Some say money can buy brains, brains are cheap. Duffers think that, make the mistake of confusing rote with The Spark. As a wit said ‘the most intelligent person in the room is the room’… to which I add, buying others to inside still leaves the room. Self selection is recursive.
There again for here, an oscillation does not explain itself. Small step first.
Joe Bastardi is writing sense, Gosselin runs with it.
A Single Meteorologist Explains What $165 Billion In Government-Funded Climate Science Couldn’t
By P Gosselin on 24. August 2014
Large scale oceanic oscillations responsible for most of the post 1980 “warming”
By Joe Bastardi
I think global warming is a misnomer.
There is a distortion of the temperature pattern on the globe, brought about by the natural cyclical warming events of the warm PDO and warm AMO together. I spoke about this at Heartland a couple of years ago – how the sea ice increase in the south and the decrease in the north were the hidden message that here is no “warming” just a distortion.
A combination of human identified patterns forming a greater pattern, no surprise.
I’ve been watching the north/south change for a long time, making a coherent whole of this from data eluded me, in part from the unreliable nature of older data.
Quite what Talkshop opinion will make of it given various views will I hope be good reading.
Post by Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Joe Bastardi has always talked sense, and personifies that meteorologists know more about what makes the climate tick than those who run lovely computer programmes on their super-computers paid for by you and me.
This post by him makes sense to me, and this quote form that post is a keeper:
“”The real danger to the globe is not global warming, it’s the global warming agenda.””
Real people make sense, we detect agendas.
If you follow Joe you will be well aware of his favourite explanation for how the earth’s climate works
Click to access gray2012.pdf
Page 10 onwards talks about the AMOC and how it effects the climate.
‘So the southern oceans around Antarctic are cool in a warm PDO, but warm in a cool PDO’
That sounds better than some of the convoluted pseudo-logic that gets peddled about the Antarctic sea ice expansion.
Chylek et al 2010
When Arctic warms; Antarctic cools (figure 2)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2010GL042793/asset/grl26958.pdf?v=1&t=hza6qhz7&s=33ead3dc2bcd71bc1915498edfd6711215adeda6[amended link] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042793/full
I posted on the general topic here:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/08/how-to-rule-the-world/
A commenter to that said:
I think that your statement “At the street level each side is convinced of the sanctity of its motives and the perversity of the opposition.” is the key.
Warmest “know” that mankind un-natural actions are leading to total destruction of the womb of Mother Earth. Scientific refutation of a few details don’t diminish their beliefs. It’s just a matter of finding new scientific theories to attach too to inevitably prove their position.
Equally so; prohibitionist (like myself) know that rampant drug use is also leading humanity into a cultural abyss, into which mankind seems blissfully happy to leap into.
The prohibitionist wish, like those of the warmest, is that we can find some science to back up our position before it’s too late.
==================================
It is not just the science that is lacking. Evidence – the most important part of science – is missing as well.
Chylek 2010 paper – after the ritual nod in the direction of GHG theory:
‘The first problem is that the early 20th century (1910–1940) rate of the Arctic warming (0.63 K/decade) was at least as high as the 1980–2008 warming rate (0.60 K/decade), suggesting that natural climate variability can produce a warming similar to the present one. Furthermore, none of the AOGCMs used in the IPCC 2007 climate assessment report has been able to reproduce the early 20th century (1910–1940) Arctic warming followed by a sharp cooling period (1940–1970), although all models simulated the post 1970s warming trend [Gillett et al., 2008]. Consequently our understanding of Arctic climate, its internal variability, its drivers and responses is not yet complete.’
Not yet complete – some understatement there 😉
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog and commented:
“It takes a working knowledge of where the climate has gone in order to know where it is likely to go. Once the AMO flips to its cool phase, global temperatures will begin a descent much like the ascent we witnessed back in the 80s and 90s, which got us to our current plateau.”
Quite a fair prediction/projection considering it is easily testable in Joe’s lifetime.
I call it a regionalism interpreted through mathematics as a globalism. Or, Computational Reality, not Representational Reality: the math takes regional changes, divides by the global, and gets a “global” changes. This is a Computational Reality: you cannot deny the math. But the result does not “represent” how the globe has changed or is changing.
Politically, it would be like saying the media support the Liberal-Democratic positions by a 5:1 ratio, therefore the country is Liberal-Democratic in philosophy. You cannot deny that the media is positioned this way, but the electorate may not be.
Doug Proctor says: August 26, 2014 at 3:17 am
“I call it a regionalism interpreted through mathematics as a globalism. Or, Computational Reality, not Representational Reality: the math takes regional changes, divides by the global, and gets a “global” changes. This is a Computational Reality: you cannot deny the math. But the result does not “represent” how the globe has changed or is changing.
Politically, it would be like saying the media support the Liberal-Democratic positions by a 5:1 ratio, therefore the country is Liberal-Democratic in philosophy. You cannot deny that the media is positioned this way, but the electorate may not be.”
HUH! Can you restate this in terms that mear earthlings may wonder about. Else it is true BS that must be discarded.
Blocking the southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
Cosmic rays high.
Circulation in the tropopause.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular
PDO relates to PC2 of SST, whereas AMOC relates to PCs3&4:
Joe’s narrative breaks down before 1930 due to PC1, as I’ve cautioned in the parallel discussion at NoTrickZone.
Chylek’s seesaw is (very seriously) misleading if the broader context is not recognized.
Caution: Dumbing the narrative down to just the seesaw ignores the biggest thing that’s going on, thus playing directly into the hands of CO2 alarmism.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
from May 21, 2008
“PDO/ENSO together with similar cyclic oscillations in all the other oceans combine to drive global temperature up or down regardless of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”
and:
“it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.”
Joe Bastardi does have a very sensible approach in trying to show what influences the climate. I do agree.
The only point I differ with him on is he assumes to much that the past will represent what is going to happen in the future which is not necessarily true. The climate historical record clearly shows this to be the case sometimes.. The earth does from time to time instead of cycling in a particular climate regime shifts to another climate regime. Not nearly all of the time but sometimes if circumstances should arise.
Given the current solar variability and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability I think it is quite possible that we could be at one of those times where the climate could shift to some extent into another climate regime rather then cycling in this current climate regime.
I am by no means sure this will occur but I believe the possibility is out there based on solar activity post 2005 and what may happen going forward. Not to mention Milankovitch Cycles on balance are favorable, while earth’s weakening magnetic field will compliment solar effects, while the initial state of the climate is such that change is possible. The initial state of the climate is not so entrenched in my opinion that it won’t be subject to solar changes but on the other hand it is not near threshold glacial /inter-glacial conditions either. Not like it was some 20000-10000 years ago.
Some secondary effects to watch for due to prolonged weak solar conditions are cosmic ray increases and volcanic activity increases , along with how meridional the atmospheric circulation becomes both in persistence and degree of magnitude.
Index AAO.
Blockade circulation over Antarctica. Growth temperatry. The decrease in ice growth.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Us see blocking polar vortex over the south magnetic pole.
