A Discourse on Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, oops I mean Climate Disruption

An article by Guest Writer    33 Comments

Article written by Joe Bastardi:

A Discourse on Global Warming, I  mean Climate Change, oops I mean Climate Disruption.

If it changes to something else before  you read this,  just type it in.

Joe Bastardi co chief meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.

As many of you know, I am 1st Hand Weather Blogger Garrett  Bastardi’s Father and like my father before me will do anything  to fuel  his childrens passion for what they are  made to do. He appears to have the same kind of  drive I had for this, and of course with my dad as a meteorologist, there is a genetic predisposition toward it.

Besides the title of Garrett’s Dad I am also the chief  meteorologist, along with Joe D ALeo at Weatherbell Analytics  and hope you will give our site  a try as  we post extensively and  I seek to  explain the why behind the  what  before  hand. Most  forecasters  will tell you what will happen but most of the time you wont hear a why until they are explaining it after if something went wrong.  I encourage you to give our site  behind the paywall a test  drive, it s  50 cents  a day for two cups of Joe  ( D Aleo and I) if after the test drive you decide to climb aboard.   I post   a couple  of  times  a day and do some videos,but right or wrong, always lay out my case before hand. The weather is not a snapshot, its a movie, a relentless constantly changing  opponent  that   to paraphrase  Rocky  Balboa, will beat you down and keep you there if you let it..  So you must fight back, and view it as  challenge,  forming an opinion  based on  what you see in the  PHYSICAL reality of the pattern,  not a virtual reality.  Most of the time someone will see a model then start to post on it. The  trick is  not going to the model,  but having the model come to you, because you have a working idea of what the atmosphere  is doing. It is the reason that getting a degree in meteorology  involves  more than just being able to stand in front of Tv an look good.   A someone who has done TV  work,  (I  prefer to sit, and there is nothing I can  do for my looks) t is interesting to note, right  off the bat, that modeling that says it is going to get warmer  is virtual, and the only  objective temperature reality we truly  have  is since the start of the satellite era in the late  70s, at the end of the last cold PDO. We do know over the past couple of hundred years  we have  warmed,  but that was out of the little ice age. If we  had not warm, we probably would not have progressed  to where we are today as a species.

Something you should read is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you/#more-52760

It’s  alarming.

But here’s why am I so into this global warming fight.

1) Its  a test of right and wrong, and I think on multiple levels.  It should just be about the weather, no different than you and I  forecasting a snow event and then  see who is closer. However it has been  turned into something much bigger, and the right or wrong on that idea  involves a  desire to curtail  freedoms  because of  what some think is a ticking time bomb of co2.

2) It is a fight on a higher plane. I am not a very humble  person in front of others, I have been told, but I am humble before the atmosphere and its  creator.  Arrogance abounds in  many that think somehow  they have the right idea  on how to control the atmosphere, as if they can control something they did not create, nor have any influence over. They can however have influence over other people, by using distorted science to drive home their agenda.

3) I know my climate history, as I have been as fascinated  with that  as much as the forecast since i was young. I have a father who regaled  me with stories about how bad the weather was when he was  growing up, and unlike the  tired  rants of those  saying this is the worst  that has ever happen, he will tell you it was far worse , heat, hurricanes,  drought etc  in the  30s-50s, the last time of climatic hardship as now. And because I know that, I am simply seeing  the same things  happen now in front of me as he  saw the last time the pdo/amo were in similar cycles, The difference is we now have the chance to objectively measure it.

4) One never knows when one is called to fight, but its how you respond. Over the years, the words of Edmund  Burke have echoed louder in my ears over this. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”  Imposing ones  will upon someone is evil, and not allowing the answer to play out is  simply  not allowing  a chance for the truth to come out, which is also evil. I am no saint,  but I  will avoid the sin of doing nothing when I see  I can do something to make  sure the truth, even if it means I am wrong,  can come out.

5) The idea that by  spending your life in research, and not in actually  doing  something that demands an answer that has to be right ( as in the private sector) or you get fired, runs counter to the idea that not only must you know how to do something, you must actually do it.  Recreations of the past are a good tool to for a basis to forecast the future, but  unless you are out in the real world, you have no idea what its like to apply virtual knowledge to  a future event.  In fact, the disdain that many with higher power degrees that look upon the “laborers” among us that actually have to  forecast for a living, it matched only by our distrust of them.  Its like someone sitting in a castle telling someone in the trenches taking bullets, how to fight.

If you go into a gym, who are you going to trust. an overweight  trainer  or the trainer  that is in shape?

I respect the advanced degrees, for what they are,  signs that the person persisted in their education.  But it does not give them license for them to be an authority on something that have never practically applied!  When I was in school  there was a saying ( mind you at that time PSU  was out and out the unchallenged  number one meteorology department in the country, something  I am well aware can not be said today as there are many great schools) among the meteorologists ( we were a cocky bunch) that if you can’t do the meteorology,  you can be a climatologist.  I still bust my brother on it, cause his degree  is in climatology though HE IS VEHEMENTLY   AGAINST  AGW.   But the point is the idea that  a meteorologist cant weigh in on this debate when in reality a good forecaster has to know his clime  is simply another way  to try and silence dissent.

So there is more behind this than the tired old argument that  people that resist this  tide of  agenda driven drivel are shills of the fossil fuel industry. its about  allowing the light or truth to determine who is rig and who is wrong, and if there is going to be a benefit for society, it will only be that the truth wins the  day.

Here is the crux of my argument.

Since  the little ice age the earth has been warming up, but only since the late  1970s  have we had the  way to objectively  measure it with the accuracy  we have today . There is  plenty of reason to believe that sunspot activity may have had something to do with the warm up,  but also  reason to believe,  since there has been  a drastic increase in industrialization  that man  may have had something to do with it. What is not known is if this warm up  was simply a reversal back to where we should be,  and is partly because we were so cold to start with,  or  is the doomsday  clock ticking faster with each passing minute  because we are pumping so much co2 into the air.  A simple test will give us the answer. If co2 is the culprit, then temperatures should continue to rise. Unfortunately they are not rising as seen here.

Since  someone  can accuse me  of  “cherry picking” lets  look a the relationship between co2 and temp over a longer period of time.

If we  square the correlation, we have the strength of correlation.  You can see there was very little  correlation  before 1980, and as we saw above, since the late   there is little also.  In the entire  period, the correlation of co2 was only positive with the temperature for about  30 years!

Is there something has a stronger  relationship.?

Actually yes, the PDO and AMO together!

Even  more damming evidence against co2.. the  direct  relationship between the enso  and the global  temps  with  the overall rise correlated with the warm  PDO and the spikes with warm enso episodes, the  cooling with la nina or volcanic  activity.  You cant get much more cause and effect.

In May,  I  predicted we would fall to  levels  we fell to in  2008,  Overall the rise has stopped as it should given  La Chateliers  principle, which states any system in  abnormally  fights to return toward normalcy. Even without  the PDO  flip, the  process of  balancing had begun!  The latest  figure is plus. 033 and we should go below normal in December. How the media  does not pick up on  this  and ignores  this  shows.. well if you ignore something,  that makes you ignorant of it. Its  all there,  so its ignorance out of choice.

So the  question  is: How  can any rational observer  claim that co2  HAS TO BE CAUSING  this when its plain that  there is a much closer  relationship  between the  warming of the tropical  pacific and atlantic and the earths temperature?  But as you will read below,  just because the measured temp warms,  it does not mean the earths energy is being trapped.

We have a  way of objectively measuring temps now, which we  did not have until the end of the last cold cycle of the PDO, which was in the late 1970s.  Warm the tropical pacific and you are naturally going to warm the air, since  it means more heat gets into the air.   Kick in with the warm AMO and look out, its Katie bar the door.

But here is the dirty little secret that few pushing AGW  will address.  Because there is much more energy in warm moist air than cold dry air, in terms of the total energy, there is no detectable change. That means that all we are seeing is a distortion of the temperature  pattern. Suppose for instance we  totaled the temp up  along  the date line from pole to pole and had  many of the areas  north of  40 north warm..  There may be many more warm readings than cooler but  a  15 degree rise where the air is cold and dry is offset energy wise  by a  1 degree fall where its   warm and moist.  So  all we are seeing is a distortion   and the key  may be in the ice caps. Since the  NORTH polar ice caps are surrounded  by land, it stands to reason that warming the  Pacific and Atlantic   in a way where warm water is near their  coasts and in their equatorial areas would warm the continents  next to them (  75% of the land is in the northern  hemisphere). SInce those  continents  surround the ice cap, and warmer water is flowing around the cool pool that is in the middle in the warm phases of these oscillations,  what should happen to the northern ice cap? It should shrink But if there was true warming so should the south pole.  Since it is tougher to  heat or cool maritime air, it would be tougher to grow the southern ice cap but over all it has slightly anyway.  In other words the shrinking in the north should outweigh the gain in the south,  if it was simply a cyclical matter, rather  than something that would signal the actual demise of the ice cap and a true build up of heat in the oceans and atmosphere. Well lets take a look.

First the warm and cold PDOS

warm                                                                                                     cold

Certainly  a fall in the north, which can be explained  by the  PDO  and amo.

notice in the warm PDO  the water cools near antarctica, hence the increase in the ice sheet there, but the warmth  near the continent and the increase in energy supplied by warming the water of the tropical pacific   affects land temps much more, and that is all in the northern hemisphere.

but what is hidden from you is the rise overall in the south, which again because the icecap is surrounded by water, should not be as great, but is still there!

Combine that with the idea that incoming and outgoing radiation remain equal and one  understands that physically there is no proof of  the build up of heat,  just a distortion of a pattern, which by the way because of nature of the creation is never   “normal”, is always  changing and has never had a true “average” quantified.

Because the  oceans  are the  great storehouse of heat, and the southern ice cap is surrounded  by  water,  this should  demonstrate that at the very least, the  NORTHERN  ice  cap argument is  a distortion  as they don’t  show and explain the other side,   the increase in the southern ice, which should cause major doubt as to  whether there is any warming.. and in fact may be a sign that cooling  has begun.  For  with the PDO changing and the AMO  to change in  soon,  colder oceans would increase the northern ice cap since the continents  would cool. If there is no corresponding decrease in the southern ice cap, it would be mean we are actually colder in  2030 than we were when the satellite  record started!

The test is simple, as measured  by the satellite  temperatures by 2030 will return to levels they were in the late 1970s. The  response to the warming and cooling of the Pacific is obvious and why this cant  be seen is simply because people don’t want to look.

But lets  consider whether co2  can be causing all this.  C02 is  part of nature, and in fact the reason there is organic  chemistry ( the study of carbon and its compounds) is because  it is needed for life. But so is  water.  Too much water can  drown you,  can too much co2  leave the planet too warm  for life?

Well lets consider this. At present  the atmosphere is about  390 ppm   co2.   co2  has increased on  average   the past  40 years  1.5 ppm  to that.  humans are estimated to contribute  3-5 %  to that  1.5  parts per million   the US is estimated to contribute .20%  of that  .015 parts  per million.  thats  .15 parts per  10 million,  1.5 parts per 100 million.

So each year the increase in co2  due to the US is .000000015 of the entire atmosphere.

The figures  are here, not from a right wing think tank, but the US  DOE. You would do well to  read the pdf listed  below.

So let me get this straight,  if co2 is causing warming, my nation is  contributing a figure so small, that the error  bar analysis of it renders  it as unreliable.

And are you trying to tell me that I will save the planet by reducing this.. to what… .000000012?

This is Alice In Wonderland Science, not of the real world.

You should make sure you read the pdf at the bottom OF THE ABOVE  table.

But I want you to think about something. Only in a world  where  someone is trying to  hide something are things not questioned,  or questionable explanations  are shoved down peoples  throat.  2011 had all these extreme events  right? Yet the Pacific  cooled and the mid tropospheric  temperatures  cooled dramatically  from  2010.

14k  on the left,  25 k on the right

Or how about the hockey  stick,  Shouldn’t you be suspicious  that arguably the number   one reason for all this hullabaloo,  the  “hockey stick” is not replicated in other areas of the world. How is it that tree ring studies in China  show an up and down  pattern and the tree ring study  used to drive home this agenda while the  Hockey  Stick  goes up so  much at the end relative to the Chinese  version.  HOw could China  be exempt from the worlds  temperature  tendencies?

Shouldn’t that in itself  be enough to raise  questions, that perhaps forcing agendas down the throat of people  is not the way to go.   How is  it one is accepted, the other ignored?

We have all heard of the problem with the Chevy  Volt. Well not to be outdone, look at the Scottish windmills, the same ones that apparently could not help out in the cold at times last year in Britain cause  the wind went calm. In this case the wind is not calm  but since they have trouble  over  60 mph, winds over  100 mph lead to things like this.

Flame  on   as the Human Torch would say.. I prefer the Atmospheric Avenger,  one of my Video titles.

Climate ethics… the tactics  of  bullying and intimidation to  silence dissent:

Suppose  you  believe  a storm is coming that will make travel impossible and put people you love at risk. In addition   you believe that the storm will be so bad,  that even if your  friends and family  drive safely,  others  could cause them problem. You believe this so strongly you will do anything to “save” your friends and family. You have to keep them safe.

So do you slash their tires so they cant go anywhere? Do you hide their keys?  Do you  enforce your  will upon others because of what you  believe, robbing them of freedom of choice?  And if you are wrong,  do you just say, oops  sorry  I  wrecked  your plans?

This seemingly silly and trivial example, magnified  many fold, forms  a part of the ethical question here. For while the agenda  driven AGW  people are now bringing up ethics and crimes against humanity as  ways of  bullying and intimidating people, they themselves are the ones  acting unethically in this matter by trying to silence  dissent  through intimidation. When you  level ethics charges or bring up the idea of putting people on trial from crimes against humanity, you are acting much like the despots that  freedom loving people have worked to  rid themselves of since time began.

Consider

1)  They   cant reliably  quantify   quantify  the earths energy, but say we must take steps  to  control a trace gas needed for life on the planet.

2)  They cant tell us why the goal should be where it is, and what the result of all this is.  The cant  Tell us what the earths  average  temp should be ( again,  that is  a problem since we know that in terms of energy,   all temperatures are not equal). And if you quantify that, what are the effects.

3)  What is the ideal  co2 level?  In  actual greenhouses  1500 ppm are pumped in so plants  grow faster. Don’t we want more green to  feed people anyway.  And by the way, the co2 is not pumped in there to  keep it warm, its pumped in as plant food. The famous experiment years ago shows that plants grow from their environment.  Plant a  tree  in a pot with 500 lbs  of dirt then take it out later, the tree will be much heavier, but the weight of the dirt does not change.

So why  350  why not  300  or  500?  How do you really know? The answer, You don’t. You have no idea what the consequence will be ( I suspect little, except the ruining  of many peoples  chance to  progress to a better life).

4) In spite of numerous, logical reasons to  show that not only there is doubt about their position, but it may be dead out  wrong,  they  still persist in a dogmatic position that seeks to silence voices of common sense.

By the way, the latest attack on  sanity by the climate  change  people.. they want to lower the  earths  temp  by  2C.  This is sheer  madness as it would lead to  major  upheavals  because of so much cold and lack of  energy to warm   surfaces.  IT TAKES  MORE ENERGY  TO HEAT  A COLD HOME OR  BUSINESS THAN TO  COOL A WARM ONE.

There are now attacks  being lead on the questioners   of the AGW  agenda that are implying we are guilty of ethics  violations and should be brought up on  charges of crimes against humanity.In their warped arrogant ego driven world, these people assume they know tomorrow and are correct. But  lets put the shoe on the other foot.  Suppose I concede and say, you’re right lets stop co2 now  where it is.   What does that do to the climate? Will it mean the earth gets colder?  What happens to weather patterns. They have no answer, they don’t know. They simply  say every answer is because of what they believe, the ultimate exercise in a” non competitive,  non accountability,  its how I  feel, to the devil with facts  victim” mentality.

And what about the handcuffing of economies in the name  of  fighting what may be a ghost. If   the earths temp falls, and this is revealed to be the  hoax many believe it is,  then should they be tried on ethics charges. What makes them assume they are so moral and high minded that they believe they they have the right way. This is akin to a modern day  book burning and  control that  has been seen before  in other places when  despots  and dictators  were seeking to gain control. I am right, you are wrong.  you either do what I say, or you are gone.

So who is ethical in this argument, the people that logically argue for the test  that we can now objectively do, or those  that wish to  shut down debate through strong arming and intimidation. I welcome their ideas,  and the chance to see who is right or wrong, but calling people like me unethical reveals  their true motives,  which  prostitute science to force their agenda down the throat of the populace.

I sometimes ask myself, how did it all come to this?  There is no one that has loved the weather longer than I, from my first memory as a child and my dad  explaining to me what thunderheads were as a  boy of  3 in Rhode Island, the memories of an Easter snow when I  was less than  3 years old for instance, or lying on my back  in the back yard  staring at the clouds in front of the sun, a practice  that my parents  had to put an end too because the doctor  said I would burn out my eyes.   But its about getting the correct answer on what is nothing but a forecast,, not something to control what you or I or anyone should think or do. The problem is a classic one, man trying to play God and control other men.  Its about someone concerned with his neighbors  problem tomorrow, but not being able to confront his own demon today. And it is a road to ruin.

I encourage  people to open their minds. I have never asked for people to accept what I say,  BUT ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE OF WHAT I AM SAYING  and then go look for themselves. I think you will see that at the very least there is reason to doubt this and  as many have,  dismiss it as  a red herring to cover up a bigger  issue that is at play. That the weather and climate are now  being prostituted this way,  that something we love is used as a cheap tool  to  drive ideas  down people throat, should be alarming enough for you to arm yourself with the knowledge that will form the armor to resist  such assaults on  free thinking people of good will.

Did you enjoy this article? Share it!

Related Posts

• Joe Bastardi’s Response to the Muller-Watts Situation
• What Is The Global Temp Really Saying?
• A Discourse on Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, oops I mean Climate Disruption
• WEATHER WARNING HAS BEEN CANCELED!

About the Author: Guest Writer