Boy, what an annoying polemic, and horribly written at that. I've never read Bastardi's blog, but I at least know now that I don't need to.

I'll only respond to one thing that he says that there is "increased volcanic activity because the signs are there" and also that "the wild card of volcanic activity is also a big problem."

I don't see how. Of course every scientist will agree that volcano emissions affect climate. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether humans can affect climate, UNLESS, you also argue that human actions which lead to global warming also lead to increased volcanic activity. Does anybody believe this? Does anybody say, "we need to cut down our CO2 emissions so the volcanoes do/don't blow up?" The connection is ridiculous. Lots of things affect climate, and that fact that volcanoes affect climate in no way precludes humans from also affecting climate.

Bastardi; this is just cherry picking with an opinion. Everybody has an opinion, but being obnoxious like about tends to make one look very narrow minded.

Bastardi; Try averaging the SST over the last 10 years and you won't get so carried away in such foolishness as declaring the current episode a record breaker.

Climate is the average of weather.

Remember that one and repeat after me:

Climate is the average of weather.

Don't Cherry pick!

The La Nina of 1989-89 was much stronger than the current episode and there has been plenty of warming since then.

Check your facts Bastardi before spewing such self serving hogwash (your description). Within a few years an El Nino will reappear as it regularly does and with it new all time high ocean and global temperature records will be established again.

Brett, when Joe mentions " the earthquake " is he speaking of the boxing day earthquake in Indonesia several years ago & if not which earthquake? Reply: I believe it is the boxing day quake, but I will find out.
Just a curious geologist!!
This may be my last post before the holiday season so I would like to wish all a Merry Xmas & a safe & prosperous 2008.
Be good,
Rick.

Same to you Rick. Brett

With Bastardi's "Historic La Nina" and Hansen's "Super El Nino," we could start a school for exceptional Spanish children.

Another question for the faithful -

The "historic La Nina" is caused by -

A. Low atmospheric CO2
B. Hansen's "Super El Nino"
C. Aliens
D. Low solar activity
E. It isn't really happening, we just haven't manipulated the data upwards enough yet.

The only backlash I see, is just like this past La Nina, which was strong enough to push warm water around and to the poles,
That warm water might cause more ice melting, which people will run with as another example of global warming.

-40F/-40C at 2:00 in the afternoon in Fairbanks, Alaska.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=fairbanks%2C+ak

Joe's the man, and has a very big following in this area of Canada.

"Self-serving hog-wash" is an understatment!

The fact that the planet is so warm despite "the warmer it gets the harder it is to get warmer" is a major underscore to just how serious manmade global warming is.
We will only know whether your contrary opinions are correct in a few decades. You might not have to live with the consequences of mistakes caused by attitudes like yours.
Your opinions seem to hint that humanity should sit and think rather than taking action without downside to lower emissions.
Taking action now does no harm at all. Indeed it creates new business opportunities. If it turns out in 30years that you are right (it won't turn out that way and you know it), then the world will still have saved huge quantities of RAW materials and protected what little is left of the world as it should be. As it always has been until the last 150 years when humanity raped the planet to the brink of destruction.

There is no downside to the efficiency revolution unless you work for a non-renewable energy comp, or a gov with considerable fossil reserves within its borders. Or if you just want to be contrary to generate hits.
Investors can make a packet in the renewable boom. Investors care more about the very short term (in geological time), so a boom in renewables is even more attractive than ongoing fossil use. It's not like hydrocarbons won't still be useful anyway is it?
So, Joe, get with the program. The Atlantic SSTs are way above normal. WHEN (not if) the current La Nina subsides, there will surely be another record global high average temperature. You don't need a supercomputer to work that one out. Want to bet against it?
Your article cannot do any good. If wrong (v likely) it hinders potentially vital progress.
If you're right, you acheive nothing other than allowing more pollution, less efficiency, more delay before the world's great problems begin to be solved.
One of those two outcomes is potentially far better than the other for a great many reasons and it isn't the one your theories seem to be backing.
I urge you to stop embarrasing yourself and try to be remembered as part of the solution.
I wouldn't mind one bit if you stopped writing for Accuweather tomorrow. I'd prefer it. Your 'article' is just your opinion after presenting some self-skewed cherry picked 'data' from a single source that 'just happens' to back up your personal POV. Yet you present it as if it's some great contradiction to something that independant scientists have meaningful data (and more importantly *logical* conclusions) to back.

Your attitude is dangerous.
You like patronising (sporting) analogies so I'll work sport into these in a v patronising way, just so you can understand them:
Your ideas are like saying that smoking might not kill you(at half time in the football game), so why stop.
Like saying that you won't crash (when driving NASCAR) so why wear a seatbelt.
Like not putting a parachute on your dragster because it'll probably stop sooner or later somehow anyway and only time will tell...

The consequences of inaction are potentially severe. The opportunities created by revolution are considerable and it has the 'added bonus' of potentially literally saving the world.

If you have ever bought ANY kind of insurance policy, it would be crazy hypocrisy not to want to try to make sure that degredation (some would say wholesale destruction) of the environment due to human inefficiency is slowed asap.

How could YOU still be unsure which direction to pull?
I don't think the penny's ever going to drop.

Regards,
Nick
P.S. Joe. Please take your low-brow sports analogies with you to retirement. Reading your articles is like coming fourth. Very disappointing to the point of embarassment.

We need to get this Info, out to the General Public,All they hear is the crap that is thrown at them over and over and so many people out there only get one side of the story, I say,If you believe in global warming, Fine. But atleast have an open mind and listen to both sides,This is Advice that i would like to pass on to Al Gore and friends.

Thanks,Jim.

Another AGW myth bites the dust

AGU: Lowell et al on Greenland Organics
By Steve McIntyre

Ray PH reported at RC an AGU session describing the very interesting recent discovery of organic material disgorged from a retreating glacier N of 70N on the east coast of Greenland, with radiocarbon dates around the MWP. ... Radiocarbon dates of emergent organic remains along the western margin of Istorvet ice cap (70.8�N, 22.2�W) indicate a time when the ice cap was smaller than at present.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=1

Joe's post (rant?) should be treated for what it is -- an editorial piece. There is nothing scientific in his post. When one reads his post, they see someone who seems to be "rooting" for a particular result.

Indeed, Joe is not predicting that it will get colder; he is hoping that it will. Lucky for us, science doesn't wish for a particular result. It simply observes it.

Joe - who not only is a diehard Republican, but wears it on his sleeve - is difficult to take seriously when science is a field that demands objectivity.

Joe could be right, but probably isn't. His specialty is medium-range forecasting, which, as of late, hasn't been very accurate. We shall see.

Bravo Joe. Nicely said.
And a voice of scientific reasoning and open debate.

I was a meteorology major back in
1978 for a couple years before I shifted to natural science. I had the benefit of studying
under Joe D'Aleo, now of Icecap fame, for a few courses up in Vermont. Brilliant scientist and really enthused about the weather. Although it may not have seemed like it then (I was probably a little more interested in beer and playing rugby then), he instilled in me a great love for, and open mind about, science.

I don't believe people cause "global warming." But i do believe we of course have an impact on our climate through such factors as urban heat island effects etc. What i do believe is, we are missing, and perhaps sinking, the boat by focusing too much on this, and not just doing the right things we should be doing for our planet anyway ie: cleaning up our air, water, land, reforesting denuded areas, managing our natural resources properly, and working with other countries to share what we now know, so they can develop, and at the same time provide their citizens with a good quality of life without killing their environment.

Then, all falls in place. Or at least close.

Brett: I always enjoy Joe Bastardi's writings on weather and climate change. This time was no different. Thanks for sharing it.

It's been my belief that the oceans--and the sun, of course--drive global climate. To that end, a few days ago I posted the following on a two-week-old thread at another blog, not anticipating any comments. I received two, which was infinitely better than my expectations.

With the PDO being the "big brother" of ENSO, this seems an appropriate place to post it again. Please excuse the length.

*****

Indulge this old control systems engineer one time, and I'll return to my job as lurker.

I run order-of-magnitude equations for my own benefit, just to see if GCMs and climate change reports are in the ballpark of their claims. Some are; some aren't. The following relies on a simple equation and approximates the impact of the 1970s to 1980s shift in AMO and PDO mode on northern hemisphere temperature.

AMO Data Source: Gray, S.T., et al.. 2004.
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Index Reconstruction.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-062.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

PDO Data Source: Biondi, F. et al., 2001,
Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reconstruction.
International Tree-Ring Data Bank.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2001-001.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

PDO index is defined as the north Pacific SST above 20 degrees N, minus the global temperature trend. AMO index is the north Atlantic SST, between 75 and 7.5 degrees W and 60 and 0 degrees N, minus the global temperature trend. I can't easily find the exact areas of those two locations so I'll swag them. If there are any readers with the exact areas and percentages, feel free to adjust the following. The average AMO and PDO index numbers in the following are from the aforementioned references The years selected are cherry-picked, of course, but what dates aren't? They do, however, correspond to the major swing in global temperature from the seventies into the eighties. To simplify attribution, the calculation also assumes a 0 degree C global temperature trend.

Given:
AMO Index 1975 (AMOI1) = -0.49673
AMO Index 1985 (AMOI2) = 0.52949
PDO Index 1975 (PDOI1) = -0.430928892
PDO Index 1985 (PDOI2) = 0.907382798
Global Temperature Trend (GTT) = 0 deg C
% of Northern Hemisphere Covered by AMO Index Area (% AMO Area) = 16.7*
% of Northern Hemisphere Covered by PDO Index Area (% PDO Area) = 16.6**
% of Northern Hemisphere That Remains (% Remainder) = 66.7

* Assumes North Atlantic area is 50% of Atlantic Ocean and that AMO index area is 80% of North Atlantic
** Assumes North Pacific area is 50% of Pacific Ocean and that PDO index area is 50% of North Pacific

The impact of the 1970s shift in AMO and PDO mode on northern hemisphere temperature could be written as:

Northern Hemisphere Temperature Rise from Oceanic Mode Shift =
((AMOI2-AMOI1) * (% AMO Area)) + ((PDOI2-PDOI1) * (% PDO Area)) + (% Remainder * GTT)
- OR -
((0.52949 - -0.49673) * (16.7%)) + ((0.907382798 - -0.430928892) * (16.6%)) + (66.7% * 0)
- OR -
(0.1714) + (0.2222) + (0)
- OR -
0.3936 deg C

Could 0.4 degrees C of the rise in northern hemispheric temperature during the last twenty-five years of the 20th century be attributable to natural oceanic climate shift, resulting from thermohaline circulation for the AMO and from still-being-debated causes for the PDO?

Happy Holidays

*****

It's important to note that both the AMO and PDO indices are detrended. According to Wikipedia, "This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis, leaving a purely natural variation." So where does that leave us? Go to the instrument temperature record and check how far the northern hemisphere temperature rose from 1975 to 1985.

Both indices rose over 1 degree C during that period and together their combined areas represent around 33% of the northern hemisphere, yet over the same period, northern hemishere temperature rose significantly less than 0.4 degrees C.

i long ago dropped my PRO subscription but, brett, i assume you put joe's post through spell check before placing it here...he's such a "butcherer" of the language, perhaps a product of his overflowing but tenuous through processes.

when you've left the playing field joe, i think we'll be telling our children how bastardi always blew when it came to cyclone and winter storm forecasting...sure, sure, you see the ideas coming before anyone else, but you really struggle with the end game. just another example here...

geez joe, a cold la nina of biblical proportions? a perfect storm correction to solar heating thru oceanic circulation enhanced by natural geological processes whereby, the earth reacts quickly to maintain equilibrium? just as it has done throughout geologic history?...and firing a shot across the bow of the established pontificators of manmade imminent doom at the same time?...dude, you da man!!! now we are debating! consensus, my Assparagus...i knew you senior dudes had it in ya...good luck with the wrath of AGW cultists bad mouthing your right to your opinion that is sure to follow...

Mark -
What a crock to have you lecture someone about objectivity!! Anyone who espouses any ideas to the right of Ted Kennedy incurs your condescending posts. Joe B is just as entitled to his opinions on data as you are and denigrating his efforts only serve to highlight your inability to entertain any thoughts that run counter to your religion.

It is obvious the scientists fail to calculate the BTUs we add to the atmosphere with fossil fuels and nuclear fuel. Untill they do they will always be out of touch with how global warming works.

meteorology = science
climate science = a job, fun and entertainment for software engineers

I was listening to a Bob Dylan special on the radio as I read Joe's piece. Surreally enough, just as I got to the part about the earthquake the line "you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows" came on. Timing is everything.

Brett, doesn't NOAA do a some kind of ENSO forecast? Maybe that would be a good follow-up post.

Yes they do, and I will be more than happy to do a post on it in the near future.

Scientifically and politically....we know just enough about the the causes of climate change to be totally dangerous....to ourselves and to the planet. What we don't know about the real mechanisms the drive the climate would fill all the worlds oceans and what we do know would filla thimble.