[Note: I don’t agree with everything Joe has said here 100%, but I provide his comment in full edited for punctuation and format and turning image links into images to further the discussion. – Anthony]
Guest post by Joe Bastardi
In response to the article in the Boulder Stand by Tom Yulsman:
I have responded at the newspaper with this, but I want readers here to see what I said back to them, so here is the response:
Just what is so mysterious about the Change in the Pacific ocean cycle to cold 3 years ago and this response globally:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
So is the satellite lying?
Now let me ask you this.. If this is global warming, why is the March temp globally below normal:
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png
The temp is above the red heat wave in the US and since the year began, why is it below normal?
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_ytd_anom.png
IF YOU WERE IN ASIA, WOULD YOU BE TOUTING GLOBAL WARMING?
Okay lets look at this.. the correlation between temps and the oceanic cycles, we just[ came] out of the warm PDO and are going into the cycle we were in during the 60s and 70s
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdoustemp.jpg
Now contrast that with the CO2 charts vs Temps during the leveling, and now the recent cooling:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-10-years.gif
Where is the IPCC trapping hot spot that was supposed to lead to the feedback that was supposed to cause the explosive warming? Educate yourself, don’t be lead to the slaughter like sheep
READ THIS: http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Finally the IPCC 3 scenarios, CO2, and the actual temps… it is below their mid-point, below their bottom point and heading the other way:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png
So how the heck can you say it’s cherry picking when it fits perfectly with climate cycle theory that say the ocean cools, the air then cools above ( much like turning down a thermostat, the air in your house cools before surfaces do) THEN THE LOWEST LEVELS COOL?
This is right on target with forecasts made by Bill Gray years ago, since you are close to where Dr Gray is, why don’t you ask him, My forecast stands, made 4 years ago, that the cooling would start ( it has as you can see on the observed objective data) and by 2030 we are back to where we were in the late 1970s WHEN THE PACIFIC WAS ENDING ITS COLD CYCLE. Look for yourself at the PDO values below:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PDO_latest.gif
We started objective measuring of temps via satellite in 1978, at the END OF THE COLD CYCLE.
Just what do you think is going to happen globally when the world’s number one source of energy, the tropical Pacific, warms? And when the Atlantic does too, it means the global temp rises as heat is a measure of energy. The continents warm and that in turn warms the arctic. However the turn to the opposite is starting now.. it is intuitive that the drop starts and it is. There is no tipping point, the IPCC panic forecast is busting and we are causing untold misery by tying up the life line of our economy over a ghost that will be proven to be a scam.
The idea that there is a well oiled machine is nonsense. I don’t ask anyone to trust me, just take an hour out of your day to read the other side of this issue and you will understand that people who are pushing this want you to believe its complex. Well it’s not. The sun, the oceans and to some extent, volcanic activity, far outstrip the ability of a “greenhouse” gas that is 400 times LESS PREVALENT than the number one greenhouse gas, water vapor, that occupies only .04% of the atmosphere, has a heavier specific gravity than air (1.5 to 1.) heats and COOLS faster than air and has different radiative properties.
Do you understand how small the odds of this having anything to do with the climate is?
And the screams of derision are coming because with the change in the ocean and even solar cycles, the major disconnect has started, showing CO2’s relationship to temperature is coincidental and all we need do, since we are nowhere near the tipping point, since RECORD COLD has been occurring in the very places the IPCC were going to be warm with the trapping hot spots, is watch the data, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT, just the pure satellite data that I showed you above, that you can watch every day.
Going forward, the global temp will RISE back to above normal for a time over the next 3 months, but the drop will start again against the normals and when we look at this chart next year:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
It will have had a lower spike down than this year.
That is the difference between me and these folks pushing this issue. I will make a forecast that you can see, right or wrong, over a definable period of time. I will ask you to read for yourself and test the ideas I have. Not simply ask you to follow like sheep to the slaughter.
Its your life, your country. At least look at the issues from all angles.
For the record, as I send this to WUWT, here is what they have under my comment, the only ones submitted.
Absolutely clear, thanks Joe. Cycles cycles cycles cycles (ad infinitum).
Global is global unless it is against the consensus trend, in which case regional is more representative of global than global. As sea-ice extent is falling, except when it is rising which is just a temporary glitch until it is falling again.
Weather is not climate except for those times that the weather characteristics are the same as climate.
Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.
1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space. The “holes” in the dike are small. The ‘fingers’ that are working to plug the holes
are small relative to the whole dike, but they have an effect nevertheless.
3. The science and physics you dont believe ( radiative physics ) is actually used to give you
the weather satillite data you rely on. Yup, climate science code produces the very images
you interpret. You probably didnt know that. To actually derive satellite images you have to
apply Theory to the sensor output. That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people-bio/heidi_cullen
How many of us have forgotten where Heidi Cullen ‘landed’?
Bracketed [additions] mine.
.
Pete:
Sorry about mis spelling Nasif I pushed an H rather than the N
And sorry that I put together responses in 10 minutes that make me seem like 6th grader. I got an A in English 117 at PSU , technical writing, but believe me, with working 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week as we are a start up, is much different from having 2 weeks to prepare a 1000 word paper in those days in college, it was easy to make sure I had everything right ( A girlfriend that was an English Major helped too).
I do agree with Pete though, but sometimes ( even now I am preparing forecast for clients) I am rushed. Last night, I fired this off at 12:15 am as I was working up until then and the letter came to my attention then.
If its any consolation, my dad, who graduated from A and M in 1965 with a degree in meteorology, gets my writings from my mom ( she prints them out), and corrects them, There are boxes of red inked writings in our house. My defense is I just have to get information out as quickly as possible, and that is my goal. Rest assured that if I had 10 days to prepare a thousand word missive, I would do better. Since my wife doesnt read my writings, I would have my dad edit it and it would be the Kings English.
Point well taken though, Pete.. will try to be a little better ( cant promise it)
cheers
P Walker says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm
There are several things going on that can explain this, some that come to mind immediately:
1) With the switch to the negative PDO, global temperatures have peaked and are beginning to fall. This is a good time to look for parkas on sale, at least in the eastern US. Get a warm one.
2) The comparison is to the 20th century record. I believe GISS has had a hand in this, at least for US temps, and they’re well known for adjusting past temperatures cooler. I thought I had accurate measurements back then. Heck, I still have a Taylor max/min thermometer I bought in the late 1970s that still seems to work fine.
3) Climatologists used to compare climate to the previous 3 decades, so every 10 years people would produce a new “normal.” These days it looks like people are looking for a time period that shows the preferred anomaly. At least folks like Roy Spencer have a good reason to use the first 30 years or so of the satellite record in their comparisons.
4) Looking at data that old starts getting to the point where the comparison is showing the continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age – note these comparisons reflect on both the past and the present. I like Sunichi Akasofu and others have developed nice models showing a 60 periodic change with a linear increase that is suggested to be the LIA recovery.
I must admit that I agree with the idea that ocean oscillations hold the basics of global warming and cooling.
The Pacific ocean is huge and certainly must have a greater effect on global temps.
Here is NOAAs reconstruction of the PDO over the last 1,000 years and shows incredible extremes from hundreds of years of cool phase to warm phase in the early centuries of the graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg
Just think of the super cyclones on the eastern Australian coast and flooding rains for hundreds of years, plus the mega droughts in the western USA as well.
Then a reversal of that change to a warmer phase of the PDO for 150+ years. If this graph is accurate we certainly enjoy a more desirable climate today than humans experienced over much of this record. BTW all those early climate extremes were NATURAL and much more extreme than todays mild climate.
But what does this graph say about the MWP and the LIA I wonder?
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space.”
Bad analogy. That would be a leaky dike, as gaseous H2O molecules, just like CO2 molecules, absorb and re-emit IR photons, so 50% of them reach space.
Very good post Joe, as usual. You were certainly right about this upcoming heat wave, and the fact that the alarmists would use it as propaganda, and I hope you’re right about the potential for snow in the northeast in April, it sure would leave them speechless. I personally prefer warming over cooling any day, as you said, “It takes more energy to warm up than it does to cool down.” I’d like to see this winter very cold and snowy, just so the global warming alarmists wont have anything to say, but I’m sure they’d find some reason. What is also intriguing is the fact that the US has been quiet in terms of hurricane activity over the last several years, with areas like Florida not being struck since Wilma in 2005, sure isn’t what the AGW alarmists expected back in 2007. I personally think you dont need another 20-30 years to prove your point, we already have an abundant amount of data to support our claims, whereas the other side of the issue uses ALL extreme weather events, manipulated computer models, and adjusted satellite temperatures, anything extra is ‘icing on the cake’.
Quick question for Joe! Who won the bet Joe? Remember you had a bet going last year with the UK Met Office as regards prediction for global temps in 2011? I guess you lost that one!? Is it posponed to this year…the same bet? I would be very keen to know, as the UK Met O is unashamedly stating that its mild spring forecast is due to global warming! Please remind us all how your predictions have measured up over the last year or so….!
I liked this methodical article. As the first comment says, what’s there not to like about this fine argument? Joe puts out all the data and shows his arguments. He reveals the cherry picking, what is ignored or swept under the carpet, what is massaged or merged away.
It’s excellent as a reference for grasping how to see the data instead of relying on the propaganda in the newspapers. From the propaganda, one would believe that Mid-West America covered 90% of the World and Asia was a small off-shore island.
You are a man “after my own heart” Mr. Bastardi. – You go by the data available which is all anyone can do. – To those who “believe” Global temperatures to be proportional to Atmospheric CO2 content, all I can say is: “Show me the evidence.” – Oh and; “theories won’t do – never mind how good they are”
I would like this concept of ‘photons’ explained; in my world, there is EM (Electro-Magnetic) energy which can be described by frequency/Wavelength/Wavenumber, and magnitude as measured in a plane wave by a Volts/Meter figure, or a flux density measurement such as Watts/cm2.
If you change your perspective to EM (electric and magnetic rather than another particle e.g. ‘photon’) energy, many of the concepts become clearer, especially if you consider it is the wiggling/vibrating molecules like H2O and CO2 which have unequal distribution of ‘charge’ exposed to the outside world and the known vibrational modes with that exposed moving charge is what ‘radiates’ IR (and microwave) EM energy in a ‘wave’ in the various known bands …
Key words here would be: IR Spectroscopy. Many reasonable references on the web explaining all this.
.
On the subject of cherry picking did something change in the way they are picked in 2,001?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I understand the laboratory results about the effect of CO2 in relation to the aspect of upward dwelling long wave radiation; however, the question remains to be satisfactorily answered concerning those findings being extrapolated to complex planetary phenomena with a high degree of accuracy.
Engineers can design great systems only to discover later that things did not quite pan out as expected due to an unknown factor. The Titanic disaster comes to mind.
_Jim says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“I would like this concept of ‘photons’ explained; in my world, there is EM (Electro-Magnetic) energy which can be described by frequency/Wavelength/Wavenumber, and magnitude as measured in a plane wave by a Volts/Meter figure, or a flux density measurement such as Watts/cm2. ”
A photon is a quantum of EM radiation. More about absorption and re-radiation, and vibrating / oscillating modes of molecules here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
Reply to Ben
They had .44 according to the running mean they use ( 1961-1990) and so I had to translate that to my forecast which would be .22 ( I believe that is the difference in the latest 30 years and theirs, which I cant trust since its part satellite and part non satellite. I wish they would just come along into the satellite era, as its more objective). I believe they said it was .34 which would mean it was closer to theirs than mine, if that is the number, and I am not going to argue with them. If I have to go against them, they I have to use their results. They also said 3 of the 6 years would be the hottest on record 2010-2015. Well this year I have it at . 24 against their means, which would mean the push is .29. I needed to adjust for whatever it is they are doing, and since last year was around -.34, I figure this year I have to be smart about it.after all if its colder I win anyway
by the way , if the frontier research model is right, its actually colder than normal
Here is the confusion though and why this is a bit shady. Global temps against latest 30 year means are about -.14 for the year. But for their period is liable to be anywhere from plus .7 to plus .11. who the heck really knows.
I wish we can just use the past 30 years, but if I am going to play its got to be on their terms, with their figures, I will have to make an adjustment for what I think is a warm bias and take .24
Again, one of the interesting things here is we have several different measuring agencies and then there is the matter of the rewrites, always adjusting temps now up. If it had been .01 colder I would have scored it a wash. In any case the temp from last year fell, and I think it will do so this year as this graphic will find another low point next fall or winter
keep in mind there is another debate here. first of all the global temps did cool from the year before and if I am right and I guess them too it cools, or at least their forecast is lower than it was for last year. That means that they will have to get 3 of the following 4 to be the hottest year ever.
The big picture is cooling is underway. Since they believe it will get warmer, shouldnt they be giving me odds ( ha ha)
JB
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
as you can see by eyeballing the forecast I had last year against these means was not bad
@Pete Olson: I second your rant. I just think you are being unfair to some sixth graders, who probably write better than many who post here. How can I accept that which can not be expressed? Still, WUWT is the only game in town.
Tom Yulsman talks of cherry picking then goes on to pick a few himself. Tom, if you are reading this then please note that climate is 30 years or more according to the WMO and IPCC. Now read the following and you will realise that despite global warming we have not yet seen any worsening trends. It’s all arm waving, wash, rinse repeat. It’s not working.
Floods, extreme weather events, global precipitation, rate of sea level rise, weird weather, forest fires
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/#comment-690783
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/#comment-689783
Steve Mosher, I’m not sure Joe “denies” the CO2 radiative component, he states that it is insignificant and not worth arguing about.
The warmies would be cackling … we’re still arguing about the micro-effect of CO2, and they’ve moved on to “sustainable development”. Get with the program, the main game has moved on … they know that CO2 is b-all.
Tom Yulsman, we can all pick cherries. What did you make of the killer cold winter in Europe earlier this year? Is this a sign of something or other? Is it a sign of global cooling? Nahhhhh. Is it a sign of global warming? ………..[fill with preferred cherries]………..
It’s cherries all the way down…………
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space. The “holes” in the dike are small. The ‘fingers’ that are working to plug the holes
are small relative to the whole dike, but they have an effect nevertheless..”
So Steven as CO2 molecules scatter (absorb and almost immediately re-emit) the 3 very narrow bands of IR that they are sensitive to, and we are talking about CO2 in the troposphere from the surface to say 40,000 ft (say 8 miles). How long even if it bounces about a little would a photon of IR take to travel that 8 miles say a hundred times at the speed of light? Ohh around 4 thousandths of a second (assuming that it bounces all the way to the troposphere and back each time). WOOOOO what a really LONG delay that CO2 causes to IR — 4 thousandths of a second and then its out to space. That is really “slowing the escape back to space”!. Of course, as pointed out above, a little over 50% of the time the radiation is re-emitted towards space . But lets give you the climatology benefit of the doubt and say 4 thousandths of a second.
Now water vapor can absorb and carry the heat as latent heat giving it up higher in the atmosphere when it cools. Look at the GOES East http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-rb.html where you can see all the radiation from the water vapor in the weather fronts. Note this is IR (heat) radiation NOT temperature.
Water vapor raises the enthalpy of the atmosphere allowing the atmosphere to hold more heat without increasing its temperature. It just so happens that atmospheric humidity has been dropping so the enthalpy of the atmosphere has been dropping – so the same amount of heat will make the atmospheric temperature higher. So perhaps there is no heat being trapped at all – perhaps all we are seeing is the effect of a drop in atmospheric enthalpy.
Try to rework the AGW hypothesis using the correct metric _heat content_ ideally using the oceans, and the hypothesis is falsified
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
“Tom, ever wonder why the earths temps spike after el ninos and fall after la ninas?” – Joe Bastardi
GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
Steve Mosher says above.
How does this square with Willis E’s back radiation heats the surface causing warming?