Blimey! Skeptical Science Admits Current Decade Running 0.053°C Cooler Than Last Decade!

I got an e-mail from an NTZ reader who brought a recent post at Skeptical Science to my attention. Normally I don’t read reality-denial, end-of-world theorist sites. But in this case I had to make an exception. In general, for once, it’s even worth reading.

=======================================================

Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update

Posted on 27 November 2013 by Rob Honeycutt

A couple of years ago I happened upon a German “climate contrarian” website called NoTricksZone run by Pierre Gosselin.  While reading through one particular post I made an off-hand comment that I’d never found a skeptic who would put their money where their mouth is related to climate.

Well, Pierre took that as a challenge and we got together to create a gentleman’s climate bet with proceeds going to a charity of the winner’s choice.  (Correction: As Tom points out in the commens the terms state, “…the charity organisation is yet to be chosen, but will (1) be one that both sides agree on, (2) help children in dire need (3) have low overhead and (4) be international.”) That was back in early 2011.  It became the Climate Bet for Charity, subtext: “Will  the next 2011-2020 decade be warmer than the previous 2001 – 2010 decade?”

Continue reading here.

Couple of notes. Rob Honeycutt writes:

I pulled up the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric anomalies through WoodForTrees.org and did the calculations myself.  Sure enough, the average of UAH and RSS for the 2001-2010 decade comes out at 0.226C.  The current 2011-present decade is running at 0.173C.  That’s 0.053C below the last decade, based on, yes, three years of data.  So, they actually do have this much correct.”

And even if the current decade ended up being slightly warmer, it would still mean CO2 sensitivity is seriously exaggerated.

Next Rob blames the start-point (which he agreed with from the beginning) for being one of the reasons they are behind in the bet. He also writes:

In fact, since we’re averaging so few data points in the early phase of the of the chart, it’s going to be mostly just noise.  It doesn’t tell us anything meaningful at all.

I suppose if the data for the current decade were running warmer, you would not be hearing any “just noise” talk from Rob.

Rob then tries a few other statistical games before ultimately concluding that, under the bottom line, temperatures haven’t been rising like they were expected to.

Next Rob gives his opinion on who he feels is doing the better job measuring global temperature:

 I’m now of the personal opinion that GISS is likely the most accurate data set being that it has the greatest coverage for the Arctic, where we’re seeing the greatest warming.”

Arctic measurement has serious issues, as ED Caryl has just written at NTZ. I get the feeling he wishes he regrets agreeing to using RSS and UAH data to settle the bet. In the end, he does maintain a positive attitude, doing his best to exude confidence:

My own best guess is, barring a major low latitude volcanic event before 2020, there is a >95% chance that this decade will end up being warmer than the last. Physics is on our side.  You just can’t add 2.3Watts/mof man-made radiative forcing (source) to the climate system and believe the planet is not going to warm.

Strangely those theoretical 2.3 W/sqm and his brand of physics mysteriously have not produced any warming in 15 years….except, that is, “somewhere” in the depths of the oceans.

Finally, to support his theories of global warming physics, Rob writes:

Note that the decade of 1991-2000 was 0.139C warmer than 1981-1990, and the decade of 2001-2010 was 0.204C warmer than 1991-2000.”

Suddenly Rob completely forgets about the oceans. 🙂

 

23 responses to “Blimey! Skeptical Science Admits Current Decade Running 0.053°C Cooler Than Last Decade!”

  1. Stephen Richards

    Poor fellow is getting worried. His tone is changing little by little pas à pas. he he

  2. Robin Pittwood

    For another view of the record take a look at kiwithinker.com.

  3. DirkH

    Rob Honeycutt: “You just can’t add 2.3Watts/m2 of man-made radiative forcing (source) to the climate system and believe the planet is not going to warm.”

    Water vapor is eerily missing from this source table. Miskolczi’s theory posits that in an atmosphere with CO2 and H2O, opitcal density in the IR band is constant as increases in CO2 lead to decreases in H2O. It looks a lot like Miskolczi is right. So the 2.3 W by CO2 would be compensated by -2.3 W in H2O forcing.

  4. Mike Spilligan

    By the way, Jo Nova and her husband have got an AU$6,000 private bet on future temperatures, but tricky to summarize in a sentence. See joannenova.com.au for October 14th.

  5. Robin Pittwood

    My last comment got lost somewhere?
    Here’s a link to another view of the bet. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2013/11/a-decadal-global-climate-bet-a-second-view-of-the-race/

  6. Kurt in Switzerland

    Pierre,

    If Rob Honeycutt still believes “there is a >95% chance that this decade will end up being warmer than the last” perhaps he would be willing to give 20:1 odds on it.

    As in, “putting your money where your mouth is.”

    I’ll wager him $100 against his $2000!

    Kurt in Switzerland

  7. Kurt in Switzerland

    Since Rob Honeycutt is saying “there is a >95% chance that this decade will end up being warmer than the last” perhaps he would like to put his money where his mouth is:

    I’d be happy to take up his 20:1 odds. My $100 against his $2000.

    Right now.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  8. Kurt in Switzerland

    Get these jokers to put their money into an account now (before the get cold feet and run away).

    Kurt in Switzerland

  9. Ed Caryl

    Guys, I see a huge improvement! Rob is actually looking at data!

    1. Mindert Eiting

      He has courage. After winning a big prize in a lottery, betting that the next time he will win an even bigger prize.

  10. Blimey! Skeptical Science Admits Current Decade Running 0.053°C Cooler Than Last Decade! | Cranky Old Crow

    […] Blimey! Skeptical Science Admits Current Decade Running 0.053°C Cooler Than Last Decade!. […]

  11. Stephen Richards

    P Gosselin 29. November 2013 at 20:42 | Permalink | Reply – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/29/blimey-skeptical-science-admits-current-decade-running-0-053c-cooler-than-last-decade/#comments

    Pierre

    Step by step. Pas à pas. Peu is too little for this discussion 🙂

  12. Rog Tallbloke

    I have a $1000 bet running with Dean Fellenbaum, a regular on a US backpacking site. Ours runs from 2005-2020 and simply depends on whether temperature goes up or down over the period.

    I’m winning at the moment 🙂

  13. Windy2

    I find is curious that Rob is concerned about potential lack of enough data in the earlier 2000 satellite record. I wonder if he has looked at ocean heat data in the same way and is as concerned about the “nature trick” style of merging incomplete and possibly incompatible ocean heat data sets to create a long term ocean heat reconstruction when modern buoys are not showing such rapid warming?

  14. Jimbo

    Over at Skeptical Science Honeycutt seems to think that the more you better the more correct you are. When he made the challenge Pierre took him up so his point has not been made about sceptics not putting their money where their mouth is. He is now talking of who bets the most! 🙂

  15. Bernd Felsche

    Honeycutt appears surprised that sceptics were less confident than the believers. The basis of scepticism is doubt.

    I don’t count myself as a “sceptic”, but as an infidel; an un-believer. And part-time heretic. 🙂

    And he’s only recently become aware that temperatures aren’t measured directly (ever); only by their inferred effect. There is no option. Temperature is the intensity of a field. There’s no “how much of temperature”.

    If measurement technique changes, the measurement can change without an actual change in what is being measured. Heck, with satellite data, re-interpreting original, raw data (hopefully) after learning of incorrect assumptions/calibrations in the past, temperature records of the (recent) past are changing.

  16. Leslie Johnson

    Tom Fuller and I have a bet with Joe Romm on this decades temps.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/12/204793/memo-to-deniers-delayers-disinformers-when-i-propose-a-sucker-bet-the-only-conclusion-you-can-draw-is-that-im-looking-for-suckers/

    I have been tracking the results, and forecasting what Joe needs to win. As of this month, he needs every year from 2014 to 2020 to be a record.

    In other words, he has already lost, and its only 3 years in. It was also a very modest bet of 0.15 deg warmer.

  17. klem

    ” Physics is on our side. You just can’t add 2.3Watts/m2 of man-made radiative forcing (source) to the climate system and believe the planet is not going to warm.”

    And statistics is on our side. My understanding is that the range of uncertainty for that 2.3 watts/m of man-made radiative forcing is about +- 17 watts/m2. So there might be man-made radiative forcing and there might not, its buried within the range of uncertainy.