Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 2 – Dr. Boslough’s wager is truly a sucker bet.
TheHuffingtonPost published a laughable post on December 31st by Sandia Labs’ Mark Boslough titled Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me? It begins (You’re going to enjoy this):
I, Mark Boslough, being of sound mind, do hereby challenge any individual or organization to a $25,000 bet that global warming is real and will continue. If the climatological average global land surface temperature goes up again in 2016, setting another new record, the party that accepts my challenge must donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit of my choice. If not, I will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit designated by the accepting party.
Details are below. But it doesn’t matter. It’s a sucker bet. Everyone knows that global warming is real.
Dr. Boslough is correct, inasmuch as it is a sucker bet, but not for the reason or reasons he claims. Even skeptics expect global surface temperatures (and global lower troposphere temperatures) will be higher in 2016 than they were in 2015, but skeptics understand the reasons for it…that a strong El Niño raises global surface temperatures in the El Niño evolution year AND (typically) even more in the El Niño decay year. That means, as the 2015/16 El Niño winds down in 2016, global surface and lower troposphere temperatures will continue to rise in response to the El Niño. I reminded readers of this likelihood back in September 2015, in the blog post Tired of the Claims of “Warmest Ever” Month and Year? They Will Likely Continue Next Year. Not too surprisingly, Dr. Boslough’s blog post failed to mention El Niño.
NOTE: I do not recall ever hearing of Dr. Boslough before reading that blog post. I’m assuming he’s whining about human-induced global warming and not the warming associated natural variability. Maybe Dr. Boslough is someone who believes that any global warming is bad, regardless of whether it was caused by the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases or by naturally occurring ocean-air processes. Then again, maybe Dr. Boslough is just another alarmist, one who disregards natural variability and is playing to the other alarmists in his audience with his publicity stunt. I would tend to believe he fits into the latter category. [End note.]
In addition to the 2015/16 El Niño, skeptics also understand that another naturally caused warming event was responsible for the reported record high (much-fiddled-with) SURFACE temperatures in 2015. That naturally caused warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific is known as The Blob. And we understand the reported record high SURFACE temperatures in 2014 were a response to The Blob. The Blob is another natural factor Dr. Boslough just happened to overlook. (See The Blob series of posts here.)
Another thing skeptics understand: Dr. Boslough failed to mention lower troposphere temperatures in his publicity stunt…that lower troposphere temperature anomalies are not close to record highs in 2015, though they will likely make a jump in 2016 in response to the current El Niño. See Figure 1. It includes meteorological annual mean (December to November) Lower Troposphere Temperature anomalies from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). (Data here.)
Figure 1
Note: I presented the meteorological annual mean data because the December 2015 data from GISS (Figure 2) is not yet available and I wanted the two graphs to agree. A graph of the annual (January to December) RSS TLT data is here. 2015 came in a distant 3rd warmest with the RSS lower troposphere temperature data. [End note.]
As one might expect, Dr. Boslough chose the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index as the metric for his publicity stunt. He writes:
Mark Boslough (MB) hereby presents a challenge as to whether the Earth’s climate will set a new record high temperature in 2016. The challenge will be settled using the NASA GISS mean global land surface temperatures for the conventional climate averaging period (defined by the World Meteorological Organization as 30 years) ending on December 31, 2016. If the global average temperature does not exceed the mean temperature for an equal period ending on the same date in any previous year for which complete data exist, MB will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit to be designated by the accepting party. Otherwise, tie accepting party will donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit designated by MB.
One last thing Dr. Boslough overlooked: The naturally caused (El Niño and The Blob) uptick in global surface temperatures in 2015 did not eliminate the difference in warming rates (linear trends) between surface temperature observations (his choice of GISS LOTI) and climate model simulations of surface temperatures. See Figure 2, which presents meteorological annual mean (December to November) values and linear trends for the period of 1980 to 2015. GISS and NOAA (the supplier of the sea surface temperature data for GISS) would have to tweak the data a whole lot more to get those two trend lines to agree…even with another naturally caused uptick in 2016.
Figure 2 (Corrected title block.)
The GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (December to November) are available here. The graph also includes the multi-model mean of the climate model simulations of global surface temperatures from the models stored in the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) archive. The climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report (AR5). See the post here for the reasons we use the multi-model mean. Those climate model outputs are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer. To highlight the difference in warming rates, the data and model outputs have been shifted so that the trend lines are zeroed at 1980.
CLOSING
As of this writing, Dr. Boslough has published a not-very-noteworthy 20 blog posts for TheHuffingtonPost since April 2013. I suspect we’ll be seeing more from him in 2016 when no one accepts his foolish bet and he tries to play additional silly games.
UPDATE
Forgot to mention that Gavin Schmidt, Director GISS, recently acknowledged that lower troposphere temperatures are supposed to be warming at a faster rate than surface temperatures. See the WattsUpWithThat post here.
UPDATE 2 – Dr. Boslough’s Wager is Truly A Sucker Bet
Bloggers MikeN and 1sky1 remind us here and here on the cross post at WUWT that the Dr. Boslough’s wager isn’t that global surface temperatures will be warmer in 2016 than they were in 2015. Dr. Boslough’s wager is for the average of 30-year periods. I should have read the wager more closely. (Thanks, MikeN and 1sky1.) Here are the specifics of the bet again:
The challenge will be settled using the NASA GISS mean global land surface temperatures for the conventional climate averaging period (defined by the World Meteorological Organization as 30 years) ending on December 31, 2016. If the global average temperature does not exceed the mean temperature for an equal period ending on the same date in any previous year for which complete data exist…
As an example, Figure 3 shows the last 30 years (1986-2015) of the meteorological annual mean (December to November) GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. In order for the 30-year average for the period of 1987-2016 to equal the value for the period of 1986-2015, the 2016 value has to equal the 1986 global temperature anomaly of 0.19 deg C. In other words, global surface temperatures would have to drop 0.65 deg C in 2016 for the average of 1987-2016 just to tie the average for 1986-2015.
Figure 3
Again, I should have read Dr. Boslough’s wager more closely. It truly is laughable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops. I repaired the title block in the featured image on the main page.
BTW, A Happy New Year to all!
Cheers.
Of course you are right, Bob, in your scientific criticism of this Dr Boslough – but is he really worth answering seriously? Silly blogs like his do not really matter – the world of blogs is full of similar stuff. You are really wasting your talent even replying to his stunt.
AndyE, this gave me an excuse to publish a model-data comparison with annual (December to November) data through 2015.
Cheers.
It’s a sucker bet because the reported anomalies are nothing more than man made constructs. They do not represent reality. The algos they are using for adjustments appear to be aligned with co2 measurements.
Yes, it’s a sucker bet. Boslough says:
the party that accepts my challenge must donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit of my choice. If not, I will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit designated by the accepting party.
That’s a perfect setup for Longbets.org. They’re legal, and the winner gets the tax deduction. Why doesn’t he just make the offer there?
“Why doesn’t he just make the offer there?”
Longbets offers must be for 2 years in the future. His offer is resolved in only one year
And a Happy New Year to you Bob.
I would take his bet if it were modified to say the global temperature 10 (or 5) years from now as measured by the UAH satellite temperature data-set will be lower than this year’s final measured temperature for the year. And this one would also be a sucker bet too since we are in a cooling period that looks to go on for at least 20 years. (but not a total sucker bet since I could be wrong)
~ Mark
Change the bet to decadal averages to reduce year-to-year variation and I am sure average global temperatures will continue to increase for the next few decades. The difference between radiant energy entering the atmosphere vs the amount radiating to space is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs/second (based on empirical measurements, not models). You can’t have that much energy entering the system without the temperature increasing.
Luke:
You mistakenly assert
Of course you can! All that is required is for other energy input to be reduced. And “4 Hiroshima bombs/second” is a trivial variation to the Earth’s thermal input when averaged over the entire surface of the planet. For example, clouds provide much, much greater variations to the energy input to the Earth than that. Clouds reflect sun light back to space so it does not reach the Earth’s surface
Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 W/sqmetre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sqmetre).
Richard
richardscourtney
And that decrease in low level clouds is a result of the increase in temperatures from CO2. Thanks for helping to make my point!
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1279-7#page-1
Luke my son…the Force gives you….the High Middle Finger !! Ta Ta….
1) The model doesn’t show if any of this is true.
2) Any increase in temperature during decrease in low level clouds has not shown to be a result from CO2.
3) The AMO increased during the same period so CO2 caused this too?
4) The solar activity declined during this period so CO2 caused this too?
5) ENSO got stronger during this period so CO2 cause this too?
Removing the change in low level clouds off global temperatures leads to previous global cooling.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/Had3vLowCloudvSolar3_zpshmrn6bav.png
Removing AMO from global temperatures leads to no trend in global temperatures.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v_RemovedAMO2_zpsssrgab0r.png
Removing the warming caused during the strong 1997/98 El Nino leads to very little change overall in global temperatures.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v1997-01removal_zpszk83g0xi.png
ENSO is totally determined by solar energy warming the Pacific ocean and solar activity tends to affect the Walker circulation leading to increases in El Ninos during quieter periods of the sun.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/SunSpots_v_NINO3.4Minrem_zpsjazoxqcs.png
Changes in carbon dioxide lag global temperatures especially regarding ENSO between one and nine months.
]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/Derivative%20RSSvCO2_zps6tiwpduo.png
So low level clouds associated with ENSO, solar activity and AMO either leads to CO2 having very little influence on any of these or CO2 directly changes low level clouds, ENSO, solar activity and AMO.
Which one could it possibly be? Proper science (observed and using scientific method) shows CO2 does not drive any of these.
Correct link for last one below.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/Derivative%20RSSvCO2_zps6tiwpduo.png
How about an alternative counter-bet:
I bet all the grant money I’ve received from the public purse and left-wing activist organizations for climate research in the last 30 years against the money you’ve received. But not using the much interfered-with land record. One city, one site, peak – not an average.
Since I haven’t been living high on the public hog, I don’t have to risk anything. But I bet this guy would be betting a very large amount. And he would lose it if he couldn’t make a sucker bet.
Luke on January 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm claimed:
Luke, my dear deluded friend, there is no evidence, no proof that “global warming” decreases global cloud cover. In fact, it would far, far more likely that increased temperatures would increase cloud cover. In fact, that is even what the con-artists on your side claimed when we began this ridiculous delusion that CO2 would fry us all.
It was claimed by climate “scientists” that a warmer world would bring increased cloudiness. This is perhaps one of the very few things they got right.
Some of this energy goes toward things other than heat. All that photosynthesis, you know.
The simplest response to the “highest evah” crowd was taught to me by my forth grade teacher, Mrs. Culp back in 1958: The world is coming out of an ice age some 10, 000 years ago and will continue to warm until such time as the onset of a new ice age
“The world is coming out of an ice age some 10, 000 years ago and will continue to warm until such time as the onset of a new ice age”
That line has no value unless you can tell us why we are warming. It’s like saying my car goes faster because the wheels go round quicker.
If you look at the temperatures for the past several thousand years you will see that temperatures in the interglacial had peaked and were slowly descending into the next glacial period. The only reason we are seeing the current increases is anthropogenic forcing.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
This is just the Greenland data and as a result, there is a lot of variation and localized peaks like the Medieval Warming Period (which was not evident world-wide). When data from all over the world are included the variation decreases but the pattern of long-term cooling is still evident.
Luke (at 12:57),
Your chart shows many up-slopes with 3 of them labeled. Let’s just take the one labeled, at its peak, Medieval Warming. Why did that occur? How do you know it is different from the episode shown by the red color?
Dear Luke…Your own chart shows that you are an idiot !!
Simon,
Engines! We don’t need no steenking engines!
Luke says – ‘Medieval Warming Period (which was not evident world-wide)’
Try MWP Antarctica, Argentina, New Zealand, Tasmania. Or were they merely localised events that occurred world-wide? Although not necessarily at the exact same time.
Luke,
” When data from all over the world are included the variation decreases but the pattern of long-term cooling is still evident.’
This is an interesting new back handed apology for the crawl. The Carbonists have long been heavily invested in Milankovitch to bail them out of the clear CO2 dependence on temperature in the ice cores. By any permutation of the orbital parameters our current interglacial still has legs. Now our interglacial has ended 6000 years ago??
Can’t have it both ways.
Luke
January 2, 2016 at 12:57 pm
You cannot possibly be serious. Your graph shows far greater excursions in the past than the present minor up tick. Your own illustration contradicts the assumption and in no way supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon has affected climate. For the record, I would argue that it must have. However, no one has offered any unarguable evidence of that effect. That would mean that at best, the effects, what ever they are, are masked by natural variation.
@Luke. We have a local colloquialism in my neck of the woods here in the UK that perfectly describes what is going on with you here.
“Son, you are talking with your dick hanging out”.
INET/Institute for New Economic Thinking, New York
Expert: Arianna Huffington, launched the Huffington Post in May 2005 and she won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.
http://www.ineteconomics.org/community/experts/ahuffington
INET was founded by Jim Balsillie, William Janeway and George Soros
INET has a number of Experts on its roster and Arianna is one of them. Handy to have the Huffington Post on your side?
Airhead Huffandpuff is an expert in what?
Happy New Year folks. Bob / others …. can anyone point me to an update on the blob? Thanks.
I haven’t updated it for a while, Stewart. The last full update was in August, but I do provide a graph for The Blob in my monthly SST updates. The most recent (through November 2015) is here:
And the full SST update is here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/november-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
I’ll try to publish a full update on The Blob the week of January 11 when the Reynolds OI,v2 sea surface temperature data are updated for December.
Bob Tisdale
The Blob is an unusual (recently detected actually – we really don’t know if it regularly was forming and dissipating over the many years in the past before summer 2014!) warm spot of water in the far northwest Pacific Ocean.
Would it have been warm enough to the northwest of the main spot to affect the polar sea ice north or south of the islands bordering the Okhotsk Sea? That area was the only region of the Arctic sea ice areas that was substantially lower in 2014-2015 Arctic sea ice season.
Luke,
You said, ” The only reason we are seeing the current increases is anthropogenic forcing.” Unless you can provide a reasonable explanation for the peaks for the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings, then your assertion would seem to be only an article of faith. They are all rapid increases, followed by rapid declines, overlain on a general downward trend. We haven’t yet seen the rapid decline on the current warming, but should it present, then there is little to distinguish this event from the previous ones. Occam’s Razor would suggest that all events have the same or similar causes.
Clyde,
As I stated in my post, the peaks you identify are a result of all the data coming from one location. When global data are considered, those peaks disappear.
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10000-year-graph.jpg
So the ball is back in your court. What is your explanation for the rapid current warming that is unlike anything we have seen in the past 10,000 years?
Dear Luke, if I tortured my data like that, I could make it confess to anything !!
No proxies show anything like the graph shown above for recent decades. Looks like to me the instrumental data has been incorrectly added on at the end because there is no comparison between the two.
“We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.short
Between ~8500 and 6000 years ago was significantly warmer than now.
Clyde S.,
Before continuing this “Luke” discussion, I suggest you go to Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre’s site) and search for Marcott. Read several of Steve’s posts on these sorts of reconstructions. It’s not pretty.
It did seem like instrumental data was added to discontinued previous proxies data (that some had claimed), but it is actually too short smoothing, statistical and too few proxies available leading to something that cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes. (note – not based on any of our conclusions, but the damage was already done with what the image shows intentionally)
Luke, if you splice and dice data, you can get it to show anything you want. Which makes the graph you posted worse than useless.
@Like. Wow, you cite Marcott and Mann and expect to be taken seriously? Both studies are a well refuted pile of manure. But if it suits your confirmation bias have at it. Far cleverer men and women than I will be happy to explain why you have no understanding of this issue other than your faith that it must be true.
Are you sure we are talking about the same thing? Did you really intend the response to be to me? I quoted Luke, not the studies you refer to.
And for those interested, here’s the monthly RSS TLT anomalies through December 2015:
It shows an uptick in December 2015 that could be the start of the lagged response of lower troposphere temperatures to the 2015/16 El Niño.
I suspect we’re soon going to see another of Christopher Monckton’s wonderful no-global-warming-for-XX years, XX months posts.
“It shows an uptick in December 2015 that could be the start of the lagged response of lower troposphere temperatures to the 2015/16 El Niño.”
_____________________
Very likely. Before 2015, RSS hadn’t broken any monthly records since September 2010. Now both November and December 2015 have broken the prior records for those months, and by some distance.
Assuming ENSO has now peaked, and given the lag in LT response, then we should see new record breaking months in RSS right across the first half of 2016.
Record breaking with 1/10ths of a degree. Oh my!!
Yes, the change will push the pause start date out another couple of months in RSS. However, since Antarctica appears to be cool the UAH data probably won’t see as big a jump and their pause start date could stay about the same. This would bring the two data sets even closer together.
Richar M
If RSS equals the current warmest monthly records in Jan-Jun in 2016, then a ‘pause’ with a 1997 or 1998 start month is effectively gone. The decadal trends would all be low, but they would all be positive to 2 decimal places.
From December 2015, the furthest we can push back a zero warming trend (decadal to 2 dec. places) in RSS is March 1997. If we assume RSS equals the current Jan-Jun monthly records over the next 6 months, then a March 1997 start date would show warming trend of +0.04C/dec. Any start month prior to that also gives a warming trend.
Any start month in 1997 and 1998 would show a warming trend in RSS, should 2016 equal or exceed current monthly warmest records in the first 6 months of 2016. Even starting the data from the warmest month in the RSS record, April 1998, would still produce a +0.04C/dec warming trend at June 2016, should RSS set these new records.
It might not happen; on the other hand, 2016 might even break a few of those existing records in RSS, as it has done over the last 2 months of 2015.
DWR54:
“positive to 2 decimal places”? That’s well within accepted margins of error and therefore useless for any argument at all – including such nonsense as the “warmest year evah” by something like 0,01C.
What’s the argument if temps drop late 2016 and do a repeat of 1996 vs.1999 and 2008 vs. 2010 with upticks in between [see graph above]?
The RSS non-positive trend now goes back as far as June 1997, one month later than last month, and so is the same length. It will not last beyond March without a temperature drop.
A similar jump in the UAH anomaly will see the Pause in that dataset disappear sooner than that, but we shall no doubt find out in a day or two..
Monckton will have to come up with some new headlines
Sure enough, the UAH anomaly for December has just been released, and is 0.44 deg C. This means that Pause-lovers have to be very careful where to pick the start date of their trend. It can start only in December 1997. All the other 444 possible starting months reveal a positive trend.
Next month, the Pause will have vanished (unless the January anomaly is 0.17 deg C or less)
As if ‘global warming’ (whatever that entails) could be measured with +0.01°C accuracy in a year when the known natural variation on the surface alone can be in the range of −90 °C and +90 °C within a day. For this reason I dare Mr Chuck’n Little to buy my bridge.
(-90+90)/2 = 0, (-90+90.02)/2 = 0.01. It’s the average.
Päivää Janne. Yes, Dr. Boslough’s indifferential calculus explains the bet exhaustively.
Your temperature range is a bit extreme, that would be -130 F to 194 F. As to your point re the accuracy of the measurement, the variance of the estimate depends on the number of samples taken. With thousands of stations all around the planet, it certainly is possible to get a SE that is 0.025 C.
To which I say…S T F W? And What are you going to do about it and why?
The law of large numbers does NOT apply in this case. Each measurement is unique in time and space. You need hundreds of measurements in the same location at the same time before you can invoke the SQRT (N) improvement.
Luke, you might want to educate yourself of the “central limite theorem” and its conditions.
Hint: it doesn’t apply to measurement devices!
“You need hundreds of measurements in the same location at the same time”
Even then, you are limited by the measurement device(s).
You can’t assume each of your tools is perfect on average; you can’t even assume many different tools give a perfect average.
You can’t apply theorems when you have no data. You have no data on the precision of averaged measurements. And I don’t believe any measurement device is designed to be used that way.
The idea of zero or neglectable systematic calibration bias is an extraordinary assumption.
I believe that global warming is real. I believe that for about half the time we have global warming and for about half the time we have global cooling.
But you can’t make any money with that.
In every 24 hour time period. lol. Indeed.
A more reasonable bet would be-
That the temperature average of 2017-2021 is higher than the 2016 (so taking el nino effect out) temperature. The temperature must be on a data set like the average of RSS and UAH satellite which are unadjusted to NOAA political pressures. And the increase must be significant, agreed to by the betters. The models predict 0.23C / decade, so five years should have at least say warming of 0.1 !
Or say for American betters lets compare another non-adjusted series the USCRN, where there has been NO increase for over ten years now, (since inception). Compare the period 2017-2021 to the base line. Is there a significant increase?
The proposed bet from Boslough are sucker bets and he knows it.
The powers that be can adjust the data until they get any answer they want.
Yes, yet another reference to the sign of the temperature change. So innumerate*. Same problem going to catch up with Christopher Monckton sooner or later…
Peter
* if you think that there’s a substantial difference between -0.1degc and +0.1degC change, chances are, you are innumerate. If you think the threshold should be say 1/2 of of the alleged “catastrophe” rate of 2 degC/century then you might be thinking a bit more numerate.
NASA says it’s going to be the worsterest in 2016 !! LOL
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-weather-el-nino/2016/01/01/id/707847/?ns_mail_uid=28597027&ns_mail_job=1648194_01022016&s=al&dkt_nbr=maq7utct
Thanks, Bob Tisdale.
As you have shown, natural ENSO controls the SSTs in the Pacific Ocean and are the most useful proxy for global lower troposphere global temperatures.
The Earth will do as ENSO pleases.
Happy New Year!
May 2016 be much better year.
Bob,
Yes, that is a ridiculous statement and you are correct to call him on it. But you failed to mention: even skeptics know that long-term CO2-induced global warming isn’t the only factor — or even the main factor — controlling short-term climactic trends (or as I like to call it on short enough time scales, “weather”):
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/significant_natural_climate_fluctuations.php
Significant Natural Climate Fluctuations
» El Niño, La Niña and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
» Madden-Julian Oscillations (MJO)
» South Pacific Convergence Zone
» Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)
» North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
» Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO)
» Antarctic Oscillation (AAO)
» Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)
As seen in other sections, there are many factors influencing Earth’s climate. However even within a relatively stable period, the systems that make up and influence the global climate still naturally fluctuate. These fluctuations or “oscillations” as they are often called (because they oscillate between two main states) can have a large affect on the climate, both locally and on a global scale.
And it goes on to give a short description of each one of them.
Now surely you’re not implying that ENSO is responsible for the secular trend in temperatures over the entire instrumental record … are you?
I bet that Climate Coward Mark Boslough wouldn’t dare come on here and debate what he “knows” about climate. Dollars to doughnuts it would all be Arguments from Authority and Concensus, with liberal sprinklings of red herrings, ad hominems, and straw man arguments. In other words, he’s got nada, just a big mouth.
Congrats, Bruce. First busted irony meter of the year gave up its short life on that one.
Brandon Gates
Odd list from the WMO – whom you would think would know better. Neither of those are a 30-60 year oscillation. They are instead a broad description of air circulation “zones” or locations of rising and falling air masses, whose air flow and location may move. Or may not move.
Yet your WMO FAILED to even list the true cause: The 900-1000 year long cycle of the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warming Period, Dark Ages, Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warming Period. See, admitting past and repeating climate cycle would mean today’s 1650-2100 warming is mostly natural oscillation that Man cannot control, cannot speed up, cannot slow down, cannot limit, nor increase.
Simply pointing out that a cycle exists says nothing about causation. Try again.
@Brandon you said.
‘Simply pointing out that a cycle exists says nothing about causation. Try again.’
Causation was not the point of his statements.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Climate Heretic,
After all, any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science. But I think I’ll wait for him to respond to me before making that a permanent opinion.
Brandon
Oscillation is normal behaviour for a thermally dissipative, open and far-from-equilibrium system under multiple external periodic forcings.
We’ve been here before. This is why Lindzen said that it is climate stasis that would be anomalous, not the universally observed fractal type oscillation. It would be as of something had died.
philsalmon,
If you can define what’s “normal” (“natural”), it stands to reason that detecting “abnormal” (“anthropogenic”) is possible in principle.
Yes, and IIRC you stopped with “oscillation is normal (natural)” as if that’s all there is to know. Some people are apparently a little more curious. Much has been written about what they have observed.
Brandon
If you can define what’s “normal” (“natural”), it stands to reason that detecting “abnormal” (“anthropogenic”) is possible in principle.
This logical fallacy is referred to as the “jar of fleas” after the practice of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible (4th) who, as a punishment to a troublesome boyar or official would set them the – impossible – task of collecting a jar full of fleas. Their failure to comply then justified further acts of punishment. Logically it means a requirement which is unreasonable and does not follow from the preceding arguments.
In effect you are – I believe – saying that if I can’t precisely predict future oscillating climate systems in full detail then you won’t take seriously the idea of chaos-related nonlinear oscillations in climate. This is a jar of fleas argument. Note however that chaotic-nonlinear systems are not actually indeterminate – thus the title of Lorenz’ DNF 63, and also the work of Feigenbaum on the maths of chaos. However away from a mathematical model and in a real worls system with multiple, including unknown, drivers and highly incomplete measurement, asking for full analysis and prediction to accept a proposed mechanism is asking for a jar of fleas.
The point that is made so repeatedly at this site is that, the scale of our ignorance of what actually drives climate (change) is so great that the task of resolving and separating “natural” from anthropogenic is hopeless. Changes in the last century are miniscule compared with comparable changes over even just the Holocene (e.g. about 20 episodes of climate warming comparable to the recent one). This problem is made worse by chaos-nonlinearity since just about any change you can think of lies within a fractal range.
This means for instance that banale facile claims such as that “99% of recent warming is anthropogenic and not natural” can only be based on the false assumption that the climate system is fully linear and quite simple.
Does this mean that chaos-nonlinearity are not actually scientific hypotheses since they can’t be falsified and tested in the Karl Popper sense? This is an important question and perhaps explains why physical scientists generally find chaos-nonlinearity so deeply horrifying and try to close their eyes to evidence of such behaviour. Why for instance in all our voluminous conversations have you not allowed yourself even one single time to mention the terms “chaos” or “nonlinear”? It is possible that large sections of the physical sciences have evolved in recent decades by selectively focusing experimental work only on systems where chaos-nonlinearity is largely absent. In the same way that religious fundamentalists avoid discussion of subjects such as geology or palaeontology.
Thus the linearity-based rules of falsifying and testing a hypothesis may have to be modified in regard to complex natural systems where chaos-nonlinearity plays a major role. Instead of exact reproduction and prediction. A more realistic, less “jar of fleas” requirement may be to be able to simulate the behaviour of a model system and show behaviour similar to real world behaviour that allows the conclusion that the mechanism being proposed does play a role in the studied natural system. This in fact is what Ed Lorenz did in DNF 63.
Yes, and IIRC you stopped with “oscillation is normal (natural)” as if that’s all there is to know. Some people are apparently a little more curious. Much has been written about what they have observed.
Closely related to the jar of fleas is the other logical fallacy of “argumentam ad ignorantium”, i.e. we won’t accept that since we cant find a mechanism or “the models don’t predict it”. For instance, Galileo proposed the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa. One can imagine that the pope at the time, quite well informed on scientific matters, might have criticised Galileo’s hypothesis on this basis:
“But how can the earth be kept in orbit around the sun? What force holds them together? Is there a rope holding the earth to the sun? I look at the sky but see no such rope. So it can’t be true”.
We now – since Newton and Einstein – know that the rope is gravity. But who knows the mechanism of gravity? No-one. So can we even believe in its existence?
Phil,
I like your post. I think it demonstrates considerable wisdom and understanding of the problems.
philsalmon,
No. Here’s your comment again: Oscillation is normal behaviour for a thermally dissipative, open and far-from-equilibrium system under multiple external periodic forcings.
I meant exactly what I said: If you can define what’s “normal” (“natural”), it stands to reason that detecting “abnormal” (“anthropogenic”) is possible in principle.
Detect. As in observe, after the fact, and account for.
Sure, I accept Lorenz’s thesis that weather is a manifestation of a deterministic physical system. I thought I had been clear on that.
‘Tis a problem common to all sciences, albeit to varying degrees. In point of fact, if we knew all there is to know, we wouldn’t need to do science at all.
Yes, I’ve seen that argument in various forms, and I obviously disagree that separating those things is an exercise in futility.
We’ve now entered into an area which requires quantification, not qualification. “Miniscule” tells me nothing. The 20 episodes want documentation in the form of quantified estimates of global temperature change so that those numbers can be related to observed magnitude and rate of change over the instrumental record. “Fractal range” is not a term I’m familiar with, so I need to know what you mean by that. And then I need you to demonstrated how any change I can think of would fit into that range, and why that necessarily means that “we” cannot tell the difference between a purely natural variability or a human-induced one.
AR5 puts the most likely value at 110% of warming since 1950 as being due to anthropogenic influences, and they argue that the climate system is nothing if not chaotic, often non-linear, and quite complex.
No, I would not argue that. I am of the opinion that the way you use chaos to argue the hoplessness of separating natural mechanisms from anthropogenic contributions to climate inputs appears non-falsifiable to my eyes.
Really? Type this into google: brandon gates chaos nonlinear global warming
First hit: http://wmbriggs.com/post/13447/#comment-128015
Brandon Gates
September 4, 2014 at 4:16 am
[…]
Experiment:
1) Type “scientific theories unpredictability” into google (without the quotes)
2) Note that the number one hit is the Wikipedia article on chaos
3) Read the following text:
Introduction
Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then appear to become random. The amount of time for which the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we are willing to tolerate in the forecast; how accurately we are able to measure its current state; and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time.
[…]
It is possible that you’re simply not familiar with how extensively this has been discussed in literature:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=climate+chaos+nonlinear&hl=en&as_sdt=1,36
About 33,300 results (0.07 sec)
Some samples taken from the first page of hits:
Nonlinear dynamics of soil moisture at climate scales: 2. Chaotic analysis
I Rodriguez‐Iturbe, D Entekhabi… – Water Resources …, 1991 – Wiley Online Library
Singular spectrum analysis in nonlinear dynamics, with applications to paleoclimatic time series
R Vautard, M Ghil – Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 1989 – Elsevier
Climate response and fluctuation dissipation
CE Leith – Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1975 – journals.ametsoc.org
Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series
M Casdagli – Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 1989 – Elsevier
A nonlinear dynamical perspective on climate prediction
TN Palmer – Journal of Climate, 1999 – journals.ametsoc.org
Estimating the dimensions of weather and climate attractors
K Fraedrich – Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 1986 – journals.ametsoc.org
Chaotic oscillations of tropical climate: A dynamic system theory for ENSO
B Wang, Z Fang – Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 1996 – journals.ametsoc.org
Analysis and prediction of chaos in rainfall and stream flow time series
AW Jayawardena, F Lai – Journal of Hydrology, 1994 – Elsevier
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=spectral+analysis+of+internal+variability+in+climate+models&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_vis=1
2nd hit:
Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere
TL Delworth, ME Mann – Climate Dynamics, 2000 – Springer
Oh wait, Mann, immediate fail … let’s see … next one down …
[HTML] Internal variability in a 1000‐yr control simulation with the coupled climate model ECHO‐G–I. Near‐surface temperature, precipitation and mean sea level …
SKI MIN, S Legutke, A Hense, WONTAE KWON – Tellus A, 2005 – Wiley Online Library
Next one after that …
Robust estimation of background noise and signal detection in climatic time series
ME Mann, JM Lees – Climatic change, 1996 – Springer
Oh drat, Mann again, hmm hmm hmm …
Analysis and modeling of the natural variability of climate
JD Pelletier – Journal of Climate, 1997 – journals.ametsoc.org
The interpretation of short climate records, with comments on the North Atlantic and Southern Oscillations
C Wunsch – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1999 – journals.ametsoc.org
Variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation through a glacial-interglacial cycle
AW Tudhope, CP Chilcott, MT McCulloch, ER Cook… – Science, 2001 – sciencemag.org
… and that rounds out the first page of hits. Now to be clear, I am not saying that any of the above references “prove” anything about the ability of models to project future state(s) of climate from assumed future forcing parameters. I’m not even saying that these papers are good. I am arguing that you raising the possibility that climate researchers have been “focusing experimental work only on systems where chaos-nonlinearity is largely absent” looks to be, well, wrong, for lack of a softer term.
Um, no. I’m suggesting that stopping at “oscillation is normal (natural)” implied to me that there is nothing else to know. I see now that with respect to you I made an incorrect inference, you are instead apparently arguing that separating natural from anthropogenic causation is hopeless.
Bit of a philosophical question IMO. We note that massive bodies attract each other across even great distances which has not been explained by other known means, do so in consistent and therefore predictable fashion under most circumstances, and from that infer that some one force is acting between masses. We call that force gravity, and my understanding also is that we know little to nothing about how it works in the same sense that we think we understand how, say, electromagnetism works. It could be a combination of mechanisms and not one single thing for all we know. According to observations and calculations by some cosmologists, it may not be a constant.
I am reminded of a favorite quote:
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” ~Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics (1931)
Talk about being skeptical! And yet the value 6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg/s — which he first derived in 1900 — bears his name as a constant. He is considered one of the fathers of modern quantum mechanical theory, and by extension the standard model of physics. I find it interesting that he devoted his life to such work when he was of the opinion that everything could change tomorrow for no apparent reason.
Brandon Gates says: “Now surely you’re not implying that ENSO is responsible for the secular trend in temperatures over the entire instrumental record … are you?”
Nope, I’m happy being able to illustrate how ENSO contributed to the trend since the early 1980s. During the early warming period of the 20th Century (mid-1910s to mid-1940s), the sea surface temperature data are very poor…not only sampling methods but spatial completeness as well.
Bob,
If your physical mechanism is sound, seems you should be able to give an error estimate for anything prior to 1945. Gotta link to share?
Quote by Brandon……” any sufficiently advanced magic “…Well, that shows what he has for brains, no more needs to be said. Brain surgery would be a net loss with no chance of recovery !!
I think it just shows that I’m a bit of an Arthur C. Clarke fan, which is not to say that I don’t know the difference between science fiction and real science … which, you know, is supposed to be a method for observing phenomena and sussing out causality. YMMV.
I’m freezing. Turning the heat up to 72F. Does that anger you?
‘Dr. Boslough is correct, in as much as it is a sucker bet’, true but for more than one reason ,just as if you allowed those selling snake oil to pass judgement on the effectiveness of ‘snake oil’ , allowing those with a vested interest in the ‘right adjustments’ in temperature measurements to control the record which is going to make this judgement, would be foolish , especially given their record in this area, in the extreme.
Frankly your dealing with people who if all they told you that it was raining , you still go outside to check.
+10
“… the conventional climate averaging period (defined by the World Meteorological Organization as 30 years) …”
That statement is something that bothers me. If in fact there is an ~ 60 year cycle in short term changes in the climate/weather due to various ocean oscillations that could be viewed a something of a sine wave nature then a 30 year period would likely be the worst possible time frame that could be used (depending on the starting date). It would seem that using an ~ 60 year time frame would be the only reasonable choice. Maybe I’m missing something here or maybe the issue lies with the WMO. So is the case one of my ignorance or the WMO’s incompetence?
eyesonu
Yes. A 30 year “rising climate half-cycle” is convenient for their purposes.
50% of the time if one supposes that the 60-year cycle is set in stone.
RACookPE1978:
You say
Yes, but warmunists often proclaim the falsehood that ‘climate is an average of 30 years’ and that falsehood needs to be refuted whenever it is promulgated.
The IPCC AR5 Glossary defines climate as being
So,
climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated.
The 30 years refers to a standard period to which climate data is compared: it is NOT climate. The data for annual global temperature discussed in the above essay is provided as anomalies (i.e. differences) from a 30-year period.
The 30-year length of each standard period is arbitrary: it was adopted in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because it was thought that there was insufficient data for use prior to 30 years before 1958. knr rightly observes that it is an unfortunate choice because 30 years is not a multiple of the solar cycle length, ot the Hale cycle length, or any other climate cycle length.
Richard
Dear Richard Courtney,
Glad to see you post. It has been awhile… and, after Matt’s “where’s my dad??” (okay, not quite THAT worried, heh) comment (amongst a “Merry Christmas” mutual greeting string of comments)… I’ve been watching for you (and praying). Hope you are doing okay.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Your Ally for Science Truth,
Janice
Here’s how to respond to this challenge: “When temperature trends rose in the past, did they prove that global warming (i.e., man-caused, CO2-induced warming) was real? If not, how does a warming trend in the present prove it?”
Suggested edit:
“GISS and NOAA (the supplier of the sea surface temperature data for GISS) would have to
tweakfudge the data a whole lot more to get those two trend lines to agree…”(my bold) At first I thought my suggested edit was just sarcasm of Mr Schmidt and his team’s product, but sadly I realized it’s not sarcasm if it is likely true.
A few questions for Boslough:
Who are these climate bullies? Is anyone who disagrees with unsubstantiated claims a bully?
Which temperature data-sets are you using and at which point in time, since the temperature data-sets are more variable than weather itself?
You seem to be betting on a one year annual deviation that is a well known El Nino effect, in which case I bet you $50,000 that next year summer will be warmer than winter, do you take the bet?
A better headline might be, “How many people can I take for fools?”
When reading the Huff post I thought surely the “climate bullies” were the CAGW cabal, not us ordinary scientifically interested hoi polloi. The bet I’d take is that any of the surface temperature records next year are as high as predicted by his people 5 years ago.
I’m not sure 2016 will be warmer than 2015. This El Nino has been a few months ahead of previous ones. That could mean we will see the highest temperatures over Nov-Jan and then a start of the decay. If the decay proceeds quickly then we could already enter La Nina range by mid year with cooling global temperatures over the last 3-4 months. If this does happen it would like eliminate any possibility of a record.
Remember, 2015 started out warmer due to the weak El Nino conditions over 2014-2015 fall/winter. This helped keep the yearly average higher than it would normally be.
Richard, the other factor is The Blob. Even subsurface temperatures in the eastern extratropical North Pacific have fallen in the last few months. Hopefully, The Blob will disappear completely in 2016.
Richard, Bob
Is it possible that the blob is due to a slowdown in the N Pacific Gyre? This in turn is part of a global phenomenon of reduced poleward heat transport. The warm blob could be a short term effect of this while the longer term outcome will be cooling.
What causes el Nino to warm global climate is if the reactive La Nina hides the el Nino warmed water under the surface and pumps it toward the poles.
But if for any reason the La Nina did not happen, then the el Nino warmth would instead just dissipate to space, negating any global warming. If the “blob” likewise dissipates, a whole lot of heat will be lost to the system.
As I have commented before, the current el Nino does not appear to have really engaged the Bjerknes feedback. Despite continual exhortations to do so the trades were never interrupted. Nor was Peruvian upwelling as evidenced by the continued presence of anchovy juveniles.
As Bob has explained repeatedly, it is the post-el Nino La Nina that pumps global temperatures upward. Will we get one now or not, that is the question. A real Bjerknes-type La Nina that is, not just gradual dissipative cooling. The latter could cause the opposite of global warming.
It is tempting. What do people think of making the bet but using satelite data and a 2018 date?
Agree; I made a similar suggestion further down before reading yours. The point about propaganda is that you can turn it against the propagandist. Make a big deal about accepting – shout it out loud and clear – YES, WE ACCEPT – (with unarguably logically amendmants, of course).
Let’s see if we can hoist this smug git on his own petard. I’ll happily put $50 on a 2018 date and hope to make a winning. Of course, he’s unlikely to take it up, but then he’ll have to defend the indefensible terms of his original bet.
RSS for December has just come in at 0.543. This is the hottest December on record, however 0.543 was beaten in the first 8 months of 1998 and for 4 months in 2010. The 2015 average is 0.358, putting 2015 in third place as Bob mentioned behind 0.550 from 1998 and 0.468 from 2010.
The pause has decreased by one month to 18 years and 8 months. Now, the pause goes from May 1997 to December 2015.
This month, the start date for the pause jumped by two months to May. The huge question now is whether or not the anomalies will drop to 0.24 before the start month reaches December 1997.
What is the justification for referring to global temperatures in three decimal places; why not 5 or 6? I have read that NASA and NOAA global temperatures have an uncertainty of the order of 0.1 degrees, although I can’t find this information on their web sites. I find it hard to even believe the 0.1.
Numbers past the decimal place add certitude to the data for the inexperienced and uneducated. Although averaging will seem to iron out errors in large numbers of thermometer readings, anyone who has experienced the difficulties in maintaining accuracy even for the highest quality sensors and transmitters over very short time spans knows that 0.1 degree accuracy is practically impossible. Try getting five NIST traceable T sensors to agree within 0.1 degree C right out of the box , much less after sitting in a ventilated box in less than ideal conditions for a month.
NCEP CFSR 2-meter temps place 2015 6th.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2015/12/2015-was-not-the-hottest-year/
I doubt it Werner. January has started in the same vein as December – anomalously warm. I’m afraid the Pause is about to become an ex-Pause within the next month or two. And sadly there is no more recent start date to fall back on. Once December 1997 bites the dust, so will the whole Pause.
But it’s been fun while it lasted.
I predict a few articles along the lines of no “significant” warming, which is far less exciting, as you can define the significance however you wish, whereas a least-squares trend-line is either negative or it’s not.
Mark Boslough is a complete trickster. I wouldn’t go anywhere near anything he has to say. Not a friend of science.
The Puffington Post is not a friend to science either.
I’m amazed Dr. Boslough thinks that he can prove global warming one way or the other by observing what happens in a single year. He doesn’t seem to realize that he is the school yard bully with a chip on his shoulder daring anyone to knock it off. He doesn’t even address the only significant part of global warming theory which is, how much is man to blame and can man do anything about it.
Oh, and does the hottest year claim for 2016 need to have more than 38% confidence, or is that enough to win the bet?
Bob: I did a “dumb cluck” analysis of the balances using the ARMS experimental data which “found the signature” of the CO2. Strangely, the shift of 2 watts per square meter in 12 years, in a straight Stephan Boltzman analysis with an average emmissivity of .47, ended up in almost exactly that .11 degree C/Decade shift. Extrapolating to 100 years, I came up with a 1 degree C or 2 degree F (for us old fashioned folks) shift in 100 years. WHICH, I don’t think is anything to panic about. Means the temp highs in AZ will go from 115 F to 117 F, will anyone notice? Wait, that means our bitter lows in MN will go from -35 F to -33 F. Oh yes, I think I’ll panic about that…LATER…
Apparently FL is about to join the rest of United States weather already in progress. It’s hard to beat being able to use the new jet ski on Christmas day.
Orlando was fabulous on Christmas Day. Wonderful. Mid 80s. This week was nice too. Tomorrow will have a high of 59 degrees F and a low of 48F. Where is my GD global warming? Why does 48 at night suit you more than 71? Why is a high of 59 better than 85? Damn Yankee I bet.
~ Mark
I’m more comfortable outside at 59F than at 85F. For most outside activities I like the high 60s, lower in the sun or if I’m hiking up a mountain, splitting wood, bicycling, etc.
Yep, damn Yankee and 3/4 Swedish. You can keep your humidity.
I love Tucson Arizona. A few freezing nights kills all the bugs.
Wet winter weathersystems coming through drops snow in the mountains above 7000 feet. I take my puppy to play in the snow in the mornings 30 minutes away, and then run in warmth of the dry river beds with my dog at 2500feet in the afternoon.
Florida just always has bugs. and more bugs. and more bugs.
And what is wrong with bugs? I had a VW Bug back in high school. My first girl friend and I … well, that is another story.
Just for context, I remember comfortably swimming in the ocean at Melbourne, FL on Christmas Day in 1972.
Of course, with all the ensuing temp data “corrections”, I now understand I was dodging icebergs.
Before judging Dr. Boslough as being worthy of consideration or not, a read of his entire post is in order. It can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/why-global-warming-bullie_b_8886968.html
For those of you who are wondering about his credentials, this is from his bio: “Dr. Mark Boslough is a Caltech-trained experimental and computational physicist whose research interests range from nuclear explosions to climate change.” More about his credentials and bio can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough. His page at Sandia can be found here: https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CompResearch/templates/insert/profile.cfm?snl_id=8719
Regarding the comment: “As of this writing, Dr. Boslough has published a not-very-noteworthy 20 blog posts for TheHuffingtonPost since April 2013”, he is a research scientist at Sandia National Laboratory (New Mexico) and thus is a real university (CalTech) educated scientist with a career who no doubt has very little time to blog.
Boslough’s credentials are irrelevant (to the good or to the bad). His message is hot air. He is merely a lackey for AGW, willing to look like a fool for money (let’s hope for his sake, for, otherwise, he is not likely “of sound mind”).
This is just a rickety, about-to-topple-over, platform for AGW propaganda, propped up by Dr. Boslough’s credentials. (Goal: Keep Big Wind, et. al.’s sc@m going).
Good for you, Bob Tisdale, to post it where it can be soundly refuted (great job WUWT commenters!).
The only reason I posted his credentials was because some of your beloved posters on this blog were wondering what they were and who he was. Oh, by the way, Freeman Dyson, your diehard stalwart that forever remained in your camp has jumped ship on you. He was one of the few real scientists in academia who were skeptical; no more.
Soundly refuted where, here? By who? Oh, and did you read his entire post, not just what Tisdale posted?
Dear T. Madigan,
Please forgive my offending you by my blunt writing. Yes, indeed, your posting of Dr. Boslough’s credentials was relevant to this thread. In my making the point that Boslough’s credentials are irrelevant because his message is junk no matter who uttered the words, I neglected to acknowledge that your comment was not irrelevant. Your defensiveness was understandable, given my tone.
I would be interested to hear, T. Madigan, if you would be so kind as to take the time, whom you consider to be the “few real scientists in academia” who remain unconvinced by the AGWer’s conjecture about human CO2 emissions.
If Dyson was “one of the few,” then, you must have at least two you could name here.
Who are they?
Why do they not accept AGW conjecture?
Thanks for what, I think, will be an intriguing answer.
Janice
Dear Janice….
Why do all the liberal parasites swarm around you ?? Could it be that your a female ? Or because you really know how to piss children off !!.. Kudos’ to your ” Fighting Irish ” spirit !!
I like the “Dear T. Madigan” salutation…
T. Madigan, what is this, ‘your’ diehard stalwart? Such a clueless sentence from you displays your ideology, nothing more. I don’t own any scientists and nor do you. Some are competent and brilliant, others not so much. I prefer to read and see what every scientist says, in their own words and then make up my mind. http://pindanpost.com/2015/12/15/real-scientists-in-their-own-words/
Your mind was made up long before you knew what Boslough or Dyson had said. The link here includes real Nobel winners, unlike Mann et al.
— Thanks, Mr. Javert (smile).
— Hi, Marcus — Lol, who knows why they do what they do. If it is for money, okay, ev1l, but rational. If they simply enjoy making donkeys of themselves in public, pretty pitiful. I don’t think it is because I am female (unless they talk to me like they hate my guts (they have never even met me!) or label me “giddy” or the like — that kind of talk is from a hater, presumably of women, but, it could be because I am a believer in Jesus — you would be amazed at the grossly disproportionately (to the emotive content of anything I said on WUWT) angry tone that mere fact evokes, it is a phenomenon…).
Loved the middle finger riposte above — heh.
Re: Irish — while I admire the Irish, I am mostly of English heritage. I LIKE to think (and I really think I may be right!) that from way back, I am mostly Italian!! Well! It IS possible…. there were a lot of Romans in Wale and England where most of my ancestors come from. I talk like a typical Italian!!! I am ENTHUSIASTIC like a typical Italian!!!! AND I DRIVE LIKE A TYPICAL ITALIAN (I saw a video last week on youtube that proves it! It could have been me in driver’s seat (except for the profanity — is THAT really “Italian?” … don’t get that…. — oh, and except for the eating in the car (yuck — want my car to be clean and SMELL clean).
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING?? Slowing down for a GREEN light?????!!!! Do you WANT to miss it?? Oh, man!!!!!!” …………. “Great. You go 5 under then, when I try to pass you, you speed up.”….. and on and on….. “USE — YOUR — BLINKER!!! Dope!” Then, I pray and ask God to forgive me.
#(:))
Take care, O Enthusiastic Marcuso 8 (that is how I used to — NOW I know who you were, heh (I already realized you weren’t who I wondered about a month or so ago) — read your name, lol, nice to know it is Marcus 08),
Your American Ally for TRUTH,
Janice
P.S. Notice that T. M. never answered my question. What a surprise.
T. Madigan, your comment reads as though I provided no information about Boslough in my post. In reality, if you had read my post, you would’ve noted I provided hyperlinks to the full “bully” post, to Boslough’s overview at TheHuffingtonPost and to his webpage at Sandia Labs.
Janice,
I tend to judge a person more by their words and actions than their credentials. In looking at Boslough’s Twitter postings, he comes across as a stereotypical flaming liberal. Thus, I’m inclined to believe that it is the right hemisphere of his brain that is responsible for his insults and taunts.
Hi, Clyde,
Yes. {sort of sarc…} Lol, and with a right hemisphere THAT dominant, dominant to the point of almost completely overwhelming the feeble cries of the left to, “Think!” his claim of “being of sound mind is vulnerable to challenge by any excluded “natural objects of the testator’s bounty” in a will contest. {end of semi-sarcasm}
Well, regardless of his political ravings, EVEN IF HE WERE HIGHLY LOGICAL AND ECONOMICALLY LITERATE, his “bet” propaganda is just that.
Your ally for truth,
Janice
T. Madigan sez “Oh, by the way, Freeman Dyson, your diehard stalwart that forever remained in your camp has jumped ship on you. He was one of the few real scientists in academia who were skeptical; no more.”
Oh really? Got a link for that?
Thought not.
Sure, straight from Dr. Boslough’s Twitter account: https://twitter.com/MarkBoslough/status/667755362171248640
The picture claims Dyson says human induced climate change is real. Big deal, so do I. I think the change from forests to row crops to urban development to airports have all warmed the climate. I even think CO2 does too.
However, I am highly skeptical of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change).
I am also highly skeptical that Dyson has “jumped ship”. That image suggests he made the statement at some talk. Please provide the link for that, or a transcript, or a document if the image is misleading and there was no talk.
If Boslough is posting misleading comments, I’m tempted to call him out on that.
OMG…That is evidence to you ?? A photo shopped blog !! ROTFLMALO…..
Here is what Dyson actually said:
“First of all there is man-made climate change …it’s a question of how much and is it good or bad..we don’t understand the details. It’s probably much less than is generally claimed. The most important thing is that there are huge non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that’s the main issue–the Earth is actually growing greener..it’s increasingly agricultural yields, it’s increasing forests, it’s increasing all kinds of growth… That’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/06/prominent-physicist-freeman-dyson-it-would-be-crazy-to-try-to-reduce-co2-earth-is-growing-greener-as-a-result-of-carbon-dioxide/
So Madigan, you are a liar. There has been no jumping ship. Read further, and you can see that even more clearly. He’s saying the same thing many skeptics/climate realists say – that whatever effects our CO2 is having, they are neither clear nor are they important. They don’t matter.
Way to go, Bruce Cobb and Tom Harley (at 5:13pm)!
Note to self: Ignore all T. Madigan comments; you cannot take anything he or she says seriously.
I had no idea we were on ships as my feet are always planted on Terra firma.
Here is another ‘interesting’ tweet by Mr Boslough …
“Mark Boslough @MarkBoslough 18 Dec 2015 Oakland, CA
Denial is deadly. Al Gore’s haters fail to recognize that 9/11 never would have happened if he had been President. He accepts reality.”
Kinda hard to take someone like that seriously … on any subject … or anyone who quotes him. The Dyson quote is quite obviously a PARTIAL quote and taken out of context. Anyone with the brains that God gave a gnat, could see right through it.
That is a sucker bet because they and their ilk are fudging the data. SWAG
Looking at the terms for the comparison in the original article, the bet will be settled using data from NASA GISS. To me, this seems to boil down to a wager about the GISS land surface avg for the 1998 El Niño and the current El Niño peak. Is that a reasonable way to understand it?
Yet another precocious PhD who craves stardom. As one “disrespectful” Chinese engineer member of one of my teams years ago on a major project despairingly stated – in response to weeks of arrogant but nonsensical inputs from a Dr. engineer who was causing chaos: ” PhD stands for permanent head damage caused by spending years studying one minute specialist subject but continually in denial and being ignorant of our works’ and the world’s real required inputs!