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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/sat_pacific_640x4801.jpg?quality=83)
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
LOL
#(:)) thanks, eyesonu.
Claude, do not forget that in between the more frequent droughts and floods, there will be increasing and shocking periods of extremely average precipitation.
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}.
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.
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?
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.
Robert,
Put the screw cap back on the bottle and call it a day.
That would ruin his day John. Reality would return to his miserable little planet in about 6 hrs.
Would this be the mythical energy that was hiding at the oceans bottom? Please do tell Robert.
Learn something about simple physics and get back to me.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
That should get you started.
If a link has gov, giss or nasa in it, I would deem it to be unreliable. If it contains all three, I would expect to be taken to a religious site.
Quit posting idiotic anti science remarks on WUWT please.
The latest from NOAA on the rivers in the sky. If it was covered in the links in the propaganda by Climate Nexus, well I didn’t bother to follow.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/psd2/coastal/satres/data/html/ar_detect_gfs.php
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-!!!!
This “river” for the illiterate.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/output/WS250_satellite1.jpg
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, there was a strong water vapor ban from the south flowing into this…
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/weus/rb-animated.gif
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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,
What people don’t write is often just as informative as what they do.
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.
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
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
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,
I do assume people will be informed by reality. Assumptions are often wrong.
Do you consider the findings of Moberg et al. 2005 reliable or not?
dbstealey,
Then he should know that the proper way to rebut another published author’s work is to direct the critique at the work itself.
Richard Courtney is correct – you cannot read. He DID direct it to the published work. And from that drew the correct conclusion.
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,
To put it mildly.
Is that envy I detect?
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,
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.
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
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,
I know what 2005 less 1998 is. Corroborating evidence is timeless, so your point is … nothing.
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,
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.
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.
I cited the darn paper. Here it is again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
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 provide a great service to the advancement of knowledge by doing it.
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.
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?
So either you claim being a mind reader or have bugged my Internet connection. One is loopy, the other illegal.
I’m sorry, but isn’t that a fallacious appeal to authority by your own definition?
mpainter,
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.
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
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
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,
Desperation is a stinky cologne. It doesn’t suit you.
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.
I did say condensation is exothermic because it is.
Not even remotely. But you can’t tell me you’re not enjoying some fresh meat.
B Gates
Do not mistake me. You are disgusting.
mpainter,
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 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,
So … I can’t read his mind, but you can.
Sewers attract rats. Known fact.
[Reply: No one forces you to coment here. ~mod]
False – Sewers do not attract rats. Food and shelter attract rats. They are attracted to where they can find them.
At least we know where you mind is now.
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,
The point, Richard, is that if I want to know what mpainter thinks, I’ll read what mpainter himself has to say.
This is a discussion? To me it looks like remdial political rhetoric class.
And zillions of other environmental factors.
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.
Interesting typo in the name.
I use a Qwerty keyboard.
eyesonu,
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.
Dorothy Hamil has nothing on this guy.
MCourtney,
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,
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
The question from eyesonu is a response to your assertion that “zillions” of factors affect tree rings and is
It would be appreciated if you were to provide plain and straightforward answers to these questions.
Richard
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
Ah yes, the much despised Galli priesthood, who cut of their testicles in a religious fervor and wore women’s clothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galli
They still exist in India, where they are called the Hijra:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
R
No, Julian was referring to the Christians, and their constant claims of seeing signs of The End.
Let’s just say the farmers’ prayers were answered.
Quote:
As the world heats up and more heat is carried in the atmosphere as water vapor, heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense.
_________________________________________
But the world has not warmed for 18 years, so I would call that ‘BUSTED’.
Ralph
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?
Bill, GFS shows continued CA rain-pulses, but coming from the NW later instead of the SW. That should be colder and result in more snow in the Sierras.
One of the two newly replaced trees on the 18th fairway of Pebble Beach felled as a result of the storm.
http://golfislife.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Pebble-18th.jpg
Gotta trust that model (not).
“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.
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”.
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.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Say it after me, kiddies: “Global Warming: Is there nothing it cannot do?” Sigh….
Reblogged this on IF THE TRUTH BE KNOWN…BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny.G….
California’s routine storm.
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.
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
“After the premise therefore because of the premise.”
Gunga Din,
: )
John