah Territory, and Arizona in the western New Mexico Territory”
        So…the record rain was when?

      • I think they meant to say the winter of 1861/1862. Not that I agree with them, as I think they meant to say were going to make up a bunch of stuff to promote the Co2 team.

    • The Pineapple Express is typically associated with the El Niño condition that has been forming in the Pacific for the last 9 months. Surprised that your treatment does not include mention of that naturally occurring pattern?

  8. All weather now has a distinctive fingerprint on it, in the eye of the alarmist. and I love their use of the words “impact” and “business-as-usual”. Ho hum! Gotta get in some spin!

  9. With “climate change” we get wetter wets and drier dries, colder colds and hotter hots, both more snow and less, and stormier storms.
    Yea verily, CO2 is the crack cocaine of our climate. Gaia has an addiction, and it’s our fault (of course).

    • You forgot the Wetter Dries, The Drier Wets, Warmer colds and Colder Hots, and Nicer mild weather, so no matter what happens, it’s not what would have happened because we have Climate Weirding now!
      /sarc as needed

  10. I understand that these people belief that climate change is omnipotent and can do anything, but do they really believe that it can cause more extreme droughts and more extreme precipitation events in the same place at the same time?

    • Louis, I’m not entirely sure the logic fail goes the direction you think. But then again, I’ve managed to wrap my mind around a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere which necessarily happens at the same time in the same vertical column of atmosphere and understand the difference between that and cyclical sequences of events which don’t occur, by definition, at the same microsecond.

  11. “Looking ahead, the computer models predict that climate change will cause the very worst atmospheric river storms hitting California to become much more frequent and larger”…and droughts will become a thing of the past

    • Don’t underestimate the CAGW industry. There will be more more flooding, and more drought as well.

      • Flooding which is almost worsest for five years. Followed by draught which is one of worsest for several years.
        These people have headlines to make, since every area, every place, have for every possible period of time and every possible scale the most x of that scale and several one of the most x.

  12. The sin is no longer that a scientist was wrong, because that was always a forgivable mistake and a risk you took, but that they now lie through their teeth to us while at the same time giving us the good old steady eye contact of truth. It’s deliberate, premeditated and totally without any guilt for ruthlessly exploiting the implicit trust in them. We will be punished for that.
    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/is-it-now-considered-okay-for-science-to-be-corrupt/
    Pointman

  13. 21 people on the payroll of this propaganda outlet. Who is paying for this crap? (Please don’t tell me it’s me).

    • According to Jeff Nesbit (Source: his LinkedIn profile):
      “Climate Nexus is a national, non-profit initiative based in New York that focuses on climate and energy communications. The initiative is supported by a number of foundations as a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.”
      He goes on to say:
      “Climate Nexus includes a number of former national media and senior environmental group communications pros, and works closely with an established network of science, technology, public health, clean energy and environmental organizations on climate change and clean energy issues and solutions.” {emphasis mine}
      So, there’s your answer:
      Ultimately, behind the “foundations” the money is largely (no doubt) coming from: “clean energy” investors, a.k.a. WINDMILL AND SOLAR PANEL SCAMMERS (scamming tax payer’s money via income and payroll and other taxes and skimming power customer’s wallet with rate surcharges and other lovely “fundraising)).

    • Pretty funny that the contact person is a Knappenberger given that Chip writes skeptical climate articles for CATO.

      • Everyone has to make a living. Have you ever gotten an earful of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter? That apple not only fell far from the tree, it landed on another planet.

  14. This article is so full of so many l1ies statements made with reckless indifference as to their truth or falsity… it was a bit surprising to discover what Climate Nexus’ Executive Director’s undergraduate major was (and, then again, given the number of wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing pastors whom I’ve personally observed who TALKED their way into their positions…. maybe not…):
    “Jeff Nesbit
    Executive Director, Climate Nexus
    New York, New York Nonprofit Organization Management
    Current
    Climate Nexus,
    Book Publishing and Writing
    Duke University
    B.A., Religion
    1975 – 1979″
    Source: LinkedIn.com profile for Jeff Nesbit

      • lol — and so true. The “Establishment” up to its same ol’ same ol. L1es. They should read the Bible (and not twist its meaning): “There is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiates 1:9.

      • This is historically improbable. 700 years ago witches were to blame for weather events, not a wrathful God. Thus it is not Gaia that is wrathful (what is it with the Euro-fixation on wrathful gods?) but the evils of CO2 emissions promoted by ‘corporations’ and ‘big money’ who ‘profit from our misery’.
        We do not in fact blame ourselves wherever there is a chance to externalize responsibility.

      • I put this at the bottom, but it belongs here.
        Tοιαῦτα πολλάκις ἐγίνετο καὶ γίνεται, καὶ πῶς ταῦτα συντελείας σημεῖα;2
        (Such things have often happened and still happen, and how can these be signs of the end of the world?)
        Emperor Julian, Against the Galileans

      • In case I’m not the only one who had a hard time reading the text, here’s what it says:
        Top Panel – left to right
        o – The Earth has never seen such weather as we get now… Mankind used to live in peaceful harmony with the elements…
        o – Gaia the Great Earth Spirit is angry… Her forces of Nature are turning against Mankind…
        o – It’s all the fault of our Western Consumer Society.
        o – Total environmental meldown is just around the corner…
        o – Gaia will restore her eco-balance by wiping us all out with skin cancer, food shortages and rising sea levels…
        Botton Panel
        o – Seven hundred years ago…
        o – The world hath never seen such extremities of weather as we do suffer now… Man used to live a righteous life in harmony with all Creation…
        o – God is angry… Mankind hath incurred His great wrath.
        o – It be all the fault of our sinful ways of living.
        o – The End of the World is nigh…
        o – God will restore his order by destroying us all with plague, famine and flood…

    • B.A., Religion, Duke University is the ideal credential to advance the theology of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and the original sin of carbon dioxide. There is nobody in the world more qualified to write on the moral imperative to cleanse our society of this sin. To demand proof or evidence from science is simply a failure of faith, another sin.

  15. “Climate models project …” They don’t forecast; they know why – a projection can not be shown false.

    • Boolean logic is either true or false. A false projection is only false. Models that are based on known physical parameters (such as astronomical, solar, geological etc..) are true and are useful tools, political hacks use statistical anomalies that go their way, which is why when they do it is always FALSE.
      Projections can be falsified, even before they are made.

  16. Here is an example of climate change. ‘Coz that’s what the climate does.

    Abstract
    Short-duration Holocene lakes in the Mojave River drainage basin, southern California
    Stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and pedologic studies of beach ridge and lacustrine deposits indicate that up to five times during the Holocene, shallow lakes covered Silver Lake playa in southeastern California for periods of years to decades. The two youngest lacustrine events (at about 390 ± 90 yr B. P. and 3620 ± 70 yr B. P.) coincide with the early and late Neoglacial episodes of North America. Increasing evidence in recent years from other nonglaciated areas leads us to conclude that the effects of these climatic episodes were much more widespread than previously thought. The climate during these episodes was characterized by an increased frequency of winter storms in the southwestern United States, causing wetter conditions that affected diverse, hyperarid environments in the Mojave Desert and adjacent regions. We propose that this wide areal coverage was caused by large-scale, winter atmospheric circulation patterns, which are probably related to changes in sea-surface temperatures and oceanic circulation in the eastern North Pacific Ocean.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(92)90030-M

    Goodnight.

  17. For as long as records exist we have always had weather cycles like this here in California. There is no real evidence that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have caused anything. What about the winter of the Donner party? In the early 1930’s, much of Orange County where I live in Southern California was flooded. “Wild fires” have been a standard occurrence at least in Southern California long before the White Man ever came on the scene. I remember the winter and spring of 1967 in Pebble Beach, CA, as a high school year book photo editor when our first 7 baseball games were rained out. I remember winters in Southern California where the rainy season just did not happen. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The best evidence that I have seen is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Man does not have the power to change it.

    • As a young Marine recruit at MCRD San Diego in early 1969, we couldn’t use the obstacle course except once because it was flooded. None of the recruits seemed to mind.
      (Incidentally, the boot camp part of “Full Metal Jacket” in San Diego is spot on. The scene where the DI punches the recruit in the stomach? Been there.)

      • I was a bit younger and ineligible to join up, but was living at Camp Pendleton (on the dependent plan). That was the year that the Santa Margarita (a trickle called a stream) took out half of I-5 (before it was 12 lanes).

    • I remember the winter of 1948-49 in Loma Linda, California when we had an inch or two of snow, and my parents made a snowman. I still have a photograph of my dad and me with snow on the palm trees behind us. Snow will fall again in Loma Linda.

      • Yes and the winter of 1948/1949 was the winter we gave up on our orange grove in East Whittier and sold the property to housing developers the following summer.

    • They won’t link rainbows to CAGW, they’ll say they’re in danger of disappearing because of it instead. Then climate alarmists could say something like “Alas, our children won’t know what rainbows are like!”

      • You should publish a paper on it. Title: “Increasing Anthropogenic CO2 to cancel God’s promise to Mankind.” (ref 1: Genesis 9:13).
        Hypothesis: Increasing atmospheric CO2 cancels refractive index difference at air:raindrop interface.
        Then Proceed to infill the article with technical sounding gibberish that the public will know must be true. Throw in a few sSnell’s Law equations and a table of made-up hypothetical refractive indices with increasing pCO2.
        Then propose the best way to study this effect is in a coupled Climate Model and you need to write a supercomputer program model to run a simulation.
        Then in the Conclusion final paragraph ask for more money to understand this serious Climate Change effect.

    • Rainbows will go dark, because of all personkind’s pollution! Unicorns will become extinct and Nemo will never be found again. Bad Man. Bad, Bad Man!

      • it would be a parody. The senior author would be Jehovah. Contributing author would be Noah. Some 97% of jjournalism majors would be dimwitted enough to buy it as long as the magical pixie dust phrase “as a result of climate change” was liberally sprinkled in.

      • You know infrared is a part of a rainbow, maybe there’s some future laugh in this after all. I cant wait.. And yes the sun is headed toward solar minimum and it has been very weak as expected, loving the double peaks of activity.. Kinda puts our good friend Leif in his place.. 🙂 oh burn… hahaha!

  18. Actually, linking these pineapple storms to AGW is not new. I have heard it before. Every time one comes along, it is climate change. I guess since there were no hurricanes to link to it, they are grasping at what is essentially normal weather in a drought area.
    AGW causes drought and rain. (Snow and sleet, hot and cold, psoriasis and the other 131 things).

      • What about back pain? no serious, I am sure my back pain is caused by it ! Who can I sue? When pineapples hit you they hurt badly, they are heavy and especially those prickly things on their outsides, they leave scars!

  19. “A more intense future”
    What the heck does that mean?
    Is the temperature at the South pole bland because it rarely becomes intense? I’d say that we get intense cold in Canada for some time each winter. Rarely do we get intense heat.
    If it means that the future will be more hot and more cold, then the average temperature will not change. If it means that the Polar temperatures become warmer, then they will become LESS intense..

  20. The entire article is so error-riddled that it would take pages just to correct them all.
    Just in this one paragraph you find:
    1. “•As the world heats up” {NOT PROVEN — BEST EVIDENCE SAYS LAND SURFACE TEMPS ARE STABLE OR COOLING SINCE 1997. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/07/on-climate-the-right-is-right-global-temperature-update-the-pause-is-still-18-years-1-month/}
    2. “… and more heat is carried in the atmosphere… .” {NOT PROVEN — BEST EVIDENCE SAYS THERE IS NO TROPOSPHERIC (nor any other) HOTSPOT. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot/}
    3. “… as water vapor, heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense.” {NOT PROVEN — BEST EVIDENCE SAYS SUCH EVENTS ARE BUSINESS-AS-USUAL. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/pielke-jr-agrees-extreme-weather-to-climate-connection-is-a-dead-issue/}
    5. “•Climate models project *** which means … .” {NOTHING AT ALL — NO MEANINFUL CONCLUSION — UNSUPPORTED CONJECTURE}. Simulations by computer software which cannot even hindcast is USELESS JUNK. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/current-crop-of-computer-models-close-to-useless/; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/; and see e book: Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale (2013)}
    6. “•Surface temperatures off the coast of California during this particular storm are much warmer than usual, helping to pump even more moisture into the storm.” {GIVEN THIS IS FAIRLY ACCURATE, AD ARGUMENTUM, THERE IS NO CONNECTION, NO NEXUS BETWEEN WARMER EASTERN PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPS AND HUMAN CO2 — N-O-N-E.}
    7. Re: “The fingerprint of global warming has been firmly documented … .”
    {NO, IT HAS NOT — THIS is a typical sample of what Climate Nexus calls “firm documentation:”
    Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming 16.
    (Source linked in above article:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html)
    ************************************************************
    And this was just a SMALL PORTION OF THE ERRORS IN THAT ARTICLE!

  21. Atmospheric river storms are responsible for 30-50 percent of all the precipitation in California
    Climate models project that atmospheric river storms in California will become more frequent and intense in the future
    =================
    so it looks like global warming will reduce the droughts in California. And the problem with this is???

    • fredberple,
      No problem at all. I’d take that trade in a heartbeat. But the release didn’t say anything about drought reduction.

  22. Good Morning America, ABC’s morning show, lead with the breathless announcement that the “Pineapple
    Express” is the worst storm in half a decade!!!

      • I wonder . . .
        Why do they use the term “worst”?
        Why would they not write “best”?
        It is interesting how word choice gives the game away.

  23. The current storm is expected to be one of the most severe in five years
    =========
    hardly much of a change if a more severe storm happened only 5 years ago. more like climate no change than climate change.

  24. 2 to 6 inches of rain
    ============
    On No California it is Armageddon! Rain California Rain. Woe is California.
    Of course if California had actually spent the money to catch the rain instead of chasing their tails over CO2, it would be a non-issue and the drought in California would be over. Instead we have a bunch of Weepy Bills that can’t figure out that water doesn’t actually come from a tap.

    • I’m waiting for someone from California to propose we run a hose from the tap to the reservoir to fill it.

  25. {A second posting of this request in case it was ALSO sent to an invisible spam bin as a consequence of its being a Reply to the original “in moderation” post}
    Dear Moderator,
    Just in case my comment in this thread today at 4:47pm does not go to you but ends up in some “invisible” SPAM BIN, please look for my comment (it had a lot of links and that is likely why the “moderation” hold).
    Thank you!
    Janice

      • Thank you for your posts Janice, the one at 4:17 was helpful And I read all your and jim steele’s posts.
        Your friend
        michael

      • Hi, Michael!
        Thanks! (and for saying so!)
        Your WUWT pal,
        Janice
        P.S. I did not have pax propter vim memorized… I, too, looked it up! 🙂

      • @Janice you should know I always love reading your posts, even if I do not reply.
        @Mike Thanks for your comment it made my day. And to be grouped with Janice was a double honor.

      • @ Mike the Morlock
        Great find in that article on Japan and coal-powered electricity generation. GOOD FOR YOU, JAPAN (and even though you cannot say this out loud, just silently tell China to stick it in their ear about coal targets and keep on smiling and bowing and smiling and bowing and using COAL and fire up those nuclear power plants again, too!).
        @ Jim Steele — thanks and …. THANKS! #(:))

      • Thank you, BTW This article by Anthony Watts is on Yahoo I typed winter storms California dec 11 2014 and found it there its on the second page.
        Good for you Anthony!
        now its time to sleep, per chance to dream,,,
        michael

      • Janice
        I believe the Japs are about to reopen their Nuclear stations as well. The ones that still work, of course.

      • @ Mike! Hamlet Morlock — aaaaaa — don’t do it! That is a “long term solution to a short-term problem.” Remember, “what dreams may come” {“Hamlet,” Act III, Sc. 1} may not be what you would wish for… . 😉
        Seriously, hope you slept well. Glad you are continuing to post on WUWT.
        *********************************
        @ Stephen Richards (I wonder if we are related, btw, my maternal great-grandmother’s maiden name was “Richards” …. her grandfather, Evan Richards, emigrated in the early 1800’s from Cardiff, Wales ….. I also wonder about that lemon tree I ask you about and ask you about #(:)) …) — thanks for that good news! Vive les Japonais! (since all the “Japs” are likely dead or nearly dead, now…. grrr they were horrible, what they did to China… at Pearl Harbor…. in the Philippines… etc…. they earned that label…. and my grandparents never stopped using it and I understood why).
        GO, NUCLEAR POWER!

  26. ClimateNexus are clueless, climate day-trading, fear mongering propagandists. On November 7th they wrote about how climate change was threatening with a longer more devastating drought
    “One of the hallmarks of climate change is that, on average, wet regions are getting wetter and dry regions are getting drier (IPCC AR5 WGI SPM, p.3). The Southwestern U.S. is a naturally dry region, and experts predict that it will get drier as climate change continues.
    There is strong physical evidence to show that in medieval times droughts in California lasted for decades, and some experts fear that the severity of the current drought could portend a similarly long stretch of very dry conditions. This has further implications for California’s drought in that it will limit the ability of Californian cities to compensate by drawing water from other areas. …blah, blah, blah”
    http://climatenexus.org/learn/drought/drought-california

  27. So now we are told to believe that “CO2 driven global warming”, which by-the-way has been absent for 18+ years, will cause permanent draught as well as “atmospheric river-driven floods and extreme rainfall”.
    Next, we’ll be told that teenage sexuality causes both increased solar radiation and darker nights
    Everything in California is wierder
    I should know – – as a Native Son of the Golden West

    • uh huh,
      I remember recent media hype about this being the “one in 3,000yr droughts” or some such bulldust very recently
      anyone got media links for that?
      be nice to air them now..just a friendly reminder etc :-

  28. You’re right, Anthony, it is a real eye roller. I am 47 and born in Chico, CA. and have grown up with storms like this. Perfectly natural. This is normal except the flooding is no big deal this time. I took a ride up W. Sacramento today and the flooding was minimal.

  29. We had a lot of these in the 1950’s that hit my home, Point Arena, on the coast 150 miles north of San Francisco. We could tell when one was coming: the wind would shift and come from the south, and it would get warmer. The prevailing north wind rain storms were smaller, and colder. There seems to be nothing new under the Sun, except the ignorance of those who think climate change began with the birth of Al Gore and the “science” of Michael E. Mann.

  30. Spent some time before/after dinner following the money here.
    Pretty easy. The sole funding is the ‘Rockefeller Philanthropy Advison’ ( a 501(c)3) of the sort recently harassed by Lois Lerner of the IRS– except not this one, since not of a comservative persuation. Not possible to track down which Rockefeller heirs back it without IRS help of the sort Lois used… (strangely not now forthcoming.)
    Now the .org itself is quite forthcoming. Mission: “We believe the human contribution of climate change is too great to ignore.” So they do MSM PR about it. They are a legally chartered tax exempt CAGW megaphone.
    Staffers: JN, former director of NDF legislative and public affairs. No science credentials.
    BT, career Hill staffer ‘formerly involved in Katrina…’ but probably not an on the ground rescuer…
    Folks just Google them. Is all there. Green staffer newbies, possibly adept at Hill (political) PR. A pure political tax exempt propaganda machine staffed by Green ( behind the ears) former Hill junior staffers, funded by now 4th generation Rockefellers…who made their money by monopolizing oil.
    Some of the stuff WUWT is sent should be returned to sender…unopened.
    But thanks for the opportunity to expose this naked political PR.

  31. Good thing these dimbulbs weren’t around for the 1964-65 floods. They would have had a field day blaming that one on AGW. And if this storm had been a rain on snow event, think of the story they could have made up.

  32. “A Charged Atmosphere
    ………….The fingerprint of global warming has been firmly documented ……………”
    When you click on “firmly documented” it goes to another conjecture piece with the same what may be or could be.

    • Sure, just do a Mann-Tijander and flip this one upside down and change the color scheme to green and blue… easy peasy. (I’m not a real climate scientist, I just play one on TV but excellent science like this should be good for at least a 2 or 3 year funding grant.)

  33. Our planet had dangerously low CO2 levels before the Industrial Revolution at just 280 ppm. Humans came along and rescued it by boosting CO2 levels to 400 ppm, still deficient and much lower than ideal but enough for the biosphere to start booming again, vegetative health to improve, plant growth to speed up and many creatures having more food…….including humans with record crop yields by a wide margin.
    A different story has been spun and CO2, the life blood of plants and creatures on this planet has been labeled as pollution because of a theory regarding temperatures which have risen slightly and added to the benefits.
    Funny thing about much of the extreme weather that these people claim that the theory and models project. It contradicts the physical laws or meteorology 101. When you increase temperatures in the higher latitudes and decrease the meridional temperature contrast, it provides LESS energy for mid latitude cyclones. One would expect less severe weather and lower numbers of violent tornadoes and weaker jet streams.
    When you have warmer night time lows vs not much change in highs, it DECREASES the diurnal fluctuations in temperature. When you have milder Winters at the highest latitudes, it DECREASES the amount of the most extreme cold.
    Somehow, things have been so twisted around that one side, in the midst of almost every measure of planetary health on this planet that contradicts their position, can insist that their science is settled and anybody that disagrees is a denier.
    We should be trying to increase carbon dioxide levels. Ask the planet and Mother Nature. She’s been screaming that message loud and clear for several decades. Satellite pictures and hundreds of studies have delivered this message on a silver platter to humans.
    Extreme cognitive bias, self serving interests/agenda’s, massive ego’s, money and control/power are what matter most.
    I’m embarrassed, as an atmospheric scientist for 32 years to see climate science having become so dishonest, corrupted and non scientific.

  34. Heavy rain in the Oakland hills, but the high winds forecast never seemed to materialize.
    We lost a 40-50′ live coast oak this morning and maybe another tree just now, heavy rains on the hillside making the soil too soggy for the roots.

  35. Seems to me that the concept of anomalous weather and climate makes about as much sense as the concept of anomalous bingo calls and lottery numbers. I’m betting models can’t predict either scenario well enough to put my money on…

  36. Note that the drought monitor map is curiously unchanging.
    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
    This map is updated on Thursday based on the conditions as of Tuesday, but we’ve had LOTS of rain before this last Tuesday. It’s been raining for weeks in CA and this map hasn’t changed a lick.
    I suspect this map is made using manual labor and is often not as up to date as it could be. I’ve been watching this for some time and when the Texas drought ended, they were a few weeks slow to make the changes too.

  37. This is getting more and more absurd…
    Over 50% of California is semi-arid/desert which means it’s prone to periods of drought…
    California gets a large portion of its precipitation during El Nino events, and has built reservoirs (though insufficient to meet growing water demands) to capture as much precipitation as possible when California gets its meager amount of rain.
    During the 15-yr period from 1983~1998, there were 6 El Nino events and California received more rain than normal. Over the subsequent 15-year period from 1999~2014, there have only been 2 “official” El Nino events, plus the quasi-El Nino event we’re experiencing now.
    A 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005, which means there will likely be fewer and weaker El Nino events compared to the last 30-yr warm PDO cycle (1977~2005). This sinusoidal pattern of PDO/El Nino correlation can be clearly seen here:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
    Rather than cursing the much needed California rain storms, and erroneously blaming CO2 for them, people should be grateful the quasi-El Nino is helping to generate some precipitation in parched California, because there is an excellent chance California will not be getting much rain over the next 20 years while the PDO is in a 30-yr cool phase.

    • What means “multivariate” when it comes to enso index. I sorta understand “multivariable”; but nothing clangs when I think of “multivariate”
      Sounds like a word from Mrs. Malaprop, if you ask me.

    • Excellent post. Let me add that California is full of dry river beds and dry lakes that from time to time have been full of water and sometimes are just bone dry and it has nothing to do with CO2. It is a matter of normal weather cycles. There are huge alluvial fans that were to a large extent caused by water flow but most of the time exist in a semi arid landscape. Much of the wild plant life in at least the southern part of the state has evolved in semi arid to desert conditions yet there is evidence of occasional huge floods. Nothing has really changed.
      Sure, CO2 has LWIR absorption bands as does H2O. But a good absorber is also a good radiator so as CO2 absorbs LWIR absorption band radiation it also radiates it as well. CO2 does not traradiantnt heat, rather idiffuseses it. CO2 has no real effect on how mucradiantnt energy gets radiated out to space and that is why there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

  38. In 1991, I recorded 10 inches of rain over 3 days at my house near Lake Elsinore California during an even more severe Pineapple Express event.

  39. The concept of increased rainfall because of increased absolute humidity is flawed as well. Rainfall is limited by the upper and lower temperatures involved. If it is warmer and the air takes up more water vapour, it is warmer when the rains have fallen as well. Thus the net change in rainfall is zero if there really was ‘global warming’.
    The ‘teaching’ that an increased temperature leads to more rainfall is based on the mistaken opinion that the lower temperature is going to remain the same. Delta T would then be higher and the air can transport more water and dump it at the old lower temperature – that is the idea. But if the world heats generally, the low temperature point will also increase. There is basically no net increase.
    If warmer water-bearing air were to be generated, it would rise faster and higher dumping heat more effectively into space. And that is exactly what happens. But the net effect at the surface is governed by Delta T, not T Max. If memory serves, there are methane clouds and rain on some planetary moons and it is really cold there.

    • They seem to make it up as they go along. Around seven years ago I was told that the “hot spot” in the tropics would decrease rainfall, because, when it was warmer aloft, there would be fewer tops to big thunderstorms.
      I don’t suppose they imagine anyone would be so interested in the ideas they rattle off that they would dig more deeply, as you have done.
      Eventually they come along and rattle off a newer, better talking-point, thinking they sound authoritative. In fact more and more people have been keeping track, and respond, “But you said…”
      I ran into the same problem when I made up excuses for my undone Math homework. My excuses were true works of art, and the entire class would hush to hear the next one, but I’d eventually dig my own grave, because some teachers kept track and would smile a wry smile and say, “But you said…”
      Stand by the Truth and the Truth will stand by you, but mess with the Truth and the Truth will mess with you.
      Eventually I wised up, and relegated my imagination to creative writing. I wish these fellows would do the same, but I suppose they get paid to fabricate.

  40. Hoopla aside, this was a completely normal California storm of which three could be expected every season in the sixties and seventies. You may recall the surface temperature record (which was all that existed) was showing an alarming decline, prompting a certain Mr. Watt to proclaim that human Nitrogen would “block out the sun” and propel us into a new ice age. Nitrogen? Easy to LOL in retrospect, but charlatans and shamans will rise to every occasion.

    • gymnosperm
      Hoopla aside, this was a completely normal California storm of which three could be expected every season in the sixties and seventies.

      The original settlers of California saw the same pattern: The survivors of the ill-fated Donner Party expedition reported successive storm sequences of very, very severe snowfall in the Sierra mountains (just north of you), then several days of clear, very cold weather, followed a few days of near-freezing cloudy skies, then another snow storm followed by clear weather.
      And they climbed the Sierra passes in the early 1840’s!
      We saw the same thing from Vallejo/Fairfield between 1982 through 1988.

  41. Many of us have had to deal with the lying scum from climate nexus. Their members are encouraged to post to various popular forums on company time (their members readily admit this). Anyone from Reddit will remember Pnewell…a smarmy little bastard that works with the mods (like Nathan Allan). This sort of arrangement exists openly on many popular, left-leaning forums that might have a lot of climate related discussion…Lying green PR mouthpieces and corrupt moderators allowing alarmists to get away with saying the most outrageous and unsupported assertions while harassing, censoring, and banning anyone that suggests global warming will be anything less than catastrophic.

  42. ‘Looking ahead, the computer models predict that climate change will cause the very worst atmospheric river storms hitting California to become much more frequent and larger.”
    Now I’m really confused. Haven’t the AGW prognosticators been telling us California would suffer chronic drought as a result of AGW? Now I’m hearing AGW will cause such storms as this one, which I’m told typically deliver 80% of California’s fresh water, will increase in both frequency and severity? What am I to do with the camel?

    • Re: camel
      Tether it to a flag pole. Take a photo of it. Write a little story about how there are camels at the North Pole, now. Oh, and grab one of the elves out of your neighbor’s yard and sit it down next to the camel (or the AGWers will never believe you were really at the North Pole). Submit it to National Geographic. You’ll make a lot of money. The End.

    • Clyde (the camel) says he’s O.K. with the elf thing, but he’d rather be neutered than appear in National Geographic.

      • lol #(:))
        Clyde (great name for a camel, btw) is a smart fellow. EVERYONE who appears in National Geographic these days MUST be neutered (or spayed). Only eunuchs allowed to serve in the Royal Ministry of Propag-anda {<– not sure if that's one of the "in moderation" words}.

  43. In there was any point in being sensible, then one would point out that warm air may have higher water content, but it does not deliver that content because the after-rain content would be equally higher. The rain delivery is “before” minus “after”, not just the “before” part. Any cretin can see that, but journalists can’t.

  44. I find it interesting that these storms are still referred to as the “Pineapple Express,” meant to imply I believe an origin near the Hawaiian islands that at some point in the past sourced both a lot of Pineapples and these mighty rivers in the sky. There has not been much change in the latter but pineapple cultivation thereabouts seems to have gone bye bye.
    Can we have a contest for a new name?

  45. It’s just the energy from the Pacific being released into the atmosphere and resulting is a net energy loss from energy being radiated into space. After this El Ninot the hiatus will be over.

  46. When such -bleep- drops a name like this, ““It’s essentially a fire hose of water brought up from the tropics that comes up and crashes into the West Coast,” said Michael Dettinger, an atmospheric scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla,” I think it might be fun, for those who have spare time, to do a bit of follow-up.
    In a polite manner contact “Michael Dettinger” and question him about what he thinks of this -bleep-.
    Sometimes I think they drop names just to make their -bleep- look legitimate. I notice that, in this example, “Michael Dettinger” does not state he agrees with anything in the article. He just defines what a “Pineapple Express” is, in a simplistic manner. He might as well be saying rain falls from the sky.
    If this -bleep- was written two months ago it would have been all about the drought, and would have affixed the sentence, “‘Drought occurs when long periods of time pass without rain,’ said Michael Dettinger, an atmospheric scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.”
    In conclusion, -bleep-!!!!

    • Well I would say, just as a WAG, that Thursday’s decent rainfall was definitely NOT a pineapple express. I would think it could be more correctly called a Walrus or Polar Bear Express; given that pineapples don’t grow up there in the arctic, where your map shows this came from.

      • george, the water vapor trail starts in the tropics and goes north and south into the north hemisphere and south hemisphere, respectively. Your rain deluge is the direct result of relatively higher solar activity that stayed high over the past month. On Nov 14 the solar F10.7 flux was at 161 sfu, today it is at 160. For 19 days, from 11/14 to 12/2, the F10.7 flux averaged 170, fairly high. 2014 on the whole has averaged 145 sfu/day, making it a warmer year than the past many years. The SC24 average daily flux is only 103 so far, and definitely will end up below 100 by the next solar minimum. F10.7 data: ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/indices/quar_DSD.txt
        I saw this rain event develop by watching satellite infrared and water vapor images over the course of several weeks. Keep an eye on it here http://www.weather.com/maps/satellite . Temps here http://www.weather.com/maps/current .
        The long-term solar effect on specific atmospheric humidity can be seen here http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalSeaSurfaceMonthlyTemp%20and%20300mbSpecificHumidity%20Since1960.gif . See how the smoothed curves from all three plots coincide with the arcs of each solar cycle? The downward trend in the humidity plot is due to insufficient solar activity to drive higher evaporation long-term, but as SST shows, it was sufficient enough to warm the surface. OHC is also dictated by solar flux.
        As this solar rotation is picking up in activity again now after 10 days of a lower average of 144 sfu/day, we may see a close repeat of the sequence we just saw from Nov 14 onward during the next few weeks.
        This scenario is a perfect illustration of layered and time dependent solar weather effects. Today’s weather is affected by today’s solar activity as well as by the results of solar activity from weeks ago (ie the water vapor lofted into the atmosphere during a higher solar flux period).
        The Sun can warm and cool us at the same time from different processes, ie, the tropospheric cooling effects from solar-caused sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), where the cold polar air driven southward by SSWs clashes with northbound solar-driven warm, moist tropical air (in the NH), significantly enhancing convergence zone weather activity.
        CO2 had nothing to do with any of this.

  47. Finally a way to save California.
    Get those uber-kool Hollywood types, who know the truth, to fund reservoirs in the sky, to catch the rivers in the sky.
    I’m sure there are some smart people out there that could sell this.

  48. Why do our U.S. cousins call almost every depression a storm. The word is in danger of losing its meaning. 65 mph is barely enough to rattle the slates. Here in the UK we sit at the end of the North Atlantic weather conveyor, and get depressions rolling in unless there’s a blocking high in the right spot.
    Sadly , the broadcast weather forecasts are now beginning to be infected with TV-hype. The most recent system was called a ‘weather bomb’, and the graphic colour scale showing the pressure had the centre of the depression in black. You get the picture. Normal winter foul weather, portrayed as evil. Yes, we are sinners.

    • Probably that he knows more about how precipitation affects trees than you, me or Climate Nexus and then either refer us to his prior work, or if he had time, give us a quick rundown.

      • Brandon Gates
        Yes, M Mann probably would claim to know “more about how precipitation affects trees than [eyesonu, you] or Climate Nexus”. Indeed, he would probably claim to know more about it than a plank of wood. However, the history of his claims demonstrates that none of his claims can be believed; e.g. he falsely claims to be Nobel Prize winner.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney,
        So in other words you know as much about tree rings as a plank of wood. That does make a certain amount of sense.

      • Brandon Gates
        You laughably write saying to me

        So in other words you know as much about tree rings as a plank of wood. That does make a certain amount of sense.

        Your post is yet another demonstration by you that you cannot read.
        No, I did not say I “know as much about tree rings as a plank of wood”. If you were able to read then you would have read that I wrote nothing about me, I wrote nothing about tree rings, and I wrote nothing about my knowledge of tree rings.
        I wrote that it is not reasonable to accept claims from M Mann because he has a history of making false claims, and I provided an example from that history.
        If you had any ability to support any claims of M Mann then you would have supported them instead of attempting to deflect conversation onto your inability to read.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        Your post is yet another demonstration by you that you cannot read.

        What people don’t write is often just as informative as what they do.

        I wrote that it is not reasonable to accept claims from M Mann because he has a history of making false claims, and I provided an example from that history.

        Typically ad hominem arguments don’t hold much water in a scientific debate as they only convince people who are too lazy or willfully ignorant to write or read the actual literature. I have observed however that climate science tends to bring out the worst of folk, including those actually doing the work. Not a happy state of affairs if you ask me.

        If you had any ability to support any claims of M Mann then you would have supported them instead of attempting to deflect conversation onto your inability to read.

        See, you should have no problem accepting my conclusion that you know less about tree rings than Mann, which puts you on par with a plank of wood at best.
        As for Mann’s research, which is what matters most here, check out Moberg et al. 2005 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
        as well as the Pages 2K project still in progress: http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/intro
        MBH98 and everything Mann has published since then has held up rather nicely.

      • Brandon Gates must not have heard of Upsidedown Tiljander. He cuts and pastes from HotWhopper, and that is the extent of his science. He believes that latent heat is returned to the surface in precipitation because “condensation is exothermic”. Thus Brandon Gates. You might as well argue with a child.

      • Brandon Gates
        You assert

        What people don’t write is often just as informative as what they do.

        Well, that explains your posts: you assume people will be informed by reality which you never write instead of the unreality written in all your posts.
        For example, your untrue assertion that I wrote “ad hominem comments” when I replied to you by saying

        Yes, M Mann probably would claim to know “more about how precipitation affects trees than [eyesonu, you] or Climate Nexus”. Indeed, he would probably claim to know more about it than a plank of wood. However, the history of his claims demonstrates that none of his claims can be believed; e.g. he falsely claims to be Nobel Prize winner.

        No, dear boy, that is NOT an ad hominem comment: it is a factual rebuttal of your unsubstantiated and daft assertion about the serial liar, M Mann, whose fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph is probably the single most debunked misrepresentation in the entire history of science.
        Richard

      • Brandon Gates,
        Richard Courtney is a published author, and he has forgotten more about the climate subject than you have learned so far. And mpainter is right, it seems you haven’t heard about the Tiljander proxy. Let me help educate you, from my [admittedly spotty] memory:
        Michael Mann worte a paper based on Ms Tiljander’s sediment proxy taken from a riverbed, which she later discovered had been overturned during bridge construction many decades before. She immediately informed Mann that her proxy had been contaminated. The older sediments were on top, and the newer ones below, so it was upside down and gave incorrect information.
        But Mann went ahead and published anyway, knowing that he was using a corrupted proxy that actually negated his hockey stick. Steve McIntyre discovered what Mann had done, and wrote an article titled something like, Can It Really Be This Simple?, or similar. [A search of McIntyre’s Climate Audit site, keyword: ‘Tiljander’ will give you a mountain of info.]
        Mann was once again shown to be fraudulent in a published paper. He later tried to excuse it by saying that if he had not used Tiljander’s proxy, the results would have been the same. But that is ridiculous. Why use it at all in that case? He had been told it was NFG before he published. And of course, that proxy completely changed his [faked] results, by giving him the hockey stick shape he craved, and upon which he had made his reputation. Then there’s Mann’s claim to have won the Nobel Prize…
        When you are a peer reviewed author, you can be critical of others, calling them a plank of wood, etc. But now you are just a puppy, getting your misinformation from blogs run by the equally ignorant.

      • richardscourtney,

        Well, that explains your posts: you assume people will be informed by reality which you never write instead of the unreality written in all your posts.

        I do assume people will be informed by reality. Assumptions are often wrong.

        No, dear boy, that is NOT an ad hominem comment: it is a factual rebuttal of your unsubstantiated and daft assertion about the serial liar, M Mann, whose fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph is probably the single most debunked misrepresentation in the entire history of science.

        Do you consider the findings of Moberg et al. 2005 reliable or not?

      • dbstealey,

        Richard Courtney is a published author, and he has forgotten more about the climate subject than you have learned so far.

        Then he should know that the proper way to rebut another published author’s work is to direct the critique at the work itself.

      • Once again B Gates displays his incomprehension. Michael Mann is a public figure of a certain notoriety. He uses this notoriety to make money. His behaviour is fair game for comment.

      • mpainter,

        Michael Mann is a public figure of a certain notoriety.

        To put it mildly.

        He uses this notoriety to make money.

        Is that envy I detect?

        His behaviour is fair game for comment.

        Absolutely. But his work stands on its scientific merit or lack thereof. This being a science blog, I’d think people would actually want to discuss … what’s the word I’m looking for here … oh yes, science. In the off chance that’s what you’re interested in, I again introduce Moberg 2005: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
        Wag the dog all you like with upsidedown Tiljanders; the way that rational people who understand how science is done and argued check the work of others against the research which is in dispute. If Mann’s work is bunk, I’d expect to find material discrepancies with it against that of a some other research team.

      • See Climate Audit, Brandon. This thoroughly examines Mann’s works and refutes them scientifically. But perhaps the discussions there are beyond you, because it is very heavy on statistics and Mann’s egregious use of data and statistical procedures. In short, Mann’s science has been dissected and minutely examined in a very scientific manner. Mann is one of the most dubious of scientists. Start there with Upsidedown Tiljander.
        WUWT covers science politics and personalities so your complaints are misdirected.
        As long as you import your views from blogs like HotWhopper you will only make an impression of foolishness here at WUWT, as in your claim that latent heat is circulated back down to the surface because “condensation is exothermic”.

      • richardmcourtney,

        In other words you tried to change the subject from Mann’s bad science to a paper by Moberg while claiming people should discuss the science!

        You were still rambling on about Nobel Peace prizes when I brought up Moberg 2005. You hadn’t said boo about Mann’s actual work at that point. I started with the science and have never once wavered from it.

        It was Mann’s fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ which disagreed with all – yes, ALL – previous studies of climate over the last millenium:

        Nice own goal. A scientist’s job is not to agree with consensus, nor dutifully repeat past results if they are incomplete or otherwise flawed. A good way to check for flaws is to compare one team’s work against their contemporaries: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
        Does it or does it not agree with MBH98? Mann 1999? Mann 2003b? Mann 2009b? Dodge one more time and I will conclude that there is something revealing in Moberg 2005 you’re afraid of addressing.

        • Brandon Gates:
          You are endlessly trying – and failing – to challenge richardmcourtney’s statement

          It was Mann’s fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ which disagreed with all – yes, ALL – previous studies of climate over the last millenium

          by trying to claim a pal-reviewed paper published in 2005
          – 7 years AFTER Mann 1998 was published!
          – to deliberately excuse and paper-over Mann’s errors and collaborator-reviewed (false) claims in 1998, 1999, 2003b
          invalidates a claim that a 1998 paper disagreed with all past climate knowledge between 1250 and 1998.
          Richard’s statement is exactly correct as written: In 1998, Mann tried to use distortions and single-tree data and upside-down plots to show 750 years of knowledge wrong so MANN’s theory would be right.

      • RACookPE1978,

        by trying to claim a pal-reviewed paper published in 2005 7 years AFTER Mann 1998 was published!

        I know what 2005 less 1998 is. Corroborating evidence is timeless, so your point is … nothing.

        – to deliberately excuse and paper-over Mann’s errors and collaborator-reviewed (false) claims in 1998, 1999, 2003b
        invalidates a claim that a 1998 paper disagreed with all past climate knowledge between 1250 and 1998.

        In your moral outrage you make the same error richardmcourtney did, and which dbstealey also repeats: it is not a scientist’s job to agree with past findings. The default position is to challenge previous findings and overturn them with new evidence. This is known as skeptical inquiry.
        Previous results are not always overturned with every new study — it is in fact quite rare. When results are repeatable, especially when repeated by independent investigation by other teams, then newish findings become more credible. It’s no wonder then that you and others here avoid discussing Moberg et al. 2005 like the plague. I give it to you once again to prove me wrong: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

      • Gates says:
        If Mann’s work is bunk, I’d expect to find material discrepancies with it against that of a some other research team.
        Mann himself has acknowledged that the Tiljander proxy was invalid. You really are an apologist for wrongdoing, aren’t you? You write:
        …the way that rational people who understand how science is done and argued check the work of others against the research which is in dispute.
        So you either don’t understand how science is done, or you are not rational. Which? Because you are deliberately ignoring the fact that Mann used a corrupted proxy — even after he was informed that it was no good! How do you explain that?
        Next, you just throw out the name “Moberg”, as if a name matters. It doesn’t. Make your own arguments, if you can. That was just another in your endless appeals to authority.
        You’re getting knocked around here for a good reason, Brandon. You make lame arguments, you constantly deflect from what other readers say and ask, and you can’t support what you Believe in: mann-made global warming. But it’s fun when you try to be the enabler of a charlatan.
        Michael Mann has been thoroughly discredited. His MBH98/99 charts are no longer published by the IPCC. Why? Because they have been solidly debunked. They are nonsense that tries to erase the LIA and the MWP, and they claim that temperatures were flat until the industrial revolution!
        No one takes that seriously, outside of some rent-seeking scientists and their deluded followers. And of course, Mann hides out from any defense of his pseudo-science, unless he is in charge of a carefully scripted venue. Mann will not dare to argue his case in a fair, neutral forum. That should tell you all you need to know about your HE-RO.
        Finally, from the looks of your comments, you never did as I suggested: go to Climate Audit and do a search for “Tiljander”. Do a search for “Moberg”. I doubt you would try to argue with McIntyre, because he would clean your clock. Readers here are doing a pretty good job of that by themselves.

      • dbstealey,

        Mann himself has acknowledged that the Tiljander proxy was invalid.

        Doesn’t that make him not a liar then? You really are good at shooting yourself in the foot. It behooves you to not make this so easy for me.

        So you either don’t understand how science is done, or you are not rational.

        Where the rubber meets the road in science is convergence of multiple lines of investigation from multiple authors leading to similar results. MBH98 is as old as Le Gran Pause. In the meantime, the rest of the world has moved on. In light of more recent and more robust results the Hockey Stick remains intact, but with the improvements that come from, you know, actual field research.
        MWP and LIA have not been erased — they’re clearly evident in Moberg 2005.

        Next, you just throw out the name “Moberg”, as if a name matters.

        I cited the darn paper. Here it is again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

        Make your own arguments, if you can.

        The data speak for me. They’re available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt

        You’re getting knocked around here for a good reason, Brandon.

        You provide a great service to the advancement of knowledge by doing it.

        Michael Mann has been thoroughly discredited. His MBH98/99 charts are no longer published by the IPCC. Why?

        Because science is the business of progression, and the IPCC uses the latest results available for each AR at the time of the submission cutoff.

        No one takes that seriously, outside of some rent-seeking scientists and their deluded followers.

        Keep waving your arms like that and you may just be the first human to achieve unassisted flight. Rent-seeking, now that’s funny. Tell me, should all scientists work for free, or only the ones who do climate research?

        Finally, from the looks of your comments, you never did as I suggested: go to Climate Audit and do a search for “Tiljander”. Do a search for “Moberg”.

        So either you claim being a mind reader or have bugged my Internet connection. One is loopy, the other illegal.

        I doubt you would try to argue with McIntyre, because he would clean your clock.

        I’m sorry, but isn’t that a fallacious appeal to authority by your own definition?

    • mpainter,

      He believes that latent heat is returned to the surface in precipitation because “condensation is exothermic”.

      That’s your supposition as you make clear here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/11/mixed-signals-from-the-noaa-enso-blog-about-climate-models/#comment-1811963
      You still haven’t answered the question in my response, namely: is river water warmer or cooler on average than the oceans? It’s really not a very difficult question.

      He cuts and pastes from HotWhopper, and that is the extent of his science.

      Kindly provide the exact text I have cut and pasted from HotWhopper.
      While you’re searching vainly for it, here is some copypasta from various authoritative sources I directed at you on the topic latent heat of condensation plus a few other tidbits: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/absolutely-amazing-a-climate-scientist-writes-a-blog-post-about/#comment-1812332
      Your response to that post thus far has been [crickets]. Any time you want to discuss what I actually write when I write it would be a good one.

      • mpainter, the [crickets] are getting louder. Is there something in the post I’ve linked to above you wish to avoid discussing?

    • Brandon Gates
      Please continue your ridiculous attempts to defend the execrable Mann: I am greatly enjoying the laughs you are providing.
      Your response to you being informed of Mann’s use of the inverted Tiljander data is a classic demonstration of cognitive dissonance: you say

      This being a science blog, I’d think people would actually want to discuss … what’s the word I’m looking for here … oh yes, science. In the off chance that’s what you’re interested in, I again introduce Moberg 2005: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

      In other words you tried to change the subject from Mann’s bad science to a paper by Moberg while claiming people should discuss the science!
      Not content with that idiocy, you write

      Wag the dog all you like with upsidedown Tiljanders; the way that rational people who understand how science is done and argued check the work of others against the research which is in dispute. If Mann’s work is bunk, I’d expect to find material discrepancies with it against that of a some other research team.

      It was Mann’s fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ which disagreed with all – yes, ALL – previous studies of climate over the last millenium: indeed, Mann fabricated his fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ to eradicate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) the existence of which had been accepted by all including the IPCC.
      Richard

      • Brandon Gates
        I have not ignored your latest post. My amused response to it is in moderation.
        Richard

      • Richard,
        Brandon Gates has never heard of Climate Audit. The work there is avoided at HotMoma’s (Brandon’s favorite blog). And yes Brandon amuses with his foolish pretense at science. For example, he claims that latent heat is returned to the earth’s surface via precipitation. His reasoning? Because “condensation is exothermic”. Brandon Gates: HotMoma’s mouthpiece at WUWT.

      • mpainter
        Thankyou for that. I did not know it and it is useful for me and onlookers when trying to understand the irrational assertions of Brandon Gates.
        However, in this case Brandon Gates made an unjustified assertion concerning the knowledge of M Mann about effects of precipitation on tree rings. Brandon Gates seems unaware that if his assertion were true then it would require that Mann’s knows his ‘hockey stick’ graph is plain wrong because that graph includes no compensation for effects of precipitation.
        Richard,

      • Richard, my initial response was stuck in moderation for a bit as well. I will be retiring soon, so if your response sufficiently amuses me I will reply anon.

      • mpainter,

        Brandon Gates has never heard of Climate Audit.

        Desperation is a stinky cologne. It doesn’t suit you.

        For example, he claims that latent heat is returned to the earth’s surface via precipitation.

        What a silly thing to say. Everybody knows water comes back to ground as precipitation cooler than when it left because …. that’s how, um what’s that word, condensation works.

        His reasoning? Because “condensation is exothermic”.

        I did say condensation is exothermic because it is.

        Brandon Gates: HotMoma’s mouthpiece at WUWT.

        Not even remotely. But you can’t tell me you’re not enjoying some fresh meat.

      • mpainter,

        B Gates
        Do not mistake me. You are disgusting.

        That does explain why you like talking to me so much.

      • Brandon Gates
        In response to mpainter saying that you “disgust” him you have replied saying to him.

        That does explain why you like talking to me so much.

        That is yet another of your assertions and assumptions which is based on information not in evidence.
        There is no apparent reason to suppose that mpainter does “like talking to [you]”.
        mapainter may dislike removing something unpleasant from the instep of his shoe but feel the removal is necessary to constrain the contamination. And your irrational nonsense is contaminating this thread.
        Richard

      • richardmcourtney,

        mapainter may dislike removing something unpleasant from the instep of his shoe but feel the removal is necessary to constrain the contamination.

        So … I can’t read his mind, but you can.

        And your irrational nonsense is contaminating this thread.

        Sewers attract rats. Known fact.
        [Reply: No one forces you to coment here. ~mod]

      • Brandon Gates
        You reply to my complaining that you have yet again made assertion and assumption “based on information not in evidence” by making another assertion and assumption based on information not in evidence.
        I did NOT claim I could read the mind of mpainter: I explained to you that there are other possible explanations than your assertion and assumption, and I cited one that I said “may” be true.
        Let us reboot this conversation because your tedious floundering is causing a drift away from your original daft assertion.
        You claimed that M Mann knows and understands the effects of precipitation on the data of his ‘hockey stick’ graph. If your claim is true then M Man must know and understand that his ‘hockey stick’ graph is plain wrong because the data he used in the graph does not include any compensation for the effects of precipitation.
        Do you understand and agree the fact that if your claim is true then M Man knows his graph is plain wrong?

        Richard

      • richardmcourtney,

        I did NOT claim I could read the mind of mpainter: I explained to you that there are other possible explanations than your assertion and assumption, and I cited one that I said “may” be true.

        The point, Richard, is that if I want to know what mpainter thinks, I’ll read what mpainter himself has to say.

        Let us reboot this conversation because your tedious floundering is causing a drift away from your original daft assertion.

        This is a discussion? To me it looks like remdial political rhetoric class.

        You claimed that M Mann knows and understands the effects of precipitation on the data of his ‘hockey stick’ graph.

        And zillions of other environmental factors.

        If your claim is true then M Man must know and understand that his ‘hockey stick’ graph is plain wrong because the data he used in the graph does not include any compensation for the effects of precipitation.

        That comes from one of the climategate emails, doesn’t it? The son of a UCB professor did a science fair project on tree ring growth — which is awesome — and he passed on the results to Mann who shucked it aside?
        Anyway, I deal with citations and specifics, not vague assertions. And I look at data. So if you’ve got data which show me how much precip actually happened, in what years and locations, and how Mann’s alleged overlooking of those data materially affected the results, now would be the time to cough it up. Until then, suck on Moberg 2005 and all the other various multi-proxy reconstructions which
        a) don’t “get rid of” the MWP or LIA and
        b) are in broad agreement with MBH98 and all of Mann’s subsequent work.
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
        See? MWP and LIA right where you’d expect to find them.

      • eyesonu,

        Then it would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings.

        I think it’s more fair to say that you’re better at rhetoric than science. In science, disclosure of weaknesses and sources of potential error is considered more credible, not less. All proxies have strengths and weaknesses. MBH98 was a multi proxy study, just like practically every paleo reconstruction. Mann didn’t invent the field, and he’s not the only one doing similar research. Other methods and other researchers broadly agree with Mann’s 1998 and subsequent work. Moberg 2005 is only one example. Shakun 2012 and Marcott 2013 are two others.
        If you and yours must obsess over Mann being wrong, show me some original data from a different team which demonstrates it. How wrong? When wrong? Why wrong? Implications for present AGW theory, if any. Specifics, with citations.

      • MCourtney,

        Interesting typo in the name. I use a Qwerty keyboard.

        Me too. I wish I could blame this on Dvorak, but that layout is wrong. What we have here is good old fashioned me muffing it.

    • This is my earlier comment that sent Brandon Gates into a frenzy:
      eyesonu
      December 12, 2014 at 12:46 am
      As linked to from the propaganda piece by Climate Nexus “…. (and in at least the last 1,200 years)….” = http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062433/abstract
      The abstract references to tree rings showing precipitation. I wonder what M. Mann would have to say about that?
      ==========================
      My earlier comment as noted above apparently hit a nerve with B Gates. He seems to be a Mann boy. Maybe Gates can explain whether tree rings show temperature or precipitation. Mann says temp, the authors of the cited study imply precipitation. I personally think there are too many variables to gain anything precise from tree rings.
      But Climate Nexus did a great job in promoting the cited study that debunks/contests Mann’s temperature reconstruction. Now that is true PR.

      • eyesonu,

        Maybe Gates can explain whether tree rings show temperature or precipitation.

        Both. Plus ten zillion other environmental factors.

      • Then it would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings.

      • Brandon Gates
        I bow to your knowledge of remedial classes and I hope your undertaking any of them proves successful.
        Enough of your evasions, unfounded assertions and obfuscations!
        I repeat my question and the question of eyesonu.
        My question was and is

        You claimed that M Mann knows and understands the effects of precipitation on the data of his ‘hockey stick’ graph. If your claim is true then M Mann must know and understand that his ‘hockey stick’ graph is plain wrong because the data he used in the graph does not include any compensation for the effects of precipitation.
        Do you understand and agree the fact that if your claim is true then M Mann knows his graph is plain wrong?

        The question from eyesonu is a response to your assertion that “zillions” of factors affect tree rings and is

        Then it would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings.

        It would be appreciated if you were to provide plain and straightforward answers to these questions.
        Richard

  49. Tοιαῦτα πολλάκις ἐγίνετο καὶ γίνεται, καὶ πῶς ταῦτα συντελείας σημεῖα;2
    (Such things have been often happened and still happen, and how can these be signs of the end of the world?)
    Emperor Julian, Against the Galileans

  50. Flash flood warning for Los Angeles this morning and very heavy rain across the middle third of the state overnight and this morning. This will continue to move across the southern third over the day.
    Decent rain forecast by the GFS model for the rest of the month.
    Drought over?

  51. “Temperatures off the California coast are currently 5 to 6°F warmer”
    Does this have anything to do with CO2 levels?
    I thought increased sea surface temps were caused by lessened cloud cover and increased solar radiation.

    • Winter low pressure storm cells rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere. For those on the ground when they arrive it usually means that they start out “warm” and end up “cold”. This also means that the leading edge of the storm brings air from whatever is south of the storm. On the west coast of the United States, this is usually air that is warmer and moister. The temperatures in the region when the storm arrives will reflect this.
      Let us not forget that energy tends to balance itself.
      When the storm moves through the region and continues east, the trailing edge of this counter-clockwise low pressure system will bring colder air down from the north reducing the overall temperatures.
      The pattern is consistent as long as the storm lasts and it can severly effect local weather conditions. It is how the weather works.
      Last year there was a low pressure cell which sat off of the Pacific northwest for around six months. Rather than moving eastward and onshore, the leading edge of the storm stayed off of the coast and sent the warmer, moister air into Alaska instead of in the direction of Washington and Oregon. Those two states had relativley mild weather for those six months and less water, and Alaska had unusually seasonal high temperatures and winter rains.
      As is usual, there were those in the government and in the media that called this change in Alaska to be proof of “global warming”, and we should all remember the sudden media blitz last winter blaming it all on the “polar vortex”.
      During the time that Washington and Oregon had a glorius golden fall season while the rest of the country was experiencing record cold temperatures. Siberia also got no such break, and they had some really consistently cold weather during this same time period.
      Where you are can really have an effect on your local weather. A few miles east or west of a weather event can make all of the difference.
      Summer high pressure storms on the other hand act exactly the opposite, they rotate clockwise and they start out colder and end up warmer as they pass through a region.
      South of the equator is the exact opposite of the northern hemishpere. Lows rotate clockwise and highs rotate counter-clockwise. The end result is a global balance that we call weather.

  52. So, I’m curious. This week’s ‘severe’ storm in California allegedly resulted from an atmosphere “charged by global warming”. Considering that it is a small (tiny) fraction of the amount of rainfall that inundated the west coast in 1862, which occurred at least 30 years before anthropogenic CO2 could possibly have affected climate, what’s the evidence for an atmosphere “charged by global warming”?

    • In an age when a US autumn snowstorm is reported in Australia as “unprecedented flood risk” with no mention of any white stuff, I’m sure a way can be found to frame current or future rainfall on California as something less desirable and normal than mere “rain”.

  53. There is no changing weather anymore. There is only the climate. Every weather event is reported as “extreme” and “linked to global warming”. And nothing is “normal” anymore.

  54. If you look at the photo you can see a second low pressure system to the north of the California low. That one brought rain and high wind to Oregon and Washington. I was put on standby for storm duty yesterday afternoon at 3PM (I damage assess) but was never called. The storm was not as severe or long lasting as initially predicted, though I believe we lost transmission lines to at least 3 substations. Something like 130,000 customers effected, which while not insignificant, is not anywhere close to a big storm outage.
    Had to miss a big Christmas party and free drinks.
    PS – the region did set record high temperature records the day before the storm. What was interesting was the dates of the previous highs. Mostly in the 1920’s and 30’s.

  55. The PR article by Climate Nexus is rooted in some generic false premise flow.
    So here is a False Premise Flow of the Day called “Premises Descending from Elemental Envy”
    Here we go:
    1) Premise A: CO2 from burning fossil fuels must cause everything that happens to be only bad things
    2) Premise for ‘Premise A’: Man’s use of nature must be bad for nature
    3) Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise A’ ‘: Man’s reasoning is bad because it allows understanding nature enough to use nature for Man’s purposes
    4) Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise A’ ‘ ‘: Reasoning is unnatural and therefore bad
    5) Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise for ‘Premise A’ ‘ ‘: some people should hate people who are better at using reasoning to understand nature; some people envy better reasoning people
    Envy, simple.
    John

  56. Anthony,

    The eyeroller you knew was going to happen – California winter storm caused by “changing climate” […] The storm impacting California today is just like hundreds of previous storms in recorded weather history, the only thing that is new is the desire to link it to climate change for political purposes. In my opinion, it’s bullshit of the highest order.

    It was a good blow, and I’ve been in worse here. However, your representation of what the release actually says leaves somewhat to be desired. The closest I can find to “California winter storm caused by ‘changing climate'” is:
    Climate research indicates that the impacts of these storms are expected to escalate dramatically if carbon emissions continue along the business-as-usual path, and that atmospheric rivers may already be impacted by current warming … and then goes on to list some reasons: As the world heats up and more heat is carried in the atmosphere as water vapor, heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense. Which I believe is perfectly sound textbook meteorology and about the furthest thing from not knowing “much about climate, or weather, or California”.
    Regardless, the statement does not say THIS storm was caused by global warming, which is clarified further down: Looking ahead, the computer models predict that climate change will cause the very worst atmospheric river storms hitting California to become much more frequent and larger.
    That prediction may very well be bullshit, and I could do with a little less of the sensationalizing found in the body text of the release. But if there is any fundamental problem with the underlying principles of that prediction, you scoring political points of your own with comments like “never let a good crisis go to waste” surely doesn’t demonstrate that you have any better idea what’s going to happen than the authors of these papers referenced in the release:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x/abstract
    Do feel free to point out exactly where their understanding of climate, weather and California is in error.

    • Anthony correctly characterizes the media copy that you presented in your comment.
      And latent heat does not return to the surface via precipitation, as you claim, B Gates.

      • mpainter,
        I agree with him that there is a cynical political component to the press release, which I have already stated I don’t much care for. That he’s left it to his lackeys to rebut me where I disagree with his piece is interesting because thus far you and dbstealey have done an abysmal job of it. Maybe he’s just busy. And I do get it that good help can be hard to find.

        And latent heat does not return to the surface via precipitation, as you claim, B Gates.

        You really need a new talking point, mpainter. Repeating the same one over and over when it’s out of context to the current discussion makes it look like that’s the only thing you know how to talk about. In this case you look doubly inept because your statement of fact is easily refutable:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/many-thanks-to-kevin-trenberth-for-being-open-minded/#comment-1806291
        The latent heat transfers in the water cycle are a somewhat different matter because now phase changes are involved. Evaporation at the surface is endothermic, leading to most of the cooling at ground level. As convection carries it to altitude, lapse rate kicks in which dissipates much of the absorbed energy. When the moist air cools sufficiently the water condenses back to liquid, an exothermic process. The surrounding atmosphere gains most of what the surface lost from the latent heat transfer, precipitation comes back down even cooler than when it left. Not being a gas at that point, lapse rate isn’t as significant — liquid precipitation reaches the ground faster than the warmer air at lower altitudes can transfer energy to it.
        In sum, at the surface, the water cycle is the dominant cooling mechanism. On balance, mind.

        If you’re going to lie about my words as a debating tactic, make one up that I can’t so easily parry with my own documented and easily referenced public statements. That way it’s just your word against mine. This being your home field, that will generally go to your advantage — at least in your mind and the minds of your buddies which is likely what counts the most to you.
        What you’re doing here makes it all to easy to show you to be both dishonest and an incompetent tactician. Unseen lurkers with undecided opinions will notice. You probably don’t want that unless this really is all about you stroking your own ego. In which case, by all means keep trundling out the same lie because doing so gives me everything I’m looking for on a silver platter with an engraved invitation.

    • “As the world heats up and more heat is carried in the atmosphere as water vapor, heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense.” Which I believe is perfectly sound textbook meteorology…

      You believe strange things.
      Please cite the meteorology texts that 1. State the world is heating up. 2. State monsoon rains that occur in various places on the globe only began in the last century. 3. State more intense rain relative to some random point in the past is expected from now until some unknown future date. 4. State these wild-assed claims about rain have anything to do with California. 5. State that regional weather has not changed or varied for centuries across the globe.

      • Alx,

        You believe strange things.

        Par for this course.

        Please cite the meteorology texts that 1. State the world is heating up.

        That would be a better question for our resident meteorologist who has thus far been silent, don’t you think? My high school text didn’t discuss global warming but did cover plenty about the relationship between atmospheric moisture content and storm intensity.

        2. State monsoon rains that occur in various places on the globe only began in the last century.

        I’ll be darned if I can find anywhere in the press release where it said that monsoons never occurred prior to humans emitting CO2. There is a difference between “more intense/frequent” and “never before seen phenomena”. Your remaining questions are well beyond the scope of what I asked Anthony. Number 5 does deserve special mention for being the most particularly obtuse of the bunch.

  57. Brandon Gates says:
    Richard Courtney… should know that the proper way to rebut another published author’s work is to direct the critique at the work itself.
    Well, I guess you felt you had to say something to misdirect from Mann’s upside down Tiljander proxy. If you like, we can discuss the Wegman Report next. But you probably wouldn’t like that, either.
    Next, B. Gates says:
    A scientist’s job is not to agree with consensus, nor dutifully repeat past results if they are incomplete or otherwise flawed.
    LOL! Can I remind you and your sidekick D. Socrates of that, about once a day? Because if it wasn’t for the constant ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacies, at least half your arguments would go away.
    Brandon says:
    Do feel free to point out exactly where their understanding of climate, weather and California is in error.
    It’s not so much that they don’t understand, it’s that they misrepresent. There’s a good reason for that. That doesn’t make it OK. They’re pretending there’s a problem, for money. Our money.
    It’s wrong, but I can understand their motive, just like I can understand that theft is a motivation. What I don’t understand so well is why unpaid lemmings blindly follow the alarmist clique, despite overwhelming evidence showing that there is no ‘climate’ problem at all. What makes the followers dig in their heels, and refuse to admit that every alarming prediction has been wrong? Anywhere else, in science or out, if one side made 100% wrong predictions they would be laughed at.
    Come to think of it, that’s exactly what’s been happening.☺☺☺

    • dbstealey,

      Well, I guess you felt you had to say something to misdirect from Mann’s upside down Tiljander proxy.

      I don’t quite know what pathology it is which causes you to get your sequence of events out of order, but it sure is interesting. I introduced Moberg et al. 2005 into the conversation before, not after, mpainter dodged it with Tiljander.

      If you like, we can discuss the Wegman Report next.

      Hard data is what I like best. The most compelling exoneration of MBH98 is the subsequent research of other teams whose list of authors does not include Mann. It’s looking to me like you don’t have any cue cards on Moberg and team to read from. Sucks to be you.

      LOL! Can I remind you and your sidekick D. Socrates of that, about once a day? Because if it wasn’t for the constant ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacies, at least half your arguments would go away.

      If you truly believe that giving weight to the findings of domain experts is a fallcious appeal to authority, to be consistent you must reject:
      - modern Western medicine in favor of bloodletting and homeopathic dilutions of potent toxins
      - Copernican and Galilean models for the Solar System in favor of heliocentrism and flat-Earthism
      - A 4.54 billion year old Earth and 13.8 billion year old universe in favor of both being ~6,000 years old
      - heat engines in favor of perpetual motion
      - nuclear physics in favor of alchemy
      - special and general relativity and quantum mechanics with luminiferous aether [1]

      You don’t truly reject all of those things do you? I didn’t think so. Something is amiss with your argument here because rational people consider it perfectly reasonable to accept the research of qualified experts after they’ve engaged in their own personal critical and skeptical investigation of the results.

      It’s not so much that they don’t understand, it’s that they misrepresent.

      The furious backpedaling goal post moving begins in earnest. If Anthony meant misrepresent he would have written that. He didn’t, he very clearly wrote: This “never let a good crisis go to waste” dreck was sent to me today from a Madison Avenue PR outfit called “Climate Nexus” who doesn’t seem to know much about climate, or weather, or California. But, they can spin a good yarn.
      He isn’t accusing them of misrepresentation, but ignorance — their sole talent being making stuff up. That’s what I call fabrication, an entirely different sin. If he understands what the errors of fact are, he should be able to provide substantive evidence of it, but he did not. No evidence of claim, claim fails.
      Here again are two papers Climate Nexus cited in their release:
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x/abstract
      Enough of your vacuous apologia. Identify the errors Climate Nexus made in reference to the cited papers and demonstrate that you and/or Anthony actually have the better understanding of literature.
      ———————
      [1] Yes, even Boyle and Newton committed scientific fraud. Shocking, I know.

      • Brandon Gates
        If you truly believe that giving weight to the findings of domain experts is a fallcious appeal to authority, to be consistent you must reject:
        – modern Western medicine in favor of bloodletting and homeopathic dilutions of potent toxins
        – Copernican and Galilean models for the Solar System in favor of heliocentrism and flat-Earthism
        – A 4.54 billion year old Earth and 13.8 billion year old universe in favor of both being ~6,000 years old
        – heat engines in favor of perpetual motion
        – nuclear physics in favor of alchemy
        – special and general relativity and quantum mechanics with luminiferous aether [1]
        You don’t truly reject all of those things do you? I didn’t think so. Something is amiss with your argument here because rational people consider it perfectly reasonable to accept the research of qualified experts after they’ve engaged in their own personal critical and skeptical investigation of the results.

        Funny thing, scientific history.
        See, every one of your sarcastic exaggerations WAS A CASE WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL DETERMINED SKEPTIC HAD TO FIGHT THE ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS “SCIENCE” … and won because the facts and the real world produced reproducible results. CAGW theory has no facts behind its predictions – only the government models run on government computers programmed by government-paid and government-approved theories to produce government-chosen results. The facts? None support CAGW predictions.

      • RACookPE1978,

        See, every one of your sarcastic exaggerations WAS A CASE WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL DETERMINED SKEPTIC HAD TO FIGHT THE ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS “SCIENCE” … and won because the facts and the real world produced reproducible results.

        One of the main things I respect about the profession of science is for that very reason. Proper skeptical inquiry is the greatest antidote to perpetual ignorance our species has ever gifted itself.

        CAGW theory has no facts behind its predictions – only the government models run on government computers programmed by government-paid and government-approved theories to produce government-chosen results. The facts? None support CAGW predictions.

        I think you need to re-read your statement about determined skeptics and reprodcible results. Then show me an independently, privately funded contrarian GCM which is more skillful than IPCC-approved models. Bonus points if it does so without considering atmospheric GHGs. Until you do that, by your own stated standards of properly skeptical empirical research, you’ve got nothing but ALL CAPS empty blather.
        The world has been waiting for your camp to do this for decades, likely because most of what y’all want to talk about on this thread is decades old research. Not even that really … keep in mind that richardmcourtney’s first volley wasn’t even about science, but Mann’s IPCC 2007 Nobel Peace prize cockup.
        You don’t really expect such tired, worn-out character assassination to ever be taken as legitimate scientific contribution, do you?

        • I’m missing something here: Tell me again why a skeptic needs to provide you (or anyone else in the global CAGW religion) a Global Circulation Model?
          We have been long asking: Is today’s Modern Warming Period (2000-2010) a fleeting 66 year short cycle peak before we slide towards the Modern Ice Age 450 years from now? Or will there be a repeat of the 1945 warming peak, then a 66 year rising slope to the MWP, another small 35- year slide into a peak in 2070? As in 1000 – 1250, will the Modern Warming Period be recognized 500 years from now lasting from 2100 – 2200 as a continuous series of 0.2 degree 66 year cycles?
          Or are we merely cycling naturally up and down as time goes by?
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mean12.png

      • RACookPE1978,

        I’m missing something here: Tell me again why a skeptic needs to provide you (or anyone else in the global CAGW religion) a Global Circulation Model?

        Allow me to quote you again: See, every one of your sarcastic exaggerations WAS A CASE WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL DETERMINED SKEPTIC HAD TO FIGHT THE ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS “SCIENCE” … and won because the facts and the real world produced reproducible results.
        Did Copernicus and Galileo stand up and tell the heliocentrists they were lying rotten idiots and leave it at that? No, they did not do that. They recorded observations and derived theory from them which made demonstrably better predictions than heliocentrism.
        Evidence and prediction are the main currencies accepted by establishment scientists. Show them that you’ve got better predictive skill, and they will listen. Pick on the establishment over a 20 year old study which has held up well to subsequent findings, and they will ruthlessly deride you for being a crank if not ignore you entirely [1]. Climatologists are no exception to these rules. They operate according the same scientific rigor and scrutiny [2] as chemists, biologists and physicists.

        We have been long asking: Is today’s Modern Warming Period (2000-2010) a fleeting 66 year short cycle peak before we slide towards the Modern Ice Age 450 years from now?

        Great. What’s your answer? Start with how you have come by the prediction that we’re 450 years from an ice age.

        Or will there be a repeat of the 1945 warming peak, then a 66 year rising slope to the MWP, another small 35- year slide into a peak in 2070?

        My current bet based on projecting AMO/SOI forward is that we’re due for at least ten years of flattish surface temps, maybe 20. After that another steep rise like we saw from 1980-2000. The 10 more years of hiatus scenario looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSbU9sdjVvYzlMb28
        I don’t put much stock in this, all I’m doing here is playing what ifs to get a feel for how internal variabilities show up relative to estimated radiative forcings. I can make the future look pretty much like however you want.

        As in 1000 – 1250, will the Modern Warming Period be recognized 500 years from now lasting from 2100 – 2200 as a continuous series of 0.2 degree 66 year cycles?

        It would really help if you sourced your data for 1000-1250 so I could see what you’re seeing. This is what I’ve been looking at lately: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
        ————————
        [1] Response proportional to policy and popular influence, I’m sure.
        [2] Well, actually more scrutiny if you think about it, just not always very useful scrutiny.

  58. Each “unprecedented change” in the weather, breathlessly pronounced keeps bringing the chorus of “Oh Susanna” to my mind.
    Wheels are really coming off their gravy train.
    The GCD is now fully in motion.
    No not global climatic disruption, the glibbering climb down of the cult members as reality forces them to submit.Ghia is a harsh goddess I guess.Loki’s sister/mother?
    Now up here, north of the 60th parallel can I sue?
    I was promised serious warming, in written government statements, but I am freezing still.

  59. Sewers attract rats. Known fact.
    [Reply: No one forces you to coment here. ~mod]

    I guess that means I’m a rat. Is that considered better or worse than “troll”?
    [Reply: Describe yourself any way you like, but this is not a “sewer”. Please don’t make it one. ~mod.]

  60. mpainter,

    See Climate Audit, Brandon. This thoroughly examines Mann’s works and refutes them scientifically.

    If it’s a thorough scientific refutation, the place I’d expect to find it is in a respected peer-reviewed journal, not a blog.

    WUWT covers science politics and personalities so your complaints are misdirected.

    Not a complaint, a critique. I’d expect a blog that includes science as one of its topics to have followers who understand the difference between a reasoned scientific debate and a political mud-slinging match.

    As long as you import your views from blogs like HotWhopper you will only make an impression of foolishness here at WUWT, as in your claim that latent heat is circulated back down to the surface because “condensation is exothermic”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/many-thanks-to-kevin-trenberth-for-being-open-minded/#comment-1806291
    When the moist air cools sufficiently the water condenses back to liquid, an exothermic process. The surrounding atmosphere gains most of what the surface lost from the latent heat transfer, precipitation comes back down even cooler than when it left. Not being a gas at that point, lapse rate isn’t as significant — liquid precipitation reaches the ground faster than the warmer air at lower altitudes can transfer energy to it.
    In sum, at the surface, the water cycle is the dominant cooling mechanism.

    Why should I, or anyone, believe anything you have to say about Mann if you can’t even tell the truth about my own words. Hmm?

  61. I not sure whats worse, those blaming the gays and heathens in Hollywood for bad weather events in California or those blaming all of humanity and the CO2 they exhale for the bad weather.
    In both cases the need to find someone to blame for an unpredictable and sometimes ruthless mother nature is interesting. But maybe we are making progress, no one has been burned at the stake yet over the weather. Even though fairly certain an alarmist or two would love to put the torch to the pagan deniers.

    • eyesonyou,
      Richard asked me:

      You claimed that M Mann knows and understands the effects of precipitation on the data of his ‘hockey stick’ graph.

      I have the same answer: yes, and zillions of other environmental factors.
      Richard then “asked” me:

      If your claim is true then M Man must know and understand that his ‘hockey stick’ graph is plain wrong because the data he used in the graph does not include any compensation for the effects of precipitation.

      Which isn’t a question, but an assertion disguised as a question. You may as well ask me whether Mann is still beating his wife. My response is still the same: Moberg 2005. Add Shakun 2012 and Marcott 2013. All three of those papers are in broad agreement with MBH98. That would mean something to honest, rational and properly skeptical truth-seekers.

  62. B Gates,
    You state that there are zillions of environmental factors that effect tree ring growth. I was more focused on the implications of precipitation as noted in Climate Nexus linked study.
    Then it would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings? (note that I included the question mark at the end)
    My earlier comment can be read here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/11/the-eyeroller-you-knew-was-going-to-happen-california-winter-storm-caused-by-changing-climate/#comment-1812423

    • eyesonu,

      You state that there are zillions of environmental factors that effect tree ring growth.

      An admittedly hyperbolic statement but still unequivocally yes.

      I was more focused on the implications of precipitation as noted in Climate Nexus linked study.

      So was I until I threadbombed my own argument by taking your Mann bait hook line and sinker, a gross tactical error on my part. I’ve been treating them as separate discussions because they ARE separate discussions.

      Then it would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings?
      I have answered that already: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/11/the-eyeroller-you-knew-was-going-to-happen-california-winter-storm-caused-by-changing-climate/#comment-1813982
      In a nutshell, all proxies have strengths and weaknesses. They are best used as an ensemble so that they compliment each other’s strengths and serve as a check against their respective weaknesses. I have no less or more confidence in any proxy because that’s not how they’re used in practice. I have no less confidence in Mann than any other researcher doing paleo work; MBH98 has held up well to later studies by other authors. There are non-trival scientifically interesting differences of course.

      (note that I included the question mark at the end)

      The problem with Richards “question” was not a matter of punctuation, but its loaded nature. It limited my options to either retracting my statement on the complexities of dendro proxies or throwing Mann under the bus for ignoring them in favor of a motivated conclusion. And it relies on the implicit assertion that Mann did in fact do just that. That’s his burden of proof, not mine, and it’s up to him to substantiate it.

      • Brandon,
        You wrote:
        “….. It limited my options to either retracting my statement on the complexities of dendro proxies or throwing Mann under the bus for ignoring them in favor of a motivated conclusion. And it relies on the implicit assertion that Mann did in fact do just that. That’s his burden of proof, not mine, and it’s up to him to substantiate it.”
        ==============
        So Mann has a lot of explaining to do? I agree.

      • eyesonu, I do somewhat grudgingly admit that playing off the ambiguous antecedent of a personal pronoun is rather clever.

      • I wasn’t looking to be clever. I will change out of my Carhartt bib overalls for you to answer this question: Would be fair to say that you do not place much/any stock in Mann’s claims on temperature derived from tree rings?
        A yes or no answer would suffice.

      • Thank you for clarifying your belief in Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction. Your answer to my question seemed to be difficult for you to answer. Mann would surely appreciate you throwing yourself under the bus for him.
        Are you going to contact the authors of the study linked to in the Climate Nexus piece and explain that of the zillions of variables affecting tree rings and that temperature is the one metric to be used? Maybe you can just explain it here and I will forward your explanation.

  63. Might I make 2 suggestions? 1) The education of Blandon Gates is like Climate Science…too many unknowns and not enough equations to solve the system. Alternatively, the problem is either too constrained for a feasible solution or has too many degrees of freedom. 2) The Moderator installs a real-time widget at the head of the comment sections indicating a real-time percentage of Blandon Gates (and perhaps Dumb Socrates) consumption of lines to inform readers of the level of self-immolation blather contained therein. That way, one has some idea of how much one has to scroll past to get to the substantive & highly germane contributions of the many other posters. Thanks.

    • Tomazo,
      If you like I can go full-Socratic and limit my comments to the gotcha setups so popular here. It wouldn’t be difficult as a number of commenters here have already managed to tie their own shoelaces together responding to posts where I’ve been playing it absolutely straight. As an added benefit it would cement my burgeoning reputation as a troll giving everyone here that much more of an out to detract from discussing anything relevant or substantive.
      I was considering doing this anyway.

  64. On the UN thread a commenter wrote:
    The rise in CO2 from 1996-2014 was 37 ppm, that is, since the warming stopped. That is actually 45% more than the CO2 increase 1850-1996 (82 ppm). How can the CO2 theory possibly be true? It cannot be true.
    Hard to argue with that logic.

  65. I don’t find anything about it difficult. What do you find difficult?
    The carbon scare is a bunch of discredited nonsense. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the only Authority that counts: Planet Earth.

  66. Yo, Brandon,
    Looks like Sullivan gave you a pretty good spanking there. I’m surprised you would link to it.
    Anyway, the carbon scare is a bunch of discredited nonsense. That’s a fact, jack.

  67. eyesonu,

    Your answer to my question seemed to be difficult for you to answer.

    Not particularly. From where I’m sitting, your ability to parse much more than a binary yes/no response seems to be the issue.

    Mann would surely appreciate you throwing yourself under the bus for him.

    It’s doubtful that either he or I would see me repeating what is widely known in other literature he didn’t write as falling on our own swords.

    Are you going to contact the authors of the study linked to in the Climate Nexus piece and explain that of the zillions of variables affecting tree rings and that temperature is the one metric to be used?

    To what end? None of this stuff is exactly mysterious or hidden. Complex yes, but not impenetrable to anyone curious enough to read for comprehension.
    Now that I’ve answered your questions to your satisfaction, can you tell from the melee above whether anyone’s addressed my original question to Anthony about why “‘Climate Nexus’ … doesn’t seem to know much about climate, or weather, or California”? It seems like that has been a difficult question for your crew to answer.

Comments are closed.