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.
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.