An Admission: Nature in Control
This article caught my eye. Its authors examine reasons for the pause in global warming, and coincidentally, the sun, the oceans and stochastic events show up. I say coincidentally because that’s exactly what I opined would cause cooling, and got roundly trashed for by global warming proponents, seven years ago on The O’Reilly Factor in what I termed the triple crown of cooling.
This article caught my eye. Its authors examine reasons for the pause in global warming, and coincidentally, the sun, the oceans and stochastic events show up. I say coincidentally because that’s exactly what I opined would cause cooling, and got roundly trashed for by global warming proponents, seven years ago on The O'Reilly Factor in what I termed the triple crown of cooling.
This article on the matter is from May 2010. The idea was first presented in 2007. The factors contributing to the triple crown of cooling : 1.) oceanic cycles; 2.) solar cycles; and 3.) a wild card: volcanic activity.
Since 2005, temperatures have done this:
How do you deny this? The aforementioned article doesn’t; its authors simply try to say the heat is “hiding in the ocean.” Yet we see Dr. Bill Gray from the 1970s opining that this is what happens naturally in his ideas on the Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is summed up nicely in this latest paper. (Translated: When it cools in one part of the ocean, it warms in another, and vice versa). I guess the authors of the above study have not read, or dismissed, Dr. Gray’s ideas – odd given what Dr. Gray predicted in the ‘70s turned out to be right.
All these are perfectly logical, natural and, most importantly, scientifically sound explanations that are being passed off as AGW-induced. So why is the “come to God moment” of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) immediately accepted, but the ideas of one who was right from 40 years ago are not?
I was hammered by the Left when I took a stand on this. Basically, they are admitting we are right. By acknowledging the sun, the oceans and other non-human based events are causing this, they are simply admitting that these control whatever CO2 is purported to do. No one denies the climate is fluid. No one denies CO2 does play some role in the magnificent setup that makes life possible on Earth and its contribution to the estimated 33 degree Celsius of warming greenhouse gasses add to the temperature of the planet. (Water vapor being 100 times more prominent than CO2, carbon dioxide’s part varies from .4 to .7 of the warming.) But there is no tipping point, nor is one even truly possible given the nature of the entire system. But in showing the explanation for why the warming has paused, and deflecting it to other areas, they are: a.) now telling us something they did not tell us before, which of course means we have spent 17 years taking precautions against a dire forecast they issued that has not materialized; b.) they are admitting that nature can control what input man has; and c.) they are listing the very reasons I brought up seven years ago, and became an object of targeted attacks by many, as the reason the pause has taken place.
So what happens when we continue to be right? Where will the blame be placed then? When does the statute of limitations run out on what has been a huge anchor on our nation?
My forecast remains the same: That as measured by objective satellite, the global temperature by 2030 will return to where it was in 1978. It’s intuitive that the sun, oceans and stochastic events all have much more influence than a gas increasing at 1.8 parts per million a year, with the increase yearly a smaller percentage of the total (as the total grows, its percentage does not unless the increase grows). The fact is, it’s boxed in by all that is natural around it, and that’s the message of the so-called pause (and of late, the reversal).
Notes and asides: This cold winter was loudly forecasted by Weatherbell along with the major cold shots well in advance, and the ones to follow in the coming couple of weeks – which I believe will cause a great deal of economic impact, as well as take its toll in other areas. I want to assure you, I used no CO2 in the preparation of the forecast, nor was CO2 involved in any of the considerations that led to the forecast. See? I am trying to keep my carbon footprint small.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
Start a conversation using these share links: