So how sure are they of their climate model predictions? So sure they demand we pay billions but when it comes to betting their own money, the modelers are all bravado over the chance to bet on any warming “above zero” 20 years from now.
Some of Australia’s top climate scientists, including those from the CSIRO, have said they will be willing to bet Tony Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman $10,000 that the world will warm over the next 20 years.
These gutsy scientists are offering bets that the climate “might” warm, and which might pay out to a man who will be 95 at their completion. The Guardian takes them seriously?
Here’s an offer to those climate scientists, yes I’m interested in a bet, for sure, but I won’t be offering you a shot at winning in a situation where you predict (and we pay to prevent) far more warming than you are willing to bet on. Hypocrisy what? Your own models are abject failures, and we are forced to pay for policies fueled by your failures and your salary as well.
So show you have the balls and come and talk about a real bet — one that demonstrates you honestly really do think your models work, and you understand the climate.
There are many readers here who are keen as well, and I’m happy to arrange things. I’m already been party to a serious bet, and you can read the details there, we are happy to negotiate on volcanoes, prefer 5 year smoothing, or decadal trends, and talk about a neutral range where the bet is draw because we all know there are error margins.
I offered Brian Schmidt a bet based on the weak outcomes he talked about, but climate modelers don’t deserve to bet on anything except their own predictions.
Which brave scientists are we talking about?
All of these ones, who insult taxpayers by offering to accept a “win” if they fail as scientists:
The CSIRO’s Dr John Church, who is also an IPCC lead author, said he would take up the $10,000 bet, while Dr Tony Hirst, deputy research program director, said he would bet $500 based on “clear terms” of a three or five-year temperature average.
The other scientists include David Karoly of Melbourne University, Will Steffen of the Climate Council, and Dave Griggs, director of the Monash Sustainability Institute.
Prof Andrew Blakers, director of the centre for sustainable energy systems at the Australian National University, said he would be willing to bet $10,000, placed into an escrow account along with a “legally binding agreement” over the payment of the funds.
“Let’s put real money on the table and do this properly,” said Blakers.
Ian Lowe, emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, said only a “catastrophic meteorite impact” could avoid the “inevitability” of higher temperatures in 20 years’ time. Lowe said he would be willing to join Schmidt but questioned the viability of the wager. He said: “He [Newman] was born in April 1938, so he is nearly 76.
Dr Alex Sen Gupta, of the University of NSW’s climate centre, said it was a “pretty safe bet” and that he would have “no chance” of losing his $10,000, based on his understanding of climate science.
In addition to the scientists, economist John Quiggin said he’d be prepared to bet $10,000 to prove Newman wrong. — The Guardian
I’m willing to be serious, the question is — are these scientists serious too, or are they media-show-ponies who think betting on “anything above zero” is worth discussing as a bet while other days they stand in front of cameras to tell us they are 90% sure we are headed for cataclysmic warming. “Pay us your money”.
How weak is Schmidt’s bet? As I said:
“How times have changed. In 2007 the IPCC seemed to be 90% confident that the world would warm by about 0.4 degrees over the next two decades. Now Brian Schmidt braves up to offer a bet of “anything above zero”. Is he really a sceptic? It appears so.”
They want to shift the goal posts and hope no one notices:
“Twenty more years of nothing would make it 37 years of no climate trend. This would be far beyond utter and complete failure, but anything above that is being dressed as success.”
Given that the disagreement between temperature series as to how much the world has warmed is around 0.5c since 1997, any bet which doesn’t include a change greater than this obvious error margin is effectively a bet on zero temperature change.
e.g. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/offset:-0.08
172
Sorry, make that 0.05c 🙂
20
Argh, 0.1c? 🙂
90
Big Sunday?
50
I know what you meant, Eric 🙂
My first-guess, no-skill, null hypothesis would be something similar. There are some extremely simple card games I’d like to play with the editors at the Guardian.
10
Add to that Hadcrut3 unadjusted and you see a difference. Put satellite and you see closer to the truth:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/offset:-0.08/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
00
Here is the text of an email I have sent to Dr David Whitehouse
http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/
“Statistically speaking there has been no significant trend in global temperatures over this period.”
Correct. But this is inevitable when one chooses a short time frame of less than a couple of decades. And statistical significance cuts both ways. If there is no statistically significant warming since 1997 there is no statistically significant evidence for cooling or a “pause” or “hiatus” either.
I recently posted the following on Jo Nova’s blog:
[SNIP Long repeat see that comment and those replies here http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/forgotten-historic-hot-temperatures-recorded-with-detail-and-care-in-adelaide/#comment-1373736. Moderators take a dim view of people waiting three days after all conversation has stopped to post a comment near the top of a thread, and an even dimmer view when it is a long repeat comment. Does Phillip think he needs to sneak these in quietly later because otherwise we’ll show how meaningless they are? We hope this does not happen often. – Jo]
Short term data sets tell us very little about what the actual trend in temperature is. They cannot be used to make any definitive statement about what the real trend is. Using short time frames is setting the data up to fail any test of statistical significance.
00
Clutching eh?
No matter how you argue about the edges, the pause is real enough so that even CAGW scientists recognise that it has gone on so long they admit the models are broken.
And Alas, the data from the oceans is so poor and error filled, we don’t know for sure whether things are warming, cooling or staying the same. Even if we assume the ARGO data is good enough to use, it tells us that massive joules of energy are missing and the models are wrong. And posting long graphs like Philip does is pointless. You won’t find energy lost in 2005 back in 1960.
Please don’t post repeats, especially days after people have moved on.
00
Jo. I do not visit this blog every day. Nor do I usually read all the way down the comments. I have had a little more time over the last few weeks so have visited more often. I reject the notion of “queue jumping”. If the reply is relevant to the comment what is the difference?
Most comments after a while usually just repeat the same old arguments. If I come across a comment that I feel requires a response I post. The first post I read here was the claim “It hasn’t warmed for (17/16/15 etc) years”. This furphy appears over and over again, so I dealt with it(again), not simply because of the specific reference to temperatures for x years, but to explain to people the linits of data analysis which should benefit anyone wishing to engage in discussion of data.
If you think the content of my post meaningless, please point out why Eric’s comment is meaningful and where the analysis in my response is incorrect. I have many responses to such posts which while strident in their condemnation never try to show where it is wrong.
I do not assume that everyone comes to this blog every day and reads or remembers every comment in every section. Rather than write out the same argument to the same comments I simply reposted my earlier remarks, which are entirely relevant to the topic. I know from past experience that if I post a supporting link many critics will not bother to click them as the replies show no evidence whatsoever of them having done so.
01
PS Jo. I do however take the point that moderating posts after the caravan has moved on may cause unneccessary work for moderators. I will in future restrict my comments to more recent sections.
00
Jo, these are the type of people who only wager, when heads they win and tails you loose. That way they keep their “our taxpayer funded” money safely in their pockets.
250
Bob
They’re only brave with YOUR money!
Cheers
Speedy
160
Pick pockets the lot of them.
82
I’m confused. Isn’t it, “warmer I win, cooler you win”?
Since many “skeptics” (McLean, anyone?) have predicted dramatic cooling, it seems fair to me to make it a 50/50 bet. Aren’t you all getting excited that “the pause” may indeed turn out to be the peak before the long decline? And isn’t there a “Maunder Minimum” quiet sun coming soon? Reckon maybe cooling should start favourite with all that going on!
19
“I’m confused.”
Yes. we know that..
but add “ignorant”, “misinformed”, “dim-witted”, “dense”, “laughable”, “irrational”, “foolish” …
and many other similar words,
and you might be somewhere close to the truth, for a change.
91
–
The bets are in dollars, John, …. not cherries!
30
Let me remind you, John.
After the expenditure of hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars on prognostications of “catastrophic” and exponential warming due to CO2, betting on anything less than that is a complete admission of failure and criminal negligence on the part of those 97% of climate scientists who proffered such false and inaccurate prognostications. You see the taxpayers of the developed world have already “bet the farm”, “shot the moon” and “gone all in” against their will, and against their better judgement. And that “bet” on the phantom of so called renewable energy has been lost, the proceeds safely in the bank of such global thieves and confidence tricksters as global investment houses, EU parliamentarians and African dictators, or in the various Swiss bank accounts of various land barons and politicians wives.
The fact is the justification for such egregious waste of money was this catastrophic warming, and if it doesn’t occur in the face of the supposed insignificant changes in TSI that you suggest is the only important solar factor in our incredibly constant sun, then I expect that the restitution for that failed bet may take on a more substantial criminal negligence flavour.
80
No it isn’t (but yes you are confused John). It’s:
Scenario 1)
Warmer, corresponding to CO2 forcing which although the IPCC’s CMIP5/AR5 CO2-forced climate models indicate 0.33 C/decade over the next 20 years, the IPCC’s downgraded AR5 prediction by “expert opinion” (a guess) is 0.23 C/decade.
Their lower bound is 0.1 C/decade which is impossible to be identified as anthropogenic apart from natural variation or noise.
The CSIRO wimps should be betting on 0.33 C/decade or 0.66 C warmer than now in 20 years time (i.e. Scenario 1) if they really are convinced their rationale and modeling are to be relied on by everyone else.
Scenario 2)
No change. A climate regime similar to now from which any of anthropogenic, solar, PDO/AMO, aerosols etc cannot be isolated individually. Obviously this would include warmer but less than Scenario 1) and cooler but more than Scenario 3) below.
The global climate regime has been Scenario 2) so far this century.
Scenario 3)
Cooler, as a combination of negative phase ocean oscillations (PDO/AMO) and lower solar output.
The negative phases of the ocean oscillations have about 20 years to run (PDO) and 30 years to run (AMO) from now respectively.
The negative phase of the solar cycle has about 200 years to run from its 1950 – 2009 peak.
Go figure.
40
–
Disappointing to see that Professor Chris Turney is not among the bet takers.
190
He’s still stuck in the Antarctic, so his social life is somewhat constrained.
80
Unfortunately, at the moment he’s only 2 days away from Hobart, along with the rest of the Warmist trippers aboard the Aurora Australis.
(Meanwhile, the Academik Shokalskiy, the ship which was no longer to their taste, is long back in NZ.)
100
Looks like Gore himself doesn’t think
global warmingclimate change is going to be that big of a deal. While I’m certainly not into the idea of geo-engineering, which the NextBigFuture blogger seems to advocate, it’s obvious that the blogger is not into the AGW bs: http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/al-gore-does-not-think-climate-change.htmlAn excerpt from the NextBigFuture post:
Al Gore says climate change could wreck the world by 2100. However, he does not want to use any geoengineering because we can only put pollution from coal, oil, natural gas and industry into the air. We are not allowed to attempt to put anything else that might counter act those effects. The problem is not urgent enough for him to support building nuclear power. He only supported nuclear power when he represented Tennessee or in the VP position.
It is a big enough problem for him to make movies and books about it, but not a big enough problem for him to want any other solutions than clean tech and solar and wind power. We are safe to wait for those solutions.
We can spend tens of trillions and decades to build those solutions out. We can only speed up those solutions by giving tens of trillions more to companies that he supports and approves.
140
Betting on temperatures rising during an interglacial period is tantamount to betting on the sun being kinda hot if you touch it.
This sort of typical lawyeresque obtuse twisting of things for the consumption of morons really bites.
If they want a bet, I will bet that Photography cameras for home consumption will go the way of 35mm film cameras within 5 years (cellphone digital cameras won out for the majority of consumers I am afraid), 5 years from now, only the geriatrics will be buying CDs.
Oh and the melbourne star wheel (the docklands wheel) will have been old to at least two naive investors who will continue to lose money on it.
Oh, and Big shaving – the big business behind men shaving – will continue to have financial difficulties due to men finding that maintaining a beard is easier than shaving every day – after all, there are two kinds of men in the world – men with beards and men whose wives won’t allow them to grow one.
202
Men without beards are much nicer to kiss.
101
JLC,are you male or female.Men with beards always offer you that little something extra(leftovers)when you kiss them.
40
Female. J is for Juliette
My husband has no beard — his choice — and I prefer him that way.
(Leftovers! Yuk!)
151
Yeurrk!
31
–
JLC..”Men without beards are much nicer to kiss.”
–
To hell with kissing, let’s just have some fun!…
–
FISHING!
40
Hear Hear!
30
I’m with you about beards, MadJak. The spouse is a nicer person for wearing one (tidily kept) over 40yrs. It was dark, now silver, having been through various shades of pewter. Shaving it off is grounds for divorce, because I wouldn’t be able to recognise him after all this time, a stranger in the house & all.
91
Rather you than me…each to his or own taste.
20
each to his or her own taste I meant to say
10
I’ll take that bet. $50 says DSLR’s will still be sought after in 5 years time as no phone camera with an 10-16 MP sensor and with a 1-4 element budget lens can come close to my Canon 60D with pro L series lenses.
The images I can take with my recently acquired EF 100mm F2.8 Macro L IS USM are simply breathtaking. But you would expect that from a lens setting me back a cool grand.
140
Thanks, Rohan. I’ll get one! (Lens, that is).
But don’t underestimate the ability of the “phone” sized cameras to catch up. There are more than a billion transistors in the latest iPhone. I can only believe this because I had already read that there are 514 million in the graphics processor in this entry level computer.
To somebody who hasn’t worked in this field this is incomprehensible. 49 years on Moore’s Law still hasn’t hit the wall. Surely it must soon.
70
Rohan,
I used to think the same thing, and yes, there will allways be a market for a decent camera. But for the vast majority of people, they carry their phones more than a camera, and now, the quality of shots from cameras is actually getting to the quality point where most aaverage joes would be stoked with the quality of the picture.
And then there’s the hassle of getting the photos from the camera and up onto facebook etc. Phones are becoming the main social media device now, so incorporating photo distribution is quite snug.
I think cameras will be for serious photographers. Average Joes will just use their phones.
I forgot to add a prediction too – academic institutions will continue to feel the bite from the real world as different and cheaper mechanisms for education take over. Academia will continue to drags it’s heels like the Music industry did with the internet.
20
I belong to a sub-group – men with beards who’s wives don’t like them. It doesn’t hurt to remind the distaff side that you can wriggle out from under the thumb.
60
Weak spin less bet’s that sound just like the thing that these “Climate Scientists” would be up for. Jo if you take up any more bets please may shore they have NO ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES and they are for their forecasted temperature increase that these scientists are already on the record for predicting. If they don’t have the back bone to put their own money were their mouth is and would rather bet on any increase it really shows just how much they believe in all their own hard work now doesn’t it. Ya Jo I now that was the very point that you were trying to get across, Oh watch out for all those tricky Adjustments. I shore even if the Temperature goes down so they loss their bet they could call up a PAL REVIEWER to ADJUST things so they win.
111
Fox from Melbourne
My thinking also Fox.
All of those climate warming shysters obviously assume they will still be maintaining the records and the means to adjust the data to their benefit and to fit their ideology just as they have been so used to doing for the last couple of decades.
Or at the very least still have the right contacts to ensure that the data is suitably adjusted to their closed groups overall political and financial benefit.
Maybe the bet should be more along the lines of “will those psuedo climate scientists still have employment or indeed will they be employable at all by any reputable scientific establishment after a decade or so into a possible global cooling. Let alone whether they will have any respect at all from the public as scientists of any sort in two decades time ?”
They seem to be, in their hubris, intellectually crippled and constipated and arrogantly immune to so much of climate history down through the aeons of time through out which regularly and cyclic type entirely naturally occurring global in extent climate changes led to the opposite climatic conditions to those that existed only a few decades previously.
And that past human history where the backlash from those who had been fooled and exploited for so long by a thoroughly corrupt elite finally broke free of the elitist imposed turpitude that had entrapped them and took their revenge, a revenge that was often quite drastic in it’s outcomes for those same utterly corrupt elites.
There is a good probability that as future historians pore over and dissect the records of this period that so many of today’s most powerful and vehement scientific advocates of their anticipated but yet to be seen catastrophic global warming will be down graded to a role somewhat less than that of very corrupt charlatans or at worst, quite deliberate distorters and corrupters of the true data and members of a self serving cohort of very corrupt scientists and equally corrupt pseudo environmentalists and greens who have cost this generation untold wealth plus some hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths from hypothermia due to unaffordable energy costs and immense totally unneeded suffering of the poorest citizens in so many lands as well as creating immense social dissension and the destruction in the public’s eyes of the previously held in high esteem, profession of “scientist”.
And all that for no perceivable benefit or advantage of any sort to society [ ours! ] of the times.
For those still hubris laden climate warming scientists it might be a good time to reconsider their legacy and the way in which they will be regarded and remembered as their pet ideological cause of CAGW falls away as now appears to be happening as Nature obstinately refuses to follow the agenda of the climate warming fear mongering charlatans just like so many of past predictions of an irrefutable catastrophic, armageddon, end of the world cult predictions have done through out history .
150
Good point- Steve Goddard over on Realscience, appears to have “Hit the Motherlode” in the NOAA database , where he has identified the discrepancy in the data since 1998 makes fascinating reading NOAAgate,anyone? http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
40
Line betting as featured in sports betting is appropriate. The line is set such that it splits the outcome range at the 50 % line – result has 50 % chance of being above, and 50 % chance of being below the line.
The brave scientists should tell us where their line is, then bets can be discussed. If they want to use 0 then they don’t have a clue where the temperature will be in 20 years.
231
Jo..the IPCC lifted their confidence level to95% that man was warming the planet.
Now I am an Aussie farmer so I never bet, (or bet on the weather every day)..not sure which!
But surely that means you should be getting 20 to 1 odds.
Ie your $6000 sake should pay $120,000
After all, the science is ” settled” so much so that democracy” may need to be suspended” and climate ” deniers” executed.
Obviosly, they are pretty confiden…yet they give pretty crap odds.
Maybe it really is politics not science after all.
381
Dr Tony Hirst will bet $500? That’s our quarterly power bill, doubled in 5yrs thanks to people like him and the rest of the shameful list.
Perhaps he’ll up his punt to $1000 in sympathy.
271
Have these scientists not heard that Australia has a gambling problem,they should be ashamed that they are inviting people to add to the problem.Also it is very bad timing when you read Pat’s w/end unthreaded post No 11 from the BBC’is our sun falling silent’.This could be a good bet to be on if the sun is weakening even more.
81
These people, or their mates, friends or peers are issuing the temperature figures “after adjustment”. They are willing to bet that the “adjusted temperature” in 20 years will be more than 0.01ºC (or thereabouts) more than the current figure, and they want lots of money in the pot.
I think before I put any money on a bet like that, I would like a more accurate method of judging the winner. After all, they’ve managed to keep the reported temperature up since 2007 while winter snow and ice fall in the UK, Europe, China, the USA, Canada, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Egypt, Thailand and Vietnam. There’s more ice in Antarctica which they claim is proof of warming. Can anybody tell me what they would admit as evidence of a falling temperature?
190
I forgot to note colder times in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and assorted places once in the USSR.
151
Bemused, frustrated and appalled.
All of these adjectives describe Will Steffen’s attitude to the debate on climate change in Australia.
”What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community about this,” says Steffen, 64, the executive director of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute.
”We don’t debate gravity, we don’t debate the tides,” he says.
”The media is creating an enormous imbalance that’s not at all helpful for this very difficult issue.”
Steffen, who last year received a death threat over his views …
30 Sep 2013 So has the Earth stopped warming over the past 15 years?
Quote Steffen: “The answer, based on the reputable science contained in the IPCC report, is an emphatic NO!”
(My Favourite Steffen Climate Quote)
Prof. Steffen said that this period of climate change caused by humans, known as the ‘anthropocene era’, could ultimately cause the whole system of ice ages followed by warm periods, that has allowed life on Earth to flourish, to be over.
Will Steffen should be “extremely likely, 95%, over 90% of scientists” confident of winning.
191
“We don’t debate gravity” What an ignorant fool, has no-one challenged him on this? The constants; gravity, the speed of light and the mass of an electron are continually researched and their constancy questioned. And he calls himself a scientist?
120
Good comment William, I think there are some uncertainties about tidal movements that Steffens would in his ignorance regard as “settled science”
50
Steffen is correct that there is that there is no evidence that the earth has stopped warming in the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/offset/plot/wti/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend
02
Just remember everyone when you pay your $1000 per household each year that they are 95% certain you need to pay because there is “no evidence” that the Earth has stopped warming.
Anyone smell something bad… ?
10
Were you not, Philip, just lecturing us on the “furphy” of short term analysis?
10
They are simply eyeing retirement.
60
It should be based on the satellite temperature data because Spence and Christy have demonstrated that they don’t fiddle the climate record to meet their belief system. Unlike BoM and GISS.
241
100% on the ball Janama. BOM have indeed fiddled the Aussie climate record. Plus this month they are obsessed with over-estimating Perth Metro’s maximum temperature on a very regular basis (Note: the Perth Metro BOM site is at Mt Lawley). The tally so far after 19 days has been 16 over, 2 under and 1 spot on. Why so many over-estimates? It is as if they are trying to will the maximum temperature to go higher, which I guess is understandable given their obvious support for the “Theory of AGW”. Of course the “Theory of AGW” has been shown to be seriously flawed, so it comes as no surprise that the Abbott Govt took the axe to the Climate Commission, which was formed under the Gillard Govt. But BOM & CSIRO were very much in bed with the Climate Commission so I suspect the next step will be to re-align their line of thinking to be “not so obsessed with the now discredited “Theory of AGW”.
20
They won’t get much interest unless they offer better odds.
Why should anyone take an even money bet on a 50:50 chance of something in a long time from now.
141
Gnome
Thumbs up from me.
If you were betting on racehorses and the 97% of the experts declared that IPCCGG was going to win it would be evens or less.
Now a rank outsider Cool One, where only 3% of the betting ring punters (not peer reviewed experts) fancied it, then it would be at least 25 to 1 and more.
The betting experts behind this Black Caviar foal called IPCCGG, would be mad not to put their $10,000 on. A sure thing, the debate is over. But they could earn heaps more taking money off the poor punters that want to back Cool One. But the real chances are 50:50, then who are the mug punters?
An SP bookie would love to cover these CSIRO punter bets, NOT.
I would demand at least 10:1 on Cool One at least, since there are not under any doping or fiddling regulations.
Image a bookie, racehorse owner, the racing committee member, breeder, the umpire and punter running the industry. Funny, isn’t that called IPCC, CSIRO, BOM etc.
The CAGW crowd is getting desperate now. Money will get very short for them soon. Get your bets on now.
120
If they are that sure then why aren’t they betting a much larger amount, let’s say $100million? Of course no one would take it because the temperature might in fact rise somewhat over the next whatever years. If it does that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s AGW. Is CSIRO now competing with Sportsbet? Will they also offer bets on major earthquakes, asteroid near misses and the like? CSIRO climate scientists are such a joke. They are giving true science a bad name.
100
Temperatures go up and down due to the effects of many natural cycles and it might be correct that the temperature will be higher in 2034
BUT
The whole bet is worthless unless it includes the proviso that if the temperature is greater in 2034 (or whenever) then it can be conclusively shown that the winning increment in temperature is due to AGW, otherwise it’s like betting who will come first in a one horse race.
81
As I pointed out last thread CO2 ALONE without feedback in the next decade should cause 0.16 degrees of warming, so the line should be there not Zero, and I’d make a big noise saying so. Betting on anything less that 0.16 degrees over the next decade is misrepresenting the sceptic position and is cheating.
30
Gee, science reduced to gambling.
80
If you really want to mess with their minds, get the to make a market with a start such that you can take overs or unders. If they quote zero, you can go overs and very likely clean them up.
40
And BTW given the sewer that Gore-Flannery “science” is in, gambling would be a promotion not a reduction of science.
50
You sorta beat me to it Scaper.
Just been thinking a bit more about this willingness to bet on science predicted outcomes which they as scientists are supposed to be analysing and researching with an open and skeptical mind set as true scientists are supposed to do.
It really is an extraordinary and a potentially very corrupting situation that these betting climate scientists have now placed themselves in.
They are apparently prepared to indulge in some Insider trading of the worst possible kind that has the appearance of being not that far removed from the mafia type rigging of horse races or insider financial and company share trading.
There has been a lot of recent discussion in various blogs and a whole raft of papers showing how utterly ineffectual and completely wrong the climate models on which the entire global warming meme, without exception is based on.
Some of that inability of the climate models to even come close to predicting future global temperatures and future global temperature trends [ and now it’s been revealed that without adjustments they can’t accurately reproduce past temperatures either ] such as the so called 16 year long pause in the global temperature increase is being put down to the involuntary [ ? ] bias of the climate modellers to program their inputs so as to give a result they expected.
Which of course, due to the need to toe the CAGW line as they have all been selected on the basis of and funded by CAGW believing grant funders so being all from the pro CAGW camp.
It is no wonder the models and their predictions upon which these now seen to be very biased and very unscientific scientific betters are doing science with what we now see, due to the readiness to bet on the outcomes of the very research they are involved in, that they appear to have totally closed minds to any alternative possibilities as to why the climate is doing what it has done.
So regardless it is clear they will derive the results of their research either inadvertently or deliberately to reinforce their own predilections and biases re global warming.
No even remotely honest and sensible scientist who had an open mind on his field of research would ever consider placing bets on the future outcomes of his “research”.
It’s called “research” for a very good reason as it is trying to analyse unknown or only partly known natural phenomena.
An honest scientist with an open mind would know that his research might lead down a blind path or maybe have unknown insights and consequences as the research proceeds or he / she might realise that their research could be completely wrong and of little or no value.
These guys are prepared to bet on a supposedly known outcome in their own research field which implies that they either have a very considerable incentive to get the results they are betting on ie commit corruption , or they, having such confidence, already know the outcomes.
If the latter why should they receive any further of the public’s money to cary out any further research on a subject to which they already know the answers to as their have just demonstrated by their desire to place bets on a specific future climate outcome?.
Those betting scientists have just revealed their deeply embedded biases that has placed the full focus on why they have a complete inability, which has shown up in their past research, to do real hard core unbiased scientifically questioning orientated research and science to a watching world .
111
Insider trading is one thing in the stockmarket. It might work, it might not, depending on how things go, and how good the inside information is.
It’s another thing entirely when you are cadging bets like these people are, and have already rigged the market. This is Mafia stuff.
When punting comes into play at this level, it’s a game sane people shouldn’t touch.
91
This is interesting in that it lines them all up in row. We know they are and we know who to shame when it all falls apart from , not that it hasn’t already fallen apart anyway.
It’s called nailing your colours to the mast and they’ve sure done that.
100
It appears that climate scientists offering long term bets on global temperature rise is a last throw of the dice for CAGW believers.
Why not a series of open, independently (if that can be accepted in this polarised world of climate change) anchored debates of panels of scientists who have published climate change papers?
I suspect that the “science is settled” concreted MSM organisations would baulk at this. In this now increasingly evident “science is not settled” battleground, any sign of opening the issue for debate would in itself be a loss of face concession
30
Ok let’s get practical bets should be for each year. No money. Peer Scientists which are wrong will resign their positions. Bets must be in line with their previously declared positions.
101
Good idea. So those climate scientists (or whatever clowns there are) who were stuck in ice on a ship recently should resign immediately to set an example. Of course they won’t so they just proven all scientists who are global warming alarmists have lost all credibility. Here’s another point. What the CSIRO “scientists” are suggesting may be illegal because CSIRO as a government entity is not supposed to be involved in anything remotely associated with gambling unless it’s officially recognized as such, such as a lottery.
70
they are 90% sure we are headed for cataclysmic warming
So doesn’t that mean odds at 1 : 10. We put a $1000 to their $10,000.
70
So if the world cools, they lose their bets but still carry on and blame it on global warming as they have already done. They can’t have it both ways. Boy, global warming climate scientists are nothing more than con artists.
60
No Peter, if the world cools they will win their bet as for them, it will prove beyond doubt that the world has warmed, otherwise it wouldn’t have cooled.
40
The only way they would win in that scenario is they would have to cheat. Oh, I almost forgot – they do cheat (and lie and falsify data).
10
The correct way to do this bet is to set a date , maybe twelve months ago. Then ask our new government to give you the figures these people told the climate change department.
Then ask them to bet on the figures they have been giving the government, I think you could give them 10 to 1 odds and they would still run away. These people have not been honest in the scientific method nor in their output and they know it.
They are feeling some pressure as at this moment every facit of the cycles are heading into a cold phase. Then we have the sun that they told us had nothing to do with global warming taking it’s first holiday since the little ice age.
Make them bet on their predictions, as these are what have cost us all dearly. If they will not, that means they do not believe their own science.
If they will not bet on their science that means it is false, and they are surplus to requirements, and should find other employ. Plain and simple.
60
If these Warmists are so confident why don’t they make a bet with a real bookmaker? Of course they would have to pay the wager up front and wait 20 years for the bet to be settled.
70
For people who haven’t caught on.
This nothing more than a distraction designed to shift the focus away from their recent “highlights” of their collective stupidity.
I’m not buying into this.
Point man has given me their five point plan of tactical retreat from the fraud. While still collecting from the public purse for years to come.
This must be their way of bargaining.
Point man says, ” it is a five stage process of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance.”
Have they really descended to the level of childish bets to prove their science?
It appears so.
But I’m not buying it.
The majority of people here and around blog world have been telling them and proving them wrong for years.
And now what do we get from these highly credentialed expert climate scientists that my taxes have been flowing to for to many years that I’d care to remember?
What do I get?
A double or nothing bet!
Jo I really hate to be a stick in the mud but I believe we’ve given them enough time(rope) and money(hundreds of billions world wide)to prove their case of CAGW.
They’ve failed spectaculary and the frauds been exposed for what it is.
I want the flow of money into these fraudsters pockets stopped immediately and redirected to where its needed most.
Roads and hospitals would do well with a cash injection just to name a couple.
As point man says the fight now needs to be taken to the politicians.
140
Leigh, I’ve been thinking about that, taking it to the politicians.
Pollies above all love applause and want to save their selves.
Short sharp sound bites rule.
How about
CAGW(or global warming) is an intelligence test.
You sir/madame/thingy failed.(When addressing the advocate)
As for the presstitutes, addressing them is pointless, the public is already ignoring them on a global scale, as in more people get their news from the web every year.
What can BBC, CBC, ABC do? Announce that this time they are Not gonna lie?
70
OT.. Aussie cricketers do it again !!
At the moment, an pretty good bet ! 🙂
20
Test Cricket climate changed
20
Andy,the pommie cricketers must feel a bit like turney and followers at the moment,3-0 and still two games to play,but you cant take you’re eye off either one.
20
To really find out these guys’ true colours, make sure the bets are paid up front and paid into a neutrally managed bank account.
Two other conditions: the satellite data is the decider, not the highly manipulated land data.
100
Oh well, the money was good while it lasted. Now how do I survive?
20
Off topic. Would i like to bet on it? No…
The BOM is predicting high 30’s temps for Perth over the next week. My question is, will the cloud cover in the interior of Western Australia throw this temp outlook out the window? All that cloud cover should at least dissipate heat via reflection into space.
Hmmm…i wonder. All the air coming from the desert makes me wonder under such circumstances.
PerthClose PrecisForecast updated at 5:56 pm WST on Sunday 19 January 2014.Detailed Perth Forecast
Sun.
19 Jan
Mon.
20 Jan
Tue.
21 Jan
Wed.
22 Jan
Thu.
23 Jan
Fri.
24 Jan
Sat.
25 Jan
Summary Clear. Sunny. Sunny. Sunny. Sunny. Mostly sunny. Sunny.
Max. Temperature 37 °C 37 °C 37 °C 35 °C 34 °C 36 °C
Min. Temperature 21 °C 20 °C 23 °C 22 °C 20 °C 21 °C
We shall see.(:
http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/map7day.shtml
20
Oddly enough, it might be a bet worth taking, particularly since the 20 year time frame shows the folks at CSIRO have a profound lack of knowledge in natural climatic cycles. In 20 years, the PDO will likely be at the end of the cold cycle, the AMO will likely have turned cold we’ll be at the end of solar cycle 25 which is projected to be weaker than 24. Those factors may combine to produce a couple tenths of a degree of global cooling.
70
This is my first comment here and appreciate what you do. I have written a bit for a financial blog about the frauds and waste associated with so called climate science and renewable energy. Here are a couple of ‘follow the money’ type developments that I thought would be of interest, as the subject of gambling came up.
CORRECTING and REPLACING Green Bond Principles Created to Help Issuers and Investors Deploy Capital for Green Projects
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correcting-and-replacing-green-bond-principles-created-to-help-issuers-and-investors-deploy-capital-for-green-projects-2014-01-13-8159210?reflink=MW_news_stmp
excerpt:
GREEN BOND PRINCIPLES CREATED TO HELP ISSUERS AND INVESTORS DEPLOY CAPITAL FOR GREEN PROJECTS
A consortium of investment banks today announced their support of the Green Bond Principles – Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, JPMorgan Chase, BNP Paribas, Daiwa, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Mizuho Securities, Morgan Stanley, Rabobank and SEB. These Principles were developed with guidance from issuers, investors and environmental groups and serve as voluntary guidelines on recommended process for the development and issuance of Green Bonds. They encourage transparency, disclosure and integrity in the development of the Green Bond market.
HSBC predicts ‘new climate agenda’ in 2014
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/01/16/hsbc-predicts-new-climate-age…
excerpt:
High street bank HSBC has predicted that a combination of factors will lead to a “new climate agenda” in 2014, as its own research reveals sustainable investments outperformed last year.
The HSBC Global Climate Change benchmark, which tracks the performance of sustainable companies, delivered 19.8% in 2013, outperforming the global equities market for the first time. This suggests investment in the sector is continuing to grow.
In a statement, the bank said, “We believe 2014 will mark the beginning of a new climate agenda. The traditional narrative was that climate risks are in the future, that carbon has to be priced to be cut, and that low-carbon alternatives are high risk and speculative.
“We see three issues that give new impetus to the climate economy in the year; impacts, carbon risk and green bonds.”
Renewable Energy at $254 Billion? Let’s Make It a Clean Trillion
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/renewable-energy-at-254-billion-let-s-make-it-a-clean-trillion.html
excerpt:
Billionaire bankers gathered at the United Nations yesterday to call for more investment in renewable energy — $1 trillion a year, to be exact.
It won’t be easy. Global investment in renewable energy fell 11 percent in 2013 to $254 billion, according to data released by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), casting a shadow over the notion of a “clean trillion.”
Last year was the second decline in renewable investments since 2011’s record-high $318 billion. Investors and climate-policy advocates including hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin called for changes to financial markets that would boost investment. Financing must double by 2020 and double again to $1 trillion by 2030 in order to avoid global warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius, reports Ceres, the host of yesterday’s conference.
80
Thankyou John – most informative…so what can we do to counteract this onslaught of financiers?
30
janama, Thank you and I add that there are a few of us who, for the last 5 years (in my case over a decade), have been following the money. We were able to get some good exposure via financial blogs and have some major media contacts, but the going is rough especially when here in the US, there is a 5 year statute of limitations on fraud. We have uncovered other items connected to several renewable companies (who have hundreds of shell and shelf LLC’s), that have been involved with various administrations in possible arms dealing, drug smuggling and human trafficking. We do believe that one particular company is closely aligned with some form of intelligence services. We may, when the time is right, keep you and others updated as to our findings.
In the meantime keep an eye on the money and spread the word.
70
You need to look AT UPC:
http://www.marketvisual.com/d/eb553211-e72b-4cb6-8d1d-e9031a1882fc
I would also recommend looking at Zeehan Zinc ( to those in Australia).
AND THIS:
http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/c/creat-resources-holdings-ltd-npv/company-information
More later, just do a search of the names I have given.
00
I never gamble.
What are the odds on that?
10
A friend said his new year’s resolution was to give up gambling.
I said, “What are the odds of that?”
He said, “5 to 1.”
I said, “I’ll have a piece of that action.”
That worked out well.
00
To me the fact that these “climate scientists” are prepared to wager on “global warming” suggests strongly they cannot explain away the pause in global temperatures based on their models and are just clutching at straws. If I remember correctly, Dr.Church was predicting rises in sea level which just haven’t happened. I grew up in a coastal town and didn’t see much increase in sea level over fifty years when I went back for a visit recently, and I imagine many have the same experience. Bondi beach seems much the same as it was in the 1930’s, the same for Fort Denison, so where is the water hiding?
40
Dr John Hunter knows all about rising sea levels. He appeared on ABC Catalyst ; Taking Our Temperature.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3633447.htm
The late great John Daly had his measure, but unfortunately was not around to correct Dr Hunters views.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
30
CSIRO Scientists losing the bet on the climate alarmist side would be paying the bet out with only a fraction of the money they have sucked out of the tax payer over the years. They can’t lose! Keep their cushy jobs and perks and by the time the bet comes due they will be on healthy tax payer funded superannuation benefits anyway.
If they were certain of their climate alarmist models, then the very least they would be prepared to bet should be their entire superannuation against the global average temperature being no less than half the CSIRO predicted temperature.
I’m sure we could set a market for sceptics to take up that action. Though we shouldn’t have to wait 20 years. They have been telling us the current pause is an aberration and they should be confident of a bounce back in temperatures very soon given the growth in global CO2 emissions.
40
And no doubt they will insist on using NASA GISSTEMP as the measure. Then, short of a new ice age occurring in the next 20 years they will win.
A much more relevant bet is on adverse “climate change” impacts. How about, a basket of climate-related disasters and other signposts of the impending catastrophe, as a divergence from the trend of the previous 50 years? Included could be tropical storms, typhoons, accelerating sea-level rise, crop failures, climate refugees, droughts, rainfall, spread of tropical diseases etc. etc. In fact, every single catastrophic prediction in all the IPCC reports. Properly funded, it would not be a trivial exercise. We would identify trends, reduce the uncertainties and target necessary funding to help people adapt to those emerging changes. Involving non-believers would help ensure that more objective standards of measurement could be established.
10
Tell you what. I’m probably more confident (but not much if you can believe the rhetoric spewing from the mouths of CAGW warmists) in gravity than CAGW warmists are in global warming. Since my confidence in gravity is higher than most warmist’s confidence in global warming, I’m willing to back my belief with greater odds than I require warmists give to back their belief. I propose a bet that has two parts. First part, I’ll put up $10,000 to your $1,000 (ten to one odds) that if on 1 January 2034 I hold a golf ball at arms length and release it (the ball, not my arm), the ball will fall to the ground. Second part, I’ll wager $1000 to your $1000 (even money) that the average earth surface temperature for the year 2034 is lower than the average earth surface temperature for the year 2014.
My bet has four outcomes: (1) the golf ball doesn’t fall to the ground and the 2034 average earth surface temperature is higher or equal to the 2014 average earth surface temperature–I lose $11,000; (2) the golf ball doesn’t fall to the ground and the 2034 average earth surface temperature is lower than the 2014 average earth surface temperature–I lose $9,000; (3) the golf ball falls to the ground and the 2034 average earth surface temperature is higher or equal to the 2014 average earth surface temperature–I break even; (4) the golf ball falls to the ground and the 2034 average earth surface temperature is lower than the 2014 average earth surface temperature–I win $2,000.
How can any warmist pass up my bet? Two of the four possible outcomes result in the warmist winning money, and only one of the four possible outcomes results in the warmist losing money. Not only that, the maximum warmist liability is $2000; whereas his winning outcomes result in gains of $11,000 and $9,000.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it? However, it’s no more ridiculous than a warmist who is 90+ percent confident in future global warming and, to paraphrase our hostess, has the balls to make an even money bet on future temperatures.
60
BBC continues in their new found vein of paving the way for a climate exit strategy via a massive blame shift , with blaming the sun with their Newsnight piece last week, followed by the World Service.
We cannt really blame the hapless climate scientists can we, if the Sun is behaving so unpredictably , now can we ?
Quoting extensively from their goto lead thinker in all things Climate , that fence sitter extraordinaire.
However Anthony Watts had the measure of him when he started pushing this back in October with Real Risk of Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age
70
How’s this work.
The UN’s own fraud unit (IPCC)tells them its not warming.
Then a bunch of self interest bankers lobbies them to lobbie governments to …..more of our taxes up against the wall to stop something has stopped or as many are now saying is reversing so they can make billions.
Simple solution.
Stop the politicians from punting your monies on this loser that is the global fraud of global warming.
Did anybody notice that Ruben is sticking with the name of the original fraud?
No mention of climate change there.
Write to your local politician and tell him if he supports this fraud in any way what so ever your vote will be going else where.
It is the only way you can “hurt” a politician.
A “threat” in sufficient numbers to having them removed from the gravy train usually gets a response.
40
That’s fine Leigh when there is some elsewhere for the vote to go.
The UN’s ploy when it gets involved is to remove all such alternatives, which had pretty much happened in Britain and in the European Commission.
Only the presence of UKIP has managed to remind some more squeamish Tories of this fundamental of which you speak.
Meanwhile the UN continues trying to undermine National Governments with infiltrating its anti-democratic ideals into Local Government under the guise of Agenda21..
50
Eddie, it can be done.
Look at the last election where a “green independant” with a lot of help unseated a sitting member.
Whose party also won the election.
Look at the pup party all be it with lots of money backing it.
Look at the Hanson movement from years ago.
Don’t miss understand me here I don’t necessarily agree with all those outcomes.
The point I make is people who are continually ignored can really make a difference.
If they do something.
If you continually step on the faces of people they will eventually fight back.
Its human nature.
The bloggers world is doing more to hold politicians to account than mainstream media has ever done.
As with agenda 21 how many knew of this a year or two ago?
There may have been many.
I certainly didn’t.
But thanks to blogs like this and so many others that are fighting back,
I certainly know now.
Global warming is but one of the many frauds that is being inflicted on us mugs.
We are close to ridding ourselves of that but a long way for bringing the fraudsters to account.
50
Didn’t David Archibald show a series of sunspot cycles some years ago where it was clear even to the naked eye that the patterns of solar activity leading into previous solar minima matched those that we were experiencing at the time?
Oh yeah… 2006 and in 2009.
10
Bernd.. you silly boy..
Don’t you know that the Sun can only cause COOLING, not WARMING !!
That is the meme now be adopted by the AGW brigade, anyway, and they must be right !! 😉
20
>“It’s completely taken me and many other solar scientists by surprise,” says Dr Lucie Green
>”Didn’t David Archibald…”
Yes exactly Bernd, not ALL solar specialists (and not David Archibald obviously) are surprised, especially not the non-CO2-centric of them. But just ONE weak 11 yr cycle maximum is hardly the main event, it’s the bicentennial component since 1986 that matters (a line tracing 11 yr cycle minimums). So from the unsurprised non-CO2 solar specialists who have been paying attention we have, for example, at least three of them in the literature from 2010 and 2012 already in a prediction mode that includes the current weak SC 24 maximum in 2013/14:
Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999.
‘The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity’
S. Duhau, Ph.D., and C. de Jager, Ph.D.
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
And,
Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2012
‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age’
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
No surprise for them, doesn’t Dr Lucie Green read the literature pertaining to her speciality?
If Dr Lucie Green had taken a quick look at Abdussamatov’s Fig 2 on page 183 (p.6 pdf) then perhaps she wouldn’t have been so surprised. For her assistance a simple Google Images search for: Abdussamatov Figure 2 deficit, brings it up top of the list
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475
And as with most CO2-centric solar specialists (e.g. Joanna Haigh), Lucie Green could learn, if she already hasn’t, from Adussamatov not to impute 2013/14 TSI to 2014 GAT (p.3 pdf above):
In other words, the significant effects of weak 2013/14 TSI wont show up in global temperature until around 2028 give or take.
I wonder if the CSIRO guys will be as enthusiastic about their $10,000 bets in 14 years time as they are now?
20
Looking locally, I previously identified about a month’s lag between insolation and observed air temperature.
At the time I noted a “rapid” periodicity in the variation from the trendline. Without multi-station data over a similar period, it’d be hard to pin that down to measurement artifact or something more intereting such tidal motion of the atmosphere due to the moon.
Oddly, in hindsight with the data coming in on a less-active sun, there appeared to be a slight increase over time in surface insolation from 1995 to 2010; but the effect is slight and may just be due to early insolation data collection being sporadic. OTOH, it may indicate that cloud cover plays a more significant role than solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere with a possible non-linear response of clouds to the changing sun. A multi-factor function?
00
True Bernd, there are “fast” and “slow” responses and I think Scafetta, West, Lindzen, Choi and probably several others identified a fast response of 1 month too. For some time the generally accepted lag was 3 – 4 months as I understand, Lindzen and Choi (2010) for example factored that into their calcs along with 1 month.
But the big responses take place after the longer “slow” lags. Scafetta and West (2005) had a 2.2 (± 2) year slow response
but since then they identify 6 to 12 years in Scatetta and West (2007).
Eichler et al (2009) identified a 10–30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response. Even Dr Kevin Trenberth highlights the slow response via the ocean in The Role of the Oceans in Climate:
Abdussamatov’s calculation of planetary thermal lag is consistent with all of those but a number of CO2-centric solar specialists are clueless on sun-ocean-atmosphere system thermal inertia and lag. Alec Rawls has tried to get through to some of them but to no avail apparently.
Certainly does Bernd. There’s been plenty of work done on that using SURFRAD and BSRN (Wand and Wild respectively). But cloudiness change (and therefore temperature) tends to be on a decadal scale e.g. less cloud 1990s, more cloud 2000s and the response is immmediate (fast). Obviously wind and ocean oscillations have an impact on that scale too i.e. natural variation as climate science is begrudgingly beginning to concede.
But the solar change that has the major impact on temperature is on a much longer timescale. The bicentennial component of solar output is really the quasi 200 year cycle (De Vries cycle) Current solar output is comparable to that of the Dalton Minimum about 200 years ago but the significant effects effects of it wont show up for over a decade even though there is an initial fast, but insignificant, response.
00
Should be – “[Wang] and Wild respectively”
00
Thanks for the comments.
I’d expect a slower response over water because of the thermal mass and potential for convective buffering.
00
Richard, Sol has been significantly low for several years.
I suspect we will see the effects within a couple of years, if we aren’t already (which I think we are)
00
Andy,replying to your comment:
Please see my reply to Bernd above and in particular note the difference between “fast” and “slow” responses.
You may be right about “a couple of years” and I suspect there might be minor effect already (i.e. I don’t really know) but I can’t see how any effect could actually be identified and isolated from other natural variation in that timeframe unless temperature takes a discernible plunge.
I’m not anticipating that to happen because the ocean is a modulator due to heat storage and release that takes decades in combination with solar input.
00
Yep, after a series of very solid solar maximum’s over the second half of last century, its going to take quite a while for the heat to leave the system.
And those little patches of water called the Pacific, Atlantic etc, are not going to give up that heat quickly.
I do still laugh at the AGW bletheren trying to say the sun’s low activity will cause any cooling, when they refuse to accept that it was one of the main drivers of the slight warming we had over the latter 1/3 of last century.
A sun that cools but doesn’t war, very strange. 😉
00
And a good thing too Andy (well for some of us anyway – see below).
The upper Pacific seems to have started that process at least but the Indian has been taking a lot of the Pacific’s heat by transport between SE Asia and Nth Australia.
Consequence being that the Indian has been the only ocean accumulating heat recently.
Looking from NZ and not knowing much about OZ weather I wonder if heat that must be released from the Indian eventually might be a source of OZ heat waves for years to come even if the rest of the world experiences something different (like cold events).
The Great Australian Bight is anomalously warm right now compared to just about anywhere else. Seems to me from the weather charts I see of OZ that the Bight is something of a factory where slow moving highs originate, some of which produce the southern OZ heat waves.
OZ folks feel free to correct me on that if I’m wrong of course.
I do note that a few years ago some of that heat (and bushfire smoke) usually made its way across the Tasman but that’s not happening now. NZ has been getting air more from the Southwest and North but not so much the West.
So although the SI has been cool the NI has been warm enough to skew 2013 up higher in the warm year rankings. But again, the NI warmth hasn’t come from OZ.
BEST lumps NZ and Pac Islands into Oceania with Australia as if the respective climates are similar. Their Oceania series is just Australia basically. Crazy because ACORN-SAT looks nothing like NZT7. The shifts are in different timeframes and the annual averages are cooler in NZ than OZ.
00
The brave punters at the CSIRO have the following standard disclaimer for their climate modeling reports:
Disclaimer
The material in this report is based on computer modelling projections for climate change scenarios
and, as such, there are inherent uncertainties in the data. While every effort has been made to
ensure the material in this report is accurate, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research
Centre (ACE) provides no warranty, guarantee or representation that material is accurate, complete,
up to date, non-infringing or fit for a particular purpose. The use of the material is entirely at the risk of a user. The user must independently verify the suitability of the material for its (?) own use.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, ACE, its participating organisations and their officers,
employees, contractors and agents exclude liability for any loss, damage, costs or expenses whether
direct, indirect, consequential including loss of profits, opportunity and third party claims that may be caused through the use of, reliance upon, or interpretation of the material in this report.
30
When you do that and come to a different conclusion, you’re ostracised as being anti-science. A denier. In the pay of big oil.
00
In the Oz this morning (Monday 20 Jan 2014 page 4 The Nation)) CSIRO study using models indicate “Global warming will double the frequency of extreme El Nino episodes during the next 80 years greatly increasing the risk of catastrophic droughts and bushfires in Australia according to the research”.
I like this statement: “ The scientists turned up the first clear evidence of a greenhouse impact on extreme El Nino occurrences and will publish in British prestigious journal ‘Nature Climate Change’ today.
Interesting given that the climate models have proven to have no predictive ability and no ability to simulate ENSO caused by natural forcing mechanisms. Model simulation of course is not “evidence”.
60
How about having a bet with channel 9’s Today show on future global temperature?
Earlier they had a segment on less solar activity and a possible mini ice age coming, (shock horror) but according to their science expert (forgot his name) he claims with all our large CO2 emissions we’re just trapping more and more heat as CO2 is so good at doing this.
I’d love to see people like this put up or shut up, even though you don’t expect much content from Today this was just pathetic.
50
They didn’t have the Industrial Revolution to see them through the Maunder Minimum though .
If the Sun really is going ‘cold’ on us, tg4 all the CO2 and whatever little effect it’s having. Fire up as many coal stations as possible and at least all those grants for home insulation weren’t completely wasted.
30
Graphing the rise of CO2 against the flatlining of world temperatures over the last 17 years clearly demonstrates the lack of connection between the two. I’m quite willing to accept the skeptical scientists view that above 200 ppm there is no additional heat retention caused by CO2. Steve Goddard has posted an article at his Real Science blog exposing the phony data NOAA has been trying to foist on the public for the last few years. When he shows the corrected data it is clear that the U.S. has been cooling slowly for the last 90 years.
During the last two years summers in the U.S. record low-highs have outpaced record highs by around 10 to 1. Winter lows have been getting lower for the last 6 years and this year the bottom has dropped out for record cold and snow, here. The stupid idiots who plan the Super Bowl have decided to use an outdoor stadium in New Jersey. Another circumpolar vortex is due to sweep through that area during Super Bowl week that may be worse for the East Coast than the last one. Lots of skeptics will be glad to see Mother Nature drive a cold dagger at that time through the middle of the Global Wamists center.
30
I think their anatomy and their character both lack those amenities.
When they can hide from any danger to their own position they are all hot to push their models. But when it comes to any out of pocket harm I think Joanne has called their bluff again. And she has the winning hand again.
They lay exposed now for all the world to see. Too bad the people who should be exposing them are mute. Pity!
BB
40
Here’s a bet: if they are wrong, they resign, print a full page apology in The Australian, and never, ever take a government grant or government job again.
For any other monetary bet with these folk, escrow, escrow, escrow people. They can not be trusted to pay.
P.S. and when I say wrong, I mean if we fail to see statistically significant warming above natural variation, and above the error in the measurement.
50
Yes AP.
–
They see natural climate variation as a good bet.
–
They also know that the easiest AGW dividends are collected courtesy of the taxpayer.
“Nice work, if you can get it”
00
this is creating some excitement today:
19 Jan: Steven Goddard: Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode
I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/
70
Nice one Pat. In a word then:-
“… The NCDC US temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless.”
40
for some reason, this NT Times article i looked for last week and failed to find, is now showing up in search results.
what i want to understand is, if BOM is stating the 25.7 maximum for 14 January, how does one find that figure on the BOM Darwin web pages? all i could find was 28.0 max for 14 Jan & i am unsure whether the 28.0 was a forecast or the alleged max temp recorded:
15 Jan: NorthernTerritoryTimes: Megan Palin: As other capitals sweat it’s cool to be in Darwin
Not even Hobart – a perpetually wet and icy place – was a match for the Top End capital when it came to snatching the title of the country’s chilliest capital city of the day.
The weather bureau’s maximum temperatures yesterday were Adelaide (45.1C), Melbourne (42.8C), Canberra (37.6C), Hobart (30.3C), Brisbane (30.2C), Sydney (27.5C), Perth (26.7C). Darwin was at the bottom of the list with a top of just 25.7C.
Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Todd Smith said yesterday was on par with the coolest January day in Darwin’s recorded weather history.
“It reached 25.7C. The last time we had a temperature that low was on January 1989 since records began 72 years ago,” Mr Smith said.
“It’s very rare.”
http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/as-other-capitals-sweat-its-cool-to-be-in-darwin/story-fnk0b1zt-1226802644894
BOM: Darwin, January 2014
Tuesday 14 Jan: Max 28.0
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201401/html/IDCJDW8014.201401.shtml
20
I’ll feed that Darwin temperature into my climate model and I will bet that the model will show that the Darwin temperature trend indicates we are on the verge of a catastrophic ice age !
[ /sarc ]
00
Not just Darwin.
The doona is still on my bed because it’s “chilly” in the early morning.
00
I suspect as I see an increasing volume of comments like those below from former rabid advocates of model based only, catastrophic anthropogenic warming, the erosion and collapse within climate science of the CAGW meme is occurring quite a lot faster than most of us layman skeptics can get our minds around.
If so then there are going to be some very red faced third rate CSIRO climate scientists staring at the possibility of a situation very similar to that skeptical scientists faced only less than a year or so ago of never having another of their papers accepted for publication and therefore no real reason to continue their employment within science.
Won’t happen unfortunately but because of the publicity about their motives and attitudes via the pervasiveness of internet they will have lost all credibility and respect as scientists and for most of those hubris laden CSIRO charlatans that would be a very savage personal back lash indeed.
Add to this still another, Judith Curry’s savage calling out of Michael Mann and his latest polemic against her as a “put up or shut up” and the climate warming world is turning on it’s axis much faster than the warmists can or want to comprehend.
From the climate science papers reviewing Hockey Schtick blog comes this headline comment followed by a quote from the [ former? ] rabid global warming advocate Climate Gate’s, “Its a travesty” & “the heat is hiding in the deep oceans” Kevin Trenberth ;
Hockey Schtick headline quote;
And the quote from Trenberth on Global climate models
Trenberth still has a long way to go but he’s moving and thats something very few ever expected to see.
And if Trenberth, a very influential figure in the climate warming science scene moves then there will be a whole cascade of second tier and third rate climate warming scientists scrambling to abandon their advocacy role in the CAGW meme with much shuffling of feet and lots of back pedalling and hole filling and denying they were ever really believers in that whole global warming scam and were only “doing science” [ /sarc].
We’ve seen it all before innumerable times when very shonky operators in other professions have got caught in highly compromising situations with their pants down just like where climate warming science advocacy now appears to be heading.
40
Sorry! didn’t include Link to Hockey Schtick article
Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos
10
Chris Turney’s AAE “volunteer” spokesman, Alvin Stone, has a new story:
19 Jan: Eureka Alert Media Release from ALVIN STONE: Get used to heat waves: Extreme El Nino events to double
An international team of scientists from organisations including the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (CoECSS), the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and CSIRO, published their findings in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“We currently experience an unusually strong El Niño event every 20 years. Our research shows this will double to one event every 10 years,” said co-author, Dr Agus Santoso of CoECSS. ..
“The question of how global warming will change the frequency of extreme El Niño events has challenged scientists for more than 20 years,” said co-author Dr Mike McPhaden of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“This research is the first comprehensive examination of the issue to produce robust and convincing results,” said Dr McPhaden…
“During an extreme El Niño event countries in the western Pacific, such as Australia and Indonesia, experienced devastating droughts and wild fires, while catastrophic floods occurred in the eastern equatorial region of Ecuador and northern Peru,” said lead author, CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai…
“For Australia, this could mean summer heat waves, like that recently experienced in the south-east of the country, could get an additional boost if they coincide with extreme El Ninos,” said co-author, Professor Matthew England from CoECSS. …
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/uons-gut011714.php
20 Jan: SMH: Tom Arup: Major El Nino events likely to double in next century
The researchers used 20 climate models to project the impact on extreme El Nino frequency of global greenhouse emissions continuing at current high rates…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-el-nino-events-likely-to-double-in-next-century-20140119-312sy.html
30
Thanks Pat
There will be another Nino oscillation at some point, of course
The AGW propaganda will then be of the “See, we told you so” variety, quite ignoring the prediction of probable doubled frequency within a century (who can survive that long ?)
This prediction is simply using the MSM to move the goalposts again with scarey-bears … ho hum
20
Pat,another fine article from the warmer wally dept.If ‘El Nino’ is an ocean current system how can you double it’s frequency without any mention of other ocean systems?Please explain.
00
Newman was quoting Lindzen’s lower than than today in 20 years’ time wager i.e. the climate scientists aren’t taking up Newman’s bet because he didn’t make one, he just made an observation. They’re taking up Lindzen’s wager.
Even so, the intrepid CSIRO scientists say (Guardian headline) “warmer world wager with Maurice Newman a safe bet” but they’re not betting for anthropogenic global warming with that bet, they’re actually betting against solar (or aerosols, or ocean cyclic) cooling. I wouldn’t bet against solar cooling over the next 2 decades given the solar recession underway, the effects of which will begin to be seen increasingly from 2014 onwards and particularly around 2035 i.e. certainly not safe.
For the climate scientists to actually bet for anthropogenic global warming they would have to bet for the IPCC’s global warming projection, 2016-2035, which is:
0.10-0.233 K per decade by 2035 (IPCC 2013)
[Note this is LESS than the CMIP5/AR5 model ensemble trend which the IPCC rejected in favour of “expert opinion” i.e. a guess]
Their bet for anthropogenic global warming would have to be within those bounds and at least 0.1 K/decade and 0.2 K by 2035.
There’s the point made in the Guardian that some wont be around to collect/pay up in 20 yrs but there’s a simple solution for that (starting with 5 yr running average base 2010 – 2014 inclusive and 5 yr running averages thereafter):
Progress Payment or Collect for more than or equal to 2010 – 2014 base
2020 25% if not at least 0.05K
2025 25% if not at least 0.1K
2030 25% if not at least 0.15K
2035 25% if not at least 0.2K
100% payment/collect over 20 years – or death, whichever comes first
# # #
A very important footnote.
The IPCC says in respect to their prediction above (my emphasis):
The CSIRO climate scientists think betting against solar cooling is a “safe bet” but the IPCC doesn’t seem to think it is.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
30
I would point out too that there is already a Climate Bet For Charity involving No Tricks Zone and Skeptical Science (see NTZ sidebar) that the 2nd decade of the 21st century will be cooler on average than the 1st, SkS betting it will be warmer obviously.
Latest update has SkS on the losing bet so far.
20
I’m prepared to bet $5 that we will have some warmish weather and some coolish weather before the end of 2014.
Any takers?
40
***i’ve just noticed something wrong in the NT Times’ article:
Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Todd Smith said yesterday was on par with the coolest January day in Darwin’s recorded weather history.
“It reached 25.7C.
***The last time we had a temperature that low was on January 1989 since records began 72 years ago,” Mr Smith said.
“It’s very rare.”
http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/as-other-capitals-sweat-its-cool-to-be-in-darwin/story-fnk0b1zt-1226802644894
***what was Smith actually saying? obviously this is an NT Times’ mistake because it doesn’t make sense. what i heard on abc “what the papers say” was straightforward – it was the lowest max temp recorded since records began.
20
And these government endowed fellows will make the bet with WHOSE MONEY?
20
The hypocrites have already had their bet Jo. They predicted fry and burn, 199 out of 200 governments in the world backed them, and guess what….they lose and we pay!
20
Let’s get really serious. If the catastrophians are so sure that they on a “sure bet”, over a 20 year time horizon, then the bet should reflect discounting principles and their socialist doctrine. Winnner take all. After all most if not all of them are on the public drip raking in inflated salaries and perks. If they are really serious of their position, then they should be prepared to bet their job (or house!) on it, discounted to current salary. So in 20 years time, their current stipend is amortised by the rate of inflation. If the current stipend (all costs included) is $150 K, in 20 years, when the bet is called), it will be a significantly higher figure. Or whatever calculated figure if called before.
The reasoning? many thousands have and will bear additional (unwarranted) costs already and stand to lose even their livelihoods if the green (socialist) madness continues, due directly to enactment of government policies which are based on computer model projections, claimed by the proponents to be a solid basis for energy policy, where the whole nation pays for their folly or fact. That’s the real issue, not whether “average global” temperature (impossible to state) will rise by zero or portion of a degree above natural variability in 20 year’s time. By then we will all be much the wiser in regards to climate science).
If it turns out in 20 year’s time it’s not folly and they are right, i.e. both the AGW hypothesis and models are proven to be absolutely correct, they get paid in full. If proven to be false, and rejected (reflected in) government energy policy in the 20 year time horizon, OR BEFORE, then they pay in full for each of those years they were wrong (compounding). Make the wager a mortgage on their houses (better than a pox on everyone else’s with high energy costs due to subsidies for so-called “renewables”). Make it legally binding.
If they are so absolutely confident their religion (AGW doctrine and models) is infallible, then bet their “house” on it, not a small percentage of their inflated salaries? That’s the issue, not cherry picking at portions of a degree temperature rise in the bounds of natural variability. Be prepared to hang their petard up the flagpole. Why not, everyone else pays for it.
10
Seems like there is a fair bit of ‘hedging bets’ going on anyway.
Two lead MSM pieces filed today under ‘science’
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/climate-change-double-likelihood-super-el-ninos-87326
Global warming
http://digitaljournal.com/tech/science/op-ed-new-mini-ice-age-on-the-way-as-sun-goes-to-sleep/article/366556
Global cooling
20
Add another one Debbie
The Hockey Schtick
New consensus rediscovers ‘polar vortex’ jet stream dips are due to global cooling
Otherwise known as “the science is settled” to the ignorant and gullible proletariat out there but in reality the climate scientists haven’t got a bloody clue as to what is happening or why and it is really starting to show as the warming of the past had hidden the flaws and uselessness of the climate scientists modelled predictions.
Now the warming has ceased for some 16 years all those faults and incompetence of the formerly cocky hubris laden climate warming scientists and all the hubris behind their claims of the past of an imminent catastrophic warming are being revealed for what they are, nothing but a massive con job by a bunch of shysters who never revealed to the public that pays their nice lavish salaries although they knew it years ago, that their glorified and oh’ so sophisticated climate models and their predictions weren’t worth a pinch of the proverbial –
And that after 30 years and close to a trillion dollars flushed down the climate science sewer for absolutely no perceivable result of any consequence except to fertilise the climate warming scientists bank balances and to destroy the finances and social stability of nations, industries and the citizens who are forced to pay their salaries .
Yet still still they demand, “send more money”.
Most companies and corporations with the complete lack of any useable results after 30 years of immense investment in a project would have long ago wiped this rag bag mob of so called climate scientists right out a couple of decades ago as being totally useless or worse, a seriously bad and embarrassing influence brought about by the incompetence of the shysters in that department on the company’s bottom line due to the bad and totally useless predictions and forecasts.
40
Jo,
1st time comment for me, but long time reader. Great site.
Climate scientists not willing to bet on their projections, only anything above ZERO.
They are definitely desperate, scared and now degrading themselves to a new low.
Owen O
——
Yes, Owen, agreed. Exactly! – Jo
00
hey let’s make the bet even easier …. let’s make it about the last 18 years, as in lets bet whether the temperature actually went up, stayed the same, or went down .
What’s that you say? The AGW crowd say it went up and the stats look like it went down ?!?
This is a classic ‘herring rouge’…it reminds me in some ways of the prisoners dilemma, where one door leads to freedom, and the other to the gallows,
in front of each door is a guard, one of whom lies (and knows the truth), and one tells the truth (and knows the truth)
The question for the prisoner is what question can he ask to determine which door to take (he doesn’t know which door is which)
In the climate space it would seem to me both sides think they are ‘telling the truth’, and are sticking to their scripts.
The unlocking the underlying truth question in this space, I believe, is to ask each group what is wrong with the other groups model/schema/interpretations, and make that a repeated/iterative process …and hold it in a public space… akin to Jo’s debate some time ago
(which is what these blogs are all about)
20
john –
who posted for the first time with the important Green Bonds’ article, etc. hope u keep posting stuff u find on this website, as Jo fully appreciates that aspect of CAGW. hope also u will spread this link around. the CAGW crowd LOATHE Rubin, yet i’m sure not even this will convince them how much of a scam CAGW is:
18 Jan: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Former Treasury Chief Sees Accounting in the Price of Emission: Dumb Question
(Photo Caption: Robert Rubin, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. treasury secretary, pictured in 2011)
How’s climate change a risk to me? This simple question has gone unanswered for too long.
Robert Rubin knows a thing or two about economic risk. As Treasury Secretary to President Clinton, Rubin advocated for balanced budgets through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts — Rubinomics for short. While at Treasury he helped formulate the administration’s responses to financial crises in Mexico, Russia and East Asia…
This week Rubin joined the risk committee of a new research effort, called Risky Business, which will estimate potential U.S. economic costs from current and projected impacts of global warming. Founded as a way to frame climate risk for businesses and investors, it was started by billionaire investor and climate campaigner Tom Steyer, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP…
Rubin, Steyer and I spoke at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, held Wednesday at the United Nations.
Dumb Question: It seems to me that cutting carbon emissions is like saving for retirement; the earlier you start, the better off you’ll be. If that’s true, does it mean that the Clinton administration had more responsibility than the George W. Bush administration to stop climate change? And if that’s true, what does it imply for the administration of, like, James Madison?
RR: It would be hard for me to comment on the Madison administration, because I don’t know the history that well.
President Clinton and, of course, Vice President Gore were very focused on this. That was a long time ago, and the question was, what can you do? I do know both of them were very focused on it. It would be hard to say that they had responsibility for global climate change.
The science has moved along. There’s pretty close to universal agreement in the serious science community. In the political community there’s a lot of controversy….
DQ: Wait! Why would there be controversy in the political community if there’s no controversy in the science community? That doesn’t seem totally rational.
RR: It’s a question of connecting [science] with what people are experiencing now. That’s what Risky Business is about — providing a framework for people to think about ramifications of this over time, and making all of it real in the political system and in the financial system. That’s an immense, immense challenge.
DQ: How do you do that?
RR: The key to this is really the political system. If you had accounting rules that result in the externalities [ie the costs of greenhouse gas emissions] being captured in financial statements, then obviously people would react…
Tom Steyer: You have to figure out how to take this huge messy story and put it into lines that people can [both] understand, measure and be evaluated. And then they’ll respond like SOB’s…
TS: But the status quo has huge power, too; if you’re successful you don’t want to change.
RR: Oh, yeah! But you can be forced to change.
TS: You have to be!…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-17/former-treasury-chief-sees-accounting-in-the-price-of-emission-dumb-question.html
Wikipdia: Tom Steyer
Prior to joining Hellman & Friedman, Steyer worked at Goldman Sachs from 1983-1985 as an associate in the risk arbitrage department under Robert Rubin. He began his professional career at Morgan Stanley in 1979…
Steyer announced in October 2012 that he would be stepping down from his position at Farallon in order to focus on political activism, in particular on advocating for alternative energy…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
00
The bet is a bit on the risky side, I think, and not because of CO2.
The multidecadal periodicity has 30 years of slight descent followed by 30 years of ascent, like 1940-1970 followed by 1970-2000.
We are now 15 years into the slight descent, which would leave another 15 years of slight descent.
After that, 5 years of ascent out of 30 would bring it very close to 0.
Temps lower 15 years from now would have been much safer…
Good luck!
01
WHy not just forget about the 20 years and make it three? Watch them crap their dacks then.
00
This article just proves what a fraud and con the mitigation of CAGW is. German companies and rich people now make a fortune on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.
The solar and wind energy con now ensures that the Germans pay some of the highest electricity prices in the world. About twice what US citizens pay.
And now 600,000 germans can’t pay their electricity bills. So if you support this lunacy here in OZ you will just ensure that we will eventually wreck our grid and pay exorbitantly higher electricity prices into the future.
All at the expense of the sick, poor and elderly who will be made to suffer. Just greedy money hungry bastards.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/14/consumers-rebel-germanys-leading-daily-launches-campaign-against-exorbitantly-high-electricity-prices/
10
Another gem at the ABC environment section:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/01/20/3927599.htm
Ecosystems ‘may’ be destroyed in Antarctica in mere decades because of climate change … maybe. The money shot:
Do scientists actually _DO_ science anymore or do they just model things in a lab and pretend it’s reality? Maybe they are scared to follow in the footsteps of Mawson…
Oh and readers beware … there is even a scary ‘tipping point’ section … /yawn
10
Good point about trusting the “official” world temperature as recorded by “climate scientists”.
cLIMATEGATE and now the new official Australian weather records show there has been a real attempt to rewrite the temperatures to show whatever they choose.
Trust them?
Not this little brown duck with a science degree!
10