Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 2 – Dr. Boslough’s wager is truly a sucker bet.
TheHuffingtonPost published a laughable post on December 31st by Sandia Labs’ Mark Boslough titled Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me? It begins (You’re going to enjoy this):
I, Mark Boslough, being of sound mind, do hereby challenge any individual or organization to a $25,000 bet that global warming is real and will continue. If the climatological average global land surface temperature goes up again in 2016, setting another new record, the party that accepts my challenge must donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit of my choice. If not, I will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit designated by the accepting party.
Details are below. But it doesn’t matter. It’s a sucker bet. Everyone knows that global warming is real.
Dr. Boslough is correct, inasmuch as it is a sucker bet, but not for the reason or reasons he claims. Even skeptics expect global surface temperatures (and global lower troposphere temperatures) will be higher in 2016 than they were in 2015, but skeptics understand the reasons for it…that a strong El Niño raises global surface temperatures in the El Niño evolution year AND (typically) even more in the El Niño decay year. That means, as the 2015/16 El Niño winds down in 2016, global surface and lower troposphere temperatures will continue to rise in response to the El Niño. I reminded readers of this likelihood back in September 2015, in the blog post Tired of the Claims of “Warmest Ever” Month and Year? They Will Likely Continue Next Year. Not too surprisingly, Dr. Boslough’s blog post failed to mention El Niño.
NOTE: I do not recall ever hearing of Dr. Boslough before reading that blog post. I’m assuming he’s whining about human-induced global warming and not the warming associated natural variability. Maybe Dr. Boslough is someone who believes that any global warming is bad, regardless of whether it was caused by the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases or by naturally occurring ocean-air processes. Then again, maybe Dr. Boslough is just another alarmist, one who disregards natural variability and is playing to the other alarmists in his audience with his publicity stunt. I would tend to believe he fits into the latter category. [End note.]
In addition to the 2015/16 El Niño, skeptics also understand that another naturally caused warming event was responsible for the reported record high (much-fiddled-with) SURFACE temperatures in 2015. That naturally caused warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific is known as The Blob. And we understand the reported record high SURFACE temperatures in 2014 were a response to The Blob. The Blob is another natural factor Dr. Boslough just happened to overlook. (See The Blob series of posts here.)
Another thing skeptics understand: Dr. Boslough failed to mention lower troposphere temperatures in his publicity stunt…that lower troposphere temperature anomalies are not close to record highs in 2015, though they will likely make a jump in 2016 in response to the current El Niño. See Figure 1. It includes meteorological annual mean (December to November) Lower Troposphere Temperature anomalies from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). (Data here.)
Figure 1
Note: I presented the meteorological annual mean data because the December 2015 data from GISS (Figure 2) is not yet available and I wanted the two graphs to agree. A graph of the annual (January to December) RSS TLT data is here. 2015 came in a distant 3rd warmest with the RSS lower troposphere temperature data. [End note.]
As one might expect, Dr. Boslough chose the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index as the metric for his publicity stunt. He writes:
Mark Boslough (MB) hereby presents a challenge as to whether the Earth’s climate will set a new record high temperature in 2016. The challenge will be settled using the NASA GISS mean global land surface temperatures for the conventional climate averaging period (defined by the World Meteorological Organization as 30 years) ending on December 31, 2016. If the global average temperature does not exceed the mean temperature for an equal period ending on the same date in any previous year for which complete data exist, MB will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit to be designated by the accepting party. Otherwise, tie accepting party will donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit designated by MB.
One last thing Dr. Boslough overlooked: The naturally caused (El Niño and The Blob) uptick in global surface temperatures in 2015 did not eliminate the difference in warming rates (linear trends) between surface temperature observations (his choice of GISS LOTI) and climate model simulations of surface temperatures. See Figure 2, which presents meteorological annual mean (December to November) values and linear trends for the period of 1980 to 2015. GISS and NOAA (the supplier of the sea surface temperature data for GISS) would have to tweak the data a whole lot more to get those two trend lines to agree…even with another naturally caused uptick in 2016.
Figure 2 (Corrected title block.)
The GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (December to November) are available here. The graph also includes the multi-model mean of the climate model simulations of global surface temperatures from the models stored in the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) archive. The climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report (AR5). See the post here for the reasons we use the multi-model mean. Those climate model outputs are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer. To highlight the difference in warming rates, the data and model outputs have been shifted so that the trend lines are zeroed at 1980.
CLOSING
As of this writing, Dr. Boslough has published a not-very-noteworthy 20 blog posts for TheHuffingtonPost since April 2013. I suspect we’ll be seeing more from him in 2016 when no one accepts his foolish bet and he tries to play additional silly games.
UPDATE
Forgot to mention that Gavin Schmidt, Director GISS, recently acknowledged that lower troposphere temperatures are supposed to be warming at a faster rate than surface temperatures. See the WattsUpWithThat post here.
UPDATE 2 – Dr. Boslough’s Wager is Truly A Sucker Bet
Bloggers MikeN and 1sky1 remind us here and here on the cross post at WUWT that the Dr. Boslough’s wager isn’t that global surface temperatures will be warmer in 2016 than they were in 2015. Dr. Boslough’s wager is for the average of 30-year periods. I should have read the wager more closely. (Thanks, MikeN and 1sky1.) Here are the specifics of the bet again:
The challenge will be settled using the NASA GISS mean global land surface temperatures for the conventional climate averaging period (defined by the World Meteorological Organization as 30 years) ending on December 31, 2016. If the global average temperature does not exceed the mean temperature for an equal period ending on the same date in any previous year for which complete data exist…
As an example, Figure 3 shows the last 30 years (1986-2015) of the meteorological annual mean (December to November) GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. In order for the 30-year average for the period of 1987-2016 to equal the value for the period of 1986-2015, the 2016 value has to equal the 1986 global temperature anomaly of 0.19 deg C. In other words, global surface temperatures would have to drop 0.65 deg C in 2016 for the average of 1987-2016 just to tie the average for 1986-2015.
Figure 3
Again, I should have read Dr. Boslough’s wager more closely. It truly is laughable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” 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?
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.
+1
It is the good doctor who is trying to play the bully.
“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.
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.
“Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me?”
Climate Bullies??? unlike Michael Mann, Keith Trenberth, etc. !!!!!!!!
What very sad & deluded people
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:
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.
Thanks, Ric.
If it’s any consolation, Dr. Boslough never heard of you either. But Sou from Bundanga has! From https://twitter.com/MarkBoslough
http://wermenh.com/images/bos-tweet.jpg
Oh, you’re a denier, too. (If you want to be a skeptic or lukewarmist, etc., you have to be like him.)
Thanks for the Twitter link, Ric. Anyone who finds Sou credible has no credibility.
Cheers.
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…
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
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:
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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
Maybe Boslough will accept a bet against 2017 to be warmer than 2016?
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.
Whoa. Only two figs in a Tisdale post? I wonder if he has made a new year resolution…
It’s up to three now!
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?
Thanks, MikeN. I did miss the 30-year averages in the bet. See update 2.
Cheers.
why would anyone compare one years average to 30 years average? That hardly proves anything worth while? 2016-2046 anyone?
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.
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.
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/
Robert, as I said, the whole thing is a publicity stunt.
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.
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.
I’ve just updated the post to show the absurdity of Boslogh’s wager. Thanks again, 1sky1.
The h/t should be shared with MikeN, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/a-foolish-bet-about-2016-global-surface-temperatures-its-nothing-more-than-a-silly-publicity-stunt/comment-page-1/#comment-2111645 though 1sky1 provided more explanation.
Thanks, Ric. I just added MikeN to the update.
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.
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
Marcuso8
Classy!
Just like you, 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.
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.”
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.