Joe publishes an essay in the State College newspaper which Mann reads looking for anything that might question his hockey stick theory. – Anthony
Can America Last? Only If We Use the Lessons of the Past
by Joe Bastardi
If you knew about the climate and nation’s weather the way I have to, you would see the links between what happened from 1925 to 1950 and what is going on now. During that time, we were in a warm version of the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic turned warm, and the weather went haywire. And there were other challenges as great as the weather facing the nation.
I get a kick out of those blaming carbon dioxide for the weather problems. Why? Because it has happened before and will happen again. The Earth has been going through 30 years of a warm Pacific Ocean; that reversed in 2007 and, lo and behold, weather similar to the last time it happened showed up. Tornado deaths in this nation were greatest in the 1950s, for instance. And there have been far worse tornado disasters worldwide spread out evenly over the centuries.
…
My suggestion as to the answer comes from the book of Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the sun. Of course, that would not sit well with anyone wishing to save the planet from man-made demons in the air – and getting paid to do so.
And by the way, while proponents of global warming claim that all this wild weather is consistent with their models – which unknown to many are starting to forecast global cooling, though they won’t tell you that yet – it is also consistent with what happens in the weather when any given pattern changes.
…
read the full article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post — let’s hope farmers are paying attention. The Dust Bowl occurred in the 30’s and we don’t need another one.
Statecollege.com is a community website/message board, not the local paper (a McClatchey Paper) or university newspaper or web site. Those are the Centre Daily Times and the Daily Collegian.
For anyone interested there’s lots of historical references for bad weather below. Once we get c02 down to below 350ppm the weather will once again be normal. /sarc
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/historical-references/
Joe Bastardi wrote: “The Earth has been going through 30 years of a warm Pacific Ocean; that reversed in 2007 and, lo and behold, weather similar to the last time it happened showed up.”
What reversed in 2007? The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Pacific Ocean as a whole didn’t magically shift in 2007:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2j2gvna.jpg
It didn’t happen in the North Pacific:
http://i52.tinypic.com/23kaws2.jpg
And there was no magic switch in the temperature of the North Pacific north of 20N, which is the area used to determine the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:
http://i54.tinypic.com/4uyn4j.jpg
The 2007/08 La Niña started in 2007:
http://i56.tinypic.com/izxm2x.jpg
But there was no “reversal”.
I am stunned. I truly am. Everyone one of those Global Warming hypocrites live down in the warm zones of this planet. None of them live up North here in Canada where I live and work. I’ve lived all of my life in this climate – I’ve been to the places everyone talks about, the high Arctic. I’ve lived in Labrador, I’ve been on that drifting ice seal hunting. I’ve chiseled down third feet in the ice and had to make ice steps to get down that far and never did find a bottom. Thank God I didn’t otherwise the water would have blasted upward like a geyser.
Trust me – in cold winter weather you have to increase you calorie intake by thousands of calories a day just to stay the same weight. I’ve seen southerners who think they know how the world works up here lose thirty pounds in just 200 miles of travel. Then they get on an aircraft and run back south never to see them again. Then suddenly THEY are the experts? I’ve worked my butts off as a lad (my first job) trying to keep those fools alive and NOW they are the experts? The very same people who live their lives in warm zones playing with their computer generated graphs in shirt sleeves with air conditioners on are claiming to be climate geniuses? Satellites overhead you say? Right – trust me here on the ground its a whole new world no satellite can ever relate to a human. Up here weather changes in a heartbeat and will kill you as fast. How many I wonder have ever set foot in these areas so discussed here and on so many other sites on a daily basis? Anyone? Actually traveled on the land away from civilization? Canada is millions of squared miles and much of Canada is the areas discussed here. Who here has been there? And actually understands why paper/computer graphs and reality have never yet met in any universe so constructed by the “experts.”
Regarding the request for models predicting cooling: I know when Joe was still working for accuweather.com he showed some of the seasonal models that showed cooling. He mentioned them by name and showed their graphics, said to “google them”, but I could never find any except NOAA’s seasonal outlook.
Another lesson from history that I got from reading the Literture from the cooling/colder periods of the past:
Whenever there was a severe economic downturn/economic gloom it was immediately followed by a climate change with a detrimental impact to agriculture. The lesson is that greed preceeds the turn of climate. Whom should this interest? Those whose field of study includes the behavior of man that is passed down over millenia of direct experience. Those who dwell at the precipice of a return to poverty and squalor of the masses should the lights go out on Science.
It is in the best interests of the US to avoid this slippery slope of ignorance.
Publius says:
June 28, 2011 at 6:55 am
You’re right, and I’ve given the “experts” in the field a name: “climsci”–as in not quite “climate” (more politics than anything else), and certainly not quite “science” (a collection of post normal, lazy, irreproducible fudging). Put them together and you have “climsci”, like that climsci Michael Mann.
The BBCs Richard Black on Climate models
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13909380
We can’t say for certain that any individual event was or wasn’t caused by any other specifc event, but there are a few inconsistences in Joe’s thinking, and this seems to hold true for many positions taken up by skeptics. These arguments can be stated as:
1. If X caused Y in the past, then if Y happens in the future it can only be caused by X.
or said another way:
2. If Y happened in the past, and is Y is happening now, it must have the same cause.
Other unprovable inconsistencies would be:
3. The dynamics of weather patterns will repeat themselves in exactly the same way over time. (even though the composition of the atmosphere, the position of the earth in Milankovitch cycles, the position of the solar system in the galaxy, the solar output, the level of GCRs, the amount of volcanic activity, the earth’s magnetic field, the position of the continents, etc. etc. etc. will never be exactly the same way twice.)
It is interesting to note that even though Joe may not think anthropogenic climate change is happening or the cause of the above average amount of extreme weather we’ve been having, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, who has billions at stake on getting this right, disagrees with Joe and has put a lot of effort into researching this, namely Munich Re. See:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1934684/munich-warns-soaring-climate-change-costs
So Joe might be telling his clients there’s nothing to worry about, this is all a “normal” cycle of things, (i.e. x caused y in the past and so x, and only x, must be causing y now), but Munich Re is telling its clients that we they expecting to see more frequent occurances of extreme weather, (i.e. this isn’t the world it was a hundred years ago and climate related risks are increasing)
3.
Thanks Joe, great article!
twawki: The trouble is, everything doesn’t remain the same. In the ’30s our ruling class and academics had a firm grasp on reality. They knew the difference between facts and fantasy, knew when to say “I don’t know.”
Now they’re all absolute wacked-out psychopaths in the entire English-speaking world, with a tiny tiny tiny handful of namable exceptions. Right now the only sane people with any degree of power are James Inhofe and Janusz Lewandowski. Can two men save us? I doubt it.
30 years is a long time, and some apparently sought to use this long period to grab control over all of us. But the more we see, the more we read, the more we observe, it appears their window of opportunity is ending. And that may explain why they are getting so desperate and strident in their denunciations of both skeptics and data. And why their rhetoric is becoming so 1984ish.
Sorry R, he made no such assertion. He did say the “pattern” would repeat, but he never said it ” will repeat themselves in exactly the same way over time.”. That is your strawman. Perhaps you would like to discuss the issue at hand and not put words into Mr. Bastardi’s mouth?
fredb says:
June 28, 2011 at 6:35 am
Joe: You make a sweeping statement “… which unknown to many are starting to forecast global cooling, though they won’t tell you that yet”
Look at the NCEP model for this coming winter. New la niña with below normal temps right across the Arctic.
R Gates again. Joe gets it right every time by looking at complex past weather and climate parametres. You can be soooooo blind at times. OR in english, blinkered.
I wanted to call him a prat but decided not to be rude. It’s not the ‘french way’.
R. Gates says:
June 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
“It is interesting to note that even though Joe may not think anthropogenic climate change is happening or the cause of the above average amount of extreme weather we’ve been having, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, who has billions at stake on getting this right, disagrees with Joe and has put a lot of effort into researching this, namely Munich Re. See:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1934684/munich-warns-soaring-climate-change-costs
So Joe might be telling his clients there’s nothing to worry about, this is all a “normal” cycle of things, (i.e. x caused y in the past and so x, and only x, must be causing y now), but Munich Re is telling its clients that we they expecting to see more frequent occurances of extreme weather, (i.e. this isn’t the world it was a hundred years ago and climate related risks are increasing)”
Gates, you have absolutely swallowed the kool aid. If you think that insurance companies have anything in mind other than producing a reason to raise rates then you must be blind to everyone with an agenda. Citing an insurance company that says they are expecting greater risks as a reason to believe that those risks are likely to happen is, without being too offensive, just stupid. They have “billions at stake” sure, hoping to collect billions of extra premiums by making everyone believe it could happen and pocketing the profits when they don’t. I really thought you were wiser than that.
See, this is why you’re on the wrong side of this debate.
You think you’re seeing a logical inconsistency here, but in fact it’s the warmist side that has the logic problem.
I have yet to hear a realist claim that anything “can only be caused by” anything. Ever. I’ve heard ONLY warmists make this claim… ie, “weather is messed up, it can only be caused by CO2”.
The fact is, it’s been cool, and it’s been warm. The alarmists seem unable to avoid extrapolating upward or downward curves into straight skyrocketing lines. Realists recognize that for about as long as humans have been recording weather, these things oscillate, and go in cycles. Some we can identify, some not so much. Alarmists get all alarmed at, first cooling, then warming, then “CHANGE”.
Since “moderate republican” started trolling here and getting schooled on the “strawman” concept, I’m amazed that you would so rapidly do the same. Nobody has ever said anything will be “exactly the same”. That’s one of the most ridiculous strawmen I’ve yet seen set up. But you did it. Congratulations.
Actually, it’s even more interesting to note that as a person who, presumeably, lives in the first world, you can’t comprehend that Insurance companies have IMMENSE amounts to gain from climate alarm. They can raise rates for “increased risk” and laugh (at you) all the way to the bank. Insurance companies are NOT hurting. In fact, their records are likely more complete than anyone’s when it comes to extreme weather events, and I’m absolutely positive that they’re giggling on a daily basis.
R. Gates says:
June 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
…one of the largest insurance companies in the world, who has billions at stake on getting this right, … but Munich Re is telling its clients that we they expecting to see more frequent occurances of extreme weather, (i.e. this isn’t the world it was a hundred years ago and climate related risks are increasing)
===================================================
On the contrary, it’s in Munich Re’s interests to grossly exaggerate the risks so that they can increase their premiums without increased payouts.
“…while proponents of global warming claim that all this wild weather is consistent with their models …”
What wild weather shows is just how wide the range of “normal” really is.
Why do warmest act like the dust bowl never happened?
Speaking of Mr. Bastardi,
I really miss seeing his postings at AccuWeather and I followed them for a while at WeatherBell but can’t anymore because the payment is too steep. While the fee might be worthwhile for the array of products they offer, I was only interested in the blogging and the fee is too steep just to follow someone’s comments.
I miss reading Mr. Bastardi’s stuff.
.The fee is not too steep just to follow someone’s comments, when the comments are Mr. Bastardi’s. It costs $16.99/month, which means I have to go without gossip at the local market, and instead of buying a large coffee at $1.75, brew my own coffee at home, for around 20 days a month. I can catch up on the gossip during the other ten days.
I did save some money by dropping my subscription to Accuweather professional, after Bastardi left, but the increase in gas and oil prices more than ate that up.
Wait a second. Coffee prices may be going up 2%, due to frost in Brazil. (For tips and notes)
http://www.weatherbell.com/weather-news/frost-reports-in-brazil-cause-increase-in-coffee-prices/
That means I’d have to go without gossip 21 days. I sure hope Mr. Bastardi appreciates the sacrifices people must make.
If the atmosphere could have warmed the oceans, it had thousands of years since the end of the last ice age to do so.
Anyone claiming that the atmosphere can warm the oceans is either a fool, an advocate or on the AGW gravy train.
DCC says:
Could you elaborate on that, Joe? Are you saying that the models are actually predicting the lack of warming since about 1995-1998? That’s news to me and must make Trenberth very happy. But how was that accomplished?
My answer: in Climate Science postdiction = prediction, donchaknow. Just add to “the physics” the “elegant” [R. Gates] delayed retroactive negative feedback of AGW upon atmospheric CO2 concentrations which reduces CO2’s net forcing even while CO2 is increasing – which any respectable mental Time Machine should be able to pull off – thus allowing increasing CO2 concentrations to force cooling [h/t Pat Frank]: ~”more rain due to AGW causes more weathering action upon atmospheric CO2 to form CaCO3, which thus acts to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration after the atmospheric temp. has stopped rising and even turned to cooling, but also at the same time when atmospheric CO2 concentration is still rising; just as the historical paleo records also show, QED.”
Only a member Antrhowback in good standing, such as Gates himself, could possibly be “qualified” as a result of his incessant repeating of the Holy CO2 = CAGW “tenets”, to then add:
R. Gates says:
June 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
We can’t say for certain that any individual event was or wasn’t caused by any other specifc event…., that is, unless “we” have a mental Time Machine to make it happen as it should happen, according to “the physics”.