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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Stewart Pid

Happy New Year folks. Bob / others …. can anyone point me to an update on the blob? Thanks.

Clyde Spencer

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.

Luke

Clyde,
As I stated in my post, the peaks you identify are a result of all the data coming from one location. When global data are considered, those peaks disappear.
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10000-year-graph.jpg
So the ball is back in your court. What is your explanation for the rapid current warming that is unlike anything we have seen in the past 10,000 years?

Marcuso8

Dear Luke, if I tortured my data like that, I could make it confess to anything !!

Matt G

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.

John F. Hultquist

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.

Matt G

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.

Richard G

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.

zootcadillac

@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.

Clyde Spencer

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.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

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.

Janne

(-90+90)/2 = 0, (-90+90.02)/2 = 0.01. It’s the average.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Päivää Janne. Yes, Dr. Boslough’s indifferential calculus explains the bet exhaustively.

Luke

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.

tom s

To which I say…S T F W? And What are you going to do about it and why?

D. J. Hawkins

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.

simple-touriste

Luke, you might want to educate yourself of the “central limite theorem” and its conditions.
Hint: it doesn’t apply to measurement devices!

simple-touriste

“You need hundreds of measurements in the same location at the same time”
Even then, you are limited by the measurement device(s).
You can’t assume each of your tools is perfect on average; you can’t even assume many different tools give a perfect average.
You can’t apply theorems when you have no data. You have no data on the precision of averaged measurements. And I don’t believe any measurement device is designed to be used that way.
The idea of zero or neglectable systematic calibration bias is an extraordinary assumption.

I believe that global warming is real. I believe that for about half the time we have global warming and for about half the time we have global cooling.

barryjo

But you can’t make any money with that.

Nicholas

In every 24 hour time period. lol. Indeed.

J

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.

Peter Sable

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.

Marcuso8

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.

Brandon Gates

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?

Bruce Cobb

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

Congrats, Bruce. First busted irony meter of the year gave up its short life on that one.

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 Gates

Simply pointing out that a cycle exists says nothing about causation. Try again.

Climate Heretic

@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

Brandon Gates

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.

Brandon Gates

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?

Clyde Spencer

Phil,
I like your post. I think it demonstrates considerable wisdom and understanding of the problems.

Brandon Gates

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.

tom s

I’m freezing. Turning the heat up to 72F. Does that anger you?

knr

‘Dr. Boslough is correct, in as much as it is a sucker bet’, true but for more than one reason ,just as if you allowed those selling snake oil to pass judgement on the effectiveness of ‘snake oil’ , allowing those with a vested interest in the ‘right adjustments’ in temperature measurements to control the record which is going to make this judgement, would be foolish , especially given their record in this area, in the extreme.
Frankly your dealing with people who if all they told you that it was raining , you still go outside to check.

+10

eyesonu

“… 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.

Brandon Gates

50% of the time if one supposes that the 60-year cycle is set in stone.

richardscourtney

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

Janice Moore

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

BallBounces

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?”

joelobryan

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.

Alx

“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?”

Louis LeBlanc

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.

Richard M

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, 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.

LexingtonGreen

It is tempting. What do people think of making the bet but using satelite data and a 2018 date?

Agree; I made a similar suggestion further down before reading yours. The point about propaganda is that you can turn it against the propagandist. Make a big deal about accepting – shout it out loud and clear – YES, WE ACCEPT – (with unarguably logically amendmants, of course).
Let’s see if we can hoist this smug git on his own petard. I’ll happily put $50 on a 2018 date and hope to make a winning. Of course, he’s unlikely to take it up, but then he’ll have to defend the indefensible terms of his original bet.

RSS for December has just come in at 0.543. This is the hottest December on record, however 0.543 was beaten in the first 8 months of 1998 and for 4 months in 2010. The 2015 average is 0.358, putting 2015 in third place as Bob mentioned behind 0.550 from 1998 and 0.468 from 2010.
The pause has decreased by one month to 18 years and 8 months. Now, the pause goes from May 1997 to December 2015.
This month, the start date for the pause jumped by two months to May. The huge question now is whether or not the anomalies will drop to 0.24 before the start month reaches December 1997.

What is the justification for referring to global temperatures in three decimal places; why not 5 or 6? I have read that NASA and NOAA global temperatures have an uncertainty of the order of 0.1 degrees, although I can’t find this information on their web sites. I find it hard to even believe the 0.1.

Louis LeBlanc

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.

BruceC
Richard Barraclough

I doubt it Werner. January has started in the same vein as December – anomalously warm. I’m afraid the Pause is about to become an ex-Pause within the next month or two. And sadly there is no more recent start date to fall back on. Once December 1997 bites the dust, so will the whole Pause.
But it’s been fun while it lasted.
I predict a few articles along the lines of no “significant” warming, which is far less exciting, as you can define the significance however you wish, whereas a least-squares trend-line is either negative or it’s not.

Mark Boslough is a complete trickster. I wouldn’t go anywhere near anything he has to say. Not a friend of science.

guereza2wdw

The Puffington Post is not a friend to science either.

Hoyt Clagwell

I’m amazed Dr. Boslough thinks that he can prove global warming one way or the other by observing what happens in a single year. He doesn’t seem to realize that he is the school yard bully with a chip on his shoulder daring anyone to knock it off. He doesn’t even address the only significant part of global warming theory which is, how much is man to blame and can man do anything about it.
Oh, and does the hottest year claim for 2016 need to have more than 38% confidence, or is that enough to win the bet?

Bob: I did a “dumb cluck” analysis of the balances using the ARMS experimental data which “found the signature” of the CO2. Strangely, the shift of 2 watts per square meter in 12 years, in a straight Stephan Boltzman analysis with an average emmissivity of .47, ended up in almost exactly that .11 degree C/Decade shift. Extrapolating to 100 years, I came up with a 1 degree C or 2 degree F (for us old fashioned folks) shift in 100 years. WHICH, I don’t think is anything to panic about. Means the temp highs in AZ will go from 115 F to 117 F, will anyone notice? Wait, that means our bitter lows in MN will go from -35 F to -33 F. Oh yes, I think I’ll panic about that…LATER…

Apparently FL is about to join the rest of United States weather already in progress. It’s hard to beat being able to use the new jet ski on Christmas day.

Orlando was fabulous on Christmas Day. Wonderful. Mid 80s. This week was nice too. Tomorrow will have a high of 59 degrees F and a low of 48F. Where is my GD global warming? Why does 48 at night suit you more than 71? Why is a high of 59 better than 85? Damn Yankee I bet.
~ Mark

I’m more comfortable outside at 59F than at 85F. For most outside activities I like the high 60s, lower in the sun or if I’m hiking up a mountain, splitting wood, bicycling, etc.
Yep, damn Yankee and 3/4 Swedish. You can keep your humidity.

joelobryan

I love Tucson Arizona. A few freezing nights kills all the bugs.
Wet winter weathersystems coming through drops snow in the mountains above 7000 feet. I take my puppy to play in the snow in the mornings 30 minutes away, and then run in warmth of the dry river beds with my dog at 2500feet in the afternoon.
Florida just always has bugs. and more bugs. and more bugs.

And what is wrong with bugs? I had a VW Bug back in high school. My first girl friend and I … well, that is another story.

Chip Javert

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.

T. Madigan

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.

Janice Moore

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!).

T. Madigan

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?

Janice Moore

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

Marcuso8

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 !!

Chip Javert

I like the “Dear T. Madigan” salutation…

T. Madigan, what is this, ‘your’ diehard stalwart? Such a clueless sentence from you displays your ideology, nothing more. I don’t own any scientists and nor do you. Some are competent and brilliant, others not so much. I prefer to read and see what every scientist says, in their own words and then make up my mind. http://pindanpost.com/2015/12/15/real-scientists-in-their-own-words/
Your mind was made up long before you knew what Boslough or Dyson had said. The link here includes real Nobel winners, unlike Mann et al.

Janice Moore

— 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.

Bruce Cobb

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.

T. Madigan

Sure, straight from Dr. Boslough’s Twitter account: https://twitter.com/MarkBoslough/status/667755362171248640

The picture claims Dyson says human induced climate change is real. Big deal, so do I. I think the change from forests to row crops to urban development to airports have all warmed the climate. I even think CO2 does too.
However, I am highly skeptical of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change).
I am also highly skeptical that Dyson has “jumped ship”. That image suggests he made the statement at some talk. Please provide the link for that, or a transcript, or a document if the image is misleading and there was no talk.
If Boslough is posting misleading comments, I’m tempted to call him out on that.

Marcuso8

OMG…That is evidence to you ?? A photo shopped blog !! ROTFLMALO…..

Bruce Cobb

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.

Janice Moore

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.

Richard G

I had no idea we were on ships as my feet are always planted on Terra firma.

Here is another ‘interesting’ tweet by Mr Boslough …
“Mark Boslough ‏@MarkBoslough 18 Dec 2015 Oakland, CA
Denial is deadly. Al Gore’s haters fail to recognize that 9/11 never would have happened if he had been President. He accepts reality.”
Kinda hard to take someone like that seriously … on any subject … or anyone who quotes him. The Dyson quote is quite obviously a PARTIAL quote and taken out of context. Anyone with the brains that God gave a gnat, could see right through it.

carbon bigfoot

That is a sucker bet because they and their ilk are fudging the data. SWAG

Steve Fraser

Looking at the terms for the comparison in the original article, the bet will be settled using data from NASA GISS. To me, this seems to boil down to a wager about the GISS land surface avg for the 1998 El Niño and the current El Niño peak. Is that a reasonable way to understand it?

Yet another precocious PhD who craves stardom. As one “disrespectful” Chinese engineer member of one of my teams years ago on a major project despairingly stated – in response to weeks of arrogant but nonsensical inputs from a Dr. engineer who was causing chaos: ” PhD stands for permanent head damage caused by spending years studying one minute specialist subject but continually in denial and being ignorant of our works’ and the world’s real required inputs!

Caligula Jones

” 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?

ldd

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.

Janice Moore

+1

It is the good doctor who is trying to play the bully.

simple-touriste

“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.

Hugs

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.

Pamela Gray

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.

confusedphoton

“Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me?”
Climate Bullies??? unlike Michael Mann, Keith Trenberth, etc. !!!!!!!!
What very sad & deluded people

indefatigablefrog

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.

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.

jsuther2013

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…

Brandon Gates

Eyowww, I’m definitely guilty … thanks for the tip. Er … suggestion.

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:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/k0hxd1.jpg

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

“…to a $25,000 bet that global warming is real…” Too bad the challenge doesn’t apply to the MWP that Dr. Mann attempted to “disappear”.

Adam from Kansas

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).

Richard M

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.

BruceC

Richard, Australia’s BoM are predicting that we will be ENSO neutral by mid-year (May-June). There was also a report about this just this-morning on the morning news program.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks

Adam from Kansas

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.

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.

John Finn

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.

I thank you for your opinion and note that it is one.

Björn from sweden

Maybe Boslough will accept a bet against 2017 to be warmer than 2016?

michael hart

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.

trafamadore

Whoa. Only two figs in a Tisdale post? I wonder if he has made a new year resolution…

It’s up to three now!

MikeN

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?

Björn from sweden

why would anyone compare one years average to 30 years average? That hardly proves anything worth while? 2016-2046 anyone?

MikeN

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.

David Walton

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.

David S

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.

Boslough has just posted a link to this article, with the comment “Denier agrees that it would be foolish to bet against the scientific consensus that 2016 climate will be even hotter than 2015!”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/103346273062694/permalink/1004232459640733/

richard

will he bet there will be a worldwide drought next year as seen in 1934.

Robert
The actual bet is that 2016 will be warmer than 1986, not warmer than 2015. (See the comment below by 1sky1.)
So he’s 1ying blatantly about his own bet.

1sky1

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!

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.

Robert B

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.

bill hunter

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.

Cyclone Ula looks like it is going to impact a good portion of the heat flow off of the El Nino. Notice the large cold air intrusion to the east of the cyclone….http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-160.51,-16.99,497

Luke

Marcuso8
Classy!

Janice Moore

Just like you, Luke.

Luke

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:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
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.

Andrew

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.”

Joe Bastardi

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.