Guest post by Joe Bastardi
———————————————————————————
My take on the Muller- Watts situation.
1) Mullers niche was to sound at times skeptical of all this,so he trashed Manns study,making people say see.That leaves him to grab the reigns and appear to be the above board arbitrator of the AGW debate
Manns mistake, is he should have focused on open debate to defend what his study had.. come out swinging with his science not at people. He shoul d confront the ideas that lead his detractors to question him. The courage of conviction would at least have him battling. Warriors fight in battle, there is no battle without an antagonist standing on the other side of the mat.
That is not to say Mann would have won, but its what I wanted to see him do, defend his work. Sensing the void, Muller trashed it, and took advantage by conducting his own study, but not with the baggage Mann acquired. By appearing to be on the other side, he was the cowboy in the white hat riding in to settle the whole mess.
My position is we have the test in front of us, the way to measure it. As the leveling became apparent when the tandem of warm amo and pdo could no longer add heat, I made a forecast when the PDO flipped that a jagged retreat would start ( triple crown of cooling) and via objective satellite temps, we return to levels seen in the late 70s by 2030. One thing, there is no rise to IPCC levels on the way in my scenario, and so far they are wrong, I am not
There should be a big drop off in the fall and early winter that may reach or exceed the low point in Jan 2012, though the mid and late winter should not be as cold globally as last year
And by the way, this makes DAleo look real good as it strengthens his 11 year running mean correlation chart(btm l,r) with ocean and solar!
In any case, these guys should come out and debate and I am loudly calling for that. No more puff pieces with fawning supporters, lets see what you really know about the weather and the large scale physical drivers responsible for it The premise for my ideas is simple:
Weather is the atmospheres attempt to balance NATURAL imbalances due to?the position of land and oceans, and seasonal changes. The Earth is NEVER?IN BALANCE, yet constantly seeks one. The result: Weather, and events?over a given series of years, the climate of those years. To believe that a gas that occupies .00395% of the atmosphere , is 1/400th of the so called greenhouse gasses, the number one being water vapor, which is in turn largely
Responsive to the ocean, which has a heat capacity of 1000 times of the atmosphere is responsible for planetary climate, is charitably and at best, a stretch of amazing proportions. Throw in its different specific gravity, the faster rate of heating and cooling and its different radiative properties of co2 and you can see that any relationship with the earths temps is co-incidental, not causal. And that is why the 4 charts above, combined with many other factors, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE SUN, which I don’t even touch upon but will be involved, are enough to at least question and in reality, debunk all these scientific shenanigans
But here is what is interesting. Anthony Watts findings occur in the 30 year period of warm PDO. Now we can really test all this as the PDO is turning cold, the AMO will do so soon. SO the coming 20 to 30 yrs provide the simple test that will answer it. I want to know Muller, and Manns, global temp forecast or the coming 5,10,15,20 years. I have a jagged fall, returning to 1978 levels by 2030. Its been out there almost 5 years now. All I see from the other side is that tell me what is happening is what they said their models said, when its actually much more consistent with cyclical climate theory. Just what do you think would happen when cooling started after all the warming?
And so on we go. So a simple set of challenges answer the question. Not the least of which is assembling a few of them and a few of us in a forum where the world can watch, and really see who knows and understands the weather and what drives it. Heck I would just love to watch that since I can name dozens on my side that would love that chance. But people who don’t compete, want to look back and tell you what happened, rather than take a solid stand on verifiable parameters as to what will happen, will never do that. And for good reasons.. they cant. But we can.
So here we are… Like Johnny Ringo in Tombstone fighting something they know they can beat (Their Wyatt Earp, the strawmen they create), the time has come to actually show us what you know. In the words of Doc Holliday. “ I’m your Huckleberry” . About time you come out and face real people, not strawmen and debate this where our arguments and your arguments can be seen by people
Face to face. About time the puff pieces and congressional hearings in front of people pushing an agenda, that make you feel so important that you are saving the planet. are all over and you demonstrate if not in the spirit of Doc Holliday and the old west, then perhaps, in the spirit of the debates in the court of Catherine the Great. An excerpt on Leonard Euler, a hero of mine:
“Euler remained a Christian all of his life and often read to his family from the Bible. One story about his religion during his stay in Russia involved the atheistic philosopher Diderot. Diderot had been invited to the court by Catherine the Great, but then annoyed her by trying to convert everyone to atheism. Catherine asked Euler for help, and he informed Diderot, who was ignorant of mathematics, that he would present in court an algebraic proof of the existence of God, if Diderot wanted to hear it. Diderot was interested, and, according to De Morgan, Euler advanced toward Diderot, and said gravely, and in a tone of perfect conviction: “Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply! ” Diderot had no reply, and the court broke into laughter. Diderot immediately returned to France.”
One side will be Euler the other Diderot. and the world will be able to see who is vanquished and who is not.
As a side note the reason Eulers law is so devastating to the atheistic argument is it depends on the imaginary number “I” which can not be quantified but allows the equation to actually work. It is to some extent, a mathematical equal to Aquinas in that the unmoved mover ( in this case “i) cant not be seen, but has to be there for the equation to work. The atheist has no counter to this mathematical formula, and therefore has to admit the possibility, if not the existence of God, since it is demonstrated that something that can not be quantified does lead to a physical reality! Its Sunday, so I thought some of you might like this little side story
Hansen’s “Scenario C” could have found a place in Joe’s first chart too!
not clear as to what you are saying its still above the observed temps
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screenhunter_135-jul-30-17-35.jpg
Exactly!!!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Hansen’s Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 (Hansen 1988). Which as we know has not happened with regards to CO2 emissions. Global average temperatures are below even Hansen’s Scenario C and show no response to increased CO2. It seems obvious that atmospheric CO2 is not the major climate driver that the CAGW believers state to be Gospel.
I hope CO2 continues to increase, great for plants, helps to increase crop yield, the plants with more CO2 would be more resistant to drought and heat, and would use water more efficiently. With CO2 not a significant driver of climate, don’t see any reason why an increase in CO2 would be bad, as the warmists believe.
Great article Joe, there’s no way anyone of these (as you term) “climate clowns.” look at any of this. Like you, I can’t believe the people with PHd’s are so ignorant of this, unbelieveable.
The often repeated story about Leonhard Euler is apocryphal.
Anyway Mann had nothing to stand on, except Dumbocrats, who he thought would do his fighting for him. More or less, Dumbocrats continue to do so – to a public who has become deaf to the tone-deaf harangue.
The amazing thing about BEST has been, anybody has supported it at all. Muller had absolutely no quality control. He never will.
Mullers niche was to sound at times skeptical of all this….
But he never was a “skeptic” of global warming, never, as can be seen in this Grist interview from October 7, 2008:
(Q: ) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
(A:) Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
link to interview:
http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/
I did get what you meant by him taking the stance of looking like a skeptic. I’m just saying that in reality he was only acting.
Anthony and David Appell are having a nice comment fight at Powerline. Not much science coming from David.
No thanks.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to an isolated system only,
– Dave Appell, “PhD” of “Physics”
Read McKitrick’s review of Muller’s work… Amazing stuff. I think McKitrick could take the same data and learn something from it, and have the stats to back up his conclusions.
Incidentally a killer graph is the HadCRUT data detrended by a quadratic fit that Joe D recently put up. Shows the same shape as AMO and the IPCC guys completely ignore it despite explaining a third of century scale temperature rise and half since 1970.
It would be good if Joe B could use an unsmoothed version, like the previous graph in Joe’s post but without the barycentre curve – which is an unnecessary distraction. Don’t get me wrong Nick Scafetta may be onto something powerful, but win one battle at a time guys.
How is Water Vapor ‘ largely responsive to the Ocean ‘ Joe? It travels from the Equator to the Poles via the Atmosphere – after being largely responsive to the Sun. (Convection)
Surface temperature variation depends predominantly on Precipitation (or lack of it.) therefor it is useless and misleading as a measure of AGW, and a waste of space as an argument (for both sides.)
According to Rankama and Sahama, (Geochemistry, Chicago Press, 1950.) the oceans act as a ‘sink’ for any build-up of carbon dioxide above a partial pressure in the Atmosphere. We hear yesterday that scientists using deep – ocean probes have attributed this ‘capture and release’ process to the actions of ocean currents, wind,etc. but it only occurs in specific areas, not over the entire ocean. This work has apparently only been conducted in the Southern Ocean to date. The denial of this phenomenon has been a major AGW argument. (to support their CO2 ‘scare’ campaign.) Forget AMO, PDO, and religious ‘conversion’ Joe. You do yourself no favors.
Convection is confined to a few major recirculating cells (Hadley cells) in either hemisphere, and lack of precipitation in the Tropics certainly has been to the detriment of the AGW idea.
Precipitation is intra-atmospheric heat transfer, and if there is no increase in precipitation in the Tropics, it means that the heat transfer has been modeled incorrectly. This is consistent with no observed hot spot near the tropopause in the Tropics.
Resistance to CO2 mass transfer (dissolution) in the ocean is mostly in the liquid phase. The total resistance to mass transfer is only weakly dependent on the atmospheric tension
How is Convection ‘confined’? It follows axial spin to and around the Poles. ‘Storm cells’ are confined.
Look it up on a diagram
The overall picture of the recirculation cells gives the basis of the prevailing winds in any given location
Warm air rises at the Equator because the sun is constant, and cooler air from the Arctic replaces this air. Along the way, however, the air cools and sinks , giving rise to recirculating cells. Coriolis force shifts the air mass within the cell.
good night
That should read 0.0395%.
Warm air doesn’t just ‘rise’ at the Equator, it flows (with axial spin) to the Poles (not just the Arctic),and cools while rising, before ‘cascading’ back towards the Equator. The Convection does not stop, nor is it ‘confined’.
The original question was ; How is water vapor ‘largely responsive to the ocean’ when it is in fact, part of the atmosphere and largely responsive to the Sun?
Perhaps Joe could answer.
Warm air does rise at the equator, it’s called the “Hadley Cell” which runs from 30 degrees north and south of the equator. Air rises at the equator then drops at around 30 degrees north and creates high pressure, which is why if you ever notice on a globe how the deserts center around 30 degrees north, and rainforest are found near the equator where the air rises due to heating, converging trade winds, and the Hadley Cell. Yes, water vapor is part of the atmosphere, but I’m sure you have probably heard of the water cycle. Water just doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, it comes back down as rain, and it gets put up into the atmosphere by the oceans. There’s much more water in the ocean than in the atmosphere, so i would make sense that water vapor would be more responsive to the oceans, not the atmosphere. Of course the sun will affect the rate at which water will evaporate, but so do the oceans. Any changes in water temperature and atmospheric pressure over the water change the rate at which it evaporates and the area of the globe that this process involves the most energy is at the equator. When you put that together with the largest ocean, the pacific, you get the exact area where ENSO is measured. To suggest that ENSO and its related oceanic cycles have nothing to do with climate and are “myths” or “scams” isn’t very smart of you and shows you have little understanding of how the climate works and the factors that influence it.
Also remember that the oceans have 1000x the energy of the atmosphere as indicated by Joe Bastardi, and the atmosphere will have very little affect on the water vapor inout into the atmosphere itself. Water also has one of the highest heat contents known of any substance, and that means even in the 11 year solar cycles, the sun’s energy output, according to Joe D’Aleo only changes .1%, and so over a shorter period of time, the effect from the sun will be minimal at best, but changes of .1% or more over a long period of time (hundreds or thousands of years) will have a huge effect.
So over a 11 year cycle, the sun’s energy output changes about .1%. What doesn’t make any sense is when you have your dry/wet cycles over a period of months based on the sun. If we see how little changes in the output of energy from the sun over 11 years, how are you going to seriously expect drastic changes over a period of a few months?! Hmm.. some other forces are clearly at work here. (The oceans, specifically ENSO)
Flares, atmospheric composition (dryness/wetness), increasing unbalanced Earth’s magnetic field, etc., these are factors that could alter the promptness of the climate to solar radiation.
What is the difference between “weather” and “climate?”
Weather is the state of the atmosphere over a short scale of time, while climate is over a longer stretch of time (years, decades, centuries..etc.). This why when these climate nutcases blame a WEATHER event on CLIMATE it makes no sense, and shows just how desperate, and how narrow minded they are.
“Climate” = hot weather
“Weather” = snow
Yeah, cold snap=weather heat wave=climate.
I just checked what I will call the Akasofu curve, fitting the temperatures to the multidecadal ocean oscillation on top of the recovery warming from the Little Ice Age, and it shows, according to that theory, the temperature decreasing now to 2030, where the temperature will then be at the 1985-90 level.
Just an aside: The “God equation” you gave not only has nothing to do with proving God, the left side has nothing to do with the right, in fact no symbol in it seems to have anything to do with any other symbol; it is meaningless. The reference you made to the imaginary number “i” apparently refers rather to Euler’s discovery that e^(i ?) = -1.
Well, if the Akasofu curve is correct, then that would fit a forecast Joe Bastardi made at least 5 years ago.
Let’s see, world class scientist who was previously a climate change skeptic, or Big Joe the musclebound darling of Fox News, I know who I would believe http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html
How about honest weather forecaster vs. world class liar?
November 3, 2011
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419
But he was a denier before he got BEST religion! BEST has been shown to be a pile of trash, so going along with his own “scientific” skepticism, he must have converted back again.
My fellow denier, Rich Muller. My pal.
Muller is very much World Class: he won gold for the 51.2mm self-stroke.
How does water get ‘put up into the atmosphere by the oceans’ Eric? If water vapor ‘stops at thirty degrees North’, how does the water vapor get to the Poles? Where does the warm air go from the Deserts? The Sun evaporates water Eric. The Sun also interacts with the Earth’s Magnetic Field, thus affecting the Jet Stream. There is no 11 year Sunspot Cycle, the real value is 11.028148 years. This is important in the exact forecasting of ‘Dry’ Cycles as defined by Alex S. Gaddes in ‘Tomorrow’s Weather.’ Again you are grossly misrepresenting something you and Joe and the rest of Joe’s ENSO ‘elves’ haven’t read! That leaves you vulnerable to the consequences of ignorance.
I suggest reading ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes 1990. ( Appendix 4. Model of a Convection ‘Still’, pp110 – 115) (Maybe you will get interested and read the whole thing!) An updated version of this work (with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
There are three recirculation zones in each hemisphere, each interacting with each other.
I don’t see what you’re driving at, and thanks anyway for the download offer. I have too many back issues of the Socialist Worker’s Daily to keep myself occupied right now
“How does water get put up into the atmosphere by oceans?” Well, it evaporates from the sun, BUT the atmospheric pressure, water temperature, and wind patterns all affect the rate at which water evaporates NOT JUST THE SUN. Over the period of a solar cycle the change in energy output from the sun (as noted by Joe D’Aleo) is ONLY .1 PERCENT!! That’s over the ENTIRE CYCLE. Now, when you base your “wet/dry” cycles off of a few months, how much change in energy output are you going to see? (Hint:not very much) That means other forces are having a greater effect on driving short-term climate like the oceans (ENSO, PMO, AMO, etc..) and volcanoes. Hmm..how does water vapor get to the poles? Well, there’s this cool thing, and it’s called ocean (maybe the term is foreign to you), and it covers 71% of earth’s surface, and extends into ALL major climate zones. Then you have snow, which also evaporates through sublimation, so if you’re wondering how water vapor gets to the poles, it because there is water already there!! Wow, I was off by .028148 years and solar cycle length, like that makes much of a difference. In fact the last 3 solar cycles, including this one have been getting EVEN LONGER in length.
WOW, Don you called Joe Bastardi (and me among many others) an “ENSO elf, I’m sure he’ll appreciate that. I’ll make sure I let him know. Don, your ignorance, incompetence, and personal attacks are like-minded of the AGW “climate clowns”. If you are going to call us “ENSO elves” call ENSO a “myth” or “fantasy” then, I WANT YOU TO PROVE HOW ENSO DOES NOT EFFECT CLIMATE.
Don, I suggest you try out http://weatherbell.com/premium/
maybe you’ll learn something.
Brilliant post Joe, thanks for saying in so many words what many if not all of us are thinking.
“… I have a jagged fall, returning to 1978 levels by 2030. Its been out there almost 5 years now… ”
This is a great summary, people don’t say that but for me, and it seems for you too, it’s quite clear.
I’d only add that I really, really believe that we’ll be back to the 70’s level much faster, because… (as you’ve probably guessed already) of present low solar radiation. If the trend continues, in 4-5 years we’ll be there already. Thanks Joe!