James Annan's bet is taken

James Annan finally has takers for his bet on global warming. The news was published in Nature, but for those without a subscription, here is the gist of it:

James Annan, who is based at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, has agreed a US$10,000 bet with Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, two solar physicists who argue that global temperatures are driven by changes in the Sun's activity and will fall over the next decade. The bet, which both sides say they are willing to formalize in a legal document, came after other climate sceptics refused to wager money.

Annan detailed their refusals here. The Nature article continues:

Annan's search ended with Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, who are based at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, Russia. They say that global surface air temperatures closely correlate with the size and number of sunspots. Sunspot levels follow regular patterns and the Sun is expected to be in a less active phase over the next few decades, leading Mashnich and Bashkirtsev to predict a drop in temperature.

Both sides have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature between 1998 and 2003 with that between 2012 and 2017, as defined by the records of the US National Climatic Data Center. If the temperature drops, Annan will pay Mashnich and Bashkirtsev $10,000 in 2018, with the same sum going the other way if the temperature rises.

Piers Corbyn, head of Weather Action, a private meteorological service based in London, told Nature he would like to enter into a similar bet. Corbyn's theory, the details of which he has not revealed, predicts that changes in solar activity will cause "considerable world cooling" by 2040. Annan challenged him to a bet in May, but Corbyn says he did not receive the e-mail. "I'm happy to bet loads of money," he says.

More like this


13 years is a long time to shiver :)

Translation of the previous post: tedious innane ideological rants from rightwingers too gutless to post their views here can be found at debunkers.org.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 20 Aug 2005 #permalink

Re #5 It seems to me that simply dismissing any opinion on broad-brush left-right political distinctions is bound to be in error. I wonder if I Gould thinks that web-sites criticism of ID is also ideological rant?

But on a related topic, I believe no one has yet taken up the Junk Science 'bet' regarding climate models. I assume when one is submitted it'll be reported here.

Is there a link for that Junk Science 'bet'?

Anyone want to meaningfully discuss the magnitude of the solar sunspot cycle/solar wind-ejections/ cosmic ray flux/geomagnetic interaction components implied by the Russian bet and maybe Corbyn's participation?

This seems much more interesting - a direct confrontation of advanced degree researchers on GW predictions, especially since many skeptics might grant some GW, just not AGW Disaster. And the Russians' time frame is interesting: ~half a 22yr solar cycle rather than centuries. Surely some of you are getting a little bored with the "follies", "hate mail", and "cherry picking" is/did too - is/did not.

Come on. Let's see if we can post more *productive* comments than "follies"+"hate mail" spews out combined. Let's see some *content*.

Re #4: Based on the title, tone and other content of the site I was looking forward to finding a post on the recent Spencer/Christy come-down... but there was no mention of it whatsoever, notwithstanding some references in older posts that took the old UAH results as a given. Selective debunking? I'm shocked, shocked.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 25 Aug 2005 #permalink