Here are the Emission per capita (t) rankings from Wikipedia. I wonder what the UK and France are doing so right?
Australia 17.3
Saudi Arabia 16.8
United States 16.5
Australia 17.3
Saudi Arabia 16.8
United States 16.5
Canada 15.9
Russia 12.4
South Korea 12.3
Japan 10.1
Germany 9.3
Iran 7.9
Poland 7.8
China 7.6
South Africa 7.4
European Union 6.7
United Kingdom 6.5
Italy 5.5
World 5.0
France 5.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Slashdot wants more characters per line before it will post my comment. Maybe adding a very long line to the end would help? Not sure why this is needed. This seems to be working. I wonder how many words per line we need? 11.6 is not sufficient. Keep trying. This is nutty. 12.5 still not enough. Maybe copying the immortal words of Dr. Seuss I could boost my character count: You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself in any direction you choose. You're on your own, and you know what you know. And you are the guy who'll decide where to go.
I get your point, but some further perspective is warranted. The paper explores three methods. One of those is model based but two are observation based. We can hope for the best, but we are heading into uncertain territory and I believe it is good for someone to express the extent of the issue we may be facing. Many different paths are discussed in the paper and it is worth reviewing all of them - not just the most severe. At this point though we should expect the unexpected. For instance no one had anticipated this: https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
It is scary to think that a portion of the population believes that higher education belongs to the left. I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
Matt Ridley is certainly optimistic, but I'm not entirely sure it's rational. His optimism allowed him to ignore the impending financial disaster that lead to the failure of his bank. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... . Is it possible his pollyannaism (and possibly his own coal interests) are making him blind to the costs of global warming?
As you say, it is a complicated subject. If you trust one just one source you would need to know that they were providing a complete picture.
It's useful to be aware of the worst case. As Dr Alley says, large and rapid changes are possible. We would rather not stumble blindly forward. We should be aware of the most likely scenarios, but also the full range of outcomes.
Unfortunately the consequences don't stop compounding. Certainly we have committed ourselves to further warming at this point even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today. The system will take time to reach its new warmer equilibrium. That means we may already have committed to exceed the 2 Celsius limit that we are trying to avoid. This is especially likely considering last month's global mean temperature anomaly was already 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
It's worth noting that this is just one paper, and some reservations about this paper have been expressed by peers:
Michael Mann, a Penn State university climate scientist familiar with the original study, commented, “Near as I can tell, the issues that caused me concern originally still remain in the revised manuscript. Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem unphysically large, and the ocean component of their model doesn’t resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward. That makes northern hemisphere temperatures in their study too sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning ocean circulation,” the scientific name for the ocean circulation in the Atlantic that, the study suggests, could shut down.
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible, and it raises important research questions as to what those changes might mean if they were to occur. But, the paper does not include enough ice-sheet physics to tell us how much how rapidly is how likely.
The NOAA adjustments have REDUCED the warming trend evident in the raw data. Here's a comparison of the two: https://criticalangleblog.file....
Here's the NASA land based measurements compared to the satellite temperature reconstruction by skeptics Spencer and Christy: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
The only problem with that theory is that solar output and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the methane that let me call this one correctly. It is also not a surprise to anyone reading science sources rather than conspiracy blogs. I am not privy to some arcane knowledge. NASA, NOAA, and the MET Office all reported on this at the end of 2015.
P.S. I don't take Spencer seriously. He's a "skeptic" who doesn't believe in global warming because "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good thing this is just a gentleman's bet because as you said: "I seem to have a difficult time collecting especially when the bet points out someone's stupidity, or they at least perceive it as stupidity because they drank the cool aid and believed someone else. Like someone betting that 2016 will be as hot or hotter than 2015. That's a stupid bet."
Satellite altimeter radar measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellites have been measuring sea level rise for decades: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go...
Ocean rise accounts for 2/3 and subsidence 1/3. It is the combination of the two that is important. Especially given the second derivative of the first.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Slashdot wants more characters per line before it will post my comment. Maybe adding a very long line to the end would help? Not sure why this is needed. This seems to be working. I wonder how many words per line we need? 11.6 is not sufficient. Keep trying. This is nutty. 12.5 still not enough. Maybe copying the immortal words of Dr. Seuss I could boost my character count: You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself in any direction you choose. You're on your own, and you know what you know. And you are the guy who'll decide where to go.
I get your point, but some further perspective is warranted. The paper explores three methods. One of those is model based but two are observation based. We can hope for the best, but we are heading into uncertain territory and I believe it is good for someone to express the extent of the issue we may be facing. Many different paths are discussed in the paper and it is worth reviewing all of them - not just the most severe. At this point though we should expect the unexpected. For instance no one had anticipated this: https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
Well, you've said something that is obviously true but haven't given any clue how that may have relevance to this paper.
Really? Global warming disproved? In a blog post? Wow.
It is scary to think that a portion of the population believes that higher education belongs to the left. I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
Matt Ridley is certainly optimistic, but I'm not entirely sure it's rational. His optimism allowed him to ignore the impending financial disaster that lead to the failure of his bank. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... . Is it possible his pollyannaism (and possibly his own coal interests) are making him blind to the costs of global warming?
As you say, it is a complicated subject. If you trust one just one source you would need to know that they were providing a complete picture.
It's useful to be aware of the worst case. As Dr Alley says, large and rapid changes are possible. We would rather not stumble blindly forward. We should be aware of the most likely scenarios, but also the full range of outcomes.
Unfortunately the consequences don't stop compounding. Certainly we have committed ourselves to further warming at this point even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today. The system will take time to reach its new warmer equilibrium. That means we may already have committed to exceed the 2 Celsius limit that we are trying to avoid. This is especially likely considering last month's global mean temperature anomaly was already 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
It's worth noting that this is just one paper, and some reservations about this paper have been expressed by peers:
Michael Mann, a Penn State university climate scientist familiar with the original study, commented, “Near as I can tell, the issues that caused me concern originally still remain in the revised manuscript. Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem unphysically large, and the ocean component of their model doesn’t resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward. That makes northern hemisphere temperatures in their study too sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning ocean circulation,” the scientific name for the ocean circulation in the Atlantic that, the study suggests, could shut down.
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible, and it raises important research questions as to what those changes might mean if they were to occur. But, the paper does not include enough ice-sheet physics to tell us how much how rapidly is how likely.
Quality controlled data is from 1763 to present - depending on the station. Quality control just means it's flagged with one of the following markers:
Processed data shows less warming than raw data: https://criticalangleblog.file...
NOAA data is available here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
The NOAA adjustments have REDUCED the warming trend evident in the raw data. Here's a comparison of the two: https://criticalangleblog.file... .
Here's the NASA land based measurements compared to the satellite temperature reconstruction by skeptics Spencer and Christy: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
It's the sun
The only problem with that theory is that solar output and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Raw data is available here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Rome has had lightless intersections for a while now. No need for high tech driverless cars. Works great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Earth's climate has never been particularly stable
The stability of the last 10,000 years birthed civilization : http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Try this link for the 1896 paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40...
You're just two months into the new year and you're already declaring yourself the winner?
I was the clear winner two months ago. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the bet. Do you know how I know this?
If there is such a thing as scientific proof
There is not. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. I assume you are not a science teacher?
show it to me
Start with this one from 1896: http://articles.adsabs.harvard....914A/0000014.000.html
And read through to this one from last year http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Yet somehow they increased how confident they are that they are right.
It's explained in the IPCC AR5. If you are curious you can look it up.
I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the methane that let me call this one correctly. It is also not a surprise to anyone reading science sources rather than conspiracy blogs. I am not privy to some arcane knowledge. NASA, NOAA, and the MET Office all reported on this at the end of 2015.
P.S. I don't take Spencer seriously. He's a "skeptic" who doesn't believe in global warming because "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You tell me. How did I know?
More bad news for our bet. February was even warmer than January, and not by a bit: http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
Good thing this is just a gentleman's bet because as you said: "I seem to have a difficult time collecting especially when the bet points out someone's stupidity, or they at least perceive it as stupidity because they drank the cool aid and believed someone else. Like someone betting that 2016 will be as hot or hotter than 2015. That's a stupid bet."
Satellite altimeter radar measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellites have been measuring sea level rise for decades: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go...
Satellites have already been in use for decades, and show sea level rise on the high side of projections: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Ocean rise accounts for 2/3 and subsidence 1/3. It is the combination of the two that is important. Especially given the second derivative of the first.