Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Planet Is Going To Be Cooling Next 20 To 30 Years Because Of Natural Processes”

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at his WeatherBell Analytics site has posted the latest Saturday Summary.

bastardi_home Weatherbell

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi. Photo credit: WeatherBell Analytics

Just before the 3-minute mark he comments on the general nonsense behind the claims that global warming causes more cold weather and on how John Holdren, senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology, “was mouthing off on how global warming was causing it to get so cold back in January”.

At the 3:08 mark Joe reiterates his long term forecast for global temperatures:

“I do think the planet is going to be cooling the next 20 to 30 years due to natural processes. But some of these explanations border on inane”

He then reminds viewers that those blaming the cold on warming “obviously do not make forecasts for a living“.

Trapped heat constantly AWOL

And already we see that the earth’s temperature has not risen in almost 18 years. This year’s once forecast “super El Nino” is failing to materialize, which raises the question as to where all “the missing heat” could possibly be lurking.

It’s turning out that the missing heat is wholly theoretical and exists only in climate models, and is nowhere to be observed in reality.

Predictions of it reappearing have failed over and over again.


22 responses to “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Planet Is Going To Be Cooling Next 20 To 30 Years Because Of Natural Processes””

  1. AlecM

    There is no missing heat. It’s an artefact of the fake IR and radiative physics used in the climate models. These exaggerate heating by 40% to purport that Hansen’s ‘GHE = lapse rate’ claim (originally from Sagan) is valid.

    But it’s a cheat based on the false claim that OLR comes from a single -18 deg C zone. In reality, OLR comes from 0 to 20 km in different wavelengths; the -18 deg C is a virtual mean with no physical existence.

    CO2-AGW is near zero; there was AGW from aerosols decreasing cloud albedo.

  2. John F. Hultquist

    If Joe is correct I won’t be getting many ripe tomatoes. Just a minor personal issue leading to my hope that he is wrong. I may have to build a small greenhouse with a solar panel – or move.

    Thinking of garden plants:
    I wonder what the so called “greening” (vegetative growth/increase) might do to temperature. Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. In the short term growth of a green plant, a series of steps leads to sunlight being stored as vegetative matter. A long term view has that energy concentrated and stored, say, as coal. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, being a main component needed for plant growth, helps remove sunlight (short wave radiation) from the Planet’s energy equations.

  3. Joe Bastardi

    The forecast for this was made on the Oreilly Factor in about 2007 after the PDO flipped. The forecast was for temperatures, as measured by OBJECTIVE SATELLITE OBSERVATION to return to where they were in 1978 by 2030. Since the PDO flip, the earth has cooled a bit according the NCEP data. I expect the greater downturn, enough to counter the warming from the flip to the warm PDO in late 70s and adaptation that took till mid 90s, to start when the AMO turns cold for good in several years. What goes around, comes around, and there is nothing new under the sun..we can just measure it now in a way we could not before

  4. Robin Pittwood

    I downloaded the 2.5 by 2.5 degree OLWIR NetCDF data from NOAA about 6 months ago and prepared a global average outgoing radiation graph. There is basically no trend. In fact the simple straight line fit from about 1975 is very slightly positive, indicating the atmosphere is becoming a little clearer or the planet a little hotter. The excess heat is doing what it always did. It is being irradiated back to space. Thanks Mr Boltzmann.

  5. Gene Eggleston

    The above commenters are picking fly specks out of the data. It as if there were a thousand data points on a graph and they picked three they liked. Ludicrous.

    You obviously aren’t looking at the facts. Global warming may be explained by scientific observation, nut that isn’t necessary. But it only takes thousands of simple visual observations around the world to document global warming since 1800. It also coincides exactly with increasing use of fossil fuels. No science is even necessary. Whatever problem is man made can be man-fixed, up to a point. There is a tipping point of carbon-dioxide and methane beyond which no amount of human effort will save the planet. Even the most ardent climate change deniers agree there is a tipping point. The only real discussion is – Where is that point?

    The following web site presents the best five-minute review of global warming.

    Steven Hawking says, “Climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.” Hawking is probably the most respected scientist alive today – and certainly no Liberal-conspirator. 8.4 million scientists agree.

    In a period of two centuries, fossil fuel usage has released hundreds of millions of years of accumulated carbon into the atmosphere and is now the increasing temperatures are releasing even more lethal methane. These are facts no reasonable researcher denies.

    1. DirkH

      “Even the most ardent climate change deniers agree there is a tipping point.”

      No – we have experience with negative feedbacks, chaotic systems, feedback loops, nonlinearity, signal processing etc.

      Assuming there is a point at which suddenly positive feedback sets in is an unfounded assertion. Even the IPCC delivers no evidence for that, not even a theory.

      So would you please point to said theory – I have never heard of one.

      I on the other hand can point you to the Stefan-Boltzmann law that says that a blackbody’s radiation rises with the fourth power of the temperature – which is of course a strong negative feedback.

    2. Em

      The real deniers are those that continue to say the climate “only” changes due to man.
      Once again, if carbon dioxide as per the IPCC definition, is essentially the driver of climate, please explain the last 17 years of non-increasing temperatures with continued or rising level of fossil fuel use?

      As you say, its all man doing this – what man-made impact occurred 17+ years ago to cause the temperatures to remain essentially flat, while CO2 continued to rise? Please explain.

    3. Murray

      Correlation is not causation!

    4. Moose

      Nature itself emits about 97% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

  6. Mounting Evidence that the Global Warming Scare, is a Scam. They Have an Agenda…. | the Original "Mothers Against Wind Turbines" TM

    […] Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Planet Is Going To Be Cooling Next 20 To 30 Years Because Of Natural … […]

  7. Anthony Bremner

    The missing heat could well be going into the ocean just like it does on every cool PDO Ocean cycle (see Dr Bill Gray) only to be released 30 yrs later in the warm cycle. There will be less heat stored in this cycle though because solar activity is low. What the warmists do not say is that the last cold PDO cycle that stored a lot of high solar activity from 1945 to 1979 released it on top of another 30 yrs of high solar activity from 1979 to 1998 accounting for much of the warming that was seen. Co2 being a minor player. There were other factors too like the removal of sulfur dioxide from the city skies which raised temperatures too? Asia is now doing their best to replace that sulfur dioxide which is another cooling factor for the future.

  8. Mervyn

    It is for the experts in atmospheric physics, and experts in thermodynamics, to once and for all debunk the IPCC’s concoction of “back radiation”.

    The IPCC came up with this idea as the only means of explaining its positive water vapour feedback mechanism underpinning its ‘greenhouse gas theory’ of catastrophic man-made global warming.

    It is time that even the IPCC accepts the real world observational data on climate, and acknowledges that natural climate variability has more to do with the changing of climate than does carbon dioxide. Why? Because data of the past implies so.

    1. DirkH

      Ah dang, you spoiled it. I was hoping for the believer above to explain to us all how moisture is gonna kill us.

  9. nzrobin

    At the Hockey Schtick today, a paper describing the inconsistent radiative imbalance, ie inconsistent with classic ghg climate models. The paper confirms my view, stated above, re the missing heat going out to space like it always has.

  10. Streetcred

    New paper unexpectedly finds diverging trends in global temperature & radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases
    “A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere has increased over the past 27 years while the rate of global warming has unexpectedly decreased or ‘paused’ over the past 15+ years.

    This finding contradicts expectations from AGW theory of increased ‘heat trapping’ from increased greenhouse gases. However, the finding is consistent with radiosonde observations showing that outgoing longwave radiation to space from greenhouse gases has unexpectedly increased rather than decreased over the past 62 years, inconsistent with more heat being “trapped” in the mid-upper troposphere. “

  11. EnergiewendeUberall

    You should not celebrate slowing in warming, when it comes it will only be more violent and the denier will face the justice.

    1. Marco Bernardi

      So what? Every global warming period was a booster for evolution. Only the actual-sure-will-come-and-it-will-be-hell warming should be a desaster. Why?
      Because then we have to learn that we are NOT over nature but only a part of it? Or is it more that some folks can make a lot of money with scare stories?

    2. DirkH

      21. Juli 2014 at 08:24 | Permalink | Reply
      “You should not celebrate slowing in warming, when it comes it will only be more violent and the denier will face the justice.”

      Don’t be so negative! Party like it’s 1979! We’re saved – at least from Global Warming. There might be some other problems if you’re in Essen or Bremen or Berlin; but I can assure you it’s not Global Warming.

  12. Fred Colbourne

    Responding to Gene Eggleston: You made the same comment here:

    “Global warming may be explained by scientific observation….”

    “…document global warming since 1800. It also coincides exactly with increasing use of fossil fuels.”

    That’s just the point. The observations don’t fit the theory. If you are going to explain all the warming since 1800 on the basis of additional CO2 from fossil fuels in the atmosphere, you will have immense problems finding the observations.

    First, the graph showing use of fossil fuels is relatively flat until after WWII, after 1950, to be more specific. So what caused the warming from 1800 to 1950, amounting to three-quarters of the period you specify for your observations?

    Actually, specialists in climate history, such as Hubert Lamb, went back to near the beginning of the Little Ice Age (about 1400) to remark how the climate of Greenland became so cold that the Danish settlements gradually declined because the cold climate would not allow them to sustain their farms and European lifestyle. So what needs explaining are the centuries of cold and the subsequent recovery to greater warmth after 1800.

    Most climatologists use 1850 as their starting date for the modern warm period, a date that has probably been chosen because it is the definition of the “present” for carbon 14 dating.

    But your 1800 date is just as good, possibly better, because climatologists recognize the role of changes of land use on climate. While rapid changes in land use began somewhat earlier than the use of fossil fuel, the acceleration in land used was stimulated first by the building of canals and then soon after, railroads.

    If man-made CO2 had much of a role before 1950, it was related mostly to livestock and agriculture but not much from fossil fuels.

    You suggest that “No science is even necessary.” Skeptics who are trained in science complain that there is not enough science in climate science and too much science-cum-activism by which scientists cherry-pick what they report, suppress what does not support their activism, and actively discourage independent verification of their results.

    A case in point. Murray Salby is a leading climatologist, author of a leading university textbook in atmospheric physics a new edition of which is on my bookshelf. Dr Salby was fired from Macquarie University for a flimsy reason. We do know that he had given a lecture in which he claimed that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was not generated from fossil fuels but from other sources.

    We have a new paper by multiple authors that you can read for yourself on this subject because it is open source (free).

    Simulating the integrated summertime ?14CO2 signature from anthropogenic emissions over Western Europe, D. Bozhinova, M. K. van der Molen, I. R. van der Velde, M. C. Krol1,, S. van der Laan, H. A. J. Meijer, and W. Peters. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 7273-7290, 2014, URL:

    Abstract: “We find that the average gradients of fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200m of the atmosphere are close to 15 ppm at a 12 km×12 km horizontal resolution.”

    My comment: The significance of this is that total CO2 in the atmosphere is usually taken as about 400 ppm now and 280 ppm before the onset of the industrial age.

    Main text:

    “Radio carbon dioxide (14CO2) can be used to determine the fossil fuel CO2
    addition to the atmosphere, since fossil fuel CO2 no longer contains any 14C.”

    Figure 4(B) on page 7281 shows the maximum observed fossil fuel CO2 (ffCO2) as 50 ppm.

    So there you have it. For densely-populated Western Europe the study recorded only 3.75% as the average fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200 meters (4,000 ft) of the atmosphere and only about 12.5% as the maximum before diffusion.

    Vertical diffusion of CO2 above 1200 meters has the effect of reducing the average percentage of fossil fuel CO2 percentage because only 15% of the mass of the atmosphere is below 1200 meters, while about 60% of its mass is between 1200 meters and top of the troposphere (about 10,000 meters). In addition, lateral diffusion takes place west to east and north to south.

    The average percentage of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere must half or less the average below 1200 meters in Europe, say 2% or less of the total for the globe and perhaps as little as 1% or even less taking into account that the oceans make up .

    I’m not at all certain what this means, except that we need more and better science to understand the climate system. As Roy Spencer noted recently, “After working on global warming for the last 20 plus years, what do we know about it now?…The longer you go [into the research] you get more questions than you get answers. So, what do we really know about it? Almost nothing.”

    Science really doesn’t know “how strong global warming is, what it’s caused by, whether it makes severe weather worse, when it started, when it will end, or whether it’s good or bad.”

    He said that we do think global warming might be caused by “some combination of human activity and Mother Nature.”

    Well I have been studying climate for over twice as long as Dr Spencer (though not full time) and I agree with Dr Spencer.

    For one, I have no idea whatsoever how fossil fuel CO2 could make up only 1% of total CO2 in the atmosphere and still be the cause of climate change, taking into account of the fact that all CO2 from all sources makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that it is difficult to imagine. For comparison, the Statue of Liberty in New York is 3,666 inches (93 m) from the bottom of the base to the tip of the torch, and 0.04% would be 1.5 inches (3.7 cm).

    The paper we reviewed stated that in western Europe below 1200 m the average fossil fuel CO2 was 3.5% and we saw that diffusion might result in fossil fuel as only 1% of total global atmospheric CO2. This is 0.37 mm about four times the diameter of thick human head hair.

    Scaling up a human (1.7 m) to the size of the Liberty herself (33 m) would give a factor of 20.0. So if Liberty had thick head hair the diameter of each hair would be about 2 mm or just under 1/10 inch. Four hairs would give a diameter of 8 mm, about 1/3 inch.

    The comparative ratio of fossil fuel in the atmosphere is like four hairs on the head of the statue of liberty (0.3 inch).

    I cannot begin to understand how that little fossil fuel CO2 in our atmosphere would risk disaster either for Earth or mankind.

    I cannot begin to understand how the Holocene Climate Optimum was so much warmer than now without fossil fuels. The same for all those later warm periods that paleoclimatologists see in their records between 5,000 and 1,600 years ago.
    The same for the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and all the cold periods in between.

    We just do not know enough about natural climatic variation to project what the future holds because we don’t know how much of the present warmth is just recovery from the Little Ice Age and how much is caused by our trivial contribution to the atmosphere in the form of fossil fuel CO2.

  13. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Planet Is Going To Be Cooling Next 20 To 30 Years Because Of Natural Processes” « wchildblog

    […] NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin on 20. Juli […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy