Skip to content

Decadal Global Temperature Bet

January 28, 2016

By Paul Homewood   




Readers may recall the decadal global temperature bet made back in 2011. This was the background:


A global decadal temperature bet was made in early 2011.

At the time the bet was made (early 2011) December 2010 marked the end of the previous ten year period. January 2011 marked the beginning of the next decade. The transition stimulated the formation of a decadal global climate bet.

And so the coolists (led by Pierre Gosselin – NoTricksZone) and the warmists (led by Rob Honeycutt – Skeptical Science) are having a bet. They agreed to use a composite of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) lower troposphere temperature – close to the earth’s surface. They agreed that the result would be accepted without quibbling, as it was agreed between them that those series are the best that we’ve got. The average of the two series will decide the bet!


Kiwi Thinker has been keeping tabs on progress, and reports that, despite being in the middle of a near record El Nino, the warmists are still losing.




His full report is here.


SkS will be praying that we don’t get another La Nina like 1999/2000!





Don’t you find it rather curious that SkS would bet on satellite temperatures, the same ones they are now trying to rubbish as inaccurate and meaningless?

  1. Bloke down the pub permalink
    January 28, 2016 12:12 pm

    So when they agreed the result would be accepted with no quibbling, that didn’t stop them from getting their quibbling in before the result is announced?

  2. January 28, 2016 1:59 pm

    This El Nino has not produced the massive rise in temperature expected.

    And when I analysed the global temperature trend – the only serious contender against the hypothesis of “100% random natural variation” was a ~60 year cycle which would have peaked around 2010. In addition sun spots are low – and whilst the scale may be disputed, low sunspots would suggest lower temperatures.

    So, there are good reasons to believe the lack of predicted warming from the El Nino was because this warming was nullified by an underlying cooling trend. If so, when the El Nino warming comes to an end and turns into cooling, we may see far more cooling than expected.

    So assuming the El Nino is at an end – if we start seeing significant cooling before the summer it will be a very good indicator that we have entered a period of long term cooling.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      January 28, 2016 7:30 pm

      The configuration of the Jetstream over the winter has seen an awful lot of heat in the form of North Atlantic Storms head into the Arctic. There has also been a contribution from the Pacific. All this heat has been radiated into space, whilst displacing cold to the south. See reports of cold and snow in Vietnamh, Cambodia, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and unusual amounts of snow in Turkey, Moscow, China and Syria.

      The heat radiated into space has now gone for ever, the after effects of the snow and cold will take a bit longer to recover from.

  3. Don B permalink
    January 28, 2016 2:27 pm

    The Warmists had drunk so much kool-aid that they were certain they would prevail, no matter what temperature sets were used.

    Full Disclosure – I participated on the not-so-much-warming side of the bet, promising to give some money to a charity if we lost.

  4. catweazle666 permalink
    January 28, 2016 5:15 pm

    “Don’t you find it rather curious that SkS would bet on satellite temperatures, the same ones they are now trying to rubbish as inaccurate and meaningless?”

    That was before it became painfully evident that the only way the AGW deception could be kept alive was by strenuous efforts by Gavin, Victor, Stephen, Kevin et al to Mannipulate the surface temperature databases.

  5. Randy Hall permalink
    January 28, 2016 9:25 pm

    I got this comment from University of Melbourn Facebook forum from a member of the SkS web page when mentioning the bet. “Neither did I so I checked with Rob and the post is misrepresenting (or at the very least close to doing so) the bet as being between NTZ and SkS when it’s “just” a personal one between him and Pierre (plus a few individuals on both “sides”). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Skeptical Science. In addition, what Kiwithinker is doing is comparing 5 years against 5 years, with the remaining 5 years of the previous decade already plotted out. That’s hardly a reasonable way to do it since they are not betting about 5 years.”

    • January 28, 2016 9:34 pm


    • January 29, 2016 4:01 am

      Hi Randy, Thanks for the comment. Well I did clearly say that we’re at the half way mark. So yes, I am comparing the first 5 years of each decade, so far. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that. Have you got another idea on how you would describe progress to date? Robin (Kiwithinker)

  6. Randy Hall permalink
    January 29, 2016 4:25 pm

    This is the link if you want to take a look. I depend on your information, and Paul Homewood has been invaluable in the quest to cure this world of alarmist rhetoric.

    • January 29, 2016 6:22 pm

      Thanks for the link. i wonder if they let me join their group, lol.

      • Randy Hall permalink
        January 29, 2016 6:53 pm

        I’m sure they will. Even SkS will let you join and comment. They feel they have all the answers.

      • Randy Hall permalink
        January 29, 2016 6:55 pm

        I’d also appreciate the help.

      • January 30, 2016 7:03 am

        Ok. I’ve joined the group. Might be fun to comment there now and then.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: