Climate Casino: Global Cooling Or Global Warming, Place Your Bets
by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 05.12.08
photo courtesy John LeGear at flickr
Last week a spasm of media coverage including a New York times article by Andrew Revkin followed the journal Nature publishing a study (abstract here) predicting that in the two time periods of 2000 - 2010 and 2005 - 2015 the Earth is and will be experiencing a period of global cooling rather than the man-made global warming trend that most of us have come to expect.
The German team that wrote the Nature paper made its predictions - which are for the Northern Hemisphere only - by running simulations of the global climate and tinkering with the conditions of the oceans in the simulations. The result, according to the Nature paper's authors:
"Global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
Wanna bet? asks a group of climate scientists at the RealClimate commentary site.
It's very important to note that neither the German scientists (hailing from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) nor the international group at RealClimate are disputing that the overall long-term trend will be a warming earth.
However, the group of RealClimate scientists also want to wager 2,500 Euros ($3,800) that the German model turns out to be wrong, and that global warming is not going to take a break over the next few years. The terms of the bet - which would have an escape clause if either a huge volcanic eruption or a meteor touchdown happened - would be that if the average temperature between 2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or equal to the average temperature between 1994-2004, RealClimate will pay € 2,500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay RealClimate € 2500. The same terms are offered for the 2005-2015 time period using global mean surface temperature data used by the authors in their paper.
As of Monday May 11 at noon (GMT+1), the German climate researchers hadn't yet accepted or rejected the bet, and RealClimate won't fully outline the reasons it believes the predictions won't pan out until that happens. One possible hint: to win the first part of the wager, average global mean surface temperature from now to October 2010 would have to drop 0.1722 degrees. Stay tuned. In the meantime, while you might think it odd that serious scientists start betting real money on others predictions, here's some other examples of climate casino!
Via ::RealClimate
Number of people who have asked me to explain how we could still have a cold winter if global warming is true: 9
Of those, number who understood anything about global warming: 0
Global Cooling yeah right, anyone alive over the past 30 years is witness to global warming and seen it's devastating effects. Deadly fires and drought across California, the entire west, even here in Colorado. We had 60 days in a row of 90 degree temps or more without rain in 2002! I'm not buying the cooling sale, don't want to purchase your cold lies.
If offered personally in the comment section to take that bet. Solar cycle 24 is quieter than anything in hundreds of years and we are about to hit a serious cooling cycle.
And yes, I believe the giant fiery nuclear orb in the sky controls the weather, and I will take your money if you want to test me on it.
**Email if you want to bet
Okay, since this site doesn't pretend to be scientific in any regard, let's instead talk a little bit about simple logic, having to do with weather.
You have to realize the almost infinite variables that have an effect on weather on a perpetual basis. Weather models have to be particularly vague over time, since the inevitable fluctuations cannot be predicted or anticipated with any certainty (beyond a 60 day period). These calculations that the researchers do (which are from pretty well-renowned labs, by the way), are based on models of past years, with algorithms that are meant to interpret old data for an idea of future probability. This is of course, pretty much means that its based on the best mathemetical calculations available.
Ok, with that in mind, the flip side is that it is so general that although you may be able to predict a ten-year trend, you cannot pinpoint from now a 6 month trend in say, 2010, because the variables would be so massive that it would be nearly impossible. So you have to take it as suggestions, or again, a best guess.
So to say a cooling trend, means averaged out it will be slightly cooler than the "average" ten-year trend. But it does not mean its defying any other predcitions, or fulfilling anything either. Weather is affected by so many variables that to try to get even close approximations years out reveals nothing the common person can bank on, or should care about. Sure the earth as a whole will continue on a warming trend for the next 50 years, but keeping all this in mind, to tout or fight the "doom and gloom" of weather helps non one, because our best calculated guesses are only mere averaging.
Global cooling? I'm in Northern CA and in this week alone we've gone from 50 something weather (depending on location) to almost 100 degrees. I don't think that's exactly normal; and it sure doesn't feel like global cooling. At the same time our potential drought is causing serious economic concern. Why don't we get a wager going on whether CA residents will continue to suffer by the economic conditions affected by weather and gas? Or perhaps find solutions to the production of better biofuel sources. I recently saw and posted a video on biofuel produced in hot climates. The fuel was made of POND SCUM! I don't know how developed the idea is, but I'm willing to bet that if it works we won't have to worry about food shortages.