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.

Ric Werme says:



The terms of the bet refer to GISS global land-only data…
I wouldn’t consider any wagers that are determined by land-only temperatures, particularly GISS fabrications.
Even if GISS was being honest, which it’s clear they’re not, land is ≈29% of the planet’s surface. Ignoring the other 79% will certainly give different readings than the whole land/ocean surface.
Satellite data is the most accurate. I would counter with the average of UAH and RSS, or something similar. And as Ric points out, tolerances matter when measuring small fractions of a degree. What are the error bars, etc?
Here’s a typical NASA/GISS “adjustment” of land temps:
Another example of NASA/GISS temperature tampering:
Another. And they always make temps hotter, never cooler:
More GISS temperature shenanigans:
No wonder Boslough wants GISS “data” to decide the winner. He can’t lose no matter what the real trend is.
It doesn’t matter which data you use. Boslough is still virtually certain to win- – and he’d win for several more years to come.
It was said that skeptics think that global cooling is just around the corner and if the temperature continues to go up it will “break the skeptic’s argument.” That is a real straw dog argument. My personal skepticism is that I do not believe that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is demonstrable against the natural variability and it is constructed as an artificial crisis for political purposes. It is plant food!
Based upon the cyclic nature of climate and previous ice ages recorded in the Vostok ice cores and recent temperature records from Greenland and other diverse locations over the Holocene i see a slow decrease in average temperature over the last several thousand years and several periods described as climate optimums:: Minoan,Roman and Medieval. The optimums are all separated by periods of cooling. the most recent Little Ice Age that ended the Medieval warming period was the most miserably cold period for a very long time in the Holocene Interstadial Period.
I am fascinated that some people have the idea that skeptics want it to get colder. NO! Let me speak for this skeptic. I pray that temperature continues to rebound from the Little Ice Age and that this great ride we are on has several more climate optimums in this interstadial period. Without the CO2 argument distracting us, if the climate is rebounding from a cold period I would and many other reasonably astute theorists expect the temperatures to go up. This statement of the obvious shouldn’t be rocket science or particularly alarming to those who think the CO2 hoax is riding this rebound coat tail. So as a CO2 skeptic I am one of those who expects temperatures to rebound and prays for another climate optimum in our future. Sooo if anyone out there thinks that CO2 is causing temperature rise and that they use temperature rise from the end of the Little Ice Age as proof. I have to question whether the argument is being advanced through ignorance or stupidity. Ignorance is addressed by acquiring knowledge. Stupidity is permanent. I don’t think there is any point arguing with ideologues.Especially when they are making money off of the “crisis.” AL Gore’s check book says he is brilliant! At the same time the incessant drum beat from skeptics about the interpretation of some particular squiggly line since 1880 quite misses the point that one should posit warming after cooling after warming after cooling after warming ……. and not get skewered by a straw argument that skeptics are predicting short term cooling. Long term…. it is going to get damn frosty…but when? Please! Let us just continue the rebound.
I wonder if he’s the guy who got me fired from Sandia for daring to question the claim that Global warming was going to kill us all.
I thought there was hope for him for quite a while. This bet, and the interaction with his pals on twitter and elsewhere has convinced me he has no interest in considering any viewpoint other than his own. Here he’s trying to find a sucker willing to throw away $25K. You could well have been a more immediate irritation and needed to be squashed.
Dr. Boslough’s wager is NOT a sucker bet.
I LOVE IT.
Why ?
because it is a even, 1:1 bet.
Seriously, when sure to win, do you bet 1:1 ? no. you bet 2:1, 10:1, 100:1 or more
A 1:1 bet is for a flip coin issue.
The simple fact that Dr. Boslough’s wager is 1:1 implies that he do NOT believe, in his heart, in his acts, that “global warming is real and will continue”. This belief is just in his mind, not in his flesh and bone.
🙂
Keep in mind that if he wins, you lose money. If next year is really, really, asteroid impacting cold and you win, you don’t get money. Payouts go to charity. His goal is to find a denier and hurt him, not to win $25K.
Boslough would win the bet. It’s not 1:1. Betting that 2016 will be warmer than 2015 might be considered an even bet. Boslough appears to be basing his bet on 30 year periods.
For example 1987-2016 v 1986-2015 (despite what Ric says I think this would be acceptable to MB). However you need to consider what needs to happen to win the bet.
The temperatures in the period 1987-2016 are almost exactly the same as in the period 1986-2015 except that 2016 replaces 1986. So, for 1987-2016 to be cooler than 1986-2015, 2016 would need to be cooler than 1986.
For GISS the mean anomaly for 1986 was 0.19
For UAH the mean anomaly for 1986 was -0.22
In other words – No chance.
Yes, I understood that reading posts above.
And I love this wager all the more . It’s not even wager about the world getting otter, but about not getting in 2016 as cold as it was in 1986. At 1:1.
And that’s supposed to come from some believer in global warming going on ? seriously ?
Then take him up on it.
The ISS maintains its CO2 10x higher than on the Earth. Great for growing food.
“Dr.” Boslough’s accusation that deniers do not believe in the conservation of energy.. Well ok, playing with his belief system. You can place your hand in an insulated box of mirrors. Your hand will reflect heat back in. It will get ever hotter until it burns that hand.
Of course the man (in my opinion) is an idiot.
No, he is not an idiot. He has managed to fool several people here and probably several of his pals. Charlatan he is, cunning, almost.
And his belief system doesn’t include your box.
I’m not sure you understand the greenhouse effect – which basically works because there is a source of energy (heat) , i.e. the sun. The earth’s greenhouse effect works by impeding the flow of LWIR radiation from the earth’s surface. As more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere the average height at which energy escapes to space is increased. This means energy is emitted from a higher – i.e. COLDER layer. Because it is colder the rate of emission falls (S-B Law). So now we have an imbalance where:
Incoming energy from the sun is greater than outgoing LW energy and basic thermodynamics tells us that the earth’s surface and atmosphere will warm until such time that the incoming /outgoing balance is re-established.
“You can place your hand in an insulated box of mirrors. Your hand will reflect heat back in”
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/
I would bet him that the global average T of the troposphere will, in 2016, be below the global average T of 1998. The two Niño’s are comparable. If 1998 wins, we are cooling.
I’m not sure I would. The UAH temperatures for the last few months of 2015 are higher than for the corresponding months of 1997. I’d hang on for the Dec reading at least before making a commitment.
“I do not recall ever hearing of Dr. Boslough before reading that blog post… As of this writing, Dr. Boslough has published a not-very-noteworthy 20 blog posts for TheHuffingtonPost since April 2013.”
Boslough is listed as lead author or a co-author on over 200 refereed articles, abstracts or reports. Admittedly most of them involve the childishly-easy fields of impact geophysics and shock metamorphism. https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=mmtZeTMAAAAJ&hl=en
Well, Magma, if your implied assertion, that Boslough used to be bright and honest is correct, then, given his “offer” above and the pseudo-science he advocates in the course of making it, he is a pathetic, brain-impaired, dupe, now… .
OR….
HE IS A CON MAN. They are often very bright.
So. Which is it?
Your man (taking as a given that he is bright) is either sadly “not of sound mind,” or a l1ar.
Or he is being blackmailed…
So, you know something about that Magma? Hm? Do share.
In order for the 30-year average for the period of 1987-2016 to equal the value for the period of 1986-2015, the 2016 value has to equal the 1986 global temperature anomaly of 0.19 deg C. In other words, global surface temperatures would have to drop 0.65 deg C in 2016 for the average of 1987-2016 just to tie the average for 1986-2015. Bob Tisdale, Update 2
Gosh. 0.65 °C/(2016-1986) = 0.217 °C/decade. Who would have thought Bob Tisdale was a cherry-picking warmist?
No, – 0.65 C in one year or – 65 C/century.
Q. Who would have thought that Magma is a cherry- picking warmist (who’s bad at math)?
A. Just about everybody (97%).