[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.
So Mosher believes in AGW. I believe in AGW. Most sceptics do too, as far as I’ve observed. That doesn’t mean I buy into CAGW though. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t think guys like Hansen aren’t 97% FOS. Is Bastardi right? Maybe, at least some of his claims could be. He is a chartist, and at the end of the day, given the primitive state of the science, being a chartist might mean you’re closer to the truth than the modellers. But even if it does cool, it would be surprising if we cooled all the way back down to the level of the 1960’s in 30 years from now. Bastardi is definitely going out on a limb there. Even if the bath water is pretty dirty I’m not one to throw the baby out with it.
Looks like that hotspot from last summer over South-Central US moved northeast. If it stays there or captures more of New England, our ears are going to bleed leading into an election. Any chance that’s going to happen or is related to each other?
Pete Olson says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm
It’s not an english exam. Just get on an read it. Get a life.
The hotspot moved to the UK this week – yesterday Scotland recorded warmest March day since records began, which eclipsed a similar day in 1957.
That’s right, 55 years ago was, until yesterday, the year with Scotland’s warmest day in March.
Just remember, you need a LOT of cherries to make a cherry pie, fortunately we do have lots and lots of cherries. Wasn’t it Feynman who said you only need one piece of contrdictory data to disprove a theory?
: 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).
Let me get this straight. Energy from the sun strikes the atmosphere in the form of a spectrum of radiation energies. CO² absorps some of that spectrum at 10 and 15 µ as does H²O. Some of that energy strikes the ground and gets re-radiated at a lower energy which is then somehow reabsorped at a different energy by the CO which is still absorping the follow on energy from the sun. The CO then releases this energy at 10 and 15µ back to the ground where it reheats the ground and re-radiates back to the CO² molecules which have been absorping the insolation while it’s friends have been on the ground.
Get away with you.!!!
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:41 am
Seriously! it’s like a crazy laser beam theory where you put 1 watt in and get 30 Tera-watts of thermal energy out.
@Stephen Fisher Richards
It is interesting that Monkton, Watts and Evans (See Jo Nova) do not want to go there. This it seems is the settled science that no real scientist has a problem with, yet the logic does seem a bit odd, even if in the end it proved to be right.
Thanks for your reply Joe! Interesting stuff and good work!
I am also very keen to establish why the Met Office has upped its ramping this year on how AGW is affecting longer range forecasts and I guess this is related closely to its pediction for things hotting up fast over the next few years!
Keep us updated as to how your predictions play out this year against those of the Met Office.
Thanks again,
Ben
I can explain the Roasting Arctic.
GISS is fiddling the figures:
http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/#!/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
It’s settled science (quatum mechanics) that is in the sense that the model and it’s limits are known. I.e. QM breaks down after the event horizon of a black hole but for all other purposes it provides an acceptable and testable answer.
The problems arise when people with no physics education what-so-ever try to interpret the model.
The point about GHG theory is that it is not a theory but an hypothosis which has never been developed into a testable theory. No-one has yet brought forth SteveMc’s request for an engineering quality proof of the hypyhosis and even the hypothosis is proposed in many different forms.
Example: Newton developed his theory of gravity within the framework of classical physics. That was all he had to work with at that time. Later, scientists took his equations and tested them, by observation, beyond their proposed limit (limits imposed by classical physics) and found that they broke down.
Then along came Eistein with his theory of relativety and the space / time continuum. This theory resolved the problems with the Newtonian physics and pushed the limit of knowledge out to the singularity of the black hole.
All this happened without consensus. Science stagnates within a consensus. This is why I am sooo angry with modern scientists. They allow the likes of Nurse to hijack science for political advocacy. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Inst.of Physics and other scientific institute for not speaking out. They disgust me to the point of making me sick to the stomach.
It is worth noting at this point that Einstein and his ‘old guard’ pushed back QM because of their religious beliefs (ring a bell ?). “god created symetry”. There was a lot of vitriol between the old guard and the new renegades over a period of perhaps 10 yrs before QM was accepted. It is why Quantum Mechanics is QM and not Quantum Physics. That was, in effect, the compromise.
The current batch of world leaders are the worst in history IMO. There isn’t one of them with the intellect, knowledge or guts to stand up and be counted except for the Czecs.
We have lost the freedoms, that our forebears so cherished and fought for, to a bunch of political scumbags whose only competences are lying, deceit and stupidity.
I cannot thank enough the likes of Anthony, SteveMc, JoeB et al for their sterling efforts in seeking to push back this corruption. The corruption of science and the corruption of politics. BUT, we should all be mindful of the fact that we get the politicians we deserve, no better, no worse.
We have the duty to get out there and explain the reason for our scepticism in terms of science not coming from a consensus and why good science does not come from consensus.
Sermon over 🙂
Stephen Richards BSc physics. MSc Solid state Physic, Ex-ChPhys, Ex- M.Inst.of Physics
fredb says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:34 pm
fred, AFAIK the US is the only country on the planet founded on the assumption that government is a problem. Respectfully, as an Australian, would you USA citizens please remember that, get back to it and be a shining example to the rest of the world.
I also live in Queensland and we just delivered a message to the green commie statists that makes the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn look not so bad.
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:41AM
I thought the theory was that the greenhouse gases absorbed the long wave radiation, the excited CO2 molecules collided with O2 and N2 and raised their temperature as they gave up their added energy. As we’re told that N2 and O2 aren’t at all good radiators in the LW infrared could somebody please explain just what exactly is radiating to cause this “‘back radiation”?
I asked this on Roy Spencer’s blog and didn’t get an answer.
Whenever this back and forth on what heats the earth comes up, I always go back and re-read this piece from the late Dr Robert Stevenson, an Oceanographer, who spent years taking ocean temperature measurements the hard way. You can find it here
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html. This is what I have cherry picked about how he says the atmosphere warms, but read the whole piece.
“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.”
“How the Ocean warms
The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO2.”
In 1987 Stevenson was appointed the Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO). He organized and conducted two major International Scientific Oceanographic Assemblies as part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, in Vienna in 1991, and in Honolulu in 1995. In addition to working as Secretary General for IAPSO, Stevenson continued to work as a consultant to NASA instructing astronauts on earth observation from space. A pity he isn’t around to weigh in on this debate.
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:
———–
Did anyone else notice that the temperature graphs Joe favours are all shifted vertically to start at 1990?
This will of course exaggerate the differences at the other end of the time series.
DirkH says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm
blogagog says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“Perhaps Anthony should put a disclaimer in the sidebar stating:
“Note: I don’t agree with everything guest bloggers on this site say.”
Otherwise you are implying that when you don’t write that, you DO agree with everything they say.”
I disagree. Counting on the readers intelligence does not always fail. It depends a lot on the audience, though.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Personally, I agree with blogagog. It would be preferable to have a standard disclaimer for the reason that blogagog gave.
I suspect that it is rare for Anthony to agree complely with what is said in a post, I rarely so agree. Npw that Anthony has started placing a caveat on some articles and not on others, the lack of a caveat by Anthony is now beginning to appear as if the article carries his 100% approval rating.
Joe, punctuation-in-a-hurry makes a mess.
Here’s one correction:
And throughout (I make it about 8X) you use “its” to mean “it is”. Should be the abbreviation, “it’s”.
_________
The ironies and stupidities of the AGW position are so many and egregious it’s hard to stay focussed.
So I stick with the following: CO2 is beneficial. Warming is beneficial. Together or separate, we need more of both. Any expenditures should be directed towards achieving that.
DennisA says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:33 am
“….
“How the Ocean warms
The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO2.”
….”
///////////////////////////////////////////
I do not consider that enough thought has gone into DWLWIR and the oceans.
First, DWLWIR is not hitting the oceans at a vertical angle. The simple model of IR being radiated by CO2 is half up (UWLWIR) and half down (DWLWIR). However, the reality is that of the half that is down welling much of this must be bombarding the oceans at a low angle of incidence (much like the setting sun) and one issue that arises is how much DWLWIR is simply reflected by the oceans. Consider the difference of absorption of solar by the tropical ocean in summer and the artic/antartic ocean in spring and autumn. The low incidence of solar in the artic and antartic leads to much reflection and reduced absorption. Logic suggests that something similar may well occur with DWLWIR.
Second the absorption of LWIR in water is measured in microns, not millimeters. 20% of IR is absorbed within 1 micron and 60% within the first 4 mictons. Given the average DWLWIR suggested by T & K, theoretically, there is so much energy going into the first 4 microns that there would be a huge amount of evaporation. The energy would not penetrate into the ocean but would cause evaporation. We are not seeing that evaporation. This suggests that DWLWIR is not being absorbed by the oceans in accordance with recognised absorption characteristics of water, or at any rate not consequent upon the levels suggested by K & T, alternatively DWLWIR being absorbed is incapable of performing sensible work.
There is a substantial dofference between water and land and more consideration is needed as to how DWLWIR works and interacts with the oceans.
The idea is that it also comes back to the CO2 from O2 and N2 from collisions. But really, it all amounts to a detour on the way to the Black Void Out There. Also, increases in CO2 in the upper atmosphere cool it faster, which indirectly “sucks” energy from down below. It may be that overall CO2 rises cool the planet. Otherwise, that non-radiative O2 and N2 “blanket” would just get hotter, and hotter, and …
P.S. to above “It may be that overall CO2 rises cool the planet. Otherwise, that non-radiative O2 and N2 “blanket” would just get hotter, and hotter, and …” — ignoring, of course, à la IPCC, the overwhelming emissivity of H2O vapor and droplets. 😉
RE: February was the ” 22nd warmest ” on record .[] misleading in light of the fact that they go on to state that Feb. was the coldest since 1994.
Under Communism, Russians and Americans raced two cars. The American car won easily. Pravda reported that the Russian car came in second while the American car finished second to last.
What does 22nd warmest mean? Sounds pretty average to me.
@SunderlandSteve says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:16 am
//////////////////////
I fail to understand the concern regarding cherry picking.
You cannot cherry pick data/scenarios to prove a theory. In these circumstances, at best cherry picked data/scenarios merely demonstratate consistency with the theory.
However, you can legitimately cherry pick/data/scenarios to show a problem with a theory. A theory if correct should be able to deal with all scenarios and with all anomalies, ie., it should be able to explain these sceanrios in a manner that remains consistent with the theory.. This is precisely how theories are disproved, ie., cherry picking an extremity with which the theory cannot adequately deal. For example Newtonian phyiscs and relativity.
Sceptics should not be so defensive when accused with cherry picking. They should be bold and should argue that even though the data is cherry picked (a small sample whatever) nonetheless the theory should be able to adequately explain what is seen in the cherry picked scenario if the theory is correct. If it cannot, the theory needs some revision, it may even be the case that the theory is fatally flawed.
I don’t like it, because in Europe temperatures are also above normal. Something the used charts in Bastardi’s text do not show at all.
For example: These are the March temperatures in the Netherlands:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/grafieken/jaar/index.cgi
In the UK:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomalygraphs/
And there are even record breaking temperatures in Scotland at the moment going on: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html
All above normal. So the chart is not accurate enough and probably cherry-picked as well.
When is the climate going to cool down significantly Mr. Bastardi? Let’s say back to the eighties. I would like to see that in the UAH-graphs or the CRU-graphs.
Barghumer says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:31 am
@Stephen Fisher Richards
It is interesting that Monkton, Watts and Evans (See Jo Nova) do not want to go there. This it seems is the settled science that no real scientist has a problem with, yet the logic does seem a bit odd, even if in the end it proved to be right.
//////////////////////////////////
If the globe does not warm over the next 20 years and if by then it appears that all we have witnessed this past century was nothing other than multidecadal natural variation, I suspect that the entire back radiation theory will be re-examined.
At first, some will argue that it is low sensitivity to CO2, but I suspect that others will on the basis of the disconnect between CO2 and temperatures in both the geological record (where CO2 lags temperature and does not appear to drive it) and the instrument record (where there are several periods of anti-correlation as well as stalled temperatures) start arguing that the back radiation theory is itself flawed.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out and to what extent the science gets revisited..
Will Nitschke says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:28 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Will
I doubt that it will cool to 1960 levels. However, do not forget that it has been warming since before the 1800s and before man caused much rise in CO2 levels. There is at the very least some element of rebound from the LIA. We do not know whether that rebound has ceased or when that rebound will cease. We do not know whether the rebound will via natural causes rebound at a different rate of warming. Accordingly, even if in 30 years temperatures are not as low as the 1960s it does not necessarily establish merit with the CO2 warming theory (although I accept that it could be viewed as being consistent with that theory).
The ‘science’ is in its infancy and I suspect that in 30 years we will have a much improved understanding. At this stage, I am not pre-judging what that will lead be or what that will lead to.