Columnist.
This article caught my eye: [More fatal earthquakes to come, warn geologists](http://europe.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017) Why? Because it has to do with something I talked about a few months ago in "[The Grand Slam of Climate](http://patriotpost.us/opinion/32761). This evolved out of the "[Triple Crown of Climate](http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19662)" idea that I pushed several years ago on "The O'Reilly Factor." To summarize, the three legs then were the sun, the oceans and *stochastic events,* which is what I will deal with here, and then recently an intuitive fourth leg was added: *The design of the entire system.*
My last article went over some aspects of man-made global warming that would let me know I may have the wrong idea on the issue. But I wonder if any alarmists have stopped to look at some of their most cherished metrics going the opposite way of their forecast. People that live in the real world understand that if reality is contrary to your predictions, it means you are wrong (or at least can be). It's been nearly 10 years since the Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, so here's a question we should be asking: Are we worse off today than the movie implied? Let's look at some of those aspects. The movie came out at a time I believe was meant to capitalize on the monster back-to-back hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005. But it was pretty arrogant to think that peak was the new norm. Then again, arrogance is the child of ignorance — in this case ignorance of an easy to see global cycle represented nicely by the ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) index.
There is a constant process I go through, from a forecast for tomorrow, to when I train with weights. Unless challenged, you do not improve. So the challenge is listed in the title above. I must always seek the right answer. It's not getting soft, it's simply using this methodology to either confirm or deny my idea. So, is there anything in the global warming debate that would convince me I am wrong? As a matter of fact, yes. 1.) The PDO, which is tracking nicely with the 1950s, turned cold early- and mid-'50s, warmed late (as it is now) and then turned cold again. The AMO, which is in its warm end game now, turned cold, but temperatures did not fall. However, since 2007 and the flip of the PDO, there has been a slight *decrease* in global temperatures on the NCEP CFSR data.
(Let's have some fun, shall we?)
The great John Fogerty classic was a testament to bad news and deception that seemed to be coming from all angles. It was truly a free-thinking song, ripping socialist agendas as enslaving ("Five year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains") and also a rallying point for those who questioned the Vietnam War. I have no idea where Mr. Fogerty stands on any of the issues of the day, but to me this song has always represented a true free-thinking man's challenge to authority in pursuit of the truth. That is how I view this art. A song is valuable when both sides think it's an anthem for them. What I took from the song was that deception came in a form that seemed to have good intentions, but was trapping people and enslaving them. Taken to the limit, anything short of the truth is a lie, and lies are meant to do evil no matter how they appear.
I introduced something on the O'Reilly Factor several years ago called the "Triple Crown of Cooling." I called it that because back in 2007 I thought a 20-30 year period of cooling would start, resulting in global temperatures returning to 1978 levels by 2030. I also introduced the concept that this cooling may cause a "time of climatic hardship" — in other words, the natural process of cooling after a process of natural warming could produce an uptick in extreme events. The increase in this is not clear, though one can argue it is occurring off the East Coast. The Atlantic still is in its warm cycle and will be for several more years, so the coastal water is warm. It is the reason I am very worried about the East Coast with hurricanes similar in magnitude to storms of the 1950s, though it has not yet occurred. That's right -- Irene, Sandy and Arthur can't hold a candle to eight major hurricane hits in seven years. None of the aforementioned storms was major.
In the wake of another year of useless energy spent, another year of claims and rebuttals to anthropogenic global warming is already beginning. The Moody Blues' Nights in White Satin comes to mind. I find myself at odds with both sides of the debate, for I am coming to the uneasy conclusion that this is one of the greatest wastes of time and energy in which I have ever been involved. As far as what I do for a living, the argument really means nothing. If it goes away tomorrow, I won't change what I have researched and used climate for one iota. The only reason I got involved was because a lot of people who never make forecasts decided they were going to tell other people why something was happening after the fact. To an operational meteorologist, you have no business dictating to the guy that is taking a stand beforehand why something happened. You want to do that, get out in front and be right.
[Read this Washington Post piece](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/) on the idea that global warming (what happened to climate change?) is driving "crazy" winters. It's a testimony to a lot of nonsense going on in our nation today, where people have little ability to remember the past and understand that history is what got us where we are today. Let's look at last winter. As "crazy" as it was, the fact is that Weatherbell.com, my company, forecasted it well in advance by looking at the winters of 1917-191 and 1993-1994 -- *before global warming was "driving crazy winters."*
Last year, WeatherBELL went out with a cold winter forecast for our clients in July. This year we were out with the cold winter outlook in April, after having forecasted a "Garden of Eden" summer for the nation with a pool of cool over the central part of the U.S., plenty of rain, including in the Southwest, and the second year in a row of relaxation from the extreme heat of the summers of 2010-2012, which were strikingly similar to the summers of 1952-1954. As far as the hurricane season, most of the activity was in the area we described. Our team said it would be a lower than average year with very little activity in the deep tropics, most of it in the western Atlantic. Arthur was the strongest storm to hit the U.S. so early, on the western side of the center of activity which was mainly between the East Coast and Bermuda.
It's been a heck of a week for hysteria in the so-called Climate War. Apparently, with all the other things going on in the world, the hysteria has to be whipped up so people actually pay attention to this trumped-up agenda. Look at this, an inconvenient truth if hysteria is your agenda: "World Disasters Report for 2013 -- lowest number of catastrophies and deaths in 10 years." That's right. All this screaming and yelling about how bad it is, and we find that we are at a decade low in terms of catastrophes and deaths.
I knew it. There is another reason the Yankees are referred to as the "Evil Empire" by so many people that follow baseball, and it's now obvious -- global warming. The chart below shows the so-called "link" between global temperatures and CO2. The CO2 is in parts per million, and you can see it is marching up. But temperatures in the United States over the last century? Well not so much...
After 18 years of the magic "pause," are climate alarmists aware of where they have pushed the nation? For the record: Saying "pause" is the height of arrogance. First, it assumes the global temperature will start to rise again by the same people who said it would keep warming. Secondly, there has been a small, but perceptible cooling trend in the last 10 years.
I am drawing this reference from this article from someone who I look up to and admire -- [Dr. Roy Spencer](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/hey-ipcc-quit-misusing-the-term-risk/). In the last 100 years, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased from three molecules per 10,000 molecules of air, to four molecules out of 10,000 molecules of air. Which means we are being asked to believe the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of air in the last 100 years is causing catastrophic climate change that threatens mankind.
This is the last regular *Patriot Post* column I am doing, because there is nothing else left to argue about. The simple fact is this: A test that can be evaluated objectively is underway. That test matches the ideas of people like me that nature is in control (i.e., sun, oceans, stochastic events) vs. the idea that CO2 is the control knob. We have the objective way at looking at it by satellite and that measure started in 1978 after the Pacific was in its cold cycle for 30 years. The game is now in the second half. The warming that occurred from the late 70s to mid 90s was correlated almost 1 to 1 with the Pacific warming, and this large body of water with tremendous stores of energy warming the air till the global atmosphere adapted, and the temperature rise leveled off. We could not observe nearly as accurately before similar events, we did not have the satellites to do so! The Pacific flipped into its warm cycle in 1978, for the first 30 years of satellite era temps, and is now turning cold. The Atlantic is in its warm cycle, but will soon turn colder. So we simply watch the global temperatures while the downside of the cycle occurs and see what they do.
Al Gore is at it again. He was just in Australia (he should hire Weatherbell.com to help him avoid the "Gore effect" -- Brisbane recorded its coldest temperature in 103 years during his stay) and told [BBC](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28199131), "This [climate change] is the biggest crisis our civilization faces." A statement like that, which echoes much of what State Secretary John Kerry says, is very serious indeed, so perhaps Al Gore should answer a couple of basic questions. Some points first. CO2 in the atmosphere is portrayed in proportions that distort it in the same way a picture of an ant under a microscope would distort its size in relation to the environment around it.
Excuse me? This has been taken apart for over three months by people like me. Look at the article below, first written April 13. It was the first of many on Weatherbell.com premium dissecting the reasons for the AGW-driven hysteria of a Super Niño. And this is the fifth time I have caught someone driving this train since the 1997 Super Niño. Every time an El Niño looked like it would appear, they screamed Super Nino. But I started with this post, entitled, "SuperNINOBustalicioushypetoomuchadosis." That is Super Niño Bust a licious hype too much a dosis.
I will be in Las Vegas for the 9th International Conference on Climate Change July 7-9. I enjoy attending these because everyone I come in contact with is someone I can learn from. My father and mother taught me to surround myself with people I could look up to. I adapted that attitude in my training, in my work, and in the person I married. And when I go to these events, I am in awe of the people I get to talk with. I bring some of them up quite often in these pages. One has to be careful, given the situation today, to not let your reasons for doing what you do stray. I often feel bad for a lot of people in the anthropogenic global warming camp. How can they possibly walk back their position? It's the reason why, no matter what metric goes the other way, they either ignore it or create a reason they never had before because they did not forecast it to happen. But what else can they do? Look at the people from their camp that have started to disagree. They are chastised and demeaned. There is a simple reason: Their goal, whatever it is -- be it self-esteem, money, power, control, or all of the above -- is their god. It's what they are forever in pursuit of. And when it becomes your god, you can not defy it.
For close to 18 years, there has been no warming of the atmosphere. Most of the warming that occurred anyway has occurred in the polar regions during winter seasons rather than in the temperate regions and the tropics. One of the EPA lines of evidence for their endangerment findings -- the trapping hot spot theory over the tropics -- is visibly false. (As are the other two. One of them actually uses computer models that have busted horribly as "evidence" of warming). I refer the reader to something I wrote about the EPA last year and is now coming into view front and center.
Ever in an argument with a AGW proponent? I have stopped trying to argue with someone who refuses to look at anything but that which supports his own position. It's pointless. So in an effort to end a debate quickly, I now politely ask individuals to explain how CO2, given how small it is relative to all around it, actually changes the entire system. That usually stops it with most of the crowd. Like many things I see with new age forecasters today, they will jump on one weather factor and not understand its behavior is because of everything around it.
My wife is a big Rangers fan and I have been watching some of the Stanley Cup playoffs. I am a bigger fan of hockey in person. The game is as fast paced and tough as one can possibly get. Of course I like boxing too, and I remember once I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. Snare shot please. Actually, I do understand the reason for fighting in hockey. I once met someone who lead the NHL in penalties when he played, and he explained it to me. It has to do with protecting people -- except in hockey you don't pay for protection; you have someone that makes the other guy pay by protecting your guy.
