[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.
Will says “Yes but the graph looks rather bogus (seems to be some funny smoothing going on there)”
… which is exactly what is going on the in PDO/AMO graph. They even admit it in the paper. The smoothing was required to get the high correlation.
“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.”
No … I see considerable correspondence for the entire time, with some clear short-term variations (the “noisy” from month to month) and some longer-term variations.
A simple correlation calculation shows R^2 = 72% (and p=0.000) between CO2 & HADCRUT3 monthly temperature from 1958-present. I could artificially enhance that score by smoothing (like the PDO/AMO fit). The data for CO@ur momisugly is not so readily available earlier, but I suspect the R^2 would be about the same going back to 1900 or earlier.
Repeating: taken as a whole, there is very STRONG correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 50 (or 100) years, not NO correspondence for most of the time. Now, correlation is not causation, but denying the correlation itself is not very accurate or wise. Maybe the correlation is coincidence is coincidence. Maybe BOTH CO2 and PDO/AMO are important (as is almost certainly the case).
@tjfolkerts
there is very STRONG correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 50 (or 100) years
=============
There is also a STRONG correlation between CO2 and stock market prices. Or CO2 and any number of things that have increased periodically over time. So what?
Re: Steven Mosher – March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm:
Steven, these comments are completely out of left field, so much so that I went back and read entire piece again to see what I’d missed. 1&2 are about GHG theory & interpretation, have been beaten to death, and are hardly even implied, much less mentioned, in Joe’s essay (and BTW, while I’m not an atmospheric physicist, I’m pretty sure that “GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.” is far from the whole story. Everything I’ve read on the subject says that when you change one of the inputs or variables of a climate system, there will be a transient heating (or cooling) that will eventually equilibrate to a “new normal”, i.e.: increasing GHGs will eventually STOP at least part the planet’s radiation leakage).
No. 3 is not only irrelevant, but presumptuous: I doubt that Joe Bastardi needs you or anyone else to tutor him on basic radiative physics, and even if he did, what part of his essay led you to believe that he doesn’t believe in it? And he probably didnt know that raw satellite data has to be interpreted? Make that arrogantly presumptuous. He simply provided some evidence and reasoning that the oceans, the Pacific in particular, are much bigger climate drivers than CO2, may in fact completely swamp the CO2 signal. Whether or not that turns to be the case, the warming stall of the last 12-15 years should cause empirically-minded people to doubt whether CO2, in the total scheme of things, is a major player; and, he makes specific, verifiable/falsifiable predictions. I think you owe Joe Bastardi an apology.
PS: And what’s this about cell phones? Is it that energy transfer through the atmosphere is based partly on long-wave IR, and cell phones use low-power longer-wave EM radiation, and therefore that the same type of energy is used? Isn’t that a bit trivially obvious? Or did I miss something? If I have, would you be so kind as to educate us (or at least me)? If not, wouldn’t it have been more apropos to use as example something closer to the same wavelength & power – an IR under-desk heater, or those gas-fired IR heaters that have become so popular for café sidewalk seating?
The world awaits the one theory that if applied to long range weather forceasting is correct. Not one theory or model centers around CO2 can, with any precision, forecast even mid-range changes in our atmosphere.
Joseph Bastardi says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm
well said again, Sir!
just one slight comment – and that is that we may well have ‘OBJECTIVE’ data, but I do seriously wonder how long that data will be around, and certainly how long before it is massaged even further!
Will Nitschke says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm
absoflippinlutely! The rising temps can correlated to many many things, not just CO2. In fact, if one is being really scientific, one should be looking at ALL the other things, just to be sure that they are not the causation! Of course, I’m being a bit facetious – but the fact remains that until a direct causation and correlation is proven – it is still a damned theory!
I have always held the contention that CO2 increases may not simply be because of mans emissions, but may be also be partly due to increased natural emmisons and/or reduction of natural extractions (sinks). In the same way as there is no way of measuring a real global temp anomaly, there is no way of measuring natures + or – CO2 movements – as usual it’s all a question of scale, and guestimates are not really much help IMHO.
Steve M says: “The science and physics you dont believe ( radiative physics ) is actually used to give you
the weather satillite data you rely on.”
Is it not O2 they get the temperature from?
@Kev-in-Uk says:
absoflippinlutely! The rising temps can correlated to many many things, not just CO2.
===================
It’s actually worse than that Kev. You only get your STRONG correlation by adjusting the data first. You see a change in CO2 from 315ppm starting in 1960 to 390ppm now. How do you relate that to a .6C change in global temperature? If you plotted the actual data you’d see no relationship at all because the scales are completely different. So you first have to scale CO2 by some arbitrary amount so that it looks like CO2 and temperature are in lock step for your nifty graph. There is little point at that stage to talk about how STRONG the correlation looks between the data sets… because you’ve adjusted your data intentionally to achieve that effect. Tjfolkerts’s statements are therefore completely meaningless. What you need to talk about is your *physical theory* that justifies the adjustment you just made, which produced that wonderful apparent correlation.
Yaah – except that CO2’s ability to (partly) block IR radiation isn’t a theory, it’s a demonstrable fact, and has been probably thousands (millions?) of times. To suggest that Joe Bastardi doesn’t know this is really ludicrous presumptuousness. But since temperatures have flat-lined the last 12 or so years while CO2 concentrations have continued to smoothly climb, there can no longer be any doubt that other factors are in play. Hell, we probably haven’t even identified yet all the confounding variables. There are few things I’m sure of, but one is that Nature will always have another card up her sleeve.
I believe that the warmers’ current spin on this latest divergence problem is that the added heat has gone into the oceans, but since globally averaged ocean temps have also flat-lined the last 5 years, or even declined slightly, there is a slight problem . . . where oh where has that heat gone? Is it hiding out in the karsts of Central America & Florida? Have the Atlantuseans commandeered it for their spas & dish washers? Guess we’ll just have to stay tuned.
IPCC Temperature Predictions versus Observations (Hadcrut3 is now out for February).
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/8535/ipccforecastsobsfeb2012.png
And the canary in the coal mine – Water Vapour Levels – no feedback showing up yet even though the IPCC AR5 climate model hindcasts have this showing up for the “first time” in about 1995.
Nope.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4600/watervapouripccvsreanal.png
Will Nitschke says: March 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“You only get your STRONG correlation by adjusting the data first. … If you plotted the actual data you’d see no relationship at all because the scales are completely different. … Tjfolkerts’s statements are therefore completely meaningless. What you need to talk about is your *physical theory* that justifies the adjustment you just made, which produced that wonderful apparent correlation.”
I must say this confuses me. With or without adjustments, temperatures are going up, and CO2 is going up. There is no need to “scale” anything. In fact, I DID use the data straight from the source without any “scaling” or adjustments. You seem to be thinking that a strong correlation must be 1:1 eg1 ppm change in CO2 = 1 C change in temperature. But the scales are completely arbitrary. I could plot temperature in C or F or nK. I could plot CO2 in ppm or % or ppb or slugs per square mile. The scales would look completely different, but the correlation (R^2 and p value) would be exactly the same.
Will’s rebuttal is therefore completely meaningless.
PS One “adjustment” that WOULD improve the correlation would be to smooth both data sets — which is indeed exactly what the PDO/AMO graph does to get their high R^2 value.
Will Nitschke says: March 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm
“There is also a STRONG correlation between CO2 and stock market prices. Or CO2 and any number of things that have increased periodically over time. So what?
So anytime you have a strong correlation, that is Mother Nature suggesting there MIGHT be something interesting there. The next step is to look for a plausible REASON for the correlation, which is easy to find — the IR properties of CO2.
The last step is the tough one — determining just how much this factor matters, and considering other plausible explanations for the same observations. I don;t pretend to know the answer to that one. The sun matters; the earth’s orbit matters; volcanoes matter; ocean cycles matter; soot matters, clouds matter … and so on.
In my book, there is no way to conclude that there is no connection between CO2 and climate (as Joe did). There is also no way to say that CO2 is the ONLY factor (which no one argues to my knowledge). So we are left with some challenging science to determine the extent of CO2’s contribution.
@tjfolkerts
===================
What I tried to explain to you confused you….
Let me try to explain this another way concerning confusions over correlation/causation. IPCC climate models predict accelerated warming. The current trend is about 1.35K per decade for the past 30 years (RSS). Climate models predict a future trend of 3X that. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that the IPCC climate models are accurate. What happens to your nifty graph? CO2 trend doesn’t change much but now the temperature shoots off in a different direction. What happens to your R^2 statistic then? 😉
Fundamentally, I think the problem here is that a lot of individuals want to be “climate warriors” but want to skip the part where they have to acquire basic reasoning skills and an understanding of rudimentary scientific principles. (sigh)
“. . . current trend is about 1.35K per decade for the past 30 years (RSS).”
Umm – believe you meant per century.
1.35K per decade really would be catastrophic!
Will asks: “Let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that the IPCC climate models are accurate. What happens to your nifty graph?”
Nothing — the correlations I was discussing were actual CO2 data with actual temperature data (or at least HADCRUT3 global temperature averages). There were no models involved.
Will continues: “CO2 trend doesn’t change much but now the temperature shoots off in a different direction. What happens to your R^2 statistic then? ;-)”
Again, it does (approximately) nothing to R^2 or p. Whether we correlate with “T” or “3T”, the values will be about the same — CO2 correlates very to both since both have been increasing similarly.
In fact, CO2 probably correlates BETTER with the models than it does with the real temperatures, which would actually be a strike AGAINST the models.
It seems what you are REALLY interested in is the correlation between actual temperatures and model temperatures. Although the correlation between the two would be excellent, the SLOPE would be poor. The slope should be 1, but in reality it would be 3 (using your assumed 3X value above). The bigger the difference between these two slopes, and the longer that difference persists, the worse it looks for the models. Focus on this slope rather than the R^2 or p values, and you will be a more effective anti “climate warrior” warrior.