A Foolish Bet about 2016 Global Surface Temperatures – It’s Nothing More than a Silly Publicity Stunt

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

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

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

Figure 3

Again, I should have read Dr. Boslough’s wager more closely. It truly is laughable.

270 thoughts on “A Foolish Bet about 2016 Global Surface Temperatures – It’s Nothing More than a Silly Publicity Stunt

    • 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.

      • 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

        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.

        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

      • And that decrease in low level clouds is a result of the increase in temperatures from CO2. Thanks for helping to make my point!

        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.

        Removing AMO from global temperatures leads to no trend in global temperatures.

        Removing the warming caused during the strong 1997/98 El Nino leads to very little change overall in global temperatures.

        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.

        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.

      • 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:

        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!

        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.

    • 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.

        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?

      • Simon,

        It’s like saying my car goes faster because the wheels go round quicker.

        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?

  1. 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

        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.

        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.

        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?

      • What is your explanation for the rapid current warming that is unlike anything we have seen in the past 10,000 years?

        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)

        Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

        A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

      • 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.

  2. 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.

    • 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)

  3. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Bob,

    It’s a sucker bet. Everyone knows that global warming is real.

    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.

    • Brandon Gates

      » South Pacific Convergence Zone
      » Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)

      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.

      Now surely you’re not implying that ENSO is responsible for the secular trend in temperatures over the entire instrumental record … are you?

      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.

      • @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,

        Causation was not the point of his statements.

        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,

        Oscillation is normal behaviour for a thermally dissipative, open and far-from-equilibrium system under multiple external periodic forcings.

        If you can define what’s “normal” (“natural”), it stands to reason that detecting “abnormal” (“anthropogenic”) is possible in principle.

        We’ve been here before.

        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,

        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.

        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.

        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.

        Sure, I accept Lorenz’s thesis that weather is a manifestation of a deterministic physical system. I thought I had been clear on that.

        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.

        ‘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.

        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.

        Yes, I’ve seen that argument in various forms, and I obviously disagree that separating those things is an exercise in futility.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        Does this mean that chaos-nonlinearity are not actually scientific hypotheses since they can’t be falsified and tested in the Karl Popper sense?

        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.

        Why for instance in all our voluminous conversations have you not allowed yourself even one single time to mention the terms “chaos” or “nonlinear”?

        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 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.

        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

        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.

        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.

        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”.

        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.

        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?

        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.

  7. ‘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.

  8. “… 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

      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?

      Yes. A 30 year “rising climate half-cycle” is convenient for their purposes.

      • RACookPE1978:

        You say

        A 30 year “rising climate half-cycle” is convenient for their purposes.

        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

        Climate
        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

        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

  9. 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?”

  10. Suggested edit:
    “GISS and NOAA (the supplier of the sea surface temperature data for GISS) would have to tweak fudge 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.

  11. “Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me”

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

    • 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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…

  17. 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.

    • 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.

  18. 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 !!

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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!

  21. ” Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me?”

    …and anyone who took the bet would be considered a bully, regardless if they “won” or not.

    No thanks.

    Do you think warmists will ever grow up?

  22. A PhD using the term ‘bully’ on those who ‘disagree’ about his ‘challenge’ in this venue, automatically demotes himself as hyperbolic puppet to the master liars; no matter his credentials. A real professional wouldn’t need to do that.

  23. “global warming is real and will continue.”

    Propaganda is a war of words.

    In battles you need a safe escape if things go badly. “Global warming means the temperatures go up” is the safe position: “warming just means warming”.

    We all know “Global warming” in practice means so much than that:
    – human caused warming
    – dangerous warming
    – catastrophic warming
    etc.

    But when challenged, the imperialist cAGW army will retreat to a safe place.

    This bet shows that the imperialist army is in a debacle.

    • Yeayea, the normal GW is true purported to say CAGW is true. GW is currently true in a 30 year scope, but CAGW is just stories about a quick Greenland ice sheet collapse and polar bears drowning. Sigh.

      But in this case, the bet is not about GW, but about unenforced yearly variation, shortly, about weather.

  24. Maybe we would all be further along in predicting climate trends if advances in geophysical fluid dynamic research had not been interrupted by the notion that humans are responsible for climate change.

  25. “Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me?”

    Climate Bullies??? unlike Michael Mann, Keith Trenberth, etc. !!!!!!!!

    What very sad & deluded people

  26. A similar bet made any year between 1915 and 1945 would have also been a sucker bet.
    During that period we see a steadily positive upward trend similar to that which has occurred due to “anthropogenic global warming”.
    Clearly, if there is an underlying positive trend then one year tends to be most often warmer than the last.
    So how does this self-promoting pretended gambler scientist explain the fact that the entire 1915-1945 period would have created a pattern of records, just as we see today?

    On top of that, he has created a non-sequitur of sorts within two sentences.
    In summary, he says, I bet that X is true. So if Y occurs then I win the bet.
    However he has not shown that the occurrence of Y proves X.
    Luckily for him, however most of his ideologically blinded audience will not notice such obvious sleight of hand.

    Obviously however when we add to this that his bet is based upon reasonable anticipation of further El Nino induced warming (as clearly described already), we can see clearly that he is basically – erm – completely full of shit.
    I do not often resort to the use of such unscholarly language. But I do feel that such a judgement is entirely fair in this instance.

  27. Bob notes:

    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.

    Dr Boslough has dropped in at https://www.facebook.com/groups/wattsupwiththat/ a few times over the last year to tell all the deniers there that he’s a skeptic and we’re not. He represented himself as a member of CSICOP, the organization Martin Gardner (of SciAm Mathematical Games fame) and James Randi started, that long ago became rabid supporters of AGW.

    I was moderately surprised to find he is an expert on meteors and impacts because never referred to respectable science (in our sense). He did refer to some CSI articles, IIRC, and often to folks at SkS, who he apparently regards as real skeptics too.

    Various readings that may be interesting:

    http://www.csicop.org/about/csi_fellows_and_staff/
    Interesting names! Some reasonable, some not. I thought John Cook was on
    it for a while, but he isn’t now. Bill Nye is, though!

    http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
    More interesting names, including John Cook and Naomi Oreskes.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/has_global_warming_stopped/
    Special Report [by] David Morrison, John R. Mashey, and Mark Boslough
    With mentions and links to Dana Nuccitelli and skepticalscience.com.

  28. Everyone, Please be aware that there is a very different meaning between the two similar words ‘climatic’ and climactic’ with a ‘c’. A big difference. I should know, as I write erotic novels, and I do not use the word climatic to describe anything in them, other than the weather. Climactic, on the other hand…

  29. Because the positive effects of Global Warming kick in sooner than the negative effects, compound interest has a very big effect on whether the Net benefit is positive or negative in the future:

  30. Guest author Bob Tisdale reported,

    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.

    Disregard the infinitely interesting possibility that a sound mind in possession of Mark Boslough is logically inconsistent with a mind which is a maker of sucker bets.

    We should all make our own bets. Here is mine:

    John Whitman’s Bet on January 2 2016 – I bet $1(US) that in 2016 there will be increased corroborated observational evidence of lower anthropogenic attribution of warming from fossil fuels compared to attribution used in AR5’s SPM.

    Interested bettors should email me through the ‘Contact Me’ area in the ‘About Me’ section at my website. (NOTE: To get to my website click on my name in the comment header)

    John

  31. Personally, I feel that what the temperatures do between now and 2020 is going to make or break the skeptical argument for good regarding the notion of CO2 producing no measurable warming effect. If temperatures take another upwards step like they did in 2000, then the skeptical predictions that cooling is just around the corner will not come to fruition and people might have to come to terms with the idea that perhaps CO2 emissions are actually doing something (perhaps through a process of constant El-Nino induced upward steps that cannot be erased by La Nina events). I was as excited as any other skeptic when the pause kept going with the prospect of temperatures turning downward, but eventually it may come to the point where we have to face facts (as much as I would hate to see a reality where the side that is correct is the side that has the most skill in labeling the people they disagree with).

    Then the question would be if CO2-induced warming would be near as bad as the media makes it out to be (or if it even means benefits that far outweighs the possible negative effects).

    • Is it El Nino induced or La Nina induced? If you look back at the major warming that occurred in 1977 you will see it was preceded by nearly 4 years of La Nina conditions. If the La Nina is more important to the step change, then those hoping for a big La Nina after this El Nino ends might be wishing for the wrong thing.

      This El Nino is allowing the release of a lot of energy. Arguably it will be at least a two year event. If we only drop back into neutral conditions the planet will cool but less energy will be recharged into the oceans which could lead to a step change the other direction. Another year of El Nino conditions might be even better.

      • Good point, we also need to keep an eye on where the sea level anomalies in the Pacific go because of it being a proxy for total heat content (and what you want is a trend that goes downwards without a recharge event that brings it to even higher levels).

        If there is no major recharge event or if there is continued heat depletion, then the chances of an upward step may very well be eliminated and replaced with a high likelyhood for cooling.

    • I’ve been wanting to say this for a while, now:

      I get just as annoyed with predictions of cooling, as I do with predictions of warming.

      WE DON’T KNOW!

      We don’t know enough about what causes weather or climate … it’s hubris to think we do. And it’s the height of arrogance to think we can predict (let alone control) what it does in the future. When skeptics predict cooling, they make the same mistake the CAGW’rs do. It’s all based on faulty and incomplete information/analysis and on personal biases.

  32. I am prepared to consider bets that, as the current full coverage data sets UAH and RSS are showing exactly what would be expected of a sampling of half of a 60 year period known to exist in Weather, that it will not go up.

    • Boslough’s bet appears to be that the mean temperature for 1987-2016 will be higher than any other 30 year period – including the most recent period (1986-2015).

      It doesn’t matter what dataset you use Boslough will almost certainly win.

    • Exactly.
      If he is willing to lend me the money he clearly has so much of, then I would take him up on that bet.

  33. I didn’t read his bet details, but is it possible you missed another major factor? He speaks of a climatological average, which should be over a large time period. So aren’t you really betting 2016 vs temperatures in 1986?

  34. Yup
    Mark Boslough (MB) …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.

  35. Mark Boslough demonstrates that Sandia is not immune to hiring pompous twits. Boslough just received more attention on WUWT than his silly blog would ever garner at the Puffington Host.

  36. If we are right in our assessment of the likely real circumstances of the influence of the El Niño is correct then someone should take the $25000 bet and when they lose insist on double or nothing in 2017. The inevitable weaselling out of the bet that would then take place will negate any of the political gain he made out of the original bet and do more damage to their cause. Unfortunately the fact that he would certainly weasel out of it will mean that whoever it is will be $25000 worse off.

  37. Boslough slyly states: “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.”

    Clearly, it’s the value of the trailing 30-yr average of GISSTEMP that decides the outcome. This means that the yearly average for 2016 need not be higher than any previous year, but only higher than the value 30 years ago, i.e., 1986, which will be dropped from the 30-year average at the end of this year. That’s what really makes it a sucker bet!

    • Thanks, 1sky1. That means global surface temperatures would have to drop more than 0.65 deg C in 2016 just to match the latest (1986 to 2015) 30-year average. It truly is a sucker bet.

    • I just posted to the HuffPo story this:

      “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….”

      So the one year test is the difference between 1/1/1987 to 12/31/2016 and 1/1/1986 to 12/31/2015. If 2016 is warmer than 1986, Dr. Boslough wins. Given the strong increase in temperatures from the late 1970s to the end of the century, (or the Karl et al adjustments this year that make steady but slower warming from 1950 to the present), it would be foolish for someone to take him up on the bet.

      Even the staunchest climate skeptic will agree that the NASA/GISS records show warming since then. The interesting question is how much of that is anthropogenic, and this bet will shed no light on that question.

    • Well its correct to look at the average over decades when talking about climate but only predicting one year out?

      And when it is already 95% certain that the 30 year mean will be between 0.005-0.02°C higher than the past 29 years (using the standard deviation of the differences between consecutive years*, there is also only a little over .1% chance of being less) its not much of a prediction . As a rough guess based on the difference between 1986 and 2015 being 6 x the standard deviation of differences between consecutive years, he needs to give odds of 1 to 1 billion for his bet to be fair. Surely his bet breaks a law in his home state?

      The average for the last 29 years is only 0.45°C higher than from 1956 to 1986. If the climate was really warming at even 0.2°C per decade, then 2016 needs to be 5°C for the last 30 years to be consistent with global warming predictions. Would he care to take an even money bet that that the anomaly for 2016 will be less than 5°C?

      *average from 1956 is 0.015 (taken as 0 for the back of envelope) and stdev is 0.11.

  38. 2016 should be a record year. This El Nino is rivaling the 1997/8 El Nino and it resulted in a record warm year not by just a little but by a lot.

    There has not been a significant new record produced since 1998. That El Nino produced a 4 tenths of a degree warming over the previous record setting El Nino of 1982/3.

    Since 1998 no significant new record has been produced with 1998 still at the top or just hundredths of degree away the top. 3 degrees per century/doubling of CO2 needs a record of about a half of a degree to keep the alarmism alive. One has to wonder if there are any warmists left around that want to go for that bet.

      • Really? Provide evidence that I have stooped to the lows of Marcuso8. He referred to raising his middle finger at me and called me an idiot. Despite being called lots of things on this site, I have stayed on the up and up.

      • Luke,

        When you write baseless assertions like:

        Yes, the deniers have lost the climate wars.

        I don’t think anyone would label that as “classy”. It’s not, and it’s obviously not true: no one has surrendered, and every day that goes by with no global warming (the “pause”) makes your side less credible. Either you are right, or Planet Earth is right. But you can’t both be right.

        And when you write nonsense like this:

        2014 was the warmest year on record,

        Either you’re off your meds, or you’re deliberately spreading lies:

        See 2014? You call that the ‘hottest year EVAH!!’ ?? And 2015 didn’t come close to 1997-98.

        So you’re not being very classy, Luke. You’re bearing false witness and hoping no one will notice. Fibbing is worse than anything anyone else here did.

        I would have thought you’d learned your lesson with your silly “consilience science” comment. You were thrashed more than most alarmists who make preposterous comments here. Classy folks tell the truth, they don’t try to shovel that globaloney to readers who know better.

  39. Yes, I saw the “30 yr average” clause and thought it looked strange, but it was so bizarrely worded I couldn’t work out what he actually wrote.

    But you’re right. The bet reduces to “2016 (adj) >1986 (adj).” It’s a bet so absurd that it’s definitely a setup – “see, sceptics too chicken to bet me.”

  40. The continued avoidance of watching NCEP CFSv2 is amazing Why ignore the real time initialization?

    • Joe, I agree. I’m puzzled why more people don’t pick up on it. Can you imagine initializing weather forecast model runs based on only the data that go into the NCEI/GISS/HadCRUT/BEST models? It’s time to move on.

  41. It’s a double sucker bet. You have to bet against nature AND against the adjusters at GISS. Good luck with that. I wouldn’t take 10:1 odds…

  42. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or PC (progressive corruption) of science, politics, rights, etc. in short.

  43. Regarding the update why would anybody trust the tampers of GISS? It is still a sucker bet and would he be up for it using only all the satellite and balloon data instead?

    Now way can these be trusted for climate data, just increasingly becoming estimated and interpolated made-up data using the crudest forms with very slight regular historic changes to all inconvenient points.

    Shows how awful GISTEMP is compared with satellite data.

    So many alterations that do not relate to previous older data-sets.

    • It is still a sucker bet and would he be up for it using only all the satellite and balloon data instead?

      I’d imagine he would be quite happy to use satellite data. The El Nino warmth is likely to show up quite noticeably in the satellite readings in the coming year.

      • Yes, the strong El Nino will have a very significant influence over the first half of 2016.

        It would be very different betting conditions to change the bet not based on a straw man argument. Like base the 30 year period from 2016 to 2045 and must be at least 1.5 c warmer to even justify that there is even a remote possibility of CAGW.

        it’s a 30 year comparison and turns out to be 1987 vs 2016.

        It really means it not only a sucker bet, but also becomes a straw man bet.

        “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.”

        This example of behavior from the alarmists is very typical, when they can only put forward straw man arguments.

  44. The main point that even if in 30 years time the year 2045 is 0.1 c warmer than 2015 means CAGW has been a complete failure and the apparently d-word’s will have been shown to be correct any how.

    In 2045 global temperatures need to be around ~1.5 c higher than 2015 for any CAGW claim to be remotely possible. The so called d-word’s disagree with catastrophic global warming, not a little warming that will have no noticeable affect from the natural sine wave in climate, which the alarmists love to be pseudoscience charlatans.

    • Just for the record…

      This “den1er” has seen no evidence making it even plausible that human CO2 emissions can alter the climate of the earth — at all. Not even “a little.”

      It may be true, but to assert it at this point is mere belief or speculation.

      The null hypothesis, that natural drivers control earth’s climate, and, further, the ice core data which makes the CO2-lags-temperature hypothesis plausible, FAR outweigh the conjecture that the properties of CO2 in the laboratory make human CO2 emissions capable of altering the climate of the earth. There is simply no evidence of causation.

      Please, Matt G, forgive my blunt tone — I fervently wanted to make it clear that not ALL of us are in the same “lukewarm” camp, here on WUWT.

      Please accept my HEARTY ADMIRATION and thanks for all the excellent science (graphs, etc…) above on this thread — you are one of WUWT’s science giants!

      Janice

      • It is possible that any link with CO2 and climate is not even a little. I have seen far bigger human changes in climate by ongoing adjustments to the surface data sets especially prior the satellite era. Natural cycles leaves very little room for CO2, If any and the tampering to data sets removes any remote possibility that CO2 had any influence. Since the strong El Nino in 1997/98 the surface data has mostly only shown a little warming once the tampering of data has occurred just prior it.

  45. A really interesting bet would be whether the nearly inevitable record high, before the equally inevitable post nino decline, is still below the model mean. Bet he doesn’t have the stones for that one.

  46. He might as well challenge a bet on whether the Earth will not be struck by a huge meteor tomorrow; it’s totally idiotic, as is making it sound like “no takers” is some kind of victory.

  47. Oh yes, the third reason why this is a sucker bet: slowly increasing temperatures (since the 18th century) have an arcsine distribution, meaning there’s more likely to be extremes at the ends.

    Don’t us a Gaussian distribution to calculate the odds…

    Peter

  48. I haven’t got the money to make a sporting bet but will he take one that the 2016 mean will not be 0.6°C warmer than the warmest year before 1995 in the RSS satellite global temperature anomaly?

    Hell, make that HadCRUT4 even.

  49. You could rest assured that the climatological average global land surface temperature will go up again in 2016 as the record keepers have been instructed that it will go up in 2016. It is no longer science but a puppet show with the IPCC et al. pulling the strings.

  50. Dr. Boslough seems to ignore a simple function of El Niño events. Ocean heat is moved to the atmosphere and any heat in the atmosphere is guaranteed to leave the Earth system forever. In fact no surface/ocean heat can ever leave the planet without first traversing the atmosphere. The impulse of ocean heat in the atmosphere is short-lived. I’m 70 and have experienced several El Niño events in my lifetime and none of them have ever created permanent global warming. They can’t – they’re not a heat source – they are a heat leak. If global warming terrifies you, Dr. Boslough, then take solace in knowing El Niños are a good thing for people with your affliction.

  51. Even skeptics expect global surface temperatures (and global lower troposphere temperatures) will be higher in 2016 than they were in 2015

    I don’t. 2015 was pretty damned warm. The chances of 2016 being lower are well below 50%.

    • I agree Juice. From all the indicators with the latest up to day plots of the barometric pressure, the diurnal (or what happens at noon every day) has been reducing in strength. This big change began on 12/27/15 when it went from a low value to a high value. It does appear to be following the solar wind speed now. High pressure appears to allow the temperature to drop while the low pressure allows the temperature to rise.

      But let me put in the disclamer. Even though it appears to follow a set pattern, the Sun is in charge and being that it is a highly erratic signal generator, I would not place any kind of bet as to what is going to happen this winter or the next ten years. But he did put his money where his mouth is. I believe it is just a set up to cause another diversion from REAL climate research. As they have said “its settled”.

  52. I can understand that sensible sceptics wouldn’t want to take on the bet. Most of us understand that the earth is likely to continue warming – albeit at a slower rate than predicted by the ‘experts’ – for some time to come, but I can’t understand why the solarphiles aren’t trying to grab a piece of the action. Why aren’t the likes of David Archibald and Tallbloke issuing counter challenges. They don’t need to focus on a single year. They could devise their own bet which used 5 year periods, say, e.g. 2021-25 will be cooler than 2011-15 – AND insist on the satellite record being used. That would be fantastic publicity – not only for the role of the sun in climate – but also to highlight the fact that there are more reliable global temperature datasets.

    They won’t do it, of course, because they are likely to suffer the same fate as the 2 Russian Solar scientists who bet James Annan $10000 that 2012-2017 would be cooler than 1998-2003. They are going to lose – badly.

    • John Finn
      You are of course exactly right. Skeptics are happy to use short term variability to show cause uncertainty in the warming,but wouldn’t dare go for a five or ten year average. Wouldn’t matter which data set you used, a five year average bet would almost certainly cost them a lot of money and skeptics being the free market capitalists they are, hate to lose money. Hurts more than anything else, which is why (for most) they fight that AGW thing in the first place.

      • It sounds like you have a burr under your blanket about more than just the questions about science. If you want to be taken seriously, you should work on your anger management. What you fail to acknowledge is that the available data sets generally show long-term warming. Therefore, a smart bet would be an extrapolation of past trends. However, that doesn’t prove that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver. Indeed, there are many questions about past warming (and cooling) events prior to the industrial revolution that cannot be explained adequately. What is needed is a way to eliminate the confounding factors and demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary forcing causing the recent warming. The magnanimous ‘sucker bet’ does nothing to address that issue. I must compliment you on your insight into the mind of the “free market capitalists.” You have greater understanding than psychologists and even politicians. But a question: How can you be certain that ALL ‘skeptics’ have the same motivation? You must be psychic.

      • Simon, you are soooo out of your league.

        Weather, or averaged weather, is highly variable at all scales.

      • See, Simon? It’s not just me. Most everyone knows you’re wrong. You say:

        Skeptics are happy to use short term variability to show cause uncertainty in the warming,but wouldn’t dare go for a five or ten year average.

        Here’s the left-leaning Washington Post’s graph, covering more than 10 years:

        Want more? I got ’em, just ask.

      • Simon, I can’t resist. You want long term? Here’s the really scary temperature change for the past century and a half:

        And here’s HadCRUT3 (changed to version 4 because they hated what v3 shows):

        Then, just for fun, here’s the ‘hottest decade’ chart:

        And my fave ‘Hockey Stick’ chart:

        Are you ready to panic yet? Wait a minute…

        UAH satellite says no global warming in the new millennium:

        Another chart debunking the “2014 is the hottest year EVAH!!”:

        Got plenty more. Just ask…

      • Skeptics are happy to use short term variability to show cause uncertainty in the warming,but wouldn’t dare go for a five or ten year average.

        This is simply not true and is a straw man argument. I can go nearly 80 years in the Arctic and show no warming overall.

        Little warming in Arctic since 2001, very little since 2005 and cooling since 2010.

        No warming in Antarctica since the satellite era.

        Not including recent strong El Nino both hadcrut versions showed cooling. (12 years)

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend

        Not including the recent strong El Nino RSS also shows cooling. (12 years)

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend

        Even with strong El Nino still shows cooling and with not even including the strong El Nino in 1997/98 that makes the cooling trend longer.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend (14 years)

        There are many versions in global temperatures (ocean, surface and troposphere) with all data sets showing no warming for over 10 years, especially before they were tampered with. In climate science the ‘pause’ was a infamous reference to this period especially for the alarmists.

      • DB
        “Simon, you haven’t got a clue. Try explaing to Richard Courtney that skeptics are free market capitalists. He’s a socialist and a skeptic, and he will set you straight in no uncertain terms.”

        That’s why I said “most”. People come in all variants, but by and large skeptics hate the concept of having someone else’s hand in their pockets. DB you are a classic for that

        Here’s why if you use the data over a decade skeptics will not even be in the ballpark.
        Click on the first graph for the decadal average. I’m sure even you will get it DB
        http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/our-changing-climate

      • Simon,

        Extrapolations are always fraught with risk unless one has a firm grasp of the mechanism(s) controlling the change. Trends can change abruptly, as they have many times in the past. The simplistic government cartoon fails to indicate if ocean temperatures are conflated with land temperatures, although I suspect they are. Where are the error bars? What is so magic about a particular interval of time that we call a decade? That cartoon has little resemblance to the analysis I did on the land surface BEST data. It is obvious what the intent of the cartoon is, but the veracity is questionable.

  53. Actually, to win the bet, I think the temperature would need to drop from 2015 to 2016 more than it increased from 1986 to 1987 – so, according to my eyeballs (and my understand of the bet, which could be wrong), a drop of about 0.13 degrees Celsius (or more) from 2015 to 2016 would win the bet.

    Yes, a somewhat meaningless bet, basing such bets on individual years.

    • …a somewhat meaningless bet, basing such bets on individual years.

      Exactly right. Any one year is meaningless. It’s the trend that matters, not the temperature.

      Simon sez:

      Wouldn’t matter which data set you used, a five year average bet would almost certainly cost them a lot of money and skeptics being the free market capitalists they are, hate to lose money. Hurts more than anything else, which is why (for most) they fight that AGW thing in the first place.

      Simon, you haven’t got a clue. Try explaing to Richard Courtney that skeptics are free market capitalists. He’s a socialist and a skeptic, and he will set you straight in no uncertain terms.

      The problem is that folks like you really believe that skeptics as a group have the motivations you assign to them. Speaking for myself, the only money problem I have is the enormous waste of tax money on the “dangerous AGW” scare.

      Otherwise, it’s all about the knowledge. I would change my position fast if the planet told me I was wrong. That’s the difference between skeptics and climate alarmists: it’s the duty of skeptics to be skeptical, and outlandish DAGW claims require much more evidence to support them. But “dangerous AGW” has been so debunked by Planet Earth that you have essentially no evidence. You only have your belief.

      You can’t produce a single measurement of something you insist must be leading to a climate catastrophe. That’s lame, Simon. “Put up or shut up” comes to mind. Scientists want to quantify everything. But they can’t quantify AGW. What does that tell you?

      Finally: if you want to bet, go to Longbets.org. Someone will fade you on the global warming scare. But this wager is trumped-up, self-serving nonsense. It’s politics and public relations, not science. You don’t seem to understand the difference.

  54. I don’t agree that this sort of propaganda should just be ignored. Why not take it on? Accept the bet – very publicly – but state clearly that the original terms are ridiculous, saying why (as you have here). Then lay out a alternative form, perhaps that the global, satellite measured temperature in 2018 will be lower than 2015.
    It would be hilarious to observe his manoeuvering to refuse you.Just ignoring you would look cowardly.

    • Accept the bet but claim the original terms are ridiculous? You’ll wind up looking rather silly. And out $25K.

      He won’t maneuver, he’s very good at ignoring critics. He will accept the bet and look forward to next year.

      • Dr Boslough set the terms. He said 2016. You said “accept the bet”. Even if you could talk him into 2018, 2018 will likely be warmer than 1987.

        And check the terms – the test will be the 30 years from 1987 to 2016 versus all preceding 30 year periods. We’ve just been looking at the immediately preceding period because that reduces to a comparison of two years. I’m sure if you look for some 30 year period, say 1950 to 1979, you’ll find a pretty chilly 30 years to compete against. I’m sure you can’t talk Dr Boslough into changing that!

        Some people think we’re on the brink of 30-50 years of cooling, perhaps you should suggest 2050.

  55. “if I tortured my data like that, I could make it confess to anything ”

    Precisely. This is why I can’t waste my time reading all the nits and shits along the way on this subject. There has been no one method of comparing temperatures that existed over millennia because we didn’t have the technology to do so, so now we are extrapolating and can have no fool-proof assurances that we are correct. To whatever degree our data about temperatures over many thousands of years is any bit accurate, we can be pretty darn certain that the planet will see many more ice ages and warm ages before its life is done, and those coming trends are likely to have very little if anything to do with what sources of energy we people use. The long trends in temperature changes or climate changes (and far, far greater changes at that) we have been able to assume, based on various methods of calculating the past by application of science we have today that we never had before, demonstrate that fussing over a handful of decades of supposed temp rises is silly.

    Within a framework of appropriate priorities, it makes sense to judiciously manage our natural resources. It makes sense to reasonably and rationally do all we can to maintain a “clean” planet. It makes sense to work out ways to help underdeveloped countries along the way. Beyond that, it’s pretty much out of our control I’m afraid and that’s why it all just looks like a crapload of politics to me and many others. So when ‘someone’ categorically states that “climate change” is our top crisis of concern while people’s heads are being chopped off and Christmas parties are being massacred, it’s no wonder skeptics raise eyebrows.

    I’m not educated like all you folks, but I think I’ve got some common sense.

  56. the divergence problem not exclusively in climate models vs observed conditions.

    “This figure tells a story that is no way surprising to anyone who has worked on software projects before: demand for fixes and features is rapidly outpacing the supply of development time invested, and so the issue tracker is no longer serving as any sort of meaningful project planning tool.”

    http://tinyletter.com/programming-beyond-practices/letters/the-sad-graph-of-software-death

  57. It would appear that Dr. Boslough’s wager shows he is quite aware of what he is doing (or trying to pull off). So that public assertion could in itself show possible malfeasance in the future should the so-called “climate scientists” face criminal charges for their participation in a great scam involving government grants. That coming day is a real possibility. Dr. Boslough will have some difficulty claiming ignorance as many involved in the scheme will probably do.

  58. Take him on. Make the bet on 1989-2018 v 1987-2016 (or 1986-2015). Using UAH or RSS – he’d lose. I’m not sure about GISS or Hadcrut. I’ll cjheck out GISS.

    WUWT just need $5 a head from 5000 people. I think Boslough will back down.

    • Actually forget what I posted. It’s doubtful that the bet can be won for several years. We’d need a deep La Nina in 2017 and 2018 to have any sort of chance.

  59. John Finn: then propose a bet that can be won by either party, and which does not rely on known-altered reconstructions. Something like the future values of Mauna Loa C02 and RSS, for example, and which, by its own terms, exposes the small (if any) extent of actual causal relationship. Or, more directly toward the impending doom/sea level scenario, a bet on a statistically significant change in the rate of sea level change measured at geologically stable locations. Just a thought…

    • It doesn’t matter what we use. RSS or UAH will give the same problem from a sceptical viewpoint. The crux of the matter is that recent La Nina years are warmer than El Nino years of 30 years ago. It’s therefore virtually impossible to foresee a future 30 year period which might be cooler than an earlier 30 year period.

      This is quite a cleverly constructed bet which, if I’m honest, provides a fairly powerful argument for an enhanced greenhouse effect.

      • I disagree with your attribution of the overall temp increase. The current warming is no more rapid than the first 40 years of the 20th C, and the years since the 1998 El Niño statistically flat.

        At any rate, my point was to pick a bet that you might win, and that puts those betting against you at risk for more than their bet by also putting a tenet of their belief system on the line as well. Something simple would do, like A smaller wager that the avg RSS global temp for the current El Niño is no greater than the prior 2.

    • The difference between the 1980’s and 21st century strongest La Nina’s are only around 0.2 c. This difference changes to around 0.3 c with El Nino’s except the 1997/98 event. Just this change says nothing about an enhanced greenhouse effect when natural ocean cycles become positive between this same period and global low cloud levels declined. We only need a drop in global temperatures of 0.3 c to be back to square one. This is almost possible with a strong El Nino if it caused a step down in global temperatures after the event.

      The El Nino during 1997/98 caused a step up.

      I have already mentioned about the change in low levels clouds and global natural cycles above, during this period. (Matt G January 2, 2016 at 4:47 pm)

  60. When Intrade was still in business it offered 9 different climate-related bets we could make, on varying time scales. Residents of Britain and other countries where gambling is legal can still bet at bookmakers on such things, I believe.

  61. I’ll bet that over the next 30 years, Dr. Boslough never admits that the skeptics disagree with him over the magnitude of global warming but agree that global warming is real.

  62. It’s like a magician misdirecting your attention from the main question. The question is how close to the temp increase predicted ten years ago will the 2016 temp be?

  63. Bob – could you do a post on why the 102 IPCC models that are above the observational temperature rise have not been dropped from the scenarios? And where in the models are there scenarios that take us from where we are today to the extreme of 4C by 2100?

    If the IPCC narrative cannot be debunked in principle, could not, by now, a bunch of their scenarios be shown to be based on false premises?

  64. The terms of the bet refer to GISS global land-only data and awkwardly state the challenge is that the 30 years from 1987-2016 is colder than the coldest 30 year period in GIStemp. Unfortunately Wood for Trees only has the global land and ocean data. That data plotted as monthly and with 30 year centerweighted smoothing (i.e. mentally shift the smoothed line 15 years to the right for the end point) is:

    So you’ll be competing against the early 20th century when the anomaly was some -0.2 C°. the most recent 30 year period has an anomaly of about +0.5 C°. It looks like in the next year we’ll be dropping a year with a +0.2 C° anomaly, and we’ll need a year cold enough to reduce the anomaly to that -0.2 C°. To undo 30 years of that +0.7 C° difference, we’ll need a year about -30 times that, i.e. with an anomaly of -21.0 C°. Well, only -20.8 C° thanks to dropping a year at +0.2 C°.

    • Ric, your analysis assumes a non-overlapping 30 year period. I’m not sure those are the terms of the bet. For example

      1987-2016 is a 30 year period
      1986-2015 is also a 30 year period.

      So my understanding is that a valid bet would be 1987-2016 v 1986-2015. Basically the bet boils down to 2016 being warmer than 1986. Obviously that’s a no-brainer. No-one with any sense would take it on.

      However, it’s possible that 2017 (and 2018) will be La Nina years, i.e. cooler. Furthermore 1987 was an El Nino year, so there’s a slight chance that 2017 will be cooler than 1987 which means the 1988-2017 period would be very slightly cooler than 1988-2017. However even that looks unlikely. The Boslough challenge clearly demonstrates that

      La Nina years NOW are warmer than El Nino years of 30 years ago.

      And it doesn’t matter what dataset is used for reference. That’s a red herring. UAH and RSS would give the same result as GISS.

      • which means the 1988-2017 period would be very slightly cooler than 1988-2017

        Sorry that should be “cooler than 1987-2016”

      • I’m not clear why you think I wasn’t using non-overlapping periods. The graph from WoodForTrees displays overlapping periods with monthly granularity. My reference to the early 20th century was intentionally vague since the graphs shows so many choices for 30 year periods that are equally low.

        So my understanding is that a valid bet would be 1987-2016 v 1986-2015.

        No, the bet is 1987-2016 vs a 30 year period to be named later per the terms. Boslough’s text states:

        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….

        See the word “any”? That implies looking all of the 30 year periods. In actuality, he knows taking the coldest 30 year period gives him the best chance of winning. Dr Boslough is employing misdirection (remember, he’s involved with CSICOP and probably knows James Randi) to make people look at 1986-2015 when he knows full well that any of those early 30 year periods guarantee that anyone who takes him up on the bet can’t win.

    • See the word “any”? That implies looking all of the 30 year periods.

      Yes I do. This implies ANY 30 year period. Not the coldest – Not a specific named period – but ANY 30 year period, e.g 1986-2015.

      But it doesn’t actually matter. There is no chance that 1987-2016 will be cooler than 1986-2015. For that to happen 2016 would need to be cooler than 1986 was and that’s not going to happen – not in UAH nor RSS nor GISS nor Hadcrut.

      He’ll definitely win this year and next year and the year after and the year after that …… and so on.

      • I’m not entirely sure of that aspect of Boslough’s intended meaning! If by “does not exceed in any” is meant simply less than or equal to any, without any restriction of choice, then it would suffice for the trailing 30yr average for 2016 to be equal to that for 2015, which is currently the highest, to win the bet. If, on the other hand, the intended meaning is less than or equal to any and all previous such averages, then Ric Werme’s parsing would prevail. That ambiguity is the sly part of a sucker bet.

  65. Ric Werme says:

    The terms of the bet refer to GISS global land-only data…

    I wouldn’t consider any wagers that are determined by land-only temperatures, particularly GISS fabrications.

    Even if GISS was being honest, which it’s clear they’re not, land is ≈29% of the planet’s surface. Ignoring the other 79% will certainly give different readings than the whole land/ocean surface.

    Satellite data is the most accurate. I would counter with the average of UAH and RSS, or something similar. And as Ric points out, tolerances matter when measuring small fractions of a degree. What are the error bars, etc?

    Here’s a typical NASA/GISS “adjustment” of land temps:

    Another example of NASA/GISS temperature tampering:

    Another. And they always make temps hotter, never cooler:

    More GISS temperature shenanigans:

    No wonder Boslough wants GISS “data” to decide the winner. He can’t lose no matter what the real trend is.

    • Satellite data is the most accurate. I would counter with the average of UAH and RSS, or something similar.

      It doesn’t matter which data you use. Boslough is still virtually certain to win- – and he’d win for several more years to come.

  66. It was said that skeptics think that global cooling is just around the corner and if the temperature continues to go up it will “break the skeptic’s argument.” That is a real straw dog argument. My personal skepticism is that I do not believe that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is demonstrable against the natural variability and it is constructed as an artificial crisis for political purposes. It is plant food!

    Based upon the cyclic nature of climate and previous ice ages recorded in the Vostok ice cores and recent temperature records from Greenland and other diverse locations over the Holocene i see a slow decrease in average temperature over the last several thousand years and several periods described as climate optimums:: Minoan,Roman and Medieval. The optimums are all separated by periods of cooling. the most recent Little Ice Age that ended the Medieval warming period was the most miserably cold period for a very long time in the Holocene Interstadial Period.

    I am fascinated that some people have the idea that skeptics want it to get colder. NO! Let me speak for this skeptic. I pray that temperature continues to rebound from the Little Ice Age and that this great ride we are on has several more climate optimums in this interstadial period. Without the CO2 argument distracting us, if the climate is rebounding from a cold period I would and many other reasonably astute theorists expect the temperatures to go up. This statement of the obvious shouldn’t be rocket science or particularly alarming to those who think the CO2 hoax is riding this rebound coat tail. So as a CO2 skeptic I am one of those who expects temperatures to rebound and prays for another climate optimum in our future. Sooo if anyone out there thinks that CO2 is causing temperature rise and that they use temperature rise from the end of the Little Ice Age as proof. I have to question whether the argument is being advanced through ignorance or stupidity. Ignorance is addressed by acquiring knowledge. Stupidity is permanent. I don’t think there is any point arguing with ideologues.Especially when they are making money off of the “crisis.” AL Gore’s check book says he is brilliant! At the same time the incessant drum beat from skeptics about the interpretation of some particular squiggly line since 1880 quite misses the point that one should posit warming after cooling after warming after cooling after warming ……. and not get skewered by a straw argument that skeptics are predicting short term cooling. Long term…. it is going to get damn frosty…but when? Please! Let us just continue the rebound.

  67. I wonder if he’s the guy who got me fired from Sandia for daring to question the claim that Global warming was going to kill us all.

    • I thought there was hope for him for quite a while. This bet, and the interaction with his pals on twitter and elsewhere has convinced me he has no interest in considering any viewpoint other than his own. Here he’s trying to find a sucker willing to throw away $25K. You could well have been a more immediate irritation and needed to be squashed.

  68. Dr. Boslough’s wager is NOT a sucker bet.
    I LOVE IT.
    Why ?
    because it is a even, 1:1 bet.
    Seriously, when sure to win, do you bet 1:1 ? no. you bet 2:1, 10:1, 100:1 or more
    A 1:1 bet is for a flip coin issue.
    The simple fact that Dr. Boslough’s wager is 1:1 implies that he do NOT believe, in his heart, in his acts, that “global warming is real and will continue”. This belief is just in his mind, not in his flesh and bone.
    :-)

    • Keep in mind that if he wins, you lose money. If next year is really, really, asteroid impacting cold and you win, you don’t get money. Payouts go to charity. His goal is to find a denier and hurt him, not to win $25K.

    • Boslough would win the bet. It’s not 1:1. Betting that 2016 will be warmer than 2015 might be considered an even bet. Boslough appears to be basing his bet on 30 year periods.

      For example 1987-2016 v 1986-2015 (despite what Ric says I think this would be acceptable to MB). However you need to consider what needs to happen to win the bet.

      The temperatures in the period 1987-2016 are almost exactly the same as in the period 1986-2015 except that 2016 replaces 1986. So, for 1987-2016 to be cooler than 1986-2015, 2016 would need to be cooler than 1986.

      For GISS the mean anomaly for 1986 was 0.19
      For UAH the mean anomaly for 1986 was -0.22

      In other words – No chance.

      • Yes, I understood that reading posts above.
        And I love this wager all the more . It’s not even wager about the world getting otter, but about not getting in 2016 as cold as it was in 1986. At 1:1.
        And that’s supposed to come from some believer in global warming going on ? seriously ?

  69. The ISS maintains its CO2 10x higher than on the Earth. Great for growing food.
    “Dr.” Boslough’s accusation that deniers do not believe in the conservation of energy.. Well ok, playing with his belief system. You can place your hand in an insulated box of mirrors. Your hand will reflect heat back in. It will get ever hotter until it burns that hand.

    Of course the man (in my opinion) is an idiot.

    • No, he is not an idiot. He has managed to fool several people here and probably several of his pals. Charlatan he is, cunning, almost.

      And his belief system doesn’t include your box.

    • You can place your hand in an insulated box of mirrors. Your hand will reflect heat back in. It will get ever hotter until it burns that hand.

      I’m not sure you understand the greenhouse effect – which basically works because there is a source of energy (heat) , i.e. the sun. The earth’s greenhouse effect works by impeding the flow of LWIR radiation from the earth’s surface. As more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere the average height at which energy escapes to space is increased. This means energy is emitted from a higher – i.e. COLDER layer. Because it is colder the rate of emission falls (S-B Law). So now we have an imbalance where:

      Incoming energy from the sun is greater than outgoing LW energy and basic thermodynamics tells us that the earth’s surface and atmosphere will warm until such time that the incoming /outgoing balance is re-established.

  70. I would bet him that the global average T of the troposphere will, in 2016, be below the global average T of 1998. The two Niño’s are comparable. If 1998 wins, we are cooling.

    • I would bet him that the global average T of the troposphere will, in 2016, be below the global average T of 1998.

      I’m not sure I would. The UAH temperatures for the last few months of 2015 are higher than for the corresponding months of 1997. I’d hang on for the Dec reading at least before making a commitment.

  71. “I do not recall ever hearing of Dr. Boslough before reading that blog post… As of this writing, Dr. Boslough has published a not-very-noteworthy 20 blog posts for TheHuffingtonPost since April 2013.”

    Boslough is listed as lead author or a co-author on over 200 refereed articles, abstracts or reports. Admittedly most of them involve the childishly-easy fields of impact geophysics and shock metamorphism. https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=mmtZeTMAAAAJ&hl=en

    • Well, Magma, if your implied assertion, that Boslough used to be bright and honest is correct, then, given his “offer” above and the pseudo-science he advocates in the course of making it, he is a pathetic, brain-impaired, dupe, now… .

      OR….

      HE IS A CON MAN. They are often very bright.

      So. Which is it?

      Your man (taking as a given that he is bright) is either sadly “not of sound mind,” or a l1ar.

  72. 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. Bob Tisdale, Update 2

    Gosh. 0.65 °C/(2016-1986) = 0.217 °C/decade. Who would have thought Bob Tisdale was a cherry-picking warmist?

Comments are closed.