Anti-science long-range forecasts can cost people billions of dollars
Accuweather’s “expert long-range forecaster” Joe Bastardi has apparently issued some sort of a challenge to his critics. Let’s see if he has the nerve to back up his unscientific claims with two real bets, which I will lay out below. He ought to, given that if any of the industries who rely on such long-term forecast actually believed Bastardi, they could lose millions of dollars.
According to a National Review Online piece, “Bastardi’s Wager: A meteorologist has a challenge for climate scientists“:
Bastardi is in a position to change the conversation. He’s a meteorologist and forecaster with AccuWeather, and he proposes a wager of sorts. “The scientific approach is you see the other argument, you put forward predictions about where things are going to go, and you test them,” he says. “That is what I have done. I have said the earth will cool .1 to .2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data.” Bastardi’s challenge to his critics “” who are legion “” is to make their own predictions. And then wait. Climate science, he adds, “is just a big weather forecast.”
… Bastardi has done the thing that could make or break his credibility “” offer a way to test his theory. We’ll see if his critics, so certain of the authoritative consensus on global warming, do the same.
I think it is safe to say that I am one of Bastardi’s biggest critics (see links below). But I’m not merely going to offer my predictions. I’m going to propose two bets to see if Bastardi will put his money where his mouth is, as they say. If he won’t, then I think we can safely say his predictions are just what the critics say — anti-scientific BS, just so much bluster and hot air.
I predict almost the exact opposite of what Bastardi does. I predict that this decade will be the hottest decade in the temperature record, 0.1°C to 0.2°C warmer than the last decade, 2000-2009.
I have devised a wager that provides a test of our two different predictions. I’m perfectly willing to use the satellite data, preferably an averaging of RSS and UAH.
First, since these are climate wagers, I would normally compare decade to decade, to remove the inevitable variations we see year-to-year, but this decade has already started and frankly I don’t want to wait to win. Bastardi says the cooling trend started three years ago (see video below), so if he’s right we should be deep in it by 2012.
So let’s define “Tbet” as “the average temperature from 2012 through 2020″ minus “the average temperature of the 2000′s” (from 2000 through 2009). I think Tbet will be + 0.1 to 0.2°C and Bastardi thinks it will be negative: – 0.1° to – 0.2°C.
The bet is that we each agree to donate money to the others designated charity using the following formula:
Bastardi pays $1,000 plus [Tbet times $10,000/°C]. I pay $1000 minus [Tbet times $10,000/°C].
If there is no change in temperature, then we each pay the other’s charity $1000, which seems fair since we’d both be equally wrong. If we warm + 0.1°C, then I pay nothing and Bastardi pays $2000. A negative ‘payment’ means the other person owes that much more money. So being very wrong is doubly costly. If we warm + 0.15°C, then I still pay nothing, and Bastardi pays $3000. Obviously, if Tbet is negative and temperatures drop 0.15°C, then I’d pay $3000.
My second wager is on sea ice. Bastardi commented here on this very blog:
I simply believe given what I see that the earth will cool back, using objective satellite observations, back to levels we saw in the late 70s, and the ice will increase back to those levels in the N hemisphere….
In 2010, the minimum extent hit 4.60 million square kilometer according to NSIDC, whom Bastardi now says are “honest brokers” (after falsely accusing them of fraud). In the late 70s, the average monthly sea ice extent for September was around 7.5 to 8.0 million sq. km. So Bastardi thinks sea ice extent will increase some 3 million sq. km. (Msqkm) from its 2011 minimum. I predict it will decrease some 3 Msqkm.
Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 11.5% per decade.
Let’s define “Ibet” as “the average of the Arctic sea ice extent minimum for the three years 2018-2020″ minus 4.6 million sq. km
The bet again is that we each agree to donate money to the others designated charity using the following formula:
Bastardi pays $1,000 minus [$1,000 times Ibet/2 Msqkm]. I pay $1,000 plus [$1,000 times Ibet/2 Msqkm].
If there is no change in the sea ice extent minimum, we both pay $1000. If extent drops 2 million sq. km, then Bastardi pays $2000 and I pay zero. If extent grows 2 million sq. km, then I pay 2k and Bastardi pays zero. If extent grows 3 million sq. km, then I pay 3k and Bastardi pays zero. Again, being very wrong is doubly costly.
Note: I have a discussion of what should happen to the bets if there are two Pinatubo-sized volcanoes below.
I don’t think we need to put the money in escrow — we’re both ‘good for it’ I think. I am open to putting in an escape clause, that either side can throw in the towel on either bet before the end of 2015 for just the $2000 with immediate payment.
I am certainly open to other modifications of my proposed bets. But refusing to bet at all would I think be evidence that Bastardi doesn’t actually believe the anti-scientific nonsense he spouts, that he is in fact committing meteorological malpractice.
I don’t make these bets lightly. But I think what Bastardi is doing is the more than purely academic, more than mere anti-scientific nonsense. He is Accuweather’s “expert long-range forecaster” and if people actually believed him, there could be rather serious consequences.
Companies and individuals (like farmers) and governments that do long-term planning and investing need science-based forecasts. Utilities, for instance, need accurate forecasting so they can avert blackouts by planning for new capacity or, preferably, by incorporating energy efficiency and demand response. If the prediction of the entire community of climate scientists — and the member governments of the IPCC — that our current temperature trend will continue for the foreseeable future were wrong, and if instead Bastardi was right that we truly were headed back toward the temperatures of the 1970s, it would have dramatic implications for billions of dollars of investment.
Similarly, it matters a great deal to Arctic countries and our national security whether the current sea ice trend continues, as the overwhelming majority of cryo-scientists predict, or whether Bastardi is right.
The point is long-range forecasting matters, and Accuweather ought to take it far more seriously than Bastardi does in his posts and this widely seen appearance on FoxNews:
“It’s called the triple crown of cooling: the natural reversal of the ocean cycles””three years ago, the Pacific went from its warm state into its cold state; solar activity, very low sunspot activity; and volcanic activity, not the kind you see in the tropics, but the kind we had up in the Arctic regions a couple of winters ago. And this is something that we opine could be causing a return to, for instance, the times of the Victorian era in Europe….”
Heck, people’s lives are at stake if, instead of planning for ever-worsening heat waves, governments and cities and businesses and individuals think we’re going back to the cooler temperatures of the 1970s.
No, I’m not going to address here the many scientific mistakes Bastardi makes in that video or the National Review Online piece. I’ve discussed them before (see links below)and the purpose of this post is to lay out the two bets and the rationale for why it matters.
I will say that since I don’t think Bastardi is in the business of predicting major volcanos, I assume his predictions aren’t based on some forecast of big volcanoes this decade, so I would propose, as I have in other bets, voiding the bets if there are two volcanoes the size of Mount Pinatubo or larger (roughtly 10 cubic Km of ash and 20 million tons of SO2) or one big volcano with more than 30 cubic Km of ejecta. I’ll give up one Pinatubo, but the purpose of this event is to test global warming vs. Bastardi’s ‘cycles’ theory, not whether we get a relatively rare decade with massive volcanic ejecta. [By comparison, the Icelandic eruption that disrupted air travel last year ejected some 140 million cubic meters, which is pretty small since there are 1,000 million cubic meters in a cubic kilometer.]
Bastardi spends a lot of time attacking climate scientists and insisting businesses actually listen to him:
Whereas a significant portion of today’s climate scientists are politically motivated, Bastardi has only one incentive in his job: accuracy. He won’t be denied tenure or publication if he ends up on the wrong side. He gets paid handsomely “” he won’t tell me just how much “” for long-term weather forecasts by traders who have an interest in commodities whose production is affected by the weather. And he still gets hired, despite his rising to fame and infamy as a global-warming skeptic. His credential, in other words, is that he’s passed the market test: “Because I know the physical drivers of the atmosphere . . . people see me on TV talking about things, but that’s the tip of the iceberg “” I get calls from companies when money is on the line. They want the right answer, the best answer, the quickest answer. Do you realize how much money you save if you get the weather right?”
Well, anybody can make that claim. If it were true, then Bastardi should jump at the chance to take this small bet. If he won’t, then I think we can safely say his predictions are just BS, just so much bluster and hot air, which is what I (and many others) have repeatedly asserted they are:
- Long wrong Joe Bastardi cooks the books to smear NSIDC. Time for Accuweather to fire him: National Snow & Ice Data Center explains Bastardi can’t read graphs and “is unclear as to how standardized anomalies are derived”
- Joe Bastardi can’t read a temperature anomaly map and so spins another conspiracy theory: Says pre-1978 temperatures use “magic readjustment”
- Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi admits, “Earth continues warmest winter since satellite measurements started”: Then he invents a new, self-contradictory theory of warming.
- Meteorological Malpractice: Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi pushes the “70s Ice Age Scare” myth again
- O’Reilly’s weatherman, befuddled Bastardi: “Global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California”
- Joe Bastardi asserts “The coming cooling of the planet overall will return it to where it was in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The eponymous Mr Bastardi will almost certainly lose, bar unforeseen complications like big volcanoes etc. So we will see if he is truly dumb, and believes his rubbish (I wouldn’t be surprised having watched the video-physiognomy is destiny)or is yet another cynic, making a buck by winding the Dunning-Kruger rabble up.
Joe Bastardi won’t take the bet because he has no credibility to lose. I’ll bet on that.
Unless he thinks donating to WUWT is charity.
Despite Subtle Differences, Global Temperature Records in Close Agreement
January 13, 2011
Groups of scientists from several major institutions — NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the Japanese Meteorological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom — tally data collected by temperature monitoring stations spread around the world and make an announcement about whether the previous year was a comparatively warm or cool year.
read more: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
Joe, you should take volcanic eruptions into account like you did with your last bet. I have a feeling, though, that even another Krakatoa might have difficulty turning things to Bastardi’s favor ten years from now.
I get the impression that our very warm (Arctic wise) NAOs are going to create an unforeseen positive feedback with Arctic shrinkage. Will it soon be safe to make predictions a few years ahead?
[JR: Volcanos at the end. I'll make that clearer.]
Joe, good for you.
I agree with Villabolo @4 re having a clause in about volcanoes.
Maybe a small change to the text is in order (see bold):
“I think Tbet will be + 0.1 to + 0.2°C and Bastardi thinks it will be negative: – 0.1° to - 0.2°C.”
I love the concept. But given the real stakes here, putting $1,000 – $5,000 on the line seems laughably small. Why not raise the stakes, make Bastardi put some real money where his mouth is. $10,000 seems like a better number, in terms of media attention, etc.
May CP readers (the CP community, if I may) help underwrite this effort?
Also, you (we?) and Bastardi would put the money in escrow, right? Takes _a lot_ more courage to put $$ in escrow today than to promise to pay $$ ten years from now. Plus Bastardi has to figure he’s going to make money off this deal, right — so loosing some time value of money shouldn’t be a concern for him.
Finally, while a eight-year period is useful to separate the signal from the noise, eight years is way too long to prove Bastardi wrong. You might propose a skunk rule, in case things get worse fast (esp re Arctic Ice). You wouldn’t want to be accused of running up the score;)
[JR: Oh, I'm quite happy to make a bigger bet, but these two together I think are large enough to make the point. I don't think we need to put money in escrow -- we're both well known enough. I was thinking of putting in an escape clause, that either side can throw in the towel by the end of 2015 for just the $2000 with immediate payment. Maybe I will.]
Meanwhile Planet Eaarth…
BC has worst avalanche conditions in 30 years
Over 100 centimetres of snow over the last few days
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/170639–bc-has-worst-avalanche-conditions-in-30-years
“We’ve had a range of 100 to 150 centimetres of snow. The temperatures have risen 20 degrees in through that period with rain to high elevations and very strong winds. That really is the perfect storm, especially when you put it on top of a weak underlying snowpack which existed beforehand.”
Bastardi got Europe completely wrong, it is true NW Europe is having a somewhat average January, but Central Europe is no worse.
He reminds me of the “He talks a good job” type, but his performance never matches the talk.
Joe -
Set – up an escrow account to hold the bet.
We may have already lost the bigger bet.
Joe – thanks for all that you do. You helped us see the truth and reveal denialist stupidity. Now it is time to move past dealing with such idiots as Bastardi.
We have already made a wager, we have gambled that if we ignore and deny the problem then it might magically go away. We are losing that wager.
This is another form of denialism/distraction/dancing-with-idiots. We may be faced with the end of civilization due to accepting ignorance of the problem. Nearly 50 years ago we could have done something about it. Bastardi has been a promotional agent of the problem.
Bastardi is a dangerous clown – he has wagered our future. We need not be stuck with him.
These guys will weasel the bet , or a 5 foot rainfall could fall in that valley in Penn. , and wash Joe away like the elephants in Sri Lanka.
Let’s see the terms when, or if, he does reply. If he replies, want to bet that it will amount to the temperature as Joe Bastardi defines it.
Safe money, did you want to lay off part of that bet?
An Evil Atmosphere Is Forming Around Geoengineering
Now a powerful group of scientists, venture capitalists and conservative think tanks is coalescing around the idea of reproducing this cooling effect by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to counter climate change. Despite the enormity of what is being proposed – nothing less than seizing control of the climate – the public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning.
Up to now, governments have been reluctant to talk about geoengineering. The reason is simple: apart from its unknown side effects, it would weaken resolve to reduce emissions.
But it may soon prove an irresistible fix. This form of geoengineering is extremely attractive because its costs are estimated to be trivial compared to those of cutting carbon. It also gets powerful lobbies off governments’ backs, gives the green light to burning more coal, avoids the need to raise petrol taxes, permits yet more unrestrained growth and is no threat to consumer lifestyles.
Indeed, Russia has already begun testing. Yuri Izrael, a scientist who is both a global-warming sceptic and a senior adviser to Prime Minister Putin, has tested the effects of aerosol spraying from a helicopter. He now plans a large-scale trial.
Izrael is the latest in a long line of scientists who have advocated planetary engineering. Two of the earliest and most aggressive were Edward Teller and Lowell Wood. Teller, who died in 2003, is often described as the “father of the hydrogen bomb” and was the inspiration for Dr Strangelove, the eponymous mad scientist of Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film. Wood was one of the Pentagon’s foremost weaponeers, which led his critics to dub him “Dr Evil”. He led Ronald Reagan’s ill-fated Star Wars project.
A number of right-wing think tanks actively denying climate change are also promoting geoengineering, an irony that seems to escape them.
Of course, geoengineering protects their funders in the fossil fuel industries because it can be a substitute for carbon reductions and justify delay http://www.countercurrents.org/hamilton240710.htm
The only possible way Bastardi could win this bet is with upcoming geoengineering.
I suspect Bastardi would want to include 2011 in the prediction, to get the full la Nina effect of this year. I’d leave some room for compromise there. One might question why you’d leave the warm 2010 out. Adjustments of that sort wouldn’t likely matter that much.
What Bastardi would want to do instead of honest statistical analysis (such as comparing decadal averages) is start the bet with the January 2010 anomaly (el Nino peak) and compare it to a monthly anomaly at the end of 2019. Since the full lower troposphere is more sensitive to ENSO changes, Bastardi might win the bet or get a draw if 2019 ends in a strong la Nina. I wouldn’t be surprised with an inane counter-proposal of that variety.
Maybe an online stock trading system like ipredict.co.nz would be a good escrow service for this wager, not sure if they would be into such long term predictions, but you can always try!
Bastardi has refused a monetary bet with Zeke, as per Lucia’s Blackboard. They appear to be willing to bet on a steak dinner. I’m guessing he won’t agree to your bet. I think he just wants climate scientists on record for making a prediction he thinks will be proven false.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-revised-wager-now-for-steak-dinners/
I don’t think there is much way to lose the bet. 0.2C seems to be what I would expect from anthropogenic sources. Perhaps a slight negative bias from the sun? Overall, the 2000s and 1990s had higher than average Nino readings. A return to average could account for a -0.01 to -0.02C bias. I think 0.15C increase would be about expected. Throw in a Mt. Pinatubo, and the odds are still slightly favorable.
You have given him too long a rope. Bastardi can have fun with his view of the bet for ten years. An unbearable thought.
Is there nothing he has said over the last few years that you could use to nail him sooner? What was he saying in 2001, ’02, ’03 etc that can be tested in the near future?
I can’t prove this , but the following story reminded me of the Irish Potato Famine. By 1845 the Irish had settled on growing just one type of spud, “The Lumper”, it was user friendly , and had replaced 20 other types in the decades before the fungus attack. The five years between 1845 and 1850 were the very wet, creating the conditions for it to break-out, and turn the “Lumper” to black rotting mush.
This set signals about fungus attacking the animal world has the same biological ring to it :
In Deadly Frog and Bat Plagues, Eerie Similarities
Bats and frogs share a common plight. Fungi that appeared from nowhere are wiping out whole species of amphibians and more than a million bats just by attacking the skin.
And both plights may represent new disease paradigms for wildlife, according to researchers.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/plague-of-bats-and-frogs-110114.html
__________
The world of fungi have some surprises in store for us , just like the lesson of the Lumper.
Excluding ejecta from volcanic sources, nuclear war, or other unforeseeable events – such as an earth impactor, which would void the wager instantly, as would any cataclysmic COOLING intervention or the natural death of either original participant, I will be happy to engage against Mr. Bastardi.
I offer to put up my house in Hawaii on one acre of land, which I own free-and-clear, against anyone who will give me two-for one odds, in today’s dollars, against the appraised value of my house at the closing date of the wager if Mr. Bastardi loses. Someone will need to put US$600,000.00 in escrow against my title to accept and be prepared to refresh that amount in nine years if necessary, or lose by default.
bastardi will get paid back for the bet through resulting speaking fees alone.
See this thread where Joe predicts temperatures similar to 1999, and possibly as cool as 1993:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/global-sea-surface-temperature-update-the-cooling-continues/
Very early days, but current Uah daily temps are ahead of 2008 which ended a little warmer than 1999.
Prokaryotes, geoengineering will do nothing to halt the march to death of trees. When they are gone, so is just about every other living creature on land…just as the food chain in the ocean will collapse form coral bleaching, as if overfishing isn’t enough.
Colorado Bob, there is a reason opportunistic fungus is wreaking havoc.
There is another, even more inconvenient truth. Climate scientists for the most part base their predictions on the effects of CO2, and to a lesser extent methane, whether using models or comparing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past to temperature.
They almost universally do not factor in the other emissions from burning fuel, even though they are more potent, because they exist in much smaller quantities and they also do not persist for centuries as will CO2.
However, this leads them to discount two crucial problems.
1. The aerosols are blocking out the sun, reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches earth’s surface by significant amounts. If the aerosols weren’t there, climate change would already be much more accelerated than it currently is. If we stop polluting – either because it’s making people sick, or because industrial civilization collapses due to, say, peak oil, it will become very much hotter, very quickly. You can watch a movie about it, here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/12/insidious-soup.html
2. The background level of tropospheric ozone is inexorably rising as volatile organic compounds are released from burning coal and oil. There is no paleoclimatic comparison for what this might mean, because there has never before been a significant amount of ozone at ground level. Unfortunately, it turns out that ozone is toxic, causing cancer, emphysema, asthma, allergies, diabetes and autism in humans. Worse still, it is even more poisonous to plants. Ozone interferes with the ability of vegetation to photosynthesize. NASA estimates annual crop yield reductions in the US in the billions of dollars. Every major crop around the globe is being stunted, from rice to wheat to cotton to soybeans. There are links to that study and much other published scientific research here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/p/basic-premise.html
Think then of what the cumulative exposure does to longer-lived species like trees. They are dying at a rapidly accelerating rate. In addition, they are producing fewer nuts and seeds, which are of declining nutritive value. You’d expect with the root systems of vegetation shrinking there would be mudslides all over the world, and wild animals like birds wouldn’t have enough to eat and would be falling, dead, out of the skies…
oh, wait.
Re Colorado Bob and Fungus …
Spread of Deadly Virus Tied to Forest Decline
Around 2004, large numbers of aspens in the West began dying off, and with no immediately identifiable cause, scientists dubbed the phenomenon “sudden aspen decline.” Ultimately the die-back was pinned on a severe 2002 drought and heat wave that left aspens vulnerable to pests, cankers and fungi.
Now, a new study suggests that the decline of the West’s aspens is not just marring the landscape, but also helping to spread a strain of hantavirus fatal to humans.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/spread-of-deadly-virus-tied-to-forest-decline/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Climate Change Grows More Allergen-Producing Plants And Fungi – Rising CO2, Temperatures Can Raise Allergen Levels http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207661.php
Fungal Disease Spreads Through Pacific Northwest
A rare and dangerous fungal infection named Cryptococcus gattii has been quietly spreading from British Columbia southward to the U.S. Pacific Northwest. And it’s changing as it goes.
Researchers have discovered that a unique strain of the bug has emerged recently in Oregon and already spread widely there, sickening humans and animals.
So far, over the past 11 years there have been about 220 cases reported in British Columbia. Since 2004, doctors in Washington and Oregon have reported about 50 cases. Among the total 270 cases, 40 people have died from overwhelming infections of the lungs and brain. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126198896
Climate change fruitful for fungi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6524013.stm
“The bottom line is that climate change is tending to introduce diseases where they haven’t been before, because it’s changing the entire dynamics of plant and animal ecosytems” http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/spread-of-deadly-virus-tied-to-forest-decline/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Naturally I mean to say the UNNATURAL death of either original participant.
We have a very similar bet going on at a denialist blog, if anybody wants to join in. The denialists bet that the next decade will be colder than the last (according to a RSS/UAH composite), and the realists have bet that it will be warmer. Proceeds go to charity. We’re up to $2330 so far (‘warmists’ having offered more than ‘coolists’).
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/16/climate-bet-of-the-decade-update-3/
Wit’s End said “Prokaryotes, geoengineering will do nothing to halt the march to death of trees.”
Well, basically i agree but planting trees is in itself some form of geoengineering, so id like to differ. The point i try to make is, that actually it is according to some sources possible to reduce the temperature with sulfur injections. Which btw has side effects, such as altered weather patterns, such as droughts or floods. And ofc acid rain and corresponding tree decline and water way pH level modifications.
“That is what I have done. I have said the earth will cool .1 to .2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data.”
I don’t understand — what science pertaining to satellite data allows him to make such a prediction? And if such exists, why does he not write it up in a paper and submit it to a geophysics journal? The problem with this wager is that even if by weird circumstances of ocean current cycles/volcanoes this guy eeks out a “correct” result — he hasn’t and won’t have a clue as to why it worked out that way. He has no competing physical model of earth’s climate. As the sayting goes, a stopped clock tells the correct time twice per day.
Two predictions-
You’ll easily win the bet, and Bastardi will stiff you.
Prokaryoyes #24, I saw an old bloke with Cryptococcal meningitis some years ago. At the time, it was such a rare case that all the med students were called in to see him. He didn’t do too well. They tried all the standard stuff like amphotericin, to no real effect. At the time one of the few pieces of evidence that existed was that cryptococcus was found near River Red Gum trees. I believe the outbreak in conifers in the US Northwest and Canada is more recent. Of course the spread of fungal diseases and other pathogens is sign of just how rapid this epoch of climate change is. We have cut numerous threads of the web of life and it is unraveling. I think we are incapable of repairing it. It is too interwoven. Geo-engineering is the madness of the cornutopian, technocratic idolators of Mankind’s supposed ‘genius’. Even pointing out to these imbeciles that their insane projects MUST have negative consequences that all their pretty diagrams and flow charts cannot predict has no impact. This type of ideological technocrat, whose narrow expertise and gigantic egotism of course impress the ‘downright morons’ of Rightwing politics, is truly Strangelovian. That they haven’t yet wiped us out with fission and fusion and neutron bombs, or ‘missile defence’, or depleted uranium weapons or HAARPs and all their other fancy ways to kill, intimidate and dominate, is just a matter of luck. I think geo-engineering might finally do the trick, but I would not be in the least surprised if, unconsciously or consciously, this is exactly what they want. If at the same time, they are found to be addressing the ‘mine shaft gap’, then we are all in a lot of trouble.
Ok, I’ll propose a very similar wager with Mr. Bastardi, but using decadal averages. If this had happened one year ago, I’d predict 0.173 +- 0.025 K warmer for the 2010s over the 2000s by using this simple model:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/comment-page-5/#comment-189329
As it is, I’d have to run it again over decades ending in ’0′ years instead of decades beginning with ’0′ years. That means the prediction will be even higher (but not a lot).
I’m willing to even give two large volcanoes (but not a nuclear war).
[JR: I rather think a big enough nuclear war would make the whole bet moot.]
I am confused as to why you would pick this up now.
Given recent events, Bastardi made his bet from a position of weakness, as he can see the writing on the wall and is desperate to retain some relevance in the debate for a year or two.
I presume you are taking up this challenge on the basis that you have very high confidence that the numbers come in early and consistently show warming, so that you are able to regularly remind everyone of how wrong he is? If the numbers fluctuate at all on a yearly basis (even showing a slight leveling off), even though he will be very wrong in the end, he gets his wish doesn’t he? And your concern about protecting the public from this guy is undermined?
[JR: I intended to do this earlier, but have been busy. His challenge to his critics, though, was just last week. It is my expectation he will not take this bet.]
Don’t bet money. If Bastardi loses he should quit forecasting weather/climate/making stuff up or whatever it is that he does. I mean he should go find another unrelated line of work.
Bastardi refers to “volcanic activity, not the kind you see in the tropics but the kind we had up in the Arctic regions a couple of winters ago”. I suspect he means Iceland. Is he betting that Laki is about to repeat its 1783 performance?
If he’s trying to forecast volcanic eruptions then he’s definitely branching out. I doubt Laki would work for him anyway unless it comes towards the very end of the period.
By “objective satellite data” (I think he means “not made up by Hansen and Phil Jones”) he shows a touching faith that Spencer and Christy can re-tune their UAH analysis indefinitely to get the results they and he want, when they’re already struggling.
Or he thinks 2010 is the new 1998. I bet he won’t touch the decadal average but will instead accuse “the warmers” of “wriggling”.
Mulga Mumblebrain said “Of course the spread of fungal diseases and other pathogens is sign of just how rapid this epoch of climate change is. We have cut numerous threads of the web of life and it is unraveling. I think we are incapable of repairing it. It is too interwoven. ”
Related, in context of biodiversity loose. Especially also worrisome is the undiscovered natural pharmacy lost in deforestation and other tree die offs, i.e. in the jungle. And not all fungi and bacteria is considered bad, just with bio diversity lose, we lose immune strength/response capabilities.
The Interconnectedness of Soil biodiversity, Plant ecology, Gut Microbiology, and Human Health and Evolution.
Each and every organism present in digestive system is a reflection of the organisms present in the soil. Each one creates its own unique signals and immune responses that literally determine our state of being on EVERY level.
We are already aware of the anti-inflammatory and immune boosting benefits of acidophilus and bifidus which are being marketed in several yogurt products. A more interesting example of this appeared in the journal, Neuroscience, in May of 2007. Researchers found that the presence of the bacteria Mycobacterium vaccae (which is common in soil and not pathogenic to humans) created an immune response that stimulated serotonin sensitivity in the certain parts of the brain. A couple of things to take note of here: First, not all immune responses are bad. They are simply signals. Secondly, this bacteria’s presence in the gut results in actual behavioral modifications via serotonin which has a happy, calming effect. Further investigation suggested that this is one reason gardening makes us happy.
Another example is the pathogenic fungus, Rhizopus arrhizus. This fungus is also common in the soil and in trace amounts in our digestive tract. Like an ecosystem, the richer and more diverse, the more resilient. As long as our digestive ecosystem is diverse and healthy this fungus remains at low, non-threatening levels and actually serves many beneficial biologic functions. For example, if you eat anything from the yam family this fungus converts some of the phytochemicals it into the hormone progesterone which is then taken up into the blood via the lymphatic system. It’s also used very effectively in German Biologic Medicine as a low-dose suppository to stimulate the body to break up its own blood clots and vascular congestion.
A broader example is the influence of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes and weight gain in humans. An article that appeared in Nature demonstrated a strong correlation between a low level of Bacteroidetes and obesity. Conversely, thinner people had higher levels of Firmicutes. Further research showed that these bacteria directly alter carbohydrate metabolism in the digestive system.
Ultimately the bacteria in the soil determine what types plants can establish. However, after a plant establishes itself, it creates its own local pathogen controls by promoting rhizobacteria. When we eat plants and their roots the immunity from the rhizobacteria are passed on to our own digestive systems. From the soil, to the plant, to our own digestive system and back again. They are not separate. They are one system. The foods we eat have a direct impact on the preponderance of the various bacteria and fungi present in our gut. This, in turn, determines the signals and immune system responses. As a very simple example, too much sugar results in an overgrowth of some fungi like candida albicans. (more information on this in the future)
The emerging field of gut microbiology has incredible potential for treating disease. However, after all the research is done, I believe the ultimate conclusion will be that eating food grown in healthy soil with extensive biodiversity will manifest as a healthy, evolving human community. With our current technology we have only been able to culture between 0.1 and 1% of the soil fungi and bacteria. The rest is completely unknown to us.
It is important to consider the impact of microbial deprivation (via the use of bacteriocides, fungicides, irradiation, triple washing and chlorination of our food and water) on the human health and evolution. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the immune system problems we are seeing in the younger generations are a result of insufficient bacterial and viral exposure. Furthermore, because plants determine the presence of specific bacteria, it’s important to consider the impact that monocultures have on soil biodiversity and how this affects human health. http://karenkurtak.com/?p=134
I don’t like this bet idea at all. It play’s into the hands of the “we don’t have enough data to act so let’s wait and see” meme. So let’s wait for 10 years and see if Joe wins…
You’re playing their game Joe.
[JR: No. One can hardly accuse me of any of that. This is just for Bastardi, to call him out. No other person on the Internet had debunked him as much as I have, I believe. And I will go through the science again after his response. Also, I make it crystal clear that lives are at stake on the basis of his bad forecasts. No punches have been pulled.
For the record, it is my expectation he will turn this bet down.]
Stephen Leahy, exactly the point made by RPauli @ 11.
This is all a distraction. We should focus on the reality. How about this, for example:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/01/increased-insurance-claims-may-be-due.html
I live in a dry portion of the Olympic Peninsula and hopping Cryptococcal meningitis likes the wetter West End better. (Cases reported north and south of me). With higher moisture content will those spores be exposed to new territory to exploit. Will people without natural immunities be able to live within contaminated areas? Did/do the First Nations tribal people have natural resistance having lived here thousands of years? Will I or others be compensated if forced to move to dryer climes? A people version of “Bat White Nose”. Perhaps there is a genetic test? The imagination runs amok. A few cases do not give us many answers.
We do know that mold likes wet!
This is so hilarious. I made almost the exact same bet two weeks ago on this skeptic website…
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/05/will-the-new-decade-be-warmer-than-the-last-one/
I put up $5000 and they’ve been able to match about half of that amount through $10-$200 bets.
I invite others to come over and put money in on the warming side. I have a big advantage over there in that my bet is merely that it will be warmer. No caveats about how much warmer. This one is a no brainer.
Best of all, the money goes to charity no matter who wins.
I just saw that Dana already mentioned this. But everyone should take a trip over there and drive the amount up. We would have to have several low latitude volcanoes over the decade to end up with cooling.
They are all putting their money behind the PDO and AMO they’ve been reading about on WUWT, even though I’ve presented them with all the relevant scientific papers.
I predict Bastardi will be out of work within the next few years and the bet will be totally forgotten. He will be discredited soon, if things keep moving as fast as they have been.
Unfortunately, the very fact of this bet almost gives JB some credibility and drags JR down toward his low level. Reminds me of the quote, primarily attributed to George Barnard Shaw: I learned long ago to never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and, besides, the pig likes it.” Will give JB something to talk about for about 9 years.
[JR: Nah. JB has all the 'credibility' he needs for the anti-science crowd. Hard to see how my continued debunkings of him give him credibility. Again, I'm expecting he lacks the nerve to bite.]
In my comment #32 (finally out of moderation), I point out just how throughly it’ll be lots warmer. I suppose I could also play a bit with the AMO prediction, but the AMO changes so slowly that for a mere decade the most sensible thing to do is assume it’ll be the same a during the 2000s.
Joe, shouldn’t the period for the first bet be for 2011-2020 (a full decade, and also starting now) rather than 2012-2020?
[JR: 2011 is already mostly set. And 8 years is enough.]
Bastardi’s long-range forecasting is for people in the futures market, probably mostly ag commodities. These forecasts would probably be for no more than five years into the future, and probably mostly less, which puts them definitely in the weather category rather than the climate one. So he’s perfectly free to blather on about the long term without his clients caring.
In other climate news, it turns out that the GCMs have been significantly underestimating Arctic albedo reduction (due to snow and ice loss). :( Per the late Prof. Freudenberg, the hits just keep on comin’.
Prokayotes (@14): this is a small point (and perhaps off-topic), but I’ve seen other people suggested as the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, namely John von Neumann and Herman Kahn. The latter, author of “Thinking About The Unthinkable” and attacked for speaking too casually of megadeaths, reminds me more of Walter Matthau’s character in Fail Safe, but von Neumann, co-creator of game theory, spent the end of his life in a wheelchair, which sounds much more like Dr. Strangelove to me. But I’ve been unable so far to find an interview with Kubrick or Terry Southern (who worked on the screenplay) that confirms any of these hypotheses. If you know of one, could you point it out to me? Thanks in advance.
(And your post @36, aside from being fascinating and informative, is truly in keeping with your nom du Net.)
More punches:
“A study by New Zealand scientists has concluded that ocean warming rather than rising sea levels is the major factor causing Antarctic ice sheets to retreat.
Lead author Andrew Mackintosh from Victoria University says it was previously thought the retreat of ice sheets was caused by a combination of global sea level rises and warmer oceans.
More Dr Mackintosh says his team has used geological data and computer modelling to show that rising sea levels play only a minor role, and the majority of the ice loss is caused by ocean warming.
He says this means people should be very concerned about the warming of oceans occurring around Antarctica at present.”
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/66454/climate-research-reveals-role-of-ocean-warming
Meanwhile, weather forecasts for NZ are downgrading the tropical storm threat: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4550447/Two-storms-weaker-than-one
2010 Ties Record Warm Year
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/warmest-year-2010-record_2011-01-14
Re 46# davidgswager
Dr. Strangelove
The title character, Dr. Strangelove, who was not in the original book,[10] serves as President Muffley’s scientific advisor in the War Room, presumably making use of prior expertise as a Nazi physicist. When General Turgidson wonders aloud what kind of name “Strangelove” is, saying to Mr. Staines (Jack Creley) that it is not a Kraut name, Staines responds that Strangelove’s original German surname was “Merkwürdigeliebe,” without mentioning that “Merkwürdigeliebe” translates to “Strangelove” in English. Twice in the film, Strangelove ‘accidentally’ addresses the President as “Mein Führer.”
The character is an amalgamation of RAND Corporation strategist Herman Kahn, mathematician and Manhattan Project principal John von Neumann, German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun and Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb.”[11] The wheelchair-using Strangelove furthers a Kubrick trope of the menacing, seated antagonist, first depicted in Lolita through the character “Dr. Zaempf.”[12] Strangelove’s accent was influenced by that of Austrian-American photographer Weegee, who worked for Kubrick as a special photographic effects consultant.[9] Strangelove’s appearance echoes the mad scientist archetype as seen in the character Rotwang in Fritz Lang’s 1927 film Metropolis. Sellers’s Strangelove takes from Rotwang the single black gloved hand (which in Rotwang’s case is mechanical due to a lab accident), the wild hair and, most importantly, his inability to be completely controlled by political power.[13] According to film critic Alexander Walker, Sellers improvised Dr. Strangelove’s lapse into the Nazi salute, borrowing one of Kubrick’s black leather gloves for the uncontrollable hand that makes the gesture. Dr. Strangelove apparently suffers from diagonistic apraxia, or alien hand syndrome. Kubrick wore the gloves on the set to avoid being burned when handling hot lights, and Sellers, recognizing the potential connection to Lang’s work, found them to be menacing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove#Reception
It looks unlikely that the 2010s will be cooler than the 2000s as 2011 already has a pretty good lead, according to Spencer’s AMSU data (channel 5), which is currently considerably warmer than 2008 (and rising), which also had a much weaker La Nina (according to the SOI, which had its highest 3 month average on record in Oct-Dec):
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
See this article on the SOI, it is also the second highest on record for any 6 month period, the record being all the way back in 1917, and it looks like January has a good chance of exceeding July, so it just might break that record too:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42858.html
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove 5/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NRiYPpTmM
Btw. Dr. Strangelove cut scenes, The original pie fight ending.
“Elevator lights flash indicating high speed
elevator descending to eleventh sub-basement.
Door opens. Exit ten secret service men,
uncovering a small electric car in which
PRESIDENT MERKIN MUFFLEY is seated.” http://pages.prodigy.com/kubrick/cs-ds.htm
Isn’t that neat, an electric car!
Prokaryotes @49 & 51: Thanks. I might have thought to simply consult Wikipedia, the fount of all human knowledge, but I’m old enough that it’s still something short of a reflex; instead, my first impulse is to consult my collection of film books. It would never have occurred to me to look at YouTube…And though you’ll have to trust me on this, I meant when I started the comment to suggest that the character was probably a blend of several figures, but somewhere along the way I forgot to mention it.
In any event, I appreciate the references and will follow them up. All this, quotations this weekend, and lessons in rhetoric from Joe; I learn so much more here than simply climatology. Who’d have thought?
This Bastard is only making business.
However, my bet is 0.2 – 0.3 C warmer decade 2010 – 2020 than 2000 – 2010.
I have two advantages, of course: I live and travel near Polar Circle and Siberia and have seen what is happening here.
And I have seen the bottomless idiocy of European politics as to the climate change. We have the best politics as to the AGW, and it is a catastrophe; the rest of the world must be Armageddon.
Geo-engineering?
I rather fancy when the population at large wakes up to the realities, some geo-engineering will be done by volunteers and by non-volunteers (prisoners) getting back to ye olde breaking rocks. This time with a real purpose – breaking, pulverising and dispersing rocks to initiate and speed up the traditionally superslow geological conversion of CO2.
If archeological digs can get people to pay their own expenses to go to remote, uncomfortable places with no facilities to dig up stuff, climate engineers could get people to do the same thing to break up rocks. People pay their own fares to get to places where the right kinds of rocks are abundant. And they get to spend a few weeks with like-minded, committed individuals.
Most importantly, they will *know* that this activity will benefit their own and others children and grandchildren.
I think you would want to throw in a caveat about solar activity as well. If the sun goes into another Maunder Minimum type low is the forcing from GHG’s enough to overcome that?
Why have all these special conditions with volcanoes and solar flares etc? A horse can fall at the last fence, it is all part of the game.
Joe “know nothing” Bastardi has embarrassed himself – YET AGAIN – in his latest mind numbing stupid post http://www.accuweather.com/video/753340023001/global-sea-ice-and-temp-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj
He goes on about how there has been no cooling in the stratosphere as you would expect with global warming and sites channel 13 at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Unfortunately for him you can download the channel 13 data.
If you plot it out and fit a trend line, you get – wait for it – lo and behold – a 0.508 DegC cooling per decade…
WOW that was embarrassing Joe, really I’d be embarrassed
Can I make a bet with Bastardi too? I like easy money.
The guy is just buying time, and we don’t have another ten years. We should move on and ignore the skeptics.
The next Dr. Strangelove won’t be riding an atomic bomb down from a bomber. He’ll be riding a missile up into the upper atmosphere to set off the bomb 450 miles up and when he’s vaporized the electro magnetic pulse (EMP) will disable almost ALL electrical and electronic equipment in most of the hemisphere from where the explosion could be seen. (Only heavily shielded electronics, switched off electronics, and switched off electrical devices might survive.) The damage to the infrastructure in that hemisphere will be so staggering that likely anyone who depends on technology for life will eventually die during the resulting social chaos. That includes almost everyone. On the plus side, the burning of almost all fossil fuels will cease, and the production of carbon dioxide, VOCs, and ozone will return to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. The biosphere and environment will be saved, sort of.
“It has long been known that there are many ways to protect against nuclear EMP (or to quickly begin repairs where protection is not practical); but the United States EMP Commission determined that such protections are almost completely absent in the civilian infrastructure of the United States, and that even large sectors of the United States military services were no longer protected against EMP to the level that they were during the Cold War. The public statements of the physicists and engineers working in the EMP field tend to emphasize the importance of making electronic equipment and electrical components resistant to EMP — and of keeping adequate spare parts on hand, and in the proper location, to enable prompt repairs to be made.[22][34][49] The United States EMP Commission did not look at the civilian infrastructures of other nations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Please keep those thermonuclear bombs and missiles out of the hands of the geo-engineers and other terrorists. We can never tell just exactly what they are thinking or why they are thinking it.
I find it amazing that some of the most discredited forecasters in the world, Bastardi and the much heralded British disinformer, Piers Corbyn, are so much into betting. They can’t even get the short term forecasts right. Both forecast a record cold January for Europe, but it is far from that. Actually, it is very far from that. It is in fact way warmer than average, with devastating floods as the result.
Bastardi changed his European forecast after the extremely mild weather hit, but Corbyn was sticking to his story and is still forecasting an extremely cold last half of the month.
Pretty scary that many Brits, including the mayor of London consider this guy a guru.
Here is the madness:
“Our forecast for an exceptionally cold and also snowy January in Britain & West Europe stands and despite its unlikely occurrence according to standard views we expect with 80% confidence that much of Britain (eg Central England) to be in the three coldest Januaries in the last 100 years. It also follows that the winter of 2010-11 will probably be one of the two or three coldest in 100 years as suggested in our Essence of winter sponsored forecast made public on 30th November – http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No37.pdf . The CAUSE OF THIS IS PHYSICS which enables us to predict how solar-lunar effects change the jet stream for example and is nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 from man or nature”
Would be awesome if a group of farmers, companies, etc would file a lawsuit for damages due to the failed forecasts from these two disinformers. They should at leasy get their money back, as people actually pay good money for the anti science nonsense “forecasts” from these people.
It is high time that someone in the MSM reports the string of failures of these high profile clowns, and not just list the few instances where they are lucky. Even wild guessing will prove correct on occasion.
[JR: Link for this?]
catman306 said “On the plus side, the burning of almost all fossil fuels will cease, and the production of carbon dioxide, VOCs, and ozone will return to pre-Industrial Revolution levels.”
Uhm, no. Even if we remove all humans from earth the temperature will keep rising, because the ocean will release more heat content.
davidgswanger, if you would not have ask, i would have not looked it up. Though i could not find the video of the original ending.
I think this one of the hottest January I’ve seen in quite some time. So yes basically both of them screwed the forecast
Joe: (comment to my #62 comment)
Here is the link to the January forecast:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=290&c=5
See the rest of the site for highly toxic disinformation about real climate science as well…
Joe, have you informed National Review Online of your proposal? Seems only fair they should get both sides of the proposed wager.
Prokaryotes, Catman didn’t say the temperatures wouldn’t keep rising! But the VOC’s that result in tropospheric ozone that he referred to presents a separate, although related, existential threat to the environment, in addition to climate change and rising temperatures.
I should think the temperatures will keep rising not just from oceans releasing heat but a number of other amplifying feedbacks that are well underway and cannot be reversed, including but not limited to forest dieback and desertification, melting ice and permafrost, and ocean acidification.
Prokaryotes, have just been reading this, a poignant document from the Andes:
http://www.pratecnet.org/pdfs/Climate%20change.pdf
On the introduction of the Green Revolution in the altiplano area, Eustaquio Mamani Velásquez, Puno, reminds us:
You must have realized that our lands were healthy in those years when the hybrid seeds came with their technological package. The agronomists talked about it: what is a technological package? A technological package contains hybrid seeds, machinery, three fertilizers, NPK. It also includes pesticides: insecticides, fungicides, etc. These agronomists kill Pachamama. In those years Pachamama was healthy and we have given it these qullas (chemicals) with the idea that if we added these qullas there would be a good output. Of course, the potato was large and our native seeds in comparison were very small. When we saw this we started replacing our varieties and presently we have almost lost our variability. Only now are we recovering our diversity. We need to recover our varieties for the coming times that look strange. Presently some continue using the hybrids and the soil is degrading. One cannot produce and we say: “The potato has got used to the qulla”. It is not that it has become used to it, but we have killed the microorganisms that prepared the soil. Using fertilizers we have contributed to contaminating our pacha. Now we observe consequences in the change of weather.
Marcelino Huayta Cotrado, Puno, adds:
Applying the qulla not all insects die. Some get away and become more resistant, This is happening. If you apply qullas we are going to get into more problems because plagues reproduce faster and will beat us in the race. The biological controllers which worked for us were exterminated, for instance, the ants eat the weevils in the stage of larvae and egg. There are other like the pankatayas that also eat the chuqi laqus (worms of potato). When we do the fumigation they are the first to die. In these times we complain that there are no frogs. They ate the insects and as these had ingested poison the frogs die also. For this reason there are few frogs. The laqatus, the añuthayas are beneficent but as they eat contaminated food then we are now eating poisoned animals and vegetables. The quinoa is atacked by a worm qhuna qhuna and these are eaten by a fly. When we put qulla, the qhuna qhuna becomes resistant and with the warmer weather the plagues multiply quickly. Thus we have poisoned our soils and are suffering the consecuences. Mother Earth is ill and we have to cure her with our good customs.
I tracked down the Piers Corbyn prediction. It is hysterical. On par with Criswell Predicts. I quote, “The CAUSE OF THIS IS PHYSICS which enables us to predict how solar-lunar effects change the jet stream.”
Does he recite this stuff on air somewhere? It sounds straight out of Plan 9 from Outer Space.
If Bastardi is a cohort of Piers Corbyn, Romm, you do not want to involve yourself and your reputation with these guys.
[JR: We are all 'involved' in the public climate discussion and the ongoing effort to debunk disinformers. Again, I don't expect Bastardi will take the bet.]
Esop,
Yes, I too made the mistake of reading Corbyn’s newsletters. He could not inject more invective and vitriol and innuendo in there if he tried; OK, maybe he could, but it would be tough.
Model ensembles are suggesting much below-average conditions for portion continental Europe from 20 and 27 January 2011, but nothing like last December, and the greatest negative anomalies are clustering over southern Europe and the Mediterranean, with temperatures over the UK predicted to remain near-normal to above normal.
See ensemble data here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/ens.html
So January as a whole for the UK is likely going to come in near-average, or perhaps even above average. Certainly not what the mis-informers were calling for.
For now, nothing major is terms of cold or warmth is on the radar for February, making it highly unlikely that their forecast for the coldest winter in 100 years will verify.
Re Wit’s End, ofc you are aware of biochar, but for all the readers which are new and obviously there are still people using fertilizer based on petrol chemicals. The real green revolution is incoming.
Benefits of using biochar:
* Immediately lowers your soil acidity
* Improves your soil quality, adding very badly needed nutrients for your garden, and acts as a long-term fertilizer (often with significant results in plant growth and yield)
* Helps the soil retain nutrients (like nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus), compost, and beneficial microorganisms much more effectively than unimproved soil.
* Helps your plants utilize and absorb more nutrients from the garden soil, particularly when used in conjunction with compost or well-rotted manure (thus packing your vegetables with a higher nutrient content).
* Reduces groundwater pollution.
* Reduces the need for irrigation.
http://www.howtogardenadvice.com/soil_prep/make_biochar.html
Chad @ 59… I have almost exactly the same bet going on another website that you can join. The bet is that the average global temperature for 2011-2010 will be warmer than 2001-2010. We’re using an average of UAH and RSS. All proceeds go to charity. It’s a no brainer. Make the deniers part with their money!
And that website is… http://notrickszone.com/
Greg @ 58… Jokers like Bastardi (Monckton, Watts), quite literally, bank on the concept that no one is going to double check anything they say.
Prokaryotes and Witsend,
“will return” meant in a few thousand years, or more. But the ozone problem that is eliminating perennials may radically change our environment from one that favors mammals, trees, insects and fish to some other regime that favors who-knows-what? Funguses? Anaerobic bacteria? Extremophilic bacteria that today live near ocean vents?
Every form of life has its ‘season’ that may last for many millions of years while it rules the biosphere. If we don’t do something right away, the age of mammals will pass.
Stop the carbon dioxide pollution today!
re: “We are all ‘involved’ in the public climate discussion and the ongoing effort to debunk disinformers.”
Your blog here is good. You don’t need to spread your attention around to every whack-a-mole humbug.
[JR: Bastardi ain't a mole. He has a huge platform.]
So Bastardi issues a loud public challenge, at least two people take him up on it and all we are hearing are crickets from him.
He has painted himself into a corner: He accepts, he loses. He does not accept, he also loses, because he is the one who initiated the challenge.
In the past Annan challenged Corbyn to a bet and Corbyn declined. Lindzen has also declined to put money where his mouth is.
What more can one say. They are re unwilling to put up a paltry $1000, but are willing to bet and gamble the future of coming generations (how do you put a price on that?). This fact exposes their true agenda folks….please remember that.
#73 (Rob):
That notrickzone is most fascinating reading. I think I recognize one of the coolist names from a Volkswagen newgroup back in the day, and if it is the same guy, he is far from stupid. Just goes to show how effective the brainwashing effort of the disinformers has been.
One thing the coolists should consider before wasting their money is this:
We had the same exact “it is cooling” thing going back in 2008 when temps took a slight drop from the La Nina. Deniers called it the “La Nina excuse” and predicted temps to fall like a rock in the following years, due to the lazy sun and almost incomprehensible cooling power of the negative PDO. So, what happens out in the real world: 2009 registers as one of the very warmest on record, and no year has registered warmer than the 2010 result that we just saw.
A mediocre and relatively short lived El Nino was all it took to tie the record (within 0.01 degree even in the skeptic run and adjusted for lower anomalies UAH dataset), despite the following natural cooling factors:
-Maximum cooling effect from the lowest solar activity in a century
-One of the strongest La Ninas on record
-Negative PDO (sigh)
-Eyafjella volcano
-Negative AO/NAO that puts a cool bias into the data, due to extremely warm Arctic not being properly measured due to lack of coverage.
How on Earth did 2010 still manage get so warm (yes deniers, even in the UAH data)
There is obviously a sucker born at least everyday, providing a loyal customer base for assorted types of snake oils, pyramid schemes and reality/science denial.
These guys should take a look at Spencers current data:
channel 5 shows that the troposphere is way above 2008 and about to surpass 2009.
SSTs are way above 2008.
La Nina fades, the sun picks up a little, we get a nice little El Nino going and 2012/13 will set a new record, and the pattern will repeat every few years.
ship of fools. :-(
I agree with #11: this strikes me as inappropriate somehow, a distraction. Making this bet puts you on equal footing with this guy in the eyes of the masses. Of course he’s a ridiculous clown. But he and the other clowns are making noise which has paralyzed the world. The world is being held hostage by a small group of anti-science idiots. I’m not a regular reader of your blog but I’m dismayed that the first item I see in months is you — someone of your caliber AND with the truth on your side — engaging like this with a clown and adding to the noise.
Unfortunately I don’t have a better suggestion. My point here is mainly to express my dismay. I feel that the mainstream media (NYTimes, ABC, CNN) has to start routinely connecting extreme weather events to climate warming. There seems to be a culture among these reporters where they are afraid to do this. The climate scientists need to find a way to tie into this media, to speak out and give lots and lots of interviews, and convince the media that this should be a priority. The media has to stop the farce of balance, of giving equal voice to the idiots and to the scientists. I don’t think there’s a shortcut to this: it will take sustained, organized, hard work by the entire mass of climate scientists (and other scientists). Of course, Nature continues to make her own case, pretty damned compellingly already and increasingly so, and she ain’t waiting for the clowns and the scientists to quit their petty squabbling.
MapleLeaf @ 77… You’re totally right. The high profile guys blow a lot of smoke but know they are wrong. I’m quite convinced that most of these guys actually know they are wrong but they get a lot of fame and fortune by being high profile climate skeptics. (You can bet that the Cato Institute pays Pat Michaels a pretty penny for his work.)
But then we have the lower level folks who are buying into the denier rhetoric. These guy, like the folks on NoTrickZone, actually believe all the BS. These guys are buying into the bet. They’ve pulled together about 20-30 people with $10-$200 bets. Money they are all going to lose. And when they lose they are going to have to come to grips with what that means.
Yes, I know, most of them will find a way to say, “Okay, you won but it’s only because a, b or c.” They’ll find rationalizations. BUT the broader reading audience (those who don’t post comments) are likely to be swayed away from the denier rhetoric. That’s a good thing.
I occasionally offer a substantial bet on various blogs. No takers, because of pure cowardice I suppose. These folks are willing to shoot their mouths off and bet the welfare of our grandchildren, but not a few bucks. My only problem with your proposal is that it is too small and too short.
I would bet say $1K on comparisons of adjacent decades, $10K on comparisons of decades 2 apart (2000 – 2009 versus 2020 – 2029), and $100K on decades 3 apart (2000 – 2009 versus 2030 – 2039).
This keeps some interest in the medium term (interim results by 2020) and the proper focus on longer timespans.
If there is anyone out there who doesn’t believe mainstream climate science and is not a coward, speak up. We can find a thread somewhere to discuss the fine points. If you don’t actually have the money to bet, that’s understandable, but if you own a house, or in general have middle class assets or more, and don’t bet, I denounce you as a pitiful coward. (There, THAT should bring them all running! Not.)
Ric @ 81… I’m managing to flush a few deniers out of the bushes ready to part with nominal amounts of money. I put up $5k which they are trying to pull together to match. Come over and add your name to the list on the warm side. http://notrickszone.com/
Rob @82,
My hat off to you. I commend and thank you for doing this.
MapleLeaf… $5k amounts to $1.37/day for the next 10 years. I figure I can risk that if it has an influence on the world that my kids are to inherit.
The way I’m reading the scientific literature, it seems like a pretty safe bet.
It looks like Bastardi has (maybe?) responded and accepted via a European site. It’s a bizarre rambling about God, his income, 20-30 year projects, and more.
http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Rob,
By my reading he responded and didn’t accept. And he left it vague whether he’s promising to convert to advocacy for doing something about climate change if warming continues through 2020 or not until 2030.
Jon… But he says, “But at the very least, the challenge has been accepted, and you can keep your money. ”
If you read the original post in the National Review this latest statement seems like a bunch of back pedaling.
Bastardi comes across as a preacher who believes he’s been given the gift of prophecy, seeking a crowd of followers in the midst of the sinful detractors that seek to tear him down.
While money motivates many global warming deniers, in a lot of cases I think attention/fame is a greater motivator. Bastardi got the Fox News gig for a reason.
Rob,
I believe I read the relevant parts of the NRO piece and it seemed to me to be plausible that Bastardi didn’t actually intend it to be a challenge to others to bet money, so I don’t think he’s really backpedaling with his latest. As to “the challenge has been accepted, and you can keep your money.”, I think Bastardi means that his challenge to those who disagree with him to produce their own forecasts and let events show who’s right has been taken up. A bit silly – it’s not as though scientists and scientific organisations haven’t been talking themselves blue telling the world what they think will happen in the future.
So far, the planet has refused to cool.
This is the graph of the 11-year average of all the main temperature datasets:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=7
You can download the EXCEL spreadsheet of montly temperature anomalies (to compute the 10 year average as well) here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-all-the-temperature-records.html
The result is that we are in the hottest decade (2001-2010)* and the hottest 11-year period (2000-2010) on record, in all the temperatures datasets!
There have passed a few years since the “ocean changed to a cool mode” and we have just passed the deepest solar minimum in century. Evidently the planet falsifies the Bastardi and the other deniers hypothesis, as always has.
*(That is, the decade 2001-2010 is slightly warmer than the decade 2000-2009)
riverat (56),
It is very unlikely that a Maunder Minimum would have much impact, based on newer solar irradiance reconstructions which show little long-term variation beyond solar cycles and temperatures in the last few years; in other words, given a lag of 2-3 years, we are currently feeling the greatest impacts of the solar minimum, even with the (feeble) increase in solar activity since then. For perspective, the temperature change (which isn’t very evident at all) over a solar cycle is calculated to be about 0.1°C, compared to a warming trend of 0.15-0.2°C per decade; thus, a Maunder Minimum would offset only 5-7 years of warming. In fact, if you look at a 132 month running mean of temperature, it shows a recent slowdown, but the trend has picked up again; if this is due to the deep solar minimum, the cooling effect has been at a maximum for the past year or two (the slowdown doesn’t even look that unusual though).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html
(enter 132 months for mean period and 1980 or so for the start)
Thus, about the only influence we might see from the Sun over the next decade is warming (if SC 24 ever really picks up; we just had another spotless day the other day, so solar minimum isn’t technically over yet)
Jon… The whole thing is proposed from Bastardi’s side as a “wager.” He seems to want to redefine what constitutes a wager. I suppose he is betting his reputation. Too bad he’s not willing to put money down that would go to charity.
Rob,
The word “wager” is used twice in the NRO piece, once in the title and once in the text and neither occurrence is a direct quote of Bastardi speaking. Please don’t discredit yourself by overstating your case.
@toby
But he was spot on about beginning of this winter and last winter. ;)
I have followed his videos as well and he made it clear many times that he wasnt 100% sure. He also admitted that he was wrong with cold continuing into january.
I would say that Joe got far more credibility than those who predicted mild winters in Europe.
Esop, #78
La Nina fades, the sun picks up a little, we get a nice little El Nino going and 2012/13 will set a new record, and the pattern will repeat every few years.
I think that’s the bet to make. Barring a major volcanic eruption either 2012 or 2013 will set a new all time record. It’s a short term bet with probably a better than 80% chance of winning.
Michael, #91
Thanks for the information. Just the sort of compilaton that would take me several hours to put together on my own.
Rob Honeycutt,
Thanks for the lead. My reply to your notrickzone.com comment is in the moderation queue. I doubled your bet – donating half up front to Doctors Without Borders. Good job!
Charles Zeller