“Stick With The Facts – Look At The Data”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

That’s Joe Bastardi’s advice. But some out there are sure the warming is going to continue no matter what. “Just look at the models!”, they keep saying. Problem is, models are not data from observation, instead they are scenarios of data that might be measured in the future.

The start of this decade certainly isn’t paying attention to the models, as Joe Bastardi explains in his latest video here.

JOE’S LATEST VIDEO

The 9-month ENSO lag is going to put 2011 a long way away from “one of the warmest years”. These “warmest” years are about to disappear for awhile as the PDO goes into its cool side. Note what Joe said:

Unfortunately, this La Nina shows no signs of stopping, and is going to stay down there for quite awhile.”

That’s not what the models were projecting 6 months ago. Seems like the activity that modellers spend the most time working on after making models, is revising them. Here’s what THE MODELS projected 6 months ago:

And here’s what THE MODELS are now projecting:

The models are all over the place. Huge uncertainty.

Note the huge range! There’s gonna be a whole lot of revising going on in the months ahead.

Next, all you need to do is to look at the following chart to see where we’re headed on a decadal scale. The warm phase is behind us and we are now starting a cool phase – that means more La Ninas in the works, which means cooler global temps ahead.

Headed back into the cool phase.

Many out there are gonna continue banging their heads against the wall insisting that the warming will defy PDO gravity and the cycles, and continue in the years ahead. Nothing we say will change their minds. That’s why I say, let’s just let the events unfold, and we’ll see who’s right soon enough.

This coming decade is going to be a cooler one – all because of natural cycles – and that’s why I’m betting on a cooler decade. The big climate bet is out there, and the next 10 years very very likely will answer the big climate question. You can join the bet too. Best of all, no matter who wins, it’s for charity.

JOIN THE CLIMATE BET FOR CHARITY

Winning this bet may end up being as easy as taking candy away from a baby. We’ll know soon enough.

And finally, my advice to you warmests who are in it for politics – milk the last decade being the warmest all you can, while you can – because it’s about to get doused with lots of cold water.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

31 responses to ““Stick With The Facts – Look At The Data””

  1. Nonoy Oplas

    But even with that “wide range” in the 2nd graph, they are all in the negative territory (except 2 models) way up to August (or more) this year. By then, the current La Nina would be about 15 months old already. If it extends up to 20 months or more, then this should be among the longest La Ninas.

  2. Ike

    Pierre,

    do you know about this study?
    What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?

    A recent observation strikingly showed that global warming from 1950 to 2000 was most likely caused by the significant increase of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the Earth atmosphere (Lu, 2010)…..

    http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf

    Ike

    1. Mas

      A little off-topic but CFCs and PFCs (along with ammonia) are seen as good greenhouse gas candidates to heat up Mars for terraforming purposes as the current 95% CO2 percentage of the Martian Atmosphere is just not doing the job ;-).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Using_fluorine_compounds
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Ammonia_importation

  3. Ike

    forgot to mention.

    Maybe WUWT already discussed this study 2010…

  4. Ike

    I also found this one.

    A Swiss-led team of scientists has used tree rings to detail 2,500 years of European summers, identifying the link between climate and major historical changes.
    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_technology/Scientists_link_bad_weather_to_historical_lows.html?cid=29224702

    related:
    http://www.emetsoc.org/annual_meetings/documents/presentations_2010/UC4_Buentgen.pdf

    Results demonstrate that recent warming is unprecedented over the late Holocene, but modern hydroclimatic variations have at times been exceeded in magnitude and duration.

    Ike

  5. DirkH

    Mojib Latif
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gXy7u8dV3W6VY0qcKj8CHmDNo8XQ?docId=CNG.d599790b8b795d819419fc589c36852f.e1
    “Experte: Extreme Regenfälle auch Folge der Erderwärmung
    (AFP) – Vor 3 Stunden

    Kiel — Die heftigen Regenfälle und Überschwemmungen in Australien und Brasilien sind nach Ansicht des Kieler Klimaforschers Mojib Latif auch eine Folge des weltweiten Klimawandels.

    Extreme Rain fall also consequence of Global Waming
    Kiel – Extreme rainfall and floods in Australia and Brasil are in the opinion of climate researcher Mojib Latif partially a consequence of world wide climate change.

    1. DirkH

      They got a monopoly on this. EVERY weather event STRENGTHENS their “theory”.

      It’s really silly. You just google a little and you find a wacko climatologist basking in the limelight. I repeat myself, they should all be made street sweepers, scientists they are not.

  6. Jack

    I’m so sick and tired of hearing everything that happens under the sun is blamed on global warming. Can someone put an end this global warming hoax?

    We let them play this game long enough. It was fun for awhile.

    1. DirkH

      No. It’s their way of subsistence. They will never let go of it.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Or… We’re right. 😉

    2. Nonoy Oplas

      Jack, the AGW establishment is a trillion dollars racket. How will the high budget existence of UN’s IPCC, FCCC, WMO, UNEP, etc., of GISS, UK Met, be justified if AGW is abandoned? How will the frequent global climate meetings, the billions of $ of solar/wind subsidies, more billions of $ of carbon and energy taxation, etc. be justified if AGW is abandoned? Lie if they must, and lie they do a lot, the AGW claim will continue. That’s BIG government for us all.

  7. MATTI VOORO

    Rob Honeycutt
    You said, “The net balance is still rising”.

    I agree that it is still rising but the latest rate of rise is extremely small. A composite of four temperature data sets shows a rate of increase[ least square slope trend ] for global temperature anomalies for the last 10 years to be 0.0046 C/YEAR and very similar to the rate of increase for the last 160 years or 0.0044C/year[ per hadcrut 3gl]. Can you imagine a least square trend slope of four thousands of degree over the entire 10 year period averaged over the globe? In order to meet I PCC projections of say 3 degrees C [mid range option], the average yearly rate of increase would have to be about 0.3 per decade. This rate would be about 6.5 times greater than the observed current rate for the last 10 year of 0.0046 C/year. Matter of fact most data sets currently show rapidly dropping global temperature anomalies. If you accept the Met Office forecast of 4 degrees C by 2060, you would need to increase the rate of rise by some 17 times the current observable rate. I know of no man induced mechanism or CO2 option that would cause the temperatures to rise so much faster. Matter of fact the rate of CO2 increase is not as fast as oginally projected by IPCC which makes the IPCC projections of multi model average projections of 2-4 C by 2100 very unlikely in my judgment. Cooler periods like in the past, 1945 -1976 and again 1880-1910 tend to moderate the century temperature rise .We seem to be heading into one of these cooler periods between now and 2030 and if they happen every 60 years as they did in the past, there is a possibility that we may have a total of 2 cooler period before 2100. This could further reduce the total anticipated temperature increase to only about 0.5 to 1 C by 2100

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      The problem with what you’re doing here is, you’re doing what I call “napkin science.” You’re jotting what you think are accurate figures on paper and coming up with the figures that suit what you want to hear. Science doesn’t work that way. The climate, as we all admit, is extremely complex. What you’re trying to do with a napkin is what Trenberth does as a profession.

      1. DirkH

        You remind me of the great Gavin Schmidt, who answers every sceptical question (if he allows it on RC) with “Before you can ask a question, inform yourself. Go read the 800 papers first that we link to. And then read some more.”

        Most of the papers are of course Hansen referencing Hansen… or the Amman/Wahl Jesus paper…
        http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

        Yes, looking through the shenanigans of the “credible climatologists” is really a complex thing…

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Dirk… That seems like a totally appropriate response from Gavin. Do you suppose you should argue with someone from a less informed position? Think of what your response would be if someone with little background started commenting on what ever your chosen area of expertise is.

          You’d say to them, “Go learn what I’ve learned and then come back and talk to me.”

          1. DirkH

            So why does he run a blog? To piss off the public? Yeah, that’ll help his position.

          2. DirkH

            And no, i never answered a question from anyone, not even from the biggest idiot, with “Go learn what I’ve learned and then come back and talk to me.”

            Seems to be the general warmist attitude.

          3. DirkH

            And your attitude tells me more about you than you’d like. You are a deeply authoritarian person.

          4. Rob Honeycutt

            Dirk… Why does he run a blog? To help educate people willing to listen and learn and exchange ideas.

            “You are a deeply authoritarian person.” I’m sorry but I actually laughed out loud when I read that one. I’m headstrong. I’m tenacious. I’m a stickler for accuracy. But one thing I’m not is authoritarian.

  8. slimething

    I’d like it explained how after heat is removed from the oceans it gets back into the oceans. Where does it eventually go? It doesn’t just get “redistributed”; heat rises. Earth has built in thermostats, otherwise the oceans would have boiled long ago, along with the surface we inhabit. Ever wonder what those huge deep convective clouds in the tropics are doing?

    The NAO has transitioned into negative territory and is likely a main contributor to increasing colder winters in the NH. The AMO is peaking; everything else is in place for decades long cooling. The only way to cling on to the IPCC dogma is to completely cut off history prior to 1975 and ignore all ocean/atmospheric dynamics that have driven weather/climate in the past.

    The warming dynamo has slowed. To argue otherwise is to simply ignore reality. Negative feedback dominates nature everywhere except in AGW post normal “science”.

  9. MATTI VOORO

    The graph by Prof essor Akasofu ,Emeritus of the University of ALASKA illustrates the difference between IPCC Forecast and what he sees ahead to 2100

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm#akasofu

  10. MATTI VOORO

    Pierre
    Another key factor which will soon [ in 1-4 years] start to contribute to the global cooling of US and Canadian east coasts, the western coast of Europe and the Arctic will be the cooling of the North Atlantic as measured by the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation or AMO. This cooling started after 2005 but AMO is affected by ENSO cycles specially El Ninos, so we saw a brief warming of AMO during 2010. Climate history shows that the global cooling was the strongest when both the PDO and AMO were both simultaneously in the negative or cool mode like in 1964-1976 and again 1916 to 1923. AMO has been in the positive or warm mode since 1994. Its cycle is not as predictable as the 60 year PDO cycle but more recently it followed the pattern of the PDO but in a lagged pattern[ about a 20 year lag]. Its cycles have been quite variable. During its last cycle it was in the negative or cool mode for 30 years] 1964-1994] and its cycle seems to be related to the Meridional Overturning Circulation [MOC] and the changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation [THC]. There are a number of estimates when it will again go negative. My best estimate is about 2015 based on the most frequent past intervals of around 20 years and the cooler waters that feed the MOC from the Southern Oceans . Once it does go negative the global temperature anomalies may drop further until about 2030, the Arctic temperature may cool further and the Arctic Ice extent should increase again. Joe Bastardi is aware of the AMO and he refers to it quite often in his European blog. He and I have also exchanged some e-mails on this topic.

  11. MATTI VOORO

    Pierre

    Will do. I need some time to put my thoughts on paper.

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

Close