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.
davidmhoffer says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm
================================
Thanks David
Latitude says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:05 pm
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………
_____
By “now” I take it you mean sometime in this century?
You of course know the answer rests with the global climate models, with every single one of them showing an ice-free Arctic this century. What are their weaknesses? Of course, they have a hard time getting the feedbacks right, as tipping points caused by cascading positive feedback loops (i.e. chaos) are difficult little beasts to predict (impossible in fact), So that the GCM’s are more likely to be way too conservative in their estimates.
It is important to note (really important in fact) that after the 2007 record low minimum, it was NOT global climiate models showing an ice free Arctic by 2013, but the “guess” of one scientist. However, the climate models were adjusted to take into account more of the positive feedbacks and polar amplification of global warming effects (even more than they had), and so, the consensus of an ice-free Arctic is now much sooner than 2100, but certainly not 2013, which again, did not come from a global climate model.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
I suspect you aren’t up to debate, but then you may simply be not interested in staying put long enough.
“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.”
You didn’t refute the DMI 80N temp I linked in showing normal summer temps by posting any contrary link, and neither did you answer the Arctic Sea Ice Extent Anomaly climbing back up the same slope it slid down on with a contrary link.
C’mon in, the water’s fine.
What do you mean by Anthropogenic Climate change if it’s not ocean cycles and it’s not air temps?
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm
You of course know the answer rests with the global climate models, with every single one of them showing an ice-free Arctic this century.
===============================================================
This year, this decade, this century………no, I can’t keep up
You mean the global climate models that have predicted everything else so well?
Other than backcasting and predicting 20 years of warming, and missing the last 10 years of not warming…………yeah, they really understand what drives the climate……..LOL
Gates says:
“…GCM’s are more likely to be way too conservative in their estimates.”
Yikes! It’s worse than we thought!
Seriously, there is exactly zero evidence that the current Arctic ice cycle is due to warming from GHGs. Every bit of that speculation is based on computer models programmed by people who have a good chance of snagging grant money if their predictions are scary.
Mr. gates in confused. What is all this nonsense on the Arctic? Most of the Arctic Ice Loss has been due to the collapse in the beaufort gyre, a wind/ocean driven arctic current relating to the AMO & HLB. Even NSIDC admits that most of the Ice Loss has been due to natural variability over warming temps.
Ice loss this sumer has been due to an Arctic Dipolan anomaly present for a lengthy stretch of time, it isn’t easy to predict arctic ice loss/melt/gain seasons, its like trying to predict the weather 3 months out.
And FYI the 2007 season saw a bunch of Multi-yr Ice Flushed out of the Arctic, and that multi-yr ice is what hangs around during the melt seasons. With a weak beaufort gyre, that ice is not held in place, and is flushed out the Fram straight. AGW is almost irrelavennt since most of the warming in the arctic is due to albedo feedback from ice loss, corresponding to the AMO regions morespo than the PDO in response time.
I might add to Joe’s comments and article the clear sinusoidal signals in the data. Check out Digital Diatribes blog for a good look at this area, in particular:
Best fit sinusoidal to 160 years of HadCRUT
Sinusoidal fit to 150 years of AMO data
These sinusoidals have a period of about 65 years, so it is only clearly apparent in datasets such as these that are longer than two wavelengths.
Now some of the CAGW camp deride ‘correlation is not causation’ and ‘that’s merely curve fitting’, but I might point out that statistics as a field was invented for a reason. The onus on our CAGW colleagues is to explain why they think the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C, given that the HadCRUT sinewave was at minimum at 1900 and maximum in 2000. That is 1/3 of the temperature rise across the century which in my view was clearly not caused by CO2.
Sorry, first link broke. Here is the link to the first graph:
Best fit sinusoidal to 160 years of HadCRUT
R. Gates
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.>>>
As usual, having his argument completely destroyed by the well known physics he admits to, R. Gates has no credible response to the physics discussion which ended in silence on his part, Instead he wants to talk about TRUTH all in caps, and that someone’s TRUTH might be different than someone else’s TRUTH.
Sorry R. Gates, sme circle as always. You claim the physics, are refuted by the physcis, and your only response is to change the subject to something other than physics. Why is that R, Gates? Why is that when confronted by the facts and physics, the best you can do is change the subject. Either accept the physics (which you say you do) or refute it. You can’t say you accept it and that it is well understood by then arguing that there’s things unaccounted for that people who are talking about physics aren’t taking into account.
And when asked to substantiate your conflicting claims one way or the other, you either run and hide, or change the topic again. Back to the physics or STFU.
Bruce of Newcastle says: “Now some of the CAGW camp deride ‘correlation is not causation’ and ‘that’s merely curve fitting’, but I might point out that statistics as a field was invented for a reason. The onus on our CAGW colleagues is to explain why they think the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C, given that the HadCRUT sinewave was at minimum at 1900 and maximum in 2000.”
I as a a climate skeptic (not as a CAGW colleague) can explain to you why “the PDO/AMO did not have a 0.27 C warming effect over the 20th C”. The PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific (north of 20N). The PDO is an abstract form of that dataset and it is inversely related to the detrended sea surface temperature of the North Pacific. The other problem: there is no process through which the PDO can raise or lower global surface temperature. It is an aftereffect of ENSO.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm
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.
——————————–
Oh come on. The only good global warming models are the ones that predict no warming. They are the accurate ones.
One of my favorite things to do is to overlay the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Anomaly jpegs:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg.
Arctic is black, Antarctic is grey.
Joe, there is nothing, NOTHING wrong with your writing style. I love it. Keep at it.
Oh, and you are one of the finest at predicting the weather, too. (That the financial shows use you as their “Go To Guy” for hurricanes when $Billions are on the line in options and futures contracts is clear testimony to that). That’s where I first saw you. Calling it clear and correct. I can, and do, bet real money on your predictions – in heating oil and natural gas markets; occasionally in crude oil.
I’ll be watching that AMO call ( Looks like I’m getting a ‘gig’ on the East Coast…) so the Atlantic will matter to me (I’ve been a California guy for my whole life… so only ever really cared about the Pacific). Given the cold turn so far, and your predictions, I’d expect heating oil to rise and nat gas to maybe finally get off the floor (it was driven down by technology improvements… There is NO energy shortage…)
So, for my money (literally) there is no warming, El Nino is a no-show, and batten down the hatches, get the heating oil filled early and don’t plan a winter vacation to cold country 😉
Thanks for all you do. A loyal admirer and fan.
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
In response to Mr. Tisdale,
Wondering if perhaps there is an indirect effect of the PDO on temperatures, perhaps in cloud coverage/source regions rather than direct SST-to-temperature? Presume it may also be more of an albedo thing rather than an direct SST forcing? As in the Beaufort Gyre/AMO correlation to Arctic Ice, higher albedo, and a cooler globe/NH?
Sometimes I feel the climate is oversimplified, as in, too much attention paid to forcings rather than feedbacks, goes for solar arctivity as well.
R. Gates says:
Here’s a link to a story on NASA’s skepticism about climate models: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/quote-of-the-week-34-nasa-doubts-climate-model-certainty/ Given that NASA supports the development of some of those models, their skepticism is pretty damning.
Scientific credibility is established by the ability to make successful predictions. In the context of this post we have:
Bastardi – 1
Hansen – 0
So, yes, the climate is being better understood but not necessarily by everyone equally.
Ed Mertin says:
July 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
——
There may be some truth in that…thanks for the free counseling and reminder.
Bob Tisdale at July 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Bob – Yes you are correct, I should use terminology like “the process underlying ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO which is linked to a ~65 year sinusoidal cycling in the temperature record”, however we lack a simplified name for the process, hence the shortening “PDO/AMO”. They (the PDO and the AMO) are not perfectly coincident as Joe says, but you can see the sinusoidal in ENSO also, its just we only have a single wavelength worth of data therefore it is less apparent.
How irritating is it going to be when we all finally find out that R. Gates is the only one posting on here who is actually a salaried shill for Big Oil ??
Gotta hand it to him though – he’s probably made more people convert to climate realism than most on this site. Keep up the good work dude. Your faux passive aggressiveness is a work of art.
philincalifornia says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm
How irritating is it going to be when we all finally find out that R. Gates is the only one posting on here who is actually a salaried shill for Big Oil ??
Gotta hand it to him though – he’s probably made more people convert to climate realism than most on this site. Keep up the good work dude. Your faux passive aggressiveness is a work of art.
———-
Thanks a lot. My paycheck from Chevron was based on me appearing to be a warmist. How am I going to pay my bills now??? You’ve ruined everything!
Gates, while I was already tired of you after the first few times you had hijacked a thread and attempted to steer it off topic….I gotta tell ya…it is entertaining watching you set yourself up, as always, for that well-deserved wedgy.
Philincalifornia, that last remark was hilarious!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Yes, Chris, it’s great to see R.Gates get his backside whupped soundly every time he comes trolling.
R. Gates says:
July 23, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Ed Mertin says:
July 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Gates, bud, what you need is a soft, gentle, beautiful distraction with diamond smiles and a radiant tan. You cannot have mine but she does have hot friends…
——
There may be some truth in that…thanks for the free counseling and reminder.>>>
Here’s another tip. If you want to get anywhere with that beautiful distraction you’ll need a strategy that doesn’t depend on a long list of bad things that will be likely to happen no matter how unlikley they actually are.
Oh yes, the goal BTW is to achieve a tipping point, not to avoid one.
phil says: “Wondering if perhaps there is an indirect effect of the PDO on temperatures, perhaps in cloud coverage/source regions rather than direct SST-to-temperature?”
There has been speculation about a cloud effect in at least one paper, but the problem again is that the PDO is inversely related to the SST of the North Pacific.
Joe Bastardi,
You state “the global temp spike which would put 2012 temps up and this is what Hansen was hoping for. He doesn’t understand…”
and instead you mention “2012 globally could average below normal”.
It seems to me that you think that Hansen does not understand that 2012 will be “below normal”, and like anyone else you are entitled to an opinion.
However, I would like to point out that, as opposed to Hansen’s clear statement and scientific argument, you did not even define what you are predicting.
So, once again, can you please define for us what “normal” is ?
Also, can you elaborate on how confident are you that “2012 globally could average below” that “normal” ?