Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Calls Claims Weather Events Are Sign Of Climate Change “Looney Bin”

At his most recent Weekend Summary at Weatherbell Analytics, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi looks at recent North American weather events, for example the warm poles (where very few weather stations exist) and the warm North American February.

Arctic sea ice recovers

Soon after global warming alarmists hollered that the Arctic was in collapse, the conditions there have just swung to the opposite direction with Arctic temperature diving back to normal levels and sea ice expanding back to near the mean of the last decade. Once again we see that this is weather at work and does not really have anything to do with climate.

In fact, NCEP predicts sea ice levels to recover back to normal levels later this year, though Joe Bastardi remains very skeptical on that point.

NCEP forecast projects Artic sea ice recovery later this year. Image cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

Arctic temperature plunges as weather pattern changes

Also at the 7:10 mark Bastardi also points out that the Arctic temperature has cooled to the lowest level so far this winter, and that it is also expected to be cool in late summer. What’s behind it? It’s the fickle nature of weather.

Low Arctic sea ice extents are in fact nothing new. Before the satellite era, Arctic sea ice was also at very low levels, observed back in the 1950s…something alarmists avoid bringing up.

While the poles in total are below the mean with respect to sea ice, Greenland snow and ice mass is “way way above normal”, Bastardi says, citing official data:

Image from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

At the 11:30 mark, Bastardi slams all the bogus predictions of “permanent droughts” made by alarmists and media. These droughts have all since disappeared due to heavy rains which were never supposed to happen again.  Joe explains that the weather system is self-correcting and comments on those who are now trying to blame the mysterious drought-ending rains on climate change:

And then when that happens, they say, well, it rained so hard that it’s climate change. It’s…it’s just looney bin”.

Recently elements of the fake news media have been trying to pin the blame for the warm North American February on climate change. For example German alarmist and climate activist site Klimaretter here writes concerning the warm February on the US east coast: “The anomaly is one of the many signs of a galloping climate change.”

Of course (showing just how hopelessly confused the writers at Klimaretter are when it comes to distinguishing between weather and climate) they ignore that the same region will be turning wintry again in March — just when spring is supposed to be arriving instead:

Cold forecast to delay spring. Image cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

More signs of a harsh hurricane season

Later Bastardi also mentions that ocean surface temperature patterns are shaping up to lend to a harsh hurricane season, thus supporting the forecast made last month here by David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations.


55 responses to “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Calls Claims Weather Events Are Sign Of Climate Change “Looney Bin””

  1. CO2isLife

    There is a lot of nonsense regarding the arctic Sea Ice. The question that needs to be asked is “why does ice melt in sub-zero temperatures?” The Artic is sub zero the majority of the year, yet the ice is melting
    ? Why. The oceans are melting the ice, and CO2 doesn’t warm H20.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; Sea Ice Sophistry

    1. sod

      “There is a lot of nonsense regarding the arctic Sea Ice. The question that needs to be asked is “why does ice melt in sub-zero temperatures?””

      you really do not know this, do you?

      I will give you a tiny hint:

      1. AndyG55

        You mean it reflects light…. ok..

        That’ll help it melt. ¿⁈?

        1. sod

          “You mean it reflects light…. ok..”

          no. it is called a Stevenson SCREEN for a reason. keep guessing, as that is your approach to “science” anyway!

          1. AndyG55

            I am hardly likely to be able to follow the manic brain-washed fantasies of a raving loonie, am I.

            Show us where the “screen” is in the Arctic.. we are all waiting to see which foot you have in your gob this time.

          2. David Johnson

            Don’t be such an obtuse idiot Sod

          3. Radical Rodent

            Actually, “guessing” is an important part of science. Have you not heard of Richard Feynman?

          4. AndyG55

            RR, The problem is you would have to somehow figure out what sort convoluted nonsense sob was likely to be yabbering about.

          5. sod

            “Show us where the “screen” is in the Arctic..”

            you really do not get it.

            Why would the snow on the stevenson screen melt, while the thermometer inside of it never reaches 0°C?


            It is a miracle. And just one of the many problems of your simplicistic approach to the whole subject.

          6. AndyG55

            sob admits that his little “screen” is just a screen to hide the fact that he is just in a fantasy land.

            Nothing to do with anything to do with the topic, is it sob.

            Just a random zero-thought-bubble.

            You poor simpleton, sob.

          7. SebastianH

            Ad hominem attacks and insults make you sound so mature and your arguments much more compelling.

          8. AndyG55

            Yes, you and sob should take yourselves elsewhere.. your very presence as low end alarmist trolls is an ad hom to rational thought

            That is your only reason for being here.

            Still waiting for a compelling paper to support the very basis of your misbegotten AGW religion.

            Waiting… waiting…

    2. SebastianH

      Maybe it helps if you can answer the following question for yourself: why is there liquid sea water in the arctic in sub zero temperatures? When you figured out how water can stay liquid below zero degrees celsius, maybe you can figure out the rest of your problem with melting artic ice 😉

      P.S.: CO2 causes H2O to warm like any other surface. There is no difference. And please don’t reply with “cold stuff can not heat warmer stuff” … that’s not what is happening.

      1. AndyG55

        “CO2 causes H2O to warm like any other surface”

        There is no mechanism, and as you consistent show, no proof, that CO2 causes any warming at all in a convective atmosphere.

        Stop trash-talking with baseless AGW nonsense. It demeans even you.

        Apart from last year’s El Nino and current Jet Stream tracking, there has been no atmospheric warming in the Arctic this century.

        The only warming is coming from ocean currents, which are totally unrelated to atmospheric CO2.

        Please, for you own sake go and do some basic research on the AMO and its affects….. or choose to remain wilfully ignorant.

        1. SebastianH

          You can measure the backradiation and its frequency spectrum. Assuming this has no effect on certrain surfaces or no effect at all is living in a physics fantasy land where everything is possible that you can imagine …

          About warming in the Artic: that was not the question. It was whether or not ice can melt in sub zero (Celsius) conditions. And it can!

          1. AndyG55

            You have proven time and time and time again that you cannot find a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            You are just rattling off brain-washed fantasy propaganda pap that you know you cannot back up.

            No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record, just El Nino steps and transients

            No CO2 signal in sea level rise

            No CO2 warming signal anywhere.

            It is a fantasy, a myth, but we know its all that you have to help you “believe” in your meaningless AGW religion.

      2. Harry Passfield

        Can I have a go at this, please Sir, pretty please?
        Why is sea water in the arctic still liquid in sub-zero temps?
        Maybe it’s because it’s not Arctic water? Maybe it because it came from somewhere in deep Atlantic and as it keeps circulating it doesn’t have time to freeze? If it freezes, it’s Arctic’s water; if it doesn’t, it belongs to somewhere else.

        1. richard verney
          1. Harry Passfield

            Sorry, Richard. 404. Tried reducing URL, but no good. Thanks anyway.

      3. Robert Folkerts

        Sebastion H says

        “When you figured out how water can stay liquid below zero degrees celsius,” [sic]

        Salt water is liquid for some degrees Celsius below zero as we all know, and that is the type of water in the oceans, isn’t it.

        Also, one does not have to go to either of the poles to find where the water temperature is significantly warmer than the temperature of the air immediately above it.

      4. richard verney

        CO2 causes H2O to warm like any other surface.

        How exactly? Water is all but opaque to DWLWIR. It does not penetrate more than about 3 to 6 microns.

        If CO2 and resultant DWLWIR could cause water to warm then one would not see dew lingering all day on a still (ie., no wind) winter’s day.

        If you live in the country, you will know what I mean. On a still winter’s day, dew can linger on the shady side of a hollow all day, whereas on the sunny side of the hollow it is burnt off in about an hour.

        Even with low solar irradiance dew is burnt off in about an hour of the sun coming onto it, but dew is not ‘burnt’ off on the shady side of the hollow even after say 10 hours of DWLWIR.

        Why is that? Hint Solar has sensible energy capable of doing real work, and can penetrate deep into the dew.

        1. AndyG55

          temperature inversions contain very high CO2 levels in the morning, but it takes sunshine or wind to break the inversion.

          All that extra CO2 does absolutely nothing in the way of warming.

          Morning temperature inversions are absolute proof that CO2 doesn’t have any warming effect what so ever, even when convection is halted temporarily.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          SebastianH: “CO2 causes H2O to warm like any other surface.”

          richard verney: “How exactly? Water is all but opaque to DWLWIR. It does not penetrate more than about 3 to 6 microns.”

          There is no use trying to get SebastianH to provide evidence for his beliefs. We’ve been asking him to provide scientific evidence, a paper, something…that may help support his suppositions about CO2 heating up or cooling down water when increased or decreased, and he cannot do so. At one point he broke down and acknowledged it’s just a “theory”…but lately he’s been denying that too. He’s back calling his beliefs “basic physics.” He really believes that reducing CO2 concentrations by 0.000001 volume (1 ppm) causes water to cool down just “like any other surface” would cool down if CO2 is reduced. If we want to cool down the oceans, we can reduce the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. He really believes that.

          1. SebastianH

            I know it the same way I know that gravity works the same over water as over any other surface.

            You are the one who believes in magic and that water has some special property excluding it from physics. If you want scientific evidence then direct an IR source at a body of water and measure its temperature. I don’t know if someone has written a paper about something basic like that …

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “You are the one who believes in magic and that water has some special property excluding it from physics.”

            I am the one who recognizes that the heat capacity of the ocean is orders of magnitude greater than the heat capacity of air, and that heat forcing must therefore be significantly greater to heat up a water body than it is to heat up a volume of air. You, apparently, wish to dismiss the massive differences between ocean and air heat capacities, as this way you can claim that the physics of heating and cooling apply similarly to both. They don’t. But it’s not worth my time to try to explain this to someone who is determined not to understand it.

          3. sod

            “If we want to cool down the oceans, we can reduce the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. He really believes that.”

            that is a fact. No believe at all. What are you talking about?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “If we want to cool down the oceans, we can reduce the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. He really believes that.”

            sod: “that is a fact. No believe at all. What are you talking about?”

            Please provide experimental scientific evidence, with physical measurements (real world), that shows how much the ocean cools when atmospheric CO2 is lowered by -0.000001. Since this is “fact” from science, produce the physical measurements. No hypotheses. No models. No analogies. Actual physical measurements.

          5. AndyG55

            seriously, seb and sob are just like tweedledee and tweedledumbest, living in a fantasy wonderland of make believe.

            Random spats of unsupportable anti-knowledge is about all they seem to be able to produce.

          6. SebastianH

            Kenneth, your argument boils down to you thinking that IR radiation from CO2 molecules has a different effect than IR radiation from clouds. The effect of clouds can easily be measured and in fact was measured.

            Please provide scientific proof (i’ll accept theories and hypotheses) that IR radiation from CO2 does behave fundamentally different then other IR radiation and is not absorbed by ocean water, but somehow vanishes without an effect.

            Why do you think you have an argument worth repeating there that wasn’t already invalidated?

        3. SebastianH

          How exactly? Water is all but opaque to DWLWIR. It does not penetrate more than about 3 to 6 microns.

          And after it penetrated the surface it magically vanishes?

          The sea surface emits IR in the direction of space. Most of it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and a lot of that is coming right back down again. Which results in warming of the surface, because it has to emit more to keep the balance now.

          It’s a bit like if you’d try to throw disgusting stuff away, but the person next to you doesn’t want to have it either and throws it away too. Part of it lands in your hands again and you’ll end up needing to throw away more disgusting stuff than without that other person around.

          1. AndyG55

            Poor seb has got the stage that he is ranting hallucinogenic fantasy nonsense.

            Oh wait.. he’s been doing that all along. !!

          2. AndyG55

            “Which results in warming of the surface, ”


            Now you are getting seriously DELUSIONAL, little troll

            Basically every comment you now make is a load of unproven fantasy BS. !!

          3. sod

            “And after it penetrated the surface it magically vanishes?”

            it is one of the sceptic pet theories.

            it basically says that water can not be warmed from above. Evaporation will remove the added heat and it will not reach lower water layers.

          4. sod

            it is one of the theories that everyone who has been to a lake in summer would dismiss, but “sceptics” are completely convinced of it.

            There have been long discussions already.

          5. SebastianH

            Basically every comment you now make is a load of unproven fantasy BS. !!

            It’s not and I think you know it, but since it doesn’t fit your agenda you chose to ignore it and make fun of people or insult them. Very mature …

          6. AndyG55

            Poor seb, I am telling you the truth.

            Trying to help you stop making a fool of yourself.

            Its very sad that can’t see what a load of baseless unsupportable nonsense you are starting to come out with.

            The fact that sob is trying to support your nonsense, must give you a very good idea just what sort of low-level junk you are now putting forward.

          7. AndyG55

            Oh and everybody is STILL waiting, with sides aching from laughter at the inept clown you are portraying.

            Still waiting for that compelling paper to support the very basis of your misbegotten AGW religion, that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..

            You know that there is ..

            No CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data

            No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

            No CO2 warming signature in Arctic or Antarctic sea ice levels.

            No CO2 warming signal anywhere.

            Just figments of a brain-washed religious AGW zealot.

            Waiting… waiting…

          8. AndyG55

            Was just watching Bill Nye make a monumental joke of himself yet again.

            I think seb would be about on par with Bill Nye.

            The pretence of knowledge, without actually having any.

            sob doesn’t even pretend to have any.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            “And after it penetrated the surface it magically vanishes?”

            It doesn’t penetrate into the ocean. It can’t penetrate past the skin, which has a heat gradient of 0.002K according to RealClimate.

            SkepticalScience: “Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. … Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat [from CO2 trapping] cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer [“0.1 to 1 mm thick on average”], and the level of this warming [0.002K at most as determined using clouds as proxy for CO2] ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the [skin] layer

  2. Jeff Torgerson

    Joe…the premise is good and generally sound, and I accept a lot of it…even though you contradict your early statement “…the warm poles (where very few weather stations exist)…sign-of-climate-change…” You go on to reference THE DATA collected…it’s ok but needs work, my colleague.

    Just don’t forget in such publications please, to always show the bottom-line truth that the climate by its nature…changes and that we’ve been in a continuously scientifically proven and universally accepted state of warming since the last Ice Age (to what extent it has been anthropogenically enhanced in recent years is debateable, but likely not significant on the Earth-Sun scale); and that we will again enter a state of cooling in due time (due to what…Solar activity, ocean polarity/current fluctuations, volcanic activity, etc…). And please leave political innuendoes out of what could then be construed as just another pseudo-scientific, politically-driven pub in this age of (ill-informed and childish) political thinking, which is getting into the universities and media at an alarming rate.

    Jeff L. Torgerson,
    Career Meteorologist,
    40 years, 3 continents, 9 disciplines
    including research, operations, media relations.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    The late John L. Daly (died, Jan. 2004; therefore, charts and so on are not current – still a good read) put the following on his site; this seems an appropriate time and place to reproduce it:

    Note the date of the quote – 1817.
    Source: The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water?

    It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

    #13: President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.

  4. Jeff Torgerson

    And…concerning mention of a “harsh hurricane season”… please stop going there…that’s the job of TWC. All it will take to verify that idiotic and sensational forecast in the public’s eye is ONE direct hit of a CAT 2 storm in a big town in the U.S. or Caribbean, or even Bermuda. Yes, expect a bad one or three EVERY season please, but hold onto hope against it.

    Look NOT at the forecast of HOW MANY storms this season, and nobody forecasts WHERE (discount the numbers game at all costs)…look instead at the above or below normal forecast for your [nearly-useless] planning, based on solid and accepted scientific analyses and forecasts of the driving factors on the global scale. Look them up, then refer to the Normal Hurricane Season.

    From there, just remember the season begins in June, watch the source regions for (timely or possibly early) development, keep abreast of the NHC (and ultimately, EMO) updates, and LIVE. Enjoy the weather and play or take pictures at your own risk and abilities and blame no official agency for your own stupidity. Is this too harsh?

    1. David Dilley

      Harsh Hurricane Season – yes we need to go there, have not had one in the United States in a long time and people are not ready. You talked about 1 storm hitting the U.S. would make it harsh and this always occurs according to you.
      But – here at GWO we are calling for 5 to 6 named storms making U.S. landfalls with at least 3 hurricane landfalls … this is harsh and people need to be prepared.

  5. sod

    Bastardi and other sceptics should start to figure out what a sigma band is.

    1. AndyG55

      sob should start getting a tiny amount of historical perspective, and stop being such a Climate Change Denier.

      Levels are far higher than pre-LIA, and from recently found data, probably higher than in the early 1950’s

      Denial of history is the mainstay of the AGW religion.

      1. Radical Rodent

        “recently found data”? It has long been known about the US submarines surfacing at the North Pole in the 1950s, and the widespread ship reports of “unusually low” amounts of sea ice in the 1920s and 30s.

        Perhaps you meant, “Recently admitted as valid data.”

      2. sod

        “Levels are far higher than pre-LIA, and from recently found data, probably higher than in the early 1950’s2

        fine. where is your data with the same accuracy as modern satellite data? Bring it on!

        1. AndyG55

          You have obviously ignored the many links over time that show the Arctic was often summer ice-free.

          That makes you wilfully IGNORANT.. ie you are choosing to remain ignorant.

          You are denying Climate Change.

          Denying Climate Change is the only way you can support the AGW-scam in your enfeebled little mind, isn’t it sob.

    2. AndyG55

      Why haven’t you shown 2006 on that graph, sob 😉

    3. David Johnson

      As Andy correctly and hilariously said, it is you, Sod, who are the real
      climate change denier

    4. Lasse

      Ice is spreading to the land boarders and growing.
      The ice free sea areas has cooled of in the winter and are now freezing.

  6. sod

    For a sceptic, that downward peak is called “temperatures back to normal”.

    1. AndyG55

      still denying that 1979 was at time of extreme Arctic sea ice, way above Holocene norms.

      Still basing your rantings on a short period just after a small rise out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

      Still Denying Climate Change, hey sob.

      1. sod

        “till denying that 1979 was at time of extreme Arctic sea ice, way above Holocene norms.”

        i am not denying it. i am waiting for you to bring up evidence, including error bars that are comparable with those around modern satellite data.

        1. AndyG55

          Evidence in the form of dozens of peer-reviewed papers has been put in front of you, which you obviously don’t have the intelligence to read and comprehend.

          Just keep DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE…

          .. its all you have to support the AGW cult-scam.

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