Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: The Whole CO2 “Argument Is Tiresome And Absurd…Warmists Living In A Fantasy World”

Joe Bastardi of kindly took the time to write a comment, and so I think it deserves being upgraded to a post. It’s one whole semester of meteorology summed up (edited by PG)!


Here’s the problem globally: We continue to dwell on temperatures in the Arctic and ignore the fact that it’s a natural cyclical distortion because the planet wobbles on its axis and has much more water in the southern hemisphere, and more land in the north. So there is an eternal search for a balance that can never be attained. It can only go back and forth. Think about it. While CO2 warmists are yelling and screaming about the Arctic melting, the southern hemisphere ice is expanding. We are now told the deep water is warming (what bullocks, it does this every time the PDO has been warm.  What will happen over the next 20 years is the southern hemisphere sea ice will retreat and the northern hemisphere will advance once the AMO turns cold. We just can actually observe it now from above with satellites.

There is so much lunacy in their argument, they don’t even realize global ACE drop is because of the distortion; instead they scream about warming causing increased activity, when in reality globally it has gone the other way. Until such time someone can show me that there is less OUTGOING RADIATION than incoming, there is no “warming” going on.  There is no trapping of heat. Physically all CO2 can do is add its 0.4 to 0.7°C to the 33°C of the blanket gases that were wonderfully placed there and made the Earth’s temps reasonably livable, in spite of the variations that have to happen because of the system’s design.

Oceans are partly driving the climate

The whole CO2 argument is tiresome and absurd. The unmoved mover is the sun. The system below responds to the variations in the sun with a lag.  The “warming” was because when the oceans went into their warm cycle (remember there is far greater “energy” in warm water than in cold dry air), the natural response had to be a warming in the north – where there is more land-  because equatorial ocean warming increases the transport of warm humid air northward. That air has to then warm areas where there is dry air. If you dry out warm humid air, then you warm the air temperature if the wet bulb is constant. So there is warming over the continents, BUT IT ONLY CONTINUES UNTIL THE OCEANS HAVE ADDED THEIR INPUT. The leveling off of temps is completely consistent with an atmosphere that has absorbed the heat from the warming cycles of the oceans that occurred in tandem from 1995-2007 (warm PDO was 1978-2007,  warm AMO 1995 till present, but it will shift).

The other way around – low ACE indicates warming

The increase in the southern hemisphere’s ice cap is more impressive than Arctic melt because the cold source is the continent of Antarctica, and for the ice to expand it had to have been colder in the areas where it expanded, which is over water. This is much harder to do than warming up dry, cold Arctic air. Now we see the response. This is entirely natural. I argued at the Heartland Conference that the global ACE drop and the southern hemisphere ice show that this is merely a distortion that will turn around and go the other way. The cooling tropical Pacific means naturally the ACE lowers since most of our tropical activity comes from the Pacific. But the Atlantic, still in the warm AMO, takes up the slack. Tropical cyclones are major energy transporters and balancing mechanisms for the atmosphere. If there is no need to balance out (cooling Pacific, warmer in the north), then the ACE drops. Amazingly the OPPOSITE of what people are yelling about is the sign of the so-called warming. In fact as the Arctic areas start to cool and the AMO backs away from the warm cycle, we are likely to see the ACE come back up again, as the “need” for more Pacific cyclones will reappear.

CO2 is too trivial of a factor

The major problem is the people driving this train refuse to humble themselves to the majesty of the atmosphere. The sheer weight of numbers against CO2 causing this is staggering. The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, CO2 1/2500th of the gas blanket that makes our Earth livable, man – according to the US Dept of Energy – is only responsible for 1/20th of that, meaning 1/50,000th of the air is “man-made”. Actually it’s merely man-recycled, for there has been no introduction of new CO2 to the system that I know of. What we’ve put into the air has always been a part of the system, it’s just recycled.

Does anyone know of some magic spaceship that came and increased the amount of CO2 inherent to the global system (fossil fuels for instance, come from sources that have always been on the planet)? So we are asked to believe that we are changing all this. Though a gross over-simplification, if the 1/2500th of the blanket gases is contributing 0.4 to 0.7°C to the wonderful 33°C which elevate the average temperature to 288°K instead of a frigid 255°K, and man is responsible for only 1/20th of that, then perhaps our contribution to the global temp is…0.035°C.

Since some consider me a neanderthal, let’s do what neanderthals love to do…compete for survival. Let’s simply measure the temperature by objective satellite over the next 20-30 years as the PDO remains cold and the AMO flips. Let’s measure the temperature and see if by 2030, the 5-year running mean is not back to where we were.

Quiet sun is a wild card – poses a threat

The explanation to all this is no different than you sitting in a sauna. Turn up the thermostat (natural ocean cycles) and it will heat until it reaches what the thermostat dictates. Arguing that turning on the light (the CO2 influence) is what heated the sauna is absurd. The wild card in this is the sun, which I am concerned is going to be a much bigger problem (believe me with the lunacy of the energy policies globally, a return to my temps is already a huge problem in itself, but the sun falling asleep would be worse). My ideas, which are not new, are basic climate cycle theory and were accepted before people decided they had to save the planet. They explain perfectly this chart:

To those who want to argue “natural variability” is hiding the warming, a) you didn’t tell us that before your models went busting badly, and b) are you saying without CO2 we would already be back in the Victorian era of temps? To those who say there is hidden heat and that a gas (which is only 1/2500th of an atmosphere in which the most prominent GHG is water vapor, and with oceans that have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere) is somehow controlling all this (recall that we once had an ice age at 7000 ppm co2) you live in a fantasy world.

Then again, men who have the fantasy of saving the planet by controlling others are indeed in their own world. It’s up to those grappling with the real facts to make sure that the world we live in is one that promotes freedom and the betterment of mankind, and not one controlled by those who believe they are superior to everyone else. This is where the real battle is, and not with a trace gas that has little if anything to do with the climate of a planet created and designed the way it was. – J.B.


34 responses to “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: The Whole CO2 “Argument Is Tiresome And Absurd…Warmists Living In A Fantasy World””

  1. Paulus

    “CO2 1/400th of the gas blanket”? 390 parts per million equals 1/2564th of the gas blanket. Assuming 5% is attributed to human activity this equates to 1/51280th of the gas blanket. Assuming I have this correct this is the equivalent of climate homeopathy.

    1. Joe Bastardi

      Paulus see the mea culpa explanation below

      we have to concern ourselves with what is heating us and its that 16% of which water vapor is the dominant gas ( around 400 times more prevalent than co2)

      1. Joe Bastardi

        again my mistake, water vapors dominance is closer to 100 to 1, but co2 is still only 1/2500th of the atmosphere

  2. stephen richards

    CO2 1/400th of the gas blanket that makes our Earth livable, man

    1/2500 = o.o4%

    1. Joe Bastardi

      yes but as i said below I was reference the so called ghg of which water vapor is most prominent at 16% which means co2 is 1/400th of the GHG ( the others are minor enough we can round it

      water vapor is the big kahuna and the ocean and air interaction has precious little involvement from co2…

      I guess we have to cap and trade water vapor


  3. stephen richards

    Human contribution, last figure I’ve seen is 3.27% = 0.0327*0.00039 units ppm
    = 0.000012753 ppm

    Think that’s correct or the CO² rise amounts to 1.5ppm over neutral and humans contribute 3.27% of that = 0.005 ppm. BUT there are many problems with thiese figures in terms of accuracy in the inputs and my calculations

    1. Joe Bastardi

      Steve the point is its so small, this whole thing is a joke. I was “liberal” with the amounts and again, its in relation to the so called GHG not the entire atmosphere . But its so darn small, even giving it some due, its essentially nothing, which is
      why I am a so called slayer. The more I look at this, the more its a non argument that is easily settled by observation, not by dumping billions ( trillions?) into a scheme designed to control, not enhance mans reach beyond his grasp.

      Hows that for some “Scottish” philosophy ( Browning)

  4. Loodt Pretorius

    Pedantic corner:-

    Did Joe mean bullocks, what we call a castrated young bull in British English, also meaning young bull in North America? Or did he want to use old Anglo Saxon word, bollocks, popular in Australia (as bollox) and Ireland? The latter seems to convey the proper meaning in the context of the deep water warming!

    1. Joe Bastardi

      yes, what you say

  5. stephen richards

    That tells you everything you need to know.

    Absolutely it does. That the politicians lack a brain or are thoroughly corrupt.

  6. Joe Bastardi

    guys, its 1/400th of the so called ghg, not the entire atmosphere Water vapor is 400 times more prominent and its 16%.. I was referencing its relationship to the DOMINANT SO CALLED GHG. Not the entire atmosphere

    I believe .04% is 1/400th of 16% Okay?

    400 times .04 =16. Water vapor is about 16% of the atmosphere if my figures are right. Water vapor the dominant so called ghg

    The so called ghg ( I call it a blanket) is needed for life on the planet and co2 is very very small in relation to that.

    If we want to use the entire atmosphere, then of course is so small that…
    you get my point

    Geez, tough crowd.. try the veal!

  7. glenncz

    water vapor is usually written as about 2% of the atmosphere, however that percentage is highly variable in different regions.

    1. Joe Bastardi

      true enough, the point is c02 is so small in comparison it is impossible for it to do what agw proponents say it should. So using the 4%, with co2 being .04 it means water vapor is 100 times more prevalent. In any case co2 is minute enough to not be of a concern. I have been looking at the figures and 4% seems to be most commonly agreed on, as the questioning of my figures led to me to re look

      Its so small, it is not of concern

  8. Wolfgang

    Dear All,

    I am a firm believer of the VERY basic fact that, the earth wobbles, the earth’s orbit around the sun is elliptic, and that that same elliptic orbit (does a side ways orbit around the sun) lasting some 26000 years- THAT is indisputable FACT.
    In our present orbital position we have climatic/weather records going back (wild guess- 4000 years??). We have no idea of what is still to come, as even our galaxy is orbiting on it’s merry way.


  9. carbon dioxide is a winner … the stuff of life | pindanpost
  10. Joe Bastardi

    I tried to answer each comment, and yes I see I gave co2 a bit to much credit, but I think you all get the point, that in the realm of the whole climate system, the co2 argument is tiresome and absurd and the actual data is showing this. But I do see the validity of the comments and acknowledge that Pierre’s use of the actual co2 at 1/2500th of the atmosphere is the best. In any case Thank God for the 33C of warmth attributed to the GHG’s since as I mentioned, life would not be easy at a global mean temp of 255K

    now enjoy the weather, its the only weather you’ve got ( dont let anyone else tell you differently)

  11. AlecM

    What you must understand Joe is that the climate models are based on a heat transfer idea which contradicts Maxwell’s Equations. There is no ‘back radiation’. Meteorology and Climate Alchemy teaches this but it’s wrong.

    Furthermore, there are basic errors in key experimental data. Pyrgeometers don’t work as claimed, the signal is not a real energy flux and for the self-absorbed GHGs it is near black body from a quirk of physics. Satellite sensors measure self-absorbed thermal emission and CO2 self-absorbs much more strongly than H2O.

    This means the dip at the CO2 15 µm band is an artefact. Instead of coming from ToA, it actually originates at ~6 km, where convection changes to radiation. It’s because there can be no direct thermalisation of IR > Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.

    There can be no CO2-AGW – it’s switched off at the surface. The IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere has been greatly exaggerated because of the ToA artefact.

  12. ArndB

    Hi Joe:
    When saying “Oceans are partly driving the climate” it is a great acknowledgement but may nevertheless only partly highlight the relevance of the seas. For example:
    • Only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water volume is in the atmosphere.
    • The volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 12,900 km3 .
    • The volume of the Baltic Sea is about 20,000 km³
    • The entire water in the atmosphere is replaced about 35 times in one year.
    • Each water drop (vapor) in the air remains there for not more than about 10 days.
    • The ocean mean temperature is about 4°C.
    More at : or in a graphic here:

    How much the sea is giving an input to the atmosphere –even at this time in the year at a latitude of Stockholm – is illustrated by a one week sea water temperature measurements in the Baltic Sea last few day ago:
    __ a station map of the following stations:
    __N-Baltic Forsmark ca. 60°N:
    __N-Baltic LandsNorra ca. 60°N:
    __S-Baltic Kungsholmsford ca. 56°N:
    __Skagerrak Göteborg ca, 58°N:
    accompanied with the text:
    „The shown stations indicate perfectly how sufficiently the sun is already warming the sea surface layer (down to a depth of 1m) during daytime until early afternoon, a heat mostly lost again until next day morning hours.”
    All here:

    1. ArndB

      The forgotten link for the station map:

  13. doug nusbaum

    Mr. Bastardi (gotta love that name [-snip].

    If you do a search on the 3 words plants elevation climate, or similar words you will find that on mountain sides plants are moving vertically on the average of at least a meter a year. Those species that are not moving are dying and being replaced by those that did move from lower elevations. Plants in temperate zones are moving north.

    Glaciers in South america are retreating. That bit of information pluss this: is clear indication that Mr. Bastardi is more ignorant than plants or is simply lying, Each year there is less ice in the south than there was the year before.

    I agree that the sun is a prime mover. And this may explain why the temps have not risen as much as predicted:
    The results showed that on average the surface solar radiation decreased by two percent per decade between the 1950s and 1990. or almost a 10% decline in 40 years
    Since we are now in a time of relatively few sunspots, that is a good possible explanation for the earth not heating up as much as was predicted.

    But, hey, why let actual evidence get in the way of belief.

  14. Mike

    Hey Joe

    Sorry to be a bit dim. What is ACE?

  15. Simon

    Joe, you say “Physically all CO2 can do is add its 0.4 to 0.7°C”. How? Where is the physics to support that, seeing as you also said “There is no trapping of heat”? A blatant contradiction if ever there was one. If CO2 cannot trap heat (true), how the **** then does it cause a temperature increase?

  16. DennisA

    doug nusbaum
    8. April 2013 at 17:36

    So the tree line never moved before?

    “By about 7000 years ago the massive glaciers of the last Ice Age had retreated to the mountain peaks of the eastern Canadian Arctic. Tundra vegetation had become established, and was grazed by caribou, muskoxen, and, in some areas, by bison. The gulfs and channels between the arctic islands had long been at least seasonally ice-free, and provided a home to populations of seals, walrus, and whales. There is considerable evidence that for the next 3500 years the arctic climate was noticeably warmer than today, the tree-line was north of its present position, sea ice was less extensive, and animal populations were large and well established.”

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  18. aaron

    ACE isn’t spelled out. Google search with “climate” just gets a bunch of posts from an activist org.

  19. David Heyman

    Who is going to inform the school teachers?

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