Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?

468px-NOAA_logo.svg[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A NOAA study has been published, which claims to attribute various extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change.

According to the NOAA press release;

“For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather and climate events around the world,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “In the 79 papers that have been published through the annual report over the past four years, over half of these papers show a linkage to human-caused climate change.”

When a climate change influence is not found it could mean two things. First, that climate change has not had any appreciable impact on an event. Or, it could also mean that the human influence cannot be conclusively identified with the scientific tools available today.

In this year’s report, 32 groups of scientists from around the world investigate 28 individual extreme events in 2014 and break out various factors that led to the extreme events, including the degree to which natural variability and human-induced climate change played a role.

Read more: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaining-extreme-events-2014

The strapline of the report betrays the speculative nature of this effort;

This BAMS special report presents assessments of how climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.

Read more: https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

The disclaimer in the report itself is even funnier;

Challenges that attribution assessments face include the often limited observational record and inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.

Read more: https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/explaining-extreme-events-of-2014-from-a-climate-perspective-table-of-contents/high-resolution-version/

Lets just say I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict. Starting with an assumption that an anthropogenic effect is playing a substantial role is not the same as demonstrating that this is the case. Retrofitting an explanation is easy – everyone can explain a stock market crash, after it occurs.

Consider the following (talking about Californian wildfires);

… A process called CO2 fertilisation (Donohue et al. 2013) tends to increase vegetation activity simply through the uptake of an increasing atmospheric CO2. Under such a scenario along with a wetter climate, vegetation growth would increase and subsequently supply sufficient fuel load.

And here I was thinking California was scheduled for perpetual drought. But I guess this is NOAA, they can disagree with James Hansen if they want.

Interestingly the report contains a testable prediction or two. Some good news for people in the Upper Midwest, who suffered through the brutal 2013-2014 winter. According to NOAA, nobody is likely to ever see such a winter again;

… While a winter comparable to 2013/14 would have been roughly a once-a-decade event in 1881 (return periods from 5–20 years), it has become roughly a once-in-a-thousand years event in 2014 (return periods from 90 to over 10 000 years). is implies that extremely cold winters are two orders of magnitude less frequent in today’s climate than in that of around 1881. Using a Gaussian t rather than GPD, the change in probability for such a cold winter would go from once-in-14 years in 1881 to once-in-200 years in 2014 (Supplemental Fig. S3.6). Due to the area-averaging, these changes in odds are more extreme than those found by van Oldenborgh et al. (2015) for individual stations since 1951, but match the drastic reduction in odds that Christidis et al. (2014) computed for cold springs in the United Kingdom. …

But lets assume for the sake of argument, that NOAA are right, and climate change is causing more extreme weather. What should we do about it?

Would you rather face a dangerous hail storm on your bicycle, or would you prefer to be protected by a safety capsule made of steel and toughened glass?

Would you prefer to suffer an extreme heatwave with, or without, the benefits of air conditioning? How insufferable would Summer be, if you couldn’t afford to cool your house, because electricity bills had skyrocketed beyond your ability to pay?

Would you give up home heating, so people who won’t be born until you are long dead, could enjoy a few more snow days?

Would you give up your right to travel by air, to make room for people rushing to attend climate conferences in exotic holiday destinations?

Nothing about the climate movement makes sense.

Advertisements

255 thoughts on “Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?

  1. Lets just say I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict.
    That reaches the heart of the matter. Get some real, specific and measurable predictions correct and I might get on board with the CAGW crowd.

    • Exactly. They can’t even stop rain or drought, let alone prescribe accurate weather forecasts a week in advance. In Oz, we’re currently suffering a Climate Change ©®™ show by Bill Nye, the fake science guy. Pathetic.

      • My car gets 50 mpg (US) at 30-60 mph on a flat road. It gets about 4 mpg getting up from a stop to 25 mph, with my foot as light on the loud pedal as I can make it, and still accelerate.
        Four way stop signs make NO traffic decision whatsoever, except that the next crash will be from a standing start. I figure that 100% of ALL of the oil we import from outside the
        USA gets burned up by automobiles that are stopped at four way stop signs or red traffic lights.
        USA traffic lights are programmed to implement the ” Who should I let go ?” algorithm, where most traffic lights are mostly red most of the time. That should be changed to implement the “Who must I stop ?” algorithm, where most traffic lights are mostly green most of the time.
        I say we should get rid of every second traffic light, and repeat every six months, and require that drivers take a driving test before being given a driving licence.
        So take your hands off my car. It is NOT the problem.
        G

    • I agree with PaulH & Olef Koenders — In India, the heat and cold waves in summer and winter respectively are related to weather associated with western disturbances. In this the main player is ridge around Nagpur. Based on the movement of the Ridge to east and south, the heat or cold wave movement penetrates to east and south. Some times these are modified by a system in Bay of Bengal. This heory was presented by me in 1975 [published in a journal in 1978]. The extreme temperatures associated withse have not crossed the Normal published for 1931-60 by IMD. In some local areas through mining and deforestation activities the temperatures are affected. This is the factual information. Let those from NOAA study these and show to the public is there any global warming effect on them — unfortunately NOAA is shy of using the word “global warming” and instead using anthropogenic climate change [climate refers to several met parameters and not temperature alone]. Human activities not only relate to global warming but also other than global warming — local and regional phenomenon]. Also temperature follow the rainfall pattern. Rainfall presents natural rhythm in India. During 2009 drought year the temperature has gone up by 0.9 oC at all India level.
      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • You raised a key point Dr. Reddy. Local modifications of albedo coupled with human generated thermal flux may have substantial impacts on locally experienced conditions.

    • The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
      ================
      or it could be that there are no significant anthropogenic effects.
      plain and simple. if humans were truly affecting the climate in excess of natural variability, it would have been detected given the large numbers of people looking for just such a signal.

  2. Yet again, this is just total, utter rubbish. It’s an embarrassment to science. The whole idea seems to be that all recent bad weather events (as if they had never happened before…) MUST be attributable to AGW. So, if the proof isn’t there (and which cases actaully DO prove it?), these idiots claim it CANNOT be because we DIDN’T cause it, it MUST be because we haven’t got the measurements and evidence right.
    What utter, unscientific, illogical tripe! Anyone associated with this should be fired immediatelay. Of course that isn’t going to happen. Shame.

    • Truth (and science) is what works. The rest is conjecture and religion.
      CAGW is a cargo cult escathological religion, little else. It does not work to predict the future. Given the multitude of knobs it has, the resulting overfit and lack of robustness it can be made to fit the past very well.

      • The real crime is the fraud being forced on the country by the far-left. The false premise of cars causing AGW is completely unprovable on its face. The effort to eliminate cars is just a ploy to reduce freedoms. The left is a completely evil movement – they should be shunned.

      • Given the multitude of knobs it has…
        If I started naming the climate control knobs do you think some of them would sue me? Maybe I should ask Tim Ball.

    • There is no evidence anywhere that ANY human action, “giving up” anything including our very lives, would influence the climate one iota. Because there’s no evidence we’ve influenced it to begin with except on a local to regional level through acts such as deforestation or the creation of urban heat islands. BTW love the weasel words (“may influence”) in this article!

    • The proof that AGW is causing the extreme events or the extreme absence of extreme winters, about which we should be equally concerned, is hiding in the deep oceans with the missing heat.

      • Brian,
        My man in MI5 tells me that Shergar, the Loch Ness Monster and Lord Lucan are all hot-bunking in the very same apartment. Not sure about the Yeti – who rather puts itself about if forced to share . . . .
        Auto
        [Mods – this is /SARC. seriously /SARC]
        Though best to help our much-appreciated Mods.

    • So, in short, NOAA claims they cannot scientifically measure something.. therefore it exists.
      How will they measure the outcomes of their solutions if they are incapable of measuring the baselines…never mind…they have no intentions to do that.

      • Come on PiperPaul. You know full well that those examples you gave are way more realistic than CO2 controlling the climate! 🙂
        PS. Lochie (and Ogopogo) are probably giant sturgeons, bigfoot a misidentified bear (or staged prank) and ET’s are very real (on their worlds, don’t know if or how any could get here but I’m open to proof).

  3. How does the theory handle the fact that there have been fewer extremene events in recent years than before? Is that human caused as well?
    “…implies that extremely cold winters are two orders of magnitude less frequent in today’s climate than in that of around 1881.” and that with the ever churning temperature adjustments cooling the past and warming the present, this will soon be an alarming three orders of magnitude.

    • Gary, surely you know that we should be extremely concerned about the ever-more-extreme absence of extreme winters. While extreme winters may be extreme, they cannot be considered extreme events because they occurred more often before the extremely troubling increase in true extreme events that accompanied the extreme increase in atmospheric CO2.

      • I forgot to mention that extreme winters are just due to weather, while extreme events are due to climate change.

      • emsnews said: “Actually, these loons are basically saying that the Little Ice Age is the Ideal Climate”.
        Yes! Ideal to the greens because it likely results in a shrinkage of population.

    • ” fewer extremene events in recent years than before? Is that human caused as well?”
      1. Greens will never admit that there have been less extreme events (or even fewer)
      2. Greens will never admit that anything humans have done could ever be anything but bad. A farmer (the biggest green hatred after miners) built a “leaky weir”, kind of like a beaver dam but man-made, on their property and a variety of other water improvement measures. Now they have a real aqua-culture going on. You should hear the screaming going on in the offices of the gaia worshippers.

  4. It rather reminds me of an old patent medicine that claimed it only cured “cattarh”, and then defined every disease as a variety of cattarh. No one has come up with a new fallacy in several thousand years.

    • Tom,
      Doctor Forster’s Febrile Puissant Nectar [$17.00/200 ml bottle; take a litre a day] get rid of your cold in just seven short days.
      But, left to itself, it will hang on for a week.
      Auto
      Post cheques [checks from N. America] to me, please.

      • Auto, you wound us Canadians! We go owt and abowt withowt our tooooks in the most extreme of winters. Re. cheques, of course.

  5. Let’s reverse it:
    Would you drive more if there was a small probability it could reduce the severity of the next glacial advance.

    • lol, Richard — I’d get a government subsidy to save the planet from a Lack-of-Enough-Human-CO2-Emissions-Caused {<– after, therefore because of … oh, yes, I DO have proof: after Americans in the early 1970’s turned in their big block station wagons, Cadillacs, and Camaros for… tiny little Datsun B210’s… it got COLDER (Leonard Nimoy knows)} – Ice-Age…
      to buy myself this:

      (youtube)
      And on the bumper it would say:
      – SAVIN’ THE PLANET –
      ONE BURNOUT AT A TIME
      Yeeeeeeeee-haw!
      #(:))

      • Hi Janice!
        Forged pistons, solid lifters, and 7,000 rpm. Cures climate change, traffic congestion, boredom, depression, and fascism. Good for the mind, body, heart, and ongoing pursuit of human freedom.
        Good to hear from you!

        • Tom Judd: “Forged pistons, solid lifters, and 7,000 rpm.”
          Stick a couple of Dominators and a tunnel ram on top, it’ll go to 10,000 RPM.
          Now, that will really pump out some plant food!
          And if you really want to go for broke, stick a GM 6-71 between the carbs and the manifold.
          Ah, happy days!

      • Thanks, Mike. 🙂
        Tom….?? Is that YOU, f.n.a. “TomJ”? I thought of you around Halloween — hope you had a cheery one.
        And, I agree… especially about “depression.” Driving a muscle car/sports car is SO much fun!
        Take care of yourself…. and go out and meet some nice women — for a guy as kind and intelligent as you, there just HAS to be a lovely (remember, the heart is what matters, not her beauty or lack of) “her” out there. And DON’T date ANY of those bimbos who put prostitute-wanna-be photos online. NO woman worth having a meaningful relationship with would EVER put such a photo out there: I guarantee it. There is NO SUCH THING as “the whore with the golden heart.” They are either brain disordered (to some degree) or using (likely mostly subconsciously) their “power” over men to get back at…. whoever he was. Some of those women have dated HUNDREDS of men!! Such women will get you wrapped around their little finger and then jerk you around for the rest of your life. I — have — seen — this — happen!
        Okay, I’m off — (((((ssscrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRRRRRRRRRMMMMM!!!)))
        (that was supposed to be an excellent burn-off)
        #(:))

      • Edit: There is no such thing as ” the [healthy] whore with the golden heart.” Sadly, there are some brain-disordered or developmentally delayed prostitutes-for-free (and a few for pay, too) out there.

      • American cars do seem to have a problem with bends. British cars were down on power. So a match was made in heaven. The AC Cobra.

  6. Your local climate catastrophist will be pleased to flip a coin to see who gets your money. Heads he wins, tails you lose. It’s quite simple, really.

  7. ‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.’
    The foregoing has given me the solution to a dilemma. You see, my neighbor’s wife is, like, really hot. You would not believe how many times I’ve fantasized about her. And, once in a while she’s actually given me a knowing look, a suggestive little smile. Or, at least I think she has. Trouble is; I’m pretty certain she’s faithful. In fact I’m convinced she is. And, that’s probably irrelevant anyway; her husband’s a lot bigger than I am. And, better looking too.
    But, I’ll tell ya’, reading that paragraph above has given me a ray of hope. I’ll just do the same kind of thing to get that inconvenient husband outta’ the way. I’ll go to the police and accuse him of murder. Now, I know they’re going to ask me for a body. Taking my cue from above I’ll just simply say, “Challenges that murder assessments face include the often limited observation of a body on record and inability of investigations (i.e. models) to reproduce the crime events well. In general, when investigations fail to find a murdered body this alone does not prove that murder did not influence the event. The failure to find a crime could be due to insufficient investigation or poor evidence and not the absence of a crime.”
    Yeah, I know it’s complete babble. But, it just might work. I can smell a conviction coming when he hasn’t done anything at all except being in the way of my amorous feelings towards his hot wife. I’d say a life sentence is appropriate. I promise I’ll visit him, “Honest guy, don’t worry, I’ll look after your wife while you’re in prison. Mind if I drive your Porsche?”

  8. Oddly enough a similar question is posed in this recent popular song:
    “Yeah, I would give all I have to give
    Would you give up your car?
    (Mmm) Are you kidding me, of course I would have given the car
    What car do you drive?
    I drive a Civic, drive a Civic. Drive a Civic!
    A car you can trust!
    Never mind about the car…”

      • I don’t know, and I would give anything to know…
        Perhaps we should create a “paleolithic reconstruction” of the precise events that took place 5000years ago.
        Where’s Mike Mann when you need him?

      • Yeah, including a mock henge at 1/12th scale.
        The henge in my video is a real henge.
        It’s the greatest henge of all.
        It goes up to eleven.

  9. I will readily admit to having weak math skills, but I don’t understand how, in a record of 134 winters, could they determine if a severe winter was one-in-a-thousand or even one-in-200 year event?

      • Given that the “measure” of the severity of winter is normally distributed,
        The problem is that is not a “given”.
        The natural distributions are likely fatter-tailed (leptokurtic) than a normal distribution, thus increasing the expected probability of extreme events over what a normal distribution would predict.

      • Ok, my math skills are sufficient to understand standard deviations. However, wouldn’t this depend on a) how you define and scale “severe” and b) if they really are normally distributed? After all, aren’t they trying to tell us that the distribution is no longer normal due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

      • This is not really a working solution for two reasons. First the scale here is not a theoretical dot count from a dice roll with a perfect distribution, but rather a muddy number with imprecise distribution. Second, your number, even if it is a number, might not represent what you claim it to represent. Certainly a temperature is a number at some point in space-time with some precision, but should you choose a different way to measure and calculate severity, you’d get a different rank.
        People have too much faith in decimals. If one is the dumbest in the world, one’s IQ is by definition negative, but you should think twice before you tell you actually *can measure* a negative IQ.

      • The natural distributions are likely fatter-tailed (leptokurtic) than a normal distribution, thus increasing the expected probability of extreme events over what a normal distribution would predict.

        And Taleb has shown that convergence on a reliable mean takes millions or billions of data points for those kind of distributions.
        For many cases the Normal distribution is the most optimistic distribution. The fact that it’s easiest do do the math on fuels most of Taleb’s books and diatribes. The normal distribution is easy to use and often wrong. A terrible combination with human nature thrown in…
        Peter

      • How very odd that there is a Richard A. O’Keefe visiting here (me) and a Richard A. O’Keef just above (not me). What’s really odd is that clicking on “Richard A. O’Keef” takes you to my web page. I hope this is a glitch in the blog software… If it had been me, I would have pointed out that rather fewer things in nature follow a Gaussian distribution than Stats 101 would have you believe, that heavy tails are common, and that “1 in N year” statements are always highly suspect.

      • Gaussian statistics are limited. I live in the flood plain of lake Red Rock. We have had four 200-year floods in the last three years.

      • So the identity thief without a life has stolen another person’s identity.
        He sure wastes a lot of his time doing something that will just be erased.

      • Another problem with distributions, is that there are many things that affect the distributions.
        For example, depending on where you live, floods or droughts become more or less common depending on whether you are in an El Nino year. Or on whether the PDO, AO or such is in it’s positive or negative phase.
        Given how few years we have of accurate observations, trying to figure out what a “normal” distribution of any type of event, given the various other factors, is a fools errand.

    • kath..009……………good post
      “They have the money on their side”. BS, BS, BS – check what gov’ts spend on the hoax.
      “I don’t believe we have to reduce our quality of life….” – BS – the UN disagrees.

      • What cracks me up is how indignant he gets over the idea of giving up his cell phone for the cause.
        These folks really do live in the land of magical thinking.

    • And here it was that I thought he wanted to throw me in jail for speaking out against CAGW! He’s for democracy as long as it is his point of view. Child slavery to build cell phones is ok. I’ll bet he didn’t ride a bike to this party. Reminds me of Chairman Mao. The party says he’s to eat well while you starve to death. It’s the same logic.

    • If the US were to pass a law, as Kennedy suggests, to only allow electric cars, then yes, everyone’s quality of life would drop. Maybe in his golden spoon life, his wouldn’t change, but the middle class’s standard of living would, and the lower class’s would be completely eliminated from the car market.
      PS, I always thought Koch was pronounced ‘Kosh’ not ‘Coke’. Locally a family of Koch brothers (different family) own several Ford dealerships in several different cities. They pronounce their name ‘Kosh’.

      • Both pronunciations avoid the obvious references to roosters, weather vanes etc. And, I wonder what his rum-runner ancestor would have done without fossil fuels. But I guess inter-generational hypocrisy is allowed.

    • Why not? its not like there’s going to be a flood, Ah unless you’re next to a flooded mine the EPA is looking into…
      michael

    • According to many of the leftists I have talked to, allowing anyone other than the mainstream media to comment on the elections, subverts democracy.
      BTW, the govt gets to determine who is a member of the media, and who isn’t.

  10. “Using a Gaussian t rather than GPD, the change in probability for such a cold winter would go from once-in-14 years in 1881 to once-in-200 years in 2014”
    Predicting less probability of severe weather while predicting increased severe weather due to AGW/CC.
    I guess we can take our pick as to which is true.

    • It’s rather amusing that they call the brutal East-US Winter 2013/2014 a “once-in-200-years-event” AFTER there was a second winter of this sort in the directly following season 2014/2015…
      Don’t these people realize their own contradictions ??? 🙂

      • They do it on purpose. The idea on telling ‘this is a 200-year-event’ is telling it is not, because climate has changed. It does not make sense philophically, but rhetorically it works well for people who can’t even solve a proportion since that involves both multiplication and division and you need to know which number to multiply with.

  11. They switched from global warming to climate change as there was no discernible global warming. Now they switch to “extreme weather” as there is no discernible climate change.
    It is interesting that as their predictions have failed, the Warmistas have moved from global to regional to local scales.

      • “We must ban snow blowers to prevent more blizzards!”

        Make that, ““We must ban snow blowers to prevent the next blizzard!”
        (They aren’t just shifting to more local but also more immediate.)

    • The next step is blaming the plumber when the hot water heater for the shower fails. Let’s see how they enjoy cold showers? Oh right that’s why they are in Paris to enjoy the cold showers, restaurants that serve cold food and warm wine ( because the fridges stopped working). (sarc).

      • We must ban all alcoholic beverages to all politicians, and all other mind altering and sore-throat making substances. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear that Kennedy talk in a reasonable tone in defending a reasonable subject or proposal?

  12. Eric, once again an excellent essay!
    First of all to answer the question posed in the title my reply would be: No I don’t have to!
    “For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather and climate events around the world,”
    We have had an 18.75 year pause where temperatures have not risen. How has the climate changed in view of that? I cannot decide if these people are jut plain stupid, are congenital liars or a mixture of both!

  13. More Karl instigated bunkum. For climate change to increase extremes one needs two things. 1. The climate changes. In this century, it hasn’t. 2. Either more or worse extremes. Neither has occurred, either in the US or globally. The 2014 US National Climate Assessment tried to pull the same trick, and every single one of their specific claims proved easy to shred factually in essay Credibility Conundrums.

    • But it could, scientists suggest!
      Sorry, could not resist. The idea of extremes and permanent drought etc. is just so persistent you don’t need a reality to check it against. A model with concerned activists is enough.

  14. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.

    Pity they didn’t think to look for Ma’ Gaia’s fingerprints. (She’s inhuman.)
    “We have no evidence but we know Man did it!”
    If this were an episode of Perry Mason, I’d say his client, Man, is innocent.

    • Did they just admit that their models are poor? And if they are, maybe, just maybe, they catastrophic warming they predict may not occur. Maybe the warming is not in the pipe as they have repeatedly told us.

  15. Karl et al. are just auguring for free tickets, drinks, meals and prostitutes at Paris, to sit at the table with Obama, a Latin-Pope and a Korean-Japanese Emperor, then charge the expenses for tickets, drinks, meals and prostitutes (hotel room) on their travel re-embersment forms.

  16. 18+ years with no statistically significant change in global temperatures yet they still insist that extreme weather events are climate-change related??? Can’t they see how ridiculous that pronouncement makes them look? Even the hard-of-thinking can link the two claims and figure there’s something wrong somewhere. W. T. F. ?

  17. ‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.’
    Let me apply this “reasoning” to Karl et al and its temperature adjustments.
    ‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find that Karl intentionally lied this alone does not prove that intentional deception did not influence the adjustments. The failure to find intentional deception could be due to insufficient data or Karl’s refusal to surrender subpoenaed documents and not the absence of said intentional deception.’
    Gosh, that is a very useful little tool. I will have remember it whenever I could benefit from its use.

  18. They ascribe “human attribution” to weather “events” the same way they used to blame “witches” for anything bad. My, how we’ve progressed.

    • This is indeed striking. Somewhere in the 1700’s we left that thinking behind and started using ‘evidence based’ thinking. In the last 15 years Western Civilization has left ‘evidence based’ thinking behind and now base our beliefs on supposition and consensus. Everything from health products to climate, evidence based conclusion are now looked down upon.

  19. I think the answer to the headline question is, Yes, warmistas would gladly give up our car to “prevent” a few heat waves.
    Giving up their own car is another story.

      • They gave up their car and are now forced to fly. Obummer will pop up with his private tricycle which is equipped with wings and jet engines.

      • Hugs.. it’s an electric powered aircraft, like my electric battery powered lawn mower. Gives out half way through. Be careful it doesn’t get wet .

      • Gunga old soul,
        I believe a few of these super-humans are using pogo-sticks, with a residual light-emitting-diode function, so they can be seen on the road, power their own I-Pad (Cue RFK Junior above!), and keep the bird choppers turning during wind-stills.
        A couple of extremists are, reportedly, crawling all the way to Paris, pulling their own personal carbon sink [(c) Armitage Shanks]. I think they have come from South Asia, but the reports are unclear.
        [If only – nuclear!!!].
        Auto
        PS – Mods – not the Warmista weasel words – believe; and reportedly – thanks.

  20. By far the worst and deadliest US tornado was during 1925. The most intense US hurricane was in 1935. The deadliest hurricane was in 1900. By far the worst US heat waves, crop failures and droughts happened during the 1930’s. Worst wildfire in 1910. We could turn our cars in tomorrow and there is no guarantee that the weather might not get worse!

  21. Does Tom Karl “believe” in global warming?
    Enough that he has fabricated evidence wherever possible in order to confirm his belief and/or to avoid having to face the music of admitting he was so wrong.
    He doesn’t have to do this to keep his job. He has been the head and the driving force behind the NCDC for nearly 30 years. He could have just remained objective and nothing would have happened. Instead, we have 30 years of pushing a belief by distorting evidence. Some day his Wiki page will reflect this and we should make sure people do not forget.

    • He doesn’t have to do this to keep his job.
      ==================
      you don’t know this. I can think of no quicker way to lose your government job in the US than to contradict POTUS.
      Climate change is US public enemy number 1. More dangerous that ISIS, drugs, crime, unemployment, terrorism, EBOLA, the plague, ingrown toe nails all rolled in together. you name it, climate change is more dangerous and worse than we thought. Even worse than we can think..
      thus, if you deny climate change, you are worse than ISIS, worse than drug dealers, worse than any disease or terrorist. you are even worse than ingrown toe-nails. worse than anything we can think of.
      So if Karl was to contradict POTUS, the government would be completely justified in coming down on him like a ton of bricks. In fact, the government would be duty bound to do so, to protect the people of the United States from what is in effect, an act of terrorism.

  22. I work for NOAA. I even work for NESDIS. However, I hang my head in shame to be associated with these idiots – “Department of Commerce > NOAA > NESDIS > NCEI”
    From their ‘About’ web page;

    Establishment of NCEI
    The demand for high-value environmental data and information has dramatically increased in recent years. NCEI is designed to improve NOAA’s ability to meet that demand. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, approved the consolidation of NOAA’s existing three National Data Centers: the National Climatic Data Center, the National Geophysical Data Center, and the National Oceanographic Data Center into the National Centers for Environmental Information.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/about
    I guess they are a brand new ‘National Center’ & for their first act, they decided to make themselves look like fools (sigh)…

  23. If they really had any expertise or skill at determining the cause of an extreme event, they could predict the next one. Saying that there will be extreme heat waves, extreme cold, extreme drought, extreme precipitation, and extreme weather of all kinds somewhere in the world at sometime in the future is not a prediction and takes no skill whatsoever.

  24. Ah ha. The money quote. Kennedy says “it’s much more important to change your politician than it is to change your life.”
    And that explains the whole 40 year climate warming shebang.

    • She should have asked if he meant that the US should have done that in the last presidential election. 😉

    • If some wants/needs their “politician” to control or choreograph their lives (and that of everyone else) then yes, Mr. Kennedy is correct.
      Of course Kennedy will be standing right next to the correct politician, and standing above everyone else.

  25. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
    […]
    … A process called CO2 fertilisation (Donohue et al. 2013) tends to increase vegetation activity simply through the uptake of an increasing atmospheric CO2. Under such a scenario along with a wetter climate, vegetation growth would increase and subsequently supply sufficient fuel load.
    “.
    Do I detect a logic problem here? They are saying that the poor quality of the models causes there to be no evidence supporting them, but the evidence might exist really. A normal person would think that if lack of supporting evidence means that the models are poor, then the models’ findings, which include man-made global warming, are unreliable.
    Having twisted the logic, it is then no surprise that they twist the outcomes. They see only the bad result that increased vegetation growth makes Californian forest fires worse. A normal person would also equate increased vegetation growth with food production and see net benefit.

    • “The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to monkeys flying out of my butt and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.”
      To me that statement is just as valid.

      • O.K. … human induced extreme weather and climate events are just as real as Butt Monkeys.
        I read their statement as:. “Our failure to tie things together could be due to our incompetence, and not a lack human impacts”. And butt monkeys didn’t jibe with incompetence.
        (and since I’m a bit childish, I wanted to throw analogy in there with the butt monkeys)

  26. “In the 79 papers that have been published through the annual report over the past four years, over half of these papers show a linkage to human-caused climate change.”

    The only linkage is maybe, if, or could, there is no science involved for this suggestion whats so ever. Please stop lying to the public, you can’t demonstrate any link between weather events and humans. What mechanism v,w,x,y causes weather event z? What weather event z would be like without mechanism x? You have nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    We know you have nothing because you have to blame it on everything. If they was any science you would state actually was it was that proves humans influence CO2 causes x. We know your blatant agenda so have to tamper with data. You blame it on everything because you don’t have a clue what it actually does and the reason being because there is no human fingerprint found.
    CO2 has no affect on climate distinguishable from normal because it has not been found to change SW radiation, troposphere, albedo, water vapor or oceans. When something has no influence on these then it has no influence on climate.
    Ah, but you say the deeper oceans are warming?
    The only thing that can warm the deeper oceans without warming the surface or upper oceans is shortwave radiation. Why? It has wavelengths that penetrates many meters below the ocean and are nonabsorbent near the surface and upper parts of the ocean. A slight change in the solar irradiance to more of these type wavelengths would cause the deeper ocean to warm more. Yet, even this would not be necessarily as a decease in global cloud albedo would also cause the same thing. Satellites have shown global cloud albedo have declined in the past by a few percent. See, It’s easy to back this warming up with science that doesn’t include CO2.

    • Sorry, didn’t quite go to plan. (typo – what it was that proves……, only should be in bold no human fingerprint

  27. Funny how the challenge to lead by example is the most daunting of tasks to suggest to folks, particularly if they consider themselves as entitled to authority or celebrity.

    • Note in that linked story they mention a “low level of sea ice” in the Arctic, kind of implying that that contributes to this phenomena, so of course if it does snow like a mother they can still tie it to AGW.

  28. I’ll give up everything.
    I’ve only just learned that we had, “500 days to avoid climate chaos”.
    Although, this prediction was made by the French foreign minister on May 13th 2014.
    Which means that we are now officially experiencing CLIMATE CHAOS.
    Even John Kerry seems embarrassed.
    I’m going to give up my electric toothbrush.
    So here it is straight from the donkey’s mouth – 500 days…and then…and then what?
    Just one question? Is this man drunk, ill or simply a cretin?

    • Well he is right…. climate is chaos.
      If he really tried to be accurate he would say we have one second to prevent ….
      and it would be just as futile.
      michael

      • Also, we have 500 days before climate turbulence.
        That’s my prediction.
        Who will rid me of this turbulent turbulence? 🙂

    • He’s a French politician. You know hell was once aptly described as a place where the Germans are the police, the British are the cooks, and the politicians are French.

      • I don’t think any of them said the 500 days were consecutive or when we had to start using them.
        If we still have 500 days today, then we didn’t use a single one of them in the years since 1998!
        Climate chaos was on auto-avoidance, clearly; no user input required.

    • 500 days? If I were French I would be more worried about the 500,000 Muslims that have just walked into my country.

      • Dear old44,
        Regarding the French … I just couldn’t resist this.
        The following words came not from me but from a person whom you may well know.
        “The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
        The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
        The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
        Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
        The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
        Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..
        The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
        Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
        Regards,
        John Cleese ,
        British writer, actor and tall person
        And as a final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.”
        END

      • Warren-
        Now that’s funny! I don’t care who ya are!
        Even better than setting an empty cellophane from a cigarette pack on the table and declaring it’s the Cubs’ World Series trophy case.

      • Warren – funny, but the “brave” British chickened out at Dunkirk, and if it had not been for the Channel, they would have chickened on all the way to the Outer Hebrides, with the Germans in hot pursuit. Safe behind their Channel, they managed to get back on their feet, but they were not a major factor in deciding the outcome of WW2.
        Oh, and in 430 B.C. the Persian wars were long over, with Marathon having taken place in 490 and Salamis in 480. Instead, Sparta and Athen were duking it out.

        • Michael Palmer: “Safe behind their Channel, they managed to get back on their feet, but they were not a major factor in deciding the outcome of WW2.”
          Utter drivel.
          If the Royal Air Force had not won the Battle of Britain and thus removed the threat of a German invasion, the British would not have been able to channel huge supplies of materiel from both the US and UK to the Soviet Union – without which it is unlikely the USSR could have resisted the German army – and act as a staging point for the Allied invasion of France on D-day, not to mention the massive damage done to German industry by the combined efforts of Harris’s Lancasters and Spaatz’ Fortresses and Liberators, all possible only because of the existence of the ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe’.
          And without the Allied invasion of Europe stopping the Red Army from continuing its advance clear up to the Atlantic, the USA would have had no buffer zone between the US and the USSR – so no NATO.
          You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

      • Catweazle: of course my post was utter drivel – just like the post I was referring to. The British did fight well, and their contribution mattered – even if considerably less so than they like to believe. The invasion of the continent could as well have been staged from Southern France, and despite all the bombing, German armament production reached its peak in September 1944.
        I don’t begrudge the British their pride in their victory, but I absolutely hate the abuse they like to heap on the French. British and French showed themselves equally inadequate in 1940. The Germans had had all of 6 years to prepare for WW2, and the British and French failure to defeat them in 1940 is a black eye for the ages. The British should man up and wear it, too, instead of heaping scorn on the French only.

      • Michael Palmer
        November 7, 2015 at 6:57 pm
        “… with the Germans in hot pursuit.”
        catweazle666
        November 8, 2015 at 7:36 am
        “And without the Allied invasion of Europe stopping the Red Army…”
        If the mustached man leading Germany had really wanted to win WWII, he would have bagged the BEF trapped at Dunkirk, before turning to face the Soviet Union.
        According to some sources, the Red Army had large airborne assault forces deployed along its western borders by 1941. Revisionist historians like Victor Suvorov suggest that H i t l e r beat S t a l i n to the punch by launching a preemptive attack with his mechanized formations against the relatively lightly armed paratroopers. The stunning early success of the German invasion becomes more understandable when seen in this light.
        By August, the Heer’s panzers had advanced to within 200 miles of Moscow. Now, with a chance to drive with all his forces on the Bolshevik capital, kick in its front door, and possibly capture S t a l i n, the man with the little mustache instead dithered and dickered and divided his forces, and the slim German chance for victory against the Bolshevik state slipped from his grasp forever.
        There were other strategic German mistakes as well, but however you slice it, the fact remains that it was the Germans who stopped the Red Army, not the Allies.

      • Steve P:
        You make the laughably untrue assertion

        There were other strategic German mistakes as well, but however you slice it, the fact remains that it was the Germans who stopped the Red Army, not the Allies.

        The Russians captured Berlin, the German capital, and continued until they stopped at what became the border between East Germany and West Germany. The Germans did not stop the Russians: clearly, the Germans could not stop the Russians.
        Without the allied Western Front the Russians would have continued on through Germany, then German-occupied France, and then fascist Spain while Britain and the US would have been cheering them all the way.
        Thus, D-Day and the subsequent Western Front prevented the replacement of H1tler’s Europe by Stal1n’s Europe. As it was, the Russian empire included all of Europe East of Berlin and took from 1945 to 1989 for it to fail. It may have never failed if it had stretched from Portugal in the West to the Bering Strait in the East.
        Be grateful to the British, American, Commonwealth and allied troops who suffered and died creating the Western Front and pushing it on into Germany.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney
        November 8, 2015 at 12:47 pm
        No doubt the Germans were crushed in a vise by 1945, but without the Wehrmacht standing in their way, the Soviets might have reached Calais by 1943.
        “Undoubtedly the T-34 went a long way to enabling the USSR to be ultimately victorious, but the price was huge with approximately 44 900 T-34s (82% of total production) being irrecoverably lost.”
        http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance
        I don’t think the Western Allies destroyed a single one of those T-34s. That distinction would go to the Wehrmacht’s Heer and Luftwaffe.
        I suggest it was Iosef Stalin who stopped the Red Army based on agreements reached with Roosevelt and Churchill at Tehran and Yalta. With the war over, the Red Army troops in Germany could occupy themselves exacting revenge, raping German women, and hauling porcelain toilet fixtures back to the USSR.
        It wasn’t until after the conclusion of WWII that the Western Allies really became interested in stopping the Soviet Union. As Churchill is recorded to have exclaimed: “We’ve slaughtered the wrong pig!”
        In any event, up to the conclusion of the war, the United States was doing everything in its power to assist the Reds, going so far even as to ship uranium and atom bomb plans to the Soviets under the cover of Lend Lease, over and above the enormous amount of raw material as well as finished war machines shipped to the Soviet Union.

      • Steve P
        November 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm
        I wrote:
        “As Churchill is recorded to have exclaimed: “We’ve slaughtered the wrong pig!””
        I can’t find a good source for this quotation now, and I really meant to say “reported” not “recorded,” so the alleged remark by Winston Churchill about slaughtering the wrong pig falls into the realm of hearsay, although I don’t think there is much doubt that, in the post-war period, he came to recognize the Soviet Union as a great threat.

      • “Annie
        November 8, 2015 at 8:41 pm”
        And if it were not for the Hurricane and RADAR, not the Spitfire, Britain surely would have lost.

      • “Michael Palmer
        November 8, 2015 at 8:51 am”
        Remember, the official language of England was once French. English was banned.

  29. “For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather”
    sure
    last world-wide drought in 1934.

  30. “In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.”
    You also can not rule out the extreme events being caused by a chaotic system and the Jurassic Park “Butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo”.. The article gives no objective method to rule out either.
    Just another example of the Climate Change Brigades use of fallacy. In this case, circular reasoning, or assuming what you are trying to prove.

  31. … While a winter comparable to 2013/14 would have been roughly a once-a-decade event in 1881 (return periods from 5–20 years), it has become roughly a once-in-a-thousand years event in 2014 (return periods from 90 to over 10 000 years).

    Isn’t that a good thing?

    • Jeff
      Sure.
      My concern – no higher, yet – is that in a decade or two we may revert to the 1880s return period.
      And, having had many forms of power taken from us by watermelon politicians – how will the average person survive?
      Especially if they are old – or disabled.
      Quilts, blankets etc help.
      Auto

      • Jeff – I live a couple of hours north of your balmy Calgary climate. We want 45 below weather to ensure the pine beetles get killed. When I lived in Saskatchewan, I had one day of 50+ below. That’s chilly. 35 below is log on the fire watching, 20C below or less is skiing and horse riding weather in my world. Up this way, we often get a week or two of 40 or more below C, often in late November, early December, then it gets nice again for a bit before the February snowbird season. Won’t happen this year with the blob and El Nino. But I have been wrong before. 😉

    • It would be if history didn’t suggest that a grand solar minimum will bring back the frequencies of harsh winters experienced in the early 1800s.

  32. “Would you rather face a dangerous hail storm on your bicycle, or would you prefer to be protected by a safety capsule made of steel and toughened glass?”
    The ideological elites who drive this would like to see us all on bicycles so we could be mown down by the hail. They, of course, will be in the safety capsule because they are indispensable and rules do not apply to them.

  33. When the facts get in your way do as NOAA and warmists do change the data in or title of their movement. First Anthropogenic Global Warming whoops – warming not happening most people still not believing lets go for Climate Warming – whoops that ones not happening either lets go for climate change no one can argue with that one – whoops that means it’s natural we won’t get funding and Paris is coming up lets see what haven’t we used – I know Anthropogenic Climate Change and that one no one can argue with as the stats are MAN MADE aren’t they NOAA!!

  34. Would you give up your raw data and your adjustments to stop a Congressional investigation of your agency?

  35. When Obama is at the dinner table in Paris, after he french-kisses Pope Francis he should issue a Executive Order criminalizing the possession of gasoline.
    Ha ha

  36. imagine if noaa were detectives. they,d charge you with murder even if they could’nt prove it. but just because we cant prove it does’nt mean you did’nt do it. so we’re charging you anyway. some would say that’s a set up.

  37. Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?”
    Of course not, I’ll need my nice air-con even more if there are heatwaves.

    • That’s just dumb.
      I thought the same thing back in the 70s when someone tore up the asphalt on private property.
      Of course the bill for repairs was sent.

      • Of course it is dumb, those poor tires.
        The engines gotta love showing what they are capable of though ?

      • We had a ’68 nova when I was in Jr. high. My big brother would do ‘neutral drops’ and burn rubber with a 250ci straight six and a 4:10 axle. The rear end was really light and traction was bad in slick conditions. Oversteer was a problem if you weren’t prepared for it. My hand-me-down ’63 Belvidere was actually better in the snow and it had a clutch, so I could bark two gears with a 225ci slant six.

  38. [Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. Mr. ‘Pitman’ has wasted a lot of time only to have all his comments deleted. ~mod.]

    • I support government action toward Obesity that puts us all on the same playing field. If we need to be vegetarians, we should all be vegetarians. Asking people to be vegetarians, individually, and at their own discretion is not the same thing at all. If I unilaterally decide to go without, my family may think me crazy or my work may think me irresponsible or my customers may think me confused about priorities. But if I do the same actions in response to legal requirements, then so must my other family members, my co-workers, and my business competitors. No one then views my actions as looney or irresponsible or unresponsive. I no longer am indulging in some whim that sets me apart, nor is my effort lost because I do it and most others don’t. Now my efforts are a normal part of a greater whole, and their significance joins the actions of enough others so as to matter.

      • But as Willis pointed out in a recent article, whilst cattle numbers are up, in effect there are little more cattle today in the US than there were wild bison in the 1800s. We have just replaced one species with another, and the amount of methane that they produce is similar..

      • “…my family may think me crazy or my work may think me irresponsible, etc.”
        Rational thinking people will still think the same about your mental state, in a government controlled future, as they do now. Your rationalization that allows you to do goofy stuff will not fool anyone.

    • Prohibition worked great! Between 1920 and 1933 not one drop of alcohol was consumed in the United States. It was an amazing accomplishment. The playing field was leveled for the “greater good.” Just ask Joe Kennedy.

  39. If NOAA has insufficient data why aren’t they there collecting it instead of writing harebrained reports.

    • Because the purpose of the report was to provide quotable quotes for politicians. Nothing to do with data or science. Keep on eye out for pronouncements from Obama and senior staff to follow to the effect that NOAA says…

      • Yep. Here’s the quote: “For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather”.
        So it doesn’t matter if there is no real data in the report. It’s really a report that’s says they could get a report with real numbers if the models worked, but they don’t, so this is what we would want the results to say, and maybe the results would say what we are guessing because no one really knows for sure. Then the press can say “But this report says it’s all true!” I’m seriously just waiting for them to fake everything and just go with it. Why not? The ends justify the means to these tunnel vision idiots. The truth is not what they are seeking.

  40. “In the 79 papers that have been published through the annual report over the past four years, over half of these papers show a linkage to human-caused climate change.”
    …that has to be a lie
    It’s a prerequisite for all papers to show a linkage to human-caused climate change.

    • If the contrary is there, it is not going to publish. The same is also true if the paper is from a person who does not believe in man made global warming. If published, it suffers unusual delay.

  41. First, what’s the definition of an “extreme weather event”? How can one say there’s more, or less of them until we know what they are?

    • Anything which “could” have a “human attribution” component. Otherwise, it’s “just weather”.

  42. “In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event.”
    In other words, we humans are guilty until proven innocent. Wow…

    • What the hell is a attribution assessment? These guys spend a crap load of time and money in an attempt to prove something that is not provable (either way) , and of course fail. Then they state that their failure to prove a positive does not prove the negative is true.
      (then they say that their motives are pure and should not be questioned … they are scientists by God! And e-mails that relate to, and lead up to this garbage are not relevant to the final outcome.)
      Cut the funds.

      • DonM:
        You ask

        What the hell is a attribution assessment?

        It is the exact opposite of what climastrologists pretend it is.
        In an attribution study (or ‘assessment’) a system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modeled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.
        It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole.
        But climastrologists DO claim attribution studies are evidence that a suggested a mechanism – notably AGW – IS a cause of climate change. These claims are not science, and they usually have the form
        a model cannot emulate observed global warming unless an anthropogenic effect is included “.
        The game of Cludo demonstrates why attribution assessments can reject a suggested cause but not demonstrate a suggested cause is correct. At the start of the game all the ‘suspects’ may be attributed as being the ‘murderer. The game progresses by obtaining evidence which rejects suspects as being the ‘murderer’ until only one suspect remains.
        Climastrologists start with only one ‘suspect’ (usually AGW) although there are many possible ‘suspects’ both known and unknown.
        Richard

  43. “inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models”
    Well after all, the IPCC “models” and those “geographers” running the models have demonstrated to great extent their “lack of ability, lack of knowledge and lack of talent” for forecasting, predicting and projecting the current “climate” or even the climate of 30 minutes from now let alone the climate 5, 10, 50 or 100 years hence.
    And the lack of a “fingerprint” of Man may just be well due to a fact that there is NO “fingerprint” of Man.
    In Paris when the Attorney General of New York State dines with the Latin-Pope Francis, and exchange “sushi” in an embrace, the fate of “Elliot Spitzer” also a former attorney general of New York State who welded the 1921 Martin Act, only to his own demise.
    I happened to be at the same hotel in DC when the “Feds” informed Mr. Spitzer a few (or one) doors away, and I was only complaining of the wifi connection being buggers and was whisked away into another room far away on the other side of the building. I had no idea of what was going on until much later.
    Ha ha True Story
    Side note: What is the American Geophysical Union’s interest in this? Ah Ha! Pssst “Google” That!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-case-idUSKCN0SW01M20151107#Ep8OKV66dmQ8IhFH.97
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer

    • And the lack of a “fingerprint” of Man may just be well due to a fact that there is NO “fingerprint” of Man.

      I’m inclined to think there is an influence, but that it’s so small it gets lost in the noise.

      “inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models”

      It’s hard to imagine a more unscientific statement.

  44. What we are seeing here is self-delusion. Since the climate is not doing what they thought it would do they are in a panic. They are looking for anything they can find to back their previous claims. This is actually quite a well known behavioral reaction to failure.

  45. “Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?”
    Well, normally I have to plug in my truck and tractor during the winter to get them to start. They aren’t electric, they are diesel. The gasoline car needs the same when not garaged. Heat wave? How about cold waves. I try to do my part to cancel out those nasty sinusoidal waves.

  46. CO2 from cars is OK.
    It’s the CO2 from coal-fired power stations which is the nasty stuff.
    You need to be a highly accredited climate scientist to know the difference between the two types of CO2.

  47. Local papers gleefully ran with the story-the headline is all that mattered. NOAA and other fed agencies are slowly conditioning the low information voters, the superstitious and the gullible to blindly accept their agit-propaganda. At the same time NOAA and others try to reverse the null hypothesis, even for those who’ve never heard of null hypothesis, especially those, due to not having any science education or critical thinking ability. Remember Trenberth insisting the null hypothesis has to be reversed in his feeble attempt to sway others to first assume humans are affecting climate/weather and to rationalize the complicity in promoting junk science(fraud).

  48. “The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.”
    But wait a minute. Presumably the models used are the same, or at least similar, in both cases – the cases where attribution to AGW can be made as well as those cases where such attribution cannot be made. Nobody undertaking such an investigation starts out with a “poor model”, at least not one they know to be poor; presumably they deem it to be a “good model”, which is why they are using it. So why is the model poor or the data insufficient only when no attribution to AGW can be made? Could it not be the case that a poor model or insufficient data leads to misattribution to AGW where none exists? Is that impossible somehow? And is this what passes for the scientific method with the AMS?

  49. “Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information Agitprop”
    Sad. Another, once reputable, government agency being subverted to a political agenda.

  50. My answer to the question: Hell No ! !
    One car wouldn’t amount to much, Many cars would amount to even less.

  51. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models
    Uhm… Did Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s NCEI, just stipulate that no evidence of a human fingerprint on extreme weather has been found?

  52. One day soon it may be mandatory for all Green party voters to surrender their motor vehicles at a polling station. Then after their grid supplied power is disconnected we may be able to prevent all those hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones.

Comments are closed.