Joe Bastardi Explains The Real Climate Problem

Joe Bastardi suggests that Hansen may be meowing down the wrong tree. This post will stay on top today with new posts appearing below.

————————————————————————–

Guest post by Joe Bastardi

My problem is the climate is NOT WARMING. Since the pdo flip, the three year running mean from NCEP looks like  this

completely consistent with cyclical climate theory, while one can plainly see the disconnect

with co2 and IPCC forecasts  ( attachment  5).  In addition, in march, I said I expected a  3-5 mont surge in global means in response to the sudden fall, then the fall again to an even colder fall and winter

GLOBALLY  and lo and behold we are seeing the modeling go to that, the excellent  JAMSTEC  leading the way first

I   dont see why  we are saying its warming any longer. It makes perfect sense that the in tandem cycles of warm pdo and amo added  heat, that has now  stopped and the result is the leveling off  OBSERVED  and

since the PDO, the reversal. I am up in arms because after taking a beating  from people laughing at me with the triple crown of cooling on Oreilly, the temps are now trending down and a bigger fall, the coldest since

the pdo  flipped is  shaping up for the fall and winter

by the way, the wildrose does not even include the post  2009 period as per the 1st chart

at last look, NCEP was NOT A RIGHT WING THINK TANK

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Joe Bastardi Explains The Real Climate Problem

  1. gregole says:

    Joe,

    Thanks for the great work. Yes indeed, where is the warming, and why do people still buy into the Man-Made Global Warming baloney? No warming means no CO2 induce climate catastrophe.

  2. That is a rather bold and very specific short term prediction Mr Bastardi. I will be monitoring the outcome very closely.

  3. Slintosh says:

    Al Gore made $100 million and won a Nobel prize. Do you think he really cares about “global warming” anymore?

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    A Bogus Theory
    No or minimal warming, even cooling depending on the metric used. But there should be warming… because we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. And the LIA is one of the key things that the fabricated Hockey Stick suppressed.
    Same with icemelt. There in fact should be glacier & icecap melting, because we are coming out of the LIA. Sure, the prophets of doom like algor keep pointing to alleged icemelt. The arctic is completely free of ice, they at least imply, and that’s what the typical person thinks. Glaciers around the world are all but gone! BUT, if we had in fact had a net icemelt of the type that the bs artists trumpet, the sea should have risen — substantially. That’s not the case. There’s “data” that purports to show a minimal sea level rise, but if you go to the beach yourself, or view before / after pictures of beaches over the decades, you can see there’s been no rise in the sea level. None.
    There has not been icemelt or sea level rise of any significance, despite the fact that there should have been because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. There has not been a temperature change that is in any way outside of ordinary normal nature. There is nothing wrong with the climate, so how do we have a climate problem? And, contrary to what the ipcc had claimed, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate scale warming, or, uh… climate scale change. On CO2, all there is is an ambiguous and arguably dubious theoretical model, no evidence.
    Finally, the coup de gras is the proven ideological motivation of the warmists, and of their prolific deceptions. Why is it that the “cure” for the climate change problem just so happens to be exactly the same thing that the leftist econuts have been calling for for decades: deindustrialization. This “coincidence” is just too unlikely. Global warming climate change my rear end! This theory is bogus.

    • higley7 says:

      Even skeptics tend to expect mild, but steady overall warming as we are coming out of the LIttle Ice Age. However, most appear to miss the fact that LIttle Ice Ages result from active cooling, temperatures at some point have to go down. All warming trends eventually end, so why can’t our current cooling be the beginning of another cold period?

      Overall, looking at the bigger picture, the Holocene Optimum was the warmest period of the current extended Interglacial, followed by the successively cooler Minoan Warm Period (WP), Roman WP, Medieval WP, and Current WP. We are on a downward trend and there is no reason not to expect an eventual fall into a Major Ice Age. Now, a real, full-blown ice age would not be a good thing; we should be preparing for it by “doubling down” on reliable, climate insensitive nuclear power (liquid thorium reactors would be the best).

      The global warming scam and the assumption of continued warming (forever, in their micro brain thinking) is simply ingenuous. However, it does serve their political agenda and their hope that the public remains gullible and ignorant of the Earth’s natural and powerful climate cycles.

  5. DirkH says:

    Joe, I’d like to thank you for your forecasts because they are free of all the warmist codewords and conjecture. So, we will see who is right – I’d put my money on you any day – and I will get me some new winter tyres, I’m in Europe and it looks like I’ll need them.

    Thanks again from Germany

  6. roger says:

    And who was it said in 2002 that UK children would not know what snow was in a few years?
    From Aviemore today in the Highlands of Scotland where they are enjoying a prolonged winter sports season:-
    Last Updated on: 12/05/2012 13:54
    Top Station Weather, Westerly 15 mph, Temp 1C, bright and sunny now.
    AVALANCHE DANGER ON THE HEAD AND CORONATION WALLS…PLEASE STAY CLEAR

    We have had well over a foot of fresh snow over the last 18 – 24 hrs,

  7. Joe Bastardi says:

    As I argued with Bill Nye on OReilly, this is a simple test. With changes in large scale drivers we should be able to see who is right or wrong. In addition, I am about to talk at Heartland about the idea that there really is no “change” just a distortion of the temp pattern in response to the big natural drivers that are in control. In fact, the increase in SH sea ice should be disturbing and total global sea ice ABOVE normal in a so called “warming world” may be a smoking gun to tell us what is really going on. I will make my points there at breakfast May 21, and probably cause some indigestion while I do.

    One thing different about me, and its probably cause I am wired differently, is I like getting ideas out there and then have them tested in front of people. A forecast is an idea on the what the weather is going to do. and you have to put it out there. Its why I make snide comments sometimes, and I really shouldn’t, but I do, on people who stand out there and report what is going on, when 5 days before they did were not saying boo about it coming. Its also why if you get our site at Weatherbell, once a storm is going on, I dont really blog on it anymore, cause I am interested more in the why behind the what BEFORE IT HAPPENS. So to me, this is a big weather forecast, and that really ticks off people who think explaining something after the fact is what is most valuable. That doesnt mean that there should not be research, or it has no value, but it seems like alot of this is a case of trying to justify ones value without truly taking a stand
    before the fact.

    I guess I am like this cause I lost enough times in wrestling, that I say, heh thats the price one has to pay, so if you wanna compete, you run the risk of getting beat. Sometimes I think some of these guys wanna win without competing, and I guess I think one has to compete to find out what value there truly is. So its formed a philosophy of mine of taking stands where it can be measured.

    Solo rischiando ty vivrai…. Only by risking do you live… of course you are liable to beat up pretty bad sometimes.

    My opinion is my own, but its the way I was brought up and I guess I cant change now

    • dmmcmah says:

      Bill Nye dwells in the world of high school science, in my opinion. I would describe it this way. Nye and the alarmists act as if the world is a an aquarium in a high school earth science lab full of CO2. You shine a constant light on it, and lo and behold the temperature goes up. Everything else follows for them. But the reality is far more complicated and the earth is situated in a dynamic, open environment that includes a changing sun, changing earth orbital parameters, changing cosmic ray fluxes, changing interstellar dust and add to that internal variability like changing ocean cycles that you always talk about and the alarmists don’t want anyone to know about. Nye and his crowd don’t want to acknowledge the cosmic ray work of Svensmark/Kirkby, the recent work of many astronomers about a quieting sun, the carbon dioxide work of Salby or your view that the ocean cycles are not controlled by CO2 levels or important. Climate science is not science at all its a religious movement and dissent is not tolerated, something I never saw in my studies of physics or professional work before. Its very disturbing.

      If the astronomers and cosmic ray people are right then the combined influence of the changing PDO/AMO and weaker solar magnetic field is going to add up to some real climate change. Then we’re going to have some real problems on our hands trying to grow enough food for 7 billion people in a cooling climate.

  8. Joe Bastardi says:

    I should add one thing to the above.. there are people taking a stand before the fact on climate change, but they are saying things that cant be measured… like in 100 yrs this will happen or that will happen, or wont explain for instance the almost 2 decade disconnect with co2 and their forecast now going into the tank ( natural variability has now come up, which in a way is conceding my point… except I think all of it is natural). I have a set time limit and right now, the turn around appears to be starting. Bill Gray has been saying this for years, and I think is spot on

    • miked1947 says:

      I agree Joe!
      There has been nothing outside of natural fluctuations in historic weather. Those that say otherwise are just fooling them selves and those that believe what they say.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        That’s a major point, Mike. You look at some of the charts that Steven presents, and you see, going back a couple hundred years, or thereabouts, that there are ups and downs, but you see that the rates of temp change, the slopes of the trends, are nearly identical for all this time. Yes, of course, it goes with saying that only recently has CO2 gone up, and that hasn’t changed the rate of temperature change. This is one of many theory falsifications. And this is a key thing that the fabricated bs hockey stick suppressed.

      • higley7 says:

        This is really Replying to Eric Simpson directly below here.

        CO2 has not only recently risen. It has gone up and down several times in the last 200 years, as shown by 80,000 direct chemical bottle measurements (see work by Ernst Beck). CO2 was much higher than now twice during the 1800s and most recently in the 1940s during which temperatures dropped, showing that high CO2 cannot maintain a warm climate, let alone cause one.

        To serve the purposes of the global warming scam agenda, a few low CO2 data points were selected (cherry-picked) to create a low average which was then ordained to be the historical forever-until-1950 low CO2 concentration. Domini, domini, it’s all constant now, until we made it go up.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        @highly7. Thanks for your replies!
        As far as the question of whether CO2 existed at higher (> 350ppm) and very variable levels in the 19th century, I am not yet convinced, though I am open to the idea. My main source (after searching on “Ernst Beck”), including the comments, is http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
        But 1 thing you might be interested in is the question of CO2 reabsorbtion rates. In due time, certainly within a century, mankind will advance to non-CO2 based fuels such as hydrogen and nuclear fusion (cold or hot), and with rapid natural CO2 reabsorbtion by the environment, any elevated CO2 levels would quickly return to lower levels. Not that lower levels are better. But for those that are just freaked out by higher levels for no other reason than they think it’s not natural, it shouldn’t be a worry.
        Here’s an example of this freaked out by CO2 attitude, it is a nutty rant from warmist D Appell: “In any case, past analogies [past evidence of CO2 not effecting temperature] do not apply now, because humans are unnaturally perturbing the climate system by artificially injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s more like a carbon-laden comet is colliding in slow motion with the earth…”

  9. Joe, are you going to Rio+20

  10. Edward Martin says:

    It would be v. helpful for us non-experts if definitions of all the acronyms would be listed –perhaps at the end of the articles.

  11. Mike Mangan says:

    Wasn’t JAMSTEC the only model that called last winter’s warm temps in the US?

  12. Brandon C says:

    Joe is right about making your predictions far out. But the scare is no longer new, we have 10-20-even 30 year old predictions now to check and they are not flattering.

    Also one needs look no farther than the season and monthly predictions from the Met and Environment Canada to see why short term predictions are dangerous to a career. Environment Canada predicted last winter would be cold and snowy and a hot dry spring. 100% wrong on both.

    It should be a wake up call to any real scientist.

  13. Joe Bastardi says:

    I will tell you this. Piers is on a roll in the UK now. I have always thought the solar theory had long term value, but given the modeling his call for the UK could be one of the greatest of all time. Calling for the coldest in 100 years in the face of modeling calling for normal, and then listing why before the what.. that is something. At least to me

  14. jimspice says:

    How much does the Heartland speaking engagement pay?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s