Slashdot Mirror
Climatologists Wager on Global Warming
coflow writes "The Guardian is carrying a story about a $10,000 bet that a pair of Russian scientists have entered with British climate expert James Annan. According to the article, the Russians believe the world will be cooler in 10 years. "If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.""
"To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017"
/., not like anyone would listen anyway...
I'd say to RTFA next time, but this is
Scientists who stand firm on the belief that humans are causing global warming, have been involved in several bet-challenges with skeptics. Here's how two of them panned out:
"Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.
No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms."- In other words, Lindzen made it so it wasn't a fair bet. He poisoned the wager.
"In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks."- In other words, Monbiot flat out chickened out.
The thing is, what happens if (by a miracle) enough nations enact policies that cause lower greenhouse gas emissions and global warming stops? Then who wins?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
This type of "betting" has been going on for a while now at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Weather futures lets companies and traders buy and sell the risk of high or low temperatures For example a utility company might fear that it will incur high costs if the summer weather is too hot and a softdrink maker might fear that the summer weather will be too cold. These parties can agree to trade a weather future contract that profits the utility if the weather is hot (offsetting the extras costs) and pays the drink maker if the weather is cold (offseting the lost sales). Both sides reduce their own risks. Agriculture and energy traders can also use weather futures to hedge or correct for weather-related price changes in commodities to profit from non-weather-related effects.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
What an obscure and insightful reference. Great post.
An interesting quote from the wikipedia article you cited:
"[Simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker." [4]
"To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017."
I believe the reason for the extra three years is so that the data from 2012-2017 can be collected and processed, thus giving an "average" temperature for 2015...at least, that's what TFA seems to say.
I know, I know, no need to read TFA when you can make a snappy remark for free +1 Funny points but look like an idiot cause you didn't read the article you are trying to poke fun at.
"So, what's your plausible alternative warming mechanism,"
A. Sun (I know it's a crackpot theory, but some people actually do think the sun has something to do with Earths Climate, and the Suns output does vary)
B. Water vapor (Much greater greenhouse gas than either Methane or CO2, also dictated by the laws of Physics, also increasing over time through natural means)
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
D. Loss of cloud cover
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses (Volcanoes, deepwater CO2 and Methane out-gassing)
Do you honestly think that's mans carbon emissions are the ONLY thing that effects climate. Do you think that the earth had no climate variations before man?
Seems odd but here is why. The ocean currents carry water from the Polar regions to the Tropics. The reason Northern latitudes are able to sustain large populations is because of the moderating affect of the ocean. If the Polar latitudes warm up suffciently all the ice melts and the process that was sending heavy dense water down to the tropics is disrupted and the Polar regions get really cold and and Ice Age comes along. I don't think there is rational person that doesn't believe we are modifying the environment but this process has happened over and over through history. The Sun is in a very active state and has been pumping out a lot of heat at the same time so I think the chance of this happening isn't so remote. In the 1600-1800s there was a pronounced cooling in Northern Europe and it may be on the way again once the Planet heats up enough to start the cycle all over again. The Earth is very dynamic and climate change is inevitable. Evidence of vineyards in England has been found but you won't be growing any grapes there today!
Here's a study that says that oil and gas will run out too fast and prevent any type of doomsday global warming. Actually, it's not the fact that oil will run out, it's the fact that oil and gas will peak and so we won't be able consume them at a fast enough rate.
That is of course if we don't replace the depleted oil with coal, which may be a possibility. But even still, it seems as if there are enough signs of global warming already and the oceans will be releasing so much CO2 that even if we stop using fossil fuels today there will still be net CO2 emissions.
Which in turn causes global cooling. When the earth warms up the poles melt. the water floods the earths currents. The currents no longer bring warm water throughout the world. Global cooling starts.
Why do people keep saying things like this? There are only 2 countries in the UN that refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol: the US and Australia.
Yes, the the protocol imposes different targets on different countries, but this is as you'd expect. For example, you would never expect India, which puts out one-fifth of the CO2 of the US despite having 3.6 times the population, to cut its emissions by the same percentage. Ditto China, which puts out 40% less CO2 than the US, but has 4.4 times more people. And Brazil! Brazil has 62% of the US's population, and 5% of the CO2 emissions. Look for yourself.
You could more plausibly argue the opposite: that every country should be allowed to emit, say, 20 tons of CO2 per capita. That sounds fair. But that would mean allowing massive increases by every undeveloped country, while imposing cuts on the US. Because developed countries are responsible for many times more per-capita emissions than undeveloped ones.
The Kyoto Protocol targets aren't especially difficult anyway. The US target was a 7% decrease over 20 years. That's 0.35% p.a. And less than the reduction target accepted by the European Union (8%). The idea, obviously, is not to make countries shut down important industries, but to encourage the use of cleaner technologies where they are appropriate. To begin taking steps in the right direction.
But Republicans apparently believe that the environment is nothing more than an infinitely exploitable resource, so while 153 countries do their part, the world's #1 greenhouse gas polluter continues to belch out 25% of the world's CO2.
I should buy some cement.
While there are some isues with that graph, lets not examine those for a moment. Lets look at some of that data. A smaller portion of the whole.
If you will look at the date of ~1940 until ~1975. You will not something. The temperature during that time actually drops from a high in the late 30s until approximately the Oil Crisis of the 70s.
To give some context to this time. This period starts right about the time Hitler was invading Poland, and the entry of the world into WWII. During the beginning of this period, much of the world, including the US, was still agrarian. Few people owned cars, even fewer had ever ridden on an airplane. This is shortly after the rural electricification program ended, prior to this there were many people in the US who didn't have electricity or indoor toilets (In rural areas). As we entered WWII industry the world over soared, this was a period of the greatest increase in industrial output in all of Human history, dwarfing anything we have now. This continued throughout WWII, and then after (How are you going to keep them on the farm after they've seen gay Parie). It was during this time that two cars per household became common. People that had not flown on a plane were in the minority, not just here, but the world over. More importantly this wasn't the "efficient" and "clean" industry of today, recall the muscle cars of the 60's. Then energy efficiency wasn't even thought of. More importantly they didn't have the materials or technology to make efficient boilers or engines like we have today. It was during this period that we had the largest increase of greenhouse gasses.
And it was also during this time that the global climate dropped in temperature, enough so that Newsweek published the concerns of scientists that People were causing the problem of Global Cooling. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/.
As to the graph. This is the surface temperature record. One of the serious weakness of AGW (that is often glossed over) is that based on "Greenhouse theory" The atmosphere warms, warming the surface. What we see from direct measurement is that the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, precluding that greenhouse warming is causing the surface temperature increase, and that a large portion of the heat increase can be attributed to larger land development, and the closeness of the sensors to developed areas, and less in rural, or in wilderness. And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures.
If you want to read a great book based on exactly that premise, read Fallen Angles. It's an easy read and funny. SF Fandom saves the world!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Here is the real list of reasons that Bush didn't enter into Kyoto.
. stm
Enron $1.8m
Exxon $1.2m
Koch Industries $970,000
Southern $900,000
BP Amoco $800,000
El Paso Energy $787,000
Chevron Oil Corp $780,000
Reliant Energy $642,000
Texas Utilities $635,000
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1336960
A poster to the extropy-chat mailing list pointed out that James Annan also created a global warming claim on the Foresight Exchange that people can bid on:
3 0
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=GW20
If I'm reading the current bid correctly, global average temperatures are predicted to rise 0.72 degrees celsius by 2032.
There's also a Nature news item covering this.
There's plenty of other wagers similar to this one on longbets.org, except the loser pays money to a charity instead of to the winner.
A few examples:
* A $20,000 bet between Mitchell Kapor (founder of Lotus) and Ray Kurzweil on whether or not the Turing Test will be passed by 2029
* A $10,000 bet between Esther Dyson and Bill Campbell on whether or not Russia will be the world leader in software development by 2012
* A $2,000 bet on whether or not someone alive in the year 2000 will still be alive in 2150
* A $2,000 bet between Craig Mundie (Microsoft CTO) and Eric Schmit (Google CEO) on whether or not commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless airplanes by 2030
How funny. I have multiple degrees all in science(Microbio/genetic engineering and Computer Science). I have worked at C.D.C., IBM Watson, Bell Labs, and US West AT, all in research positions.
Oh, on a side note, I have been a registered libertarian since 1994 (as well as voted that way except for the last election), and yet, I would never refer to CATO for science.
As to your believing in the scientific method, I seriously doubt that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.