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
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…..