Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a series of bets relating to GHG emissions and climate change. Rather than blogging back-and-forth, I think it is more sensible to discuss the offers on an open forum. So here is my reply. His full original can be seen at:
> Proposed bets for James Annan, regarding IPCC TAR
> I have been having a discussion with James Annan about betting on > climate change. James Annan asked, "So, Mark, will you step in where all > these sceptics fear to tread and bet against the consensus on 20-30 year > temperature changes?"
> Here are my responses:
> a) Don't you mean, "septics?" (See your comment on William Connolley's > blog, "...I have tried to contac(sic) Mark Bahner about his bet, but have > not received a reply and he seems to be doing the same wriggle and > squirm that all the septics do when asked to put their money where > there(sic) mouths are.")
> b) You seem to know-or think you know-what the IPCC "consensus" is. (As > if "consensus" even had any scientific value!) But you have not > identified what you think the IPCC "consensus" is.
There's your first mistake, because I have previously pointed directly (at least twice) to the obviously relevant sentence in the TAR Summary:
> c) If I was personally trying to figure out what the "consensus" was in > the farce known as the IPCC TAR, I'd go to Wigley and Raper's 2001 > article in Science
To put it bluntly, that is your problem, not mine, and this is your second mistake.
> I'm willing to bet against that "consensus," based on satellite > measurements of the temperature in the lower troposphere in 1990 versus > in 2030.
Lower troposphere? Surely you cannot be unaware of the fact that all of the projections, model results and predictions are provided in terms of _surface_ air temperature, (conventionally 2m). Strike three...but I'll keep going.
>The measurements should be based on a three-year average > centered around those years (i.e., satellite measurements for 1989, > 1990, 1991 versus satellite measurements for 2029, 2030, and 2031).
Which satellite measuremments? There are at least 4 interpretations, which give historic trends ranging from 0.09 to 0.24/decade. That is, Spencer and Christy, Mears et al, Vinnikov and Grady, Fu et al.
No doubt you will demand to use whichever analysis gives the coldest result...or perhaps argue that it is all too uncertain. Sounds like you are trying to build in an escape route. Strike 4?
I've already suggested using the _surface_ air temperature analysis (um...to judge the _surface_ air temperature forecast which you dispute) of NASA GISS. If you think this analysis is seriously disputed, then some citations of alternatives would be appreciated. If you are going to wibble about urban heat islands, we could use only the ocean surface data, but that would require some revision of the temperatures in the bet (since the ocean warming will obviously be lower than the land).
> If > the temperature increase in the lower troposphere is more than 0.75 > degrees Celsius, I will pay you $100. If the temperature increase is > between 0.62 and 0.75 degrees Celsius, I will pay you $50. If the > temperature increase is between 0.48 and 0.62 degrees Celsius, you will > pay me $50. If the temperature increase is less than 0.48 degrees > Celsius, you will pay me $100.
Huh? That bet is centred on 0.62C warming in 4 decades. That's more (just) than the IPCC forecast! How is this contradicting the consensus? Why would I want to bet on that? The bet has negative value to anyone who takes the IPCC summmary at face value.
So I reckon that makes 5 mistakes. I'm afraid that is only worth a "could do better", but I sincerely hope you do try, annd I look forward to your revised offer.
If you could predict what _you_ think the temperature change will be by 2030, as measured by surface air measurements, then I could also try to form a mutually acceptable bet rather than simply shooting holes in your rather ill-considered offer.
I do, however, wonder if many of the critics of the IPCC report have actually read it...
> However, I also challenge you to bet on methane atmospheric > concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
Well, these are primarily issues of politics, population growth, economics and technology, none of which is my field, and the IPCC makes no forecasts on these matters. In fact it quite explicitly states that the scenarios do not form any sort of probabilistic prediction. So basically, I have little interest in your challenges here.
However:
> CO2 concentrations: The CO2 atmospheric concentration in 1990 was > approximately 354 ppm. The IPCC TAR projects a 50 percent chance that > the CO2 atmospheric concentration will be more than 438 ppm in 2030. If > the CO2 atmospheric concentration is more than 438 ppm in 2030, I will > give you $25. If the CO2 atmospheric concentration is less than 438 ppm > in 2030, you give me $1. Again, I'm offering you 25-to-1 odds on > something that, if the IPCC TAR was correct, should be even money.
This sounds sufficiently attractive that I will take you up on it, even though I am not primarily interested in predicting CO2 emissions and the IPCC explicitly avoids making such a forecast.
To make it worthwhile, I suggest upping the stakes a bit - how about my $100 v $2500 from you (I'll go substantially higher if you are prepared to), and also I'd like to inflation-proof it by tying the value to the retail price index (I'd suggest the UK RPI, but probably there is a USA equivalent, and I'm not really too fussy about which one we use)? Although gambling debts may be hard to enforce, we should try arranging this in the form of a contract that is binding on our estates.
Better confirm that you will aceept Mauna Loa measurements, and won't pull some random Russian's back-garden observations out of a hat...
James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a >> However, I also challenge you to bet on methane atmospheric >> concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations. >Well, these are primarily issues of politics, population growth, >economics and technology, none of which is my field, and the IPCC makes >no forecasts on these matters. In fact it quite explicitly states that >the scenarios do not form any sort of probabilistic prediction. So >basically, I have little interest in your challenges here.
This is probably a bit unfair, because (apart from the commitment component) T rise scales fairly well to CO2 equivalent, so if you're prepared to bet on T you should be happy with CO2 too.
-W.
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote: > James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a
>>>However, I also challenge you to bet on methane atmospheric >>>concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
>>Well, these are primarily issues of politics, population growth, >>economics and technology, none of which is my field, and the IPCC makes >>no forecasts on these matters. In fact it quite explicitly states that >>the scenarios do not form any sort of probabilistic prediction. So >>basically, I have little interest in your challenges here.
> This is probably a bit unfair, because (apart from the commitment > component) T rise scales fairly well to CO2 equivalent, so if you're > prepared to bet on T you should be happy with CO2 too.
That's a pretty big "apart from" and the CO2 projections are assigned no likelihood in the TAR. I see no reason to assume that averaging them is a reasonable thing to do.
Over the next 30 years, the difference in temperature change between plausible emissions scenarios is very small and dominated by uncertainty in the climate system (which is what I'm trying to bet on). Besides, you snipped the bit where I _accepted_ his bet on CO2 (I have never looked at CH4 and it is very small beer by comparison)!
> James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a
>>> However, I also challenge you to bet on methane atmospheric >>> concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
>>Well, these are primarily issues of politics, population growth, >>economics and technology, none of which is my field, and the IPCC makes >>no forecasts on these matters. In fact it quite explicitly states that >>the scenarios do not form any sort of probabilistic prediction. So >>basically, I have little interest in your challenges here.
> This is probably a bit unfair, because (apart from the commitment > component) T rise scales fairly well to CO2 equivalent, so if you're > prepared to bet on T you should be happy with CO2 too.
Given the inertia of the climate system much of the warming of the next few decades should already be in the pipeline because of our current emissions, so variations in emissions should have a small impact in the short term.
This bet is uncertain since any number of political changes can change the outcome, but since Bahner gives such favorable odds it makes sense for Annan to accept. Bahner may win the bet if he ends up on the losing side of the political issue of CO2 reductions.
> Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a > series of bets relating to GHG emissions and climate change. Rather > than blogging back-and-forth, I think it is more sensible to discuss > the offers on an open forum. So here is my reply. His full original > can be seen at: >>The measurements should be based on a three-year average >> centered around those years (i.e., satellite measurements for 1989, >> 1990, 1991 versus satellite measurements for 2029, 2030, and 2031).
> Which satellite measuremments? There are at least 4 interpretations, > which give historic trends ranging from 0.09 to 0.24/decade. That is, > Spencer and Christy, Mears et al, Vinnikov and Grady, Fu et al.
Given how newer generations of satellites aren't directly compatible with the original MSU such a trend will likely be impossible to derive even if these different authors reconcile their opinions in the intervening years.
James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Besides, you >snipped the bit where I _accepted_ his bet on CO2 (I have never looked >at CH4 and it is very small beer by comparison)!
I confess, I did!
-W.
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
>>Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a >>series of bets relating to GHG emissions and climate change. Rather >>than blogging back-and-forth, I think it is more sensible to discuss >>the offers on an open forum. So here is my reply. His full original >>can be seen at:
>>>The measurements should be based on a three-year average >>>centered around those years (i.e., satellite measurements for 1989, >>>1990, 1991 versus satellite measurements for 2029, 2030, and 2031).
>>Which satellite measuremments? There are at least 4 interpretations, >>which give historic trends ranging from 0.09 to 0.24/decade. That is, >>Spencer and Christy, Mears et al, Vinnikov and Grady, Fu et al.
> Given how newer generations of satellites aren't directly compatible with > the original MSU such a trend will likely be impossible to derive even if > these different authors reconcile their opinions in the intervening years.
Well, I was waiting for him to say "spencer and christy, of course" before pointing out that neither they, nor the satellites they rely on, are likely to be around for that long (as researchers) :-)
So far no reply from him....not worth chasing him up for $25 but I will certainly take that CO2 bet for any stake I can get!
>>I'm willing to bet against that "consensus," based on satellite >>measurements of the temperature in the lower troposphere in 1990 versus >>in 2030.
> Lower troposphere? Surely you cannot be unaware of the fact that all of > the projections, model results and predictions are provided in terms of > _surface_ air temperature, (conventionally 2m). Strike three...but I'll > keep going.
Not necessarily a bad thing, as according to current GCMs the trends should follow one another
>>The measurements should be based on a three-year average >>centered around those years (i.e., satellite measurements for 1989, >>1990, 1991 versus satellite measurements for 2029, 2030, and 2031).
> Which satellite measuremments? There are at least 4 interpretations, > which give historic trends ranging from 0.09 to 0.24/decade. That is, > Spencer and Christy, Mears et al, Vinnikov and Grady, Fu et al.
There, of course, is the rub. Again, given that S&C appear to be creaping up to the others and the others are not far off or even higher than the surface records this is not necessarily a bad thing from JAs POV. More concerning from the POV of making a bet is that the satellite records are moving targets with the algorithm(s) constantly being refined. The algorithm in 2025 is going to be a lot different from today, while the surface temperature records have been relatively stable. Is the bet going to be determined based on some algorithm that exists in 2025 where at least the 1990 data will have been reprocessed, or some application of the 2005 algorithm for the 2025 data which may not exist.
> To make it worthwhile, I suggest upping the stakes a bit - how about my > $100 v $2500 from you (I'll go substantially higher if you are prepared > to), and also I'd like to inflation-proof it by tying the value to the > retail price index (I'd suggest the UK RPI, but probably there is a USA > equivalent, and I'm not really too fussy about which one we use)? > Although gambling debts may be hard to enforce, we should try arranging > this in the form of a contract that is binding on our estates.
CPI (Consumer Price Index, there is also a wholesale price index). If you are betting in dollars, you need a US index
> Better confirm that you will aceept Mauna Loa measurements, and won't > pull some random Russian's back-garden observations out of a hat...
Better make sure you specify either yearly averages or same month. There is a 5-8 ppm seasonal variation.
James Annan writes, "There's your first mistake, because I have previously pointed directly (at least twice) to the obviously relevant sentence in the TAR Summary:.."
And then provides the following quote, "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades".
Yes, James, that was my mistake. I apologize for not being aware of the level of your ignorance. Is this the full quote to which you were referring?
"On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely7 to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario, similar to the corresponding range of projections of the simple model used in Figure 5d."
If so, would you care to explain why you left out the words, "under the IS92a scenario..."? Did you think they were irrelevant? (Hint: They're not.)
I wrote, "c) If I was personally trying to figure out what the "consensus" was in the farce known as the IPCC TAR, I'd go to Wigley and Raper's 2001 article in Science..."
To which you replied, "To put it bluntly, that is your problem, not mine,..."
To put it bluntly, James, how exactly is your further demonstration of ignorance--this time apparently of the implications of the Wigley and Raper paper--***my*** problem, James?
Have you even read the Wigley and Raper paper, James? If so, would you care to summarize what you think it means?
I'm especially curious about what you think about the bottom row--for year 2030--of Table 1. Can you calculate the warming rates represented by the temperature increases in that row? (Or would you like some help on that? Hint: Rate is equal to temperature increase divided by elapsed time.) After you calculate the warming rates, what do you think they mean?
After we cover this very basic material, I'll address your other comments.
James Annan wrote: > Mark Bahner recently wrote an article on his blog challenging me to a > series of bets relating to GHG emissions and climate change. Rather > than blogging back-and-forth, I think it is more sensible to discuss > the offers on an open forum. So here is my reply. His full original can > be seen at:
> > Proposed bets for James Annan, regarding IPCC TAR
> > I have been having a discussion with James Annan about betting on > > climate change. James Annan asked, "So, Mark, will you step in where all > > these sceptics fear to tread and bet against the consensus on 20-30 year > > temperature changes?"
> > Here are my responses:
> > a) Don't you mean, "septics?" (See your comment on William Connolley's > > blog, "...I have tried to contac(sic) Mark Bahner about his bet, but have > > not received a reply and he seems to be doing the same wriggle and > > squirm that all the septics do when asked to put their money where > > there(sic) mouths are.")
> > b) You seem to know-or think you know-what the IPCC "consensus" is. (As > > if "consensus" even had any scientific value!) But you have not > > identified what you think the IPCC "consensus" is.
> There's your first mistake, because I have previously pointed directly > (at least twice) to the obviously relevant sentence in the TAR Summary:
> > c) If I was personally trying to figure out what the "consensus" was in > > the farce known as the IPCC TAR, I'd go to Wigley and Raper's 2001 > > article in Science
> To put it bluntly, that is your problem, not mine, and this is your > second mistake.
> > I'm willing to bet against that "consensus," based on satellite > > measurements of the temperature in the lower troposphere in 1990 versus > > in 2030.
> Lower troposphere? Surely you cannot be unaware of the fact that all of > the projections, model results and predictions are provided in terms of > _surface_ air temperature, (conventionally 2m). Strike three...but I'll > keep going.
> >The measurements should be based on a three-year average > > centered around those years (i.e., satellite measurements for 1989, > > 1990, 1991 versus satellite measurements for 2029, 2030, and 2031).
> Which satellite measuremments? There are at least 4 interpretations, > which give historic trends ranging from 0.09 to 0.24/decade. That is, > Spencer and Christy, Mears et al, Vinnikov and Grady, Fu et al.
> No doubt you will demand to use whichever analysis gives the coldest > result...or perhaps argue that it is all too uncertain. Sounds like you > are trying to build in an escape route. Strike 4?
> I've already suggested using the _surface_ air temperature analysis > (um...to judge the _surface_ air temperature forecast which you > dispute) of NASA GISS. If you think this analysis is seriously > disputed, then some citations of alternatives would be appreciated. If > you are going to wibble about urban heat islands, we could use only the > ocean surface data, but that would require some revision of the > temperatures in the bet (since the ocean warming will obviously be > lower than the land).
> > If > > the temperature increase in the lower troposphere is more than 0.75 > > degrees Celsius, I will pay you $100. If the temperature increase is > > between 0.62 and 0.75 degrees Celsius, I will pay you $50. If the > > temperature increase is between 0.48 and 0.62 degrees Celsius, you will > > pay me $50. If the temperature increase is less than 0.48 degrees > > Celsius, you will pay me $100.
> Huh? That bet is centred on 0.62C warming in 4 decades. That's more > (just) than the IPCC forecast! How is this contradicting the consensus? > Why would I want to bet on that? The bet has negative value to anyone > who takes the IPCC summmary at face value.
> So I reckon that makes 5 mistakes. I'm afraid that is only worth a > "could do better", but I sincerely hope you do try, annd I look forward > to your revised offer.
> If you could predict what _you_ think the temperature change will be by > 2030, as measured by surface air measurements, then I could also try to > form a mutually acceptable bet rather than simply shooting holes in > your rather ill-considered offer.
> I do, however, wonder if many of the critics of the IPCC report have > actually read it...
> > However, I also challenge you to bet on methane atmospheric > > concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
> Well, these are primarily issues of politics, population growth, > economics and technology, none of which is my field, and the IPCC makes > no forecasts on these matters. In fact it quite explicitly states that > the scenarios do not form any sort of probabilistic prediction. So > basically, I have little interest in your challenges here.
> However:
> > CO2 concentrations: The CO2 atmospheric concentration in 1990 was > > approximately 354 ppm. The IPCC TAR projects a 50 percent chance that > > the CO2 atmospheric concentration will be more than 438 ppm in 2030. If > > the CO2 atmospheric concentration is more than 438 ppm in 2030, I will > > give you $25. If the CO2 atmospheric concentration is less than 438 ppm > > in 2030, you give me $1. Again, I'm offering you 25-to-1 odds on > > something that, if the IPCC TAR was correct, should be even money.
> This sounds sufficiently attractive that I will take you up on it, even > though I am not primarily interested in predicting CO2 emissions and > the IPCC explicitly avoids making such a forecast.
> To make it worthwhile, I suggest upping the stakes a bit - how about my > $100 v $2500 from you (I'll go substantially higher if you are prepared > to), and also I'd like to inflation-proof it by tying the value to the > retail price index (I'd suggest the UK RPI, but probably there is a USA > equivalent, and I'm not really too fussy about which one we use)? > Although gambling debts may be hard to enforce, we should try arranging > this in the form of a contract that is binding on our estates.
> Better confirm that you will aceept Mauna Loa measurements, and won't > pull some random Russian's back-garden observations out of a hat...
mark.bah...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > I wrote, "c) If I was personally trying to figure out what the > "consensus" was in the farce known as the IPCC TAR, I'd go to Wigley > and Raper's 2001 article in Science..."
> To which you replied, "To put it bluntly, that is your problem, not > mine,..."
And so it is. You want to bet against Wigley and Raper, then feel free to get in touch with them. I have always been quite specific in referring to the TAR.
> After we cover this very basic material, I'll address your other > comments.
You made a specific offer on CO2: I would like to take you up on it, although as I said, I'd rather increase the stake to a worthwhile level. Your comment above makes it sound like you are getting cold feet already!
>> I wrote, "c) If I was personally trying to figure out what the >> "consensus" was in the farce known as the IPCC TAR, I'd go to Wigley >> and Raper's 2001 article in Science..."
>> To which you replied, "To put it bluntly, that is your problem, not >> mine,..."
> And so it is. You want to bet against Wigley and Raper, then feel free > to get in touch with them. I have always been quite specific in > referring to the TAR.
James, you should focus. It doesn't matter where the numbers come from, just name your temperature range (again) and don't let the issue get clouded!
I want to know why he put the even money at .62 degrees C, does he or doesn't he think the GW crowd are out to lunch?
Mark? Do you think it will get warmer or not? Even odds on .62 higher over 30 yrs seems just like what all the "alarmists" are crying aobut. And why do you have a problem with the surface temperature record?
Gerd Rainer-Weber has made a wager that in this decade global warming will not increase by as much as the lowest IPCC projection. He is offering $5000 or 5000 Euros to any person, NGO or organisation willing to stake a similar amount on the bet. He pays them if the lowest IPCC projection of global warming is at least reached during the present decade. He has posted the wager at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/messages
> Gerd Rainer-Weber has made a wager that in this decade global warming > will not increase by as much as the lowest IPCC projection. He is > offering $5000 or 5000 Euros to any person, NGO or organisation willing > to stake a similar amount on the bet. He pays them if the lowest IPCC > projection of global warming is at least reached during the present > decade. He has posted the wager at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/messages
>>Gerd Rainer-Weber has made a wager that in this decade global warming >>will not increase by as much as the lowest IPCC projection. He is >>offering $5000 or 5000 Euros to any person, NGO or organisation willing >>to stake a similar amount on the bet. He pays them if the lowest IPCC >>projection of global warming is at least reached during the present >>decade. He has posted the wager at >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/messages
> James Annan writes, "There's your first mistake, because I have > previously pointed directly (at least twice) to the obviously relevant > sentence in the TAR Summary:.."
> And then provides the following quote, "anthropogenic warming is > likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next > few decades".
> Yes, James, that was my mistake. I apologize for not being aware of > the level of your ignorance. Is this the full quote to which you were > referring?
Regardless of whether you think this statement represents IPCC:s opinion or not, this is what Annan says he finds to be a likely warming. Please just decide if you think this is too high, and if you are willing to bet that the warming will be considerably lower.
> >>Gerd Rainer-Weber has made a wager that in this decade global warming > >>will not increase by as much as the lowest IPCC projection. He is > >>offering $5000 or 5000 Euros to any person, NGO or organisation willing > >>to stake a similar amount on the bet. He pays them if the lowest IPCC > >>projection of global warming is at least reached during the present > >>decade. He has posted the wager at > >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/messages
> "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C > per decade over the next few decades"
Somthing very odd is going on here. Annan has a new entry at the realclimate blog where he states:
"One obvious starting point would be to look at model predictions and historical data. This is essentially what the IPCC does, eg with its estimate of 0.3+-0.1C/decade for anthropogenically-forced warming over the next 20 years in the absence of substantial mitigation of emissions (at the "likely" level, ie 66%-90% probability)." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161#more-161
> Regardless of whether you think this statement represents IPCC:s opinion or > not, this is what Annan says he finds to be a likely warming. Please just > decide if you think this is too high, and if you are willing to bet that > the warming will be considerably lower.
Bahner will huff and puff and handwave for days unless you guys stop parsing and snipping and hammer home the terms of the bet.
Don't fall for his blustering cr*p. Don't rise to any bait. Don't answer any phrases he writes except the ones specifically regarding the terms of the bet.
Stop trying to make little points about things he says [which are designed to dissemble and distract] and insist on nailing him down on his terms. Take the CO2 bet and get him nailed on the temps.
Don't do anything else but this, else this process will take weeks. You will then give up in frustration, and Bahner will claim you guys won't take him up on his bets.
Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se> wrote: >"James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote in >news:1118645520.681871.253040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> There's your first mistake, because I have previously pointed directly >> (at least twice) to the obviously relevant sentence in the TAR >> Summary:
>> "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C >> per decade over the next few decades" >Somthing very odd is going on here. Annan has a new entry at the >realclimate blog where he states: >"One obvious starting point would be to look at model predictions and >historical data. This is essentially what the IPCC does, eg with its >estimate of 0.3+-0.1C/decade for anthropogenically-forced warming over the >next 20 years in the absence of substantial mitigation of emissions (at the >"likely" level, ie 66%-90% probability)." >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161#more-161
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Dano wrote: > Stop trying to make little points about things he says [which are > designed to dissemble and distract] and insist on nailing him down on > his terms. Take the CO2 bet and get him nailed on the temps.
I agree. I have said I will take his CO2 bet, and am waiting to see if he will agree to increasing the stake to a worthwhile level.
If he makes any sensible proposals on temperatures, I will certainly consider them. I've already stated my expectation of 0.15/decade over the next 20-30 years.
>>"anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2ｰC >>per decade over the next few decades"
> Somthing very odd is going on here. Annan has a new entry at the > realclimate blog where he states:
> "One obvious starting point would be to look at model predictions and > historical data. This is essentially what the IPCC does, eg with its > estimate of 0.3+-0.1C/decade for anthropogenically-forced warming over the > next 20 years in the absence of substantial mitigation of emissions (at the > "likely" level, ie 66%-90% probability)." > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161#more-161
Sorry, that was a typo - I was caught between writing 0.15+-0.05/decade
and 0.3+-0.1 over 20 years...
I see that Chip Knappenburger has popped up with a bet offer with a mid-market rate of...0.325/decade! And a big "dead spot" on top of that.
Bluster and point-scoring apart, I hope that all innocent bystanders have noticed how effectively the betting meme has worked at actually bringing people together towards a consensus. So far, no-one has come anywhere near actually disagreeing with the IPCC.
|
