Mark Bahner's climate bet offer
James Annan
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:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/06/proposed_bets_f.html
My comments are interleaved:
> 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:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
"anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C
per decade over the next few decades"
[Reference to this is on my blog at
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/reason-betting-on-climate-change-its.html
and also mentioned at
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/predicting-climate-change-2.html)
> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_record
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...
Look forward to hearing your further commments,
James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
w...@bas.ac.uk
>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!
James Annan
> James Annan <still_th...@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)!
Thomas Palm
> James Annan <still_th...@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.
Thomas Palm
news:1118645520.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> 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.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>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!
James Annan
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!
Joshua Halpern
SNIP....
>>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.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
SNIP....
>
> 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.
>
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.
> Look forward to hearing your further commments,
josh halpern
mark....@sbcglobal.net
previously pointed directly (at least twice) to the obviously relevant
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.
Sincerely,
Mark
P.S. I assume you're not a member of the IPCC?
Joshua Halpern
SNIP....
> Mark
>
> P.S. I assume you're not a member of the IPCC?
>
>
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
josh halpern
mark....@sbcglobal.net
contributing authors to the IPCC TAR.
Joshua Halpern
> Yes, pardon me. I meant one of the 450 lead authors or 800
> contributing authors to the IPCC TAR.
>
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/688.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/452.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/203.htm
But, then again, the TAR is so yesterday.
josh halpern
James Annan
mark....@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!
Coby Beck
news:1118713169.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> mark....@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.
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?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Athiest 4 Bush
I can't stand to see a man so desparate.
Have you tried this guy yet?
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
You can place a bet on this:
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/
You could invest in 'ecomagination' GE.
Or one of those feel good bat killer wind farms.
Good luck.
--
When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?
James Annan
Athiest 4 Bush wrote:
> Dood:
>
>
> I can't stand to see a man so desparate.
>
> Have you tried this guy yet?
>
> 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
>
Can you give a better reference than this?
James
Athiest 4 Bush
I picked it up here:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D36E.htm
>
> James
Thomas Palm
news:1118708136.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> 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.
James Annan
Athiest 4 Bush wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
> >
> > Athiest 4 Bush wrote:
> >
> >>Dood:
> >>
> >>
> >>I can't stand to see a man so desparate.
> >>
> >>Have you tried this guy yet?
> >>
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
> > Can you give a better reference than this?
>
> I picked it up here:
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D36E.htm
>
Shame. Didn't realise this was an old offer. I might still drop him an
email.
James
Thomas Palm
> There's your first mistake, because I have previously pointed directly
> (at least twice) to the obviously relevant sentence in the TAR
> Summary:
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
>
> "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
Dano
> mark....@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> news:1118708136.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> 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.
That is what will happen, mark my words.
HTH,
D
w...@bas.ac.uk
James Annan
> 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.
James Annan
> "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1118645520.6...@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:
>>
>>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
>>
>>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.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>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.
It looks like Bahner is trying to weasel out by only accepting offers
from IPCC authors. But RP has apologised for "mischaracterising" the
state of play:
-W.
James Annan
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> It looks like Bahner is trying to weasel out by only accepting offers
> from IPCC authors.
Oh no! Mark, please tell me it isn't so!
> But RP has apologised for "mischaracterising" the
> state of play:
>
> http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000462betting_on_climate.html#comments
No comment...
mark....@sbcglobal.net
degrees C, does he or doesn't he think the GW crowd are out to lunch?"
The short answer is that the people who wrote the IPCC TAR projections
lied. But they were very clever liars, and made their lies more and
more outrageous the further they got out in time.
Coby asks, "Do you think it will get warmer or not?"
My prediction for lower tropospheric temperature in 2100 relative to
1990 is a 50 percent chance of warming of 1.2 degrees Celsius, and a 90
percent chance that the warming will be between 0 and 2.5 degrees
Celsius.
Here are my temperature projections, versus what's in the IPCC TAR (as
analyzed by Wigley and Raper...the Wigley and Raper values are in
yellow, and my eyeball estimates based on the Wigley and Raper values
are in white):
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/temperature_pro.html
Note: I bumped up my predictions very slightly a little bit later:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/prujections_ipc.html
"Even odds on .62 higher over 30 yrs seems just like what all the
"alarmists" are crying aobut."
That 0.62 degrees was from 1990 to 2030 (40 years). But like I said,
the IPCC TAR lies got bigger and bigger the further out they got in
time. (It didn't make sense to lie too outrageously too close to the
present.)
"And why do you have a problem with the surface temperature record?"
The main reason is that it's not the appropriate parameter for
determing warming from greenhouse gases. Surface changes in albedo
change the temperature at the surface...but they don't change the
temperature throughout the lower troposphere.
Coby Beck
news:1118886021....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Coby Beck asks, "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?"
>
> The short answer is that the people who wrote the IPCC TAR projections
> lied. But they were very clever liars, and made their lies more and
> more outrageous the further they got out in time.
This is really an extraordinary claim. I note that you did not say they
exagerated, or were mistaken but said lied and indeed called them "clever
liars". I would also note that the "cleverness" of making the lying
projections far into the future also applies to accusations of lying
projections.
Can you please provide some examples of lies in the report along with enough
of an explanation to see how it is a lie? I very much like to know when I
am being lied to and have thus far had no reason to be uncomfortable taking
the IPCC report in good faith and with a great degree of confidence in the
science it presents. I'm not asking you to write a novel, but simply saying
X is a lie is not sufficient, I would appreciate some help to see it myself.
I'm happy to just follow links you might provide also.
> Coby asks, "Do you think it will get warmer or not?"
>
> My prediction for lower tropospheric temperature in 2100 relative to
> 1990 is a 50 percent chance of warming of 1.2 degrees Celsius, and a 90
> percent chance that the warming will be between 0 and 2.5 degrees
> Celsius.
>
> Here are my temperature projections, versus what's in the IPCC TAR (as
> analyzed by Wigley and Raper...the Wigley and Raper values are in
> yellow, and my eyeball estimates based on the Wigley and Raper values
> are in white):
>
> http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/temperature_pro.html
>
> Note: I bumped up my predictions very slightly a little bit later:
>
> http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/prujections_ipc.html
Ok, if I am reading you right, it would seem that you don't disagree that
much with the current understanding of climate science. Your beef is mostly
with projections of GHG level rises, right? All I can say there is that
predicting that is not a matter for science, more a matter for a psychic.
Also I note that it is something that is in fact in our (human) control.
I don't think that the IPCC assigned probablity to GHG emmisions
projections, did they?
> "Even odds on .62 higher over 30 yrs seems just like what all the
> "alarmists" are crying aobut."
>
> That 0.62 degrees was from 1990 to 2030 (40 years). But like I said,
> the IPCC TAR lies got bigger and bigger the further out they got in
> time. (It didn't make sense to lie too outrageously too close to the
> present.)
I must also guess from what you are saying that you don't think that a jump
of between 1.2 and 2.5 C is any cause for worry.
> "And why do you have a problem with the surface temperature record?"
>
> The main reason is that it's not the appropriate parameter for
> determing warming from greenhouse gases. Surface changes in albedo
> change the temperature at the surface...but they don't change the
> temperature throughout the lower troposphere.
Then why are surface readings rising so clearly on a global basis? My
understanding of the changes in albedo is that the biggest impact is from
ice coverage changes. Also, if this were true I would expect a marked
difference between changes over land versus changes over sea. According to
the IPCC TAR the net impact of albedo forcing has been negative, not
positive. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/243.htm
What is your basis for this belief? I am also curious as to why you add the
qualification "from greenhouse gases" to "determining warming". Does it
matter exactly which portion of the warming is due to what? Don't we just
want to know what the climate will be like where we and most of the other
creatures live (at the surface)?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>This is really an extraordinary claim. I note that you did not say they
>exagerated, or were mistaken but said lied and indeed called them "clever
>liars".
Ah, you see, thats we're they're so very very cunning: their lies are so
clever that they are the truth.
