Any rational person with scientific training will explain that weather is a chaotic system controlled by the supreme forces of nature and any attempt to predict future behavior or modify conditions are doomed to failure due to the magnitude of the forces involved.
And that the progressives have subverted science to push their toxic political agenda which sees a much larger, stronger central government, more dictatorial central planning, a higher portion of a person’s labor confiscated in higher taxes and consumer goods and services – and, worst of all, a continuing loss of individual freedom to make our own choices as how best to live our lives.
I, for one, am tired of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say” asshats who are pushing this clear and present danger to life in America. People who are well-insulated – by position, money, power and connections -- from the vagaries of life and from the actions they propose.
Therefore, I would like to point out how this pseudo-science creeps into legitimate discussions of everyday events until it becomes accepted as “conventional wisdom.”
From the Sacramento Bee …
“Pressure system muddles La Niña rain outlook”
“La Niña is back in control of California's weather, and like last winter, her temper seems to be flaring.”
“It's been a strange La Niña,’ said Ken Clark, a senior meteorologist at AccuWeather based in Southern California. ‘It's playing havoc with our precipitation amounts so far. We've got a lot of signs that were right on track, but the weather pattern's been kind if screwy.’"
Anthropomorphizing a weather condition as if it were a capricious sentient being rather than simply suggesting that the weather pattern is deviating from the “predictions” of the forecasters would be a more honest response. The weather is reality – what is, IS – and the fault lies within the inaccuracies and inabilities of the forecasters.
“What's screwy is a high-pressure system parked offshore of Northern California, diverting storms around the region and into Southern California instead. That's not normal La Niña stuff.”
Screwy? Is that a scientific term for when predictions are not confirmed with reality? And it a chaotic system, there is no “normal.” Where probabilities and possibilities are described by statistical terms, each with a margin or error. Again, the weather is reality and the predictions are just that – predictions based on our current and limited understanding of the underlying phenomena.
“La Niña is a periodic cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean that causes the jet stream to arc far to the north. It is a fickle phenomenon in California because the position of the jet stream determines whether the state is wet or dry in La Niña conditions.”
Fickle? Hardly a scientific term describing nature’s infinite variability in a chaotic system.
It all sounds so “scientific” …
“In Central California latitudes, including Sacramento and Lake Tahoe, the outcome is often a tossup.”
“Last winter's La Niña was wet and snowy, partly because other phenomena pressed the jet stream well south. Among them: a negative Arctic oscillation, which pushed bitter northern cold into the United States, and a periodic cooling of the North Pacific, known as the negative phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation, which amplifies a La Niña effect.”
“The Arctic influence is not in play so far this year, but the Pacific oscillation remains negative.”
“More importantly, La Niña itself is tamer than last year. The National Weather Service calls this winter's version moderate.”
The truth is that much of science is rear-facing; looking at the historical patterns and trying to impute meaning – and then using this partial understanding to create testable hypotheses about future events. The key issue being our current and partial understanding of the underlying physical processes in climate science.
“Even so, in a prediction for the December through February period, released Nov. 30, the Weather Service predicted wetter-than-normal conditions for California roughly north of Sacramento.”
Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, agrees with that prediction.
"’I would say, look for the impacts of last winter, but muted,’ he said. ‘I don't see mammoth breaking news again.’"
First, do not confuse the musing of well-credentialed scientists working at government-sponsored and well-respected institutions with credibility. Credibility only comes from the testing of hypotheses and having a high degree of correlation and confidence that the description matches the observed phenomena. Whether or not the process can be extended to accurately predict the future is often questionable. Second, my best advice is to test each of the assertions without regard to those making the assertions as science is definitely not performed by consensus.
Dr. Patzert is an oceanographer who is often called the "Prophet of California climate" by the media. “His research is focused on the application of NASA satellite data to improving our understanding of our planet's climate and important environmental problems ranging from developing El Niño, La Niña and longer-term climate forecasts to monitoring the health of coral reefs.” But it should be recognized that Dr. Patzert’s agreement with specific weather-related assertions often comes with the caveats and disclaimers that appear to keep the scientist’s work credible in the face of the unknown.
“Last year's big La Niña broke a three-year drought in California. Recent history has brought the state other big winters that falsely promised to end a drought that proved longer lasting; but forecasters don't seem worried about that yet. The state's reservoirs are still splashing with last winter's bounty, and winter hasn't even officially begun yet. That happens Dec. 22 with the winter solstice.”
Again with the anthropomorphism, nature does not promise anything – so there can be no false promises; only deviation between reality and the forecaster’s best efforts.
“Anybody brave enough to make a 10-day forecast, however, sees no break in the current cold and dry conditions.”
Bravery has no place in the recordation of observable phenomena unless you are on the precipice of an active, lava-spewing volcano or in truly hostile climates collecting data for your research. Extending a forecast beyond prudent bounds, without understanding the physical process and having verifiable supporting data is about as brave as the fortune teller explaining your future.
"’We're thinking it will be later in December and more into January and February when things really pick up,’ Clark said.”
“Once the pattern does change, officials will be bracing for the kind of extreme events that have made La Niña famous.”
“California's Central Valley has seen many of its most extreme flood emergencies during the Pacific's cool phase, not its warmer El Niño sibling. Weather experts say atmospheric rivers, of which the feared ‘Pineapple Express’ is but one variety, are more likely in La Niña years.”
This is where I should point out that climate-related emergencies result from the lack of proper prior planning by humans who tend to ignore empirical evidence of potential “extreme” weather events and put both human life and structures in harm’s way. How else can you reconcile the absurdity of rebuilding New Orleans below sea level and dependent upon man-made structures for protection? Or continually rebuilding sea-side homes when repetitive storm damage produces repetitive insurance claims – driving costs up for all insurance pool participants.
“An atmospheric river is California's version of a hurricane, the difference being that the water and wind are strung across the Pacific Ocean from the tropics like a fire hose, rather than concentrated in a swirling mass.”
A nice turn of phrase to evoke a mental image of a physical phenomena which is hardly comprehensible to the average person.
Enter the radical politics …
“Scientists say such extreme weather events are becoming more common due to climate change. It is a creeping effect that is difficult to measure, said Thomas Peterson, chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina, an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”
So what? The climate will be whatever nature dictates. The combined forces of the Sun’s output, the location of Earth with respect to the Sun, our planet’s rotational dynamics, volcanic activity and plate tectonics, the deep ocean currents, and the effects of the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapor – all tremendous forces beyond man’s capability to influence in any measurable way.
“Borrowing a metaphor from another researcher, Peterson compared it to a home-run hitter who starts taking steroids. As the drug's effect begins to take hold, you might see a slight increase in homers, but no clear pattern gives away the cause.”
A bad analogy. We can test athletes for artificial stimulants and ban their usage. There is no such ability when it comes to the weather which is presented to us mere mortals as a “take it and adapt” or “reject it and die” basis.
“Another season or two go by, however, and suddenly there's a string of home-run records to look at and you can see that a change has clearly taken place.”
Again, it is a bad analogy. One, it assumes that there is a correlation between homers and steroid use. On this basis, should we make the possibly false assumption that steroids – not improved skill, increased natural strength, ballparks and poor opponents may play a part in producing more homers? Should we tell the public we know that this correlation is true and should comprehensively test every batter who hits above .150?
“Greenhouse gases are like the steroids of the atmosphere, Peterson said, and we're only now beginning to notice the patterns.”
Let us concentrate on the known science for a moment. Greenhouse gases do not contribute to the warming of the Earth as they, in and of themselves, do not add additional energy to the climate system. If anything, they delay the cooling of the Earth during night much as a blanket helps a body retail heat during colder temperatures. This can be observed at the tropics where delayed heat and increased moisture produce muggy nights.
You can also notice the inferential tone which implies global warming is a bad thing; which is far from the truth as periods when we have experienced warmer temperatures and greater concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been extremely beneficial to mankind.
“NOAA reported last week that the nation set a record in 2011 with a dozen extreme weather events, measured as those that caused at least $1 billion in damages.”
If NOAA were a straight-up scientific organization, perhaps they should have added an observational caveat. Man’s locations of increasing density of populations is areas of weather-susceptible events is the proximate cause for larger damage costs and it is unrelated to the climate change which is normal and customary.
"’Heavy precipitation is definitely increasing. Heat waves are definitely increasing. Both are attributable to climate change,’ said Peterson. ’We are changing the weather. Absolutely.’"
Someone should provide Peterson with a dose of reality.
One, weather is constantly changing and infinitely variable. With or without man’s permission or puny inputs.
Two, the fact that weather is not better understood or predictable by forecasters is a human failing. Nature is what nature is.
Three, there will be periods of greater storm activity just as there will be periods of lesser storm activitiy. Using past data, much of which is inaccurate or highly manipulated by researchers, there is proof only that the weather is variable.
Four, it is normal and customary to see a rise in temperatures as the Earth exits the Little Ice Age. And such rising temperatures are likely to warm the oceans and produce the type of outgassing of dissolved carbon dioxide as to raise the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So nature is what nature is.
And five, there is no absolute proof that we are changing the weather – as any signal of manmade activity is obscured by the natural variability of the climate pattern itself. Anyone who makes such absolute assertions is either a fool or disingenuous about his personal, professional and political agenda.
Bottom line …
Corrupt individuals are trying to sell the American public on allowing draconian changes to our capitalist system, government operations and way of life based on speculative science promoted by a very small cadre of committed scientist/activists whose reputations and continued livelihood depend on upholding a scientific fiction to support the politicians who fund their activities.
We are seeing the unprecedented corruption of the media, government, politicians and science. We need to repeal, reform and restore that which is what makes us Americans and not some unexceptional third-world banana republic.
2012 is rapidly approaching and if mankind is doomed, it will be from the political choices now being made and not the climate.
-- steve
Reference Links:
Pressure system muddles La Niña rain outlook - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee
NASA: Meet Dr. William Patzert