Home/BlogOne of the most annoying things about the climate change debate is that any regional weather event is blamed on humans, if even only partly. Such unscientific claims cannot be supported by data — they are little more than ambiguous statements of faith.
The current “exceptional” Texas drought is no exception. People seem to have short memories…especially if they were born after most of the major climate events of the past occurred.
Andy Dessler recently made what I’m sure he thought was a safe claim when faulting Texas Gov. Rick Perry for being “cavalier about climate change” (as if we could stop climate from changing by being concerned about it).
Dessler said, “..warming has almost certainly made the (Texas) heat wave and drought more extreme than it would otherwise have been.”
This clever tactic of claiming near-certainty of at least SOME effect of humans on weather events was originally invented by NASA’s James Hansen in his 1988 Senate testimony for Al Gore, an event that became the turning point for raising public awareness of “global warming” (oops, I’m sorry, I mean climate change).
The trouble is that climate change theory predicts changes, up and down, in just about anything you can imagine. So, anything unusual that happens anywhere, anytime, is deemed “consistent” with global warming.
But this tactic can work both ways — a specific drought might have instead been made LESS severe by the general tendency toward MORE rainfall, which is a much more robust prediction of the climate models with warming.
For example, let’s look at June-July total rainfall over the whole contiguous U.S. — which is only 1.6% of the Earth’s surface — over the last 100+ years (August data are not yet posted at NCDC):
What we see are some major drought events, and 2011 is not one of the big ones. The Big Kahuna was the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. The 1950’s also experienced record droughts (see the animation here). These were before increasing CO2 in the atmosphere could be reasonably blamed for anything, except maybe enhancing plant growth a little.
Even NOAA’s Tom Karl back in 1981, before global warming politics took over his job description at NCDC, authored a paper on how the 1980 drought (which was pretty darn bad, long-lived, and widespread) was less severe than those in the 1930s and 1950s:
Note the price tag of the 1980 drought: $43 Billion. They are saying the current TX-OK drought will run somewhere north of $5 Billion.
But what do we ALSO see in the long term in the above U.S. rainfall plot? If anything, an UPWARD trend in rainfall. This is for the whole U.S., not just Texas….
Yes, I Know Texas is Like a Whole Other Country…
…but it is only 0.14% of the surface of the Earth. It is much easier for naturally-occurring stagnant weather patterns to cause drought (or flood) conditions over one, or even several states, because the descending (or ascending) portions of weather systems cover these smaller regional scales. It’s rare for them to cover the whole U.S.
So, now let’s look at what the rainfall record looks like for Texas:
Even though the August data are not yet available at this writing, I’m quite sure this year’s Texas drought will indeed be a record one….at least in the rather short (in climate parlance) period of record (just over 100 years) that we have enough rainfall data to analyze.
But what else do we see in the record? How about that big rainfall PEAK in 2007? I’ll bet someone can dig up an “expert” back in 2007 saying the Texas floods of 2007 were also caused by global warming.
And note that the long-term rainfall trend in Texas is not downward.
Surely, Dr. Dessler knows that a single data point (2011) does not constitute a “trend”.
The fact is that record dry (and wet) years in relatively small regions are actually quite common…because they usually happen in different places each year. Weather records are location-specific. This year is Texas’ super-drought year. Last year it was in part of Ukraine. Next year it will be somewhere else, maybe multiple places.
And even if droughts (or floods) do end up becoming more frequent, the question of just how much of that change can be blamed on humans versus Mother Nature still remains unanswered…unless you accept the pseudo-scientific faith-based statements put out by the IPCC leadership.
“Dessler vs. Rick Perry: Is the 2011 Texas Drought Evidence of Human-Caused Climate Change?”
Not unless the even greater droughts that wiped out much of the Incas, Azttecs, Mayans, … also were anthropogenically caused!! 8>)
The absurdity of claiming global warming has anything to do with Texas weather is compounded not just by the fact that the rainfall trends don’t support the drought statements, but look at the temperature trends: Texas has not warmed in the last hundred+ years! If global warming isn’t even succeeding in making Texas warmer, how can it be causing heat waves and droughts there?
If anyone doubts this,they can check it for themselves at the NCDC “climate at a glance” page. It would probably surprise them to learn that most of the Southern US has in fact cooled since 1895
As a physicist, I read what is written in the name of science, and I am really surprised.
A good scientist knows that there is no “truth,” only different models that predict the outcomes with different accuracy.
So, as I read, we rational people do not react to a single phenomenon, like the Texas drought. The problem is that the “deniers” do take every unusual cold day to make the case that global warming does not exist. And ordinary people buys that reasoning. This is like everyone giving their own opinion about cancer, without having any idea of what ADN is. Most of the scientists, myself included, follow periodically the different climate models carefully. And combining all current models, the probability of man made climate change is above 10% with a 95% probability (please look that I AM NOT SAYING a 100% confidence interval, because that is not scientific.)
BUT, if there is a 10% chance that we humans will be in a lot of travel in 2100 (that means my grandson will have big problems then,) shouldn´t we be more much more careful to avoid that thin but extremely deadly probability, and therefore let the scientist give an expert opinion?
Jorge:
1) Por cada “negador” que dice un día frío es una prueba contra el calentamiento global, son diez los alarmistas que dicen un día de calor es causado por los seres humanos con el petróleo y el carbón.
2) No hay manera de saber cuál es la probabilidad de una catástrofe climática. Lo que sí sabemos es que el costo de hacer que la energía mucho más cara, o la reducción de su disponibilidad, se matan a cientos de millones de personas, directa o indirectamente.
Energía abundante y barata es necesario para casi todo lo que hace la gente. Energía solar y eólica están muy lejos de ser capaz de suministrar una parte importante de lo que se necesita.
-Roy
¡Muy bien!
Yet another reason I don’t believe a thing Dessler says. He’s a political hack more than anything else. I have friend that is a professor at Texas A&M and he told me you have to be careful on what you say if you are a global warming skeptic. He is going for tenure so I told him best to keep his mouth shut. It is a shame science has come to this.
Dressler spent a sabbatical working the White House Office of Science and Technology while Al Gore was VP.
It seems out of place to be upset over a 1 degree C in one hundred years. That is only .01 degrees per year of worming. Devide that by 365 days. If we did not have digital thermometers and other ways to measure the Temp no one would care or know. This has to be about something other the rising temperatures.
The flak that Roy Spenser gets for trying to bring sanity to the subject is commendable.
Gorge thinks maybe we are 10% responsible that is 10% of .01 degree of worming in a year. It hat reason to push our ecconomy further in a hole. Spending all this money on the C0 2 takes it from the economy. How mush worhtless expence can this country aford.
Roy A jensen
“I’ll bet someone can dig up an “expert” back in 2007 saying the Texas floods of 2007 were also caused by global warming.”
Here’s a start.
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/07/texas-flood.html
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Climate-expert-sees-drought-floods-for-Texas-1641534.php
The problem is AGW advocates act like we are unable to adapt to changes in the climate. We are a hot weather species that adapted to the Africa Savannah before spreading across the globe and evolving to life in other areas. Most of us experience a greater climate change moving for a job than we ever do sitting at home. Not a single one can actually tell me how my climate will change (will it become drier or wetter?).
Anyone who looks at the historical record will tell you central Texas is marked by droughts ended by floods. Some of the worst droughts were during the Spanish era and before and this was during the little ice age based on tree rings. I am dubious of people making claims without understanding the historic record both written by early settlers and empirical indicators of previous climates in this area. The drought of the 1950s was ended by a massive flood of record. There were severe floods in the 1920s in San Angelo, yet O.C. Fisher dried up this year and it dried up in the 1960s. In the 1950s soon after construction, it flooded.
Roy, I note that Dessler 2011 is now available from GRL. Any comment?
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/papersinpress.shtml
currently the fifth paper down. The introduction reads:
The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change [e.g.,
Stephens, 2005]. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereafter SB11] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.
In Australia we have a man called Tim Flannery, an expert in bones, but known for his Global Warming propaganda. He has been Australian of the Year and is now chairing a Federal Government Department on Climate Change. He predicted that Brisbane (that’s at the top of Australia) would run out of water but Brisbane’s dams are now full, filled by enormous floods. He has made many predictions and when the year arrives, he is always wrong yet he is still regarded as an expert in Climate Change. Melbourne (that is down the bottom of Australia) has been in drought for approx. ten years until now, we have had enough rainfall this year to bring our dams up from approx 30% to 60% full. Now that’s the good news, the bad news is the Government is going to impose a Carbon Tax in July 2012. As an Australian do I feel like a fool, yup! HELP!
There is a famous poem about Australia written in 1904 and part of it is: I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains,Of ragged mountain ranges,OF DROUGHTS AND FLOODING RAINS. Sounds a bit like Texas.
For those who don’t have access Dessler’s paper is viewable here
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dessler_2011_grl.pdf
ROY, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS THANKS.
—–Original Message—–
From: Salvatore Delprete
To: salmbswx ; carlmunge ; donttread
Sent: Tue, Sep 6, 2011 9:49 am
Subject: EARTH’S CLIMATE
It comes down to the strength of magnetic fields which are modulated by solar activity, the earth’s magnetic field strength, and the moon’s modulation of the solar magnetic field . MILANKOVITCH CYCLES, having further impacts to earth’s climate, if phased properly. Those being tilt, orbit and precession of the equinoxes.
Weather systems persistence, and speed of movement corresponding to the magnetic field strengths of the above.Weak magnetic fields equating to persistence and slow movement of weather systems, hence a much more of an extreme climate, which is waht we currently have.
The magnetic field strength plays a big role in the amount of cosmic rays allowed to enter earth’s atmosphere which in turn modulate the amount of low clouds . At the same time the magetic field strength modulates the amount of charged particles entering earth’s atmosphere, which modulate the Ionosphere , which in turn has an impact on cyclonic strength . Charged particle fluctuations(which fluctuate much more with a weaken magnetic field ) also effecting geological activity, due to the more substantial charged particle fluctuations.
The increase in geological activity leading to an increase in volcanic activity,creating more SO2 ,which serves to create more clouds and reflect more incoming solar radiation ,which serves to create a more meridional circulation by warming the stratosphere more in the higher latitudes as opposed to the lower latitudes(high latitude volcanic activity) ,which accomplishes increasing earth’s albedo, can be correlated to overall magnetic field strength.
The weak solar activity then causes changes in UV light and ozone concentrations/distributions ,which effect the jet stream by making it less zonal ,just like the volcanic activity,due to high latitude warming of the stratosphere. This in turn sets up a more negative AO, which serves to create more snow cover, more clouds ,more precipitation ,which again increases the overall albedo of the earth.
Next the SOI INDEX, and the PDO/AMO have a correlation to the sun when it is in a prolong minimum state. The SOI INDEX, being more in a POSITIVE PHASE, while the PDO/AMO ,tending to be more in a cold phase .These conditions in turn again contribute to more clouds, precipitation and a greater earth albedo. Also effecting the ocean circulation as a whole,from the various currents to the thermohaline circulation itself.
Also the rates of evaporation/convection, also come into play.
All the above is the route cause of climate change (NOT CO2 CONCENTRATIONS) with the degree of MAGNITUDE, and DURATION of time being the KEY, to how severe the climate may change . Sometimes thresholds being met, which then cause abrupt climatic changes.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT, being slow to change, hence causing lag times in a temperature response to the above, while the climatic extremes in response to the above happen much quicker, as one can see starting around year 2008, or 2009. Temperatures although leveling off, not in a definitive decline yet, but that will be just a matter of time, as the prolong solar minimum and weakening earth’s magnetic field exert more and more influence on earth’s climatic system.
This is the best ,most comprehensive explanation that I can come up with, and I put it up against any other theory out there.
The total US rainfall chart looks irrefutable, but favorite counterargument is “well total rainfall is the same, but the spread around the normal is wider – floods and then drought”.
I used several long-term rainfall gauges in Central Europe and calculated the standard deviation from daily rainfall data in Excel. (Later found out the KNMI Explorer can do it by itself).
Uh-oh, there is nothing increasing, even not reaching years with record high SD in daily precipitation from the past. Some AMO-like wave is visible though.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/bpeca16_sd1.png
The same can be done for daily temperature anomaly. No signal.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/bteca16_sd1.png
Where is the anthropogenic fingerprint?
This article is most enlightening.
I expect the Texas Forest Service (and farmers) are very relieved to know that, because of global warming, they’ve probably had MORE rain during this drought than they would otherwise have had.
jorge,
“Most of the scientists, myself included, follow periodically the different climate models carefully. And combining all current models, the probability of man made climate change is above 10% with a 95% probability (please look that I AM NOT SAYING a 100% confidence interval, because that is not scientific.)”
What puzzles me is why a multiplicity of models is needed in order to produce a “reliable” average forecast.
Whe we use computer models to predict the positions of the planets, we don’t run over 30 models and take the average, one model is sufficient, because the science is understood.
Some models produce high forecasts and others low, but there is no consistency over time.
Surely the fact that we don’t know which model is correct, is confirmation of the lack of certainty over the science?
Hi Ray,
There are all kinds of problems with models as complex as GCMs. An ensemble of models is just one way to put a probable range on the uncertainty. And even still, I don’t think anyone would put too much stock in GCM predictions if there weren’t other ways of estimating overall climate sensitivity. There are.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
The models might say the probability of man changing the climate is high, but they are wrong. I would say the answer is zero, because among other things, climate change has always taken place in the past and on many occasions to a far greater magnitude then what took place last century.
PLEASE LOOK AT ICECAP.COM WEBSITE -for model accuracy.
steps – go to icecap.com
click about climate change
go to right side, historical perspective
then scroll down to greenhouse score card
You will see that out of the 32 or so climate model predictions, 27 were wrong, one correct and 4 uncertain.
If you look at the message board under temperature data for August 2011, someone was using my name and pretending to be me. I never once posted on that message board until today. Today is the first day I have made comments since Friday.
Thnank You.
If I may be perfectly candid, I am pretty disgusted with Dessler’s article, which is clearly meant to attack and criticize Rick Perry, which shows his blatant partisanship.
It frustrates the hell out of me that I know so many of these academics are liberal democrats hell-bent on skewing “reality” to match the notions of leftist ideology.
Dessler’s article in GRL is now out, and Dr. Roy has some ‘splainin’ to do.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/
You mean becasue of one man’s opinion that is not objective to begin with ,that this has to make us question all the hard work Dr. Spencer has put into the conclusions he has come to. Just because of one person that happens to have a different opinion, and cannot prove his opinion one way or the other.
We can turn it around, and say now that Dr. Spencer’s article is out, Dr. Dessler has some explaining to do.
In the end Barry Bickmore, it will not matter because the likelyhood of a temperature decline rather then a temperature rise from this point going forward is likely.
Everything is phasing into a colder mode, from the prolong solar minimum,to an increase in gelogical activity, to a more +soi index to a more negative AO.
So you can cling to your theory, but it will soon be obsolete.
Regardless of whether Roy’s conclusions are right, I object to him bolstering his arguments by hiding data that he claims to have analyzed.
Salvatore –
From a previous post you reference ICECAP.COM
I went to this and looks like wrong address.
Thanks.
Drought and wildfire are very much part of the Australian experience in fact we have in eucalypts a fire adapted species which dominates our environment. We have a AGW Alarmist here by the name of Professor Tim Flannery, a paleontologist whose environmental cred came from campaigning for endangered species (which is fair enough). We went through a major drought for a decade or so up until late 2009/201 when La Nina turned up with a bunch of girlfriends and the place has been saturated since. Tim was peddling fear and loathing and advising that AGW would produce endless drought on this continent. Unfortunately for Tim’s cred, and apart from La Nina spoiling his party, our Bureau of Meteorology has good data and it seems our continent has got about 20% WETTER over the past century or so ( see http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi ). A couple of parts have become dryer, Tasmania (8-9%)and SW Western Aust( ~20%) while our foodbowl, the Murray – Darling Basin ( ~ the US Mississippee Basin) is about 10% wetter having just had its wettest year in 110 years.
Nonetheless Tim has landed a plum job as a Federal Government climate change adviser/guru on a couple of hundred AU$k a year. That perhaps says it all, forget about oil and gas money lubricating tongues, think green money. Our taxes turned into, what should we call it, Soylent Green payola?
Hiding data? Funny, mister ask-for-the-data himself didn’t have any trouble getting Roy’s data:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/
Maybe you just need to not be a jerk to get it?
So you think it’s ok to plot all the data that supports your hypothesis, but leave out the data that undercuts it? Do tell.
You appear to be talking about Jones, Mann, Biffra, etc. But the issue of this post is the Dessler and Spencer disagreement. Few scientists have had the hallmark of providing access to data like Spencer has.
However, I recognize that ad hominen attacks characterize the AGW community when they find it inconvenient to discuss the science.
Note also that Steve Mc’s weak defense of Spencer doesn’t include any legitimate reasons for leaving out uncooperative data. I’m just dying to hear what Dr. Roy says about his rationale for doing so. I’m betting Steve is, too.
Hi Roy,
Have you read the March 2011 paper by the Duke researchers
in Journal of Climate that gives a specific cause to more intense weather in the South Eastern US? I don’t have the expertise to judge and would be interested to hear your take on such things:
Abstract:
——-
This study investigates the changes of the North Atlantic subtropical high (NASH) and its impact on summer
precipitation over the southeastern (SE) United States using the 850-hPa geopotential height ?eld in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis, the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40), long-term rainfall data, and Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) model simulations during the past six decades
(1948–2007). The results show that the NASH in the last 30 yr has become more intense, and its western ridge
has displaced westward with an enhanced meridional movement compared to the previous 30 yr. When the
NASH moved closer to the continental United States in the three most recent decades, the effect of the NASH
on the interannual variation of SE U.S. precipitation is enhanced through the ridge’s north–south movement.
The study’s attribution analysis suggested that the changes of the NASH are mainly due to anthropogenic
warming. In the twenty-?rst century with an increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the center of the
NASH would be intensi?ed and the western ridge of the NASH would shift farther westward. These changes
would increase the likelihood of both strong anomalously wet and dry summers over the SE United States in the
future, as suggested by the IPCC AR4 models.
——-
It would seem to me that it would be easy to prove or disprove that weather extremes are becoming more frequent. One could just choose 100 representative weather stations from around the world and plot the frequency of record high or lows in whatever your favorite measure is. If the climate is not getting more extreme, then the number of records should go down or stay level. If the climate change is causing more extremes, then the number of records should go up. Somebody must have already done this. What did they find?
CS
Texas A&M prof says study shows that clouds don’t cause climate change
COLLEGE STATION, Sept. 6, 2011 — Clouds only amplify climate change, says a Texas A&M University professor in a study that rebuts recent claims that clouds are actually the root cause of climate change.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor considered one of the nation’s experts on climate variations, says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that clouds are primarily acting as a so-called “feedback” that amplifies warming from human activity. His work is published today in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Dessler studied El Niño and La Niña cycles over the past 10 years and calculated the Earth’s “energy budget” over this time. El Nino and La Nina are cyclical events, roughly every five years, when waters in the central Pacific Ocean tend to get warmer or colder. These changes have a huge impact on much of the world’s weather systems for months or even years.
Dessler found that clouds played a very small role in initiating these climate variations — in agreement, he says, with mainstream climate science and in direct opposition to some previous claims.
“The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing,” Dessler says.
Texas is currently in one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, and most scientists believe it is a direct result of La Niña conditions that have lingered in the Pacific Ocean for many months.
Dessler adds, “Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change.”
“I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change,” he adds.
I will be asking UAH to undertake a full audit of Roy’s work and whether any data was suppressed.
The truth must be exposed!
TO: Ursus Augustus
They are not listening. We are faced with a Tax that will have serious ramifications on our economy and the average persons cost of living and they don’t really care. The discussion is about the credibility of Spencer’s work and the corrupted review process of opposing theories (that science talk for opinion) I have reviewed many papers/articles on the function of CO2 in our atmosphere and concluded that Global Warming by radiation forced back to the surface by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is impossible. The problem is the science has moved past this point and now they are theorizing about clouds, cosmic rays and deep ocean temperatures. They have lost the plot.
Barry, which data are you so upset that Roy didn’t plot? I assume you mean the three models Dessler shows have less of a difference from the data than the other models. If someone wanted to plot up the differing results, they could just ask Roy for the data. I don’t know why he didn’t do it himself, in the paper at least, but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he was “hiding” the data (especially when it was so easy for someone to just ask for!). But then again, I am not an antagonistic pest who is driven by a personal vendetta against particular individuals. You don’t just post comments disagreeing with Roy, you accuse him of malfeasance. I think you’ll find that at CA, use of such language regarding the work of Mann is frowned upon, even frequently getting snipped. So you are quite lucky your caustic accusations are allowed to show up, given that they don’t reach above youtube troll levels.
Hi Andrew,
Hold on, Andrew. I never accused Roy of anything except “hiding” some data he said he analyzed, but didn’t report. What would you call it? “Misplacing” the data?
I don’t know why he did it, and in fact I can’t think of a good explanation for it. Roy has usually been pretty good about providing his data, and sometimes even spreadsheet analyses to me, even when they were instrumental for finding fundamental errors in his modeling. When I reviewed his book and showed that he had made up a statistical technique that allowed him to find any climate sensitivity he liked, I didn’t conclude he had done anything sinister. I actually wrote about how it could have all been a rookie mistake by someone who hasn’t done much modeling.
I’m stumped on this one, though. On the one hand, if he were trying to cover his tracks, why say he analyzed 14 models, and then only plot two sets of three averaged together? Why not just claim he analyzed the six? On the other hand, I can’t imagine analyzing 14 huge data sets, and then not even looking at the results of most of them. If he had looked at the results, wouldn’t he have noticed that some of the models were much better than others, and the quality of fit didn’t depend on climate sensitivity? I have to believe that he did look at all the analyses, and made a choice to exclude some. So I’m left wondering whether this was 1) an incredibly inept attempt to deceive or 2) an incredibly inept attempt at science.
If there’s something else going on that the rest of us have missed, Roy needs to speak up.
For score keeping purposes with the past, when did the 2011 Texas drought end? 1,000 homes up in smoke in the last few days, and The Lost Forest just became a charcoaled memory.
If one googles JUST icecap, the site will come up.
CHANGING EVERYTHING
I just can’t believe how the global warming side is trying to change all that has been established in the climate area over the last 50 years, to try to make the current climatic scene ,fit in with their global man made CO2 warming theory ,when the curent data and evidence, keeps suggesting they are flat out wrong.
Not only do they change their predictions as to what to expect from the climate to make it fit in with their theory ,but now have resorted to changing past data. Example, would be the HOAX HOCKEY STICK graph by MANN.
Let’s look at a second example, the sudden AEROSOL arguement, which is retarding the temperature rise. That is simply more BS, and if anything volcanic activity from 1994-2006 was more on the quiet side. Since then volcanic activity has picked up, DUE to the prolong solar minimum, and this is going to be a player in the overall cooling of the earth’s temperatures this decade. It is part of the cooling process , a prolong solar minimum brings to the earth.
Let’s look at a third example the clouds. DR. DESSLER, has concluded beyond a doubt that clouds do not cause the temperatures to change, rather the temperature change causes cloud cover to change. Yet there is just as much proof, if not more that, the clouds cause the temperature to change. Infact the whole cosmic ray theory is based on that.
CLOUDS CLOUDS
I say first of all where the clouds are, what they are composed of ,that being ice or water; ,how thick they are, how high in altitude they are , how dark they are , how vertical or horizontal they are ,probably all come into play as to how a cloud may ,or may not influence the temperatures. How anyone could know that answer to a degree of certainty the global warming side is trying to convey, given what I just said is beyond me.
ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES
This is where it is at, as far as I am concerned. Until the global warming side can explain, and prove beyond a doubt, all the past abrupt climatic changes that have taken place over earth’s history , they really have no business in trying to convey, that they have the answers, to what the future climate may be. They have NO BUSINESS, in making their asinine predictions.
My phase in theory with the sun setting the tables is the best explanation for past abrupt climatic changes because it shows a way to enter into them ,and a way to enter out of them, and it shows how thresholds can be met to cause the abrupt climatic change to come about in the first place. This also gives my phase in theory ,a much better explanation as to where the climate may be going this decade, as oppossed to the man made global warming theory, which can’t address, or explain, climate change of the past.
One must remember the models predicting the warming, are working on incomplete data, inaccurate data, and in addition cannot assimilate how the various items that might control the climate will interact with one another through certain feedbacks and chaotic/random combinations to give a certain result. They can’t do it and they never will be able to do it.
So the global warmers, can come up with all their PLOYS to try to justify their man made global warming nonsence, from the changing of their predictions ,to the changing of past data, to the changing of how past data if now effecting the climate, but in the end, because their intial PREMISE is wrong, (CO2 THROUGH POSITIVE FEEDBACKS CAUSES CLIMATE TO CHANGE) they will be proven wrong ,and it will be this decade.
Although as far as I am concerned their theory has already been proven wrong ,due to the lack of warming, no evidence of positve feebacks, and the atmopsheric circulation being more meridional, with more extremes ,not less extremses in the climate taking place.
Glad you two are talking and disagreeing like real scientists instead of this bizzaro world of editor-quitting, retraction suggesting, blog badmouthing.
Next step would be for the other side of the argument to accept somewhat what you have written and use it to make models that better correlate with observations.
+1
Not related, but interesting.
This speaks volumes! This is in 1993. Who was in office then? Obviously, someone was trying to demonize fossil fuels and CO2 BEFORE any studies were done. I wonder who commissioned the USGS to look for a link between atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuels?
USGS
“The result of the uncertainty about the global carbon budget is that predictions of future levels of atmospheric CO2 (given any future scenario of fossil fuel use) are highly uncertain”
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/highlights/co2.budget.html
Well you scientists can argue any way you wish but me a old woman living in So Cal knows what I see this country is heating up. Its heating up. Texas is burning. What a better state to burn up. Well they sure do want that oil? Destroy us for this? I think not.
Oi! Same old, same old. Nothing to see here, move along. Both sides claiming the same of each other. You hid the evidence. No, you hid the evidence. We do open science. No, we do open science. Colder. Hotter. Wetter. Drier. He is this. I am this. You are this. He is this.
1. Both sides need to stop reading ‘news’ stories. Most reporting is horrible and misrepresents any ‘science’. Both sides get pooped on by this.
2. Both sides need to stop making this always political. Soon as the labels of democrat and republican get issued, all reasonable discourse is out the window.
I’m quite tired of both sides being so ridiculous. I won’t voice my opinion on AGW because they are mine. I won’t change anyone else’s because it is no longer a rational debate. Everyone involved has zero respect for the other. Is sad.
Divided we fall.
Wow why did he not fight for us?
I wondered that
All of us poor simpletons sent so much, what we had left. Why just because us stupidly thought if we sent enough then this preacher no matter of black or white might have a way to change it. We still thought if we sent him money then he might be free of those corporate bastards and finally support us. Boy were we wrong.
Wow you idiot I guess he had millions more than you did.
Tax cuts for the rich he is one of them.
Dirty little black lier. Took money from the poor told them if you vote for him he would help you keep youre homes. What did he do?
Without the bankers I guess he just lost the next election?
No but
I have faith all the money people will finally get him reelected.
But you know what us the poor are coming for you.
We are comng for you
Texas has been warming and drying long before the white men came. It is cyclical but the long term trend is warmer and dryer. La Nina’s make for a particularly warm dry year.
We have had one La Nina last year and are starting into another.
My wife and I visited the Alamo which was one of a string of forts constructed around 1744 and it was built among other things to help the Indians cope with CLIMATE CHANGE !
The forest and the game that it had supported was vanishing and the grasslands couldn’t support a hunter gatherer culture. [At least that is what the guides said.]
The missions had little huts for the Indians who were taught how to farm.
Blaming CO2 for the drought in Texas is mentally challenged.
Surprisingly illuminating cheers, I do believe your current visitors might just want a good deal more articles along these lines maintain the great work.