Global Climate: Cooler or Warmer in 10 years?

[Matt]

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

David Adam, science correspondent

Friday August 19, 2005

The Guardian

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about ?5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only ?200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a ?5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...rticle_continue

[glassofwater]

That's just stupid. 10 years is not really enough time to reliably record a change in climate, it just shows a short term trend.

[John S. Veteran]

That's just stupid. 10 years is not really enough time to reliably record a change in climate, it just shows a short term trend.

586402487[/snapback]

Neither is the couple hundred that most base their models on when compared to the age of the earth.

[Soham]

no more oil or terrorists living...commies will come in power and we guys will suffer

[glassofwater]

Neither is the couple hundred that most base their models on when compared to the age of the earth.

586405339[/snapback]

The more accurate data used for developing the climate models used by the IPCC is contemporary, but the climate record for the majority of the Quaternary is very detailed and the models are tested against known climatic changes to ensure they can predict what has happened. The current models predict the Holocene very well indeed. I specialised in climate change at university and the data really is worrying.

[Lexxan]

That's just stupid. 10 years is not really enough time to reliably record a change in climate, it just shows a short term trend.

586402487[/snapback]

..... ya ok.

[lav-chan]

The more accurate data used for developing the climate models used by the IPCC is contemporary, but the climate record for the majority of the Quaternary is very detailed and the models are tested against known climatic changes to ensure they can predict what has happened. The current models predict the Holocene very well indeed. I specialised in climate change at university and the data really is worrying.

586405845[/snapback]

Well, good, you can answer me this, then:

Isn't it just as likely for the global warming trend that's going on right now to be a natural occurrence (since Earth's climate does periodically change) as it is for it to be a human problem?

I'm probably not qualified to have an opinion either way, but that does seem reasonable to me.

[glassofwater]

Well, good, you can answer me this, then:

Isn't it just as likely for the global warming trend that's going on right now to be a natural occurrence (since Earth's climate does periodically change) as it is for it to be a human problem?

I'm probably not qualified to have an opinion either way, but that does seem reasonable to me.

586405860[/snapback]

Small bit of background:

We've only recently come out of the last glaciation (Devensian) and are now in the Holocene (warm interglacial, the last 10000 years), and looking at the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Quaternary you can see that glacials and interglacials are punctuated by cooler and warmer periods called stadials and interstadials. So it is not a smooth see-saw from cold to warm. A reasonable percentage of the climate variability for the Quaternary can be put down to Milankovich cycles (variations in the earth's orbit), but the feed back loops and threshold effects are very complex! For example cool the earth, ice cover increase, you theb get more reflection (higher albedo), this cools the earth, more ice forms and so on. The Milankovich cycles seem to be the cause of the crossing of thresholds making the system swing from glacial to interglacial and back. But the variations within these stages are attributed to hundreds of factors like solar output, volcanos etc.

Anyway, there is a very strong correlation between CO2, CH4 atmospheric H2O etc and global average temperature. The levels of greenhouse gases we have now can be directly attributed to industrialisation, so we are to blame for that. But the correlation between temperature and greenhouse gas does not imply cause and effect. Does increasing greenhouse gases increase temperature? Or does increasing temperature due to orbital variation increase greenhouse gases? Well yes to both.

It's possible to write an entire book on this stuff so don't want to go into too much detail! But basically the greenhouse gas levels we have now and the rate of increase is unprecedented, and are obviously not due to external forces as we know we released them into the atmosphere. My opinion is we can't be 100% sure we are going to wreck our climate but the evidence is pretty damning! The majority of climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate forcing, that humans are to blame. It's definitely better to be safe than sorry!

So yeah it may be natural, but if it is it certainly isn't being helped by our actions. If you want to form your own opinion maybe have a look at some IPCC data and have a look round wikipedia, although most of the stuff on wikipedia is not particulary detailed. Sorry for the long-winded reply!

[Hupp]

global warming is a bunch of crap, we've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years, we don't know if this is even just a cycle that repeats it self over time...

[glassofwater]

global warming is a bunch of crap, we've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years, we don't know if this is even just a cycle that repeats it self over time...

586406077[/snapback]

Ignorance is bliss eh? We have millions of years of climate data taken using proxy records from ice cores, marine sediments and corals. We know that the Quaternary has been dominated by glacial/interglacial cycles. We know that greenhouse gas levels and their rate of increase now is unprecedented. We know we are the cause of the greenhouse gas levels. We know temperatures have risen since accurate recordings began. We cannot explain todays trend by incoming solar radiation variation or orbital factors. Go figure.

[Azusa]

im with the russians on this one

[lav-chan]

So yeah it may be natural, but if it is it certainly isn't being helped by our actions.

586406081[/snapback]

This has always been my hunch (that it's mostly natural but that we're making it worse), but like i said i'm probably not qualified to really have one (i don't know that much about it, and it's kind of a boring subject to me, so i'm not really interested in learning). :shrug:

[Hupp]

Ignorance is bliss eh? We have millions of years of climate data taken using proxy records from ice cores, marine sediments and corals. We know that the Quaternary has been dominated by glacial/interglacial cycles. We know that greenhouse gas levels and their rate of increase now is unprecedented. We know we are the cause of the greenhouse gas levels. We know temperatures have risen since accurate recordings began. We cannot explain todays trend by incoming solar radiation variation or orbital factors. Go figure.

586406089[/snapback]

Temperatures have risen and fallen, I see nothing and neither do alot of people in the world. If it was so cut and dry you wouldn't have scientists on both sides would you?

[lav-chan]

There are scientists on both sides of whether or not NASA faked the moon landing, though, so that's hardly an arguement.

[Hupp]

There are scientists on both sides of whether or not NASA faked the moon landing, though, so that's hardly an arguement.

586406384[/snapback]

i've never seen a scientist argue against it, ive seen conspiracy buffs.

[glassofwater]

Temperatures have risen and fallen, I see nothing and neither do alot of people in the world. If it was so cut and dry you wouldn't have scientists on both sides would you?

586406369[/snapback]

For the risen and fallen when are you talking about? 20th century, Holocene, Quaternary? and on what scale?

The Holocene climatic optimum was a little warmer than now but that can be attributed to Milankovitch, current warming cannot.

[John S. Veteran]

The more accurate data used for developing the climate models used by the IPCC is contemporary, but the climate record for the majority of the Quaternary is very detailed and the models are tested against known climatic changes to ensure they can predict what has happened. The current models predict the Holocene very well indeed. I specialised in climate change at university and the data really is worrying.

586405845[/snapback]

These models and projections are nothing more than guesses.

global warming is a bunch of crap, we've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years, we don't know if this is even just a cycle that repeats it self over time...

586406077[/snapback]

:yes:

im with the russians on this one

586406118[/snapback]

:yes:

[glassofwater]

Before you criticise the models get some journals out and have a good read on what they model and how, they are certainly not based on guesses.

I'm not saying we are 100% sure that humans are the cause of current increasing temperatures, and they may be perfectly natural. But is it a risk worth taking? Are you willing to bet the well-being of every single life on earth that you are right?

[John S. Veteran]

Before you criticise the models get some journals out and have a good read on what they model and how, they are certainly not based on guesses.

I'm not saying we are 100% sure that humans are the cause of current increasing temperatures, and they may be perfectly natural. But is it a risk worth taking? Are you willing to bet the well-being of every single life on earth that you are right?

586407135[/snapback]

A scientific model is a prediction based on a slice of data gathered within a particular period of time assuming that the data gathered will be representative enough to base a prediction on.

Anyone who's worked with variables in any sort of process knows this still nothing more than an educated guess.

[glassofwater]

A scientific model is a prediction based on a slice of data gathered within a particular period of time assuming that the data gathered will be representative enough to base a prediction on.

Anyone who's worked with variables in any sort of process knows this still nothing more than an educated guess.

586407173[/snapback]

You're simplifying it. Climate models are based on actual atmospheric processes and teleconnections with oceanic circulation, the cryosphere etc. They try and model the physical processes happening, they are not arbitrary mathematical models without a realworld basis, if they were they wouldn't be used.

[John S. Veteran]

You're simplifying it. Climate models are based on actual atmospheric processes and teleconnections with oceanic circulation, the cryosphere etc [a slice of data gathered within a particular period ]. They try and model the physical processes happening, [assuming that the data gathered will be representative enough to base a prediction on]they are not arbitrary mathematical models without a realworld basis, if they were they wouldn't be used.

586407198[/snapback]

You do realize, you just repeated what I said previously, don't you? my words added in bold...

[Starcom826]

Everyone is simplifying is. The fact remains that our understanding of global climate changes and their effects remains incredibly limited. We can see rising temperature in conjunction with rising pollutants in the air, but we still can't tell if its a direct correlation, or a combination of underlying factors in conjunction. Now there probably is sufficient reason to address the issue, especially since our reliance on fossil fuels gives numerous other completely unrelated negative side-effects, but things are far from completely clear cut. For example, forcing the U.S. to join the Kyoto treaty is selfish, greedy, and unwise.

[glassofwater]

You do realize, you just repeated what I said previously, don't you?

586407215[/snapback]

Not exactly, the way you put it forward was as an arbitrary model. I stressed the fact that they use realword physical processes, this makes it more than an educated guess. I know the models aren't perfect.

[John S. Veteran]

Not exactly, the way you put it forward was as an arbitrary model. I stressed the fact that they use realword physical processes, this makes it more than an educated guess. I know the models aren't perfect.

586407227[/snapback]

a slice of data gathered within a particular period is hardly arbitrary. It's exactly the same thing your stating. I never implied they pulled the data for models out of thin air.

I work with data daily in chemical processes, trying to predict future results on past behaviors is a necessary evil, but far from accurate.

[glassofwater]

a slice of data gathered within a particular period is hardly arbitrary.  It's exactly the same thing your stating.  I never implied they pulled the data for models out of thin air.

I work with data daily in chemical processes, trying to predict future results on past behaviors is a necessary evil, but far from accurate.

586407251[/snapback]

They don't base the models just on the collected past data, if they were I wouldn't trust them (not that I do entirely, the IPCC can never make its mind up). The past is the key to the present is the key to the future is hardly fantastic science, but there's more than that to the models.