By Joe Bastardi, Weatherbell Analytics
When the PDO turned cold, most of the meteorological and climate community understood that the pattern was turning very similar the last time of the PDO reversal, the 1950s, and it was a matter of time before the global temperatures, which have leveled off, would start falling in the same herby jerky fashion they had risen when the PDO turned warm at the end of the 1970s. I am not going to rehash the sordid details of how the AGW crowd simply ignores the major drivers of a cyclical nature. We all know that. Nor am I going to question them as to why they believe a trace gas like CO2 (needed for life on the planet) with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air in a way to affect the earth’s temperatures. Instead I am going to drive home points I have been making since 2007 and are now dramatically validating.
The La Ninas of 2008-09 and now this one had rapid mid level temperature drops that followed their onset and this years was nothing short of the most dramatic mid tropospheric drop since the start of the millennium. It is much more plausible to believe that rapid cooling in the mid levels would have an effect at leading to extremes, rather than what the warmingistas claim, which of course is anything that happens. In any case, one very interesting level that cooled to record cold levels was 400 mb, the very levels that the so called trapping hot spots were going to show up because of CO2…again a neat trick since somehow CO2 was going to defy the laws of Gravity, since, as mentioned above, its specific gravity is higher than the atmosphere (of course even if it was, it a) has not been proven to cause warming and b) man’s contribution is so tiny as to render it a non item anyway in climate considerations.
However first came the flip in the PDO, seen nicely here on the Multivariate Enso Index chart, which clearly illustrates the colder Pacific when the earth was colder, the start of the warming period coinciding with the satellite era, and now.
Now from the AMSU site, the amazing one year drop in temperature, the orange tan line being after the El Nino of 2009/10, the purplish line this past year and one can see the green this year, we are near record cold levels again.
600 mb (14,000 feet) (enlarged)
And oh my my, the trapping hot spot itself.. 400mb or 25,000 feet… coldest in the entore decade
But the 2 meter temperatures, being in the boundary layer, do not respond as fast as the ocean, or a transparent atmosphere above
Nevertheless three downturns in a jagged fashion started predictably after the last El Nino now falling again in fits and spurts through December.
From Dr Roy Spencer’s site:
(enlarged)
In May, I forecasted the global temperatures to fall to -0.15C in one of the months – Jan, Feb or Mar this year, and perhaps as low as levels we saw in the 2008 La Nina. A rapid free fall has begun. Dr. Ryan Maue at his site (http://policlimate.com/weather/) maintains a plethora of useful forecast information including GFS global temp projections over the next 16 days.
They have been routinely reading greater than 0.2 C below normal and I suspect the Jan reading will plummet quite a bit from December with February even lower. An example of this can be seen with these two charts off Ryan’s site,
-0.258 C globally for 2 meters. (enlarged)
Day 8.5-16 a whopping -0.352 C (enlarged)
The reason the arctic looks warm is that it has been stormy, and when it’s windy the air is well mixed and so the temperatures are not as low as if it’s calm, but it’s still frigid. Notice in the second map, that the arctic cools because the arctic oscillation is starting to go negative, leading to higher pressures and lighter winds. But the most astounding aspect of this is the northern hemisphere mid latitude temperatures, at -2.1 C.
Currently, with gas so high because we are being handcuffed by an administration that won’t drill (if gas was a 1.50 lower, it would be worth a half trillion dollars to the economy) and an EPA that is causing untold economic damage (I would conservatively etiolate a half trillion dollars, from jobs lost to burdensome regulations) along with a 100 billion dollar subsidy to fight global warming world wide, it is costing each ACTUAL TAX PAYER close to 7000 dollars (1.1 trillion divided by 150 million tax payers).
One has to wonder, how even the most dogmatic of them don’t look at the actual facts, how they can continue to carry on their denial while the results of such things handcuff the American economy and cause untold misery for many as our wealth is not only redistributed, but dwindles. One can only conclude this is being done on purpose, and with purpose.
See PDF with enlarged images.
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale disagrees with portions of this analysis and has an essay here.
“One can only conclude this is being done on purpose, and with purpose.”
Well duh…… it would be impossible (well, ok, improbable) that politicians were so utterly dumb as to fail to understand the implications of what they collectively legislate therefore we must assume that they know and understand their reasoning and actions. Are they doing this voluntarily or are they doing so under duress? Who is it that is pulling the strings? What are their ultimate aims?
There are many speculative (conspiracy theory) suggestions doing the rounds, some with extremely persuassive reasonings attached. Are there any AGW theorists with the additional global knowledge attending this blog capable of offering any further insight?
I realise this blog isn’t a political one and that this particular subject would be off-topic (of sorts) but it might reveal the thinking behind the warmist agenda and offer a possible counter argument that has greater weight than ‘nit picking’ over technical differences.
Can we allow just this one instance for off-topic speculation/reasoning?
Joe, nice article, but CO2 is pretty well (not perfectly) mixed in the atmosphere in spite of being a denser gas than N2 or O2. Hadley cells and winds do that mixing I suppose, I’m sure you know more than I do about them. And CO2 does contribute to setting the mean height of out-going long-wave radiation (OLR) at somewhere about 10km rather than at sea level. Maybe increasing CO2 can push that OLR height a few tens of metres higher, which may produce a detectable effect on sea level temperatures – or maybe not detectable.
As any lazy boss of a large organization will tell you, the easiest and quickest way not to do the job is just to say “yes” to everything that reaches your desk. When you say “no”, people get unhappy — they complain, they whine, they set up meetings you have to attend, etc. But say “yes” and it’s one quick signature then you’re off to the golf course. I think a lot of what we see from the current administration comes from that sort of dynamic — and with the way the US executive branch works, always saying “yes” leads to lots of stupid regulations from dysfunctional domestic bureaucracies like the EPA. I am confident that deep, dark conspiracies sound too much like hard work to appeal to our current president.
On purpose and with a purpose. It was NEVER about science.
It really is much worse than we thought.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
What influence does the higher specific gravity of CO2 have when convective mixing is substantial? I don’t disagree with the thrust of this post, but just don’t see the relevance of this factoid.
Joe:
there is 1% Argon in the atmosphere, and Argon’s specific gravity is very close to that of CO2. Now we agree that Argon is well mixed – yes?
Actually Joe, scientists do understand this process pretty well, via a branch of physics called “The kinetic theory of gases.”
Look at it this way: suppose that the atmosphere did settle into layers, organized by molecular weight. Then there would be (in order) a thin layer of CO2 molecules at ground level, then a layer of argon atoms (lighter than CO2), then a layer of of oxygen molecules (lighter than argon), then a layer of nitrogen molecules (lighter than oxygen), and at the top, a layer of H20 molecules. But obviously that doesn’t happen (because if it did, we would all be dead).
Perhaps you would like to amend this opening remark, so that folks appreciate that this aspect of atmospheric science is well-understood?
The other thing that’s always been misleading on their map, is the choice of map.
Take that same anomaly reading an place it on a polar projection – you’ll see just how small that area really is.
Don’t know how to post a picture here, or I’d show you myself…
Here in the Fraser Valley, BC the wind chill was -25 Celsius yesterday. The January all-time recorded low is -26.6.
Does that mean we’ve warmed by 1.6 degrees? /sarc
I like Joe’s straightforward explanations, but I wish he had a proofreader. Even on weatherbell, his writing is sometimes amiss. I don’t think etiolate is what he meant.
Same problem in the UK, stupid government who ignore climate history in favour of a few advisers who are gold plating their salaries whilst the rest of us get poorer trying to keep warm.
One has to wonder, how even the most dogmatic of them don’t look at the actual facts, how they can continue to carry on their denial while the results of such things handcuff the American economy and cause untold misery for many as our wealth is not only redistributed, but dwindles.
How can “they” deny facts and obsessively destroy wealth while Progressively confiscating whatever’s left of it for themselves? They’re Communists, that’s how. Their own poverty of mind = poverty for the rest of us. “Or else!” What they do should be studied as you would any other sub-rational animal, in order to know what they will keep doing to ‘sustain’ themselves – regardless of fact, logic, ethics, science and reason.
Joe,
Thanks for your fine work here.
Arguments pro and con CAWG – whether it’s real, how real, what to do, political / policy considerations; it’s all interesting.
But of most interest to me, are actual meteorological measurements, I mean if there’s global warming shouldn’t we be able to measure it? I am not an earth-sciences professional, but a mechanical engineer and have kept up on CAGW since Climategate 1.0.
Where’s the Global Warming? Where’s the “hotspot”? Why don’t the thermometers and satellites show the effects of man-made CO2? What am I missing? Shouldn’t the immanent catastrophe that is global warming from man-made CO2 be somehow measurable by something, somewhere?
Joe,
You Superstar, thank you for having the guts to openly voice your opinions and confronting the global warming cult.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would please favour us with your analysis of the state of the sea ice ala your days at Accuweather.
Why we have the 5 degree Celsius positive sea temperature anomaly in the North Atlantic around Cape Cod that seems to end when it meets the frigid waters of the Labrador current?
Am I right to view this as an interruption of the mighty Gulfstream heat transfer mechanism so vital to Northern Europe?
I predict the Labrador current will deliver some significant ice into the Titanic catastrophe area around 12-15 April this year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the sinking of RMS Titanic
Thanks sincerely,
Robert.
Only one problem with this story:
why they believe a trace gas like CO2 … with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air
Well, even CFC’s with a specific gravity of over 2 are found up to 15 km in the stratosphere… If CO2 is released with huge quantities at once, it remains near ground and can suffocate (small) animals and even people. But once mixed by wind or heat (turbulence) is stays mixed, thanks to Brownian motion. Only in a stagnant air column it may show a small drop out after a long period of time, as one finds some 1% increase in CO2 after 40 years at the bottom of firn layers in Antarctica (Law Dome measurements)…
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere at sea level (Cape Kumukahi, Hawaii) is the same as at the 3400 m altitude Mauna Loa, Hawaii station…
Robbie says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:36 am
Face it Mr. Bastardi: CO2 is having some effect on climate.
“some effect”? Ok, I will, but only if you admit that “mainstream” Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW “theory” is a complete failure as judged by and compared to real science. [Which Climate Science is intentionally not doing.]
Why won’t you face reality, Robbie?
The administration has been touting that very fact.
I don’t recall ever seeing the term “etiolate” used in this context.
Yes, we will be cooling for some time. But, the plateau will probably continue until ~2014/15 and when the sc24 starts declining, the cooling will really kick in. I predict at least ~flat linear trend for 1990-2020, if not negative.
“…those with their heads in the sand of CAWG who are indeed the “deniers” Turn their own weapon against them.”
Voila, the CDD – Climate Data Deniers
Curiousgeorge, of course you’re right. Don’t forget to learn Fox and Pivens, Alinsky (dedicated his book to Lucifer?!?) et al. I’m guessing you already know these names, I’d encourage Mr Bastardi to do the same if he isn’t already educated about them.
Mr Bastardi, many thanks for this article, and all your work! Have enjoyed you since radio days doing spots during talk shows!
If Saudi Arabia doesn’t get their income (what is a couple of billion dollars to buy off all the politicians), the Middle East would go up in flames. By not drilling and/or piping, this keeps the price up. Of course the EPA is involved, it is just a tool of the politicians. We just found out about the “back door” financing from NASA to the IPCC.
Gee, quiet Sun, the Earth cools; active Sun the Earth warms. Where else could the energy come from to form the El Ninos (guess its not volcanoes, CO2, clouds or “what ever”). What is the Solar storage mechanism?? How about a puffed up upper atmosphere due to UV???
Sun and UV for the rest of us. CO2 and dollars for them…
Missing troposphere heat, a cold ‘hot spot’, missing ocean heat, how these darned inconvenient facts keep interfering with the message. Quick someone, Mike, Phil, get rid of the PDO!
“Nor am I going to question them as to why they believe a trace gas like CO2 (needed for life on the planet) with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air in a way to affect the earth’s temperatures.”
Trace gas – irrelevant. Needed for life – irrelevant. Specific gravity – totally irrelevant. Mixing – totally and utterly irrelevant.
Quite an amazing amount of irrelevance for a single sentence. It seems that you don’t even know the mechanism by which CO2 affects temperatures.
“…somehow CO2 was going to defy the laws of Gravity…”
And it seems that you don’t even understand what convection is.
“man’s contribution is so tiny as to render it a non item anyway in climate considerations”
40% is not tiny.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:17 am
Rejoice! By crashing the economy, AGWers are going to solve the immigration problem!
Here, in Latin America, we are witnessing the return of millions of people. It´s real!
So things happen in this world of our Lord: “What goes up…must come down” as the lyrics of a song reads.
You see? that “democratic” thing, when exaggerated, puts the world upside down.