This blog here is not a casino for high rollers. In fact, it’s not a casino at all. Yet, one warmist reader robhon left a comment here proposing a bet which I find quite interesting. Here’s what he proposes:
I’m taking bets with deniers that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will end with at least 7 of the warmest years on record (again, global temperature… you choose the data set, UAH, GISS, RSS, HadCRU…). So, if you genuinely believe that we are headed for a cooling trend, put your money where your mouth is. I will.”
I think what he wants to say is that the next decade will be warmer than the one we just finished. The next decade to me is 2011 – 2020. I propose the following:
I pledge to bet USD 50.00 (fifty US dollars) that the decade of 2011 – 2020 will be cooler globally on average than the decade 2001 – 2010. We will simply take the average of both decades and compare to see which is higher. I suggest using either UAH or RSS, or a composite of both satellite datasets.
Here’s how it looks so far:
You warmists are all saying it’s going to get warmer. What are you waiting for? Man, I can see that trendline just zooming right on up through the next decade – can’t you?
I’m even going to open this bet up for everyone, with all proceeds going to a charity like Children’s Hospice International.
All proceeds will go to a children’s charity.
Anyone who wishes to pledge a sum (min $5) will be able to send an e-mail to me and I will make a list of all those particpating and post it here. That total amount will then need to be matched by robhon and his warmist pals. We can place a limit so that it doesn’t get out of hand. The bet has to be accepted by February 1, 2011.
Anyone who wants to join in for a good cause, make your pledges by then. And then we will see if robhon is ready to go for it.
What do you say amigo?
If the 2011/20 decade averages to be warmer than 2001/10, then I will concede that the earth is indeed warming. But if the next decade turns out to be cooler or the same, then you will have to concede that the theory that CO2 is driving the climate is bunk. We can work out the details in the days and weeks ahead.
Heck, the PIK ought to be the first to step up. Mr Rahmstorf made such a bet 2 years ago – and says he won!
Looking foraward to hearing your prompt reply.
PS: I’ve I sent an e-mail to robhon to let him know.
47 responses to “Will The New Decade Be Warmer Than The Last One?”
Count me in for $10
Reply: Thanks! You’re the first! – PG
I’ll bet a St. Gaudens $20 gold coin. At the end of the decade, if he wins, I’ll give him the coin. However, if he loses, he pays market value of the coin in 2020 U.S. dollars. 🙂
Data will be based on UAH or RSS TLT.
Reply: Yet to be agreed on. -PG
I’m in for $10.
Reply: Great! Got you down. -PG
Certainly not, Robhon. I propose a bet about the correlation between annual temperatures and amounts of CO2. By the way, I never bet for money.
Reply: Do it for charity…no pressure though :). I doubt Robhon will accept the bet. But we’ll see. -PG
Alright, for 10 euro’s if this currency exists by then and I am still alive (I’m from the same year as Rafferty). You have my mail address.
The red arrow resembling the hockey stick graph must make you a rich man Pierre.
I’m in for 10 dollar as well making my bet in favor of a colder world.
Reply: Thanks Ron. -PG
Normally I would not bet, but in this case, since I would not benefit then it is possible. However, I think it would be good to set up an account now, and get the money into it. At a certain date when all bets are in, then Robhon must put the same accumulated ammount in the pot. €10 for me too.
When the decision is made in 10 years time then their will be interest, and security that the money will be there for charity (or Robhon). None of us can be sure to be here, or have any money in 10 years time.
Also, it would be of good media interest and show that there are many climate realists who will put there money down.
Reply: Thanks. At this point I just want to collect pledges for the bet/donation. If robhon wants to accept and the bet is on, then we will proceed with an account, public list, etc. I’ll put you down for 10 for cooling -PG.
I am in for 20 €
Thanks – now we’re up to $120. No reply from robhon up to now.
I am absolutely in for that bet! I’m very excited that you took that up. It’s a little different than the other bets I have going related to the number of record high years, but this works for me as well.
I would propose we use a composite of UAH and RSS. The two are trending a little differently even though they are using the same source data so I believe one or the other is going to have to make an adjustment in the coming decade. So, to keep things clean a composite is probably better.
My confidence in the science behind all this is very high. Scientists all have their biases and uncertainties but, taken as a collective, science has a very strong track record. Virtually all the reliable science that has come out on AGW has shown CO2 to be a serious concern and there are mountains of evidence to suggest that an enhanced greenhouse effect is going to continue to warm the planet.
Great! I accept the composite of UAH and RSS. So we’re on!
I’ve got pledges for $120 up to now. Do you have a limit? With your level of confidence, I would think that you don’t.
I’m not too worried about how large this gets. I’m capable of paying a fairly large amount. If we can cap it at $5k that would be good. I might even be able to get some other folks over here as well.
It seems a little dicy to ask people to deposit money in an account where they don’t know where it’s going or where some anonymous internet person is managing. This is established as a bet with proceeds going to a charity. The bet is a commitment that the loser will send money to the charity. I believe a list published on this site should suffice. In the end, if the loser doesn’t pay out on the bet… that person is really scum.
I agree with using a list and basing it on honour. It would be a real pain setting up an account, foreign transfers, interest, tax laws, statements, etc. Who knows, with some luck, the 5K could be reached. Thanks for accepting this sporting challenge.
And are you okay with Childrens Hospice International as the receiver of this charity? No matter who wins, they get the money.
Absolutely fine with the charity you’ve chosen. In fact, I think it’s really great that you’ve couched the whole thing this way. That way this is not about personal gain. It’s for a good cause.
Kudos on that!
I’ll take your gold coin from you without hesitation. Consider me in on that one as well.
Actually, what I’m saying is, I’m perfectly willing to have you send that coin to the charity mentioned above.
Mindert Eiting said…
“I propose a bet about the correlation between annual temperatures and amounts of CO2.”
That would be a very silly bet to take because that is a bet based on a strawman argument. No one says that CO2 is the ONLY factor in climate change. There are a large number of factors at play. Fast feedbacks, slow feedbacks, some negative feedbacks, human responses, broad economic influences, albedo changes… the list is exceedingly long.
No one claims that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. What we do know is that the forcing from enhanced GHG’s is the dominant driver of current warming.
So, the long and short… no deal on that one.
Sorry, but you do not know what correlation is. ‘Direct’ correlation does not exist. There may many factors in a chain. If CO2 has anything to do with temperature, the correlation must be positive. What do you conclude, if the correlation is zero or negative? If we have in 2019 a Little Ice Age, you still can claim that temperatures go up because of CO2, with a little delay of a century or so. But I already joined the others just for some fun and the welfare of children.
Mindert… The bet is purely on temperature. I’m not going to shift gears and say that because some other effect exerted influence that CO2’s effects were masked. Just temperature. I think both groups – the skeptics at UAH and the n0n-skeptics at RSS – are upstanding scientists and are doing their utmost to present data that is correct. They use different methods to parse the data but ultimately they are going to have to have the same result nearing the end of the decade. So, a composite of the two is more than fair.
What I do know is that the radiative effects of CO2 and other GHG responses are much stronger than solar variability. The PDO, etc are a function of internal variability. There continues to be a measurable radiative imbalance for the planet. I believe in this next decade Trenberth’s “missing heat” is going to start showing itself. I believe we will soon be having ice free summers in the arctic and with that serious albedo changes and feedback responses.
We have still not seen one year that is anywhere near the 2 stan dev from the rising trend for global temp, even though this past decade has not show the same rate of warming as previous decades. If I saw years this past decade hitting that 2 stan dev mark off the trend I probably would not be making this bet.
I’m well informed about this subject. And I’m feeling very confident about this bet. Best of all, I think Pierre has put this whole thing is a wonderful context by turning it into a donation to charity. In that, I win either way.
Oh Heat Where Art Thou.
Dirk… The measure of radiative imbalance shows that the heat is there. Arguably it has to be in the oceans since that is where most the heat is stored. That is also where it is also most problematic to measure.
Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model, Song, Y. T., and F. Colberg (2011)
The deep ocean warming is mostly prevalent in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, suggesting a strong relation to the oceanic circulation and dynamics. Its comparison with available bottom-water measurements shows reasonably agreement, indicating that deep-ocean warming below 700 m might have contributed 1.1 mm/year to the global mean SLR or one-third of the altimeter-observed rate of 3.11±0.6 mm/year over 1993-2008.
Can’t guarantee I will be around in 2010 but I would put up £50 as long as it goes to a charity. The warming trend you show in the graph is an artefact. Temps in the 1980s were depressed by El Chichon volcano and in the 90s by Pinatubo. Warming is nothing like as definite.
Reply: Thanks. No one can guarantee being around. I’d prefer to keep the currency in dollars. May I write you down for $70?
Why should I bet on an option which is the least wanted: cooling.
I want warming, and make a pledge of Euro 20.- on that side (to go to charity).
That seems to be a very modest sum in the light of S. Rahmstorf et al bet with Euro 2500, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/langswitch_lang/en/ which is nevertheless a highly shabby offer. If he and colleagues prove wrong in any of CO2 related AGW matters he/they should be fired – immediately- at least.
Thanks Arnd. I’ll put you down for 25 USD, which is less than 20 euro. -PG
That is fine with me;
AND if Robhon
has to pay more
than US$ 4000.-
I double to US$ 50.-
Does the notion of getting fired for being wrong apply equally to Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and others? My mother always says, “Careful what you ask for, you may just get it.”
I do not agree very much with what Prof. Singer (SEPP), Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and others ( see below) say as they are as superficial as their adversaries when it come to working with a reasonable scientific weather & climate terminology, more here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ , but their position is cost neutral and would not cost many billions for the shady claim of AGW by CO2; and subject to other matters of serious concern, e.g.
__”Germany Passes Energy Tyranny Act – Will Force Energy Rationing
By P Gosselin on 3. Januar 2011
Weather and climate is a matter of the ocean and seas, and man’s activities may influence and change the structure, and subsequently the “average weather”. The AWG discussion by pro & contra is paying to little attention to this aspect, as already claimed two decades ago:
__” For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’.” Excerpt from: Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292; http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
To be fair, he might want to read this:
Reply: It only adds to the suspense! A deal is a deal. – PG
Be careful for betting alongside robhon: oceans are cooling big time.
These two basins are responsible for the observed sin wave climate cycle, which is no doubt going down.
Shhhhh! Don’t tell him that! It doesn’t matter anyway I guess. We have it all in writing! -PG
Pierre, I just changed my mind. I estimate the probability of winning as 1/2. With 10 euro’s the expected profit for the children from my contribution is 1/2 times 10, or 5 euro’s only. This is greedy in my case. Note me for 50 dollars. I do not have an internet bank account. So let me know how the money can be transferred. If my 50 dollars arrive in Robhon’s pocket, he may buy a book for that amount about the scientific method. This is a win-win deal, isn’t it?
Reply; Now you’re a high roller! I’ll put you down for 50. I’m only keeping a list, and if our side were to lose, then we expect everyone who pedged money to honour that pledge and to pay directly to a charity for children in dire need. Tomorrow I will post about this. – PG
Sorry, totally O/T (no i won’t bet against a poor warmist. He will probably be broke in ten years anyway, having gambled away his wealth with investments in state-subsidized distorted markets.)
But this is soo funny. Just out of boredom i entered “communism in Germany” in google news and what do i find.
“Berlin – The leader of Germany’s radical Left Party, Gesine Loetsch, reaped anger on Wednesday for comments suggesting her party pursued communist goals.
‘We can only find the paths to communism if we set off and try them out, whether in opposition or in government,’ Loetsch wrote in a guest article for Marxist daily Junge Welt. ”
Gesine, you’re supposed to keep this secret! /facepalm
Yeah I read that too. Do you think that’s only in the Left Party? I think that kind of thinking is even in the CDU.
Yeah, but they didn’t spill the beans by now. Better discipline. 😉
There’s a lot of betting going on.
Piers Corbyn has been excluded from the English betting circuit because won them all. In 2005 Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 that the globe would be cooler in 2012-2017 than it was 1998-2003.
We are obviously on the side of the winners.
And besides a Solar Minimum and cooling oceans we still have the wild card in our sleeves….a VEI7 volcanic eruption.
With a clear increase in seismic activity over the past year and volcano’s coming to live all over the place, how can we lose?
See 2010 earth quake summary
And for volcanic activity:
Also keep a close look at Iceland
Volcanoes are a huge wildcard. If a big one blows, then the bet is pretty much decided. But that’s not how we want to win it. Rahmstorf in his bet with Mojib Latif even inserted a clause calling the bet off in the event of a major eruption.
And the sun is….still in a slump still not conforming to NOAA consensus forecasts
I’ll match $100 on Rob’s side. Easy win for him. The only way next decade won’t be colder than the last is if there’s a series of major volcanic eruptions or a major meteor strike or some other major unforseeable event. Sorry guys, physics is not on the side of cooling.
I’ll bump my pledge up to $100 to match yours.
The planet’s physics!
Oh really? And which planet do you come from? The one where warming causes more snow?
In some places, yes. The USA for example gets more snowstorms in hotter years.
As the planet warms, some areas will receive more winter precipitation (which as long as it’s cold enough, will fall as snow), while other areas will receive less.
Let’s look at that shall we? What physics says that warmer conditions cause more snow.
It’s basic physics that warmer air holds more moisture, right? I think that’s a given.
It’s basic physics that snowfall occurs at or below the freezing point. The colder you get the less snowfall actually occurs. When you get very cold, as with polar winters, virtually all the moisture (and latent energy) is frozen out of the atmosphere.
As the planet warms, as we know has happened from all the global temperature data sets (and in agreement with prominent skeptics), more moisture is present in the air. It’s measured to be approximately 4% more moisture in the air today that preindustrial times. So, when winter comes we know the temperature is going to go down below freezing. When it does the additional moisture in the atmosphere produces more snowfall.
It’s really very simple physics.
This is also why we see the predicted phenomenon of increased snowfall at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet while also seeing increase ablation at the glacier face. Same physics.
Will the next decade be warmer that the last one?
I’ve seen that misrepresentation of the GISP2 data so many times I can’t even believe it.
1) J Storrs Hall, who originally produced this, never bothered to research his material very closely or very thoroughly. He shifts the data on you. If you go and look at the actual GISP2 data starts at “95 years before present.” Hall assumes that to be ~1900. But does he check? No. I emailed Dr Alley and he stated to me, himself, that “before present” in the radio isotope measurements conforms to the standard of 1950.
2) Dr Alley also said to me that GISP2 is GISP2, not the world. GISP2 is one local temperature measurement for the summit of the Greenland ice sheet.
3) In his recent testimony to the Congressional subcommittee Dr Alley made very clear that we know why temperatures at Greenland were warmer. It is due to the axial tilt of the planet causing more sunlight to reach the northern latitudes. Alley added that, “Based on several lines of evidence we can say with a great deal of certainty that the Holocene maximum was about 1C warmer than today.”
4) Then at the end of this J Hall throws in a curve ball. The last panel is the Vostok ice core, not GISP, and it has a completely different scale.
Anyone read this book or has infos about it?
The Great Ocean Conveyor:
Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change
Put me down for 100 on the warming side.
I would like to note though that using satellite records means we don’t get further north than 82 and further south than 70. That seems like an awful lot of the earth to be missing… Other datasets such as ERA-Reanalysis, or NCEP Reanalysis might be preferable because they use Satellite and station data.
PG: Thanks, you’re on the warmist list. Satellite coverage is still far superior to the land based stations.