Close this search box.

Joe Bastardi: The summer offensive on climate ramping up for the weather weaponizers

By Joe Bastardi

It’s that most wonderful time of the year for the weather weaponizers. It’s summer, so it gets hot, and it’s hurricane season.

So, the climate hysteria offensive is here, and it is going to get stronger. It’s the perfect storm of the election, the current highest on record in the satellite era, which can be directly linked to natural sources. For instance, long-term geothermal input into the oceans, which in turn has been pumping more water vapor into the air, is the only GHG that has a direct correlation with temperatures.

Saturation Mixing ratio tables show this:


Once the air is saturated, if there is a continued increase of water vapor, the temperature must rise, or if they try to hold steady, there must be precipitation. It takes very little to do that where it is cold, much more where it is warm.  Condensation processes are much slower where it’s warmer.  It’s not a matter of “Holding water”, it’s a matter of the column of air expanding. So the density of water vapor molecules, despite an increase, is not as great. When the column contracts (cools), condensation occurs. So the kind of warming one sees, for instance, the arctic warming in the winter, but not in the summer, is an example. Combine that with the fact that MELTING ice is a cooling process, while freezing is a warming process to the air around, explains why the Arctic is warming more in its winter season. But it’s all linked to water vapor, not CO2.

One way you can tell this is the case in the US is that night-time temperatures are increasing more over the east and south than daytime highs, which actually are not increasing much as more clouds form when it warms. This shows you the response in the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere is not as fast. Remember all the talk of the new Dust Bowl.  Apparently, it did not hit them that this would be the case.  And we all see what happened to California’s perma drought, but when it dries in the west this summer, you can bet that talk will be back.

Where is the increase in WV coming from? In the past few decades, I strongly suspect increased geothermal input. I have shown this dozens of times, and I don’t know how one can simply dismiss it.



It is difficult, if not impossible to say this has nothing to do with the warming. Far more likely is that it’s a major cause. From 1950 to 1990, the SSTs across the planet changed little, and there was no alarming warming. CO2 feedback bands were already saturated around 1950. They can do no more than what they do in the warming process once they are saturated. So why did the oceans warm so much after 1990? The answer seems clear. The cumulative buildup of heat in the oceans leads to infrequent, though stronger El Ninos, which we saw in 1997,2015, and recently. These are huge water vapor sources, and temperatures have risen in a step-up function. The immense amount of water vapor put into the atmosphere by the Honga volcano, which has a lag time that intersected with the El Nino, makes perfect sense as to why temperatures spiked as they did, and this SHOWS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE EMISSIONS. The warming is disproportionately occurring more strongly over the ring of fire in the Pacific, and due to the thermohaline circulation, it naturally migrates further to the north, which in turn leads to the distortion of temperatures. The midpoint of the earth’s highest mean temperatures has pulled north due to this. The response is the weakening of the Hadley cell, meaning less cloudiness over the tropics and more incoming solar over warm waters, adding to that aspect. I suspect the reason Antarctica is NOT WARMING is due to the pull northward of the mean highest global temperature average. All this leads to different feedback. In some cases, it can help enhance local extremes, and in just as many, decrease.

So we get tweets like this, from an Emmy-award-winning meteorologist who graduated with honors in the field.


But the warmth is  PROOF IT IS NOT man-made since there is no way we see that kind of warming in such a short period of time from man-made sources. There is climate change, but when looking at the reason CO2 would be causing it as opposed to NATURAL SOURCES, CO2 has to be trivial. Yet this is a classic example of what I am saying to expect. He tweets a comment that is pointed directly at ripping De Santis. Again, this is a meteorologist who graduated with honors and has won Emmys, much more credentialed than I could ever be. But he neglects to show the other side of the issue. Weather, after all is diverse, equitable in balancing things out, and inclusive as far as the reactions of all sources. (There, I support DEI in showing the entire picture in climate, ha ha). But by eliminating the major natural source, the left does not support it in climate.

BTW, if things are so bad in Florida why are so many people moving there? Why is Jeff Bezos buying mansions on a man-made barrier island that is long overdue for a major hit? Or Obama has a house in a place that if Edna from 1954 returns would likely be damaged severely?

Here is another little ditty. Look at the people in on the tweet. One is Climate Central.

Where are they located?

One Palmer Square, Suite 402, PrincetonNJ 08542.

Well, guess who teaches at Princeton? Dr. Will Happer of the CO2 coalition. And he is much more credentialed than most of us. Why has no one from Climate Central ever bothered to go over there and talk to Dr Happer? It’s because none of these people want anything to do with actually looking at the total picture. So why would someone listen to them if they don’t at least stand up and have their ideas tested?

If you are a meteorologist to make your forecast, do you look at just one thing? Don’t you have to, using the lingo of today, to come up with your best solution, have a diverse view, understand the weather, try for equity in a search to balance out the factors, and be inclusive of all the factors? You would not shut that out in a forecast, would you?  If a Cat 4 hurricane is heading for South Florida on one model but another says no, or in the case of models today, many models, do you not look? So why would you not practice that when advocating for ideas that basically would end the very way of life that made it possible for you to rise to where you are today?

Why would you not say, yes, its warming, but not nearly as much as the models said?


Would you not look at the rise of CO2 understanding these bands have been saturated since 1950?

And ask why the oceans have warmed in the last 30 years?


Look at 1950 to 1960


1981 to 1990


Very little, but you can see the oceanic warming since 1990  is shown in the chart above with the explanation.

All I am asking of people pushing this is they look at what they don’t look at.  The apostle Paul said it best, “Those who know what they know don’t yet know what they ought to know”. Our side knows the CO2 feedback idea inside and out, and it is great if there is nothing else. It is sort of like winning with no opposition. Interesting, eh, maybe that’s where Biden is getting his strategy to get elected again, win with no opposition (See there’s linkage).

So, I am asking the meteorologists out there to step out of their comfort zone and look. The meteo misinformation media is going to pile on in the hurricane season. A hurricane season, which, if I am right about from DECEMBER, will be a hurricane season from hell. Yet that forecast was made IN DECEMBER in part based on my hypothesis that due to all I have pointed out, a rapid La Nina response had to take place due to the temperature distortion ( since the 1997 Super Nino), and the Atlantic had to remain warm. The planet is in a La Nina base state where there are more La Ninas than El Ninos. Keep in mind, La Ninas are counters to warming. They will level off the warming and cause some drops, as we will see in response to this one, but until input of solar and geothermal decreases, nature will lead to other step-ups) We see most hurricane forecasters following what Weatherbell said in December.

image.gif Read the latest here, as I added back up factors in May but did not change the forecast.  Basically it’s proceeding according to the December Idea.

So here we go. Now what will happen in 2025? Global temperatures will decrease. And the hurricane season will be much less than this one. Yet the combination of the warmth of this year and the hurricane season will lead to this turning into a media-pushed cause for alarm. There are so many blame climate change articles coming out now that I can’t keep up with them.

And you don’t think all the weather people are not going to have their marching orders? The major meteo-media misinformation is only showing one side of the issue and is going to have a field day with the heat (for all you Buffalo Springfield fans out there).

And so, while it may seem like a small number of people (according to the polls) are concerned, small amounts turn elections. I warned about this before.

So, for whoever has an open mind and an open heart, here is my advice. DON’T BELIEVE ME. BUT GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. I challenge all the meteorologists out there to go and look at the amount of counter-evidence as to the cause. I realize it’s risky. Quite frankly, if I were a young met today, I don’t know if I would have the guts to do it. But this steamroller is coming, and while right now many in my field are riding on it, once it has taken over, there won’t be much room left. You, like the rest of the country, may find yourself run over by it and have no way to get back up.