[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.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
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.
Do they? As usual we see half the story or what most people call a half-truth. Like so many others, you have ignored the cooling effect of GHGs.
Yes, GHGs do operate as you stated. However, they also get excited (see _Jim’s points above) by energy in the atmosphere. Much of that energy gets radiated to space. If you add more GHGs you also INCREASE the ability of the atmosphere to radiate energy to space, that is, it cools. This “cooling effect” is probably just as strong as the warming effect you mentioned since we are close to saturation in bands where CO2 absorbs radiation.
I believe the net effect is that GHGs work like little thermostats that try to maintain a temperature consistent with the amount of radiation available and the air pressure where they are located. This helps establish the lapse rate which is responsible for the warmer surface. Adding more GHGs just makes the thermostatic effect stronger.
Joe
The ‘science’ is in it’s infancy. Noone knows or understands very much about precisely what is going on, or why.
It is good to see your forecast/prediction and the courage of your conviction. If I was a betting man, I would favour your forecast/prediction over that of say the Met Office, or the IPCC.
Keep up the good work and time will tell as to how this pans out.
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?
///////////////////////////
Stephen
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that theory is used to design the cell phone and how given that explanation one can phone home from the moon (or other planetary bodies in our solar system) in the absence of CO2 (or other radiating/reradiating molecules) filling the void of space.
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?
///////////////////////////
Steven
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that theory is used to design the cell phone and how given that explanation one can phone home from the moon (or other planetary bodies in our solar system) in the absence of CO2 (or other radiating/reradiating molecules) filling the void of space
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:50 am
… hypyhosis … Quoi?!
Don’t hit me! Don’t hit me!
🙂
Joe
Weather forecast models use greenhouse effect.
Dr Roy Spencer has written:
“Regarding those weather forecast models, without a proper handling of the greenhouse effect, they would utterly fail in about 24 hours or so, with unrealistic surface cooling and a marked change in weather systems away from reality.
Do the critics of greenhouse theory ignore tomorrow’s weather forecast because weather forecast models depend critically upon greenhouse effect calculations? I doubt it.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/yes-virginia-the-vacuum-of-space-does-have-a-temperature/#comment-34679
Left-wing Playbook#1:
If you can’t attack their ideas, attack their words!
Keep at it Joe, there’s a silver-lining (OK, not literally).
Joe asks “is the satellite lying?”, from which I conclude he thinks the data he’s presenting is satellite imagery. Actually it’s the result of an atmospheric model which assimilates data from many sources such as: radiosondes, aircraft flights, surface stations and satellites. I guess asking ‘is the model wrong?’ wouldn’t sound so good.
davidgmills says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Its all that hot air coming from the twin cities of New York and Washington affecting half of North America.
__________________________
NAH it is because of BosNyWash the new city that stretches from Fredicksburg VA to Rockingham NH. Just try to drive though that area some time. Traffic jams at 3 am in the morning!
Markus Fitzhenry says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:15 pm
….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….
_________________________
To add to what you and Joe Bastardi said.
We get from NASA: “We are fortunate that visible and IR light, which contribute the majority of energy to Earth, exhibit the smallest relative variation. But, although TSI varies by only a fraction of a percent, it has the greatest magnitude of change (~1.2 W/m2). This may be enough to cause observable changes at Earth.”
From the looks of the CHARTS in the article as the wavelength decreases the variability increases, so that by the time you reach extreme ultraviolet (shorter than about 180 nm) the change is 100% .
The energy that has the most change is the energy that effects the atmosphere at various levels as shown. HOWEVER the variation at the critical wavelengths ~ 300nm to 700nm, the wavelengths that penetrate the ocean, are varying up to 1% which is more than the 0.1% that is trotted out every time the sun as a factor in climate is mentioned. Yes you are looking at 15.4 W/m2 total energy @ur momisugly 300nm to 700nm with a change of 0.17 W/m but that is over 70% of the surface of the earth where the energy is not released immediately back to space. Sort of think of the ocean as a capacitor with the El Niño as the capacitor discharge cycle…
At that point you are looking at a change of 0.17W/m times 361 million square kilometres over the time period between El Ninos.
Total solar spectrum vs ocean absorbtion spectrum
(I am leaving the solar/earth magnetic discussion to Vukcevic)
CONCLUSIONS:
…..In our opinion, cyclic dynamics of ENSO phenomena are due to solar activity and geomagnetic variations. It is background long-period variations on which high-frequency oscillations are imposed.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
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.
Richard M says:
March 26, 2012 at 6:40 am
Do they? As usual we see half the story or what most people call a half-truth. Like so many others, you have ignored the cooling effect of GHGs….
________________________________________
The whole CO2 “SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space” is a bit of a magician’s trick in my opinion. Lots of flapping around about 0.004% of the atmosphere, greenhouse effect, logarithmic curves, saturation of wavelengths and its “slowing” the escape of radiation while there is 133,804,000 square miles of open water an average of 13,000 ft deep acting as a HUGE heat sink and REALLY slowing the escape of heat back to space. CO2 doesn’t even rate being called a flea on the rearend of that elephant.
Looking at the 30yr climate normals, 1981-2010 was warmer than previous ones, so your gonna get negative anomalies easier than before. I was just tinkering with GISS surface temp generator. Using their baseline of 1951-1980, Feb 2012 was 0.40. Using a century long baseline(1901-2000) gives you 0.39. Using 1961-1990 gives you 0.32. Using 1971-2000 gives you 0.18. Using 1981-2010 gives you -0.01. Baselines for anomaly maps/graphs make a big difference. So what’s normal? You pick (or cherry pick).
Fouse,
“Do the critics of greenhouse theory ignore tomorrow’s weather forecast because weather forecast models depend critically upon greenhouse effect calculations? I doubt it.”
They would if the forecast was for 100 years in the future!
Steve:
I was in the the camp of those guys a couple of years ago. But if you actually listen to all of them, the argument comes down to, in the overall scheme of things, theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on the head of a needle. I opined that the leveling off of temps is because the two oceans had warmed and could add no more warming, as soon as the Pacific started to cool a trend down has begun. I got hammered from the left in 08 when I said this would happen. At that time co2 had continued to rise, but if a rise in temp resumed, it would have left this, in my opinion open for debate. Now that there is a disconnect, the rise is being proven coincidental. They hammered me because I am sure they were worried it would happen, well it is
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
While Roy and those guys have an honest debate, one I bought up until recently, I think the screams of derision at me from the left are because combined with the cooling alot of them know that is coming, they suspect that proving c02 has virtually nothing to do with the earths temps, and plenty to do with plant life, would drive home the hoax this is. So attack the messenger. I will remind you I have plenty of people and a growing number it seems in my corner, which is based on the data and my occams razor philosophy of go to the big drivers. For starters please read Nasif Nahles defense of my summer statements on Fox and perhaps instead of dismissing it, it will tweak you enough to understand what the odds are, given the heat capacity of the ocean being much greater than air, that co2 is only .04% of the air with a different specific gravity, rate of heating and cooling and radiation property, of this actually having any effect
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Joe_Bastardi_is_Correct.pdf
But that all being said, I dont see the schism as something that should be blown out of proportion, for in the end, There high priests on our side see the end game as the same. Its a scam
And when we clear the playing field so we can restore sanity to all this, so we are not handcuffing our country over this ghost, whether its Roys Ghost or mine, then we can get in a big room, sell pizza and beer and watch the two sides go at, the folks who think it has a slight effect and is not worth our time, or people like me who have come to the conclusion, that it has no more affect than me as a Phillies fan ( someone will hammer me for that too) rooting on my team, has anything to do with them winning. Either way, its not worth crashing the economy and leading to untold misery and not progress, but the opposite, when it comes to a better life for all
Brian D says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:51 am
excellent point Brian – and one that needs to be constantly repeated to the warmista!
There is no climate ‘norm’, and there is no possibility that a couple of hundred years of human ‘science’ can know what a ‘norm’ might be!
Ideally, an average temp anomaly would at least have to be based on data since a major climatic event (say 12000 years? ice age anyone?) – so, flip knows where this so called 30 year climate data range requirement comes from. Any scientist worth his/her salt would always say that you can never have enough data in order to assess a trend accurately – but in terms of climate?, well, IMHO we need at least a few centuries worth of current data levels to build a real picture!
The difference between Joe and climate scientists somewhat similar to difference between engineers and scientists. Engineer produces working device. Meteorologist produces working weather forecasts. Scientists produce publications.
Engineer’s and meteorologist’s work, if wrong, have very detrimental results on their pocketbook.
Scientists, if wrong, often can still publish their results, so they would not loose much (or anything).
Ok, meteorology is not an exact science, so they are wrong quite often, but good meteorologists, like Joe, are right much more often than not.
The work that Joe does is very verifiable and when he is wrong it is very obvious, just like when he is right.
Whatever his underlaying assumptions are correct or not, I take Joe’s predictions over any scientist’s prediction, even if they are skeptics (Lindzen, etc).
polistra says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Your analogy of voltage isn’t entirely false in my view but not quite in the way you think.
Think of voltage representing temperature and capacitance being humidity.
A 1pF cap charged to 400V would give you some kick but a 2F cap charged to 100V would likely kill you!
DaveE.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.”
Aha, appeal to authority.
“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.”
No but it has everything to do with conduction and convection.
“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.”
But so small an effect! And cancelled by negative feedback in the long run.
“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?”
I opened up my phone, and it was all filled up with ….backradiation.
I would have been much more impressed by the top post if it didn’t seem so much like, well, cherry-picking. The graphs have multiple formats, indicating they were cobbled together from multiple sources. The data for temperatures
* comes from different instruments
* covering different areas
* over different time-frames.
It just feels like specific bits or data were gathered to try to prove a specific point, rather than to actually understand what was happening. For example, PDO & AMO data is available for decades before the start of the graph, and for a decade after the graph. Why choose this time frame? Why only compare to US temperatures instead of world temperatures? I might imagine this area and this time was specifically chosen because the correlation looks strong only in this circumstance. Without context or explanation, this graph doesn’t do much for me.
And why only plot the last 10 years for Temp & CO2? Perhaps because the fit would look much too good if 100 years of data was included (as was plotted for AMO & PDO)? http://www.warmdebate.com/sites/default/files/co2-globa-temperature.gif
The data is all out there. Do an apples-to-apples comparison instead of an apples-to-oranges comparison, and then the results will tell us something useful.
Joe, love your writing. However, the “CO2 has no effect” isn’t the best science c.f. Lindzen, Spencer, etc. We’re looking at about a degree C per doubling (at most) with measured negative feedbacks. The “sky dragon” stuff, makes all of us look bad.
Civilly.
tjfolkerts says:
Indeed! Some of the plots shown are also mind-bogglingly deceptive! For example, this plot http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-10-years.gif engages in the tactic of plotting CO2 and temperature on the same graphs but with CO2 drawn such that the transient climate sensitivity would have to be about 13 C per CO2 doubling in order for the temperature trend to match the climate trend! Nobody but someone who is incapable of recognizing such deception would promulgate such a plot!
This graph http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png at least shows a larger period of temperature and overlays CO2 such that it corresponds to a transient climate sensitivity of about 4.5 C per doubling or so. So now, they are only about a factor of 2 too high compared to best estimates although they have also strangely offset the CO2 curve up so it is less obvious that the temperature record followed that curve for about the first decade. Furthermore, the “IPCC High”, “IPCC Best” and “IPCC Low” seem suspicious to me…perhaps Joe Bastardi could explain in detail where these come from as I am sure that any self-proclaimed “skeptic” would not just accept that graph at face value!
Anybody who shows these plots is basically just blowing their own credibility out of the water! (And, we won’t even comment on the very poor understanding of atmospheric physics that other like Steve Mosher have already pointed out.) No wonder that even Anthony is trying to distance himself from such poor arguments!
@tjfolkerts
And why only plot the last 10 years for Temp & CO2? Perhaps because the fit would look much too good if 100 years of data was included (as was plotted for AMO & PDO)? http://www.warmdebate.com/sites/default/files/co2-globa-temperature.gif
=============================
Your graph shows that 2010 was about .25C warmer than 1998 with no decadal temperature flattening. Bad start there….
Your graph also shows temperatures shooting up from 1910-1945 by nearly 1C, with no relationship to CO2 at all. Your graph tends would actually refute your argument, not support it, assuming it was accurate, even if it was real.
Will
The problem is that if co2 is causing this, it shouldnt just come and go willy nilly. The global temp is tied into major features, probably originating with the sun but most closely tied with the ocean and the decadol shift. 2010 WAS NOT .25C WARMER THAN 1998 thats absurd, it was a tad below.
Let me end this again by saying this. By 2030 the temp will fall back to the levels they were at at the start of the warm PDO which is when we got OBJECTIVE data. The 2010 spike and 1998 spike were both off El ninos and behind the 2010 spike has come the cooling of the la ninas. It is a simple test it will or it wont.
SO if it falls back to 1978, what are you going to say, it would have fallen more? There is just not getting around the excuses made for co2 until the day that dragon is slain, which is what an increasing amount of scientists whose prime concern is just that are trying to prove, or at least open peoples eyes up too.
as for me, I think it has no effect on the climate, the times it moves along with rises is coincidental since its always rising so its like a broken clock that has to be right twice a day… in this case its right during times of warm pdo and amo,
We will have our answer, sooner rather than later
Will,
I think you missed my main point. Anyone can go to Google and find lots of pretty graphs and pick and choose some to show a particular point. Add in that the graphs may not be accurate to begin with and the whole exercise is worse than useless. I found a graph that seems to show a STRONG correlation of CO2 & temperature, while Joe found one that seems to show NO correlation. Given that 10 years is a very short time to establish a climate trend, Joe’s graph is pretty useless. The graph I found at least covers 100 years, so that is already in its favor.
In any case, what is needed is careful analysis of “apples-to-apples” data, not “sound bite science”. I see this post as “sound bite science”.
(And my post was a bit of “sound bite science” as well. Arguing about sound bites is not going to lead to answers. It takes a much deeper level of scientific inquiry to start to answer the questions of climate drivers.)
@tjfolkerts
“I found a graph that seems to show a STRONG correlation of CO2 & temperature”
=================
Yes but the graph looks rather bogus (seems to be some funny smoothing going on there), but even if we assumed for the sake of the argument that your graph was true, then for 2/3rd’s of the temperature record there is no correspondence with CO2 and a heck of a lot of natural variability that needs explaining.
Look at the major sets together:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:1440/plot/uah/last:1440/plot/rss/last:1440/plot/gistemp/last:1440
You see flat temperatures circa 1940-1980. Rapidly rising temperatures circa 1800’s-1940. And flat temperatures again from 2000-2010. So you have 130 years of records and a good match up for CO2 for only about 20 years of the record. You find that impressive?
Doesn’t mean that there isn’t a relationship between CO2 and temperature. But if you want to make that argument *solely by looking at the data* then you seem to be seeing things there that nobody else can see.