See R. E. Buxbaum at http://wp.me/p34mSn-yF. Not sure about the humor at http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/climate-change-metaphysical-humor/
Thanks for the reply. I was having a bad day, and it cheered me up. I really had a good laugh reading it. This is my third draft by way of reply. The first two were just too gloating, and the message was lost. So I've toned it down.1) The bloke who you are complimenting this time is exactly the same bloke as you called an idiot the first time..! Didn't both of them asking for the money to be sent to the same charity give it away?!2) You say:"But, then two big problems occur. Staring [sic] in the late 1970s the temperature plots both rise substantially while the AMO remains in the negative phase (less than zero on the scale on the left). Based on the correlation of the AMO we should have seen the average surface temperature drop. "Here's the close-up of the plot from 1970's onward: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/from:1970Just astonishing that you are trying to get away with it! [Readers - just look].Chris, the temperature scale is a temperature ANOMALY. It's not a phase. There's no physical 'meaning' to it. Do you know what an anomaly is? (I can't believe I have to explain this stuff to a Physics PhD, who claims to be a Physics Professor). It's the variance from a long term mean (usually base-lined over a few decades say, 1960 to 1990). Let me repeat that. Variance from a mean. What is a mean? When you add all the (are you following this, or am I going too fast for you?) numbers and divide by the amount of numbers the answer is the mean. The mean will be a number like, say, 10C. At that point half the numbers will be below 10C, and half above it. So in a time series if the figure for the anomanly is below the baseline (that's 0 to you Chris) then the figure is below the long term "average" of, using our example 10C, if you like.So what you are saying is ABSURD. Beyond stupid.Just because a temperature anomaly is below the baseline does not mean it cannot warm up. In fact we expect it to warm up. Regression to the mean. We would entirely expect the temperatures to be below the baseline half the time, and above the baseline half the time. If they aren't then we have a real warming or cooling trend. Just because our temperature drops to 9.5C does not mean it cannot again rise to 10C if it "feels like it".3) You continue:"Then, the AMO actually does turn to positive, but we see the temperature plots decline."No. No. No. [Again readers - just look: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/from:1970] 4) Unfortunately you continue again:"I think this plot shows it more clearly: "No. It doesn't Chris. What you've done there is taken an easy to understand plot - mine - where all the data is on the same plot, and tried to confuse your readers by having two tiny plots from different sources and just tried to bluff it.5) You do it - yet again:"The AMO is shown to be in the negative phase (below the dotted line) from about 1965 all the way through some time about 1995 before turning positive"Again. No. This is basic, Chris. There's no magical "phases". The AMO is a temperature anomaly just as the NH and SH plots are temperature anomalies!********Continued next post *****************
You can be an idiot and still submit a nice submission. It was a nice piece of work and I wasn't afraid to say so. It was still wrong, though.Well, since you were such a rude twit, let me explain it for you. We determine the average temperature and then compare the measured one to that average. The departure between the two is the anomaly. One of the characteristics of an AMO is a positive anomaly when it is warm (positive phase) and a negative anomaly when it is cool (negative phase). When the AMO is in the positive phase (that means the temperature is above average in your grade school mentality) the atmospheric temp goes up. When the anomaly is negative (again, for your grade school mentality, that means the temperature is below average) the atmospheric temperature goes down. What we have seen since the 1960s is that there is no longer that connection.It is clear that you took that submission from someone else because you have really demonstrated you don't understand the science. Of course, I never expect a brain-washed denier to ever accept the science. That is what makes you a denier.
Just so that others may revel in you sublimely batty answer I saved some screenshots here;http://oi58.tinypic.com/24vmu6h.jpghttp://oi61.tinypic.com/rix54z.jpghttp://oi59.tinypic.com/jgh2ra.jpgWhy did I do that? Well somehow I was sure that your answer would be made to disappear. Yes your answer was that bad that I suspect - even you - re-reading it realised it was a crock of manure and through sheer embarrassment (both mental and financial) you had to delete yourself.You have not in the slightest demonstrated that the relationship between the AMO and temperatures has, as you put it, 'broken-down'. If anything the relationship is even better from the close-up plot I put up. Here it is again: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/from:1970. You lose. It's that simple. Pay up. Some people say that this ten thousand thing is just a publicity stunt for your book. (Although if so it doesn't seem to have worked as according to Novel Rank your June sales are 9 kindle books and one paperback...). But I actually think you've been very brave exposing yourself to ridicule like this. Now you have to be brave again, admit you were wrong, and pay up.
6) And then the whopper. The WHOPPER. Le Grand Whoppeir:"Comparing the two shows very clearly that the correlation stopped sometime in the 1970s, or earlier...."(we've already seen that's a porker, so I ask readers to relish these next few words:)"... This is when the effects of man made greenhouse gases became influential enough to take over."Flabbergasting. Like a b-rate 1950's radio show: K-POW! CO2 lands a knock-out punch and the AMO is down! With a single bound CO2 shakes off the chains the evil AMO's henchmen shackled our hero with - and he's free! Note that Chris didn't even bother with an explanation as to why. A plausible physical mechanism wasn't even attempted, hinted at even. We've clearly seen how the AMO correlates like a champ with temperatures since 1970, so that's a lie, straight off, but at what ppm does CO2 "take over"? It's absurd. Like the rest of his response.7) The same clanger yet again:"Either way, it is shown here that the global warming of the last few decades is not due to the AMO. In fact, we should have seen global cooling for 30 years due to the AMO being in a negative phase."This magical negative "phase" again and even that's in the wrong time frame. We've seen that the AMO has just peaked a few years ago. Curiously co-inciding with the "pause" in air temperatures. (That I proved in my first submission).8) Mercifully, it is over:"This was a very well done submission, but it does not pass the standard or proving man made global warming is not real. In fact, it actually provides very supporting evidence that it is real. "Now Chris. Look down at your red slippers and repeat "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. ..."In conclusion: I won. The FSF.org will be getting 11,000 USD (10+1 as I've won both challenges). I have proved, beyond Chris's refutation, that the majority of recent global temperatures rises are due to the AMO. That it is a natural cycle. And by inference that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is well below the no feedback parameter.And I am surprised. Really surprised. It was easy. Chris (apparently) has a PHd in Physics. He's also a Professor (?) of Physics. Yet his answer to me (hell, a nobody) was just so down-right poor it was embarrassing. Think, just think, what would have happened if a really clever sceptic came along and locked horns with Chris. It would have been a bloodbath. Chris be thankful you got me - you would have been annihilated.
Hmm. Stranger and stranger the main text of your answers have disappeared! Don't worry though I saved the webpage and did a few screengrabs also to preserve it - just in case anything happened:Here's the text:Response:This submission was a real treat to read. It is actually based on valid science and far better than most of the submissions. I congratulate the submitter on doing some homework and thinking it through.First, let's discuss the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Mr. Runner stated truthfully and accurately that there is a very strong correlation between the AMO and surface temperature, especially for the northern hemisphere. It is a long-term (multi-decades) change in the average surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean. When the North Atlantic is warmer than average it is in the positive phase and temperature goes up. When it is cooler than the average it is in the negative phase and the temperature in the goes down.Here are the plots he referred to:http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30Source: WoodForTrees.org The blue line is the AMO. The red line is the northern hemisphere average surface temperature. The green line is the average surface temperature for the southern hemisphere. Follow the two together and you can see a very good correlation. The data starts on the left at about 1850 and today is on the right. As we go through the 1800s into the early 1900s we see the AMO decline from the positive phase to the negative one. At the same time, we see the both temperature plots decline. Then, sometime around 1910 we see all three plots begin to rise. This continues through the 1940s, until we see a decline again starting around 1960. But, then two big problems occur. Staring in the late 1970s the temperature plots both rise substantially while the AMO remains in the negative phase (less than zero on the scale on the left). Based on the correlation of the AMO to surface temperature, we should have seen the average surface temperature drop. Then, the AMO actually does turn to positive, but we see the temperature plots decline. Again, based on the AMO correlation, we should have seen the two average temperature plots shoot up even more.I think this plot shows it more clearly:Source: IntellicastThe AMO is shown to be in the negative phase (below the dotted line) from about 1965 all the way through some time about 1995 before turning positive (above the dotted line). Look at this plot of average surface temperature for the same time period:Comparing the two shows very clearly that the correlation stopped sometime in the 1970s, or earlier. This is when the effects of man made greenhouse gases became influential enough to take over.While Mr. Runner did a very nice job of showing that there is a correlation between the AMO and the average surface temperature, I think he also did a very nice job of showing the correlation has been broken. The conclusion is that either there never was a correlation and it was just a coincidence that eventually stopped, or an external agent became significant enough to break the correlation. Either way, it is shown here that the global warming of the last few decades is not due to the AMO. In fact, we should have seen global cooling for 30 years due to the AMO being in a negative phase.This was a very well done submission, but it does not pass the standard or proving man made global warming is not real. In fact, it actually provides very supporting evidence that it is real. The AMO is a complicated and important oscillation and is the topic of a lot of research. Here is just one paper on the topic. A quick search on Google Scholar will show lots more.
Oh!. The text is back! Joy of joys. And with a postscript. Bravo Chris! Another belly laugh for me. i loved this line:"As you can see, it wasn't very difficult for me. This claim has been around for awhile and I am very familiar with it." You're like a boxer, flat on his back on the canvas, saying to the judges "I won that one on points". One can't help but admire the chutzpa. Even you own graph - YOUR OWN GRAPH - of the AMO says; "Annual Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Mean ocean temperature anomalies in the Atlantic from 0 to 70N". Did you get that? Anomalies. ANOMALIES. Yes the AMO is an anomaly measure. Of temperature. Here is your own graph - just to make sure it doesn't disappear.: http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/129_0.pngSo, you are neither "very familiar" with it, nor was an answer "easy" for you, nor did you "prove" your point. You failed horribly at all three. Man up. Pay up.
I really don't know what your problem is, but I'm glad you have put it on display for all to see. How is your diatribe and personal attacks proving man made global warming is not real?Let me recap: You claim that the AMO is proof that the current warming trend is a natural cycle. I showed how the graphs clearly show a correlation over history, but then that correlation is broken, right at the time man made global warming began to take off. In fact, the correlation became a negative of what it was before. Something broke the correlation so what you did was provide evidence that the current warming trend is not a naturally occurring cycle. Now, I know you won't accept that because you have rejected science in favor of personal attacks, but those don't satisfy the scientific evidence standard.
No Christopher. You did not show the "correlation to be broken". You did not show anything - except ignorance. Look again at my plot of the AMO/NH&SH temperature anomalies. The period you claim to be broken has the highest correlation of the whole time-series!Some more corrections to your last comment:* I have never claimed global warming is "not real". We both agree CO2 warms the climate. We both agree natural cycles do also. Where I have shown you to be wrong is in the proportions of both. And you don't like that.* You say I have "rejected science"! What science have I rejected? All my sources are based on OFFICIAL datasets. All my quotes are from NOAA. All my equations are the same as used by the IPCC. What science have I rejected? And in making this personal attack on me, you say I favour personal attacks over science! Cuckoo. No Chris. It's YOU that have rejected science. You reject the plain evidence that the AMO is responsible for the majority of recent warming. You lie to cover this up. A Professor of Physics LYING to distort science. That's shameful. Hang you head.Although the FSF will be saddened to hear it, it's plain you never had ANY intention of paying 10,000 out even if Michael Mann came here himself and comprehensively disproved the greenhouse effect. Think upon your actions. It's not too late to do the right thing.
I fully intend to pay out the money to anyone that can deliver. Too bad you couldn't deliver. I would love for someone to prove to me that global warming is not real. But, it clearly isn't you.
Dr. Keating,Is it possible for you to annotate the graphs in some way to show that global warming did not correlate with AMO in the years you specified? I'd like to see how you quantified/qualified that. They appear to correlate quite well when zoomed in. Thanks!
Chris, darling, you say you "fully intend to" Might I suggest that you are, what's the polite way of putting it? Lying through your teeth.No you don't "intend to". If you did you wouldn't be lying about the "lack" of correlation. Sadly as you are Judge, Jury, Treasurer and Executioner of your own scam, we just have to take you at your word that you will do the right thing. (Even after you've blatantly lied!)Think I'm wrong? Then show me on this plot of HadCrut and ERSL data exactly where CO2 "took over". Show me where the correlation stops.http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/from:1970%5DIf you can't do those simple things then either pay up, or admit you were lying.
At 1970, when AMO drops beneath the temperatures, dumbass.
Refrain from calling someone a dumbass before you look at the closeup. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/from:1970/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/from:1970
"At 1970, when AMO drops beneath the temperatures, dumbass."Fail. You idiot. The AMO is a temperature anomaly. You expect it to be above the line half the time, and below half the time. It entirely depends on the baseline you set it to. Do you think the AMO has been set to the same baseline for the last thousand years? Go away and play ball on a railway line.
Yes, I've seen the graph. explain why the AMO towered over the temps in the 1800s and then 'swaps' to being below them at 1970. An AMO reading at 1890 predicts a temprature far below it, an AMO reading at 2010 predicts a temperature far above it. That's not correlation.
The Atlantic multidecadal OSCILLATION. Is an OSCILLATION, of amplitude of about 1F (you read the link..?) of N. Atlantic SST anomalies. It OSCILLATES around the zero line. It will be above the zero line about half the time and below the zero line about half the time - because (I don't know it I mentioned this) It's an oscillation. That's what oscillations do. They oscillate. It's calculated from OSCILLATIONS on the N Atlantic SSTs. So the SSTs and atmospheric temperatures can rise and fall as they like. They can go "whoosh!" and they can go "crash!". The AMO can't (as it's an ...oscillation) only moving around the zero line. The AMO's units of measurement is degrees C which means it can conveniently be included on graphs of temperature without any jiggery-pokery,What you are seeing as two lines crossing just means that two lines crossed. That's it. It has no meaning. One isn't suddenly "beating" the other, because all an oscillator does is oscillate.
I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand your reasoning here, but thank you for being so civil.
The important aspect to note regarding the AMO graphs aren't the magnitude of the oscillations, but whether the oscillations are positive or negative and whether or not they correlate. So yes, they technically "cross", but as long as the temperatures follow the same downward or upward trend as the AMO, the correlation exists.
I am a complete layman and I don't really know what I'm talking about, but that hasn't really stopped the deniers now, has it? According to Wikipedia, the AMO may alias the effects of global warming. Taking that into account, we must notice the changing gap between the AMO and the temperatures. If the AMO perfectly predicted our climate, why does the AMO start so much higher than the temperatures, meet around 1970 and then fall so far below the temps by the 2010s? Keating has explained this as an effect of CO2 and I'm inclined to defer to his judgement. This is total conjecture, but to me it seems like the AMO drives the temperature before 1970 and then IS driven by the obviously warming tempratures after '70.
Firstly, never believe Wikipedia.Secondly, tt's a question of degree. Both CO2 and natural cycles like the AMO affect the climate. The big question is to what degree have both of them done so. We've had 0.8C of temperature rise since 1850 or so, when the AMO was at a bottom of a cycle. And we know from NOAA (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php) that the AMO is roughly 1F (0.55C) in amplitude. So CO2, we could say very simplistically, has caused 2.5C of the warming and the AMO 0.55C. So the AMO has been more important in recent temperature rises. In 2030-2040 we'll be at the bottom of a AMO cycle, so should be able to estimate (trough to trough) how much warming CO2 has caused.To win Chris's challenge on the refined terms here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.fr/2014/06/some-clarification-on-100001000.html all that had to be done was:1) Show that CO2 was not responsible for most of the recent warming.Done. Check.OR2) Show a connection between natural cycles and recent warming.Done. Check.Chris is now lying to back out of his bet. In the terms of his revised conditions Chris is beaten.
I have tried real hard to explain the science to the deniers, but they continue to demonstrate why I call them deniers. They are not interested in the science. But, I will give it one more try. Not for the deniers, but for anyone that might believe they have any credibility. I reference this paper published in Geophysical Research Letters:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059274/pdfI have the paper abstract quoted below. Notice that they attribute two-thirds of the heating since 1975 to man made global warming. Only one-third is attributed to the AMO.This proof is just busted all over the place. ****************A multiple linear regression analysis of global annual mean near-surface air temperature (1900–2012) using the known radiative forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation index as explanatory variables account for 89% of the observed temperature variance. When the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is added to the set of explanatory variables, the fraction of accounted for temperature variance increases to 94%.The anthropogenic effects account for about two thirds of the post-1975 global warming with one third being due to the positive phase of the AMO. In comparison, the Coupled Models Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble mean accounts for 87% of the observed global mean temperature variance.Some of the CMIP5 models mimic the AMO-like oscillation by a strong aerosol effect. These models simulate the twentieth century AMO-like cycle with correct timing in each individual simulation. An inverse structural analysis suggests that these models generally overestimate the greenhouse gases-induced warming, which is then compensated by an overestimate of anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
'Only one-third is attributed to the AMO.'[Facepalm]You realise what you've just done? You've just shown that the correlation hasn't as you claimed 'broken down'. You have given a peer-reviewed refutation of yourself. Nice job. This paper and myself both ascribe weight to CO2 and the AMO. We differ on the proportions, but in a broad sense we agree. YOU are the one that is disagreeing with the paper you cite as evidence Chris. Their graphs clearly show the relationship has not 'broken down' from the 70's or '90's or ever.We have some progress I suppose. You now admit:1) The relationship has not broken down as you've claimed at least ten times.2) That natural cycles are responsible for part of the recent warming (incidentally beating yourself on condition 2 of your revised challenge....)3) You admit that the AMO is responsible for 33 percent of warming, that's up from a negative figure (you claimed the cycles were in the wrong direction). We just have to get you to an optician so you see the rest of it.So even taking this at it's most basic - you by implication are a sceptic:And LOL. I don't know if you even have the smarts to realise it but by suporting that paper even YOU now admit that the likely climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is less than 1.5C. As we've warmed 0.8C from pre-industrial (when CO2 was 280 ppm), but you admit, and cite evidence for, that one third of that was natural, so 2/3 of the 0.8C was due to CO2, or 0.528C. Let's calculate the dT for 2xCO2:To calculate the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 we first have to calculate the climate sensitivity factor. dT = climate sensitivity factor x forcing0.528 = cs x 5.35 x ln (400/280)0.528 = CS X 1.9cs = 0.528/1.9 = 0.277so we can now calculate the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2:dT = climate sensitivity factor x forcingdT = 0.277 x 5.35 x ln 2dT = 1.02 CLess than 1.5C. Less even than the no-feedback parameter of 1.1C. So your own calculations are now below the (downwardly revised) IPCC bottom range figure of 1.5C. Wow Chris. You are a sceptic. How does that feel?
Further to my last if we accept NOAA at its word that the AMO is about 1F in amplitude (0.55C) then then the figures are even worse for you. From the plot we can see that at least this figure is passed to air temperatures. 1840 was around the bottom of an AMO cycle, and we are currently at the top of one, so the CO2 caused warming drops to (0.8-0.55C) = 0.25C, Running the numbers makes the 2 x CO2 figure under 0.5 C.