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.
From what Joe says about trace gas and from what he says about specific gravity it looks like Joe utterly misunderstands the mechanism of global warming. He thinks C02 traps heat. It doesnt. that is not the theory.
Joe here is how it works:
The sun radiates energy to the earth across the vacuum of space. In turn the earth radiates energy back to space. Short wave in, longwave out. The various gases in the atmosphere including water vapor are more or less transparent to IR energy. Some of them really transparent, others not so transparent. C02 is rather opaque to IR. How do we know this? Well years of measurements. In fact, we build devices that depend upon this IR blocking fact. Yes, some C02 detectors depend upon this being true. And If you work on IR missiles you also would know this. Here is a simple demonstration showing how C02 is opaque to IR
So what? what does that have to do with warming the planet. The earth must lose the energy it gets back to space. It does this by re radiating. The height in the atmosphere at which energy is re radiated is called the effective radiating height. When we add more GHGs to the atmosphere the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR. If you need a visual, think of a screen or mesh getting smaller and smaller holes. Those holes or “transmission windows” are how the energy escapes back to space. You should understand these transmission windows. The radars you use in weather forecasting RELY ON the science of transmission windows. They work because this science is sound.
As we add more GHGs we fill up the holes over time and the atmosphere becomes more opaque. This means the effective radiating height of the atmosphere will increase. Energy still escapes back to space, but the earth radiates from a higher and colder altitude. This latter factor is important. With more GHGs the atmosphere is more opaque. Earth then re radiates from a higher colder altitude. The rate at which energy is lost back to space is thereby slowed and the surface is warmer than it would be otherwise. You see GHGs dont warm the planet by getting hot themselves, they slow the cooling of the surface. Slowly, bit by bit, over very long stretches of time
Your PC monitor must be upside down. ;O)
In the 1690s estimates suggest up to a quarter of the Scottish population died from extreme cold during the maunder minimum.
So, before anyone starts rejoicing, may I point out that the world would be a lot better if the global warmists were right.
@ur momisugly Keith Pearson (formerly bikermailman, Anon no longer) says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:04 am
Curiousgeorge, of course you’re right…………………
========================================
Well, thanks, but I make no claim to being right. In fact, my wife would categorically disagree 😉
That said, there are many flavors of Utopia. These visions of Utopia espoused by various religions, for example, are consistently at odds with all others. Same for political, environmental, and so on. Each of the proponents/leaders of their brand of Utopia insists that “their way is the right way”, whether it be a pope, a president, a prophet, a chairman, or a secretary. They all believe that they are acting in the best interests of the world, and that all others are evil idiots. Hence, the never ending conflict that is the human condition.
What should be understood is that conflict – often violent – is a necessary ingredient of evolution and progress. Without conflict, there is stagnation and eventual extinction.
In Canada, we have taken the parliament back from the nutty left wing. In America they have retrieved their House of Representatives and soon will re-take their Senate and Administration. After that, we run the loons out of environmental science and the world can begin to work and prosper once more.
I think that the climate is driven by the ocean cycles like the PDO plus a 1/2 ° C warming.
There are peer reviewed studies which do a good job of explaining it.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
The real warming is the long slow 1/2 ° C which is of interest to climatologists only.
Unfortunately for the alarmists there is no CAGW in evidence now or forever.
Brian Macker says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:24 am
and
Alistair Ahs says:
January 19, 2012 at 6:00 am
I don’t assume (or know the) provenance of this:
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
but must guess (based on it being on a “Green” site) it is close to the original.
steven mosher says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
“From what Joe says about trace gas and from what he says about specific gravity it looks like Joe utterly misunderstands the mechanism of global warming. He thinks C02 traps heat. It doesnt. that is not the theory.”
Steven,
Thank you for weighing in here reiterating the basics. I appreciate it as I am always learning here at WUWT.
Now considering the radiative physics – would it be incorrect to reason that there should be more instrumental evidence showing effects of the added CO2? And please understand I am not asking the question in some sort of rhetorical way – it’s just that recent satellite data shows a temperature anomaly of 0.13 deg C and here it 2012 already. (Can you believe it’s already 2012!).
The Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales cross at -40, so it doesn’t matter very much.
The Troposphere should be well mixed by weather, above that you’d expect some settling by density.
steven mosher says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
………
Hi Steven,
I think that video is wrong. Candle needs oxygen (21%) to burn, pumping CO2 next to flame reduces O2, reduce it below 10% and flame will go out, ask any fireman.
Comment from someone working in the compressed/condensed gas industry …”specific gravity” for gasses refers to their relationship to AIR. So 1.5 S.G. is a correct term.
However, Joe almost implies that there would be a layering based on the S.G. At 1 ATM that is generally not true, due to the “ideal gas” behavior of the CO2.
In the upper atm. there is a minor effect.
Max
Alistair Ahs says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:44 am
What does everyone think of Richard Betts’ post over on nature.com? See: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2012/01/18/climate-science-%E2%80%93-moving-beyond-a-single-issue
Wise words from Mr. Betts
@steven mosher says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
Great video!………….But, what does it happen when that round “candle”, above us, diminishes its flame?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
It looks like it is dying!
@steven mosher, just what was the concentration of CO2 in that glass tube shown in the experiement? And just how much CO2, % terms of total atmosphere, will effectively fill in those “transmission windows?”
Mr. Statham – 40% of what, exactly?
steven mosher says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
As we add more GHGs we fill up the holes over time and the atmosphere becomes more opaque.
According to the “water vapor is a ghg” settled physics, water vapor should have already done it all by itself. But if not, why not? It’s not because water vapor is less “opaque” to IR than CO2, because it isn’t. But if it is, then how will water vapor assist CO2 in producing the alleged CAGW warming, when it couldn’t do it before?
Why hasn’t CO2 = CAGW produced even one relevant correct empirical prediction yet? Is it even possible to falsify CO2 = CAGW? Why not?
Why is it not obvious that the alleged cure to the alleged CO2 = CAGW disease is already well proven to be worse than the alleged disease, which itself has not even happened in any way whatsoever? Would you take a drug known to have multiple ill effects on anyone taking it, in order to prevent a disease which has never existed?
steven mosher says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
Steven, I see a problem with that CO2 experiment. The CO2 released into the tube is coming from a tank and will fill the tube with very cold CO2 gas. Putting ANY cold gas, including AIR, between the lens and the candle would interfere with the camera seeing the heat through the tube.
He would have to fill the tube with HOT CO2 to prove his claim it to me.
Mr. Bastardi:
Nice, but there is a typo I think in between the two AMSU graphs
And oh my my, the trapping hot spot itself.. 400mb or 25,000 feet… coldest in the entore decade
Mosh:
Very nice explanation of how increased GHG’s contribute to the warming process.
Joe Bastardi predicted that the Global temp would average out at negative 0.5 Celcius or lower for 2011. He was wrong – as he has been with much of his forecasting. He also forecast a recovery in Arctic Sea Ice to pre – 2005 levels – also wrong! And now, just because we see a downward spike, all of a sudden we’re into dramatic cooling territory, when in fact, we’re not much below average. To be average means average for a year – not just a quick dip below the average line, which is what everyone seems to be crowing about.
I keep on saying it and I will continue: there are no data to suggest the globe is cooling – it continues to warm despite 1998. True, it’s not warming in the catastrohic way that some have predicted but warming it is most definately, on a decadal basis.
When and only when, we start to see the graph head down the way in a long term way, can we claim cooling. This hasn’t happened since 2008, so that year is swamped and nullified by the warmth both before and after. We will need to see global temperatures return to what they were in the 1980’s in order for the last 30 years of warming to be nullified. While I concede that this will take time, there is not yet any clear evidence that the process has begun. I remain skeptical in the meantime that negative PDO, low solar irradiance etc will have any significant effect.
spencer admits that the “discover” site contains unverified, uncorrected data. There is no point using these plots
Why do you keep saying:
“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”
This is unsupported by any scientific documents. GHGs do not hold energy so their SG is irrelevant. They slow the radiation leaving the earth – thus at a fixed watts/second input the output must equal this watts/second so the watts out must rise. i.e. the surface temp must rise to radiate more.
Alan Statham says:
Ummmmm. So Alan. 40% of 0.03% is…times this…carry that…wow .That CO2 really is some great gas,eh? A 0.00001% increase cause quadrupling of surface temps! Great ponzi scheme
Speaking of job losses Joe, your administration and the green shirts just passed up 40,000 shovel ready jobs by delaying/cancelling the Keystone.
Oh, and trust me on this, it has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. There are plenty of mechanisms in both the economy and regulation to redistribute wealth. America has been supporting wealth redistribution for centuries, for example, by supporting free basic eduction for all and subsidzing higher learming for many, by supporting public transporation and a national highways program and a wealth of other programs and so on. And I also disagree with those that say these programs haven’t been highly successful.
This is purely a simple greedy money grab by jackbooted greenshirts in league with their new best friend bankers, who want to carbon trade, and with technology scammers, looking to harvest renewables subsidies. This is a concerted effort by the green shirts to return America to a peasant state and then prance around the country like Hitler in Lebensraum telling everyone how happy they are with their new condition.
JPeden says:
January 19, 2012 at 8:33 am
According to the “water vapor is a ghg” settled physics, water vapor should have already done it all by itself.
Water vapour doesn’t fill the whole IR spectrum, there is a “window” where CO2 is active at two frequencies where either water is not active at all or only fills 50% of the spectrum. Thus an increase of CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque for total IR.
Further, water is very abundant in the lower troposphere, but rapidely lowers in concentration the higher you go, while CO2 is quite well mixed…
It seems to me there are two “camps” in this field.
The Convection/Conduction Camp, and the Radiation Camp.
The Radiation Camp thinks that CO2 is king via radiation.
The Convection Camp thinks Water Vapour is king via convection and conduction.
Meteorologists are in the Convection Camp by default, me thinks.
(Unless they are forced by their bosses to state otherwise on e.g. TV)
Otherwise they would have to deny everything they learned at school ?
I am in the Convection/Conduction Camp, of course.
Here is the latest input from the meteorologists. A real CAGW killer.
Using the alarmist’s prime weapon , models, against themselves;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1
Oreo approach:
First, Joe makes a number of good points that everybody on all sides of CAGW should consider.
Second, Joe goes overboard in his dismissing the temperature impact of CO2 AND by including denunciation of the administration policy on energy and the climate. His calculations may be correct, but their political nature detract from the key points of the article.
Third, unlike Joe’s opponents, he suffers if his conclusions are wrong. Mann, Jones, Hansen, Schmidt . . . can be wrong time and time again — and they still get government funding. If Joe is wrong, his customers will stop buying his product.