California Governor Brown acknowledges other states aren’t buying his climate hype…

…but fails to address climate science flaws and failures

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times interviewed California Governor Brown about the states climate campaign with the results presented in an April 15, 2017 article entitled “I’m  not giving up hope” which revealed his frustrations, concerns and views about lack of support among other states regarding California’s climate change program.

clip_image002

The Times presented a series of questions to Governor Brown addressing key topics regarding California’s efforts to address global climate issues at a state level. He readily acknowledged that other states are not buying his climate alarmist hype and moving in California’s direction and expressed frustration about this outcome.

clip_image003

When asked about greater support for his climate change program outside the U.S. he attributed this to Republicans “belief” that global warming is a hoax, irrelevant or not a problem but failed to address the significant and well documented climate science flaws and failures which are clearly undermining the scientific legitimacy of climate alarmist positions and claims.

clip_image004

When asked what could change peoples minds about climate change he said more “science” and recited the usual litany of climate alarmist claims about “heat”, more “storms”, “the sea level rise” and “Arctic melting”.

clip_image005

Governor Brown’s claim that higher temperatures are being caused by man made CO2 emissions is far from certain as addressed by climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry who documented flaws and failures of climate models claiming that man made CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures. Her study found that:

“The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century will actually evolve.”

clip_image007

She further concludes that current climate models:

“are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence.”

“are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems.”

Governor Brown’s claim that more storms are being caused by man made CO2 emissions is unsupported by climate data as documented by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. in testimony provided before the  House Committee on Science on March 29, 2017. In his testimony Dr. Pielke concluded:

clip_image009

Governor Brown’s claims of increasing rates of sea level rise are unsupported by NOAA tide gauge data with measurements through 2015 which show no sea level rise acceleration occurring at coastal locations around the U.S. or elsewhere as documented at NOAA’s website.

Measurements of NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise at California locations demonstrates that the rate of coastal rise remains steady and consistent over the last 100 or more years at rates which vary by location between 3 to 8 inches per century.

clip_image011

clip_image013

clip_image015

Governor Brown’s claims that Arctic melting is caused by man made CO2 emissions is exaggerated with measured Arctic temperature data showing cyclical patterns of increasing and decreasing temperatures over the last 100 years and the most recent studies of the behavior of Arctic ice melt concluding that up to 50% of ice melt since 1979 is due to natural climate variation.

clip_image017

clip_image019

It is not a question of “belief” that is significantly undermining support for climate alarmist claims as Governor Brown suggests but instead the results of legitimate scientific inquiry which are exposing the flaws, failures and shortcomings of climate alarmist claims.

Advertisements

217 thoughts on “California Governor Brown acknowledges other states aren’t buying his climate hype…

  1. Basically, the GOP run states aren’t lemmings rushing over the Socialism cliff to enabled by the largest scientific fraud the world has ever seen.

    -Moonbeam’s permadrought, blamed on mythical Climate Change, has ended.
    -Europe is freezing its butt off for the next 2 weeks.
    -US temps are declining, while supposedly the rest of the world, poorly covered and yet infilled, is warming.
    -China and India have to do nothing to curb CO2 emissions for 13 more years under the COP21 disaster. While the West is supposed to self-inflict punishing energy policies.
    -The Arctic probably is at the same level of sea ice as the early 1940’s.
    -Antartica has been cooling for 10-15 yrs.
    -No acceleration of GMSL.
    -No increase in Tropical cyclone ACE.

    California is being driven to an uncompetitive position by the self-destructive Democratic policies. Their college campuses are becoming bastions of intolerant, anti-free speech, conformity zones. Rational parents will steer their kids away from these indoctrination mills.

    Conclusion.
    USS California is headed for the shitter shoals at flank speed.

    • Well when you can get away with pulling a ‘ Governor for Life ‘ Coup in a State like California, pretty soon you start believing in your own Imperial Grandeur.

      I don’t remember just how long Emperor Brown’s father (Pat) managed to hang on to power here,, but he at least paid some heed to the State’s Constitution.

      G

    • Great comment noyjl2014noylj. A once sentence summary of all that is wrong with the concepts of anthropogenic global warming (climate change). Any “science” that provides policy to grow big government will always have its support among those who make their living from other peoples’ taxes.

    • I think you may have the point reversed. Any “science” that politicians give money to spread around an agenda they support is “proven science.”

  2. The problem of adaptation by redesigning electricity grids and electrical power generation is yet to be resolved.
    When this was tried in South Australia the grid collapsed when stressed.
    Were the Californians to build such a grid they need to remember the precautionary principal.
    Best they make sure there is plenty of despatchable power available and stress test the system before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public.
    Make sure the contractors supply at a good competitive price.
    If they do, no one will argue against the technology.

    • California is actively supporting the de-commissioning of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor in favor of “renewable” energy systems. That won’t just cost jobs, it will put all of Southern and Central CA in energy poverty.

      Brown has nothing useful to say about energy independence or affordability. He’s a disgrace.

    • Part of the California power strategy is to not allow for any new generation plants to be built using fossil fuels. So what to do. My former company sold and installed over 180 gas turbine cogen packages to states bordering California with the purpose of supplying demand power to the power grid in California. Governor Brown even stated a number of times in speeches that California was reducing their emissions while other states around them were increasing their emissions. Little did the power consumers in California relies that they were getting hosed for more expensive out of state spot market power. Also when that power crosses a state border it is subjected to a tariff charge that adds to the costs. Some of those generation sites were just a couple of miles from the border of California and if the wind was blowing right the exhaust would end up in California anyway. Stupid governor tricks is what we called it.

    • California is now unable to provide electricity for itself. Thinking thatiif they close down conventional electric generation that a cockamamie non answers from the politically correct world will emerge, No such thing has happened Callfornians import electricity from any neighboring state or country that will sell it. Often generated by tis old,dirtiest and ancient generation facilities sold at a premium price. But that can go on only as long as outside states like AZ, NM, Utah, Nevda. Colordo, Montana Oregon and Washington and third world Mexico have any spare electricity to sell. But all have sold all they can. If a single state Public Utility Commision decrees reserves are too low, California will be cut off. The situation is so precarious that no other can take up the shortfall and may in turn reduce its sales to California. Californians will find themselves freezing in the dark and sweltering in the days with blackouts and brown outs rival some Third World kleptocracy. So VOTE for the Demoncrap morons. California’s imported welfare aliens deserve waht they get and are used to having nothing. Well other Californians are introduced to ithe realities of the Third World.

  3. Unfortunately, many otherwise intelligent people are afflicted with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax, Mass Hysteria!

    • It seems to me not that people find the concept that some given piece of science may be flawed – happens all the time after all – but that they simply cannot believe that the scientific establishment could, or even would ever wish to, maintain a pseudoscientific fantasy of this magnitude for so long. It kind of beggars belief that such a thing could ever happen. I still vividly recall first finding the time to look into the ‘science’ of CAGW and the subsequent sequence of jaw-dropping shock, initial disbelief, dawning inevitable horrified acceptance and real anger.

      • Cephus, I share your skepticism. I was brought into the fray of scientific debate shortly after Dr. Mann’s now infamous “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries”, a finding I found compelling. It was the “hockey stick” paper that seemed to draw the scientific community into the discussion.

        I entered with the belief no scientific analysis with such a significant impact could possibly be wrong, and so I learned. As a retired statistician actively involved with atmospheric research, I saw Mann’s paper as a rallying cry and decided to devote my volunteer efforts to supporting action on the subject. I was wrong.

        But I wasn’t just wrong, I’d been deceived and it took only a year or so for me to understand it. I was appalled by the lack of scientific rigor in the work, stunned it was openly advocated by a small membership of scientists, and disgusted by the quality of a work that eventually became the cornerstone of scientific inquiry on the subject. For several years I was in denial; how could this have happened?

        Since then, through the efforts of scientists who have participated in this forum and a few others, I’ve regained some respect for the sciences that I lost after reading that paper and experiencing its result. That respect is due to people like yourself who’ve chosen to stand against this insanity.

        So, thank you. Your contributions haven’t gone unnoticed.

    • This is a point I have been making for years. The scam is embedded deeply in society by the perpetual drone of the mantra. The idiots don’t look at the data, the intelligent know it’s a fraud but see there is lots of money in supporting the fraud.

      • Tell it like it is. The idiots don’t look at the data, the intelligent know it’s a fraud, but with CRIMINAL INTENT, they see there is lots of money TO STEAL by supporting the fraud, therefore they should be PUNISHED.

      • Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain, put it this way, “It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” The reason is simple: Pride, and the innate arrogance that comes with high intelligence not tempered by common sense.

      • I find that the aspect of the scam which is hardest for most people to spot is that the argument of the IPCC is loaded with fallacies through the use of which IPCC climatologists prove various falsehoods. Bloggers tend to focus on the data and overlook the fallacies in the arguments.

    • I agree Mickeldoo and well said Cephus0 as that is the case here in Ontario. The climate change advocates still dominate.

      Our whole political and educated class appear to be indoctrinated with the alarmist point of view. And this lot will never admit they are wrong.

      The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (yup, that’s what it’s called) together with our leader Kathleen Wynn and the Ministry of Finance have implemented a carbon tax and cap/trade system. This on top of double digit $billions of debt wasted on wind farms, solar parks, backup power, refurbishing old nukes and unloading excess wind/solar generation to the spot market. Our air quality was and remains superb, there was no reason for shutting down coal.

      So it’s official, along with state of California, the government of Ontario continues to lead the way in showing the world how to battle the dreaded man-made CO2 “pollution” buildup that, if we don’t stop it, is supposedly going to drown the coasts and turn the world into stormy deserts surrounded by oceans of acid.

      Eventually (hopefully?) wisdom will dictate and bring an end to the soothsayers dire warnings of humidification apocalypse.

      • Ontario spent the first 100+yrs as conservative and we’re the economic powerhouse of Canada. The country’s liberal governments funded their welfare programs on transfer payments from Ontario. Oil was discovered in Alberta in the 1940s and under a succession of conservative gov. was “the other” economic powerhouse. These attracted labor from the non productive lefty governed parts and even imported industrial saboteur labor from an economically paralyzed UK of the 1960s-70s and most of them became union bosses.

        With wages more than double, and in many cases first time full time employment for them, did they make the connection? No they did not. The welfare-centric overwhelmed the host gov and voted in the worst lefty governments the continent has ever seen. Both of Canada’s economic engines of the past became wards of the traditionally impoverished welfare provinces!

        Alberta didn’t move left to the liberals, they went whole hog and voted NDP – New Democratic Party, which, in the midst of an oil price slump and a disastrous forest fire at Fort MacMurray in the middle of the Oil sands, they slapped on a punishing carbon tax!!! Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta then signed up with Moonbeam of CA to their cap and trade market!!! Wonder why I pushed Trump for a year?

      • Canadians failed to recognize a set-up that is/was right in front of them.

        Follow the UN documents that have been posted on WUWT and the Quebec Climate Summit (April 14, 2015) and the Climate Summit of the Americas (Toronto July 7-9, 2015). Also press releases from Quebec and Ontario governments about COPS 20, 21, and 22.

        The U.S. has parallel development of CO2 issues along the same time-frame.

        Also look at the Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany connections to Ontario and California and when this began. Ontario c. 2006 (renewed) and California c. 2014.

    • It would have gone nowhere without the complicity of certain drama-seeking mainstream media outlets.

    • Many otherwise intelligent people believe that you can take from the productive and give to the lazy and actually improve things. Many otherwise intelligent people believe that communism has failed only because they were not in charge. Many otherwise intelligent people believe in astrology, mediums, ghosts, yetis, and alien abductions.

      • If you are one of the lazy people who vote for a living, then taking from the productive and giving to you does improve things. For you at least and for them, that’s all that matters.
        Unfortunately such people either are, or will soon be a majority of voters.
        I saw a headline on DrudgeReport yesterday that said that 35% of all tax filers ended up paying nothing in income taxes. (Many of those probably still got refunds thanks to many new give away programs built into the tax code.)

  4. The last decade is supposedly the hottest on record and every year we are told it was hotter than last year yet the 2016 summer sea ice minimum was the same as the 2007 OMG minimum.

    When will that sink in?

      • “This could be…” – more ‘science’ from the woulda, coulda, shoulda people.

    • And the majority of the supposed warming appears to be in the Arctic itself, even though they only have about 5 thermometers there, all probably sited next to heaters anyway.

    • The extent was about the same…

      The condition of the ice – thickness, concentration, age, volume were all worse than 2007.

      You might note that we have not ‘recovered’ to pre-2007 levels in ten years (ten years during which every year the NW passage was open to all classes of vessel)

      This winter also marked a change for the worse in the winter condition of the ice, with more storms than ever bringing warmer moist air into the central arctic.

      There is little doubt this year will see another record low extent… in the top three and if weather patterns are similar to 2012, a new record low.

      • One constant with Griff, whatever trend is working in his direction today, is the only trend that matters.
        A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing, the arctic was the last thing he wanted to talk about.
        In a couple of years when it is growing again, the Arctic will once again disappear from the griffters vocabulary.

      • “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing”…..Nope, they were not growing a couple of years ago.

      • We’ve also not returned to the abundance of ice from the 1970’s “Ice Age is Coming” scare. Chaotic systems are like that.

      • More than 3 years ago also encompasses “a couple”.
        It really is sad when the trolls resort to arguing semantics.

      • Good, then you agree that arctic ice maximums have been at record lows for the past three years. It’s always nice when someone acknowledges the reality that the levels are not growing.

      • Your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. I do not agree that arctic ice is at record lows. It’s at record lows for the satellite era, which only extends back some 30 years. Arctic ice was lower during the 30’s and proxies indicate it was much lower during the medieval, Roman, Minoan, warm periods.
        Beyond that, 30 years ago was the high point in the last century for Arctic ice, so the fact that it has dropped a small amount during the warm phase of the PDO is not surprising, nor is it CO2.
        Beyond that Arctic ice always declines during and after an El Nino, and we just had a whopper.

      • You post: “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing” Then you post: “It’s at record lows for the satellite era, which only extends back some 30 years.” Please make up your mind.

      • Darby, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize there is no contradiction between the two comments.

      • “ten years during which every year the NW passage was open to all classes of vessel”
        That is just awful Griff, … awful!

      • Right Mark, there is no contradiction with three successive record lows, and growth in the past couple of years.

      • First off Darby, your attempts to rewrite what you have previously argued really is amusing. It’s just more evidence that you know you can’t win an honest argument.
        Secondly, since the time periods being referred to are different, the statements don’t contradict at all.
        Thirdly, as I have demonstrated, the claim that the last three years are a record low is a lie.

      • Look Mark, I posted a link that shows the past three years are all successive record lows….as you have admitted is true when you posted: “…It’s at record lows for the satellite era.” So, you have not proven, ” that the last three years are a record low is a lie.” The link I posted from NSIDC shows that to be false. You posted: “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing”….. please prove it with data, otherwise, you lose.

      • Darby, Darby, Darby please review the first rule of holes.
        Record for the satellite era is not the same thing as an all time record, I gave you a list of 1 occasion in the last 100 years and 3 more in the last 5000 years when Arctic ice has been lower to much lower than today.

      • Mark, you posted: ““A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing” That is well within the satellite record. We’re not discussing the last 100 years, nor are we discussing the last 5000 years. We’re discussing what YOU posted, namely “A couple of years ago.” Now, NSIDC says the past three years have successively been: “…the lowest maximum in the 38-year satellite record.” (if you read the link) So, please post the data that shows it growing ” a couple of years ago.”

      • Just to clarify – the ‘last couple years’ were dead in the middle of that big El Nino system, right?

      • According to the IPCC first assessment, the 2007 Arctic ice measurements aren’t very different from the mid 1970’s Arctic ice measurements.

      • “Just to clarify – the ‘last couple years’ were dead in the middle of that big El Nino system, right?”

        We don’t want to forget the El Nino. It’s heat is still working its way out of the Earth system.

      • Darby, I know that math is hard for you. But a couple of years up followed by a couple of years down, could conceivably result in levels that are today lower than when the up times started.
        Sheesh, get your head out of your propaganda and try to think for yourself for once.

      • “According to the IPCC first assessment, the 2007 Arctic ice measurements aren’t very different from the mid 1970’s Arctic ice measurements.”

        Here’s a chart that covers that 1970’s time period

      • TA….nice 20 year old data, but MarkW is talking about (in his words) “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing” …… I don’t think a 20 year old chart covers a “couple of years ago.”

      • MarkW, I know that reading your own words is hard, but you posted them. But, here they are again: “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing”

        Just a reminder, the past THREE years each were successively the LOWEST in the satellite record, per NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-at-record-low/

        Can you explain how ice levels can grow at the same time they are breaking records for shrinking?

      • The last three years aren’t record lows. They aren’t even recent lows. That has been shown over and over again.
        Not that you would ever care.

      • MarkW posted: “It’s at record lows for the satellite era, which only extends back some 30 years.” Now, I’m sure that 30 years covers: “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing” Sorry Mark, you are now arguing with yourself.

      • Why is global warming hitting the Artic so hard? The tiny increase in temperature due to global warming should have almost no impact on ice formation at the North pole.

        It’s all about the wind, which your models cannot predict.

      • “TA….nice 20 year old data, but MarkW is talking about (in his words) “A couple of years ago when arctic ice levels were growing” …… I don’t think a 20 year old chart covers a “couple of years ago.”

        Well, the chart actually goes back about 41 years. Some CAGW promoters claim (like in that link you provide below) that sea ice records only go back to 1979, so I thought I would dispel that inaccuracy. I also read where someone claimed that 2007 and 2015 sea ice extent was the same as the early 1970’s, so I thought the chart was timely.

      • Two questions,Griff. What are the bad things you expect to result from low ice conditions? Who pays you to bring your nonsense to this site?

      • Griff, completely hyperbolic.The least you could do is a quick DuckDuckGo check before proclaiming Skeptical Science-type inanities like this which do not comport with the facts or what real experts on the matter say:

        You might note that we have not ‘recovered’ to pre-2007 levels in ten years (ten years during which every year the NW passage was open to all classes of vessel)

        All classes of vessel? Not a chance. Small boats only.

        A rather honest assessment (9/2015) of the lay of the Northwest Passage in the Washington Post here:
        The Arctic is melting — but shipping through the Northwest Passage is another story – The Washington Post
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon

        The storied Northwest Passage is open — its so-called “southerly route,” anyway. Such is the latest assessment from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which suggests that the passage famously discovered by the explorer Roald Amundsen in the early 1900s…may be navigable at the moment (though the center also urges contacting authorities before reaching this conclusion).
        […]
        But whether or not a part of the passage is currently navigable — at a time when Arctic sea ice is nearing its annual low — new research casts doubt on whether its regular use for commercial shipping will be happening any time soon. The study finds that even with declining ice overall, the waters of the Northwest Passage are still chock full of thick ice in the winter, much of which may still be able to persist in summertime, detracting from the predictability of navigation.
        […]
        Haas and Howell report on “first-ever” aircraft based electromagnetic sensor measurements of ice thickness in various waters that comprise the various possible routes through the passage.[…] “It’s really the first time that we have some quantitative information to inform the discussion,” says Christian Haas, a researcher at York University in Toronto who conducted the research with Stephen Howell of Environment Canada. The study is in Geophysical Research Letters.
        […]
        “There’s so much talk about the Northwest Passage, right, but people don’t know anything about it,” says Haas.

  5. Back home in Sweden the official temperature this morning was -1 degree Celsius. The reality is -7. I just wonder how on earth they can have a reliable mean temperature for the whole planet and be so off locally. Answer probably is they are far off and really not trustworthy.

    • Temperatures in Europe in the morning.

      Distribution of ozone in the stratosphere shows that circulation in the stratosphere affects tropospheric circulation (they are compatible).


      Ozone particles are heavy.
      Molecular weight O3 = 16 + 16 + 16 = 48
      O2 = 16 + 16 = 32
      N2 = 14 + 14 = 28

    • Rolf, the answer is that there isn’t an accurate temperature for the whole planet. All we have is some sort of average of temperatures, which is not a temperature. The daily fluctuations in temperature at any one spot can be as much as 20deg,.C and the difference between nearby measurements as much as 10deg,C.

      As a post here a few weeks ago pointed out, there are lots of problems with how temperatures are measured. It’s not that the instruments aren’t precise and accurate , the very limited number of stations, the large daily variations, and how those averages are generated make precise measurement impossible. So meaningful temperatures really can’t be more precise than .1-.5degC.

      Not to mention that what drives the climate is energy transfer, which doesn’t automatically equate to any average temperature.

      Gov. Jerry doesn’t understand that climate doesn’t necessarily bend to peoples wishes.

      • Getting an accuracy of 0.1C to 0.5C would require that we have an adequate number of sensors. Since the vast majority of sensors are concentrated in 1 to 3% of the planets surface, and in areas that are far from representative of the planet as a whole, the reality is that the real error bars are 5C or greater.

      • Rolf & philohippous:

        You’re both correct we have no reliable measure of global temperature, or even local as Rolf demonstrates, but the comment philohippous makes attributing the lack of accuracy to an insufficiency of surface stations is questionable I think.

        We have both the UAH and RSS satellite datasets that don’t suffer from inadequate sampling or inter-station instrument drift; the same instruments are used continuously to monitor atmospheric temperature over the entire globe. This yields a much more accurate estimate of global temperature. Why these measurements are routinely ignored by the major agencies involved in this work remains a mystery.

      • The number of sensors does not determine the accuracy.

        Just one properly calibrated sensor is required to get accurate readings.

        G

        And you only get an accurate reading of the sensor’s sensing region; not of anything else.

    • Well, here in the US, NOAA likes to put the weather recording stations over the air conditioning condenser or in the middle of their parking lots.
      Then you have them making “temperature” adjustments to match their computer “model” that can’t even tell me what tomorrow’s weather will be.

    • Here in Maryland USA, I listen to the marine weather station every morning. They give the local temperatures. It is amazing how variable they are in locations located only a couple of dozen miles apart. Ten degrees is frequently the variation between the locations. The bigger cities almost always warmer.

      If we have a very sunny early spring day, which heats up all the buildings, and a clear cool night with out wind, the urban heat island effect (Baltimore city and the suburbs) is good for at least a ten degree difference.

      Wind greatly reduces the urban heat island effect. I think clouds do too, since they hold in the heat for both the suburbs and the city.

      Brown is a fool. And so are his sincere supporters. The smart guys are cleaning up.

      • Brown is no fool, neither was his father. He’s corrupt as the day is long. Brown is in it for Brown. You have cash, talk to Moonbeam, he can fix all your problems.

  6. California of course continues its investment in renewable energy…

    A notable move has been this week’s announcement by Walmart of 40 Mwh of battery storage for its California stores…

    • When energy becomes unreliable, you need some form of backup.
      Wal-Mart is just protecting it’s assets.

    • “California of course continues its investment in renewable energy…”

      California needs to do something. I see where six of the ten most polluted cities in the U.S. are located in Calfornia.

      California can serve as the U.S. crashtest dummy. They will do stupid things which will show the rest of us what *not* to do.

      • So if there is only six of them, you only need to type in six names.

        Amazing that you didn’t do that.

        G

    • Griff:

      I own and operate a nominal 10Kw solar array with battery backup and a 15Kw propane generator in CA. It’s actual peak production is about 60Kw. The system is monitored and controlled by twin “Sunny Island” controllers from a German company named SMC. It works wonderfully and I’ve been very happy with it over the course of the past 10 years I’ve had it in operation. The system has already costed itself out and is under warranty for contracted delivery for another 10 years. I can hardly complain about its performance.

      But, I didn’t buy the system (and yes, I did buy it, it isn’t leased) to reduce my energy costs, I bought it to mitigate a problem I had with the service provider, Pacific Gas and Electric. I live in a remote location subject to extended power outages due to aging infrastructure and very poor support. I’ve had outages that have lasted more than 4 weeks over the past 30 years. Since a power outage also cuts off my water supply (private well), that was unacceptable in the long term, and so justified the expense of energy independence.

      Now I’m selling that property and moving to a more suburban area. I find service provided by PG&E in that area even less reliable, but this time it’s because they can’t work out how to make their billing system work. As a result I’ve suffered significant damage due to intentional (on the part of PG&E) power shutoffs. I’m still a partner with PG&E in their net metering system and actually sell power through them, but they can’t seem to figure that out and keep shutting off my power because they can’t manage billing me. It’s very frustrating.

      So it doesn’t surprise me Walmart might make other arrangements. California’s energy market is controlled by a group of Bozo’s who couldn’t find their own butt with both hands and a flashlight.

      • Mike;

        No they can’t, and I didn’t say they did. The array has an engineered output of 10Kw, but its peak performance is 60Kw.

        Sorry if that wasn’t clear to you.

      • If the peak output of your solar array is 60kw, then you do not have a 10kw array, you have a 60kw array. “Engineered” has no meaning.

      • Mike – me thinks you need yo study up a bit on solar (or any kind of power from the sound of it). To get 10kW service, you must install much more “nameplate” so 6 times the power you want to have when the sun is at noon, is not unreasonable. If you have an “average” power use of 1000 kWh per month, what do you need for peak day?

  7. The reason most states don’t support CAGW driven policies is, as Brown notes, that their governments are Republican. This is an interesting map.

    • Questions for a crack statistical analyst like Griff:

      Looking at the historical (granted only from 2009) changes associated with that map, should we deduce that the increase in Republican state legislatures is the result of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

      Or is in increase in atmospheric CO2 responsible for reduction in Democrat controlled state legislatures?

      Or is it just possible that CO2 (physically) has diddly squat to do with the changing demographics?

      • Don, I’d love to vote “diddly squat” but I know for a fact it has to do with delusional policies on the part of the effected group. Sorry. I’m a statistician and engineer and that’s just my personal opinion, which I;e come to by inference rather than deduction.

      • In areas where Republicans are in the majority, I would expect climate change not to be an electoral issue.

        The US is unique in its political set up in that some ideas are ascribed either to one party or the other and seen as purely policy ideas… e.g climate change has been labelled as an idea invented by Democrats/the ‘left’

        Outside the US science is still science

      • Is Griff actually trying to claim that there are no policy disputes between parties outside the US???

        Regardless, trying to claim that client scientists do science is an old and disproven act.

      • Apparently Griff did not look at the referenced maps before he answered.

        (or he didn’t understand the question(s))

        Griff,

        the answer is that CO2 concentrations, to not physically influence the changing political demographic. Although the red (republican) areas on the maps are increasing over the years (as is CO2 concentration) there is no physical relationship. It would be silly to say there is direct physical relationship (right?). Although there may be some small departure from the ever changing (and normal) red/blue variations, because of typical political views as associated with a global warming meme (which is associated with CO2); there may be an indirect relationship ….

        You also assumed I was talking about climate change … I was talking about CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. You need to realize that it is not the same thing (right?). CO2 may be responsible for a small departure from the ever changing (which is normal) world climate variations. But, CO2 and climate variation are not the same thing.

        (Global warming, climate change, climate chaos … let’s just go with climate variation … what do you think about just being honest Griff?)

      • DonM:
        Were Griff to respond he could point out that while CO2 concentrations vary and the global temperature varies it is a stretch to imply that the level of the CO2 concentration CAUSES the level of the global temperature. The IPCC makes this implication but it is not logically founded.

      • Hi Bartleby,

        I was looking for the direct physical relationship that (some assume) CO2 has with any and all material or ideas in the universe.

        [as a statistician, you see the misuse and abuse of sets of numbers, terms, and “averages”. Which statement is most correct:

        A) Bill Nye is a scientist that will march in the “Science March”.

        B) Bill Nye is a good representative of the average scientist in the “Science March”

        C) Bill Nye is a good representative of the average marcher in the “Science March”

        D) The average marcher in the “Science March” has no testicles.

        E) On average, somewhere near half of the people that will march in the “Science March” have only one testicle.]

    • You should see the color by Counties Map.

      ‘Splains why Trump won. People vote their local issues; don’t give a rip about personalities.

      G

  8. Temperature above the North Pole is close to the average from the period 1958-2002.

    The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2013 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 24 years have been left out.

    • Your chart shows in fact significant deviation from the mean in terms of temperature, especially significant in that it is occurring during winter.

      If it were otherwise, the 2017 line would track the mean more closely…

      • Hardly unusual considering the pulse of warm water that the recent El Nino pumped into the arctic.

  9. Californians are often preoccupied with the ‘unprecedented’ droughts or ‘unprecedented’ rainfall. It’s time for the governor to look into what the data actually says.
    Two major cities have accurate rainfall records going back to 19th century, San Francisco since 1850 and Loss Angeles since 1877.
    Data shows that the overall precipitations have hardly changed despite the erratic up/dawn oscillations on the decadal scale. For the periods longer than a decade the spectral composition of two sets of date shows that principal causes appear to be related to natural variability:
    – lunisolar tides around 19 (18.6) years
    – solar magnetic cycle 22 years, and
    – 29 years, associated with changes in the direction of the 60 year cycles.
    These periodicities happen to be present in the periodic changes in the rate of the planets rotation (LOD – length of day).
    There is no coherence on the shorter time scale.

  10. Donald Trump is doing the right thing and slowly cutting the CAGW boondoggle off at the knees. California’s Governor Brown is amazed to find that most people agree with Trump and is amazed that other States are not following him like Lemings in a big jump off the cliffto nowhere.

  11. Your Governor Moonbeam is known even in Australia as a green dipstick, there must be some seriously sick people in Cal to keep voting him back in. I just look at the figures of the companies moving to Texas because of the power prices and wonder how long before Cal is bankrupt?

    • The majority of voters believe in government provided free lunches.
      As a result they will always vote for the politician that promises them the most free stuff.

      • I hazily recall some article or other that noted in ancient Greece, somewhere around the Golden Age, public assistance became so entrenched that it was forbidden, by law, to even discuss reducing it. We can’t be far from that now.

    • As a resident of the Central Valley of CA, where the normal people live, I can state that the level of corruption in the state has reached biblical proportions. Whether he is more of a Boss Tweed or Huey Long I can can’t say. But what I do know is that through his policies, from climate change to high speed rail is that, as the state goes bankrupt, Dems and their co-conspirators get richer off the public dole.

    • wayne Job
      April 19, 2017 at 2:05 am

      “and wonder how long before Cal is bankrupt?”
      ———–

      Thank you for adding me in a direction of reconsidering a previous info position, which consisted with the point that Cal Gov already bankrupt, according to the books……

      Thanks for the help..

      cheers

    • It already is; they just hide the numbers mostly by not counting the government worker pensions in their overall debt.

    • … wonder how long before Cal is bankrupt?

      The bond rating agencies seem to think California is in good shape and rate its bonds as high grade. link

      An obligor has VERY STRONG capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

      Here’s a link showing how the ratings work.

      Having said the above, it isn’t hard to find articles that insist that California is headed for bankruptcy or even that it is now bankrupt.

      • Most bonds are sold for only 1 to 10 years.
        Regardless, bond rating agencies suffer under the delusion that governments can’t go bankrupt because they can always raise taxes.
        How long did they continue to mark Greek bonds as a good risk?

      • MarkW April 20, 2017 at 9:27 am

        … How long did they continue to mark Greek bonds as a good risk?

        Not only that but none of the bond rating agencies foresaw the 2008 melt down.

        I am skeptical of everyone who insists that California is, or is not, headed for bankruptcy … waaaay too much noise and not nearly enough signal. Around here the loudest voices predict bankruptcy. I’m just trying to provide some counter point.

    • Can’t say from personal experience since I wasn’t in CA when Brown took over, but I’ve heard part of the problem was the guy before him, some actor named Schwarzenegger with delusions of grandeur.

    • Stop waiting Mate; that occurred a long time ago; and ‘splains why the rats are all leaving for Oregon.

      G

  12. The Republicans are committed to global warming as a hoax, or irrelevant, or is not a problem. That is their belief. I’m not going to put them in jail.

    Ah, Governor Brown is an extremely kind person, is he?

    Although, I just wonder, how would it turn out for the US of A if a state governor had the power to put his political opponents in jail at will and also dismiss that action occasionally from mere kindness of his heart?

    Constitution, anyone?

      • Talking is one thing, doing is entirely another matter. As far as I know, there’s still a constitution in the US, which may be weakened lately, but most of it is still in effect, including prohibition of unconstitutional vagueness.

      • It’s limited to talk mostly because they don’t have to political power to enforce their desires yet.
        As to unconstitutional vagueness, I remember a study done a few years back in which identical tax situations were given to about 100 trained tax experts, including a number that work for the IRS.
        The task was to determine the amount of tax owed by the person in the example.
        100 people worked the problem, and came up with 100 different answers. I believe the difference between the high amount was almost twice the low amount.

        If unconstitutional vagueness meant anything anymore, the tax code would be ruled unconstitutional.
        And don’t get me started on all the “the secretary shall” nonsense that has been added to the regulatory laws.

  13. The Climatanic has hit a Trumberg, and is foundering, but Brown remains steadfast, and won’t give up the ship. He foolishly believes that a miracle will happen to save it, and/or is virtue signaling his heroism in attempting to save it. Pathetic.

  14. Having been in CA politics for generations, aeons even, Gov. Brown dependably runs on the having SACA agenda – Stone Age California Again. It’s nostalgic. Perhaps the only way to rid the state of him is for him to run against Trump in 2020?

  15. Jerry Brown generally comes across as very confident, and as long as no one pays attention to his actual performance, seems to be competent. I used to live in California, and will always remember his appointment of Adriana Gianturco to head CalTrans, the state roads agency. The only little problem is that she did not believe in actually building roads, on the basis that people will eventually make them just as congested as the existing roads. I am deeply ashamed that I voted for that yahoo in the 1970’s.

    • Don’t build roads because they will be used?

      She needed to spend more time with Pelosi and she might have viewed that more like this:

      “We need to build the road so we can see what will use it.”

      /grin

      • “Don’t build roads because they will be used? ”

        That’s standard eco-nut dogma, and has been for years. ‘You can’t beat congestion by building new roads, because people will just use them until they’re congested. You can only beat congestion by reducing the number of cars.’

    • Yes, it is dogma because it pops up in other parts of the country without knowledge of the locals who are abused by it. Fortunately a lot of them are aging nuts at this point and ready for road-less living.

  16. He says “we need the science to continue” and then he continues to ignore the science!

    While it is true that some Republicans throw the word “hoax” around, mostly that is because they look at the science and it does not support the alarmism.

  17. “I’m not giving up hope.”

    Here’s another hopeful believer. This time in his ability to beat financial markets …

    BOSTON— Jack Meyer trounced rivals when he ran Harvard University’s endowment in the 1990s. But as a hedge-fund manager, he is struggling.

    His Convexity Capital Management LP has lost $1 billion of its clients’ money over the last few years as once reliable options trades backfired. Investors pulled more than $3.5 billion from the bond shop last year, its fifth down year in a row. The firm laid off a tenth of its staff in recent months.

    Despite the setbacks, the 71-year-old Mr. Meyer isn’t giving up.

    In conversations with clients, Mr. Meyer blames calm markets for Convexity’s string of poor returns and says he expects investment opportunities to improve.

    “I just don’t think it’s time to quit,”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/under-pressure-ex-harvard-star-jack-meyer-says-its-not-time-to-quit-1492594202

    Follow the money … as it walks out the door.

  18. The political game was about leveraging federal money for California and the union construction jobs in the high speed rail project. Now it’s a smaller game centered in Oakland at the radicalized nonprofits pulling shorter strings.

  19. TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts

    • What if anything controls Earth’s climate system is indeterminate pending identification of the statistical population underlying the associated model.. This statistical population is the source of the information about the outcomes of events that is provided by this model to a would-be regulator of this system. Absent identification of this population regulation of this system is impossible..

  20. Let’s not forget Jerry Brown’s earlier association with Jim Jones of the People’s Temple and Jonestown massacre infamy.

    • But they will continue to force independents and Republicans to deal with (their) contrived climate change scheme.

  21. For a liberal, the fact that most of the world disagrees with them is always explained away by claiming a conspiracy of the rich and powerful.
    Even when the liberal is rich and powerful.

  22. With the crazy ant mentality in charge, California cities no longer have to buy one-way bus tickets to send people out of state. Now they leave at their own expense.

  23. I’m surprised he didn’t break out into the old climate hymn; “Onward, Climate Soldiers”.

  24. Brown’s belief that the economy of California has benefitted by tacking climate change proves one of two things. Either he is a fool in the useful idiot mold, or he is a liar. You simply can’t help your economy by increasing the costs of energy.

    .

  25. Brown is every other States best salesman . The drought myth is now over and the earth doesn’t have a fever despite claims by Hollywood and failed politicians .
    Does Brown ever address real problems ? For all its greatness California loves their politicians close minded and ignorant .

    • Real problems are hard, they can be measured.
      Imaginary problems on the other hand are easy to solve.

  26. You have to give the AGW Grifters grudging credit. They have been running this ‘long con’ for more than 30 years now and it has paid off quite handsomely for them. The gullible sheep are still being herded with scary stories…… and they’re still bleating to be fleeced even more.

    • That’s because they appeal to the young, who haven’t seen it before, and to the bleeding hearts, who are an easy sell.

    • Joe’s right, we’ve allowed them to indoctrinate our kids into an anti-science believe system from kindergarten. A couple of years ago one of the neighbor kids was over on e weekend helping with yard work and he started telling me about Global Warming. I listened politely and when he got around to explaining how much hotter it was I mentioned I’d been living in the same house for 40 years and the weather was the same today as it had been then, he looked incredulous then tried to tell me I was wrong about that. Ths coming from a 14 year old.

      It’s tragic what we’ve let these people do to our children.

  27. Apparently Gov. Brown is swayed by the hype and the reported scientific consensus. But the reality is that scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture. So there is no consensus. Such a consensus would not mean anything anyway because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. The theories of science are not validated through a voting process.

    Climate change is real and has been going on for eons, long before Mankind started to burn fossil fuels. Global warming and sea level rise has been going on for some 20K years, long before Mankind started to make use of fossil fuels. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels and Man’s use of fossil fuels had nothing to do with since it happened more than 115 K years ago. Based on modeling studies one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.

    The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer examination it is severely flawed. In part, to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of different models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. If there were no guess work then only one model would have been supported. The plethora of models have generated a wide range of predictions for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all prediicted global warming that never happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture is flawed. The climate simulations actually beg the question because it is hard coded in that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming so that is what the simulation results show. Because they beg the question such sumulations are totally useless. If the IPCC actually learned something from the simulations they would have by now reduced the number of different models under consideration but that has not happened. Others have generated models that show that climate is correlated to solar and ocean effects and not to CO2.

    There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water holds less CO2 then cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additinal CO2 adds to warming. It is all just speculation.

    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided by gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect..So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the atmophere keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would other wise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and it accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

    Kyoji Kimoto, reporting in an artiicle entitled “Basic Global Working Hypothesis is Wrong” has found that the original calculation of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because original calculations forgot to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 wiill cause a small but very signiificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck Climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, CO2 provides a Plankc climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is rather trivial.

    If CO2 really affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the last 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

    In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has found nothing the would narrow their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC deliberately ignore’s all logic indicating that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than their published range for fear of losing their funding. Supporting the AGW conjecture has been a matter of politics and not science. Belief in the AGW conjecture is really anti science.

    There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fules but climate change is not one of them. The state of California is already wasting billions of dollars on a medium high speed rail line that very few will ride between Bakersfield and Fresno. The state cannot afford to waste money on climate change. The state would be better off spending the money on water storage facilities and desalination plants as protection from the effects of future droughts.

  28. I’m thinking about trolling Mike Mann’s facebook page. Dear Mr. Mann, thank you for the important work you do educating us about climate change. I have a question: I own a house on Malibu beach, it’s now worth 4x what I paid for it. I could sell it tomorrow for 16 million dollars. We all know that my property will be under water soon, when should I sell? -sincerly, Albert

  29. Both carbon and poverty have a social cost. If a carbon tax is the solution to the social cost of carbon, then why isn’t a poverty tax a solution to the social cost of poverty?

    If we can solve carbon pollution by a carbon tax, then shouldn’t we solve the problem of homelessness by taxing the poor?

  30. Obviously Oroville Dam is an example of Man-Maid Climate Change, and had nothing to do with Governors Brown on design, construction and maintenance.

    At the very least, Jerry was fooled by the permadrought (man-maid) and didn’t waste too much money on keeping Oroville fixed up for a full tub, or even basic breaks and leaks. Neither did dad Pat waste money on unimportant things like adequate steel, concrete and drainage, digging to good rock, or superior engineers….

  31. Climate change forced by a peculiar obsession to carbon dioxide. Catastrophic? Perhaps. For the Prophets and Profits of CAGW.

  32. For some light relief, here is P.J.O’Rourke from” All the Trouble in the World” (1994), in the Chapter, ” Ecology, We’re All going to Die”-
    “Environmentalists do not like all this contradiction and complexity and wish it away when they can.
    Al Gore will brook no argument about the greenhouse effect. In ‘Earth in the Balance’ ( the forerunner to An Inconvenient Truth) he says, ” The theory of global warming will not be disproved.” A 1992 Gallup poll of four hundred meteorologists and geophysicists found that 60% thought global temperatures had risen in the last century, but only 19% attributed this to man-made causes.Greenpeace itself surveyed 400 Greenpeace-picked scientists, and just 13% deemed runaway global warming probable.
    This does not deter Al. Says he,’Scientists concluded -almost unanimously – that global warming is real and the time to act is now.’ ”
    I always wondered when Mr. Gore first said , ” The debate is over, The science is settled.” It was 1992 when the science was settled against him.

  33. A few posts ago we had a long discussion about the temperature data sets and the Law of Large Numbers (LLN). The AGW proponents argued that the millions of data points taken throughout the year and around the world created a good set of multiple measurements of the Earth’s temperature, and therefore it was justifiable to use the LLN to improve the accuracy and get those three-decimal-point statements of the mean temperatures and anomalies.

    But that’s not what’s really happening. The LLN is applicable when one takes multiple measurements of the same thing at the same time. If one had a thousand thermometers of known accuracy and precision, and took a thousand measurements of the temperature of the room at some given moment, one would indeed be justified in using the LLN to reduce the error in the mean.

    Instead, what’s happening is a large-scale sampling of the Earth’s temperature by all those stations. It’s as though 5000 people all over the Earth were given a board to measure. At a given time, they measured its length one time and recorded the measurement. Later they were given a board of a different length, and measured it once at a given time. Repeat this process once an hour, with different boards each time, for an entire year. One will end up with a database of millions of board lengths, with time and date of each duly noted.

    One could then analyze this database and come up with a mean board length, and even apply the LLN to the data and claim that one knew the mean board length to three decimal points. But that would be wrong, because it was a different board measured each time, not the same board over and over. The measurements can’t converge on the true value, because there is no true value. The boards were always changing. You have no way to know if the error was normally distributed.

    This is not to say that one can’t generate a mean board length, obviously. However, it’s going to have its standard deviation as its uncertainty, and not the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of measurements. That is a huge difference.

    Let’s say I use Excel to generate a thousand numbers with one decimal point. I use the function 25+(RANDBETWEEN(-1,1)*RAND()) to generate 850 temperatures clustered around 25.0 C, and then use 10-(RANDBETWEEN(-1,1)*RAND()) to generate 150 temperatures clustered around 10C. Obviously, I’ve skewed the values so there is no normal distribution, just as though we were using GHCN stations mostly in temperate zones of the Earth, with very little representation of the higher or lower latitudes.

    My “measurements” are to tenths of a degree. My standard deviation works out to +/- 5.77 C. If I pretend the LLN applies, I can get the error down to +/- 0.18 C. Am I justified in using the LLN? Of course not; these are just random numbers representing temperatures skewed to the upper end of the range. There is no true value upon which my measurements converge. Each measurement was completely independent of the others, unlike measuring a single board where each measurement is dependent on the length of that board, and the measurements will cluster around it.

    It’s difficult to imagine how anyone with even a basic knowledge of statistics could make this sort of conceptual error — however, it does give one a plausible-looking high-precision number that one can pretend actually means something. Even when it doesn’t.

    • James, you are too modest. Imagine you have a thermometer with a reading of 31.1 degrees C. You know the temperature to a tenth of a degree. You look at the thermometer ten times, compute an average, now you have a temperature 31.10 with a precision of a hundredth of a degree. You look 100 times, you can get a temperature to one thousandth of a degree. There is nothing better than a climate statistics.

    • James that’s a great explanation, last time I used it was with tables instead of boards but it was the same idea. No one understood it.

      And that’s how this all works. Few people are interested in understanding basic statistics or measurement theory. Most can’t understand a Z score so when they look at “temperature anomalies” they come up blank.

      The snake oil salesmen like Gore understand that and capitalize on it.

    • In regards to your measuring a board example.
      If the person taking the reading is always the same person, you have to account for the possibility that the same person keeps making the same methodological mistake every time. That further complicates the desire to prove that the errors are random.

  34. “He readily acknowledged that other states are not buying his climate alarmist hype…”
    “All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer.”
    ― Robert Owen

  35. California eyes unusual power source: its gridlocked roads.
    All those cars on California’s famously gridlocked highways could be doing more than just using energy – they could be producing it. The California Energy Commission is investing $2 million to study whether piezoelectric crystals can be used to produce electricity from the mechanical energy created by vehicles driving on roads.
    https://phys.org/news/2016-09-california-eyes-unusual-power-source.html

    There is a nice summary at
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/highway-robbery-vibrating-freakin-roadways-to-generate-electricity/

    This comes from an Governor Brown’s Energy Commission which mandates that an energy storage capacity must be measured in megawatts.

    • “…electricity from the mechanical energy created by vehicles driving on roads.”
      But they’re gridlocked!

    • There are no free lunches. The extra flexing of the road to power the piezoelectric cells would result in cars spending more energy to get from A to B.

  36. At the UN Climate Committee Report meeting at the Royal Society on 2/3 Oct 2013 it was explicitly reported by presenters
    that the CO2 models could not explain the wild behavior of the jet stream. At which point Piers Corbyn pointed out it was a
    direct consequence of changing solar activity (and lunar modulation) and generally predictable – so obviously nothing to do
    with CO2. ‘Sudden’ winter warming of parts of the stratosphere are known to precede extra wild behavior of the Jet stream
    and this winter Piers Corbyn specifically predicted such from solar activity and what happened since is weather and climate
    history unfolding – nothing to do with CO2.
    http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews14No06.pdf

  37. A friend of mine that I have been helping do an exotic experiment for many years.[that has been successful although according to mainstream science impossible] yesterday was given a challenge from the sceptics association of Australia. They put up $100,000 if we can prove our experiment works. Money for jam.

  38. A citizen of California, I wrote to Gov. Brown to accuse him of basing California’s climate policy on a pseudoscience. I offered to debate him on this issue in his office or a public forum. Neither Brown nor an aide to Brown bothered to respond.to my message. I’ve written to both of my members of the California legislature to request a meeting. Neither of them has bothered to respond. I’ve written to the California Air Resources Board with similar results. The San Francisco Chronicle prints no letters to the editor that are inconsistent with the CAGW meme..California is run by lawyers whose understanding of the scientific method is quite different from the reality.

    • They either don’t respond to me or they respond nonsensically, including Doris Matsui, Richard Pan, Kevin McCarthy, and Brown.

      • Ellie Mae:

        Your experience of unresponsiveness by California politicians to critiques of California policy by California citizens is similar to mine.I don’t think that for the governor of a state to deliberately mislead the citizens of this state on the basis for a policy of this state is what the founding fathers of the U.S. had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. What do you think?

  39. Like most ideologues and extremists Gov. Brown is anti-science even as he ironically wraps himself in a robe of sciencey sounding words.

  40. There goes Jerry, half-cocked again! EVERYTHING he says about climate is complete BS. I live near him, and what a hypocrite; he’s chauffeured everywhere in gas guzzlers! I can think of only one reason why our stupid carbon credit program is a failure…uh, because its foundation is LIES.

Comments are closed.