[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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That EPA petition ad is wasted here.
Sorry, ‘quanta’ is not applicable here.
You *do* know we aren’t talking electrons jumping/changing orbitals here, with a corresponding release or store of energy, don’t you?
Do you want me to show how Maxwell et al equations come into play here (the IR rad and re-rad)?
Each of these molecules represents a small dipole (literally: two-pole) element, meaning, two different charges. And the are oscillating/vibrating or capable of vibrating. It’s how antennas operate (moving charges whose velocity changes at a sinusoidal rate, or in the case of a molecule, the charges comprising the molecule are literally moved and moving, as the molecule either stretches or twists or torsions .. or vibrates in some manner such that the charges are made to move.)
When we speak of EM radiation we do not speak of photons, or quanta; the quanta is infinitively variable. This might be where a lot of ppl ‘go wrong’ on this too. Thinking about the 1S and 2P orbitals jumps etc and that being the ‘photon’ (a known and fixed quantity of energy) release or gain …
It is really quite elementary.
.
The 12 easy steps to understanding physics of the minor, but important, GHG effect.
1. The ‘motion’ of Electrons and Protons can be affected by externally applied electric and magnetic fields. Computer CRTs are an example with the electron beam forced towards the phosphor-coated screen by more or less ‘static’ electric field all the while under the back and forth influence of a dynamic magnetic field from the deflection cols (called ‘the yoke’ in the trade).
2. Conversely, when Electrons or Protons move, they create ‘fields’ and then perhaps (propagated) ‘waves’ as well. Electromagnets and antennas are examples.
3. Molecules, such as CO2 and H20 are comprised of atoms the components of which are Protons and Electrons (we ignore the Neutron). This is elementary; consult any HS text for a refresh.
4. Many molecules such as O2 (and even CO2 and H2O) have specific mechanical resonances, at specific frequencies (or wavelengths if one prefers).
5. These mechanical resonances are like miniature tuning forks. The vibrational modes get a little intricate and differ from molecule to molecule on account of the ‘atomic relationship’ of the member atoms.
6. During these vibrational modes, certain ‘member’ atoms can move more than others, and some ‘parts’ are electrically charged … referring to 2. above this will create a ‘field’.
7. Should a particular frequency EM field pass by a resonant molecule, the molecule, like a resonant dipole antenna will ‘pick up’ (the field will induce into the molecule) energy from the passing field .. refer to 1. above.
8. The actual resonant frequencies of resonant molecules is affect by pressure; this means more collisions between atoms, and sometimes vibrational energy can be absorbed in a collision while sometimes energy is given off. ‘Broadening of spectral lines’ is the basic effect.
9. Any vibrational modes amount to ‘stored energy’,
10. Said ‘stored’ energy is also continually being re-radiated (refer to 2. above) in basically all directions (any given molecule will have a given radiation pattern, but in the aggregate among all randomly oriented molecules this yields an ‘omni’ directional pattern).
11. A increased amplitude ‘Vibrational mode’ (no matter how arrived at) amounts to a ‘higher temperature’ locally.
12. From insolation (incoming sunlight), to heating of the earth’s surface, some convective heating of the air near the surface (consult a meteorology text; the MAJORITY of the heating of the air is in the boundary layer), to radiation of LWIR from the earth’s surface, some LWIR is captured’ (excites or is EM induced into) various GHG molecules e.g. CO2 and H2O … and that ‘captured’ EM energy is re-radiated in all directions, *including, and this is very important: BACK to earth … some term this ‘back radiation’, perhaps after the close radio term, ‘back-scatter’ (as used in RADAR to identify energy ‘reflected’ or scattered off a target).
And so there you have it.
The 12 easy steps to understanding the minor but important (as to moderating the surface temperature) GHG effect.
.
blogagog says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Lame try and no cigar. The fact that Anthony publishes something on WUWT does not mean that he endorses it. The fact that Anthony endorses something on WUWT means that he endorses it.
Joe: Let me be honest. I’m Mr. Layman and I care about this issue. But most people i know, if not all, don’t care. There is risk their eyes will glaze over even though to you and i it’s all gripping stuff and pretty chisled down as it is. Simplfy it and keep it madenningly Twitter-text Ipod-Byte sized. The simple unvarnished truth will always appeal to those who take 5 minutes (or less) to look at this issue.
IMHO.
Pete Olson says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I wish to hell everybody would send me what they’ve written so I could proofread it for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and proper word usage….. How can anybody expect to be taken seriously if they write like a sixth-grader? (Rant over)
_______________________________________
HMMmmm Same rant as my Peter (Physicist/tech writer)
I am sorry Pete, but the days of handing a paper over to a secretary to proof and type are long over. Now we are stuck with the result of no real training in English and no way to correct mistakes in WordPress. (me included, but at least my spelling is getting a bit better.)
“The fact that Anthony publishes something on WUWT does not mean that he endorses it. The fact that Anthony endorses something on WUWT means that he endorses it.”
The idea of an open debate and friendly discussion among people who have real disagreements is very hard for some people to understand. Why would you publish something you disagree with? Shouldn’t everyone follow the Real Climate model?
So a little care is in order. Especially In these days when we see even comments on blogs sometimes trumpeted as the words and ideas of the blogger himself (and appropriate “blame” assigned). For most people it’s clear, but for the uber-pedantic out there, who need everything explained to them, an occasional explanation is sometimes required. Lest a debilitating case of the vapors ensue.
We are blessed on a regular basis to read the well-written essays and thoughts of Anthony, the Bishop, the Steve M’s and Joanna Nova on climate on a regular basis. For many years, I also have enjoyed the writings of Joe Bastardi for the passion, in-depth explanations of weather patterns and his abundance common sense on matters of climate. I would rather have Joe’s thoughts, dashed off quickly for our benefit, than miss out on what he has to say because we are too lazy to read it because the spelling is not perfect and the paragraphs run on too long. Keep it coming, Joe. You’re awesome. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us.
Wake me up when a climate model actually predicts something accurately.
(And I’m not talking about the surface temperature records which have been changed so much that they aren’t real anymore, but let’s say the lower troposphere satellite records).
I like the grayscale that represents the range of.5 to 3.5 degrees of warming, and the blue scale that represents the range -.5 to -4.5 degrees of cooling. Touché.
(You might want to adjust your color settings to give a better representation.)
The idea that atmospheric temperature is “climate” is absurd.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
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?
Yet another very telling “drive by” response from you, Mosher, when the real question is not whether cell phones and the various thermometers work or cause cancer, but Do the CO2 = CAGW hypotheses work? The proven answer is “no”, and you have actually highlighted this answer by failing to mention even one example of a relevant prediction the radiative CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” have got right.
So perhaps it’s time for you to turn your own wondrous forensics upon yourself? Lest someone think you are missing something?
Jim –
“When we speak of EM radiation we do not speak of photons, or quanta; the quanta is infinitively variable. This might be where a lot of ppl ‘go wrong’ on this too. Thinking about the 1S and 2P orbitals jumps etc and that being the ‘photon’ (a known and fixed quantity of energy) release or gain …”
Sorry, but quanta and photons can certainly be used to describe the situation. Whether one describes EM radiation as a photon or a wave depends upon what bests suits his/her purposes.
Electrons of an atom are not the only things that absorb and radiate quanta of energy, more commonly referred to as photons.
Photons with specific energies will be absorbed by a molecule if this energy is equal to the difference between the energy levels; this is when the frequency of the IR radiation matches the vibrational frequency of the molecule. Before absorption of the incident photon the molecule is in the ground state. After absorption the molecule is in an excited vibrational state but still in the ground state of the electronic energy level. Of course the molecule does not remain in this excited state forever. The energy absorbed by a molecule is rapidly dissipated: it will be transformed into kinetic energy as result of collisions or released again as a photon.
Molecules irradiated with a whole range of IR frequencies are only capable of absorbing radiation energy at certain specific frequencies which match the vibration frequencies of the molecule. The energy absorbed by a molecule is rapidly dissipated. The excited molecule loses its energy in less than 10-6 seconds. The energy is either transformed into kinetic energy as result of collisions or released again as photon. The direction of the emitted photon is random.
While ‘back-scatter’ may slow the cooling down of a warm body, it cannot increase the warmth of the body. There is a very big difference in a body maintaining a temperature for a short-time longer and a body increasing in temperature. Otherwise, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Temperature highs are more common in cities world wide thanks to UHI.
JPeden says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
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?
“Yet another very telling “drive by” response from you, Mosher”
=====================================================
Mosh has resorted to a form of “guerilla warfare” to try and get his point across.
See here…
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/
….and scroll down to the comment on March 2nd. at 10:28pm for confirmation.
Joe, keep up the good work! There is merit to being sincere, and being correct while being sincere.
Your passion for the truth is good.for all of us.
Anyone having lived a part of their life in Pennsylvania has to spend a considerable effort trying not to sound like they have spent part of their life in Pennsylvania – to little effect. Residents of small communities and graduates of individual high schools can be identified by words and phrases, spelling and grammar, and other such things. That Joe writes as he talks and talks as though from Pennsylvania is one of his endearing characteristics. Me – I was born and raised in Clarion County and will suggest the critics of Joe’s style go jump in a crick.
Its all that hot air coming from the twin cities of New York and Washington affecting half of North America.
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.
Which is one of the reasons WUWT has more (and better-informed) readers than Brand CAGW…
Bring a sweater it’s Slow out side!
Inspired by the following quote.
“Have you ever wondered how humans would be different if they had evolved from lizards instead of mammals? As you know! Lizards cold blooded animals lack the ability to sense temperature but they do move more sluggishly when it’s cold, so, lizard weathermen would say things like, bring a sweater it’s Slow out side!” ~Sheldon Cooper.
On the one hand I see James Delingpoles’ brilliant writing being ridiculed because he isn’t a scientist and Joe Bastardis’ science being ridiculed because he isn’t a brilliant writer.
Did that come out right?
Many years ago, in elementary grade school, I was ridiculed because I had the worst score on a spelling test of the names of my fellow students. I did go on to graduate from high school with honors as well as receiving an award for being a brilliant drafting student, the best of the entire school. I once retrieved one of my drafting assignments from the garbage, where I had tossed it, ironed it out and taped the corners back on and submitted it and got a mark of 49 out of 50. I have kept that drawing as a reminder (I actually keep everything as I am a pack rat).
I am still terrible at spelling peoples names.
_Jim says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Thanks for those 12 steps Jim, my beef is you left out the platform from which the whole kit and kaboddle starts from. The Sun.
It is the heat of the surface that drives temperature that regulates atmospheric gases and their level of illumination. It is not the capacity of CO2 that drives its temperature, it is the Sun.
Moreover, the force of pressure distributes heat not the gas that is under pressure.
Mosher is wrong, Bastardi is right. The irradiation from atmospheric gas does not drive climate. I am also right, in saying, the mass of atmosphere, not composition determines planetary temperatures.
While I was organising my thoughts on why I disagree with Bastardi, this following statement he makes in his comment to his own article, speaks volumes. He has this phrase: “… man’s greatest chance for freedom, the US”
I’m sorry, but for me right there he loses his credibility to see things objectively.
My spelling is nothing to writing home about, but there’s hope, There’s this new Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good!
@Pete Olson
There is no such word as “proper” in the english language, and for many bloggers english is a second language. Perfection of language is not part of the issue even if it is occasionally frustrating to read. The important thing is to get the thoughts down.