Thanks for sticking to the facts Joe. If everybody would do that this wouldn't be blown out of proportion.

I have seen Joe's commments previously on this site. He makes more sense than most. There seems to be a lack of common sense for most of the AGW crowd. It doesn't matter whether your left or right, common sense is common sense. The climate goes in cycles, always has, always will. We should be spending more time with how to cope with it than how to stop it. BTW, I don't believe in AGW but I do believe in stopping pollution. Imagine that,a conservative that believes we should stop polluting the planet. What do you think of that Kippy, paulm et all?

Great Great article JOE you nailed it right on the head.Once agian you have layed out proper info on this issue.It is amazing to me that a politician of all people can come up with a theory and the masses jump off a cliff to believe it with little or no facts at all.To call people flat earthers and believing the moon landing was fake just shows that he is losing the debate that he said was over when we never even had one.Besides there only answer to stop global warming is big government higher taxes,just makes no sense at all.Its funny that in the 70's it was global cooling and the answer was to melt some of the ice at the poles,maybe they did that and thats why the earth warmed slightly but i doubt it.These are the off the wall things that get proposed.Dont you just hate it when facts get in the way.And this theory of global warming comes from mostly the same people who believe in evolution survival of the fittest that want the polar bears on the endangered species list that does not line up with evolution at all.Anyways thats what i have to say about it.Thanks alot Joe for standing up and exericising your right of freedom of speech.

When one examines climate, not weather, one sees that on a geo scale, what we are experiencing is nothing new.

We have been cooling since the Halocene Optimum of about 6,000 before present.

The carbon tax is another way to redistribute wealth from the average earner to the trading houses. Plain and simple.

Science MUST return to being scientific in nature, rather than a slapstick commedy.

*Yawn* Mr. Bastardi certainly covered all the bases. The "global cooling" myth. Using very specific events from specific locations to deny an entire planet's worth of data. Ad hominem attacks against scientists who wish to "destroy any chance to get the right answer." Appeals to "common sense" notions that have been thoroughly refuted by science. (If carbon dioxide is so healthful, I invite Mr. Bastardi to spend a few minutes in a room containing 5% CO2.) Of course, appearing on the O'Reilly Show at all negates his claim of not being a spokesman for the denialosphere. Contrary to his claims, his entire spittle-flecked screed provides ample evidence for the huge gulf between meterology and climate science.

Yum Yum Yummy!!!! More tender juicey raw steak and potatos for the usual crowd of left wingers to sink their fangs into! "O'Reilly...BLUH BLUH BLUH BLUH"...."Faux News...BLUH BLUH BLUH BLUH"...."Bastardi not creadible....BLUH BLUH BLUH BLUH"...."RIGHT WING...BLUH BLUH BLUH BLUH".....Can't wait to read the usual snarky comments from Mark, BT, Kippy, Kerber, GSN et.al. Should be pretty much the same tired old song!

Love and Kisses from the Center of the Universe,

Knuckles. Proud member of THE MOB.

p.s. I especially like this comment:

but my company believes in freedom of speech.

REPLY: Unlike some on this company's GW Blog who don't. That is, unless it suits their agenda!...LOL....

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

Bastardi's ideological rants are always amusing and the O'Reilly Factor is probably a good venue for them. Bastardi preaches about "common sense" or his version of it. Global warming contrarians may not know this, but science isn't about "common sense". Such thought indicates pre-conceived views. Science is instead about careful objective observation. Take for example the rhetoric "Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet." The planet Venus would disagree. Too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing.

Such rhetoric has emotional appeal. Fossil fuel interests have long used the argument to dupe the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo

Bastardi has little clue about science. He believes global mean temperature peaked in the late 50's because a submarine was found in the Arctic (stunning scientific rigor). But his position on the issue alone is enough to get him plenty of media coverage, since there's a strong market for global warming denial. Being a global warming contrarian means you can say anything you want without supporting it because much of your audience doesn't care how accurate it is - just that the message is right.

"My appearance on Bill O'Reilly brought up some things that seem to be a shock to people, but to many many people that are looking hard at the weather, are not."

The media loves shock value. When they print or air pseudoscientific views on any issue, it generates notice. There are some who love this sort of attention.

So we aren't warming up.
Well looks like planes wont be going up.

2050, what airports?

A warmer world could make current airport runways too short
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/09/10/a-warmer-world-could-make-current-airport-runways-too-short/

I was hoping Joe could make a clearer distinction between the concepts of weather and climate. People on both sides of the debate often confuse the two and use abnormally warm or cool weather as "proof" of a warming or cooling climate.

I am so disappointed in Joe. He seems like a nice guy.

He mentioned data and quotes temp data over the last 10yrs, which is falling.

He then mention hurricane data and refers to data from 1930. Now if he were, cann't quite find a reasonable word, honest maybe, he would have used temp data from the 1930 also. This clearly shows that global temps are rising.

Very disappointed with Joe. I think he got him self in to a corner and he cant leave it now. Its professionals like him that we need to motivate the rest of us to do something about this grave situation.

I mean even the russians and the chinese now accept that AGW is real and are desperate to do something about it.

Joe,

I respect your expertise and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I for one am not sure if global warming is real or not.

My issue with your appearance is that it only politicizes the issue further. Going on Fox and telling people who already agree with you that they're right does nothing to open up debate on the issue. It only hardens the stance of people on that side.

This is not a policical issue! It's a scientific issue. The American public is not well informed and will not be until we get honest, scientific debate from both sides.

here are some odd inconsistent statements by Joe.

"We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not."
Well nothing is a 100%. But the science indicates that if we wait 10 even 5yrs and the AGW is true then we have committed ourselves to dangerous - catastrophic warming. Is it real worth waiting and seeing . Here's were risk analysis come in - Joe should go and have a chat with one.

"I have always had an open mind on man's input into the climate system.
...I have to be acquainted with long term patterns of changing weather, which is what climate is"

Yet at the end he goes on about "IT IS ABOUT THE WEATHER! it's that simple."

But it isn't that simple and he should recognize and accept that isn't that simple.

Joe did a great job on the Foxnews segment. This is an excellent letter, although the last paragraph is a bit ominous, especially this-

"That call comes every day in my forecasts, but if it comes in this matter, I will not back down from what I have prepared myself for."

The only reason I can see for such an ending to the letter is that Accuweather is putting pressure on Joe to back off his comments on AGW.

Perhaps rather than following through on their agreement to show up on Foxnews to defend their idiotic claims of a linkage between this year's CA fires and AGW, Greenpeace has taken the coward's approach and is instead putting pressure on Accuweather to fire Joe and replace him with a *climate change expert* like, say, Dr. Heidi Cullen...Yeah, that's the ticket.

"Take for example the rhetoric "Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet." The planet Venus would disagree. Too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing."

MarkB,
Are you saying that our use of fossil fuels will increase global CO2 levels to that of Venus? Are you saying that CO2 at current levels are poisonous to life? If I'm not mistaken J. Bastardi did use the phrase, "trace gas." How much is too much CO2? And at what point in time will we reach it?

You also said this, "Bastardi has little clue about science.".

Perhaps you would like to sit in his chair for a month or so. And after you are fired for incompetence you may be surprised on how much science Joe has accumulated. As a matter of fact, most of the Alarmists, with thier advanced degrees and peer reviewed papers, have little riding on thier "studies". If they're wrong, well there are other papers to write. Much different world from say a person whose ability to feed his family rides on his skills.

So ...... Green Peace runs scared and refuses to face Bastardi on national television . The EPA refuses to square off with the Chamber of Commerce in Court . The controlling party in Congress refuses to let Monkton testify opposite Al Gore . Hadley CRU put their Datbases under lock and key and refuses access of raw Temp data sets to people like Steve McIntyre. Hmmm .... there was one more .... Oh , Yeah , I remember now , ....... , AND MOTHER NATURE REFUSES TO COOPERATE WITH AGW THEORY ! ! ! Heh,Heh,Heh .

The fact that Joe went on Fox versus somewhere else is irrelevant, except perhaps to the extent that other networks may not invite him, because what he has to say does not meet with their agenda. There is no doubt O'Reilley would be happy to put Gore or Hansen on his show, he has a track record of allowing all sides of an issue to present their views. Joe appeared on the network and the one show that has the most viewership, not one that speaks only to their strong base.

I find Joe's statememnt that ...I have always had an open mind on man's input into the climate system.... to be very credible. Much more credible then ...the science is settled....

Isn't that what this discussion is about?

Global cooling for the last 10 years?

No, unless one defines 91 months as ten years.

It is roughly as statistically significant to say the globe has been warming at a rate of >14C(25°F)/century since 2008.

Joe,

Nice work. It's nice to see a scientist being scientific again. Very refreshing.

"Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet."
That's not common sense. That's not even logic. We need oxygen but too much in the atmosphere would make a bomb out of our planet.

"Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man."
Sure it can. But common sense also says man can and has tweaked things to cause inappropriate changes that cause destruction.

Joe thanks for giving us the facts. Now if the liberal global warming stooges would just understand that "facts are stubborn things" then we can take the green out of their pockets instead of them taking from us.

Nice to see Joe all dolled up for TV!

Here is joe admitting to the warming over a longer period. How odd...

Some Extra Post " Factor " Facts on Global Warming
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=34766737001&title=Some%20Extra%20Post%20%20

Weather is going to do what weather is going to do. For those of you who DO think global warming is a fact, you are ALL nuts! It's pure B.S.

Now, please, SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY!!

Thanks for a very honest and straight forward opinion Joe.Which all are entitled to on this blog.But the leftwing loons will spew their warped ideology and desicrate your professional wisdom,because liberalism doesn't allow truth and integrity to be a part of the debate when ones opinion differs from theirs.

Will the alarmists please comment on the IPCC temperature graph you showed that is going completely opposite of their projections!!

Joe has admitted to the long term temp rise
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=34766737001&title=Some%20Extra%20Post%20%20

But is hung up on the AGW part and so seems to be trying to just confuse everyone on the issue.

He shows that there is a long term rise in above link, but then comes on in the video on this post saying there isnt a long term rise and points to a ten year fall to explain this when he knows what the profile has been rising for the last 100yrs. and we know this cause he said it in the link above.

Come on Joe calm down and use your head.

Thank You Joe! Your professional and very understandable delivery is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale debate! I wholeheartedly agree that we all need to do our own studies and compare notes with each other. There are enough real problems to correct in this world for us to tollerate being railroaded with ever increasing taxes and regulations by centrallized authority. Ya know, the banksters and thier puppet politicians.

Joe Bastardi's "long-range" forecasts are indeed accurate. However, to Joe, "long-range" means about the span of a year. Mr. Bastardi's view of the climate is too narrow to see the larger picture of centuries to millennia. The past decade has shown a cooling trend. Is it any coincidence the world is at the same time in a global economic recession? If roughly 80% of the U.S. economic activity is oil-driven, for example, then there would be a substantial decrease in the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere per year during a recession. The amount of CO2 added must be overall decreasing in the rest of the world as well. The AGW theory would still stand.

Admittedly, CO2 has a smaller effect than natural cycles at the present time. Joe would be right if he said natural cycles have more of an effect than anthropological CO2. Let's not forget, however, that the most recent century was the warmest in the last 100,000 years, and the 1990's were the hottest decade in the history of science going back at least 100,000 years. While at the same time, the levels of CO2 have been the highest in the history of science.

see
Climate correlations between Greenland and Antarctica during the past 100,000 years

Michael Bender Todd Sowers Mary-Lynn Dickson Joseph Orchardo Pieter Grootes Paul A. Mayewski & Debra A. Meese

Nature 372, 663 - 666 (1994) | doi:10.1038/372663a0.Nature; 12/15/94, Vol. 372 Issue 6507, p663, 4p, 3 graphs
for example

I have more articles I could find later if I make time for them.

I believe that there's little disagreement that global warming is occurring; however, it has been warming since the end of the little ice age in the early 1800s. Since then there have been periods of increasing temperature averages and periods of decreasing temperate average. Today, satellite low level atmosphere temperatures have show a flat to decreasing atmospheric average temperature sense around 2001. I think that that was the chart that Joe used to counter the Greenpeace thesis.

The obvious questions are, if CO2 is causing GW today what caused warming it the 19th and 20th centuries? If accumulating CO2 is causing accelerated GW why has the atmosphere warming been level to slightly cooling for the past 8 or so years? The debate is not over, and it�s refreshing to see a scientist stand up for science on TV.

I would hate to think that many academics are on the AGW bandwagon because it's a very good source of research money. Before AGW there was little interest and no money in climate research. Today all you have to do is say you postulate some link between global warming and human activity and the money rolls in.

Joe, keep up the good work and maybe one of the mainstream TV channels will have the nerve to invite you on.

Prof Bleen said: " I invite Mr. Bastardi to spend a few minutes in a room containing 5% CO2.

What type of a professor are you? A room with 5% CO2 is 5 parts per hundred, we are talking parts per million when we dicuss atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Prof Bleen
(If carbon dioxide is so healthful, I invite Mr. Bastardi to spend a few minutes in a room containing 5% CO2.)
What is in the psyche of AGW believers that makes them immediately denigrate and marginalize those whose opinion is opposed to you? Whatever makes you think your statement is anything but a nonsensical utterly condescending supercilious load of baloney?
Must the AGW crowd always come up with asinine and absurd analogies that make no scientific sense?
You above statement asking Mr. Bastardi to spend time in an atmosphere containing 130 times more CO2 than current levels just proves the weakness of or rather the nonexistance of reproducable AGW science.
Anybody with knowledge of human physiology knows that spending a few weeks in an oxygen atmosphere just 4 times higher than normal will cause permanent lung and retinal nerve damage. Why would you challenge somebody to spend time in an atmosphere of CO2 that is 150 time greater than normal? Should you be challenged to spend 10 minutes in a room with 150 times less oxygen? Why does the world of conscensus science need to resort to that type of behavior????
Of course what you propose is grandstanding nonsense, designed to obfuscate and change the context of any discussion which shows the factual weakness of AGW. What you proposed is just wrong on so many levels. It is a trick best left to scam artists whose delivery is much better than yours.
And as for the moniker of Prof Bleen, I sincerely doubt the Professor is in anything but mendacious baloney. As for the bleen, you probably reference yourself to the number between 6 and 7 in the base 11 system, but it probably is a Freudian reference to the mythical Bleens. Which for those who do not know, bleens are sightless, land dwelling invertebrates. That definition seems more of a fit to the both of you...... blind to the truth and lack a spine.

" but science isn't about "common sense" "

No truer words have ever been typed.

pathetic, but true

prof bleen,

You would get an instant Nobel if you could grow crops without C02.

In regards to that cherry picked 10-year temperature graph that Joe likes to keep referring to by playing the skeptics joker card of the supposed cooling trend since 1998, I do see where Joe appears to have taken the advice he heard from his fellow mentor Patrick Michaels at the latest ICCC conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

As the video shows, Patrick Michaels cautions his fellow skeptics, Joe included, to not overstep their bounds in attempting to exaggerate their arguments by continually pushing this latest cyclical 10-year cooling trend too far or they will loose any credibility they may have left with the general public. Especially, as Patrick Michaels says, when the next cyclical uptrend takes effect with the next significant El Nino beginning to take shape and temperatures begin to rise again in the short-term.

Joe seems to have listened to and followed Patrick Michaels advice and appears to be watering down his following cooling trend comments: "To be sure, the cooling now is happening faster than it should because it got so warm in the first place via the super nino of 97-98." While he finally seems to be acknowledging that super El Nino year and how extremely unusual it was, he still fails to consider the long-term temperature trend line for 30 or more years and how temperatures are still higher than they were 30 years ago, especially if you discount that unusual Super El Nino 1998 peak: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978/plot/none

Despite this slight watering down of his arguments, Joe still displays his cherry picked graph for the past 10 years without shame on Fox News nonetheless. Couldn't Joe find some other news media outlet other than Fox News where ACCU-WEATHER so proudly provides their weather forecast on to present his biased skeptical arguments?

Analyzing a few of Bastardi's statements:

"The last warm cycle reached its peak in the late 50s when we actually surfaced submarines at the north pole in 1959... IN MARCH!"

Joe needs to acquaint himself with the scientific term "polynya". From the account of the USS Skate:
"the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, [not anymore!!] but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

"The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean
that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s.

Oceanic cycles do not cool the Earth (or warm it); they cause temperature variability on sub-decadal time-scales. It is possible that warming oceans release heat via El Nino, but this is still up for grabs. Increased volcanic activity, Joe? Are we in danger of another Deccan Traps incident, you think? Temperature records show that Krafla, Krakatoa, Kuwae, Huayputina, Agung, Tambora (the year without a summer, remember?) and Pinatubo only cause cooling for up to five years, decreasing in scope with increasing temporal distance from the eruption. Is Joe thinking that we're going to have a sudden uptick in VEI 4's and 5's?

"Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet."

Maybe not destroying it, but if he did a little bit of research HIMSELF he might find out that there's one particular Paleocene boundary coinciding with planktonic extinctions and rapid mammalian evolution attributable to massive greenhouse gas warming. I'm not going to do this well-known meteorologist/scientist's homework for him, though, but he could call up fellow meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters.

Glad to help out Joe on this subject if he's willing to realize his biases are selecting his anecdotal evidence -- and not very well.

I was curious where the tropical troposphere plots came from which Joe Bastardi showed. I found them on icecap and those probably came from a CCSP (US Climate Change Science Program) report,
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/response_letter_to_chairman_dingell_by_ross_mckitrick/

A more recent paper by Santer discusses the tropical troposphere warming using more up to date data and is basically a response to the Douglas paper. There is even a short faq available which puts the CCSP conclusions in context,
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

I will leave you with this. Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for
YOURSELF.

This is a very strange sentence for a researcher to make. How curious -- I wonder where Joe gets his info about global warming? I would certainly agree with him that wildfires or any other weather event can not be attributed to global warming.

What about one of the "other problems" concerning higher concentrations of CO2?? the acidity of the ocean seems worth addressing. If we don't want to address CO2 management because there is no consensus over a warming planet, surely we can try to save our ocean ecosystems, right? Our little crustacean friends? Like the existence of God there will always be people on both sides of the line..but, do we want to hedge our bets in the face of overwhelming evidence?? Ocean acidity is basic chemistry...can we really ignore that one.

I am absolutely amazed at when someone who has spent their entire life engaged in the study of weather and climate and who is considered an expert in those fields, as Mr. Bastardi has and is, is ridiculed and berated by idividuals who have little if any working knowlege about climate and have only recently developed an interest in it. I personally am sick and tired of being lectured by people that have spent their entire lives ignorant of weather and climate but are now experts because they saw some little movie that was weak on science and strong on politics. There are too many people on both sides of this debate that are clueless. I know it will not happen, but the politics need to be removed and good science needs to be put back in. I think the opinions of idividuals who have dedicated their lives to the field and have no personal agenda should have more credibility than those who have no background in the field and have just recently jumped on the bandwagon of trendy popular opinion. It disgusts me that "Chicken Little" has made a small fortune and won a Noble Peace prize to boot off of all of this while having a carbon foot print a thousand times bigger than the average person.

MarkB:

Bastardi's ideological rants.....

Ideological rants? The man used actual data to show that there is no AGW problem. The rants come from the other side, which is refusing to debate any of the science and is more content in attacking the rational critics by questioning their motives.

Is 10 years long enough to represent climate? To infer that "climate" is cooling because of a 10 year flat or slightly declining trend is not statistically sound or representative of what is meant by "climate". 30 years of averaged conditions is generally the reference period deemed sufficient to compare climates.

Question,

If the "climate is cooling", why then is the current decade easily the warmest of all during the period of instrumental record keeping?

There is nothing "common" about scientific thought. "Common sense" says that:

- Heavy things fall faster than light things.
- The sun revolves around the earth.
- The earth is flat.

The entire clip, and Mr. Bastardi's inane followup rant, is an embarrassment for anyone who cares about journalism or science.

Thanks Joe!

I do not watch Fox News of Bill O'Reilly. I do not listen to rhetoric or propaganda from either side.

I love your response Joe because I have researched this issue and I have been telling people for years that Al Gore may be focusing on the wrong information.

I agree that we need to stop polluting the ground, water and air. I also believe wholeheartedly that oil is not a fossil fuel but a totally Earth renewable resource. I believe that the Mayans were correct in their projection that once we pass the Galactic Center of the Milky Way, life as we know may not be the same. Not because of a first or second coming of a messiah but due to the fact that our Earth will wobble and the structures that man has built above and below the Earth's surface may not like this wobble and who knows what might happen if they come tumbling down or blow up under our feet.

I believe that the Earth takes care of itself and that people are simply another natural resource that may or may not survive extinction because of the forces of nature and the universe.

History has proven this over and over and over again. Common sense must prevail and we have to truly research every possibility to determine the correct course not the one that gets the most attention or funding.

If it's been cooling for the last ten years, why did the Wilkins Ice sheet collapse, why has the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap continued to accelerate, and why is every measure of Arctic summertime ice cover (area, extent, volume)showing a longterm downward trend? Is the accelerating loss of glaciers worldwide caused by something other than warming? Can Mr. Bastardi tell us what the scientific causes for the continued rise in sea level are that don't require global warming?

How can a "conspiracy" of every National Academy of Science and every major organization of scientists(except petroleum geologists) who publicly state that global warming is happening, is manmade, and poses a significant long term threat to civilization exist, yet no right wingnut can produce any evidence of such a conspiracy except that they all agree? If everyone except the pig farmers say "pig farms stink", does that mean there is a vast conspiracy against pig farmers, or do pig farms really stink?

Mr. Bastard has disappointed me, but then again, the 15 day forecast in this site completely differs from day to day. How good forecasting is that? How good is it to put smoke in your lungs, even if it does not always cause cancer? All the pollution going into the atmosphere cannot be any good.

I'd rather fight to avoid something than do nothing and take a chance.

paulm,

Please tell me that article you posted about airport runways was meant as joke. Please.

I think we should be concerned with a phenomenon that could be so destructive. The problem is that when it would become obvious to the most ardent Anti-Global Warming septic, it would be too late to do anything about it. That said, I think Joe's comments are mostly reasonable. He never says that he knows global warming will not happen. Greenpeace does not help public discourse when they make unsupported, unscientific claims about a single weather related event.

O'Reilly quoted Greenpeace as saying CLIMATE CHANGE. NOT GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING.So why did Bastardi & O'Reilly keep using those terms.
Aren't they two different things.

I am sorry, there are good arguments that can be made against the more extreme AGW predictions, but you did not present arguments that make any sense to anyone who is aware of the real data and "the facts" as you call them. You were either fooled by O'Reilly, or you really are ignorant of the basic science. I hope you were fooled. The O'Reilly fans who dribble with enthusiasm at your comments have an excuse, they are narrow minded and ill informed. You have no excuse. C-

ted:

"Of course what you propose is grandstanding nonsense, designed to obfuscate and change the context of any discussion which shows the factual weakness of AGW."

This in reference to CO2 being a poison at certain high levels of concentration. If you were aware of the true context from which this is stated you would understand that it is the deniers who always bring up the fact that CO2 is necessary to life and is plant food etc....What's wrong with a little bit more of it is their argument. So who is it that is trying to obfuscate the science?

Just how does someone's argumentative style demonstrate a factual weakness of AGW? Is the physics of the greenhouse effect altered? Is radiative transfer somehow disrupted? Does a doubling of CO2 somehow not result in a calculated 3.7W/meter^2 of radiative forcing as measured from the tropopause because someone throws the CO2 is good for the biosphere argument back in your face?

MarkB: You wrote, "Bastardi's ideological rants are always amusing and the O'Reilly Factor is probably a good venue for them."
First, other than ranting from an opposing view, how are Bastardi's ideological rants any different than your own.
Second, since I'm sure you don't watch O'Reilly, you might be interested to know that O'Reilly isn't a skeptic/denier/flat-earther or whatever. He accepts the AGW premise.

I think Joe is a very smart guy and is one of the best at what he does. I also think that his commentary would have gone across much better with me had it not been for Bill's editorializing.

On the other hand, there are some things in his interview and in his open letter I think he should have known better than to include and some that show that despite his expertise in weather, there are major gaps in his knowledge of the Arctic climate system.

In the first place, he should have known better than to use that particular graph comparing actual temperatures to the IPCC projections. First off, the IPCC projections were not meant to forecast yearly temperatures; they were simply linear trend lines based on the next several decades. Comparing it to only eight years of data should make any self-respecting statistician go into convulsions. Secondly and more noticeably, the graph ends in 2008, which saw the end of the only La Nina during that time period, while leaving out the 1999-2000 La Nina event, which was even stronger than the one we just experienced. Thus, the graph includes data cherry-picked to create the maximum negative trend possible over the past 30 years. Granted, Joe didn't create the graph himself, but he should have known better than to use it to lend credibility to his argument.

The second thing has to do with his reference of submarines at the north pole. A quick look at historical records would have showed Joe that, contrary to his claims, the late 1950s and early 1960s were smack in the middle of a global cool stretch. What I suspect he DIDN'T know was that the surfacing of the USS Skate and a handful of other submarines over the next few decades had absolutely noting to do with temperatures in the Arctic. The 1959 surfacing he references was a result of the wind creating gaps between ice floes. These gaps (sometimes over a mile wide and tens of miles long) can occur any time of year, even in the middle of January when it's -50F up there. Had Joe done a little research, he would have discovered that the submarine used its sonar to find these gaps so it could surface without harming its hull.

Having said all that, I do agree with Joe in the fact that the California wildfires can't be blamed on Global Warming. There are regional factors at work that weigh much more heavily than what's happening on a global scale. He's right about the past couple years, and he could have gone back even farther to show how long-term changes in oceanic cycles have affected southern California's climate.

Joe -- thanks for bringing the past decade of cooling to people's attention.

If you use that graph again, though, you should update it. It's hard to tell for sure, but it looks like you used the Lord Monckton graph that used the 2000-2100 linear trend rather than the slightly lower trend of IPCC prediction (oops... I mean .. projections) for this decade.

Lucia's Blackboard is a blog which goes into a much more rigorous check of whether or not the various IPCC projects have been falsified.

One problem is the vagueness of IPCC projections, but it is clear that the observed temperatures have been right along or slightly below the 95% lower bound reject point for the IPCC projections.

Strangely, this is in very strong contrast to the Copenhagen report which shows an updated graph from Rahmstorf 2007 which claims that the observed temps over the last decade have been at the high end of the IPCC projections. This is rather hard to swallow, but it's in official Copenhagen Synthsesis Report that will be used to determine future cap and trade legislation and international agreements.

James Hansen back in the 80's sees 10 years of rapid warming and declares global warming emergency. But 10 years of cooling are just "weather".

Prof Bleen i too would like to know exactly what you are a professor of folklore perhaps

also i would like to invite you to spend an afternoon with 150 skeptics of AAAAAGW kinda like spendin some time on venus
regards loub

Poor PaulM,Your mind is sooooo locked into AGW that you totally take JB's comments on his post video out of context!!

His point on the present warming is that it's a result of the aftermath of the Daulton minimum and the warming and cooling periods are linked to sunspot activity.

Your cherrypicking comments AGAIN show your lack of common sense.

paulm

I'm not sure if it's worth commenting on anything you write because you quite obviously cannot read clearly what is in front of you. But anyway I'll try. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE GROW UP.
You have managed to reinterpret evrything Joe said and turn it into something entirely different. You remind me of my wife grandmother. Oh! but then she was grown up. What have I said?

The state of our seas...Sea Sick.

Oceans of Trouble
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2009-09-12.html

Joining Bob McDonald in the studio is award-winning environmental journalist, Alanna Mitchell, who spent close to three years on research vessels and labs around the world researching her book, Sea Sick: The Global Ocean in Crisis. Mitchell compares the ailing oceans to multiple organ failure in a critically-ill patient.

Her biggest concern is the profound impact of climate change on the oceans and the effects these changes are having on sea life. Mitchell identifies the five biggest problems the oceans face: coastal dead zones, ocean acidification, coral reef decline, overfishing and marine debris.

The main cause of global warming:
1.many more animal farms in the world
2.indiscriminate felling of trees
3.pollution in developing countries

how to prevent:
1.Be vegetarian
2.use environmentally friendly technology

for more details see:

http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com

the latest info about global warming .

Putting science and weather in it's proper place.

As an engineer, in the case of AGW, the theory predicts that there should be a measurable hotspot in the upper troposphere. Observations from satellites and weather balloons have been made, and no hotspot has been found. In a less politicized field, this would have been the end of it.

As you said Joe, and many thanks for saying it.

Read it and weep alarmists,ha ha ha !!!

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

PaulM,BOO!!!

bill-tb | September 12, 2009 5:13 PM --- I fear you have the science quite, quite wrong. Atmospheric physics predicts that as global warming (so-called greenhouse) gases increase, the surface warms, the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools. Indeed, all actual measurements confirm this.

I noticed that Joe Bastardi talked meteorology and not climatology. Joe's degree is meteorology.
I noticed this freshman mistake of calling climate, weather. I have often chastised beginners for confusing climate and weather. WIthin margin of error Nasa has called 2005 the warmest year. This decade is warmer than the 90's. The 90's were warmer than the 80's. There is definite gradual trend upward.

The question I have is who has declared Global Cooling and why is there not a peer reviewed science paper on it? If this global cooling isn't coming out of organized science why not write a paper and prove the scientists wrong?

Science is an open process.

MarkB said:

"...Bastardi's ideological rants are always amusing and the O'Reilly Factor is probably a good venue for them..."

Mark, please address each fact that Joe addresses, fact by fact. Can you show that his facts are incorrect? I don't think so, but prove me wrong.

Joe:It,s good to see where AccuWeather,s true market is. Perhaps your advertisers who are in direct competition with The Weather Channel, should think twice about posting your comments.
First you are a good weatherman, only. You are not a climatologist, nor do you have a background in Paleoclimatic History or Geophysics.Do you have a degree in Chemistry, or earth science. How about Atmospheric Science. When did you graduate with your B.S. anyway.
Yes, we have discovered the wheel. Ever since Keelings work the world has acknowledged Global Warming. Every Academy of Science in the whole world has, as well as every scientific organization. Even in Lumborg,s book, he admits that the world is getting hotter. Stephen Hawkings got it!So now Accuweather must be so proud that you made it on a far right-wing-nuts show to deny. Molecules absorb longwave IR radiation. The more that is spewed into the atmosphere, the hotter we will be.
Your first statement about how qualified you are, shows that your ego has produced more than your mind ever has. I am just a Photographer, but I can see from your petty tricks, and weather arguments, that you would not even make it over at Real Climate, or be capable of writing a cogent book. As you don,t have the breadth of understanding, or education to be credible, no matter how much you think you know, you do have a right to say what you think, just don,t think you know more than you really do. You sure made Oiznup, AKA The Knuckle dragging Palestinian, space heater head happy. Birds of a feather flock together,JOE.
KIPP

Any comment that any human can make about processes that happen over millennia is worth absolutely nothing at all. It doesn't matter how scientific or political you are. All we have to go on is the evidence. Whether the evidence is overwhelming or not is what we're debating. The evidence is there, however, and should not be completely discounted. The Earth may very well be warming. No one reading this will ever really know. Our great-great-great-etc. grandchildren might have a better idea. Are we willing to take the gamble, wait and let them deal with the consequences? It seems that we've answered that question already. Sorry.

The idea by some people that these largescale fires over the past several years are due to global warming, is a crock. I and others have studied the fire activity, compared it with extensive data plus used our own knowledge of Forest Service fire suppression policies, and it is not global warming, but a definite change in suppression policies by the government, beginning at the national level. The policy changed in 1994. The incident teams no longer use aggressive suppression techniques as we used to. It is the way the fires are handled now and the policy to let them burn, in many instances. If you wish to look further look on the search engine for Concerned Citizens for Responsible Fire Management. It is NOT the weather. Thanks.

As common sense would strongly suggest, new Climate Change GCM models show the sun is the source of observed Global Warming, NOT CO2.

�Previously, the direct impact of increased irradiance on global average temperature has been estimated at around 0.25�C last century�a threefold amplifying effect would raise that to 0.75�C. This leaves practically no warming effect for CO2 to account for and renders the whole anthropogenic global warming argument moot. In other words, if the atmospheric solar amplifier theory is correct anthropogenic global warming is wrong, a useless theory describing a nonexistent phenomenon. It seems like poetic justice that a modeling experiment may point the way to discrediting global warming once and for all.�

See http://solarcycle25.com/?id=84 for details.

Joe:

Seems telling the truth really touched a nerve in the Cult.

I fear they wish to burn you at the stake for heresy.

Bravo.

I'm surprised to see a company like Accuweather attempt to revive the '10-years of global cooling' myth, along with cherry-picking a single graph without showing all of the measurement over a more valid timescale. It's sad to see such blatant scientifically unethical presentation, but I guess that what one expects when a company is trying for ratings rather than truth.

Reply: Joe has made it clear that his thoughts are his own and not necessarily those of Accuweather.com. You can read the AW statement on global warming on the front page of the global warming part of the site.

Joe also seems completely ignorant of the literature regarding California wildfires/drought and AGW. Maybe he should start doing some research of the published literature before he opens his mouth next time (hint: start with Westerling et al., 2009, Science)

I congratulate you, Accuweather. You have hereby lost all credibility on matters of scientific importance.

Reply: Again, read Joe's statement. He has a right to express it on this blog as would someone with the opposite view.

Joe: Where,s the Beef. Your comments don;t talk about the real issues involving Global Warming. You admit that some CO2 keeps us warm, but more than 200 ppm you avoid talking about.You know about weather cycles, but do you know about the carbon cycle, the fact that carbon sinks like biomass have shrunken too much to sustain it;s natural share of CO2. Where does this CO2 go. It goes to the troposphere with all the other greenhouse gases. The troposphere has become more bloated and the stratosphere has become colder.
Oceans are becoming more acidic, and can only process a certain amount of CO2 at a time. That is why scientists are trying to pump colder water up from the bottom of the oceans, and other scientists are trying the use of tree darts to replant wasted land to harbor more CO2. You never talked about the lowest amount of Ice in the Arctic, since the last Ice Age happening in the last five years. You really didn,t say very much at all, and your myopic opinions need to be broadened not cherry picked, and this reflects the weight of your knowledge on this topic. Since your are as you noted twice by yourself, senior chief of everything wet, why not cool down, dry off and read a book or two. Like most deniers,or in your case delayers, begin to realize that this topic is now a world consensus, that people now are being moved from low lying Islands, and Global Warming should be addressed, because it is more serious than you realize. We are talking about mankind, not northeast Hurricanes in the U.S. I hope that Accuweather believes in free speech,since,duh!we are in America. KIPP

Record breaking temperatures in September
http://news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090912_232551_7780

Record breaking highs aren't just reserved for the months of July and August...B.C. experienced a few today!

Climate change report: Government needs to invest in prevention now, or will pay more later

http://news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090912_191339_13300

HarryL, stephen,

Basically it shows how mixed up Joe is.

He is basically bouncing around anything he can get a hold of to try to explain away AGW. Which is difficult to do because it is happening.

I mean look at all the post above pointing out his miss representation and lack of research in to the climate change phenomena.

Its a shame, cause he has a good heart.

Obviously, it's all natural!

Everyone go out and buy a gas-guzzling SUV. Invest in your 401k, buy a house for speculation purposes.
Use chemicals, especially when fertilizing, pump CO2 gas(plant food) into all areas where things are growing. Stockpile blankets, food, water, and other necessities. Global cooling is coming very quickly.

So warming cannot be affected by man, but cooling can just pop up and the world will be frozen within 6 months. Too bad that those Mayans aren't going to let us find out what really is going to happen, Darn calendar. It's much more fun in life to take NO responsibility for anything that man does that is destructive. Nature and GOD gave us nuclear weapons.

Whoops ! i sound as loony as 90% of the posts on this joe thing.
i guess i could be a good denier.

But i'd rather be wrong than to do nothing, when the choice is a matter of conscience.

Question Authority. If you follow, you have no freedom. Think for yourself. The MOBs and masses of this world are usually wrong. They base their decisions on fear or laziness.

Let no one be your guide. There is no path.

p.s.- Brookline Tom- thanks again for the fresh breath of air, too many are afraid to criticize a 'so-called' expert (meteorologist, not climatologist!).

"There are too few of us now"- Treebeard

biil-tb: You definitely are an engineer. You fail to understand that the hotspot you are describing has been occurring for many years. The heights of high pressure systems around the earth have been increasing for years. That is your 'heat' that AGW has shown to be true, also Hadley cells are changing their configurations and that IS affecting global weather patterns.
The weather and climate are not a 'steam engine' in a closed system, Thermodynamics do not tell the whole story. Read some quantum theory to realize that nothing is solid on this earth. Every atom contains more empty space than solidity. Electrons have been shown to appear far beyond the bounds of what Newtonian physics would have us believe. Everything is electromagnetic vibrations, we only perceive what our limited faculties allow. True reality is beyond the scope of the logical mind. Just because we can't conceive or understand something does not negate it from existence.
It is all an illusion.

"What is essential is invisible to the eye."- 'The Little Prince' by Antoine de Saint Exupery.

Computer GW models are based on the premise that global warming is correlated with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a FACT; the models predictions from 5 years ago are WAY HIGH compared to the observed temperatures. Joe pointed out this FACT. End of story, unless you prove otherwise (and loud whining is not proof).

Well Joe,
I'm sure this segment on O'Rielly will come back to haunt you in a minmum of 8 years. And this coment will still be here. How can you be so wishy washy over global warming.
You work at ACCU and this is your stand?
Remember it's scientist that are tell us (the public) that global warming is for real are NOT politicians!
Their scientist, that go to school for years.
Like you need to have a Master degree to be a scientist.
Just for all of us to live in a better place for all of man-kind. And you go on TV to put there work in doubt. Shame on you.
I'm 48 years old and I learned about global warming at 10 years old in 1971. And due to what I learned. I did not bring a child in this world,
because the childern of today are not going to get the same quality of life I have had.
And that is a fact in my book.
Plus I've been a professional Aborist for 20 years
and I've seen global warming impact my line of work.
Joe hard to believe you let down your peers just for TV.
It's obvious you don't read your web site

"...countless hours I spend that no one but me and the good lord above sees in preparing to answer the call."

Might be of some benefit if Joe told us a bit more about the prime mover of weather and climate. Is it physics or is it "the good lord"?

Ok Hernadi-key

Let's consider that you may be correct but you have no data to prove it.

We all go vegi, and then what? We kill all farm animals?

What environmentally friendly technology had you in mind?

You need to go back to the source of information that you are using to assume that CO� has an enormous effect on the planet. Methane content in the atmosphere has been decreasing in recent years when animal numbers may have been increasing ( i can't be sure because I haven't counted them)see the NOAA/NASA sites for detail. Google methane.

You should review the work of the AlGorites against real scientists work, not computer models or Mannian stats and then review what you have said here.

Here is an interesting article about a recent discovery that may or may not require climate models to incorporate a new variable with potentially uncertain or random inputs: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

There is still a lot to discover about our planet and our universe. The science is not settled.

Sunspot activity is the key. Thanks Joe!

The entire clip, and Mr. Bastardi's inane followup rant, is an embarrassment for anyone who cares about journalism or science.

REPLY: Yep. YELLOW PROPAGANDA Journalism, and JUNK science. As predicted. What's happening, BT Baby! Long time no see......ROFL.

Love and Kisses from the Center of the Universe,

Knuckles. Proud member of THE MOB.

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

Thanks Oakdon Wolfe and Travis. You showed why Joe's reliance one one USSS Skate photo to show Acrtic Ice open in March, 1959 isn't proof of anything.

To check the situation for yourself, here's a link to other USS Skate photos that Joe did not include:

USS Skate photos

If you scroll through the photos, you will see 9 arctic region photos, including Joe's. Take a look at the photos for yourself. What do you see? I see something quite different than what I heard in Joe's discussion!! Looks like the 1959 sea ice was more complicated than Joe let on. Joe didn't mention that the USS Skate used sonar to find a polynyas.

What are polynyas? Well, you can read up on polynyas here . Open spaces seems to be a characteristic of sea ice, Joe didn't tell us that either.

Bottom line - Joe's USS Skate photo anecdote may have convinced Joe that nothing has changed about Arctic sea ice since March,1959, but it doesn't convince me.

Does Joe know about polynyas? If yes, then why didn't he tell us about them? Did the USS Skate come up in a polynyas in the March, 1959 photo?

Joe, why not show us some real data to back up your no arctic sea ice since 1959 claim, not just an interesting but non-conclusive photo?

Looks like Joe has some explaining to do from some of these post.

I am looking forward to another open letter to help clarify all the odd and contradictory content in this video and initial letter.

Poor Bill: Ya Bill your a historian. Yes, and I,m Johnny apple seed. Why not interview a climatologist, a paleoclimatologist, or Bob Tisdale, a well known skeptic with hard facts. which is where deniers could learn about the other side. Again Bill shows his cowardess when it comes to the truth. He is a News reality entertainment show for the right wing. Now, a senior meteorologist is a full time job, and you guys are great. But isn;t Global warming more suited to Physicists, and Paleoclimatologists, some one who who has depth in this topic. Joe has all the right buttons pushed, and talking points like any denier, but he doesn;t understand how global warming works, which he obviated on the O,Really fudger. His arguments don;t have any depth. Perhaps he should start reading Chemistry 101, and answer why the Arctic is melting.
KIPP

Brett:I know that you might be a friend of Joe,s but I do not in any way want my comments to refer to you.You are honest,fair, balanced, and too modest. I laughed the other day when you were answering a blogger telling him that you couldn,t read very fast. I have heard you in our media market, and you didn,t seem to slow to me. In fact I was very impressed. I hope you will post one of my comments and not dis them, by moving on quickly. As Joe said AccuWeather likes free speech. KIPP

Reply: Kipp, I don't remember saying that, but maybe I was comparing myself to my wife, who is a speed reader and puts me to shame when it comes to reading a thick book.

Reading the variety of comments was very interesting. On one side you have AGW believers who have no grasp of science. For those people:
1. The climate models have failed to be predictors of future climate. They have not been able to retro-analise climate in the past either, which is the big test of a model.
2. The forceing from co2 is ?maybe .5C per century. The rest of the warming is natural climate variation.
3. We have been approx .3C warmer in the recent past....that period was called the MWP.
We have been 2-3C warmer 6,000 to 8,000YBP. This is well accepted fact.
4. When you hear the words unprecedented......in a AGW item, watch out. Greenland ice core data shows the there have been major climate shifts in as little as 30 years. By majore I am talking 1.5 to 3.0C shifts in temp. Both up and down.

It is time to grow up and use your heads. Stop listening to the Flat Earth Society. Plato was proven wrong long ago, AGW has been proven wrong manyyyyy time over once, yet you keep making excuses for being wrong.

As Einstien said.....I can prove a hypothosis 99 times, but if I am proven wrong once, the hypothosis is dead. He was a REAL scientist. The current AGW scientists are not as they refuse to examine in detail, only write papers based on other papers, not NEW research.

Dr. Adlerman did not argue that Mr. Bastardi didn't have the right to express his opinion, either on Fox News or here.

What he wrote, instead, is that in doing so he seriously hurts the professional standing of Accuweather. It doesn't matter what disclaimers he or you offer, he is an officer of the company. This is a company medium.

Reply: Joe is not an officer of the company.

Mr. Bastardi has demonstrated his contempt for scientific ethics and process. His rants are an embarrassment for a company that depends on scientific credibility for its bread and butter.

I will say that I pay absolutely zero attention to his predictions -- in fact, I avoid them. I strongly suspect that Dr. Adlerman's reaction, like mine, is representative of the scientific community. That is, after all, the bottom line.

Brett:In either case, you sound like a very lucky man. You know, what I am just learning.You reap what you sow. Good job. See Ya!KIPP

So... After all those rants about heresy against "accepted" Doctrine, is there any doubt left that AGW is a religious belief?

Joe points out some obvious FACTS that discredit the AGW myth and all the Left wingers come out frothing at the mouth in indignation.

Wonderful illistration.
Hugely entertaining.

Thanks again Joe for pointing out the obvious.

Be Kind to Plants, drive your car.

Sig, Your a bit mixed up mate.

Deniers are the Flat Earthers. Not able move on with the climate times.

I don't even know why I am bothering to reply to your ignorance.

Joe Bastardi could do the science of global warming a favor in the U.S. by reading these comments, evaluating them, and then maybe coming back and discussing a possibly revised viewpoint on the air. I would feel a bit sorry for him if he felt that this would endanger his credibility, or worse, his "following" of fellow climate change skeptics.

And addressing this:
I am absolutely amazed at when someone who has spent their entire life engaged in the study of weather and climate and who is considered an expert in those fields, as Mr. Bastardi has and is, is ridiculed and berated by idividuals who have little if any working knowlege about climate and have only recently developed an interest in it.

Maybe some others of us HAVE studied climate science for forty years because it's related to our chosen career(s) ----- and maybe some of us also possess an intellectual background that allows us to discuss the actual facts without relying on the power of personal persuasion or the misbegotten authority of prominent position to influence such a discussion.

Mr. Bastardi wrote: "Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet."

The lack of logic here, not to mention the misunderstanding of climate science as well as the misrepresentation, is stunning. And to think that he graduated from Penn State with a meteorology degree ....

I don't wish to sound mean, but such a comment would rate an "F" in my class.

Wow, this "conversation" is really interesting- folks seem to have lined up in camps and then taken pot-shots at each other's opinion using a variety of techniques.

I would like to suggest that you all take a look at another source that was on the same page as the Bill O. / Mr. Bastardi interview clip: Spaceweather's brief note about the conclusions of researchers Judith Lean (NRL) and David Rind (NASA/GISS) regarding the result of a variety of factors on global temperatures.

I do also hope that you all take time to meditate, go to church, kiss your loved ones, or whatever will help fill your lives with love and hope rather than whatever is driving the need to post things like much of what I see here.

Sig-

You are the one with no grasp of science. If Einstein were alive today, he would be at the forefront of AGW. His genius is without question, if you understood physics then you would know that AGW is real. We are not talking about predictions of various scientists and Al Gore in particular. Predictions are often wrong but are part of the scientific process.
If anyone were able to prove AGW wrong they would earn the 'Nobel' prize (as BT earlier stated). You obviously don't understand Einsteins' work, nor the depth of physics involved in Atmospheric Physics. The five Y's in many do nothing to impress, you have said nothing that disproves anything. It does show your ignorance to scientific process, all the facts of AGW have been proven to be true. Yes, changes in solar irradiation have affected the amount of warming, but that DOES NOT negate the fact of AGW.
Stephen Hawking is a peer of Einstein and he 'knows' that it is occurring, and has warned people of its effect and the danger of entropy.
All of your YYYYY's only prove that you don't know WHY, and spout the drivel of un or under- educated deniers.
Nice try----yyyyy's guy!

paulm:"A warmer world could make current airport runways too short"

Did you read the comments at the end of the article? The author is quite convincingly made out to be an idiot, as is the whole idea behind the article!

If you look at NOAAS chart here the real picture is shown over land and sea since the industrial revolution. Joe needs to look at the whole picture here not the just the last ten years as his chart is scewed far to the right.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/images/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Oakden Wolf: Said
"Joe Bastardi could do the science of global warming a favor in the U.S. by reading these comments, evaluating them, and then maybe coming back and discussing a possibly revised viewpoint on the air."

Now why in the world would Joe want to address a bunch of obvious nonsense from a bunch of unqualified armchair experts.
His take was perfectly reaonable, scientifically sound and sensable.

You guys are simply brainwashed into thnking you have the answers.

The tide has already turned however and the AGW myth is gasping it last desperate breaths.

Get over it. You were misslead.

Rick Fanning, glad you enjoyed the article:)

BrooklineTom:Says,

Mr. Bastardi has demonstrated his contempt for scientific ethics and process

Reply from BT:He is demonstrating his discontempt for pseudo science and unethical processes.

a company that depends on scientific credibility for its bread and butter.

BT:The company has loses credibility when promoting the false science of AGW.

I strongly suspect that Dr. Adlerman's reaction, like mine, is representative of the scientific community.
Get your head out of the sand Tom,the majority scientific community does not agree with the dr's or your reaction.

BT: His rants are an embarrassment,I will say that I pay absolutely zero attention to his predictions

Reply from Harry L:As the majority of readers here do likewise to your embarrasing rants and predictions.

Joe has completely misrepresented the USS Skates's arctic activities in March, 1959.

Take a look at the official US Navy website on Arctic Submarines to get a more complete story. Scroll down to 1958 and find USS Skate makes entry for "first surfacing in open-water polynyas".

You can click to see photo of USS Skate in arctic.

Scroll a little further and you see USS Skates's March 1959 entry. Photo looks a lot different than Joe's version.

Want to see a few more USS Skate arctic photos? Check this link which shows 9 USS Skate photos.

Here's a link to a discussion of polynyas that the US Navy used to surface in the arctic.

The USS Skate captain, James F Calvert, wrote several books, including this one specifically about the 1958-59 arctic trips.

The photo that Joe showed is real. Joe, however, misunderstood its significance. Joe mistook the polynyas that the USS Skate used as proof that major portions of the arctic was ice free in 1959.

My conclusion: the USS Skate, using sonar, found a polynyas in March, 1959. So Joe Bastardi’s photo sea ice anecdote doesn’t tell us anything about sea ice trends.

Joe needs to rethink arctic sea ice now that we know he misunderstood the USS Skate photo.

"Ag Guy in Fresno" writes:

"Mark, please address each fact that Joe addresses, fact by fact. Can you show that his facts are incorrect? I don't think so, but prove me wrong."

Joe doesn't have any facts - just unsupported opinions or unscientific "common sense" arguments. For example, he claims a peak in global temperatures in the late 50's. Here are the actual facts.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Even if he revised his argument to just say Arctic temperatures, he would be very wrong.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/yes-virginia-the-arctic-is-warming-fast/

He also claims to be answering the call of the "good lord above". Doesn't God value accuracy? I would hope that God is not as anti-science as many think. If He created the universe, He likely has a superb understanding of science, and is perhaps a little ticked that one of His followers is spouting nonsense and citing the Lord as inspiration for it.

JP writes:

"How much is too much CO2?"

Those are questions best answered by scientific observations, not an ideological "CO2 is always good" claim. For example, the best estimate for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause 3 C of warming, or a likely range of 2-4.5 C given existing uncertainties. Bastardi's reasoning is fallacious. He fails to acknowledge that there can possibly be too much of a good thing.

"Perhaps you would like to sit in his chair for a month or so."

Don't you mean "throne"? Bastardi, like many, seems to love the media attention. On one hand, he claims not to be an expert. On the other hand, he portrays himself to be courageously doing the work of the Lord in the face of those doing real objective study.

"If Einstein were alive today, he would be at the forefront of AGW."

That's ridiculous! Einstein was alive during the industrial revolution. Can you find one (1) quote, from the dicoverer of quantum mechanics, on the [dangers] of man-made carbon dioxide?

Just one?

"As long as there are men, there will be war."

Brett wrote: "Joe is not an officer of the company."

I stand corrected, thanks for setting me straight. He receives such prominent billing that I assumed (incorrectly, I see) that he was an officer.

I don't think it changes the substance of my feedback, though. I find your own approach far more credible.

Idecline:

LOL.... Goood one.
"If anyone were able to prove AGW wrong they would earn the 'Nobel' prize"

Wellllll.
If anyone were able to prove AGW Right they would earn the 'Nobel' prize.

So far... NADA. Nothing.

And that is after 30 years and 75 Billion Dollars of Trying.

D Kelly O'Day:

Good Grief:
Spin it any way you like.
the Fact remains that there are many pictures and accounts of open water in the Arctic all through the 1920s through 60s.

The FACT remains that the current arctic ice situation is nothing new, nothing unpresidented and perfectly normal.

Just google Open water in the arctic and read till your hearts content.

AGW is on critical life supoort and no amount of BS spin will save it.

Be kind to plants, take a pleasure drive.

HarryL | September 14,2009 3:26 PM-

In your answers to Brookline Tom I think you really crossed the line. By imitating your idol, Mr. MOB mentality AKA Knucklehead, and using the reply: format in imitation of Brett, who is the moderator (not you!), you purposefully disrespect Accuweather(who allows you to post here) and Brett. It is entirely misleading because some of your (reply:) answers directly infringe upon the editorial position of Accuweather and could be confused by a first time blogger or otherwise gullible person.

I think you need to seriously reconsider your actions.

But i fear your anger is stronger than your conscience. Self-defeating behavior. see Freud, Sigmund

The AGW convinced are arguing facts on this blog. However they had their chance to argue against Joe "on air". Greenpeace (AGW convinced), failed to put forward one rebutal! In fact their arguments were so weak and devoid of science, that the only recourse was to not show. It is difficult to debate, when the other position, runs squealing from the room.

It is hard to pay attention to AGW arguments when they refuse to repeat their science around those who have knowledge. It is such a response, that undercuts everything said, by our own AGWers here.

BT, MarkB, Idecline, Dennis Hlinka, etc. have done their best at damage control, but "no show" means you have lost the debate by default, and damage control will not win a debate, lost to default. GK

One of the ironies here is the focus on Greenpeace. Numerous researchers at universities in the west are of the opinion that climate change is contributing to a longer and worse fire season.

It's one thing to say that cool pacific weather contributed to the California fires in recent years, but as pointed out above, his statement about trace gases is simply nonsense and disproves any claim he makes to be coming at the issue scientifically.

And lastly, Joe should be ashamed for how he misrepresented the IPCC graphic about the last 10 years. He really has shown that is is just politics for him.

I, for one, would welcome Mr. Bastardi's response to the criticism raised about his reference to the submarine data from 1959.

I have a question for Brett and the other meteorologists here. What, other than ratings, is the criteria that meteorologists use to measure each other's credibility?

In the scientific world, for example, scientists measure peer-reviewed publications and their citations -- what has she published, and who else cites it.

Is there an analogous standard within the meteorology community?

Reply: Not really. We judge each other based on our long term personal experiences with their forecast work and our day to day verbal interaction. In my opinion, Joe is a top notch long range weather forecaster and one of the best anywhere when it comes to understanding tropical cyclones. I personally do not know of anyone who works harder than Joe on a day to day basis when it comes to analyzing the weather, especially the long range forecasting.

Joe says that he doesn't want to be an (anti-)AGW spokesman, but goes on a national cable news program to talk about Global Warming. Sounds to me like he wants to be a spokesman.

Mark B writes:

"Second, since I'm sure you don't watch O'Reilly, you might be interested to know that O'Reilly isn't a skeptic/denier/flat-earther or whatever. He accepts the AGW premise."

Romm has a transcript of the show. O'Reilly's portrayal of the science is pretty funny. It's "Greenpeace and Al Gore" on one side vs good honest fact-based Bastardi.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/15/o%e2%80%99reilly%e2%80%99s-weatherman-bastardi-global-cooling-cause-california-drought

It's like saying only the ACLU and their secular politician buddies support evolution theory while good honest scientists disagree.

Here are some facts for O'Reilly and Bastardi:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060706_globalwarming_fire.html

Some more facts for O'Reilly and Bastardi (hint: it's not a claim from Greenpeace or Al Gore)...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024103856.htm

and...

"A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread. Westerling et al. (2006 � see here) found that, in the last three decades, the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a spring-summer warming of 0.87�C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest."

- IPCC

and...

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=739

My post above on BT seems to have been edited ?
It should read,

BrooklineTom:Says,

Mr. Bastardi has demonstrated his contempt for scientific ethics and process

Reply from HarryL:He is demonstrating his discontempt for pseudo science and unethical processes.

BT Says,A company that depends on scientific credibility for its bread and butter.

Reply from HarryL:The company loses credibility when promoting the false science of AGW.

BT Says,I strongly suspect that Dr. Adlerman's reaction, like mine, is representative of the scientific community.

Reply from HarryL:Get your head out of the sand Tom,the majority scientific community does not agree with the dr's or your reaction.

BT SAYS: His rants are an embarrassment,I will say that I pay absolutely zero attention to his predictions

Reply from Harry L:As the majority of readers here do likewise to your embarrasing rants and predictions

RICH-.."As long as there are men, there will be war."

You may know who Einstein was, and have a small idea of his genius. But if you understood his work with Quantum Physics you would not be in denial of AGW. Einstein was a pacifist, he rued the day that Nuclear Weapons became a real possibility, but he feared fascism even more.

If you are using the quote to validate mans inhumanity to his fellow man, then you are sadly mistaken. That was a philosophical statement meant with great irony. He saw that man in spite of our so-called 'progress', is still a barbarian. Maybe if man does evolve to a 'new' species, then war and brutality can come to an end. Become informed before you try to validate something as evil as war.

All I can say is that it's a good thing questions of science are not resolved in the arena of public debate. The same applies to the rancor within the politial process over scientific issues such as climate change. This also applies to "scientists" outside their field of expertise.

Ignorance, bias and ideology have no place in the determination of what is real scientifically. If you want to understand where the science stands on global warming or climate change there is only one place to look to ensure freedom from confusion and obfuscation...the peer reviewed literature which overwhelmingly builds the case for AGW.

idecline,

"But if you understood his work with Quantum Physics you would not be in denial"

I do'nt deny that we're a drop in the bucket.
I don't deny that we're slaves to the natural variations within our climate system.
I don't deny that the theories surrounding AGW are grossly negligent for falsely insighting fear.
I don't deny that these fears are perpetuated by nut jobs, the MSM and those with ulterior motives.

I'll assume that you couldn't find any quotes from Albert Einstein on the [dangers] of manmade CO2? Your claim that Einstein would be an [alarmist] is total bunk. So I said so.

"He saw that man is still a barbarian"

Piercing the skull of an innocent unborn is barbaric. Defending your family from terrorism is honorable.

To "Prof" Bleen, MarkB, paulm, Dennis Hilinka, Brookline Tom, and Kipp Alpert.
I guarantee you that Joe B has forgotten more science than all of you combined will ever know. Your ad hom attacks on him are the result of fear, fear because you simply don't understand his ablity to take BS and turn it into something the ordinary citizen can understand. I have listened to Joe on either the radio or on his blog for over 20 years and have found him to be by far the most accurate and understandable Meteorologist out there. His knowledge and experience is second to none in his field and his willingness to own up to his own mistakes is something most of the AGW "scientists" could learn from. Joe hides no information by refusing to release data and codes like the pro AGW community does. BTW, do those cracking that Joe's degree is merely in Meteorology, not Climate Science, realize what James Hansen's BS degree is in? That's right, Astronomy.

Sorry for the typo above, BS should read MS for James Hansen.

Michael Jennings,

Your post makes good satire. I honestly can't tell if you're sincere. If your post was meant to be satirical, I apologize in advance.

"I guarantee you that Joe B has forgotten more science than all of you combined will ever know. Your ad hom attacks on him are the result of fear"

What are yours a result of?

"you simply don't understand his ablity to take BS and turn it into something the ordinary citizen can understand."

Actually, I'm aware of his ability. He definitely presents his BS in an "understandable" format. That's the art of rhetoric. Some lawyers have mastered it. They are able to turn a very factually weak case into something believable. Global warming contrarians are often good at this.

I personally think a degree in meteorology is respectable and relevant to climate science, although advanced degrees and relevant publications are levels above. Some need classes in critical thinking, though, and probably should spend more time reading rather than ranting. I doubt Bastardi has read much of the IPCC report or scientific studies on climate science, but it's clear he's read some dubious blog material, presented in an "understandable" format (as the blurb about a submarine in the Arctic indicates). The term "meteorologist" is used too loosely, though. Anthony Watts describes himself as a meteorologist although he has no science degree.

To correct you on James Hansen (why are you folks so obsessed with him?), here is his educational background:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

Also see his extensive relevant publications in the field.

RICH-

"military analysts warn that Global Warming is an urgent threat to American security"- from ad on this webpage

So, what's wrong with fighting a 'war' against Global Warming? Does that not protect your family?, not honorable?

p.s.- we all decide what is moral in our own minds. you can't enforce your thoughts upon another person.A free society does its best to find a middle ground, but that does not preclude the rights of individuals. have a problem with that, see- Constitution, Supreme Court, etc.

I first heard of Joe during Hurricane Fran in NC and found his knowledge of the tropics useful then, and since then.He is golden to me as far as his working knowledge of global weather trends.
Now for a story, when I was a child (30 years ago), the hot button issue was global cooling, we were going to have another ice age, now it's global warming, will you guys please make up your mind? Even a realitively uneducated person like me can see the flaws in the arguement for global warming. I just saw a story today, that global cooling is because of the recession, not the slowdown of activity from the sun, which leads me to ask, wait a minute... 300 years since the industrial revoultion that got us into this mess, but only one year of slowdown will get us out? Please.

idecline,

"So, what's wrong with fighting a 'war' against Global Warming? Does that not protect your family?, not honorable?"

This "war" is directed at the United States. We are the worlds greatest "polluters", yet we only make up 5 percent of the worlds population. We would have to brunt the cost of cap and trade, which would be a disaster for my economy. Yours too.

Did you notice Bretts latest thread starter? Recession linked to drop in man made CO2 concentration. Do you need me to connect the dots for you?

No this "war" does not protect my family. It systematically cripples our way of life. It's not honorable. It's treason. Get it?

Look up the hottest year on record...is it 1998? No. I'll save you the time, its 1934.

The earth has been warming since the early 1800's, long before the industrial revolution (i.e. before cars, power plants, you know...all those man made carbon machines). So what was the cause of global warming before the industrial revolution? And why is it now blamed on man? Its easy to target man for all the evil in the world but I don't see any hard evidence that the earth is hotter now than 1934 or warming faster than it was in 1834.

In the 90's when NASA incorrectly reported that the hottest year on record was 1998, AGW proponents used that as evidence that global warming existed and was caused by man. Now the climate trend points to cooler temperatures and yet the AGW crowd still claims global warming. But wait, where is the evidence? Its not the hottest year on record anymore. Are we supposed to take what you are telling us on faith?

I applaud Joe for speaking out. More of us need to investigate the facts and stop lapping up what the media feeds us. Perhaps man made global warming does exist but we should be objective enough to look at the evidence from both sides.