Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Not Going To Have To Worry About The Arctic Ice”…Arctic Scare Melting Away!

UPDATED: Joe has contacted me and I’ve added a correction concerning the AMO-hurricane connection, which I misinterpreted from the video. See his comment below after my post.

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi presents lots of interesting background information on hurricanes in his newest Saturday Summary, reminding viewers that they were much worse back in the middle of the 20th century than they are today. But now we are (again) in a setup where we may see some harsh hurricanes as we did in the 1950s – see 11:50 mark.

Arctic melt grinds to a halt

Also interesting is the part at the end (12:30) about the upcoming Arctic ice melt season. Surprise! The latest NCEP forecast for the summer melt continues showing a positive anomaly, flying in the face of predictions of a disappearing Arctic ice.

Bastardi 20140531

Image cropped from: Weatherbell Saturday Summary

Joe believes the Arctic will be returning to normal by 2030, maybe even sooner, thanks to the seemingly approaching cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) where we see the start of the transitional phase beginning.

Warmists’s arguments melting away

With Antarctic sea ice near record high levels and Arctic sea ice starting its rebound, the Arctic death spiral” argument so often used by the warmists is on the verge of a complete meltdown.

With the polar ice cap argument disappearing and the observed lack of warming for almost two decades, it will be interesting to watch what tactics the global warming crowd will be resorting to in the future. Expect to see them push lots of weather horror stories…future scenarios generated by hocus-pocus computer models cooked up from “renowned” institutes. when reality doesn’t cooperate, then fantasy is all that’s left.


Joe has sent me a comment providing more information about the AMO, etc:

The latter stages of the warm AMO, when cooling starts in the North Atlantic, is when the warmest water is near the coast. This is not the cool AMO, rather it’s the transitional phase that is starting now. At the end of the warm AMO, the warmest water is near the east coast, just as we saw in the 1950s. By the 1960s the expanding pool of colder water, and the end of the last Arctic ice melt of the 1950s, were taking over. That then proceeded to have ice at high levels through the early 1990s. But as soon as the AMO flipped, the Arctic ice decreased.

The linkage is this: The jamming of the warmest water up near the east coast in the waning stages of the warm AMO (example the 1950s) heightens the east coast threat, and is a sign the cold AMO is around the corner, and with it the end of the scam.

It should be obvious now…one season of cooling and the summer ice melt will be weakest since the end of the cold AMO. The cold AMO is not the reason for increased east coast hurricanes. It’s the end game of the warm AMO that is telegraphing the coming cold. Look at the classic signature of the warm AMO 1997-2013 and you notice the water has been slightly cooler near the east coast, opposite the cold AMO signature of 1981-1996. The end game, when water starts to cool in the north Atlantic (and ice increases as we are seeing) has the warmest water jammed near the east coast. Please read

The set up now is the sign it’s about to end and with it the reversal. CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, which is what they will claim in spite of science and history showing that is not the case.


5 responses to “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Not Going To Have To Worry About The Arctic Ice”…Arctic Scare Melting Away!”

  1. Ed Caryl

    In my recent research, I have noticed a slow trend. We have all seen the transition from “global warming” to “climate change”, and “climate disruption”. Very soon this will morph into “climate cooling”. The underlying feeling among mainstream climate “scientists” is FEAR. They know that they don’t know the future. But they also know that if they stop projecting knowledge their careers are over. Looking at the past, they see that climate can change very rapidly in any direction, so they lock onto the current trend as the direction of the next sudden transition. Only the data and models that reinforce their fear are recognized. These then feed their fear.
    this is the reason for GISS and GHCN “adjustments” to temperature records. This is the reason for the rampant confirmation bias in the literature. This is the reason why the scare-mongering increases as we climb the IPCC summary chain. If it is warming slightly, then all the “tweeks” to the data will increase the warming.

    But now the data is beginning to clearly indicate cooling. Antarctica is becoming impossible to explain. Harsh winters, increasing snow, arctic ice returning to normal, ruin the story. The flat temperature trend has weakened all the arguments. If the trend turns slightly down, the fearful clamor will quickly change to ice age fear, again.

    Their problem is that they have painted themselves into a corner. When the switch happens, many reputations will be shredded. There will be chaos in the climate/political industry. This is already happening. Australia is the leader. The UK and Germany are following. The next two years in the US will be tumultous. The politics will lead the science because that is where the money originates. Or in the case of Australia, where it doesn’t originate. Expect large cuts in climate science budgets, world-wide. The money will switch to energy production.

    One is reminded of the ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times”.

    1. DirkH

      It will be interesting to watch how our pond scum journalists from the MSM wiggle out of it. Hope THEIR careers end.

      No offense to pond scum intended.

  2. Joe Bastardi

    Thanks for allowing me the space to try to make that clear.

    A lot of people dont understand that private sector mets do alot of research, as well as the government and academia. I have nothing against, and in fact support research in NOAA and academia. There is great work out there, and very little of what I show is “original” but more me building off what others before me have done. I make that clear constantly on my posts.

    My mission is to find the right answer, where-ever that takes me. Its a simple reason 1) It is what I was taught as a child.. that there truth and anything short of truth is not to be trusted. 2) By being right.. in the end, in a competitive, free society, People will buy my product. My problem with what is going on today is we have ideas that are formed but then apparently they are not tested against the future. It’s easy to fit data to what you perceive. but the PROOF IS IN THE FORECAST which you see me making here. Actually this was made back in 2009 and in very public challenge to Bill Nye, the greatest experiment he could ever have…test the ideas. Where are the temperatures going to go? I said by 2030 as measured by satellite, since we started the satellite era at the end of cold PDO, we will be back to the same global temp as the late 1970s and the same N hem ice cover. Of course there was no forecast made back. There never is. NCEP global temps have been falling since 2007 in the same kind of herky jerky fashion there started rise before. But it’s a very simple test and simple perhaps is not what AGW agenda people want, since simple threatens their status. It was a matter of the PDO and AMO flipping, the PDO was starting, and the AMO was going to. But this idea is not mine. Bill Gray nailed this from the 1970s. Idso’s work is awesome too, as well as the MEI studies from NOAA. In fact the people that have set this up are too numerous to name, including lessons learned from my dad. It seems like the new breed, who do not test themselves beyond classroom ideas…they explain what happened but make no solid verifiable forecasts (note hurricanes are going to be worse or NYC will be under water is not a forecast…hurricanes SHOULD be worse in this cycle and then diminish as in the article I wrote after the next 5 years or so, but the past 40 years can’t touch the previous 40 with the only true metric we have through all the history (landfalling intensity) and seem to think they are above being tested. For instance, with Dr Mann’s hockey stick, he may have made the right move in switching off from tree-ring data, but the fact is Liu’s tree-ring study IS SHOWING THE WARMING. But Liu’s study had previous warm periods that were still greater than this, hence no hockey stick. Why is Manns study then accepted and Liu’s is not? How can we say the Medieval Warm Period was “local” when you can’t show me where the compensating cold is. But the competition needed to debate this is being shut down. I know its heresy to many of you, but Mann could be right. His latest paper is very interesting to me on the AMO, but now he should give us a forecast over the next 20 years, as to where it will go compared to the previous warm/cold cycle, which is what I am trying to show. But reproducing the past should have Dr Mann willing to take a stand now on where the AMO is going the next 20 years. Or debating people, not suing them, who are questioning methods that I certainly could not get away with in a classroom. That is why Richard Muller, who I happen to like, though by his words he has no love for me and my ideas, tore into the hockey stick. The fact is Dr Mann’s Hockey stick was no different to me than a wrestler switching from 1 move to another because he thought it was the right move. However one cannot do that in science. Control and consistency is always needed. It’s why the adjustment down of temps before the satellite era by NOAA is a mockery. Sure there is a chance it’s right, but it’s certainly something that raises doubt if not outright refutation of the AGW point. How do you know now that it was colder in the 1930s? Did some magic temperature fairy show up and tell you?

    In any case it’s a shame that all this is not what it should be because of all the outside interest. In what I do, I HAVE TO CHANGE TO SURVIVE IN MY FIELD if I am wrong. That is how free market works. If I bust on the forecast, maybe I am forgiven once, but you get fired. So climate and the past are not only something I have been fascinated with since I was young boy (my father drilled into me the past is the foundation on which you stand to reach for the future) but is there because I need it to forecast as much as you need food air and water to live. I am serious. I can’t imagine not using this tool, and that others do less and still are great is amazing to me, but maybe that is because of my limits, which I am acutely aware of. But how can you change your stance when your whole life is built around one thing? I don’t envy AGW people in the coming years. They will have their way as far as getting things enacted that they want, but it won’t be because they are right about what they have purported to be their pursuit. It’s because of things you are seeing in the political realm, where people wishing to enact an agenda will do so, no matter what the facts say.
    That is not what I do. I pursue the right answer on the weather and cannot compete with those that could really care less about looking at the other side of the argument, and will do what they have the power to do. We will all just have to live with it. In the meantime, it’s all about the weather with me, and so we have a test here we can all look at in the coming decade.

    Btw Arctic ice forecast is up even higher this morning. I wonder if the CFSV2 is getting a little carried away here, or perhaps mother nature is trying to make her point as she has with most of the metrics which less than 7 years ago were being pushed by the AGW side as something opposite of what is now reality.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    You can immediately see the anticorrelation of Arctic sea ice extent with the AMO if you graph them. I did this with the UIUC sea ice anomaly data and the two trendlines automatically lined up in Excel (note the sea ice anomaly axis is reversed).

    This isn’t surprising since the AMO is comprised of detrended northern Atlantic sea surface temperatures. Warmer water = less ice; cooler water = more ice.

    You can do much the same thing yourself using the Woodfortrees site, although you have to play with the moving averages and scaling because the NSIDC data is absolute sea ice extent not the anomalies, which remove seasonal variation. Here’s the graph.

    For fun I’ve added the sunspot count, so you can see the spikes in the AMO as they correspond with the solar cycle. Its worth about 0.1 C across each solar cycle, which puts paid the IPCC view that the Sun has little effect. (Caution when lining up the spikes: the moving averages I’ve had to use throw out the timing.)

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