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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.