On this string that began with Dr. Lofthus declaring Carbon Dioxide not a serious player,
first we hear from the great Dr. Spencer, and now my favorite Italian American wrestler/meteorologist, Joe Bastardi.
Here’s Joe:
I agree with Roy.. as there can be no denying that there is a bit less outgoing radiation than incoming. In addition there has been top of the stratospheric COOLING though much of that level has been warming ( 30-100 mb)
But my take is that this situation is a) likely to be overwhelmed by a great degree, by the much larger natural events such as the sun, oceans and stochastic events. It is such, so as explained to me, in the large scale, its effectively “boxed” in, only able to do so much. Whether that is in the realm of the noise or someone can point to a temperature fluctuation and say aha, this is most certainly co2, is beyond me. I simply don’t understand how one can look at the geological time record here
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png
and conclude anything beyond the idea that Roy believes, that yes some warming should occur, but how much and whether it is simply overwhelmed by all around it, is not the case. In addition being a”tropical oceans disciple” first from my dad who when I was a kid would stress how the heat in the tropical oceans were the biggest driver of the weather and climate, and then as I got older, Dr William Gray, this is my Holy Grail so to speak
so to me, given the magnitude of all around it, CO2 has such a small effect on the entire system that its gotten so its not worth arguing over except as an exercise in scientific discourse.. which given the various opinions we see, is something OUR SIDE WILL DO. The problem is that it can turn into a circular firing squad so to speak. And really its like theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on the head of a needle. The major problem is outside of science, with people who wish to prey on those that are not up all this. But arguments have their value, if the argument is the SEARCH FOR TRUTH, whether right or wrong. Dr Curry recently wrote about this, theories that are proven wrong can be a very useful tool. my stance is based on the same methodology I use to make a forecast.. Try to weigh in the factors and come up with an idea. The problem we have in this forecast is that what value do you assign co2. I think its like arguing whether snow accumulates faster at 24 or 25. One may say .. aha its 25 see I told you ( co2 has something to do with it) but in a big snowstorm are you really going to argue over that? Is it really going to make a noticeabl difference? Its cold, its snowing like crazy, guess what its piling up ( In this case we may be arguing whether it would stick more at 10 or 11, in other words its so minimal that is it even worth arguing over)
Lets face it, if not for the shackles this is putting on our society, this is not much of a problem.
In the forecast I made on Oreilly several years ago, I stated that I thought by 2030 temps as measured by satellite would return to where they were in 1978. I called this the triple crown of cooling ( should be climate) that the sun, the oceans and the wild card of stochastic events rule the climate overall. Yes Co2 in part of a myriad of other smaller factors, but I felt it was not a tipping point issue where all of a sudden everything goes haywire at some magic number, or heads off to the races. Instead the 33C or so of what these gasses that are more prominent in the lower levels than upper ( I refuse to call it a greenhouse, and a I wish someone would think of a better term since it immediately biases someone toward a sweatbox) add to the temperature to make earth livable do have a small contribution from co2, I think .4 to .7C , but its boxed in by all the wonderful things around it. To me arguing over how all this happens to occur by “accident” (sarc, given my beliefs) is far more intriguing and whether by accident or design, its very tough to believe mans incremental small increase is going to have the effect on all this that the AGW people think it will
And by the way, while I have all of you here. you should be giving no quarter to the now “Climate change” people. Its warming they claimed and they own it, and if there is some, whatever that is, we should correctly identify it.
One last thing and I am sorry this is so long and yet simplistic. My forecast for the global temp and cooling if you will is only through 2030. I have stated several times, that my son, who wants to be a meteorologist like his grandfather and father, may someday be in the position of showing how past 2030 co2 would indeed have a greater and more provable effect. But by that time, I would hope that our nation would have developed the kind of energy ideas that would make what is causing people to push this issue, obsolete. But for the information out there now, I see nothing but misery being caused for man by the hysteria over this.
Well thanks, Joe. I am having a great day, even if Texas is in the middle of a drought.
Please, Slappy, don’t talk drought–it is depressing. The small el nino predicted may help us a little. Bastardi is a fine man, no doubt–hope he allows some room for rain for us.
Sorry for the drought, but did you not read Bastardi? Pacific Ocean changing temp from warm to cold, so less moisture to be carried your way, so more likely to have dry, drought conditions.
By the way, in much the same way that Iselle was mistaken re her ability to take on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, so to the folly in thinking that mere humans are going to control the weather. The epitome of arrogance to think that we could ever make a difference. Oh, and by the way, to borrow from Bastardi, the only thing getting greener owing to the efforts of some is Al Gore’s bank account. The locals here in Hawaii have a saying that applies to him as well, but before we get there, recall that after losing the election, there’s wasn’t much left for him do, so he found some cause by which he could help us all. And so the local saying here: He came to do good and wouind up doing well. That’s Al Gore as well. The variant would be, the white Prods came with their bibles and tales of God, while the locals owned the land. Now the locals have the bibles and God while the Prods have all the land.
By the way, the one other salient between Bastardi and the cultists is that Bastardi really only cares about the weather, and understanding it. He doesn’t have a cause. He’s not trying to save the world. Why I loath the “progressive” types, since the “save the worlders” can only get us all killed. That’s what the history has always been. I mean, to take some junk science, you didn’t think that the eugenics folks were acting in the name of regression and all that, did you? They too were “progressive”. As I said, gonna get us all killed.