[See the concise and updating story of our bet with the US Brian Schmidt here.]
Brian Schmidt offered to bet against Maurice Newman, but what’s interesting is just how startlingly weak and underconfident the bet is.
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.
How much should we pay now to prevent “any warming above zero” in the next twenty years? $4.5 billion a year? How about nothing.
I sent something similar to this to three Australian editors yesterday, unfortunately at least two were out of the office. Holiday season.
As Australia’s largest sceptical climate blogger, I would be delighted to take up Brian’s offer of a bet (made to Maurice Newman).
Here’s the bizarre thing, I’m already a party to one of the largest bets on global temperatures, and would you believe, with a man also called Brian Schmidt? (My husband, David Evans, carved out that bet long ago in 2007, and as it happens, right now, things are looking good for us at the moment.) We have a US$6,000 exposure, Brian Schmidt has US$9,000 and the bet was split into three bets ending in 10, 15, and 20 years (so ending in 2027). Though this bet was based on a low end temperature rise of just 0.15 degrees C per decade, which was below the IPCC estimate, butwhich is not happening.
The other Brian Schmidt (the Nobel Prize winner) is offering to bet on any warming at all, something very conservative (for people convinced of man-made climate change), and potentially much riskier for me. Indeed, even if there is only a small amount of warming and he wins, it could still show that the current IPCC climate models are wrong, and skeptics like myself were right to criticize them.
Both Schmidt and I also agree that the greenhouse effect is real, so the question is whether other factors overwhelm it. For example, the Earth is covered by a blanket of cloud that covers 60% of the planet. Schmidt mentioned Roy Spencer’s work, but Spencer himself explains that if clouds increase by even 1 -2%, say, it will dramatically affect the temperature of Earth. The climate modelers Schmidt follows admit they are unable to predict cloud cover changes. Their models also don’t include any effect due to solar magnetic activity, and if Henrik Svensmark is right this would easily neutralize, or override any warming effect of CO2. Others, like David Archibald and Professor Solheim have noticed that longer solar cycles correlate with cooler global temperatures, and the current cycle appears to be very weak and long. The ominous slowdown in solar activity has many solar astronomers predicting a grand minima may occur.
To put this in perspective, some say (in a rather scary way) that CO2 adds the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima bombs of extra energy to our atmosphere every second. But the sun is so powerful, it is continuously adding 500 times as much energy. Surely a small change in the sun could swamp a trace gas, potentially anyway? The IPCC are 95% sure it can not.
In Brian Schmidt’s favour, there has been a warming trend for the last 200-300 years and it is reasonable to assume that it will continue. Though without understanding the cause of why the warming started so long before our CO2 emissions rose, this is more a dart-throwing projection than science. Conversely, not in Schmidt’s favour is the general cooling trend that has run for the last 5,000 years. Like the stock market, all rising trends continue until they fall.
Then there is a sixty year cycle of Pacific Oscillations, which has reliably oscillated for hundreds of years. We recently entered into a down-swing of that cycle, and will continue to be in it until the mid 2030’s. During these downswings, there are more La Nina’s and as the winds grow stronger over the Pacific, the deep cold waters are stirred which releases the “stored cold” and sucks the heat out of the atmosphere. Some of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was probably due to the upswing of this same cycle. Those claiming the ocean has cooled the climate in the last 15 years, never acknowledge that the oceans might equally have been warming it in the 20 before that. There is no symmetry in this “science”.
Sincerely,
Jo Nova
Schmidt’s argument quietly marks the end of the era of the IPCC
Schmidt does not try to defend their predictions. His bet is a tacit admission the alarmists were wrong. But instead of admitting that, he is one of a growing group trying to shift the goal posts instead. This is a desperate rearguard action to save face and pretend that any warming at all in the next twenty years is some kind of “win”. A few years ago the extremists were saying we only had ten years til we hit a tipping point — now, golly, it’s only twenty years til we see any warming at all. Be afraid!
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.
There is no way we will let them get away with this.
The real policy question we need to discuss in our national newspaper (because it sure won’t happen in Fairfax or the ABC) is our action on man-made emissions. The Schmidt bet is nothing but an attempt to sidetrack us from the points Maurice Newman so devastatingly raised.
How much money should we spend?
Let’s spend nothing. Scrap all the carbon clauses, the subsidies to inefficient energy, the grants to climate models we know are broken. One-sided funding to scientists seeking a crisis has done more harm than good to science, but it has engendered a lot of namecalling. Unless there is a change, climate science will advance faster if the government gets out of the way. I have yet to see a single observational study suggesting we will improve the weather with carbon credits or windmills and solar panels. We could save lives and spend the money on medical research instead. The opportunity cost is ignored.
How many people must we kill appeasing the God of the Carbonistas?
—————————–
PS: to readers. You may wonder why I am willing to enter a bet which is basically accepting the failure of the IPCC models as a starting point. But I have access to some unpublished research that suggests this is still very much a bet worth making. I will explain in full soon. In the next few months it will become clear. This is the first hint of a new theme which is likely to come to dominate this blog. Wait til you see…
If you are betting on the end of the world, it’s a bit like betting on the bus coming.
If you miss one, there is always another just around the corner.
The timeline of Earth, mankind and the universe has been mapped out
110
This is what a brick bat to the forehead of the clueless looks like. Those same clueless lack a sensibility gene the rest of us are driven by. When nature laughs in your face for 17 years and you don’t get it, you soundly deserve the Nova Brick BatTM straight between the uprights. Well swung. Next up!
271
That’s like asking a bookie to take a bet for any horse in the field to finish a race ! ROTFLMAO
Be a man Schmidt bet on the basis of your warmista creed … talk about a coward !
271
What about a bet with this Blog … we all chip in a bit and Sgt Schmidt stumps up his cash; but let’s say that due to the nature of this bet we need to be given 10:1 odds to even up the risk profile.
81
I’m happy to broker a joint bet too. Though like our last bet, there are details to be hammered out should Schmidt be interested. I would not use the “BOM data” — it makes much more sense to use a mix of UAH and Hadley – one surface set and one satellite set. The Australian BOM have no credibility in Australian temperature series (they still have not released the ACORN methods), let alone global ones.
310
You are asking the trough-snouts to bet with their OWN money. They won’t like that.
How about this – if you lose you pay them and if they lose the government pays you.
That is pretty much how they have been operating so far with all their other schemes.
280
Yeh, maybe they could borrow it?
Combet and Gillard would have to get on this “dead cert”.
They could sub the bet for a percentage just to prove Jo and the other internet nut jobs wrong.
010
The model I have developed projects the following future temperatures.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/194/3kxu.jpg
90
” As Australia’s largest sceptical climate blogger,…” Must be living of the fat of the land on all that Evil Big Fossil Fuel money. 🙂
We already know, from statements made publicly by senior figures at the UN and the EU, that the IPCC is merely a political tool to assist extremists in their aim to redistribute the World’s wealth while drastically reducing the world’s population. Now that the scientists supplying the IPCC with evidence have shown some independence of spirit by reining back predictions to more closely follow reality, extremists are ignoring their touchstone of 2 decades and creating ever more epicycle-like apologies to maintain the narrative. Most of us learnt that a fiction will eventually break down under pressure from reality when explaining lack of homework at high school. Such flights of fancy as, “the ocean ate the heat”, said with a straight face, indicates a certain lack of life experience.
O/T. The fragrant Prof. Judy Curry played an absolute blinder at the US Senate hearings on POTUS plans of Climate Change. So much so that Senator Boxer, whose hearing this was, walked out before the end of the session. One is irresistibly reminded of the reaction following Jesse Owens’ 100 metres win at the 1936 Olympics.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
240
Kevin,
You probably didn’t hear the alarmist proclamation by Prof Wil Steffen of the (now) privately funded Climate Commission. His mantra, and that of his fellow deluded commissioners, is the same as Barry Obama’s; rubbish. Pity he didn’t read Judith’s testimony first. Mind you when the scam collapses so will Wil’s income and credence so he is keeping the faith and of course he is supported by their ABC, Fairfax and Channel 10. There are a lot of folk out there dreading the egg that will soon adorn their visages.
160
The Statement of Prof Andrew Dessler to the Senate hearing. Read this and weep.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06
10
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy wasn’t able to definitively say whether the world has gotten warmer in Senate testimony.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions asked McCarthy to confirm a statement made by President Obama last year that global temperatures were increasing faster in the last five or ten years than climate scientists had predicted.
McCarthy couldn’t answer the question, saying that she only repeats what the climate scientists tell her. Sessions was not satisfied with her response.
“Do I not have the right to ask the Director of EPA a simple question that is relevant to the dispute that is before us?” Sessions angrily asked. “Is the temperature around the globe increasing faster than was predicted, even 10 years ago [as the President claimed]?”
“I can’t answer that question,” McCarthy said.
“You are asking us to impose billions of dollars of cost on this economy and you won’t answer the simple question of whether [temperature around the globe is increasing faster than predicted] is an accurate statement or not?” Sessions shot back.
“I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” said McCarthy.
Could Ms. McCarthy possibly be auditioning for the railway engineer’s job?
http://www.thegwpf.org/epa-chief-unable-world-warmer/
230
Both within the US and globally, because of the influence over K-12 curriculum and classroom practices of the various UN entities and especially UNESCO and the also Paris-based OECD, we have education intending to create a false belief system surrounding AGW whatever the reality. AGW, social justice, the three pillars of social, economic and environmental sustainability, global citizenship are all to be the new cross-cutting concepts that will create the desired obuchenie mindset that will filter whatever happens in light of these inculcated beliefs.
Until we all get a better recognition of the extent to which education has become a political weapon to obtain nonconsensual transformation, we will remain at great risk from all these rent-seeking public sector visions.
90
Robin,
Have you a good suggestion for getting us out from under the UN?
Have you a good suggestion for getting back control of our schools?
20
I can’t answer those questions.
00
Neither can I. Therein is our problem, huh? No way to take corrective action and no way to opt out.
00
She knows very well what the answer is. But what would you say in her place? I’d go along with the boss and admit absolutely as little as possible, at least if I wanted to keep my cushy job.
The EPA is ripe for throwing in the Potomac river. It long ago gave up science in favor of politics. There’s not much else you can say about it.
110
Judith Curry, by the way, has always seemed to me to want to keep a foot in both camps.
Anyone else have that feeling?
00
Roy. I’ve been following Judith since about 2008 on the blog Climate etc. At that time, she was definitely in the warmist camp but set up the blog as a talking shop to charm both sides out of the chest-thumping war dances in the trees to talk. I suspect her original idea was to convert sceptics by the power of reason and the strength of warmist science. The first thing that struck me was the virulence of the tree house gang against any such move. A thug known as Tamino was particularly obnoxious in a manner which would have had him arrested for intimidation in many walks of life. It was the first time I recognised what was to me gross professional misconduct in the warmist camp. There have of course been many other instances since.
Those episodes made me sympathetic to Judith even though I didn’t support her views at that time. The Judith of 2007 would have been incapable of producing the deposition to the Senate hearing a day ago. Clearly her views have moderated significantly. In traveling the Damascene road to scepticism she is not alone. Lindzen, Watts, and our gracious hostess, to mention just three have also travelled the same road. No one now questions their integrity as committed sceptics and I suggest the time has come to, if not canonise Judith, at least beatify her as a dedicated searcher for scientific truth.
160
Aye to all the above.
60
Perhaps I am naive. I see her as one of the few honest scientists in the debate. She is a warmist (now I guess we would call her a luke-warmist) that has serious questions about the “Team”. I do not see it as trying to keep a foot in each camp. But again, that may be my desire to see nobility where so little exists.
70
I’d call Judith neither a warmist or a luke warmist, rather a scientist. A real scientist.
110
I agree with you.
30
Kevin and others,
I don’t really think I need to defend my position but I’ll offer an example of why I think Curry isn’t really a skeptic. And yes, she’s definitely moderate in her approach. But consider…
I’ve never found anyone with the slightest of empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere can do what it’s being blamed for. And I’ve looked for years now. I’ve put that question to the staunchest of climate change supporters and all I get is silence. The whole thing is based on a theory that’s never been proven or even come close to being proven. And when I say this repeatedly no one challenges me, not even Jo, who accepts the premise that I can’t buy for lack of real evidence. So…
Here’s Judith Curry mentioning Barack Obama’s climate change battle plan for the second time in her presentation.
It seems all she can say about this draconian plan to ruin the economy of the entire nation is, “Gee whiz, Mr. President, I think the thing is really happening but at a slower rate than the ‘judgment of science’ tells us.”
Now, I can certainly see why Barbara Boxer wouldn’t like what she heard and would walk out. Boxer is a totally ignorant woman about the subject (and about many subjects) and more about herself than anything else. Remember her, “Call me senator, I’ve worked hard for that title,” remark to a 4-star General Officer who addresses her as he should have, Ma-am? It’s not much of a coup to get Boxer’s goat.
Now is the time, if you have the argument or the evidence to shoot me down about the action of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has become a fixation like a pilot looking at only one instrument that shows a problem while all the others are telling him he’s OK. Panic follows and from there, disaster. The whole thing hangs on whether CO2 is doing something, not what the weather or the climate is doing.
I started my quest for information about global warming with a skeptical attitude but with the nagging fear that it might be true. It isn’t. Neither is it about science. It’s all about politics which is always about who will be in power and who will not. When in power you can get what you want and when not in power you can’t. And that’s that. It’s been that way since the first two humans met and fought over food or water.
————————————————————————————-
On Obama and why it’s a bad idea to give even a little ground where he’s concerned:
Here is a part of some recent comments by one of the best thinkers of our times, Charles Krauthammer, concerning president Obama.
It is very dangerous to give even an inch to this man and his plans. They are, simply put, exactly what Krauthammer says they are and every action Obama takes is toward that goal, never mind the cool demeanor and what the words say. You cannot let Obama take one square inch of ground without a fight. This is the real danger for the U.S. in all this climate change nonsense.
20
Kevin,
Climate change and Agenda 21 is NOT about redistributing wealth, it is a smoke screen to cover for the establishment of Global Governance no less. Run by – you guessed it, the UN socialist machine. Don’t think they are serious about helping the poor – otherwise why are we burning their food in our cars…
30
Bob, I can only give you one green thumb for that so here are the rest of what your remark deserves.
Spot on all the way! It’s about power to control.
00
Jo
Have you defined the data set you will use to determine the outcome of your bet?
It is obviously more difficult to manipulate the satellite data than the ground based temperature data. I would insist on using the UAH or RSS data..
In any event, increasing numbers of ‘climate scientists’ are realising the end of the era of troughs is fast approaching. In the post-trough environment, there will be funding available for far fewer ‘climate scientists’, those that survive are likely to be the ones who first admit that current alarmist theories were just plain wrong.
Anyhow, good luck with your bets, though I doubt you will need any.
—-
See my comment #4.1, Yes, agreed. – Jo
80
Talk about an own goal!
The alarmists are now putting it all on the line that there will be some warming…
Assuming the system is chaotic and we really don’t know what will happen this is like betting that one coin flip will land on heads, or one spin if the roulette wheel will land on black.
This is “settled science”, “debate over” the “greatest moral challenge of our times”… Based on nothing more than a 50/50 guess.
What a bunch of deplorable w***** these climate fakes are.
220
Be sure that the wording of any bet refers to net warming, knowing how slippery some of the carbon-phobics can be.
100
Any warming at all? Dodgy! If SC25 is more lively than SC24 then it could warm a bit. Of course that will be classed as ‘manmade’. 🙁
80
Dunno what your new data is but I can’t wait to find out. Any bet should accommodate the agreed position, that CO2 directly warms by 1.2C per doubling
That is
1.2 = C x ln(2) therefore C = 1.7
1.7 x Ln (1.1) = 0.162
So the bet must be on it being at least 0.162 degrees warmer in 10 Years, that is the bet is essentially whether feedbacks are negative or positive. Otherwise Jo, you are letting him get away with a “Sucker bet” we know CO2 warms, and even with negative feedback it gets a little bit warmer, the question then will be whether Natural variation will defeat this trivial warming over the next ten years. While that’s likely with a quiet sun, I’m not comfortable with Schmidt taking the house bet – He is cheating, and taking the Sceptics bet as well as his own, and leaves only the “Dragonslayer” scenario for the sceptic side. That’s wrong and dishonest – it completely misrepresents the sceptic argument. If he wants to bet – he should bet on his own side, that feedbacks are positive!
150
.
As a scientist, Schmidt opts for the safety of the AGW orthodoxy.
As a punter he opts for the safety of natural climate variation.
–
A remarkable change when money is involved.
140
And the most remarkable of them all; “climate change”. Never again will that word be understood based on it’s natural meaning but rather the cesspool of lies, corruption, deception and immorality of those cheats and con artists who championed it into the modern vernacular as a convenient replacement to “global warming”.
170
Yes, well picked up, as I hadn’t thought of the hijacking of such a simple expression.
Sonny, the duo of Climate Change is now altered for ever.
For what, a two word slogan, because that’s all it is now.
Along with Global Warming, Heat Wave, Extreme Event. They are lunatics all of the CAGW Green Bunch (Salad).
Google “Climate Change” – 989,000,000 results
Google “Global Warming” – 286,000,000 results
Google “IPCC” – 3,850,000 results
Google “Tim Flannery” – 1,640,000 results
Google “Professor Turney” – 345,000 results
It’s all about the words, emotive, catchy and dangerous, not the personalities.
Google “David Suzuki” – 30,700,000 results an exception as a celebrity fruitloop.
Google “Joanne Nova” – 4,200,000 – more than Tim the Toolman, and Professor Turkey put together.
They are dictating the emotions of people every day. The ABC, IPCC, and the rest of the alarmists, are leading through this by words, not science.
160
There’s more than a handful of people floating around the climate blogosphere with what might be collectively termed unpublished research on alternative hypotheses of climate drivers. Increasingly some of them are getting published in the only way the opposing Team will allow: DIY.
I would like to pitch in with my own hunch about the relative strength of the influences of climate, but my own climate model is still not ready for prime time, unfortunately. It currently produces two quantities that can be constrained by real world measurements: annual globally averaged sea surface temperature, and annual globally averaged outgoing longwave radiation. It gets the 10-year centred moving average of SST correct with a RMS error of under 0.05 degrees over the last 150 years. Sounds good, right? The bad news is the OLR that it generates is way off the mark, at least according to NOAA’s OLR data.
If I can get the darn thing working on both metrics then I may be emboldened to take on a climate bet too, based on the model’s future projections. But at the moment that is wishful thinking, so I shall say no more about it unless there is more progress towards accuracy.
I will just say that, in my humble opinon, the temperature trend of the next 8 years will be the first time in a century in which significant differences will emerge between the 2.0+ degrees per CO2 doubling catastrophic models versus the more sedate lukewarmer view of things. It was difficult to tell them apart whilst natural forcings and aCO2 forcing were both increasing. The Halt in Warming was the first tentative crack in the IPCC facade. A decade of cooling from 2012-2021 will be a total break in their dam wall.
Not that I expect this prospect to put a dampener on the spirits of the tax-now-and-learn-later crowd.
140
In light of new information unknown to me at the time I made the above comment (because this happened 6 hours after I wrote it), a correction to the above is now needed…
Tough crowd this climate science mob.
30
It was only fair that the Australian gave space to Ian Chubb today so that he could agree with some of Maurice Newmans statements. He was pleased that Newman “admitted” that climate changes as if that was some wonderful new discovery by the government scientists. He was also pleased that Maurice admitted there had been warming as if there was any disagreement; after all Newman can read the UAH and Hadcrut same as everyone else. Where Chubb makes his error is assuming all the temperature gain is man made. He then has the hide to encourage debate when just after his appointment (by PM Rudd no less) he was adamant that sceptics should just shut up and go away because the science “was settled”.
Jo, you are a scientist so how does a complete dunderhead like Chubb get to be the chief scientist? Was his research in his chosen field done as sloppily and unquestioningly as he now suggests we treat climate science. I suspect Rudd chose him because he was a malleable fool who would fulfil the role of official science propagandist for the government. I’m hoping Abbott will soon accept his resignation.
170
Ian Chubb, Australia’s chief scientist, has joined the fray.
How does one become a chief scientist?
40
By having more “feathers” in your bonnet than the other “Indians” in your tribe.
Meaning you were the right man for the job before anybody else.
I tend to lean more towards the reason given by Lawrie,” I suspect Rudd chose him because he was a malleable fool who would fulfil the role of official science propagandist for the government.”
Sort of the same one Flannery sold his soul to promote the CO/2 tax.
Any credability that Flannery may have had is gone.
Abbott actually has a scientist in the party that is up to speed on the global warming fraud who’s name escapes me at the minute.
He wanted the job of science minister to which Abbott says he doesn’t need one when other portfolios can adequately do the job.
60
Dr Dennis Jensen. His website says he has a PhD in PhD in Materials Science and Physics:
I live in his electorate — same suburb, in fact — and voted for him at the last election.
He should have been made the minister for science. I was annoyed that he was not.
120
Being a Minister is nothing like being a Scientist nor much like being an MP.
Abbott is being systematic.
10
Looks like NASA could be playing a sneaky catch up with the observations that lead to the hiatus in temp trends over the last 15 years or so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/nasa-revises-earths-radiation-budget-diminishing-some-of-trenberths-claims-in-the-process/#comments
Nasa has revised earth’s energy budget and now we see that retained energy from GHGs has dropped by 1/3rd since 2009.
Remember this drop of 1/3 has been adjusted down in just a little over 4 years, so what might we see by 2025 or 2040 or 2100?
Trenberth’s missing heat may just have nicked off into space, who knows. I hope Jo and David can have a look at this predicament for the warmists.
130
Naked eco-communism (via Catallaxy):
40
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/01/17/the-un-says-democracy-is-a-poor-political-system-for-fighting-global-warming/
50
Sorry Jo, the GHE via CO2 is not real. This is because the Tyndall Experiment has been completely misinterpreted and there is zero CO2 15 micron band surface IR emission, basic radiation physics that any science professional should know**. The Tyndall mistake comes from a failure to understand basic statistical thermodynamics, the Law of Equipartition of Energy, which means there can be no net thermalisation of the GHG-absorbed IR energy. Instead it has to be thermalised at heterogeneous interfaces, mainly clouds and in Space.
**The heat transfer in any wavelength range at the surface is the vector sum of the Radiation Fields. So black body GHG emission band nullifies the same range of surface IR. This is standard physics i used when I was a process engineer, but has been forgotten for 40 years. In reality there is near zero CO2-AGW. There is some waning in non self-absorbed H2O bands, but it is 1/7th of that claimed in the climate models.
140
That all sounds as least as plausible as the GHGE.
If all these energy transfers occur as understood it should be possible to demonstrate them by simple experiments. I have been trying some variations on the Anthony Watts light bulb experiment, with different results to his.
Anthony Watts reflected the light of a spotlight back on its surface and showed some warming, which he interpreted as refuting the claim that a light bulb cannot warm its self by it own reflection.
In my experiment I have separated the heat source (bath room heat lamp), from the target (black metal plate). Shining the lamp onto the target makes it quite hot (about 90C).
If I place a mirror so that it shines some more light on to the target it gets hotter (100C). That is the equivalent of the warming that Watts obtained in his experiment.
If the mirror is then repositioned so that it returns only radiation from the target I also get a very small amout of warming. I interpret that as double reflection from lamp to the surrounds of the target, to the mirror and back to the target. By revising the stand on which the black metal target is held I reduced the effect from about 1.5C to 0.5C.
Since a Stephan Boltzman calculation indicated that the reflected radiation from the target should produce about 30C warming of the target I am coming to the view that a body is not warmed by reflection of its own radiation. If that is the case then a radiative GHGE cannot warm the earth. It also means that a real black body (black metal plate) does not behave as an theoretical black body is supposed to (ie absorbs all the radiation energy incident apon it), and hence there is problem with our understanding of radiation physics.
10
Folks, it helps to understand where this guy is coming from.
The foundational beliefs of ‘AlecM’ aka ‘spartacusisfree’ aka ‘mydogsgotnonose’ aka ‘turnedoutnice’ are written in his own words here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/05/week-in-review-8512/#comment-226084
He’s done a more in-depth dismissal of CO2 greenhouse theory here: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/is-this-where-the-missing-heat-is-going/comment-page-1/#comment-58621
It is sometimes difficult to understand what AlecM is saying as he is very terse and succinct. The easiest way is to just start counting his contradictions.
On the one hand “GHE via CO2 is not real” and “there is zero CO2 15 micron band surface IR emission”.
On the other hand “black body GHG emission band nullifies the same range of surface IR.”
Clearly the GHG emission band was “nullifying” some 15 micron band surface IR which did not exist to begin with. The 15 micron band surface IR was “zero” to begin with, then it got nullified by the GHGs. Since the “nullification” process he describes happening is basically a rewording of the GHE, it is then clear that this GHE does not exist.
It’s all quite clear.
Another choice quote (from the curry link above):
This makes it fairly clear that he believes there is no GHE and there is a GHE.
It’s all quite clear.
In view of these contradictions the least we can say is that he doesn’t communicate his ideas very clearly.
To cut a long story short, there is practically no difference between the predictions of radiative transfer theory and the actual measurements of downwards IR radiation. That’s why the lukewarmers can rely on the existence of a GHE. Any argument about CO2 radiation does not settle the argument about the earth’s overall temperature change in response to increasing CO2 after all non-radiative effects and feedback are combined.
11
Jo needs to have an urgent chat with a spectroscopic chemist to sort out her erroneous belief in the GHE. Gases cannot absorb radiation. Radiation is always instantaneously re-radiated as quanta (discrete “packets” of energy)]. Unconfined gases (eg. the atmosphere) also cannot be heated – they simply expand and cool. These are indisputable facts that every First Year chemistry student learns.
00
“Gases cannot absorb radiation. Radiation is always instantaneously re-radiated”
Right, so they re-radiate energy they never absorbed to begin with. Contradiction #1.
“Unconfined gases (eg. the atmosphere) also cannot be heated – they simply expand and cool.”
Right, so the gases cooled but without being heated in the first place. Contradiction #2.
The “indisputable”…is disputed by measurement.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/goody-1989-clear-sky-spectrum2.png
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-1-downward-surface-radiation-p219.png
Whole lotta absorbin’ goin’ on there.
00
Rather than a monetary bet each party should create a grovelling and unreserved apology to the other party. The apology shall be published in several prominent publications and online at the end of the bet. This takes far more courage than a (IMHO fairly minor) monetary bet.
30
Since the science is settled and warming is guaranteed, the Alarmists should be offering odds in the range of 1,000 to 1 that the world is not cooler in, say, 2020 than it is now.
I’ll have some of that…….
120
Actually Rick, since the IPCC is 95% confident they should be giving 20:1 odds!
100
New stuff coming???? Cant wait. Tell me now. Tell me now!!!!!
You are such a tease Jo. Just have to keep checking every day now I suppose.
61
–
READ NOW….REPENT LATER.!!!!
10
You are impatient? I’ve been sitting on this for a year…
Soon. : -)
10
Brian Schmidt says he is not a “climate scientist” but an astrophysicist. There are some who have expressed doubt about his Nobel Prize award saying it has become political. Think about the awards to the IPCC, Yasser Arafat, B Obama etc. In the book (Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets) I have just been reading Astrophysicist Dr Tom van Flandern has a different concept based on the existing evidence to Schmidt.
I wonder wonder what prompted him to make a comment about something he does not understand.
Now Chubb has got into the act. He certainly has no clue about weather or climate. He was a political appointment. I hope he is sacked soon by the present government.
100
While I do not have access to the same unpublished work as you, there is enough published that seems to indicate we have at least a 50/50 chance of climbing off the mountain in the next 20 years (declining temperatures).
Other than a few idle boasts (one of particular note over at WUWT who never would agree to a any standards), it does not appear they are willing to put your money (since they are on the taxpayer dole) where their mouth is. So like all odds makers, you either have to up the point spread or the odds. Your new wager is merely upping the point spread.
20
I could hope you’d be able to take lot of them for every last dime they have. But any win is a big victory as their cause begins to collapse.
The fight isn’t over yet though, so keep hitting them, Jo.
50
What fascinates me is that I did university science but never went on to graduate due to other distractions yet I understand the units of measurement, can read the papers and graphs and produce graphs and charts on excel etc yet I, and Maurice Newman appear to understand the science behind GW theory more than a Nobel Prize winner and Australia’s chief scientist.
120
The advantage many of us have is that we originally believed in thAGW scenario ; I don’t think Chubb or Schmitt have questioned the matter at all just accepting the prevailing view.Pity.
30
Sorry,Schmidt.
10
hello, Jo. I would think you should add in a requirement for the warming to be “statistically significant” – otherwise, what’s the point? Also, there is error in any measurement. The way he has structured his offer it’s almost like another “heads I win, tails you lose” for the CAGWers. Taking into account measurement error, it may have actually cooled, and he still wins.
10
Can I also suggest you make him put the funds into an escrow account, or you’ll never see them.
20
The bet should be that the IPPC cannot produce the evidence that humans c02 is causing global warming . They have twisted the issue of hot or cold instead of the original claim . Firstly it is impossible to calculate the amount of c02 on earth and in the oceans , it is an ever changing event by the second or chaotic theory if you will which every real scientist would have to agree is impossible to calculate . Secondly and most important is it is impossible to calculate mans supposed 3% is what is causing the warming and that nature’s 97% is not . Show us the peer reviewed paper that has this separation calculation . There is non , therefore their claim is false and not backed by real science at all . ASK THEM FOR THE DATA . I notice also that no one in the skeptic side is mentioning the chemtrails these lunatics who say they promote clean air have been spraying , containing Barium , and aluminum oxide . 107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/hr2977.htm Let’s face it, they would be destroyed once their real intention was exposed http://youtu.be/1xCEptksWFs Flannery mentioned it if you remember . http://youtu.be/qiVnAx0WpSs don’t be blinded by MARXIST propaganda keeping you engaged in fake arguments , their real agenda is far worse . =Agenda 21 = Iron mountain report . http://youtu.be/vapMyAvbsbg
10
http://youtu.be/K2z2ZzXFeKo 100% proof and the reality of these insane people , only in western countries too . http://youtu.be/K2z2ZzXFeKo It is time you all woke up don’t you think ? http://youtu.be/pzW5Kb8u0Og You are all doing a great job but are missing the reality . enjoy . http://youtu.be/V5y1WorkLJw enjoy
10
minimum. minima is the plural. Honest.
——
I hope you lose the bet, but just by a little. The status quo is just fine.
02
No offense intended, but I would never have expected such a statement from you, Brian. A good status quo would be to have never even heard the term global warming.
Since we have heard it, let’s want it dead, buried and forgotten. 🙂
Hope you win big, Jo!
10
So Newman challenged readers to a bet that “global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now”. Schmidt took the bet. What sort of crystal ball do you have that you can claim anything more about what Brian was thinking? He just threw down on a statement made by a high-profile “skeptic”, and that’s all that was asked (although Newman’s claim suggests something closer to “denier” – are there really “skeptics” who still claim that warming isn’t happening? Somebody at head office needs to send him some new talking points, pronto).
By all means, challenge Schmidt to another bet, and then maybe you can say whether he’s a “skeptic” or not. Until then, all you can conclude is that he thinks Newman will lose. I think Newman will lose. It sounds like you think he will lose too. Maybe the weak link there isn’t Schmidt’s response, but the original challenge.
01
Joanne: The warmists seem to have a low warming value in mind, when they decide to put their own money to back up their beliefs.
Another case in point is Joe Romm, who has a bet with Tom Fuller and myself. Joe would only bet on this decade being 0.15 degree warmer than last. He called it a “sucker bet”.
He would be right too. Only 4 years into the “tens”, and for Joe to win, he will need every remaining year to be a record year. By record, I mean about 0.8 deg C or higher.
00
“The warmists seem to have a low warming value in mind, when they decide to put their own money to back up their beliefs”
That’s just a risk/reward consideration. It’s not like anyone’s standing to make big money from these bets, so those who don’t have money to just throw up against a wall are going to bet as conservative as they can.
The bets themselves don’t prove anything – the outcome itself does that, i.e. “told you so” happens regardless (one way or another). Being willing to bet one’s own money also doesn’t affect government policy, and it’s not even as if winning (for the “warmists”) is a happy outcome, because despite the nonsense from the “skeptic” camp being right about AGW isn’t actually a wonderful thing.
So if it doesn’t prove anything, doesn’t influence anything and doesn’t change the outcome, then why bother? The only rational motivation for betting on this is to make money at the end of it for having been right. If you want somebody to put money down on .5 deg/decade then name your terms and see who’ll take you up on it. Just remember that over the time scales on which this stuff progresses, that money could be doing other things, so the odds need to be worthwhile or nobody’s going to waste their time.
Looking at the historical record, it’s easy to find decadal periods in which any given temperature record tracked downwards or stayed flat. There does indeed to be a pause in a couple of the data sets right now (if you pick the right starting year), but I don’t think anyone serious actually believes that’s permanent, so this latest fad is temporary and just a political tactic (but don’t let anyone call you “denialists”, no). When (not if) your preferred temperature data sets start to go up again, and they will, you’ll all be looking for a new game to play (or possibly even a whole new hobby horse).
Meanwhile, the serious grown-ups need to be thinking about what to do if that happens.
00
Missing the point, Techno. We are warned of of the danger of warming, but no one will back that up with their own money. No bets that I know of, are greater than 1.5 deg/century.
This is Joannes’s point too. 2 Deg C is the supposed limit, but no one will bet that it will warm that much. A bit of hypocricy, no?
And, there is a pause in ALL the data sets. Not a couple. All the data sets. Of course, it does not help that the vast majority of models do not predict this pause.
The “serious grownups” are asking for a trillion dollars a year for a problem that may not exist. Or may be cheaper to adapt to, than mitigate.
Its the skeptics job to slow the “serious grownups” down, until they can prove that they are responsible enough for those kind of expensive toys.
00
There are wagers in the making on LinkedIn (Environmental Consulting Professionals)
Extent of arctic sea ice easily measurable. You have to jump to the latest postings.
Stephen
So here’s my bet, Jim: By (northern) summer 2030, the slope of the running trend line for Arctic ice extent from 1979 to 2030 will not have lessened one iota. If that bet is too extreme for you, I’ll also bet that the trendline for Arctic ice extent calculated from 2020-2030 will not be positive.
Jim
Your on Stephen, $100 American, with one caveat that solar activity does not return to the same high levels of the 80s and 90s during the next 15 years, which seems unlikely.
Andrew
Arctic sea ice is the last direct measurable indicator that AGW proponents have to point to.
Upper atmospheric temperature from weather balloons don’t match the models.
Antarctic sea ice is well outside of predictions.
Pause in warming (17 years) and slight global cooling
Skyrocketing atmospheric CO2 levels – don’t match temperature predictions as per IPCC models
I am expecting a strong reversal of summer arctic ice extent that started in 2013. My bet by summer 2016 the AGW proponents will concede.
Reasons:
-Solar inactivity (e.g. sun spots at at century low)
-Ocean circulation showing cooling (delay effect is over)
-Volcanic activity increasing
-CO2 has negligible effect on global temperature
-Historic temperature reversals have been relatively rapid
OK by 2016: The Hadley Centre global temperature record relative to 1971-2000 base line will be zero difference,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
and arctic summer ice levels will be back to 1981 to 2010 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
00
“but no one will back that up with their own money”
As I said – why should they? It doesn’t prove anything, it doesn’t change policy and it doesn’t change the outcome. When the hypothetical bet falls due, we’ll know whether the change occurred – the bet itself alters nothing.
Brian Schmidt (I suspect) has gobs of money to make a point. Despite the tall tales, most climate researchers don’t. And looking at these bets as an investment, even if they’re 85% certain they’re not actually a brilliant use of the money over those time-frames.
Change the odds – go find a bookie who’s willing to set up bets with people based on how far they are from a predicted increase/decrease/whatever rather than just “anything more than”. Then there’s an incentive to really consider one’s predictions.
10
Techno: As I said, its hypocricy not putting your money where your mouth is. A nominal bet of 100 is something I am sure most climate researchers could afford.
It does achieve things, as well. Look at the famous Ehrlich/Simon bet.
00