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
Anthony,
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.
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.
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,
Par for this course.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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?
RACookPE1978,
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.
Great. What’s your answer? Start with how you have come by the prediction that we’re 450 years from an ice age.
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.
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.
“…contact Paige Knappenberger at …” Her Twitter account states that she’s a self proclaimed, “Environmental Policy Enthusiast.” https://twitter.com/pknappen
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.
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.]
Nuff said.
Alx,
Helpful hint: it might work better to quote me out of context when the full text of my original comments aren’t on the very same stinking webpage.
mod,
“When your neighbor calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back.” ~Jewish Proverb
You define yourself out of ignorance. And revel in it.
Dry subtlety is not your cup ‘o tea apparently.
And again it goes right over your head. So I repeat:
mpainter,
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.
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.
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?
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.
@ur momisugly Branden Gates
Please re-read Richard Courtney’s comment which was posted on this thread @ur momisugly December 14, 2014 at 1:31 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/11/the-eyeroller-you-knew-was-going-to-happen-california-winter-storm-caused-by-changing-climate/#comment-1813977
Will you answer his (and mine) two simple questions? Please answer below this comment as there is much noise in your numerous comments above. I await with interest.
eyesonyou,
Richard asked me:
Climate is always changing, but is it not caused by humans. This week’s storm was nothing compared to this in 1862. The Capitol had to be moved San Francisco and bankrupted the state. http://www.nytimes.com/1862/01/21/news/the-great-flood-in-california-great-destruction-of-property-damage-10000000.html
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,
An admittedly hyperbolic statement but still unequivocally yes.
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.
blockquote fail again
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.
No.
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.
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.
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.
dbstealey,
That does seem to be one of Tom Sullivan’s pet arguments: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/record-global-temperatureconflicting-reports-contrasting-implications/#comment-1811432
What is it you find difficult?
You folks are deflercting as usual. This is the question:
Why has CO2 lost its mojo since 1996?
Good question, no?
Really? By what mathematics is an increase of 37ppm 45% more than an increase of 82ppm?
Must be that New Math.
We already corrected that typo: 37 ppm (the increase from 1996 to 2014) is 45% of 82 ppm (the increase from 1850 to 1996).
RACookPE1978,
A group effort, huh. Where are you guys getting your CO2 figures from? Mine are from here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ico2_monthly.dat
1850 287.40
1996 362.36
= 74.96, not 82.
37 / 74 = 49%, call it an even fifty.
RACookPE1978 December 15, 2014 at 6:35 am
Phil.
Really? By what mathematics is an increase of 37ppm 45% more than an increase of 82ppm?
We already corrected that typo: 37 ppm (the increase from 1996 to 2014) is 45% of 82 ppm (the increase from 1850 to 1996).
Perhaps you should tell stealey, he doesn’t appear to have got the memo since he still posts the uncorrected version!
@Phil.,
Perhaps you should quit deflecting, and answer the question.
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.
dbstealey,
Explaining basic math to the innumerate: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/record-global-temperatureconflicting-reports-contrasting-implications/#comment-1811531
It is hard for you because you have no clue about it.
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.
dbstealey,
Let’s find out if your math is better than his. Say you’ve got a space heater outputting 278 Watts of heat. You turn it up to 360, a 30% increase in total output. Right?
Now I come along, and being a warmist I crank the thing up to 397 Watts. By what percentage have I increased the total output?
a) 45%
b) 10%
Translation:
“Look! Over there, a squirrel!”
Here’s the question you’re avoiding:
Why has CO2 lost its mojo since 1996?
No, I’ve answered it already. You guys suck at math AND physics.
Actually, you have explained neither. So you have not answered anything. You can start by answering DB’s question.
philjourdan,
Ok, it hasn’t lost its mojo. The explanation for the bad math and physics is in the post I previously linked to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/record-global-temperatureconflicting-reports-contrasting-implications/#comment-1811531
Yeah, I’ve heard that one a lot in my lifetime.
Another non sequitur. Are you going to answer his Question?
Ana smart person hearing a “lot of” would learn. Then there are others.
eyesonu,
Not particularly. From where I’m sitting, your ability to parse much more than a binary yes/no response seems to be the issue.
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.
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.