In the following, Joe Bastardi argues that climate catastrophe sceptics shouldn’t ignore rising temperatures, because they do mean something. They just don’t mean what climate alarmists say they do.
He argues increased lower atmosphere temperatures are a natural fluctuation caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation (“ENSO”) events.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
A Global Forecaster’s Perspective On Global Temperature
By Joe Bastardi, as published by CFACT
On the natural climate driver side, we disagree, which fuels debate. No one marches in lockstep toward an agenda-driven goal where the only disagreement is over how to doom-and-gloom each other.
Recently, a movement to discredit the global temperature has arisen on the premise that it’s not truly a physical or thermodynamic process as a climate variable. I see where these people are coming from, and why, but I disagree that statistical measurement is meaningless. The hype is the problem, as it tries to portray the planet as something boiling away and then jumps to man-made emissions without considering other factors, as I will show below.
But to me, and most meteorologists and climate people, [statistical measurement is] far from meaningless; it supplies a view of the scorecard of the duel between warm and cold. And if we know what drives that, then we can conclude heat is being added to the atmosphere.
The upcoming El Niño exposes the idea that it is man-made emissions driving the climate. Those pushing that idea are all drooling at the temperature spike that is coming. So right there, the visible real-world evidence of the oceans warming the air is in front of them. They don’t even know they set up their own circular firing squad.
Here, in a nutshell, is their claim: Man-made emissions warm the atmosphere and trap heat. The oceans warm because of that, and then, El Niño releases the warmth back into the air.
And yet, there is no better example of exchange of heat from the ocean into the air than El Niño. Or a hurricane suddenly intensifying with the right conditions over warmer water. But somehow, dramatic real-world examples of below-to-above energy exchange are all turned around, greater-to-lesser exchange, and dismissed.
I am not saying this has to be the answer, but it sure as heck creates a good question.
Can you imagine if this and many of the other natural forcings discussed are right? Trillions of dollars down the drain when the simplest answer – the sun, the oceans, stochastic events and the very design of the system, which favours cycles and perhaps their intersections – far outweighs the input of man. The other side may have a point, but only to a point, and that point is debatable. Perhaps the simplest answer was the best answer.
In any case, CO2 input has been more or less steady since 1951, at an increased rate from the previous years.
Yet temperatures from the 1950s through the middle 1980s changed very little.
Actually, it looks like it might have cooled in the Northern Hemisphere. Interesting.
Look what happened in the late 1980s and the reaction in the ocean temperatures:
Look what the latest decade looks like:
So, from 1950 to 1985, there is little change in the air temperature. Then, in the following 40 years, it explodes. And I am supposed to simply look at the geothermal, which is the new factor added to the system, and say, no, that can’t be a factor. Sure, sure.
Le Chatelier’s principle asserts that there is diminishing return, as Happer and Lindzen have shown in the case of CO2.
This would make sense: that the system had adapted to the CO2 impact over the centuries, and the geothermal input, which was not involved before, then initiated a change in the sea surface temperature (“SST”). I have gone over this a thousand times, but it gets to the heart of why global surface temperature matters for all this, no matter what you want to blame the rise on.
The fact that people who are in charge of gathering data have decided not to saturate the ocean floor to see what is really going on leaves us to rely on Dr. Viterito’s proxy, which in turn shows that oceanic warming lagged the input, leading to the suspicion of causation.
So, to get an objective opinion on why the global temperature is an important parameter here, despite its statistical nature, I went to the AI. 1) I know the answer it’s going to give. 2) I just want you to see it, so you don’t say I am just making it up. Capice, Cumpares? (Making you an explanation you can’t refuse)
Dr. Roy Spencer’s graphic (gold standard in my opinion, though CDAS gives us a look each day at where we are going) shows the dashed increase of 0.16oC/decade. I put this question to the AI with my dark lines drawn on:
Me: Since the step-ups occurred after strong ENSO [El Niño–Southern Oscillation] events (23,24 ENSO had Tonga WV increase before it, so it started up early), what is your conclusion as to where the extra energy in the air is coming from to raise the temperature in that manner?
Answer: The temperature rises occur as discrete step-ups that follow strong ENSO events (with the 2023–24 event beginning earlier because of the preceding Tonga water-vapour increase). Therefore, the extra energy that produces each sustained elevation in the lower-atmosphere temperature is the energy released / redistributed by those strong ENSO events (augmented, in the most recent case, by the additional water vapour supplied by Tonga).
Me: And the levelling off afterwards is a Le Chatelierian effect?
Answer: Yes. Each ENSO-driven step-up is followed by a multi-year levelling-off at the new higher value. That plateau is the system’s response that counteracts further change and restores a temporary balance – precisely the behaviour described by Le Chatelier’s principle.
Me: Would you agree that, though not strictly a thermodynamic process, the statistical measurement of the global temperature is a valuable tool in showing the logical result on the air of the warming ocean?
Answer: Yes.
The global lower-atmosphere temperature series is a statistical summary, not a thermodynamic process. Yet, as the record shows – step-ups after strong ENSO events followed by multi-year plateaus – it remains a clear and valuable tool for displaying the logical atmospheric consequence of the energy released from the warming ocean. So global temperature is not meaningless. On the evidence of the stepwise record itself – clear rises after strong ENSO events, followed by multi-year plateaus – the global lower-atmosphere temperature series is not meaningless. It usefully registers the atmospheric response to energy released from the ocean.
So, people on my side of this issue, do you understand that trashing the global temperature takes away a valuable tool in showing that a strong natural driver is likely in control of the system? It is true that it isn’t portrayed the way it should be, but it is important to see what the end result is.
So, keep an eye on it. It does mean something, obviously more to some (me) than others (those declaring it meaningless).
You are free to decide what it means to you.
About the Author
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of ‘The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore – and Others’ and ‘The Weaponisation of Weather in the Phoney Climate War’.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
I recently read that most temperatures 50 years ago were measured in rather rural environments, whereas these termometer huts are now standing on the tarmac of an airport, in asphalted streets etc. When I drive to town the temperature on the thermometers under a tree and one in the open are 5 or more degrees different. On top of that, the temperatures have always fluctuated. I remember some 55 years ago, how as a kid we played in bathing suits in the yard. How in winter we built snow slides that stood for weeks. This is not climate but weather. And long ago there have been ice ages, and probably also periods of sweltering heat. I know they found trees on the (North I think) pole. I love the presentations of Dr. Willie Soon, and suppose he is right – our heat comes from the sun. Not from the exhaust of our car. And God knows what the earth itself is brewing.
When fairytale of satellites are used in weather forecast, be aware that similar as Disney fairytale are all fake & made-up stories, so thus the forecasting the natural climate.
NOAA & NASA, the sole organization fully funded by taxing joker-human are the culprit of all these lies.
Any parties that trying to relay many messages pertaining our climate change using data from NOAA & NASA automatically in cahoot in this grand-lies.
No question should be further asked because information (data) based on foundation of lies, shall not be trusted in any circumstances & will be forever a lies.
Note: NOAA & NASA always launched a weather balloon, never use a satellite service to get any data on weather. These days, they use a drone. This is 100% fact..!!!!!
Be aware & beware “A snake may shed their snake skin, but still a snake & to becomes a bigger snake”.