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.

Mr. Bastardi cranks these entries out three or four times a day. They are always loaded with ideas and information. Give the guy a break about his writing style. He seldom has time to re-write, and the style is actually refreshing, once you get used to it.

Please understand Mr. Bastardi was predicting this La Nina at the same time Dr. Hansen was predicting a "Super El Nino." Doesn't being correct matter?

It is important to grasp his point about the difference between the degree of energy involved in temperature change at high latitudes vesus the degree of energy involved in temperature in change at the equator. Only a little energy is involved creating the positive anomaly in the North Atalantic, compared to the huge subtraction of energy involved in this La Nina. In terms of total energy, the La Nina is likely to have a far greater world-wide effect, especially because the surface area involved is far larger. It may have an effect as great as the 1998 El Nino, which created the obvious spike in world-wide warmth, only it will be an obvious spike downwards.

And this only involves the current La Nina. If it gets even greater, and sets a new record, as Mr. Bastardi and others forecast, the effect will be greater. However a forecast is different from a fact. The fact is: This La Nina is occuring right where Dr. Hansen forecast a "Super El Nino," and that has got to throw a wrench into ideas that predict warming.

Hansen and UHI.

Hansen is a real gem. In 2001, when making his UHI adjustments, 42% of urban locations were adjusted downwards. This sounds like the work of a person trying to create a preconceived result, rather than that of an objective scientist. I've been checking UHI every morning and am consistently seeing 5-25 degrees difference for the low temperature in Denver relative to outlying areas at equal elevation. Similar for Minneapolis.

Hansen et al. (JGR, 2001) adjusted trends in urban stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record. Of these adjustments, 42% warmed the urban trends: which is to say that in 42% of cases, the cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Hi Mark,

Unlike Joe Bastardi, I'm having a really hard time figuring out the political leanings of Dr. "Super El Nino" Hansen. He is so quiet and understated, and has been personally oppressed by President Bush - so we don't really know where he stands.

It is comforting to know that the person manipulating the temperature data upwards by an increasing amount every year, has no vested interest and does not care what the outcome of his data appears to be. I also appreciate the honesty of his discussions with the press.

Like when he appeared on 60 Minutes and said that the White House had made it difficult for him to communicate with the public, or when he said that sea level may rise 25 meters this century.

Reply: Patrick, you should be hearing from Dr. Hansen very soon.

Thanks Brett! I enjoy reading Joe's work. I really appreciate his "larger picture" approach. I, too, believe their are larger cycles at work here that we are only beginning to understand. Global Warming and Global Cooling is only one of those cycles. How they are all intertwined (GW, GC, PDO, ENSO, AMO, El Nino, La Nina, Solar Variance, Planetary tilt and orbital variations, etc), is something we (humanity) has yet to figure out.

To address a few of the critics:

Michael Mitton/Nick Fuegi/heat miser - regarding grammar. First, Joe doesn't have to write as often or as much as he does. His writing style is stream of consciousness - which appears disconnected to some. Also, his style is one of passion. He wants to say so much with so little time and therefore, doesn't spend time spell checking or re-writing for style points. If writing style is one of your biggest complaints...that's hilarious. BTW, I know several good PhD's that have difficulty spelling the A,B,C's - so grammatical ability doesn't degrade intelligence.

Michael Mitton - Volcanic concerns. If you re-read the post, JB wasn't connecting Volcanic activity to GW (sorry, AGW seems to be the PC term now). JB was setting up a potential scenario - which is a very valid scientific approach. It's the same one used by the IPCC and the AGW proponents.

Nick Fuegi - too numerous to list. First, you can't say anything about "self serving hogwash" after that environmental diatribe.

"No downside from the efficiency revolution" - I beg to differ. There are quite a few. Arbitrary limits (emissions, etc) set by politicians, unrealistic timetables for implementations, etc.
For emissions, China and India should be held to the same standards as the US and Canada are expected to. Timetables need to be created with the involvement of industry. You can't force people to purchase more efficient products or services unless they see value. If investors can make a ton, let them invest and do so.

Along the same lines, Ethanol is supposed to be a big solution to some of the problems. However, Ethanol production is depleting ground water in the midwest, removing foodstuffs (corn) from the market thus driving up prices, and it takes more energy to refine that petroleum. Not to mention - Ethanol is less efficient as far as mileage is concerned. Therefore, consumption would go UP.

One more example, Compact fluorescent bulbs. Much more energy efficient, but yet they contain mercury. I haven't seen much effort in creating a workable large scale recycling solution there. Plus, the bulbs are still a good bit more expensive than traditional bulbs.

SST's you say? - A report released by the Climate Prediction Center on 12/07/07 summarized that Atlantic SSTs in 2007 were near normal.

Stop embarrassing himself - What? For having an opinion contrary to yours? For asking involved parties to look at the larger cyclical picture? For proposing other potential scenarios which don't follow the Global Warming theory?

Dangerous Attitude - No more than yours. AGW proponents seem bent on creating a socialist state where a nanny state can tell me what I can and cannot use in my home. What industry can and cannot produce...etc. This is all based on a theory.

Mark - Wow. Relax. As I stated earlier, JB is presenting possible scenarios based on observed data, trends, and historical records. Glad we don't use those methods anywhere else. That would be horrible!! Wait a minute...that's what EVERY forecast is. A educated opinion of an outcome based on observed data, trends and historical records (knowing what happened in a given situation before).

Republican - yeah...that's a critique if I ever heard one. Lemme see (I know..bad grammar), party line is as follows..

Republicans IS bad, Democrats IS good

C'mon (bad grammar again) folks, read the piece for what it is - a scenario building, talking out loud, stream of consciousness piece where JB is trying to pull a bunch of data together and determine an outcome.

BTW, Merry Christmas to all on the boards. Here's hoping you have a great Christmas and get to enjoy time with friends and family.

Mark:

So apparently to you the science of GW is a Democrat Liberal thing only?

Thanks for the insight.

By the way, after having read Joe B's posts for many years, and watching his vids, I don't recall him ever ssying he is a diehard Republican. Clearly, you are extrapolating on that fact just as much as you extrapolate on the theory of AGW.

Thank you for proving yet again that GW is a political issue and not really a science concern.

It's difficult for me to comprehend the substance here. If climate can change, was it JB can't change his writing style! That's all I have to say about syntax.

I agree with JB. It's a kick in the teeth of the AGW doomsayers. We appear to be entering a period of comparative solar quiescence. So everyone repeat after me...a thicker atmosphere is a less cold atmosphere. A thicker atmosphere is a less cold atmosphere. A thousand times ought to do it.

ANDREW - "Check your facts Bastardi before spewing such self serving hogwash"

You really need to learn to follow your own advice !!!

I believe, Bastardi said it was the CFS model that is predicting La Nina to strengthen and not merely his opinion; so everyone picking on this as "his forecast" should learn to read.

ANDREW - you also need to educate yourself on the subjects of ENSO and the PDO before spewing your nonsense. Bastardi clearly knows infinitely more than you do.

For example, the LaNina of 1989 was not at all much stronger than the current episode - they are on par with each other at present, and if the CFS forecast does come to fruition, this LaNina will be on par with the last major LaNina in 1974-75. Now in this era of AGW, a LaNIna that reaches or exceeds the 74-75 episode would be EPIC ! Should it happen, it in fact may very well be the next "Great Climate Shift" as the last ones occured in 1947, and 1976. The timing would be right since the PDO cycle lasts around 70 years.

Let me introduce you to the MEI where you can see the ENSO cycle clearly :

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html

Let me also introduce you also to the Weekly ENSO update, which this slide is of the CFS forecast upon which Bastardi based his post :

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.ppt#538,28,SST Outlook: NCEP CFS Forecast Issued 16 December 2007

And now let me introduce you also to the PDO :

"Much controversy now exists over how PDO works, and how it might best be monitored, modeled and predicted. The stakes in PDO science are high, as an improved PDO understanding offers even sharper views of the future than those now provided by ENSO science alone."

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm

MARK -
"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."

AS stated above and demonstrated in the links, Bastardi's post indeed has a scientific basis since it is the CFS model making the prediction. You are another one, like Andrew, who needs to read carefully and check facts and educate yourself before spewing nonsense.

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

How Revealing !!! You post on here all the time, presenting yourself as some kind of "Climate Authority," yet here you are, asking Brett if NOAA does some kind of ENSO forecast, instead of providing the links yourself - LOL !

This confirms what I've long suspected - that you all you do is repost timely subject matter you read on other blogs such as Tamino's and Eli Rabbet's and RC, just to name a few, but you really do not know anything yourself, other than what you may have retained from blogging. Pathetic, but not surprising !

Oh, and do spare us the obvious retort that you want Brett to start a new thread, rather than just posting a link yourself - because if you knew that NOAA is also forecasting the episode to continue and to strengthen, you would not have made such a silly request which supports Bastardi's post !

I'll be on vacation as of noon through mid January, so don't presume my lack of (future) rebuttal is a sign of capitulation.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to ALL !

Hi Guys,

It's blasphemy. How dare Joe be right and Hansen wrong. BTW the sun is blank another day. This La Nina plus the drop in the sun's output could be the start of a little ice age. If I am correct during the ice ages the temperature can swing 5 to 10 degrees in either direction over only a few years. Take this La Nina + lower solar output + PDO going negative = famine, giant hurricanes, nasty tornado seasons, war and pestilence. Think its crazy then read some of the accounts from the little ice age. Everybody know that extreme weather is caused by the difference in temperature of two fronts. I guess only time will tell and if Joe is right this will be the end of the AGW preaching.

Joe, keep up the good work. I always enjoy your articles. Unlike others, you throw out information that allows your theories to be proven in a relatively short time frame. I judge the success of your article by the amount of teeth grinding from the AGW camp and judging from that I would say it was pretty successful. Lot of personal attacks at you, congratulations!

Guys,

I'm still a little troubled by the way in which El Nino and La Nina events are supposed to actually effect total global surface temperatures.
Brett, or anyone who knows, how does this occur. I mean, I know that ENSO events shuffle heat around on the earth's surface, but the only way I can see that they could significantly impact global average surface temps is if the interfered with heat transport from the ocean surface to the deep waters. Is this what happens?

Editorials have license to use words like "could" and "Possible". Science articles have a much higher standard.
Is everybody on the AGW side that unsure of themselve that they have to attack an editorial so viciously? I though you folks were the voice of reason, moderation, not to mention all knowing!
Does the fact that Mr. Bastardi called for a La Nina while the computers picked a Super El Nino bother you? Are you angry with Mr. Bastardi or the fact that AGW modeling spings another leak?
Hey he may be wrong and the good thing is we don't have to wait years to see if this happens like we do for AGW theories. Remember he said "possible" which is perfectly acceptable in an editorial. He also said it probably shouldn't happen but what if? The AGW side uses those words all time but it's bad when skeptics use it?
In the next few months we will know just how accurate his predictions are.
He also admits that:
"This has to be factored into the entire system, and the development of questionable land-based data with suspect thermometers and heat islands has been given unearned credit in the global temps"
The question should be is anybody on the AGW side doing any factoring?
Come on lighten up this is the Christmas Season! It's cold and snowy just like December is supposed to be.

Personally I've come to like Joe's long range forecasts, and think he does reasonably well with them. Rather than relying exclusively on models, he often employs an intuitive approach based on past experience, a method I've seen employed successfully by other long-range forecasters.

That said, he's really dropped the ball on global warming. Since Joe (or any of us) have not lived through a period of rapid climate change, intuition has no experience to hang on, and is probably not a reliable technique for guiding our forecasts.

It rather boggles the mind that someone can come out so strongly against global warming without apparently understanding any of the scientific work done on the subject, or even caring to try. I suspect Joe just likes to act as a lightning rod for controversy, or perhaps he simply doesn't like any forecast which didn't originate with him.

Joe seems to regard surface weather as a closed system, such that without any change in total energy input, things have to balance out. Thus his strange comments about how the current strong La Nina somehow disprove global warming, "fact is the warmer it gets the harder it is to get warmer, unless there is some kind of increase in the total energy available". What Joe does not seem to realize is that surface weather (or even tropospheric weather) is not a closed system; models show (and observations confirm) that as the (surface) world warms in response to anthropogenic forcing, there is corresponding cooling of the stratosphere, so that from space, our net energy balance is unchanged.

There are a host of other, equally egregious errors in Joe's post; I recommend he spend some time reading some scientific journals and blogs on the subject.

Jonathan,

Joe does much better with his seasonal forecasts than does NOAA. Joe doesn't deny that the globe has over-all warmed since the coldest period of the LIA, and that there has been an increase of GW from 1976 to 1998. If you ever read the forecast reasoning behind Joe's forecasts you would see quite a few references to past weather analogs as well as various teleconnections that play a part in our regional climate. If Joe's science is flawed, that is most of our recent warming is anthropogenic, than it would show up in his forecasts.

Our warming today is no different than the warming of 1900-1945. Joe often points out, as does a number of other people the flaws in both NASA, NOAA, and HadCruts temperature analysis. His point is that today's climate is not unrpecedented, and for that he is considered a heretic. However, his makes his money predicting both major and minor fluccuations in regional weather patterns -something our climate experts cannot do.

BTW, Joe has forecasted the 10th warmest winter for N.America since records were kept. His predictions for a cold/wet December for most of the US has come to fruitition. He calls for warming to begin in January for much of the CONUS. The only fly in the ointment to this warming would be for an unusually strong La Nina episode.

The recent warming began with an unusually strong El Nino episode in 1976. The PDO during that year went from cold to warm, and has pretty much remained on the warm side since. If this is a reverse of 1976, and the PDO does in fact goes cold again, we could be beginning a 30 year period of La Nina dominated climate.

Joe Bastardi's courage to put himself right in the middle of potential unfriendly fire is commendable.

Pity the meteorologist. If he's wrong, he/she'll be without a job soon. And Accuweather out of business. And this goes on and on for the whole of his or her career.

It's the complete opposite of the cushioned world of climatologists that can forecast everything and nothing, ready for just-so stories to justify whatever is going to happen.

To all the people who bring polictics into it (which is acceptable since AGW is a POLITICAL issue), the fact that people like Mark mention Bastardi is a Republican so his science can't be taken seriously logically implies that anyone who is a democrat can't be taken seriously either. Or, wait, are Democrats objective and Republicans subjective? Why don't we go to the IPCC and eliminate all opinions of anyone there registered to any political party? After all, their political opinions may get in the way...

If we are going to move towards clean energy, the people; i.e. engineers who design the stuff need to be consulted to see what can be done. Politicians can pass laws saying anything but if science can't do it, science can't do it. Therein lies the problems with subjective hard timelines to do this and that. Just look at the "success" of the Kyoto Protocol.

Of course, we could just stop all emissions at a certain date regardless of the state of clean energy technology and revert back to how life was in the 18th century when it was so "good" and everyone lived well into their 40s before all this pollution starting ruining things and cause people to live into their 70s and 80s.

Anon 11:49 AM, google "rhetorical question." Who knows, you might even learn something.

JP:

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure where you get the idea that our current warming is no different than the 1900-1945 period. It's true that US avg temperatures are not much higher today than during that timeframe, but globally they are. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/.

I agree that Joe's seasonal forecasts are often superior to those made by NOAA et al. However, I don't think this means that the methods Joe employes (analogs and teleconnections) are necessarily a reliable indicator for or against global warming.

Global warming does not preclude cold events, including record cold weather. Although some scientists have argued that global warming will lead to a semi-permanent El Nino, this is just conjecture on their part, and not a necessary conclusion based on the well-studied physics of global climate change. Whether the next decades are dominated by El Nino or La Nina is neither vindication nor repudiation of global warming; it's just another part of the fascinating pattern we are still struggling to understand.

Buzz,
I'm more objective than you, and far more objective than Joe.

Darren,
Science is not supposed to have a preconceived bias, which I do believe Joe has. As far as him being a Republican -- yes, he is, as I used to watch him on Weather World more than a decade ago. And he was profiled on Muscle & Fitness magazine a couple years ago; his political beliefs were on display there. I understand that you are a Bush apologist, so perhaps you are oblivious to it.

Neither political party has a monopoly over science; however, the Democrats, in general, do support science more than the Republicans, both as a field and for advancing society. When push comes to shove, Republicans will often favor religion over science, or the plight of business over the health of consumers.

Seems Joe has company:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee�s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears �bite the dust.� (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

"His predictions for a cold/wet December for most of the US has come to fruitition. He calls for warming to begin in January for much of the CONUS."

Uh, JP, Joe said that November would be cold, and that the cold may bleed into the beginning of December. But by no means did he predict a cold December for most of the US. In fact, Joe forecasted the warmth to have arrived by December 10th or 15th and then predicted the warmth to remain through the end of February. Don't have revisionist history.

I prefer Joe's seasonal forecast over NWS because his is more detailed, but I wouldn't say he is not more accurate. He did a good job last winter, his misses have been more memorable than his hits. I still remember how he predicted the winter of 01-02 to be bitterly cold across the country; instead, it was one of the warmest winters I can ever remember.

Mark,
I think you need to re-read Joe's forecast. I'm not sure where you get your version, but here are some of his excerpts for Winter 2007-2008:

"The recent cold in the East and Great Lakes area is consistent with the original Winter Forecast, released in October, which called for seasonable winter weather at the beginning and end of the winter with the warmer temperatures dominating what is climatologically the coldest part of the season."

"Despite the early chill in the East and the National Weather Service forecast predicting a colder winter than last, Bastardi believes this could rival the winter of 2001-02 for warmth centered in major population areas - mostly the East, South, Midwest and Great Lakes area. "

"The only colder than normal areas are in the less populated Pacific Northwest and northern Rockies. Bastardi points out that last year the coldest period was centered in the east, during the heart of winter. February was the coldest ever in parts of the Midwest and December was what tipped the scale to warmer than normal over the three month period. This winter; however, will be warm in most of the nation from the Plains eastward, where much of the population resides."

Mark, you have a bad habit of posting things as "facts" when they are quite the opposite. If you are going to attack someone's credability please at least check your facts before posting. Again, way back in Octobler Joe was predicting the 10th Warmest Winter on record.

Well of course you remember his misses more than his hits, you have a vested interest in proving him wrong since he believes differently than you.

"Mark, you have a bad habit of posting things as "facts" when they are quite the opposite."

JP, I think the same thing can be said of you. Where in your cut-and-paste job did JB call for a cold December across most of the country? If you're going to pass his comment of "a cold beginning and end to the winter" as an official forecast for a cold December, I think it's you who needs to stop misleading others.

As far as where I get his forecast from -- I read his blog. It's obvious that you don't.

What a bunch of garbage. Because La Nina MAY peak at >-3.0 degrees somehow means it's a natural phenomenon. Seems the opposite to me. Ice melting into the sea decreasing the sea temp is "natural". The amount of ice melting is not. Bastardi needs to stick to predicting weather, of which he has been wrong this year so far, and quit acting like an authority on climate change. He is entitled to his opinion. But that's exactly what it is, an opinion!

Mark,

Please read:

http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?partner=townnews&traveler=0&date=2007-10-22_1435&month=10&year=2007

David,

Don't jump to conclusions.

Mr. Bastardi, and also Dr. Gray, would agree that "warming" caused the cold La Nina. That is what "thermohaline circulation" is all about, and is why they shook their heads and predicted a cool La Nina even while Dr. Hanson was predicting a hot "Super El Nino."

Of course warming is important. Without warming we would be colder than Pluto. The issue is: "What CAUSES the warming?"

There is talk about how our current warming is "Unprecidented." Old charts showed the MWP (the time-period when Vikings called Greenland "green,") as being warmer than today, but "adjustments" have been made to shrink the warmth of that time, and make us more alarmed about our current warmth.

Indeed our current warmth has caused the glaciers of Greenland to recede, but only to expose a crushed forest. When the crushed wood was dated, some was from the time the Vikings lived there.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514#comments

Even during our current "warm" times, it is difficult to grow trees in Greenland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/world/europe/28greenland.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In conclusion, whoever "adjusted" the figures to make our current warmth look greater than the warmth of the MWP made a mistake.

If I was as harsh as you, David, I would not say "they made a mistake." I would say, like you, "What a bunch of garbage."

However that would be rude of me, for it would insinuate you were sitting in garbage, accepting garbage as your guru, and uttering garbage like a parrot when you judged others.

I could never be so rude.

Isn't it amazing how much anger and contempt AGW supporters show to anyone who threatens their world view? We are, after all, talking about the climate of a planet, one of the most complex, chaotic systems a man could study. With so many factors involved it would seem to be rife with years of debate. But one side refuses to debate. As soon as an Alarmist is presented with a contradictory opinion he immediately goes into angry counter attack, impugning the motives and intelligence of those that beg to differ.
Why do you suppose that is? Why do so many people WANT Man to be responsible for destroying the planet? They seem to enjoy wallowing in self righteousness far more than trying to convince their fellow man of impending doom. It's sad, really.

Joe comes with a pre-conceived notion? What a crock and a delicious touch of irony. On the one hand you have a "scientist" like James Hansen who takes his precious models and tweaks them until they agree with his pre-conceived conclusions and adjusts them to make his figures work. He, along with Gavin Smith, should not only lose their credentials but should be in jail for outright fraud! I will take Joes emperical data over their theoretical cherry picked data anyday.

Caleb,

Did you read the article? It was the most rambling, rude article I have ever read. It was unprofessional, dogmatic (without dogma) and purposeful as well.

It's not that us AGW's may be wrong. It's that our well-supported point of view is deprecated and minimized, often in a rude way, by the deniers, many of which comment time after time in an equally predictable way to this BLOG. Deniers who practice true denial in an "unprecedented" way. While the rest of the world worries and discusses AGW particluarly in the recent world conference, there is little press or concern in this country.

Look, I'd like to be wrong about GW. I'd like to think that nature could adequately compensate for the damage that is and will be wrought to our ecosystem. We have no real historical precedent to rely on, no matter what you deniers try to convey, including what a record La Nina might mean. And neither does Joe, who, as I said, so far has been wrong about the long range weather this winter.

The question is, can we afford to be wrong about GW and it's cause, and do little or nothing? ONLY if we AGWers are wrong!

I wonder how Joe Bastardi reconciles his theory of natural variability with the observed cooling of the stratosphere?

Here's a message from down under where it is cloudy and raining right across the country. Im with Joe. The lad is obviously psychic.
� Over the last twelve solar cycles we have seen cooling in the tropics as the aa index of geomagnetic activity has collapsed near sunspot minimum and warming as the aa index re-ignites. This, surely, represents a connection worth pursuing.
� The last three solar cycles (from 1976) have been heavily SOI negative (El Nino warming)and the three prior were heavily SOI positive. This multi solar cycle oscillation goes back to the 1880s and it matches the movement in the surface temperature record for high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. The tropics between 30N and 30S is the heat engine where temperatures actually exceed the average for the planet. The waters carry that warmth north into the northern hemisphere. The UAH satellite record reveals that the 'warming' has been greatest north of 60 North. Canadian weather authorities are now predicting a very cold winter.
� The base of geomagnetic activity has increased strongly over the period of record and is now in decline. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field that is established by magnetic fields from the sun is collapsing. We are still many months from solar minimum and geomagnetic activity is the lowest for more than 100 years. This La Nina is going to be a whopper. Even the models are pointing in that direction and those models know nothing of the sun.I suspect that it all begins with a little window opening or closing in that part of the atmosphere that is heavily ionised, the part that responds to electromagnetic forces. Perhaps it's something to with the ring current and the equatorial fountain? There are plenty of obvious mechanisms in the troposphere that will amplify a little warming or reinforce a little cooling.
If you are interested erlathappsdotcomdotau

Thanks Brett and Joe for this forum and this La Nina event is a welcome report/editorial/opinion for us to digest. I still say the planet is a living thing, that the weather is a living system and to reduce weather and climate to a mechanical system is incorrect. There are many manmade influences acting upon the weather, I say both intentional and unintentional. To that end, this forum provides us a venue to explore the big picture. I suggest every reader here go outside a study the clouds from the ground and air if you can. Take particular interest in cirrus clouds. I welcome any information regarding what you all see. Safe and healthy holidays to all! george

Wake up people!
Global warming = spending to become compliant
It's an economic ploy to get us to spend money to become more "green"
We've lost our minds because some extremeists are predicting doom and gloom. The earth is not that fragile. When the massive blackout over the northeastern US happened the air became pristine in a matter of hours. Doesn't that tell you something? The earth cleans itself quite well and the temperatures are always going to fluctuate. It is great to be able to drive down the road without a car in front of me spewing really nasty fumes, I'm all for that and even appreciative. But when you start making everyone crazy with compliance because of bizarre weather you're treading towards the just plain dopey. Smarten up all you eco freaks and get a grip.

I am just a regular guy who has no scientific background and has to rely on common sense and decency for judgments on this sort of things, but here's my take:

For over 100 years, the solution to the world's problem of poverty and unfairness was to scrap capitalism and free markets and go with centralized government control of everything, 'for the good of the State', as they used to say in soviet times.

Now that the Soviets have failed and communism itself is pretty much debunked and forgotten, isn't it amazing that capitalism and free markets are STILL unfair and bad and hurt the poor and should be centralized (now in the UN), "for the good of the planet"?

No matter what the given reason, the response is always the same; tax the hell out of the people who have the most money, and if they squawk, find some way to point a moral finger at them and make the world see them as the bad guys, instead of the guys who generate so much wealth and so much food and so much economic activity that the whole world is a better place for millions of people who don't even LIVE in America.

Given that every movement claiming to help the world, the poor, the 'state', eventually reaches for my wallet, forgive me for getting suspicious of the cheerleading and the moral fingerwagging.

De Tocqueville said something about the hardest tyranny to overcome being the tyranny of public opinion, wherein the great majority believe something that is wrong but if you speak out they shun you, ruin you and destroy you.

The rhetoric, especially the booing in Bali for the US rep who objected to unrealistic and destructive targets for emissions, really underscores for me that AGW people around the world are trying to tyrannize sensible people by building public opinion against them, even though it might be (and is, I believe) wrong.

It isn't about truth, it's about power. Speak truth to power, that's what I say. :-)

This is the first thing I've read from Bastardi but I agree with Erl, Bob, Caleb, Anonymous and others in his court on this one. The confluence of 50 years of reduced solar input, with PDO strongly negative, AMO to follow in about a decade and the reconfiguration of the geomagnetic field ongoing means we are looking at the death of GW for the duration of all our lifetimes. I only hope I haven't butchered the language, just saying...

I think that's right--global warming is hogwash that the Yank Al Gore is trying to stuff down the world's throat.

Sorry Al, we're much smarter than you. This time it's mother nature that's kicking you in the cojones.

Folks,
All one need to do is look at the current ocean heat content and SST. Both are dropping. Couple that with 30 year record low hurricane activity.

No matter which side one is on, if the oceans are not warming, there can be no global warming. That is the reality, and as long as they drop, so too will surface temperatures.

Pete DeSanto:
The troposphere is not warming as AGW says it should. The stratosphere coolin/warming is controlled by O3 (ozone), not CO2. Now the "consensus" of ozone depletion is in question.

There has been controversy over UAH vs RSS LT temperatures. Of course the AGW side sides with RSS because it shows a higher temp trend. However, according to a new study just released, UAH is shown to be more accurate than RSS. Bad news for AGW although neither was good for AGW, just that RSS made it look not as bad.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/