The Triple Crown of (Climate) Cooling
A few years ago, when I started challenging people to make forecasts on where temperatures would be by 2030, I coined a term called the Triple Crown of Cooling. It’s really more the Triple Crown of Climate. This was to make it clear that the sun, the oceans and stochastic events, such as volcanoes, were so important to the climate that it rendered CO2 – at .04% of the atmosphere and 1/100th of the greenhouse gasses – for all intents and purposes powerless in changing the earth’s climate. That is not to say it does not have a role. I like the idea that the 33 degree Celsius of warming that is attributed to GHGs allows for .4 to .7C to be from CO2. But the magnitude of factors stacked against it keep it boxed in that range.
A few years ago, when I started challenging people to make forecasts on where temperatures would be by 2030, I coined a term called the Triple Crown of Cooling. It’s really more the Triple Crown of Climate. This was to make it clear that the sun, the oceans and stochastic events, such as volcanoes, were so important to the climate that it rendered CO2 – at .04% of the atmosphere and 1/100th of the greenhouse gasses – for all intents and purposes powerless in changing the earth’s climate. That is not to say it does not have a role. I like the idea that the 33 degree Celsius of warming that is attributed to GHGs allows for .4 to .7C to be from CO2. But the magnitude of factors stacked against it keep it boxed in that range.
If there are bigger swings, it’s because of bigger things! The theory is very simple to test and we are seeing that now with the leveling off and decline of global temperatures that has started (I have shown these graphics many times). We have the objective satellite measurements now, so let’s measure temperatures as the Pacific cools again and as the Atlantic follows suit. Let’s see if we are back where we were in 1978 by 2030.
Why 1978? That is when the Pacific flipped into its warm cycle and, coincidentally, we started measuring by satellite! So naturally, you would have a cooler starting point. The Pacific was in its warm cycle from 1978 to 2007, and temperatures responded by warming. The Atlantic joined in 1995 and will be there 5-10 more years before turning cooler. This is not hard to envision: When the tropical oceans warm, we get warming of the air until the air adjusts to the warming. It then levels off. As the oceans cool, the air will cool. That is what this graphic below is showing you. The CO2 “correlation” was coincidental and was not the cause of the warming.
The first problem is that with data compiled before 1978, NOAA/NASA can do whatever they want with temperatures to make them look cooler. For more on this, read this article from Real Science’s Steven Goddard:
• NASA Massively Tampering With The US Temperature Record
The second problem is the disconnect between computer models and reality. They are absurdly bad, yet they are one of the three “lines of evidence” the EPA uses to justify their extreme stance on this subject. From Dr. John Christy:
Consider then this reconstruction of the climate and CO2 by Dr. Vincent Grays:
Yet 150 coal plants have already been shut down, with 200 more on the chopping block.
We can go on and on. If you do not pay attention, it allows the Left to get away with what they are doing – no matter what facts face them, they simply double down on what their agenda is.
If you wish to read more as to why I think this comes down to the sun, the oceans and stochastic events (all natural) versus CO2, I would suggest you read this report on the sun:
This on the natural cycles of the ocean:
And this on the prime example of a stochastic event, volcanoes.
You know why I am the way I am about this? Because I have always used climate as an essential tool in meteorology. I think you need to know and understand climate to be a good forecaster, and that was drilled into me even before I went to college by a meteorologist, my father, who grew up during the last time the cycles were in a similar state. It’s a matter of preparation and the will to do so, and LOVE of climate because of LOVE for the weather! And while both sides of climate may be a means to an end, I would argue that my means uses climate to give me a better forecast in the end. My take is the other side of the issue is using climate and weather too, but their true love is an agenda-driven result that has nothing to do with climate or weather.
The motivation is very different. There may be little chance people that have dedicated their entire life to a cause will be able to stray from that cause, no matter what the facts show. Contrast this with what I use the climate and weather for, where one must adjust constantly to the atmosphere, knowing it’s an infinite and majestic nature. But in the end this comes down to the sun, oceans and stochastic events versus CO2. The answer seems obvious.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
