Guest post by Joe Bastardi
I did not say boo at some of the “shoot the messenger posts” on my “Say No to El Nino”, including one person who wanted to throw out everything I said simply because of my writing style. For the record, I excelled at my technical writing courses in college, but I had a week to prepare a paper.
In the blogs, which I shared a post with you all on this matter, I try to get info out lightning fast, which is what I did with the No no to Nino post. I realize my writing is less than perfect, ( my dad actually “corrects” my writing, there are stacks of blogs at home with more red ink than the national budget) but it doesnt take a genius to see the forecast was made, and anyone objective about it can see the modeling is turning my way. And with good reason, that is what is going to happen ( the cold event will strengthen again, much like late 2008 into 2009, but not to the extent of the first part in 10-11).
This is what happens in cold pdo’s, there tends to be longer cold events, and it has an effect on the global temp. BTW the AMO may turn cold next year and we may have a cold AMO/PDO for the first time since the 1970s. 2012 globally could average below normal.
In any case, keep an eye on this and see if I am correct, okay?.. The SST will fall, as it did in the cold event of 08-09 back to levels that will spur even a greater global temp drop. The forecast for a return to normal for the spring of last year was right, there was a bounce up, that will also end, and the forecast now is for global temps as measured by objective sats to fall as low as -.25 C by March. And the models are now showing it, both the fall of ENSO3.4 temps and global temps.
But the point was to again call attention to the Hansen super nino idea because he knows there is a global temp response to warmer after a warm event. And he keeps doing this, ( this will be number 3 since the 97-98 event.) The very fact he does is an admission that it is the ocean, absent solar and volcanic activity, that drives the global temp. In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.
But there is major disconnect now between CO2’s continued rise and the overall leveling off of the temp, and the response to the global temp to the enso3.4 antics and the PDO overall is there for all to be seen.
So get out the red pens, you Bastardi Bashers and let the public know about my less than perfect off the cuff writing skills. In the meantime, people of goodwill in this debate are watching to see what right or wrong is, and certainly the article written before expressing where this was going has more merit than the wishful thinking of someone wishing to see pre-conceived global temperature notions come to pass.
Just Say No to El Nino, at least till 2012
Joe, hope you keep dropping posts here. Like reading them and they are pretty accurate, such as the tornado forecasts before you went behind the paywall.
Joe, I don’t agree with you on many points but I can’t help but to like your style. You seem so focused on the oceans, which makes sense for your background as a weather forecaster, but to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.
Also, you look to be scoring a big miss on your arctic sea ice forecast for this melt season, and I think the reason is that your assumptions are wrong about the longer-term warming going on up there. Lots of warmth and melting going on, and it has nothing to do with ocean cycles as this one isn’t going to cycle back up, as the warmth is part of something not seen before on this planet…i.e. Anthropogenic climate change.
I had an idea for a “How much do you really know about Global warming” website – it would take the form of a quiz with all the questions leading the uninitaited towards the propaganda but then revealing the truth (with refs) each time they got a question wrong.
I say this because there was a recent study that showed only about 10% of people know that Carbon Dioxide is actually only 390 parts per million – some respondents thought it wa as much as 300,000 parts
nice job
Darren, I like that idea. But get rid of “really” from the title. That would give them a heads up.
Joe Bastardi wrote:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Can you elaborate on the nature of these arguments?
There will be an El Nino this year and I believe Hansen has called it.
Joe… Maybe you shouldn’t be such a hotdog because it makes you look really bad when you’re wrong.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
What Arctic warming, where ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
I don’t see no Arctic warming.
I see an Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly climbing back up the same way it got down:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Good meteorologists are like good mechanics: they don’t grow on trees.
Joe does his work the old fashioned way, which is why you should show a little more respect and put the AGW theories aside. Enjoy Joe’s accuracy in long-range forecasting, it’s the best you’re going to get.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
but to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.
======================================
Yeah Joe, and you missed the swaths of dead polar bears over the past decade (regardless of cause), all across the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to the increased albedo too.
Keep it up Gatesy. It’s so kind of you to keep us up to date on the “story”. You are a poor man’s Joel though. He could quantify the crap he spouted.
R. Gates says: “…increase in sulfur aerosols…arctic sea ice…not seen before on this planet…”
Still spouting the party line, eh, Gates?
Thanks Joe! Many of us value your solid reasoning and forthright predictions. I’ll take it to heart… and keep adding to the firewood pile. Keep up the good work!
Here’s one for the Climate Change pop quiz:
I have a box. It’s filled with normal air. The box is just big enough that it contains 1 co2 molecule, at the present rate of 390 ppm co2. How many other molecules are in the box?
a.) 100
b.) 50
c.) 2,564
d.) 390
Look out for February-March 2013.
Never under estimate a 105 day dual planetary rift (one at sea, one on land)…
After the sun shines again 600 days later and when the tropospheric oxygen level drops 20% in the 1st 80 days, it’ll be a cool breeze with snow cover where it usually isn’t and we’ll say hello to the kick off of the next glaciation cycle.
Cheers:)
Good to hear from you Joe again. Hope you will follow-up with an update.
Best wishes,
William
R. Gates,
Keep in touch. The arctic cooling will follow.
AWG warming is predicted to be strongest at lower latitudes not in the high arctic. The warming in the high arctic is in accordance with Svensmark’s mechanism. Solar cycle 24 is a move towards either a Dalton type minimum or a Maunder minimum.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Also, you look to be scoring a big miss on your arctic sea ice forecast for this melt season, and I think the reason is that your assumptions are wrong about the longer-term warming going on up there. Lots of warmth and melting going on, and it has nothing to do with ocean cycles as this one isn’t going to cycle back up, as the warmth is part of something not seen before on this planet…i.e. Anthropogenic climate change.
========================
Gates, your ankle-biting approach of trying to steer a thread another direction is an order of magnitude worse than any potential catastrophic warming that may occur in the Arctic.
And BTW…you can show no evidence (NONE) that it has “nothing to do with ocean cycles”.
We don’t know jack about “ocean cycles.”
We don’t know jack about arctic ice cycles….except for about 30 years of satellite measurement….which is a drop in the bucket and hardly spans a cycle of those “ocean cycles” that you suddenly (as always) seem to know so much about.
Anyways….that is not the topic of this thread…so take your ankle-biting gloating elsewhere, please.
Joe B. Great post. I love your writing style. Very stream of consciousness…but technical too. That is why I pay to follow you from Accuweather and now Weatherbell as to I want to know what you are thinking about the long range.
Keep up the good work….and keep speaking your mind.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
@Oakden Wolf says: July 22, 2011 at 10:36 pm
“Joe Bastardi wrote:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Can you elaborate on the nature of these arguments?”
Let’s give Joe a hand here, “Oakden Wolf”.
How about awareness of past temperature variability and common sense?
That seems to fit!
I do realise that thermageddonist trolls don’t do either.
To Martin Brumby:
It’s not common sense if there are causative factors that provide an alternate hypothesis to be tested.
“Brian says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Joe… Maybe you shouldn’t be such a hotdog because it makes you look really bad when you’re wrong.”
Yeah Joe, it’s almost like you’re doing science, making a falsifiable prediction then observing nature to see whether you were right. Thank Christ the climate science fraternity don’t do that.
R Bateman wrote: I have a box. It’s filled with normal air. The box is just big enough that it contains 1 co2 molecule, at the present rate of 390 ppm co2. How many other molecules are in the box?
If the box is ‘just big enough’ for one molecule, there can’t possibly be any other molecules in it DOH!!!!
rbateman says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Here’s one for the Climate Change pop quiz:
I have a box. It’s filled with normal air. The box is just big enough that it contains 1 co2 molecule, at the present rate of 390 ppm co2. How many other molecules are in the box?
————————————————————
I explain it this way, imagine Wembley FA Cup Final , United v Liverpool (or Arsenal v Spurs) with 90,000 crowd. How many people represent the CO2 before industrialisation?
Answer about 22 which equals the two teams
How many people now?
About 34 we’ve added the substitutes. Poor old Kenny Dalglish and Sir Alex aren’t included.
Then you add that Nitrogen represents about 70000 fans, Oxygen less than 19000, Argon about 900 and the rest including Methane about 60 people.
Most people (in the UK) can visualise that.
Oakden Wolf says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Joe Bastardi wrote:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Can you elaborate on the nature of these arguments?>>>
Well, you could start with NASA/GISS temperature records showing a steady warming trend since the early 1800’s, or with HadCrut temperature records showing a steady warming trend since the early 1800’s, or the MET temperature records showing a steady warming trend since the 1800’s, or historical records of harvest dates in Europe and elsewhere showing a steady warming trend since the early 1800’s, or historical records of spring breakup on rivers and lakes showing a steady warming trend since the early 1800’s….
Are we good now? Or do you need some evidence from computer models instead?
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Joe, I don’t agree with you on many points but I can’t help but to like your style. You seem so focused on the oceans, which makes sense for your background as a weather forecaster>>>
What’s your background R. Gates? Fiction writer? Scripts for television commercials selling soap? Or maybe snake oil dressed up as soap? Or maybe snake oil dressed up as snake oil?
Joe gets paid for predicting weather, he gets paid a lot, and that’s because he’s very, Very, VERY good at it. What do you get paid for? Joe explains how he comes to his conclusions with facts, figures, and logic. You dismiss his opinion by suggesting his view of things is limited to his skills as a forecaster. You throw in a comment about his having missed the effects of aerosols as if you were some authority on the subject, with nary a fact, figure, or logical explanation attached to it.
So pick one R. Gates. Back your comment up with your background and credentials, or back your comment up with facts, figures, and logical explanations.
…..I changed my mind. Keep doing what you’re doing. There’s only so many warmists left willing to spout nonsense in a public forum. You’re comments are mildly amusing, but they are a good reminder of how much ado can be made out of nothing in the hands of a decent writer, and some of the rebuttals are downright hilarious.
SandyInDerby says: “I explain it this way, imagine Wembley FA Cup Final , United v Liverpool (or Arsenal v Spurs) with 90,000 crowd. How many people represent the CO2…now? About 34 we’ve added the substitutes. Poor old Kenny Dalglish and Sir Alex aren’t included. Then you add that Nitrogen represents about 70000 fans, Oxygen less than 19000, Argon about 900 and the rest including Methane about 60 people.”
Wot about the water vapour?
Hello Joe,
Thank you for posting here on WUWT.
Even though this is an award winning science blog, I don’t think you made the science behind your projection clear when you stated “Just Say No to El Nino, at least till 2012”.
It is fairly clear that you obtained this from Hansen et al 2010, who already projected a new El Nino not to occur before 2012.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
The 12 month run-ning mean global temperature in 2010 has reached a new record level for the period of instrumental data. It is likely that the 12 month mean will begin to decline in the second
half of 2010. The subsequent minimum in the 12 month running mean is likely to be in 2011-2012 and not as deep as the 2008 minimum. The next maximum, likely to be in
2012-2014, will probably bring a new record global temperature because of the underlying warming trend.”
However, where you suggest that “2012 globally could average below normal”, Hansen et al 2010 suggests that 2012 until 2014 could bring a new global record high.
Now I understand that you mention “could” rather than “will probably”.
I also realize that you mention “below normal”.
So, can you please define for us what “normal” is, and how confident are you that “2012 globally could average below normal” ?
Is that a ‘convinced’ or a ‘pretty confident’ or a ‘I have no clue and I am just guessing like the rest of you’ sort of confidence ?
Oakden Wolf says:
July 22, 2011 at 11:39 pm
To Martin Brumby:
It’s not common sense if there are causative factors that provide an alternate hypothesis to be tested.
Give us your causative factors then !!! aside that it was very cold in the 1600 and 1700s and it has warmed steadily since.
Oceans are 75%of the globe’s surface, they absorb lot of energy, radiate as much, but not at the same time and at the same place. It is this transported energy from a place of acquisition to the place of release which is the key to the natural causes of climate change. Understanding of the ocean currents, and specifically when and where and how the thermohaline circulation changes its intensity, should be the foundation of any climate change research.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
David Leigh – I think you need to reread the box of air with 1 Co2 molecule question! The answer depends on the molecules of Co2 being evenly spaced in the atmosphere, but if that’s assumed, then 1 of the answers given is almost right (subtract 1 to get the right answer).
Gates bashers . . . I think it’s great that Anthony is happy to have dissenting posters on here. The more the merrier. They help to keep us focussed on the evidence and to keep us thinking about our own opinions. The collision of opinions, engaged in honestly, helps us refine our own – or abandon them if need be . . . long it may continue.
davidmhoffer says: July 23, 2011 at 12:04 am
Joe Bastardi wrote:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Not in the month of June in jolly ol’ England
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
and for the rest just a tiny bit warmer then in the 1730’s (I’d say well within margin of error of the old measurements).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
Here’s an illustration of the quiz question:
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………….’
The apostrophe at the end is CO2; the rest isn’t. Ratio is 1 to 2564; that equals 390 parts per million.
R Bateman – it took me a while, but I set up a box (it’s quite small) that was just the right size. It contains normal air, and just one of the molecules in it is CO2. It took me a while to count them all (I went through them really carefully and I don’t think I missed any), and I can only find 2,563 non-CO2 molecules. That’s not in your multiple-choices.
Dr. John M. Ware says: July 23, 2011 at 2:20 am
Here’s an illustration of the quiz question:
…..’
The apostrophe at the end is CO2; the rest isn’t. Ratio is 1 to 2564; that equals 390 parts per million.
Careful with all of those apostrophes Dr. Ware, you just caused my computer monitor to warm up. I don’t think my system can take much more.
🙂
Good persrective there John Ware,
Mr Gates believes that this trace invisible gas wafting around in the air above the waves,somehow, through some “back radiation” warms the water beneath more than the sun would normally do so. You’ve got to be extremely thick or just looney to concieve of that.
I wonder which Mr Gates is.
Joe missed one crucial argument here:
“But there is major disconnect now between CO2′s continued rise and the overall leveling off of the temp”
As Monckton loves to point out, even by the IPCC’s own calculations, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. For a long time we’ve been past the sharp-increase part of the log curve and onto the leveling-off part of the curve. The Carbon Cult’s steady insistence that CO2’s effect must be linear or exponential runs directly against a basic fact that they admit to knowing. Sort of like casually mentioning that 2 + 2 = 4 in an article “proving” that 2 + 2 = 543,901,693,097.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
“Joe, I don’t agree with you on many points but I can’t help but to like your style.”
You’re a typical warmist Gates.
You don’t agree but fail to produce the arguments so as a last resort you tell a guy with an incredible track record of short, medium and long term weather forecasts that you don’t agree with him but “like his style”.
Either you come up with hard fact arguments explaining at at what points you don’t agree with Bastardi or you “Foxtrot Oscar”.
rbateman says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Here’s one for the Climate Change pop quiz:
I have a box. It’s filled with normal air. The box is just big enough that it contains 1 co2 molecule, at the present rate of 390 ppm co2. How many other molecules are in the box?
a.) 100
b.) 50
c.) 2,564
d.) 390
2,564.102564102564
Here’s a thing that has always amused me. We all know most of the heat energy in the earth system resides in the oceans – something to do with thermal capacity or some such. So if the atmosphere is showing a warming ‘anomaly’ seems to me that this must needs mean that heat energy has passed from the ocean to the atmosphere and from there it has nowhere to go but into space. So when like 1998 we have an El Nino spike in global surface temperatures the earth system is actually cooling. How cool is that!
Dr. John M. Ware says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:20 am
Here’s an illustration of the quiz question:
The apostrophe at the end is CO2; the rest isn’t. Ratio is 1 to 2564; that equals 390 parts per million.
I touched it and it’s definately getting hotter!
Mr Gates also believes that this “radiative forcing” from the trace gas somehow steps up to the plate with the convection forces generated by the earth’s rotation. More crackpot thinking?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Not in the month of June in jolly ol’ England
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
and for the rest just a tiny bit warmer then in the 1730’s (I’d say well within margin of error of the old measurements).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm>>>
One month of the year in one coutry invalidates the whole world data set? C-mon. Thats R Gates level logic. As for the temp since the early 1700’s, I believe the quote was in regard to the last two hundred years, not three hundred.
Much mention is made of late about aerosols this century. Has the rate of aerosol production per ton of CO2 changed from the 1990s to 2000s?
rbateman says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Here’s one for the Climate Change pop quiz:
____________
My comment: Interesting how plants can locate that lonely CO2 molecule in about 2500, gobble it up and have a full and satisfying meal. But life must have been harder back in the “good old days” when it was colder and one in about 3500 molecules was food. 500 ppm would only be one CO2 molecule in 2000. Remember, if plants eat good so do we. Don’t like warmer? Move north. Or just stay where you are. Colder may be coming to you.
Note: I am assuming, that like myself, people know where to get the objective global satellite temperatures. May I suggest a visit to Dr. Roy Spencer’s site about the 10th of every month where he posts it.
As for NASA/GISS and the temperature record, if you keep adjusting temps down BEFORE the satellite era, as they have been doing, of course it looks warmer. Anthony’s look at how bad the temp measurements with surface instrumentation is now shows that. I don’t think many on the side of AGW understand how hot it really was in the 30s through 50s here in the US, and I suspect globally, buy we could not measure it objectively like we can now. . I say suspect because the reporting from other areas was poor at best then.
Look this is getting to be silly. Seriously. Its not Brain Surgery, and I dont know why this
is even argued about ( the test of right and wrong I have set up) But let me again state how this works: We have had an objective way of measuring temperatures since the late 70s. Temps moved up for 20 years, have leveled off the last 10-15. The pdo flipped to warm in the late 70s, the atlantic in the 90s. Its stands to reason that would warm the atmosphere above. The PDO is now cold, the atlantic will head that way, so it should cool in the same jagged way it warmed before. WE CAN NOW MEASURE THIS FROM START TO FINISH! Temps before the satellite era are suspect relative to the satellite era, which are superior Its a very easy hypothesis to test the next 20-30 years. What is so darn hard, or non science about that? Why is that hard for some of you to see?. If the cold pdo and soon to be cold amo result in the fall of temps by 2030 back to where we were in the late 70s, then we would have gone through a warm/cold cycle with an OBJECTIVE measuring tool, and we have our answer. In the meantime, there is no el nino coming on and quite the contrary, there is increasing model agreement that in the ‘NORMAL” cold PDO fashion, this cold event will
come back again, though not as strong as the first part of it. ITS THE NASA MODEL THAT WENT THROUGH THE ROOF WITH A STRONG NINO FOR THIS WINTER. There is where Hansens Hope came from. The response 6-12 months later would have been the global temp spike which would put 2012 temps up and this is what Hansen was hoping for. He doesn’t understand, as Joe D’Aleo has shown, that in cold PDOs’ la ninas last an average of 21 months, and the warm
episodes are less than a year. The very act of enso warming in a cold PDO invites its own destruction. In warm PDO’s the opposite is true.
By the way, the best model I have seen over the past 3 years is from the Frontier Research Center, if you wish to take a look at that. But YOU HAVE TO GO DO THE WORK YOURSELF.
There is nothing here that is not easy to see. I assume the people in this debate are watching the way I am, but some of the comments asking me for this and that indicate to me that it is not the case. If it is not, then why bash me before you have looked at all the evidence? . More important, why are you in a debate where you seem to not know where to look for data that may challenge your own ideas? i am constantly looking at sites that challenge mine since I know, and can refute the other argument, then I know I am right. If I cant, then I have to change mine. But this is a simple test of a very simple theory. So how does it raise so much ire? It is or it isnt, we will find out over the coming 2 decades
its out there for you to see, and I assumed people have been watching this, so the update was written for those familiar enough to know where to see these things. I guess I thought everyone knew where the data sources were.
Okay, I am done with this for now, In 3 months, lets see if this is coming back on enough for all to see, though I suspect even if it is, someone will find something that calls into question the validity of the forecast and result
“rbateman says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm”
Great post, puts the whole thing in to perspective. I posted this quiz on my FB page, hope you don’t mind (Permission saught after the event I know) but I think more people need to see this side of the debate. All we hear in Australia is emissions measured in tonnes and emissions per capita, Australia being the worst emitter (So the Govn’t says).
Joe says:
Can someone clue me in on what Hansen’s super nino idea is?
Anyway, it looks like Joe is going to be right about no nina until 2012. In his original post, back in April, he included a CFS forecast graph. It showed a predicted anomaly hovering just below zero. The current graph found on the ENSO reference page is quite different and shows the anomaly well below zero until April 2012 (which is as far as it shows). http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/
jorgekafkazar says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:50 pm
R. Gates says: “…increase in sulfur aerosols…arctic sea ice…not seen before on this planet…”
Still spouting the party line, eh, Gates?
——
Didn’t know there was party line…oh, unless you mean peer- reviewed scientific research. Yeah, I guess I don’t have any problem “spouting” that.
But specific to the aerosol issue and their measured increase over the past decade (and their associated effect on global temperatures), here’s a few thoughts to consider and why I think Joe is off on this one in regards to his forecasts:
1. The aerosols have shorter- term impacts than some longer-term ocean cycle that Joe is looking to begin cooling the NH and begin a sea ice “recovery”.
2. The aerosols probably have multiple sources of origin, each impacting different layers of the atmosphere such that volcanic activity, industrial sources, and even GCR’s, all could be contributing with different effects for each.
R. Gates says:
“to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.”
You’re quite right, and as AW pointed out in his July 18 post, “New NASA paper contradicts Kaufmann et al saying it’s volcanoes, not China coal,” NASA itself says “we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes.”
No AGW here, R. Sorry, keep moving…
Dear Mr. Bastardi,
could you elaborate on your view of the current sea ice extent?
I am very much not in the CO2-camp, however, I remember you making forecasts as far back as 1.5-2 years that you expected this year to stay above 2005 levels.
The current Jaxa graph makes this seem unlikely; could you explain, from your point of view, what happened?
Sincerely,
acob
Quick question for Mr Gates, What fraction of that apostrophe is man-made (as if there were such a thing) co2?
Gates!
Why don’t say what you mean? Don’t you mean Catastrophic Global Warming? Please go easy on the euphemism.
Hey Joe,
Big fan. But brother, you wear your heart on your sleeve too much. Who cares that some random bean head doesn’t like the way you write? Life is too short. You’re never going to prove your worth to everyone in the world, not should you have to.
Pick your battles more wisely.
@ Dr. John M. Ware says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:20 am
[“The apostrophe at the end is CO2; the rest isn’t. Ratio is 1 to 2564; that equals 390 parts per million.”]
Please, Dr John, whatever you do, don’t add another apostrophe! According to the IPCC, you’ll increase global temperature by ‘best guess’ 3 deg C… 🙂 This would be utterly irresponsible.
Dr. John M. Ware says: on July 23, 2011 at 2:20 am
“Here’s an illustration of the quiz question:……………..”
Loved the illustration! You might consider switching the apostrophe out for a picture of Al Gore so he can use it in his upcoming event.
I don’t understand the arrogance among the “global warmers” not to at admit their predictions thus far are way off. If they were a little more objective would they not at least seek to acknowledge other factors that control climate more than Co2. I don’t see how anyone could look at this graph & not concede to the fact that the oceans are at one of the main, if not the main, contributor to our planets weather:
http://www.nocapandtrade.us/images/PDO-AMO_Earth%27sTemp.jpg
I’m not a scientist or meteorologist…just a weather lover that has diligently studied weather with fascination for the last 25yrs. So, I’m not an expert but if that graph is accurate then case is closed…slam dunk!! Oceans steer the climate in a BIG way!
And if this graph is accurate:
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/7Temp2001-2008_lg.jpg
…then Co2 looks not to be much of an influence on earth’s temps, considering it is at an all-time high with the earth’s temps not following. Someone correct me from my stupidity if I’m wrong, but do so without the “aerosol” argument & I’ll listen.
Thanks for your explanations, Joe. It’s quite obvious that what you state is based on facts and observations. There are a few posters here, especially R.Gates, who will blindly toe the AGW mantra and use any specious ad spurious argument to justify any small point relating to AGW. Don’t lose sleep over them. They are mindless syncophants who will not recognise facts or science even if it brought to them on a plate with watercress around it, borrowing from the favourite analogy of P.G.Wodehouse.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
“Joe, I don’t agree with you on many points but I can’t help but to like your style. You seem so focused on the oceans, which makes sense for your background as a weather forecaster, but to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.”
The people who now point at Chinese aerosols to save their beloved CO2 caused Global Warming theory should explain how the Warsaw pact states, Russia, Poland, GDR etc. before 1990 with their very old and polluting factories and power plants have NOT managed to stop so called Antropogenic Global Warming in the 1980ies. Are modern Chinese aerosols different from old Russian aerosols, one would like to know.
It makes no sense; aerosols have been used as the wildcard to save the GCM hindcasting since the first GCM model run. Without it, climate modeling can’t keep the scientific facade up; the emperor has no clothes; it’s all bunk and a waste of taxpayer money.
David Leigh says:
July 22, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Read the question again. ‘rate’ is a key word.
Mike Jonas says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:42 am
I had to make the results match that which simple division would accomplish: 1,000,000 / 390 and drop the fraction.
Don’t forget that the temperature rise caused by the CO2 is supposed to kick off all these other positive feedback systems, causing the temps to rise even more. I always think of it as CO2 being the match that lights the acetylene torch: the match only takes you so far, but kicks off the more energetic event.
Anyway, according to their theory, the temps should still be rising due to these feedbacks, yet they nowhere seem to be in evidence. The places the alarmists claim to be warming the most are those where the instrumentation is thinnest on the ground, and so models do most of the “warming” there.
I was just struck with the thought recently that if the earth was cooling in the same gentle rate that it’s been warming the last 200 years, would the alarmists propose that we burn more fossil fuels to raise the atmospheric CO2, or would they propose adaptation instead?
Patrick Davis says:
July 23, 2011 at 5:36 am
Go for it. I’ve got more of these, and like Joe says, make people think & look for themselves.
You are standing at the beach, it’s 1950, noon, and the ocean is dead calm, the moon is full. The water in this spot just touches the bottom of your feet.
You come back 60 years later, standing in the same spot, noon, the moon is full. Which of the following is the most likely place the water will now be?
a.) at your nose
b.) at your ankles.
c.) at the top of the lifeguard station next to you.
d.) at the bottom of your feet.
2,564.102564102564 total molecules minus the one CO2 molecule equals 2,563.102564102564 other molecules. But that assumes the 390 is exact.
I hope Joe is wrong about the similarity with 2008-09 or maybe the cold we experienced that winter in northern New England will go further south and hover over the mid-Atlantic so others can enjoy the cold temperatures. In January 2009 we experienced a week of bitter cold with temperatures reported as low as -42F in Vermont and New Hampshire and -50F at Black River Maine. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/the-pain-in-maine/ We had no January thaw, in fact no thaw at all until late-March. In fact, since 2000 we have had a string of cold and snowy winters except for 2009-10. Maybe the arctic warmth will come down here this winter.
Joe, like Moncton has style making them easy ‘attack the messenger targets’. As AGW follows the path of eugenics and other populist junk science into the dust bin of history books will be written and the messengers will be remembered. Joe, your a poet and a hero.
Thanks Joe, always interesting, thought provoking and brain stimulating.
Penn State was good…………….. once.
Good post Joe, thanks!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ is a good place to go finding climate data.
I do my best at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
d.) at the bottom of your feet.
commieBob says: “Can someone clue me in on what Hansen’s super nino idea is?”
Steve Goddard had a post about it last week:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/hansen-on-the-super-el-nino/
Further discussed by Pielke Sr., a number of years ago:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/comments-on-the-jim-hansen-spuper-el-nino-prediction/
That’s the only “Super El Nino” prediction made by Hansen that I’m aware of, so I’m not sure what Joe Bastardi is referring to with his statement, “And he [Hansen] keeps doing this, ( this will be number 3 since the 97-98 event.) “
Hey Gates,
You nor anyone else has any idea what ice extent was like before 1979. Making confident statements such that what we see today has never happened is idiotic. It’s why I am skeptical, because an open mind can’t make such a statement.
@davidmhoffer says: July 23, 2011 at 4:43 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
David
If CO2 is the driving force underpinning temperature change, presumably it works in June, or is the theory that CO2 drives temperature increase but not in the month of June!
The second graph referred to in the post suggests that the rate of warming over 50 years in the 1700s is the same as the rate of warming for 50 years since the 1960s. Obviously, the warming that occurred in the 1700s was not due to manmade CO2 emissions and one can see that recent increases in CO2 concentrations (whether due to manmade emission or due to some other factor, eg., possible natural outgassing with a lag from earlier warming) has not increased the rate of change in temperature increase; the rate of change in the late 1900s is the same as that observed in the 1700s and hence there is no unprecedented rate of change in warming.
.
Whether CET is a good metric for ‘global’ measurements is debatable. Obviously, the UK is surrounded by ocean and CET is no doubt influenced by ocean temperatures. Since the dominant weather fronts tend to come fom the Atlantic, CET is a good metric for Atlantic temperatures in northern lattitudes. Irrespective of this, the AGW theory needs to explain why CET/Atlantic warmed in the 1700s as suggested in the data sets referred to.
@R Gates
The AGW narrative is now looking like a puppet, for which your sulfur aerosols and CO2 are two controlling strings. The puppet can be made to dance in any way you choose by differentially pulling these two strings. Are temps increasing? Pull the CO2 string! Are they declining? Then pull the other one!
Mmm,
M. Bastardi, the point is that your previous projections weren’t really convincing. Like the prediction that arctic sea ice would return this year to the levels seen in 2005-2006 or that we would have, in 2011, global temperatures close to those of the 70ies.
In this case, the model runs have been predictng la nada/slightly la nina conditions for a few months. So I think what you’re syaing here is just agreeing with what these models said before. If so, in what is it contradicting the AGW theory? I don’t get it, really. Can somenone help?
Some years ago quite a number of prominent geophysicists jumped into the AGW debate by trying to reconstruct past climate from borehole temperature data–more about this in a moment. My college dissertation advisor told me during one of my occasional visits, that borehole data in the Western U.S. convinced he and his collaborators at the time, that the recent temperature rise noted in boreholes was a climb out of a cold period that ended about 1850. I liked this conclusion because it is a statement consistent with the data that does not stretch the interpretation of borehole temperature data too far. He soon came under the influence of a post-doc highly commited, I’d say, to AGW, and went over the edge.
During the late 1990s to early 2000s a number of research groups published their interpretations of borehole studies that were guided principally by a belief in AGW and seemed intended to buttress the theory. Some of this work was just plain silly, and I attempted at the time to point out its circular logic. It is exceptionally difficult to “invert” borehole temperatures into temperature histories because thermal diffusion is a dissipation process. It is the clearest example of the meaning of irreversibility per the second law of thermodynamics that I can think of. Moreover, more factors than just surface air temperature affect borehole temperature, and there is no way to account for these other factors. Thankfully such analyses have just about vanished from the professional literature, but a number of environmental groups continue to push them.
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Joe, I don’t agree with you on many points but I can’t help but to like your style. You seem so focused on the oceans, which makes sense for your background as a weather forecaster, but to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.
R Gates,
The aerosols during the 1980’s and 1990’s were higher than during the 2000’s so thats why not mentioned the myth of increased sulfur aerosols. I have debunked this idea with actual data shown in the previous post last on this topic.
davidmhoffer says: July 23, 2011 at 4:43 am
One month of the year in one coutry invalidates the whole world data set? C-mon. Thats R Gates level logic.
How about whole of the summer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
Many of the people pontificating on the global warming hardly have idea what is going on in the real climate. The CET is the real climate component, the global temperatures are not!
It is winters that got warmer, and the summers until the 1990s got actually colder by a fraction. In the North Atlantic winters are controlled by the ‘Icelandic low’, the principal component of the NA pressure system (the NAO), moving the polar jet stream into blocking position.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WPd.htm
The NAO system is currently moving into negative territory, so the winters’ upward trend has ended at least for a decade.
I’ll leave Gates to look after himself.
Joe Bastardi wrote:
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Maybe Joe Bastardi was referring to Syun-Ichi Akasofu
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/stories/pdf/akasofu-lia-2010.pdf
“On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, USA; sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu
Received 28 July 2010; revised 30 August 2010; accepted 3 September 2010.
ABSTRACT
A number of published papers and openly avail-able data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important im-plications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested, on the basis of a much longer period data, that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its re-covery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from the present global warm-ing/cooling trend.”
Isn’t it interesting the R. Gates now believes that Chinese pollution is responsible for the lack of warming but denies the Chinese pollution might have anything to do with Arctic ice melting. What do they call it when someone maintains two conflicting beliefs …
As for the Arctic sea ice … I suspect Joe was simply assuming the La Nina would lead to an increase in ice extent. He got the prediction of the La Nina correct, it was the extrapolation that will likely be wrong. If we look at the sea ice from when the PDO switched to the warm mode it took around 20 years before substantial melting occurred. This is most likely due to the ice thickness. Well, that thickness is now gone and will take some time to increase. If my view is correct it will take many years before we see any major increase in sea ice extent.
phlogiston says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:17 am
@R Gates
The AGW narrative is now looking like a puppet, for which your sulfur aerosols and CO2 are two controlling strings. The puppet can be made to dance in any way you choose by differentially pulling these two strings. Are temps increasing? Pull the CO2 string! Are they declining? Then pull the other one!
____
Then you would ascribe to the notion that the climate is simply a random walk? We should simply stop trying to look for causes, and accept this random walk?
This would probably suit the skeptics quite well…”we can’t figure it out, it’s too complex, and it’s all pretty much random anyway.”
The physics behind the climate forcings of both aerosols and greenhouse gases are well understood. The only thing to be discovered related to the build-up of aerosols over the past decade seems to be their exact sources, which are most likely multiple.
It seems to me the skeptical “narrative” is based on a strange combination of conservative politics, fear of those “leftist” greenies (with Al Gore and Jim Hansen as their leaders) wanting to take over the world, a mistrust of science as currently practiced, a and belief that we “puny” humans can’t possibly alter something on a global scale, etc.
Joe B’s.narrative fits into this quite well, as he never mentions the potential impacts of humans on both weather and climate (though he is far less qualified to talk about climate).
Surely the impact of Chinese aerosol has more structure to it than just decreasing global temperature. It stands to reason that the effect should be most pronounced within China, and its influence to expand outward, with diminishing impact per greater distance, from there. It also must be true that the concentration of such aerosols must precede the temperature changes they are said to cause. The same is true of all other causes is it not? All causes have more structure than just moving global temperature one way or another, and this “structure” is an important part of establishing cause and effect. Yet, people are fixated on global mean temperature. Please show me, someone, that China lead the way into the present “cooling” or leveling-off of temperature rise over the past decade.
Richard M says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
Isn’t it interesting the R. Gates now believes that Chinese pollution is responsible for the lack of warming but denies the Chinese pollution might have anything to do with Arctic ice melting. What do they call it when someone maintains two conflicting beliefs …
As for the Arctic sea ice … I suspect Joe was simply assuming the La Nina would lead to an increase in ice extent. He got the prediction of the La Nina correct, it was the extrapolation that will likely be wrong. If we look at the sea ice from when the PDO switched to the warm mode it took around 20 years before substantial melting occurred. This is most likely due to the ice thickness. Well, that thickness is now gone and will take some time to increase. If my view is correct it will take many years before we see any major increase in sea ice extent.
____
Richard M., please stop speaking as to what I do or don’t believe. Please give one quote from me when I said Chinese pollution has NOTHING to do with Arctic ice melting…
You can’t because I never said it.
And as far as Joe being wrong about Arctic ice recovery, you can make all the excuses you want for Joe being wrong (claiming he thought the La Nina would increase the effect). Even a basic review of the research would have shown him that there is no correlation between a short-term La Nina and the longer-term direction that Arctic Sea ice is headed. Then you say, well, the PDO,is shifting and that’s what we really need to look at.
Joe’s (and yours) refusal to accept the notion that the additional forcing from CO2 and related positive feedbacks even COULD be causing the longer-term warming of the Arctic is the reason why his extrapolation is incorrect. He’s got his science wrong.
R. Gates claims: “The physics behind the climate forcings of both aerosols and greenhouse gases are well understood.”
So, why is it we never hear about the physics that leads to the cooling effect of GHGs? Why do we only hear about the physics that has a warming effect? You’ve ignored this question in the past. How can you claim to be skeptical when you ignore basic physics?
Joe, you must ignore the trolls. We, the vast majority of readers here, have no problem with your writing style. But more importantly, we love your content.
R. gates, first you say you do believe the Chinese pollution does affect Arctic melting and then you say it’s CO2. So, which of these two effects do you believe is dominate and what are the percentages. Please provide references. I wouldn’t want to misstate your views again.
Then you state that my “refusal to accept … additional forcing from CO2” has an effect on temperatures, including those in the Arctic, leads to incorrect conclusions. Please show where I have said this. In fact, I’ve often stated there is a warming effect from GHGs. So, it appears your statement is completely wrong. Do try to improve your reading comprehension.
Grant says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:07 am
Hey Gates,
You nor anyone else has any idea what ice extent was like before 1979. Making confident statements such that what we see today has never happened is idiotic. It’s why I am skeptical, because an open mind can’t make such a statement.
____
Grant, it is simply not true that scientists have “no idea” was the sea ice extent was before 1979, and an ice-free Arctic has happened before, but it’s just been a long long time. So you are jumping to an extreme characterization of what is or isn’t known about Arctic sea ice extents in the past to justify your skeptical position. I suggest you do a bit of research and find out how scientists know sea ice extents prior to the modern satellite era. (and guess what, they don’t infer it from pictures of submarines coming up in polynyas!) I’m not going to spoon feed this information to you, as you might simply be committed to the skeptical position without really begin open to expanding your knowledge base, but if you are, here’s a few good places to start:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/267.short
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C0617%3AASIVIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JD002670.shtml
Doug in Seattle says, “Joe, you just ignore the trolls.”
It would be refreshing if everyone ignored the trolls. I suspect they are paid to spread CAGW propaganda and distract people from the substance of sceptic arguments. Clearly they are not here to learn or open their minds. Why throw them a bone..?
Actually Mr Gates we know you work for the Norfolk POlice LOL but I think you should have a look at current sea surface temperatures at AMSU looks like the coldest on satellite record at this stage. So poor ol Joe was right….
Richard M says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:14 am
R. Gates claims: “The physics behind the climate forcings of both aerosols and greenhouse gases are well understood.”
So, why is it we never hear about the physics that leads to the cooling effect of GHGs? Why do we only hear about the physics that has a warming effect? You’ve ignored this question in the past. How can you claim to be skeptical when you ignore basic physics?
____
Richard,
I ignore no basic physics. The net effect of CO2, NO2, CH4, and the other greenhouse gases as they exist in earth’s atmosphere is warming, not cooling. Either you know this, and simply want to confuse those who don’t, or you honestly believe that equating kinetic cooling effects to the strength of the greenhouse radiative effects of these gases is honest science. It isn’t and either you do, or should know better.
Rob Vermeulen says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:32 am
Mmm,
M. Bastardi, the point is that your previous projections weren’t really convincing. Like the prediction that arctic sea ice would return this year to the levels seen in 2005-2006 or that we would have, in 2011, global temperatures close to those of the 70ies.
In this case, the model runs have been predictng la nada/slightly la nina conditions for a few months. So I think what you’re syaing here is just agreeing with what these models said before. If so, in what is it contradicting the AGW theory? I don’t get it, really. Can somenone help?
_____
Joe’s basic problem is he believes that we can simply look at the short or long term cycles of the oceans and know what the future will be. He allows for no anthropogenic effects on climate or weather. Despite the fact the dozens and dozens of peered review scientific research papers conclusive show that the build up of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and related positive feedbacks will affect Arctic Sea ice, Joe ignores all of this. The natural ocean cycles alone will not, and cannot explain what is happening in the Arctic. Until Joe, and others, accept that humans can, and are affecting the planet’s climate, weather, and ecosystems in multiple ways, his predictions of future weather can only be occasionally or partially correct.
Richard M says (July 23, 2011 at 8:51 am)
” … What do they call it when someone maintains two conflicting beliefs …”
Antinomy. Adj: antinomical. And not the element antimony!
Adriana Ortiz says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:42 am
Actually Mr Gates we know you work for the Norfolk POlice
____
Since I live in Colorado, that means I have one heck of a big commute!
OK I will give R. Gates the benefit of the doubt. If his sulfur theory is true then he should have no problem demonstrating a much higher level of sulfur(particulate) in the atmosphere from earlier times. I remember the 70’s when the CN tower was invisible from a mile away.
Mr. Gates the ball is in your court.
“In addition one can argue the warming the last 200 years overall was simply us pulling out of a very cold period.”
Well that’s exactly right as I’m sure most readers of this blog already know. The alarmists don’t tell the public about the rise in temperatures during the 19th century or mention that the rise from 1911-1944 was about the same magnitude as the recent increase. That would be too “inconvenient”.
R. Gate claims: “you honestly believe that equating kinetic cooling effects to the strength of the greenhouse radiative effects of these gases is honest science.”
Wrong again R. Gates. I’ve never “equated” anything. I’ve simply stated there are two effects and I’ve NEVER seen any discussion of the two nor any attempt to quantify them. Have you? If not, why are claiming the cooling effect can be ignored? Look, if you show me a paper that quantifies the cooling effect I’d be happy. So, where is the paper?
If you can’t provide a paper then why aren’t you more skeptical?
The 1930’s were incredibly hot and to a lesser extent so were the 1950’s. For example lets look at Des Moines, IA. In July 1936 Des Moines went 17 straight days with temperatures over 100. 12 records from 1936 still stand. In fact, the city has set only 1 record high in July since 1955 and that was July 23, 1991. Kansas City still has 8 record highs from July 1954 alone and 15 records from the 1930’s. 17 July records in Lincoln, NE are from the 1930’s and 1 is from 2011. 10 days in July 1954 in Lincoln exceeded 100 degrees. So far this summer there has been 3. 13 record highs from July 1936 in Springfield, IL are still standing.
For those who live in New England the worst stretch was from July 1911. Yeah, 100 years ago Boston spent 4 straight days over 100 degrees. This was long before AC and many of the comforts we use to beat the heat today. That is why over 350 people died during the stretch. Boston’s daily record highs for July 3, 4, and 6 still stand from that sweltering stretch. Worcester has 5 records still standing from July 1911. In fact Worcester set more daily July record highs in 1892 (4) than the 1990’s and 2000’s combined (2- both 1991). There was a post on WUWT about the July 1911 heat wave a few weeks ago.
All values are taken from official NWS stations, data courtesy of weather underground. Many stations on wunderground are not official NWS stations, careful looking through data.
Breakdown of the 50 states all time record highs by decade
1890’s- 1 OR
1900’s- 0
1910’s- 6 AK, CA, ME, MN, NH, VT
1920’s- 2 AL, NY
1930’s- 21 AR, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MT, NE, NJ, ND, OH, TN, WV, WI
1940’S- 0 (warm, but couldn’t match the dust bowl)
1950’s- 6 CO, IL, MO, PA, SC, VA
1960’S- 1 WA
1970’S- 2 MA, RI
1980’S- 4 GA, NC, UT, WY
1990’S- 6 AZ, CT, NV, NM, OK, TX
2000’S- 1 SD
these records taken from 2011 World Almanac and Book of Facts
Richard M says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:34 am
R. gates, first you say you do believe the Chinese pollution does affect Arctic melting and then you say it’s CO2. So, which of these two effects do you believe is dominate and what are the percentages. Please provide references. I wouldn’t want to misstate your views again.
___
How much detail shall we go into here? “Chinese pollution” is a pretty big category, and the effects are not monotonic (i.e. they don’t all affect Arctic sea ice in the same way). Sulfur, black carbon, methane, CO2, NO2, all have different types and intensities of effects on the Arctic that last over different lengths of time.
Generally speaking the black carbon, CO2, NO2,, and CH4 will tend to warm the arctic region and diminish sea ice, whereas of course the sulfur might tend to cool. I would say that the greenhouse effects of CO2 and to a lessor extent NO2, and CH4 are dominant over either black carbon or sulfur aerosols,
But as a side note: We must not discount the additional effects of the numerous volcanic eruptions over the past 10 years nor the potential increase in aerosols that could be caused by increased galactic cosmic radiation during our very quiet sun period this past decade (and more on this very soon with the CLOUD results coming out), but let’s refrain from interpreting! :
Some may enjoy this article for a general discussion on the flattening of the warming trend over the past decade and aerosols:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-noaa-aerosols-inhibiting-global.html
“I have a box. It’s filled with normal air. The box is just big enough that it contains 1 co2 molecule, at the present rate of 390 ppm co2. How many other molecules are in the box?”
If there are 390 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air, then
1,000,000 – 390 = 999,610 molecules of other gasses for every 390 molecules of CO2.
Therefore, the ratio is 999610 molecules of other to 390 molecules of CO2.
999610 / 390 =~ 2563.1025641025641025641025641026 molecules of other gasses for each molecule of CO2.
Joe was not correct about arctic sea ice this year, but has been right about a lot of other things-he deserves at least some credit for that. Agree with him on the reversal of global temperature trends, but arctic sea ice may continue to suffer losses int he next few years due to residual warm currents flowing into the arctic basin from the atlantic from the recent warm decades-it takes time for the oceans to catch up with the current trends, and the arctic will likely be the last place to see this. But there is a slight increase in ice off the east coast of greenland and this could be the first glimmer of a future reversal in the rest of the arctic, as that is where most of the warm water that is melting the ice is coming from. Air temps in the Arctic have been slightly below average all summer, so that is not contributing to the melt. We will likely break a record this year in extent by the looks of it-the arctic lost so much ice in 2007, that the ice may completely go even if the global temps start to cool again.
davidmhoffer said:
“Are we good now? Or do you need some evidence from computer models instead?”
Yes, that would be good. What do the computer models say are the main forcing factors of 20th century warming? This might provide the alternate hypothesis to Bastardi’s statement that I inquired about.
Joe B
As one CEO once said, 30% of people hate you, 30% love you and the rest couldn’t care less and neither should you. In my opinion you have been right too often to be dismissed without reason.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:47 am
The net effect of CO2, NO2, CH4, and the other greenhouse gases as they exist in earth’s atmosphere is warming, not cooling
You are basically right but if you are at the end of the process where the IR has penetrated through a ‘fog’ of GHG the effect you feel will be cooling. The IR has been absorped on route. Think about !
to davidmhoffer:
Regarding the spring thaw trend, I found this article about a fairly recent study. Is it relevant?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7876-global-warming-brings-earlier-spring-thaw-to-great-lakes.html
I would be very interested to see if the observational data shows any indication of systematic changes to large scale planetary or regional weather patterns in addition to cooling of the planet. There is indication that solar cycle 24 is a significant mode change to the solar magnetic cycle.
As most are aware there are long term cycles in the planet’s climate such as the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age. There is smoking gun evidence that these cyclic long term changes in the planet’s climate are caused by the sun as there are concurrent with the climate changes matching changes to cosmogenic isotopes that are deposited on the ice sheets and the ocean floor sediments. The changes to the cosmogenic isotopes are caused by changes to the solar magnetic cycle. In the last 10 years researchers have made significant progress in working out the details of the mechanisms.
The following are links to some of the over 100 recently published papers that discuss the different mechanisms (solar cycle changes that modulation the intensity and magnitude of Galactic cosmic rays strike the earth. The GCR in turn creates cloud forming ions. Removal of cloud forming ions by solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions by electroscavening and so on) by which changes to the solar magnetic cycle affect cloud formation, cloud lifetimes, and cloud albedo on the earth. The mechanisms are also shown to be affected by the strength and orientation of the earth’s magnetic field which varies significantly cyclically and abruptly with correlation to abrupt climate changes and millennium climate change.
A graphical comparison of solar cycle 24 to the past three solar cycles: 21, 22 and 23
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp2.html
A graphical comparison of solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar cycles in the last 150 years: 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate
By Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Overall, clouds reflect more solar radiation than they trap, leading to a net cooling of
~27.7 W/m2 from the mean global cloud cover of ~63.3% [Hartmann, 1993].
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Surface winds and ocean hydrography in subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in the production rates of cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500” year cycle.
… during which drift ice and cooler surface waters in the Nordic and Labrador Seas were repeatedly advected southward and eastward, each time penetrating deep into the warmer strands of the subpolar circulation. The persistence of those rather dramatic events within a stable interglacial has been difficult to explain.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.”
Solar wind bursts are a second means by which the sun modulates climate on the earth. Electroscavening is the name Brian Tinsley (See Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu review paper below.) gave to a process that removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere by changes to global electric current that are caused by solar wind bursts.
As electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions, it does matter if GCR is high the ions that created by GCR are removed by the electroscavenging process. What happened in the last two solar cycles is there were large coronal holes that at the end of both solar cycles that caused solar wind burst that removed cloud forming ions. So even though GCR, cloud forming ions where removed, there was as noted by the papers below a reduction in low level planetary clouds, which caused the planet to warm.
The increase in the electroscavenging is due to the increase in solar magnetic storms, in the 20th century. As solar magnetic storms cause pulsations in the earth’s magnetic field, the record of magnetic field disturbances can be used to determine inferred number of solar magnetic storms. The following is a link to a150 year record in the pulsation of the earth’s magnetic field. Note the number of solar magnetic storms has doubled in the 20th century as compared to the 19th century (see figure 12 in the attached link.) Also note the reduction in the number of magnetic storms in 1956 to 1972 which correlates with a period of planetary cooling.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075550
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000
All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
First off, great post Joe, I must say I am a large fan and I do something similar on a very smaller scale, namely predicting long term weather patterns over the midwest. Your pointers in videos and your explanations have probably motivated and helped me most of all of anyone in this endeavor. Its not that your predictions are always right, but more that they are explained with full and complete explanations for what drives our weather.
As for another topic…….
I have been doing a lot of reserach on the “Super el-nino” and to explain it and why computer model output HAS to be interpreted:
Its a computer glitch/artifact or whatever you want to call it. The way GCM’s run, they did not take into consideration that trends over 30-60 years would glitch in this method when you combine so many fudge factors. I will explain this further, but the thing here is that:
Cold PDO means longer and more intense la ninas.
Warm PDO means shorter and less intense la ninas.
When you combine that in a model that looks at data starting from the COLD PDO, moves to a warm PDO, the model is going to extrapolate based on this in a very simple fashion. Its a computer, it does not analyze data and come to conclusions if its not given enough data.
Therefore, the output is going to be very simple: The future will appear to be a super el nino since the data goes from la ninas being strong and frequent, to weaker and less frequent and finally the computer will determine that the next logical step is SUPER EL NINO!!
Its so simple, and to rip off a commercial, its so simple a caveman can do it! And yet James Hansen who is supposedly this God-like intelligence can not even figure out that this simple artifact that a beginner in computer modeling could find, is telling the world that we will see super el nino conditions.
Very scary that this artifact pops up in roughly half the GCM’s out there, while some of them escape it to some extent do to better fudge factors…but when we are talking about GCM’s, we are not talking about physics or science or even trend analysis.
We are talking about a model based on fudge factors and every GCM output can be seen for what it is with a simple trend analsysis…
Worthless. This is my homework for all you sceptics out there. Anaylize the trends. Find out how our climate changed starting from say 1900 to today and find the trends that predominate, and guess what? You will find artifacts that warmists claim as “predicted by models.”
You don’t have to even understand computers, look at what the computers predict locally for individual areas. This is not public domain for a lot of GCM’s, but for those that are, its very telling to see trends that tended to start in the 1970’s and continue to today pop up like magic.
The most telling recently is the Colorado River. Rainfall and snowfall in the entire basin was slated to decrease forever in just about every GCM out there, and lo and behold this year the Colorado river is not just running above average, but it appears to be filling up the Lake Powell and Lake Meade basins to a point not seen in 30 years.
This is my case in point and what trends to find. This is how computer models operate if you use fudge factors too much and do not understand the modeling technique you are using. Have fun and enjoy.
Remember, the only person who gets hurt when you show how wrong GCM’s are is the scientists who did not understand what they were doing and deserves to be fired for incompetence anyway.
PAGING DR HANSEN…..
JamesS says:
July 23, 2011 at 7:24 am
polistra says:
July 23, 2011 at 3:54 am
……..
I was just struck with the thought recently that if the earth was cooling in the same gentle rate that it’s been warming the last 200 years, would the alarmists propose that we burn more fossil fuels to raise the atmospheric CO2, or would they propose adaptation instead?
They will propose whatever brings the politicians more taxes and thus academia more funding. (and no, unfortunately, that is not sarcasm)
Thank you Bob Tisdale for pointing me to the info on Hansen’s super nino idea.
Hansen says that global warming makes stronger El Ninos more likely. He acknowledges that the system is chaotic and says: we can think of Mother Nature as “rolling the dice” each
spring to see if there will be an El Nino. That would seem to imply that one shouldn’t attempt to predict the nature of any particular El Nino; then he seems to go ahead and do so.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:56 am
Ok, Mister 3.x M km^2 sea ice low prediction for Sept. 2010.
How did that work out compared to Joe’s prediction?
He beat you.
I’ve computed your odds of beating a senior meteorologist who makes his living getting it right, using your trusty trace gas theory:
1 in 2,564
commieBob says:
Hansen says that global warming makes stronger El Ninos more likely. He acknowledges that the system is chaotic and says: we can think of Mother Nature as “rolling the dice” each
spring to see if there will be an El Nino.”
____
Don’t know the source of error in this comment,but a saying a system is chaotic and suggesting one can “roll the dice” are two very different notions. Chaos is quite deterministic and is not a random walk if that’s what is implied by “roll of the dice”. Of course, in truth,while they are being rolled, dice are also a chaotic, and their final resting position in space and time (their energy level) is quite deterministic, but only seems “random” from the current human perspective, hence why we can use them for gambling, as we can’t predict their final position from initial conditions. But this point would seem to equate chaos with randomness, which is of course, incorrect.
CRASHEX says:
July 23, 2011 at 11:18 am
Ignoring the nuances of the question for the moment, take your:
> 1/x=390/999,610
Invert both sides:
x/1 = 999,610/390
Python (don’t crack MIT networks without it!) says
>>> 999610 / 390
2563
Excuse the integer math – various stochastic processes would mean the box has close to 2564 molecules, but likely not 2563, and quite certainly not 3901.
[FYI: CRASHEX posted this comment: “Moderator, Please cut that–I forgot to invert the term. It’s wrong.” I deleted both comments. ~dbs]
rbateman says:
July 23, 2011 at 11:39 am
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:56 am
Ok, Mister 3.x M km^2 sea ice low prediction for Sept. 2010.
How did that work out compared to Joe’s prediction?
He beat you.
I’ve computed your odds of beating a senior meteorologist who makes his living getting it right, using your trusty trace gas theory:
1 in 2,564
____
Don’t know where you’re getting your numbers, but my predictions for the September sea extent for the September low of 2010 was 4.5 million sq. km., which I repeated several times here on WUWT last year. Not sure what Joe’s was last year, but this year (for 2011’s melt) he’s been quoted at 5.5 million sq. km. earlier in the year, unless he’s lowered it now based on the fact that the melt has been so rapid this year. This year, I’m once more in the 4.3 to 4.5 million sq. km. range, so come this September, we can see how Joe and I compared.
BTW, Joe makes no money from predicting Arctic sea ice extent, and if he does, he ought to consider giving some refunds.
I haven’t seen any indication that anyone can know what normal sea ice extent is. The earth is likely as warm as it’s been in 300 years, so is artic ice averaged over 30 years normal? Kinda jumping ahead calling the artic free of ice aren’t you? 2007 was far from ice free, and I don’t believe the sub picture, signed by the crew, at the north pole in mid 50’s has been debunked. I stand by my statement that we don’t know, except in extreme terms, what sea ice extent has historically been, if current normal is low or high, or how often it has been as it is today.
phlogiston says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:17 am
Then you would ascribe to the notion that the climate is simply a random walk? We should simply stop trying to look for causes, and accept this random walk?
This would probably suit the skeptics quite well…”we can’t figure it out, it’s too complex, and it’s all pretty much random anyway.”
Are you for real? Talk about “straw man:” put words in the mouths of skeptics, then argue against it.
Look, it’s not a choice between “Anthropogenic CO2” and “random.” There are obviously many factors at play in determining climate and weather – but (and I know this is hard for alarmists to accept) we don’t understand them all. My money’s on the sun being the major factor. It drives the oceans and the influences the clouds (that much we do know).
We also know there is no tropospheric “hotspot” (a crucial signature of CO2 induced warming). Enough people have been searching for long enough to know by now that it simply isn’t there. Your hypothesis has failed.
And lets not forget: CAGW is just that: a HYPOTHESIS. To not be sceptical of a hypothesis (i.e. to not apply the scientific method) is to be bloody stupid.
Looks like the Antarctic Peninsula is going to be surrounded by ice for the first time in how long? Anyone with an answer to that, and how the ocean cycles are playing in would be cool.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 11:58 am
Great. Why don’t you pull up your prediction for Sept. 2010?
This was the minimum extent: 09,18,2010,4813594
Grant,
I don’t think anyone has claimed the Arctic is ice free just yet, and certainly not in 2007. It would be hard for them to make the claim against satellite images to the contrary. Also, the submarine surfacing in an area of open water in the Arctic proves nothing about the amount of the amount or extent of sea ice across the whole of the Arctic, Polynyas and leads open up all over the Arctic all the time, and certainly a polynya at the N. Pole is in no way a proxy for the whole region.
rbateman says:
July 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 11:58 am
Great. Why don’t you pull up your prediction for Sept. 2010?
This was the minimum extent: 09,18,2010,4813594
____
Correction….why don’t YOU pull it up, since you’re making a claim that I never made. I’m well aware of what the extent minimum was for the year in 2010. I was closer than Steve Goddard (who predicted 5.5 million sq. km last year). What is it with 5.5 million sq. km. and skeptics, anyway?
David, UK says:
July 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm
=========
“phlogiston”, never said that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe the mods can fix your mistake ??????????
R. Gates
Full credits for saying that the physics of GHG’s are well known and then immediately changing the subject. How many times have you and I been through this?
Gates: physics is well known
Me: Yup, it’s logarithmic, law of diminishing returns, anything over 400ppm is insignificant
Gates: I’m surprised, you are otherwise intelligent, you’re ignoring feedbacks
Me: Nope, I’m not, the feedbacks are likewise logarithmic
Gates: Clearly you don’t understand sensitivity, if sensitivity is high even minute changes would have a big effect.
Me: If sensitivity was high enough for minute changes to have a big effect, the 40% increase we’ve seen so far would have had monster changes. Instead we’re arguing about 1/100 of a degree. If sensitivity is low, then there’s nothing further to discuss.
Gates: You’d do well to read a book on chaos theory and get a better understanding of how the addition of a single grain of sand to a sand pile can result in a tipping point that cannot be predicted.
Me: That would be applying a linear increase in mass to a complex (but static) physical structure and drawing conclusions about logarithmic effects of GHG increase to a complex (but fluid) system orders of magnitude more complex, constantly in motion, with dozens of other forces acting upon it, many of which are orders of magnitude larger than the increasingly insignifcant GHG concentration.
Gates: (silence)
One may as well drop a grain of sand onto a sand pile and conclude from the results that the sun circles the earth. Get back to an honest discussion of the physic R. Gates. You won’t, and neither will the rest of the “we believe, so let’s make up some stuff to prove what we believe” crowd. The physics plainly says there is no problem, this was known before all the hoopla started and drowned us in studies that looked at everything EXCEPT the physics, and produced results based on computer models of everything EXCEPT the physics, and now that temperatures are flattening out while CO2 keeps on climbing EXACTLY LIKE THE PHYSICS SUGGESTS you want to babble on about chaos theory and sensitivity and tipping points and aerosols and any other excuse you can come up with to distract the argument from the plain truth:
The physics of GHG’s is well known.
They are logarithmic.
Sensitivity is low.
No problem, never was one.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Grant,
I don’t think anyone has claimed the Arctic is ice free just yet, and certainly not in 2007. It would be hard for them to make the claim against satellite images to the contrary. Also, the submarine
surfacing in an area of open water in the Arctic proves nothing about the amount of the amount or extent of sea ice across the whole of the Arctic, Polynyas and leads open up all over the Arctic all the time, and certainly a polynya at the N. Pole is in no way a proxy for the whole region.
==================================================================
So even as recent as just 50 years ago, no one knows the extent of Arctic ice and whether it was “ice free” or not, or even how much ice was or wasn’t there……………obviously
Does anyone else find it strange that the people predicting “ice free” are the same people that can’t get anything right so far?
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I’m surprised at you, R. Gates, always challenging others.
You can go fish if you think I am going to dig up your statements for you.
rbateman says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:35 pm
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I’m surprised at you, R. Gates, always challenging others.
You can go fish if you think I am going to dig up your statements for you.
___
If you’re not willing to provide proof of what you claim i said, then you ought not to make such claims, mate.
Davidmhoffer,
We’ve already gone through this, and either you refuse to grasp, or are incapable of grasping the how chaotic systems having tipping points, regardless of the logarithmic, or even linear, nature of the physics underlying the forces or forcings on that system. This is an important point in studying climate, but seems utterly lost on you. Since you’ve made your mind up and claim it as the TRUTH (as is obvious from this statement):
“The physics of GHG’s is well known.
They are logarithmic.
Sensitivity is low.
No problem, never was one”.
What is the point of discussion with you? You know the TRUTH, and others, like myself, who don’t see this TRUTH will have to wander blindly and aimlessly in the desert of our ignorance, listing only to the rude grunting of fools like Gore and Hanson or thousand of research scientists who also don’t happen to see your TRUTH.
Latitude says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“So even as recent as just 50 years ago, no one knows the extent of Arctic ice and whether it was “ice free” or not.”
______
Yes, we have a pretty good record that the Arctic was not ice-free in 1961 or even 1861 or even 1761 or even 1661 or even 1551, 1431, 1331…
There is no time in recorded human history that the Arctic was ice free.
.
Thanks Gates for providing some sanity to this site here.
When you got guys like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck on your side, maybe you should re-think your position.
Hi R. Gates. Here is the source of the quote:
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David Lea and Martin Medina-Elizalde
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Hansen_Spotlight%5B1%5D.pdf
There is something you should understand about chaotic systems: Although they are, in principle, deterministic, they can’t be successfully modeled. They are so sensitive to initial conditions that you can never have enough bits of resolution or cycles to compute them. In other words, you have to treat them as stochastic systems.
The discovery of chaos “In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127. The result was a completely different weather scenario.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect I heard a radio interview with Lorenz. He explained that he needed to re-run the model but didn’t have the time to do it. His idea was that, if he reduced the significant digits, he would get a similar result albeit somewhat less accurate. That’s not what happened though. The result was completely different. The bottom line is that you can’t successfully model a chaotic system by treating it as deterministic if you expect to be able to rely on the result. Mark Cane’s remark about “rolling the dice” seems, to me, to be entirely justified.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Yes, we have a pretty good record that the Arctic was not ice-free in 1961 or even 1861 or even 1761 or even 1661 or even 1551, 1431, 1331…There is no time in recorded human history that the Arctic was ice free.
================================================================
So what makes people think it will be “ice free” now?
That sorta like saying kids won’t remember what snow is and snow is a thing of the past………
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
….”You know the TRUTH, and others, like myself, who don’t see this TRUTH will have to wander blindly and aimlessly in the desert of our ignorance, listing only to the rude grunting of fools like Gore and Hanson or thousand of research scientists who also don’t happen to see your TRUTH.”
========
Finally, someone who shares our pain.
davidmhoffer says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Excellent recap and deconstruction.
commieBob,
Thanks for that reply and clarification. Yes, i agree that we often currently talk “as if” chaotic systems were in fact stochastic, and that indeed, from this perspective, Mark Cane’s remark is justified, but this in no way means that we must not recognize that underlying this apparent randomness, there are real forces working according to real laws that ultimately determine the outcomes of things. Isn’t this the hallmark of great science? To find the order in “apparent” randomness or the deeper connections between apparently random and disconnected things? Wasn’t that the genius of Newton or Einstein for example?
The ancients would say, “The gods did it.”, and mean it. We might say, nature “rolls the dice”, but what the scientist means (or should mean) by such a statement is that “our current knowledge of the dynamics of system is inadequate, and even if we did know all the dynamics, we may not have enough computing power to fully and accurately model it.”
Does anyone doubt, for example, that the Milankovtich cycles can come pretty close to explaining the long-term changes in climate, and that when you add other forcings like CO2, galactic dust, cosmic rays, volcaniic aerosols, solar changes, meteor or cometary strikes, etc, that the model only gets better and better over time. Hence why I have a high degree of confidence in the GENERAL trends found by global climate models. Skeptics like to bash them (understandably given the rather consistent message they deliver), but they do in fact represent some of the greatest modern accomplishments in science and the use of computational technology, and they only get better year by year.
We may not know everything yet about all the forcings that effect climate, but the system as a whole operates under a state of spatio-temperal chaos, such that the net effect in anything but a random process, and over time, it’s seemingly “random” behavior is being understood.
davidmhoffer says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm
================================
Thanks David
Latitude says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:05 pm
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Yes, we have a pretty good record that the Arctic was not ice-free in 1961 or even 1861 or even 1761 or even 1661 or even 1551, 1431, 1331…There is no time in recorded human history that the Arctic was ice free.
================================================================
So what makes people think it will be “ice free” now?
That sorta like saying kids won’t remember what snow is and snow is a thing of the past………
_____
By “now” I take it you mean sometime in this century?
You of course know the answer rests with the global climate models, with every single one of them showing an ice-free Arctic this century. What are their weaknesses? Of course, they have a hard time getting the feedbacks right, as tipping points caused by cascading positive feedback loops (i.e. chaos) are difficult little beasts to predict (impossible in fact), So that the GCM’s are more likely to be way too conservative in their estimates.
It is important to note (really important in fact) that after the 2007 record low minimum, it was NOT global climiate models showing an ice free Arctic by 2013, but the “guess” of one scientist. However, the climate models were adjusted to take into account more of the positive feedbacks and polar amplification of global warming effects (even more than they had), and so, the consensus of an ice-free Arctic is now much sooner than 2100, but certainly not 2013, which again, did not come from a global climate model.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
I suspect you aren’t up to debate, but then you may simply be not interested in staying put long enough.
“Lots of warmth and melting going on, and it has nothing to do with ocean cycles as this one isn’t going to cycle back up, as the warmth is part of something not seen before on this planet…i.e. Anthropogenic climate change.”
You didn’t refute the DMI 80N temp I linked in showing normal summer temps by posting any contrary link, and neither did you answer the Arctic Sea Ice Extent Anomaly climbing back up the same slope it slid down on with a contrary link.
C’mon in, the water’s fine.
What do you mean by Anthropogenic Climate change if it’s not ocean cycles and it’s not air temps?
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm
You of course know the answer rests with the global climate models, with every single one of them showing an ice-free Arctic this century.
===============================================================
This year, this decade, this century………no, I can’t keep up
You mean the global climate models that have predicted everything else so well?
Other than backcasting and predicting 20 years of warming, and missing the last 10 years of not warming…………yeah, they really understand what drives the climate……..LOL
Gates says:
“…GCM’s are more likely to be way too conservative in their estimates.”
Yikes! It’s worse than we thought!
Seriously, there is exactly zero evidence that the current Arctic ice cycle is due to warming from GHGs. Every bit of that speculation is based on computer models programmed by people who have a good chance of snagging grant money if their predictions are scary.
Mr. gates in confused. What is all this nonsense on the Arctic? Most of the Arctic Ice Loss has been due to the collapse in the beaufort gyre, a wind/ocean driven arctic current relating to the AMO & HLB. Even NSIDC admits that most of the Ice Loss has been due to natural variability over warming temps.
Ice loss this sumer has been due to an Arctic Dipolan anomaly present for a lengthy stretch of time, it isn’t easy to predict arctic ice loss/melt/gain seasons, its like trying to predict the weather 3 months out.
And FYI the 2007 season saw a bunch of Multi-yr Ice Flushed out of the Arctic, and that multi-yr ice is what hangs around during the melt seasons. With a weak beaufort gyre, that ice is not held in place, and is flushed out the Fram straight. AGW is almost irrelavennt since most of the warming in the arctic is due to albedo feedback from ice loss, corresponding to the AMO regions morespo than the PDO in response time.
I might add to Joe’s comments and article the clear sinusoidal signals in the data. Check out Digital Diatribes blog for a good look at this area, in particular:
Best fit sinusoidal to 160 years of HadCRUT
Sinusoidal fit to 150 years of AMO data
These sinusoidals have a period of about 65 years, so it is only clearly apparent in datasets such as these that are longer than two wavelengths.
Now some of the CAGW camp deride ‘correlation is not causation’ and ‘that’s merely curve fitting’, but I might point out that statistics as a field was invented for a reason. The onus on our CAGW colleagues is to explain why they think the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C, given that the HadCRUT sinewave was at minimum at 1900 and maximum in 2000. That is 1/3 of the temperature rise across the century which in my view was clearly not caused by CO2.
Sorry, first link broke. Here is the link to the first graph:
Best fit sinusoidal to 160 years of HadCRUT
R. Gates
What is the point of discussion with you? You know the TRUTH, and others, like myself, who don’t see this TRUTH will have to wander blindly and aimlessly in the desert of our ignorance, listing only to the rude grunting of fools like Gore and Hanson or thousand of research scientists who also don’t happen to see your TRUTH.>>>
As usual, having his argument completely destroyed by the well known physics he admits to, R. Gates has no credible response to the physics discussion which ended in silence on his part, Instead he wants to talk about TRUTH all in caps, and that someone’s TRUTH might be different than someone else’s TRUTH.
Sorry R. Gates, sme circle as always. You claim the physics, are refuted by the physcis, and your only response is to change the subject to something other than physics. Why is that R, Gates? Why is that when confronted by the facts and physics, the best you can do is change the subject. Either accept the physics (which you say you do) or refute it. You can’t say you accept it and that it is well understood by then arguing that there’s things unaccounted for that people who are talking about physics aren’t taking into account.
And when asked to substantiate your conflicting claims one way or the other, you either run and hide, or change the topic again. Back to the physics or STFU.
Bruce of Newcastle says: “Now some of the CAGW camp deride ‘correlation is not causation’ and ‘that’s merely curve fitting’, but I might point out that statistics as a field was invented for a reason. The onus on our CAGW colleagues is to explain why they think the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C, given that the HadCRUT sinewave was at minimum at 1900 and maximum in 2000.”
I as a a climate skeptic (not as a CAGW colleague) can explain to you why “the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C”. The PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific (north of 20N). The PDO is an abstract form of that dataset and it is inversely related to the detrended sea surface temperature of the North Pacific. The other problem: there is no process through which the PDO can raise or lower global surface temperature. It is an aftereffect of ENSO.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Hence why I have a high degree of confidence in the GENERAL trends found by global climate models. Skeptics like to bash them (understandably given the rather consistent message they deliver), but they do in fact represent some of the greatest modern accomplishments in science and the use of computational technology, and they only get better year by year.
——————————–
Oh come on. The only good global warming models are the ones that predict no warming. They are the accurate ones.
One of my favorite things to do is to overlay the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Anomaly jpegs:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg.
Arctic is black, Antarctic is grey.
Joe, there is nothing, NOTHING wrong with your writing style. I love it. Keep at it.
Oh, and you are one of the finest at predicting the weather, too. (That the financial shows use you as their “Go To Guy” for hurricanes when $Billions are on the line in options and futures contracts is clear testimony to that). That’s where I first saw you. Calling it clear and correct. I can, and do, bet real money on your predictions – in heating oil and natural gas markets; occasionally in crude oil.
I’ll be watching that AMO call ( Looks like I’m getting a ‘gig’ on the East Coast…) so the Atlantic will matter to me (I’ve been a California guy for my whole life… so only ever really cared about the Pacific). Given the cold turn so far, and your predictions, I’d expect heating oil to rise and nat gas to maybe finally get off the floor (it was driven down by technology improvements… There is NO energy shortage…)
So, for my money (literally) there is no warming, El Nino is a no-show, and batten down the hatches, get the heating oil filled early and don’t plan a winter vacation to cold country 😉
Thanks for all you do. A loyal admirer and fan.
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
In response to Mr. Tisdale,
Wondering if perhaps there is an indirect effect of the PDO on temperatures, perhaps in cloud coverage/source regions rather than direct SST-to-temperature? Presume it may also be more of an albedo thing rather than an direct SST forcing? As in the Beaufort Gyre/AMO correlation to Arctic Ice, higher albedo, and a cooler globe/NH?
Sometimes I feel the climate is oversimplified, as in, too much attention paid to forcings rather than feedbacks, goes for solar arctivity as well.
R. Gates says:
Here’s a link to a story on NASA’s skepticism about climate models: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/quote-of-the-week-34-nasa-doubts-climate-model-certainty/ Given that NASA supports the development of some of those models, their skepticism is pretty damning.
Scientific credibility is established by the ability to make successful predictions. In the context of this post we have:
Bastardi – 1
Hansen – 0
So, yes, the climate is being better understood but not necessarily by everyone equally.
Ed Mertin says:
July 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
——
There may be some truth in that…thanks for the free counseling and reminder.
Bob Tisdale at July 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Bob – Yes you are correct, I should use terminology like “the process underlying ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO which is linked to a ~65 year sinusoidal cycling in the temperature record”, however we lack a simplified name for the process, hence the shortening “PDO/AMO”. They (the PDO and the AMO) are not perfectly coincident as Joe says, but you can see the sinusoidal in ENSO also, its just we only have a single wavelength worth of data therefore it is less apparent.
How irritating is it going to be when we all finally find out that R. Gates is the only one posting on here who is actually a salaried shill for Big Oil ??
Gotta hand it to him though – he’s probably made more people convert to climate realism than most on this site. Keep up the good work dude. Your faux passive aggressiveness is a work of art.
philincalifornia says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm
How irritating is it going to be when we all finally find out that R. Gates is the only one posting on here who is actually a salaried shill for Big Oil ??
Gotta hand it to him though – he’s probably made more people convert to climate realism than most on this site. Keep up the good work dude. Your faux passive aggressiveness is a work of art.
———-
Thanks a lot. My paycheck from Chevron was based on me appearing to be a warmist. How am I going to pay my bills now??? You’ve ruined everything!
Gates, while I was already tired of you after the first few times you had hijacked a thread and attempted to steer it off topic….I gotta tell ya…it is entertaining watching you set yourself up, as always, for that well-deserved wedgy.
Philincalifornia, that last remark was hilarious!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Yes, Chris, it’s great to see R.Gates get his backside whupped soundly every time he comes trolling.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Ed Mertin says:
July 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
——
There may be some truth in that…thanks for the free counseling and reminder.>>>
Here’s another tip. If you want to get anywhere with that beautiful distraction you’ll need a strategy that doesn’t depend on a long list of bad things that will be likely to happen no matter how unlikley they actually are.
Oh yes, the goal BTW is to achieve a tipping point, not to avoid one.
phil says: “Wondering if perhaps there is an indirect effect of the PDO on temperatures, perhaps in cloud coverage/source regions rather than direct SST-to-temperature?”
There has been speculation about a cloud effect in at least one paper, but the problem again is that the PDO is inversely related to the SST of the North Pacific.
Joe Bastardi,
You state “the global temp spike which would put 2012 temps up and this is what Hansen was hoping for. He doesn’t understand…”
and instead you mention “2012 globally could average below normal”.
It seems to me that you think that Hansen does not understand that 2012 will be “below normal”, and like anyone else you are entitled to an opinion.
However, I would like to point out that, as opposed to Hansen’s clear statement and scientific argument, you did not even define what you are predicting.
So, once again, can you please define for us what “normal” is ?
Also, can you elaborate on how confident are you that “2012 globally could average below” that “normal” ?
Bruce of Newcastle says: “Bob – Yes you are correct, I should use terminology like ‘the process underlying ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO which is linked to a ~65 year sinusoidal cycling in the temperature record’, however we lack a simplified name for the process, hence the shortening ‘PDO/AMO’. “
The PDO is inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific , but the AMO is detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies and NINO3.4 SST anomalies are the “undetrended” SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 region. There’s no way to combine the three and come up with an underlying process unless you reverse the sign of the PDO. Wouldn’t it then be best to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific so that you’re comparing apples to apples and forget about the PDO?
The CFS forecast was updated yesterday and increasingly supports no El Nino at least for this year.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMon.gif
This run is increasingly negative with only one almost touching the mean, whereas before there were far more. Hence, suggests La Nina returning for the Autumn season.
Not only is the AMO on a significant fall, but North Atlantic SSTs shows this significant change from the beginning of the year until recently, very clearly.
Atlantic surface ocean temperatues mainly above average.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110116.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110213.gif
Significant decrease in surface Atantic ocean temperatures.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110515.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110612.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110717.gif
.Gates, this post is not on sea ice. Quit the hijacking of the thread.
I am very interested in Tisdale’s observations, and have great respect for his ability to stick to the facts. It is very interesting that a “cold” PDO is actually warmer, in the totality of the Pacific, than a “warm” PDO. However, with so much cold water just off California, the “local” effect seems cold.
I’m not sure I agree that the PDO is merely a reaction to El Ninos and La Ninas. The signature I look for is a backwards letter “C” in the map of the Pacific anomalies, above the equator. The “C” is red in a “warm” PDO and blue in a “cold” PDO, with the curve of the “C” pressing against California.
During the last El Nino the “cold” signature did weaken and even break into fragmented blobs of blue, however it never entirely vanished, and there was most definitely never the red backwards letter “C,” which I see as a proof of a “warm” PDO. Therefore, no matter what numbers Tisdale saw on his highly accurate spreadsheets, the “cold” signature endured despite a “warm” El Nino.
I think a fellow like Bastardi focuses on the effects of the pattern, in terms of its ability to shift the jet stream, pump up high pressure, and dig trofs. One of the major effects of the cold water off California is that a high pressure ridge is more likely to be established at that spot, which re-routes storms and jet streams, and can lead to major changes in weather patterns. (For example, during the winter of 1976-77 a ridge locked in there, bringing drought to California, warmth to Alaska, and a brutally cold winter in the east of the USA as arctic air steadily drained down the east side of the locked-in ridge.)
It is a pity that the winter of 1976-77 is just before we have satellite data. The thermometer data we have suggests it was cold, and most who lived in the east of the USA would agree that the “cold” PDO was cold, that winter. (People in Alaska might differ.) However if Tisdale is correct, there might have been a great deal of warm water in the central Pacific that went unmeasured, that year.
I think the pattern matters more than a bland average of world-wide temperatures. I have seen maps of “average” patterns for El Ninos and La Ninas. I would like to see that expanded, and see maps of average patterns for El Ninos during warm PDOs vs cold PDOs, and for La Ninas during warm PDOs vs cold PDOs. I think the differences in the patterns might be enlightening.
Bruce of Newcastle says: “Bob – Yes you are correct, I should use terminology like ‘the process underlying ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO….
Current state:
The nature and origin of the AMO is uncertain, and it remains unknown whether it represents a persistent periodic driver in the climate system, or merely a transient feature.
The PDO goes through warm and cool phases of the cycle with phases typically lasting about 30 years. It is closely related to the (inverted) SOI / ENSO. The causes of the oscillation are currently unknown.
Sooner or later the above ‘known unknowns’ will become ‘known knowns’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP.htm
“The causes of the oscillation are currently unknown.
As regards ENSO I think the cause is the fact that due to the current ocean/landmass distribution the ITCZ is always situated north of the equator.
As a result there is an imbalance of solar shortwave input to the oceans either side of the equator.
Periodically that imbalance leads to a temperature differential which is released in the form of an El Nino event.
As regards AMO I think that is a delayed response to ENSO as the warm water spreads through the ocean basins towards the north pole. The response time is further extended by the narrowing of the access point around Spitzbergen which slows the passage of warm Atlantic surface waters into the Arctic Ocean.
Thus although we have been in a negative PDO for a while now the north Atlantic remains on the warm side with a continuing effect on Arctic summer ice cover. That should change when AMO turns negative over the next year or two.
Caleb says:
July 24, 2011 at 7:47 am
As for that massive blocking ridge that formed over the Pacific Northwest 1976-77, that was directly after the massive cloud-seeding effort conducted in the Sierra in 1975. The kicker was that Nevada County, the center of the cloud seeding program, ended up being the center of the drought out West.
I won’t say that the cloud seeding caused the blockage, but they sure hit a nerve.
Vuk at July 24, 2011 at 8:37 am
Vuk – When Kepler developed the orbital mathematics of the planets they didn’t know what gravity was, which didn’t prevent empirical models from being developed. This is a similar example. Statistical methods clearly show apparently coupled roughly 65 year oscillations in the ENSO, AMO and HadCRUT datasets which persist over at least two wavelengths in the latter two, which is as far as the data goes. The hypothesis is that these oscillations, which appear sinusoidal, are linked. I think this is a very reasonable hypothesis, which if true appears by quantification to have caused about 0.27 C of the apparent temperature rise during the 20th Century – as an artefact of the choice of endpoints 1900 and 2000.
I also submit that solar magnetic effects as illustrated by the correlation of previous solar cycle length and temperature can be quantified as about half of the temperature rise in the century. Interestingly this is supported by Prof Rao the past head of the Indian Space Agency and a GCR physicist – which adds a link between pSCL and GCR’s which has had little examination by climatology until recently.
Then 2XCO2 after Dr Spencer etc fairly neatly explains the roughly 0.15 C of residual, with a little room remaining for all the other usual suspects – aerosols, soot, UHIE etc.
What I would ask of Bob Tisdale is to develop a catchy name for the unnamed process (the great ocean conveyer belt?) which seems to be behind the oscillations. It could be a choice of which he hates more: a name like ‘Tisdale oscillations’ or impolite people like me misusing ‘PDO/AMO’.
Stephen Wilde at July 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm
The reason I think that ENSO cycles (and possibly ENSO as a climate pattern) is derived from an underlying process is the statistics of el Nino and la Nina events which is quantified by Joe D’Aleo here. As he says, in the downwards cycle there are more and longer la Nina’s, and the converse in the upwards cycle. That suggests something driving ENSO rather than ENSO driving the 65 year coupled cycles, although a feedback modulation of it by ENSO would be reasonable.
Ask and you shall receive. I asked earlier in this thread (Kevin Kilty says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:05 am ) for some evidence via geographic pattern to demonstrate that China burning coal is, or is not, the cause of the recent non-warming. Well find some right here. It appears the answer is “not”.
rbateman says:
July 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“……I won’t say that the cloud seeding caused the blockage, but they sure hit a nerve.”
Ha! If I were a scientist involved in cloud-seeding experiments, and it was promptly followed by a major drought, I might be tempted to leave town fast, and to change my name.
I wonder if that might happen to the people attempting to stop global warming, if global temperatures plunge over the next decade. I can imagine a furious crowd carrying burning torches marching up to Hansen’s house, shouting, “You’re to blame for this mini ice-age!”
The question is, “What would I do?” Would I explain to the crowd that Hansen is not a witch doctor, and has no control over the weather? Or would I just shrug, and tell Hansen, “Before you control the climate, let’s see you control this crowd.”
Kevin Kilty says:
July 24, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Ask and you shall receive. I asked earlier in this thread (Kevin Kilty says:
July 23, 2011 at 9:05 am ) for some evidence via geographic pattern to demonstrate that China burning coal is, or is not, the cause of the recent non-warming. Well find some right here. It appears the answer is “not”.
===========================
Yep.
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide single-handedly causes global warming but, amazingly, post-1998 anthropogenic aerosols miraculously have the exact opposite effect, all of a sudden.
They’ve gone from Bozo the Clown science to Bozo the Clown Science squared, since I think that Bozo the Clown science is measured on a logarithmic scale. If not, it should be.
China burning more coal causes global cooling, ha ha ha. What percentage of the sheeple will buy that one ?? Given that R. Gates bought it (allegedly), I’d say a high percentage, although it is a bit unfair to pick on someone who’s in the sin-bin.
I dunno, I listened to the Bastardi forecast last year, where we were in for temps back to 1970 levels, and ice packing the arctic. I have a hard time buying it again.
JK says:
July 24, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I dunno, I listened to the Bastardi forecast last year, where we were in for temps back to 1970 levels, and ice packing the arctic. I have a hard time buying it again.
=====================================
Bull****. He never said any of that.
You are painting with a very very VERY broad brush.
And with preschool / toddler painting abilities at that.
I am calling you out on a complete misrepresentation.
Beyond that, and for example, he nailed the US winter forecast for 2009-2010…in July of 2009, far before the CFS or anyone else caught on.
What are your qualifications to actually give a critique?
I thought so (not).
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Caleb says:
July 24, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Weather modification (enhancement as they call it) is dangerous and foolish. You don’t know what will come next naturally, and you don’t really know what you might cause downstream either.
I suspect, from the limited cases I have been able to find, that nature tends to snap back abruptly in response. The behavior is consistent with an “Irresistable Force”.
Dr Bastardi
Whether your writing is good bad or indifferent (I think it’s fairly engaging for what it’s worth) is as nothing compared to whether your arguments are reasonable and cogent.
One of the expressions I picked up during a low key science career was from a fairly ascerbic Professor in the US who asked a straight question, got some wiffly waffly back about this theory and that and so he interrupted fairly rudely and said: ‘I know all the theories, show me the data!’
An expression which could be considered valuable by BOTH sides of the climate debate……
R. Gates says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
but to not mention the increase in sulfur aerosols over the past decade (regardless of cause) is to miss a big part of the story.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87#comment-4663
“Schwartz claims that aerosols are masking about half the warming which would be 1.4 C in the twentieth century vs the 0.6-0.7 C observed warming. We dispute this claim on several grounds.
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s as some people claim. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models for anthropogenic aerosol increases show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in the Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends and all the astronomical observations show no trends.
A second argument against aerosols being a cooling agent that masks warming is that the claimed aerosol increases occur where the strongest warming is being observed, namely the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes and Europe. If anything, aerosols are an additional source of heating through soot which warms the atmosphere or soot on snow that will also warm.
Finally the Northern Hemisphere where the aerosols presumably are located is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere where there are fewer aerosols.
In short there is no experimental evidence that increasing aerosols are masking any greenhouse warming or that they caused the 1940-1975 cooling.”
Stephen Wilde & Bruce of Newcastle
For our ‘pet hypothesis’ for the natural climate change be it TSI, UV, planetary, solar-lunar, geomagnetic or whatever, in the final analysis reliable data and the underlining physics will decide. To prove any of the above including the ‘whatever’, is going to be hard slog unless it comes with a (sought-after) endorsement from a well known name or institution, but the ‘enlightened’ do not take kindly to intrusions from the trespassers and even less to a ‘game poacher’.
Rhys Jaggar says: ….ascerbic Professor in the US…: ‘I know all the theories, show me the data!’.
Absolutely : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP.htm
G’d morning tb
All ‘known suspects’ listed in here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html
Bruce of Newcastle said:
“in the downwards cycle there are more and longer la Nina’s, and the converse in the upwards cycle. That suggests something driving ENSO rather than ENSO driving the 65 year coupled cycles, although a feedback modulation of it by ENSO would be reasonable”
Agreed. I think the basic ENSO phenomenon is driven as I said by the latitudinal position of the ITCZ causing an imbalance of solar shortwave input either side of the equator.
However other factors then alter the relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina over time.
I think the 60/65 year cycle is probably internal oceanic but the 1000 year peak to peak cycles of MWP to LIA to date is most likely solar induced.
savethesharks says:
July 24, 2011 at 9:03 pm
JK says:
July 24, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I dunno, I listened to the Bastardi forecast last year, where we were in for temps back to 1970 levels, and ice packing the arctic. I have a hard time buying it again.
=====================================
Bull****. He never said any of that.
Well, sorry to burst some bubbles, but JK is right and Bastardi actually did (make that forecast) :
http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/hurricanes-global-warming-or-cooling-the-weather-year-of-a-lifetime-458526/
“The coming cooling of the planet overall will return it to where it was in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.”
and regarding ice extent (for the 2011 Sept minimum) :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/23/joe-bastardis-2011-arctic-sea-ice-prediction/
My forecast for next year is for sea ice to melt only to levels we saw back in 2005, or 06. If I had to put a number on it, I think it would be around 5.5 at its lowest.
Now, to remind you, ice extent is running almost exactly on the 2007 line, which led to a 4.3 million km^2 minimum, or more than a million km^2 below Bastardi’s projection.
Even WUWT, with the latest (July) 5.1 million opinion seems laughable, let alone Bastardi’s 5.5.
ThinkProgress did a reasonable piece on some of the other rather unorthodox exclamations by Bastardi
I actually am not so concerned about Bastardi’s projections. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and reality has a way of showing who is right and who is simply wishing.
But at least anyone claiming to make a prediction should define it.
So when Bastardi claims “2012 globally could average below normal”, it would be nice if he would define what “normal” actually is.
Otherwise, he is just using rhetoric to vent his opinion, without saying anything of substance.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 25, 2011 at 12:38 am
G’d morning tb
All ‘known suspects’ listed in here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html
Hi Vuk. It’s still an open question for me. There was probably some instrumental error (bucket adjustments etc) but also it seems something solar was going on around the same time too.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507269 discusses a phase reversal in the correlation between solar rotation and motion relative to the COM. Worth a read. Discussion here for those interested:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/long-term-variability-in-the-length-of-the-solar-cycle/
Quite honestly I hope Hansen is right about the El Nino and Bastardi wrong. The drought here in Texas is bad enough already and we need an El Nino to break it. Locally a nice big hurricane hitting the Texas Gulf Coast and pushing some juicy rain bands 150 miles inland to me would be nice too but those are rare and only drench a fraction of the state.
I’m beginning to wonder if ENSO is being washed out by something with a longer wavelength (e.g. GCRs begotten by a sleeping sun).
u.k.(us) says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm
David, UK says:
July 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm
=========
“phlogiston”, never said that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe the mods can fix your mistake ??????????
David, UK was actually quoting not my words but R Gates’ response to them.