Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Contrarians Lose Big Betting Against Global Warming (theguardian.com)
Layzej writes: Two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation academic advisory board have each lost [roughly $1,320 (1,000 British Pound)] betting that 2015 would not be warmer than 2008. The Guardian reports: "Between 2008 and 2015 there would be more than 0.1C of human-caused global warming, so for 2015 to be cooler would have required a huge La Nina event, or big volcanic eruption, or perhaps the contrarians were banking on human-caused global warming being wrong. Whatever their reasoning, it was a foolish bet to make. 2015 was a record-breaking hot year, about 0.32C hotter than 2008. It wasn't even close." The winner of the bet, economist Chris Hope, also discussed the possibility of implementing climate betting markets, and noted: "they could offer a financial incentive for people who disagree about the likelihood of climate change to carefully assess the risks, instead of just shouting their disagreement across the void. If we do nothing, all the signs are that dangerous climate change is one of the safest bets around."
But even 2011 (a strong La Nina, thus the contrary of an El Nino) was hotter than 2008.
Location is precise. Climates apply to regions. Global climate applies to the entire world, and involves net energy absorbed.
His bits about the Pentagon crash being entirely faked with no aircraft involved and a building being deliberately blown up (instead of being burnt down due to thousands of gallons of fuel splashing about) will especially enlighten where he is coming from.
He used his HR granted title of "engineer" to a leading hand in SOFTWARE with no project to lead and no subordinates as "proof" that he knew about civil engineering and that steel doesn't get soft in fires.
His lines above such as the following make perfect sense in that context:
He's pushing a very strange agenda with no reference to reality.
This is incorrect
Granted, you didn't specify wat exactly do you mean by 'latest' here, the PALEONSENS study ('Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity', from Nature, link can be found in the article) is from 2012. If you have some newer peer reviewed research showing these types of results are somehow false, please link them and don't just state these things as if they're facts.
This is incorrect
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Very well.
- The climate change proponents ask for a lot. They state they want hundreds of billions of dollars, although it is not clear what for. They leave unstated that the only way humanity can continue to live at its current level of development, is to either develop a source of energy that is as of yet still science fiction (fusion), or to vastly reduce the number of humans on the planet, or to vastly reduce the energy usage per human - i.e. return to the lifestyle of the 19th century.
- There is virtually no investment of any kind in fusion research. If it were tackled like the Manhattan program or the moon landing we could have workable fusion in a decade, but fusion research remains at minimal funding levels and remains forever on the far horizon. Of the alternatives, fission is voted down on account of being "too scary", and renewables remain marginal and unreliable. Again, there is no serious investment: governments hand out a bit of subsidy and hope for the best.
- Governments are also not showing much interest in other possible ways of reducing climate change. Are American cities being remodelled with a focus on less driving? Has the EU stopped its wasteful (and easily eliminated) trekking back and forth to Strassburg? Is _anything_ being done to stop the massive overpopulation of the planet? No - and in fact governments (at least in Europe) _want_ more people, terrified as they are of their populations shrinking. The only answer government seems to have is to raise taxes. That is suspiciously convenient.
- "The science" is actually a mass of utterly impenetrable papers - tens of thousands of them, all refering to each other, and usually without complete data sets. Almost no one can read and understand them all. For interpretation we therefore rely on gate keepers, who reduce those trillions of data points to a single sound byte. We have to rely on the judgement of a handful of completely unknown people, for choices that will completely change our planet and our way of life. These people literally have the power to shape the world in their image, and we have no idea what agenda they might have.
So there you have it. The people with the power to change things do not seem to give a fuck, and the only thing they are interested in is reducing the rest of humanity to a standard of living last seen before electricity became a thing. Please do excuse me for being sceptical...
Skeptical Science is a propaganda website promoting a political agenda. I wish people would stop citing it. They look worse than the idiots citing Red State.
Climate, while much simpler than weather, is still rather more complicated than school grades.
So 100% accurate ? No. But not 50% either - more in the 95%+ range. That's also not an entirely true assessment because you're measuring it the wrong way. Climate models are written by experts who are aware they can't factor in everything, and that some things are still being worked on, so they don't give you an exact temperature - they give you a range within which the outcome is likely to lie and, if you take the average over the period predicted for, they overwhelmingly do lie in those averages.
The one major discrepency is IPCC reports, there are several decades where the average warming was significantly higher than IPCC models predicted. The reason for this is that the IPCC is particularly conservative in their estimates, fear of being called alarmists have led to the IPCC only publishing the bottom end of the likely range and also excluding anything they don't have extremely high confidence in (far higher than any other science would need for a minor variable in a big set with limited influence) - as a result they tend to to somewhat under-predict warming.
The lesson from that is that IPCC reports should be read as an absolute best-case scenario, reading the papers they are based on - the upper limit worst-case scenarios should be considered as well and we can generally expect reality to lie somewhere in the middle between those.,
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Be the background and education of the founder what they may, the point is the arguments made by OP are not supported by peer reviewed science. That is, the veracity of the studies and results which point to OP being wrong - are not dependent on the credentials of whoever founded the blog because he has had no part in said studies. He claimed UAH satellites show the stratosphere is not warming, and I pointed out that UAH itself has explicitly said this is not the case. here's the link to the paper itself.
So, if the articles quoted and mentioned which refute OPs claims are not accurate, I ask you and other to link to peer reviewed papers showing that to be the case, because pointing out that whoever started the blog isn't very good at math has absolutely no relevance to the veracity of the actual scientific papers mentioned.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I checked out the second article and followed the sources. The root source was http://ufosightingshotspot.blo.... What a crock.
And from the first article you linked to: "one scientist's controversial theory" That says it all. If it had merit, other scientists would follow up.
The people who SHOULD be embarassed are the ones yelling "hoax" and screaming "government grants" and "government conspiracy", while ignoring the largest and biggest financial interests, oil and gas. Unfortunately, in a country where Donald Trump can be a presidential contender, who knows. When the denial finally ends, they'll probably just blame Obama like they do for everything else.