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.
@ur momisugly 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).