Climatologists Wager on Global Warming 591
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.""
After the bet... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, $9,999 will have gone towards building a giant air conditioner in the middle of Moscow.
Re:After the bet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it is just possible the Russians will win due to the thermal conveyor being shutdown and bringing a new ice age to Europe.
Re:After the bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth's climate in the future is even more difficult to know because it consists of predictions of specific future events. With the previous examples we have physical evidence to look at. Here, the best we can do is look at previous data, make models, and make a guess as to what will happen. One hypothesis is that we will have runaway positive feedback which will work to warm the Earth's global climate. Another is that changes in the sun's sunspots will send the Earth less solar energy and will cool the climate (and if you RTFA, that is what the Russians were basing their predictions on). Another theory (if you believe cheesy Hollywood movies) is that the thermal conveyor will shutdown. There are dozens more, and plenty of other plausible (and not so plausible) theories we have not thought of. Betting on the results isn't too much different from betting on who wins a football game.
The only thing we know for sure is that our planet's climate is very dynamic and depends on many factors.
Re:After the bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, every time some lunatic fringe group comes up with something to try and destroy the core researchers premises, they get shot down. Good example is the group from Texas, who had satellite evidence that temps were not changing. But once it was closely examined, it turned out that their work was shoddy. Basically, they had major flaws with the data and had not done their homework.
Another example is the melting of glaciars by all areas, except at the extreme poles where they are growing; apparently with increasing temperature raises the humidity. At first, though, the none-global warming ppl used the polar glaciars as evidence to refute it.
Yeah, there are LOTS of alternative theories running around. Just few of them have credible evidence. And the core groups have working models that are increasingly matching what is going on.
Re:After the bet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, first off, the vast majority of glaciers is not in the south pole. Antarctica simply has monster ones. There are glaciers spread throughout the world. Greenland, Canada, and Russia are loaded with them. In addition, all the ice at the south pole have been shrinking except for at the pole itself. Now, glaciers normally go through growth and shrink over several decades. Most of these have been here since the last ice age. But for the last 20-30 years, ALL glaciers except for those at the poles have been shrinking. Here in Colorado, we will probably lose all of ours in the next 10 years, just as Africa, Europe, Asia, and South America are losing theirs. But this is not normal. Yes, with the addition of new evidence, scientists had to modify the global warming hypothesis.
Actually, most models were not changed. The already showed that this what would happen.
Thats because unlike settled fact (under which you apparently try to classify global warming), Actually, global warming is a fact. The global temperatures are increasing. The ocean temperatures are rising. ALL Glaciars, except at the extremes of the poles, are melting. That is by definition, global warming. To deny otherwise would be akin to saying that earth is flat or that all of the heavens revolve around the planet.
Now, the questions are:
The models are simply ways of trying to figure out what is going on.
Your beliefs are irrelevant to science, either way (Score:5, Interesting)
Your belief, and anyone else's belief is irrelevant to science in regards to a "scientific conclusion". Let me explain it to you historically with one of your own example, "At another, people thought atoms consisted of a proton with electrons orbiting around it."
This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms. It is more accurate to say that at one time, the best theory, which had the fewest weaknesses and was based upon empirical data and scientific methodology, was the model that electrons orbited protons. Yet even then, this theory was known to have weakeness, like the electron radiating because it was accelerating, but there was no better theory so this was the "scientific conclusion".
Now we physicists have gone even further, down to the level of quarks and leptons. The physics that describes this is "quantum field theory", and the model is called the "standard model". No scientist believes that atoms are made out of quarks and leptons becuase this believe is unnecessary. It is more accurate to say that scientists have concluded based upon empirical data and scientific methodology that the best theory with the fewest weaknesses is the standard model. Yet even now, without a better theory, this theory is known to have weakenesses. For instance, it can explain neither mass, nor neutrino oscillations, nor gravity.
One of the hottest topics in physics is the search for the next best model to describe the atom. Would physicist's be so eager to search for something they did not believe in? The answer is neither 'yes' or 'no', but rather 'belief is unnecessary in science to scientific conclusions'.
Similarly, no scientist believes in global warming. Their belief is irrelevant. It is more accurate to say that the best theory that describes the climate and the recent climate changes, is a climatological theory which includes the theory called "global warming", because this theory has the fewest weaknesses and is based upon scientific methodology and empirical data. To dispute this, you must show, using the scientific methodology of climatologist's, that there is a theory that better fits the empirical data and has fewer weakness than the previously prevailing theory, "global warming". Even though I am a physics graduate student in an accredited PhD program, I do not possess the scientific background that includes the scientific methodology and empirical data of the climatologists. Thus, I cannot dispute this. I will hazard a guess that neither can you, nor can 'certain politicians' (even if they right fancy books and news articles) nor anyone else who is not trained in the scientific methodology of the climatologists and their empirical data.
All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions".
~Kevin
Re:Your beliefs are irrelevant to science, either (Score:3, Informative)
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 sc
Re:After the bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:After the bet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Global Climate Change. One of the biggest misnomers of all time is Global Warming. It allows ingrates to say "we had 10 feet of snow in July, it can't be Global Warming!"
The "It isn't global warming" idiots will shiver to death during an ice age caused by global climate change and say "{if only we had used more cfcs!"
Russian weather-control technology (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Russian weather-control technology (Score:2)
Global warming, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the climatologists, is a bet really news?
Re:Global warming, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, you do live in America and you ARE free to move south where it's warmer
Re:Global warming, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Back when I was a kid, we had to walk in the snow. Uphill. Both ways. Now, you kids get to rid your bikes downhill and on dry pavement.
But seriously, USA winters are not like they were in the 50's,60's and 70's.
Oh Goody! (Score:2, Insightful)
Cooler or warmer, if we are the ones doing it then we are all fsck'd.
Re:Oh Goody! (Score:2)
Doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet. I have several friends in climatology, geology and astronomy who shake their heads everytime a new panic prediction is released. They're not right-wing anti-environmentalist idealogues. They're scientists who see multiple cause for global warming, man being only one of them.
The "better something than nothing" crowd loses traction with me when it comes to Kyoto. It's just a bad plan.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate goes in cycles, like so many things in nature. Human written records attest to warmer as well as cooler times. I too think that natural causes, such as the variation in solar output have much more effect than mankind putting back some carbon atoms into the atmosphere that were there ages ago when the fossils and fossil fuels were buried in the ground. The carbon in the fossil fuels must have at some point been available to the living creat
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did it ever occur to you that not all the carbon was in the atmosphere *at the same time*? And you seem to think there was some big 'magic' event that buried all those fossils and coal *all at once*? Clue: it wasn't a 'sudden burial'. It's not like ravening hordes of topsoil threw themselves screaming on the dino
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst thing about the Kyoto protocol is the harm it could cause if it all went wrong. We have so much to loose because of it.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
except, that's not what's going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that those prognostications are utterly wrong: a reduction in energy usage doesn't produce unemployment or result in wars or rioting. If anything at all, in increases employment, both in the development of more energy efficient technologies, and ultimately in the service sector (where automation is replaced with manual labor).
Yes we have a tremendous amount to lose if we're wrong.
No, we (as in "the people") only have to gain from lowered carbon emissions: we get a cleaner environment, less risk from global warming, reduced chance of conflict over energy, and more employment. Who stands to lose are the existing energy companies and manufacturers, who have a huge investment in old energy technologies and production methods; any change to the status quo threatens their business big time.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole "I won't sign up to anything that results in the loss of a single american job" is just nonsense, the real reason Bush doesn't want to sign up is because of where he gets campaign funding from.
Kyoto is very weak and is only a starting point but atleast it shows Europe is willing to admit there is a problem and start tackling it.
Oil is a finite resource, prices will continu
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:4, Interesting)
The price of oil has been rising for decades and I still don't see less employees in the oil sector.
YOur theory needs refinement. It does not jibe with real world data.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
And to think all of this decreased consumption (almo
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to read a great book based on exactly that premise, read Fallen Angles. [barnesandnoble.com] It's an easy read and funny. SF Fandom saves the world!
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be because that is in fact the consesnus of a majority of published peer reviewed papers [realclimate.org] in the ltterature.
It's pretty clear that the evidence is there - if you have an open mind.
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.
Just what would you require as evidence - a personal note from God? I can list some of the studies indicating a link, but I honestly doubt I could ever convince you...
I have several friends in climatology, geology and astronomy who shake their heads everytime a new panic prediction is released.
And I have many friends in geology and climatology, and I am an astronomer, and I have to say that while the "panic announcements" may not be very likely, I think some of them are more likely than the scenarios presented by the contrarians. Case in point - the West Antarctic ice sheet may not melt this decade, but some time in the next century (given no limits on CO2) it will melt. When it does, that's 10 meters of sea level rise right there. I'll probably be dead, but my children might not be.
They're scientists who see multiple cause for global warming, man being only one of them.
Man being the one we can control, and the largest one, at the present time.
The "better something than nothing" crowd loses traction with me when it comes to Kyoto. It's just a bad plan.
No, be honest. You just spent most of your post arguing against human responsibility for GW; you can't seriously claim that you just have a problem with how Kyoto implements greenhouse reductions, and that you'd support some other mechanism. I didn't hear you say "GW is real, but we should go with voluntary reductions" or something to that effect. You claim that GW is either due to natural causes, or just not real.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
So a joint statment by 11 national academies of science [nationalacademies.org] (including the U.S.), or the IPCC doesn't represent a consensus? It's not just a matter of counting abstracts. Keep in mind you can never get every self-proclaimed scientist to agree on everything - so there will always be a few contrarian voices that you can dig up (with enough money), but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists hold the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
As near as the best science can tell (hence the "consensus"), the Sun is not causing the observed levels of global warming. For a full discussion, check out this link [realclimate.org].
Re:on what grounds? (Score:3, Informative)
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 C
Re:on what grounds? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't they be able to tell if the sun was having some kind of effect? Aren't they able to measure these kinds of things?
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)
I would think they could measure this also. If they can tell how many pa
Re:on what grounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be a scientist man. Truly you are able to think of things not one of climatologists has ever thought of.
Re:on what grounds? (Score:2)
Some dissipates back into space, some is stored in the form of dead animals or plants, some is used up catalyzing natural chemical reactions, etc.
Re:on what grounds? (Score:4, Informative)
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/ [numberwatch.co.uk].
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.
Re:on what grounds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is? As far as I know we barely have 60 years of factual concrete weather data. From that you people wish to extrapolate the entire warming and cooling of the planet over 4 billion years and then yell and scream when the temperature goes up 2 degrees.
You fail completely to take into account the planets warming and cooling trends. For Gods sake, the Sahara desert w
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:2)
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
He responded by pointing out your 'fact' is not a fact. He kicked your butt, and your 'rebuttal' was completely free of any information that would invalidate his point. Good job.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that we don't know what it is that we ought to be watching out for (we only have trends), and we don't know what the risks are (because there are no scientific results we can draw on in living memory). So, we estimate.
The risk of something (anything) happening is not the probability of it happening, it's the probability of the event happening, multiplied by the consequences. We do have a fairly well-agreed definition of the consequences - there are many ice-cores, strata readings, magnetic effects etc. that show the earth can hit a 'tipping point', and snap to a new environmental mode - in some cases in as little as 50 years. Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with the tipping-point hypothesis, what is not agreed then is the probability of it happening. This is the contention.
I don't know of any extreme of weather where man battles and wins. The destructive power of nature is truly awesome - in the traditional rather than the watered-down Californian meaning. In my opinion, if there is doubt over the probabilities, we ought to be minimising the risk *anyway*, and that means trying to combat global warming (in as much as we are capable of it). Burying our head in the sands is sort of like sitting, waiting for the tidal wave to hit, rather than running to high-ground to try and stay alive. And just as foolish.
Simon.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Kyoto DOES include China, India, Brazil... (Score:5, Informative)
Why do people keep saying things like this? There are only 2 countries in the UN that refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol [wikipedia.org]: 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 [wikipedia.org].
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 [wikipedia.org] per-capita emissions than undeveloped ones.
The Kyoto Protocol targets aren't especially difficult anyway. The US target was a 7% decrease [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org].
Re:Kyoto DOES include China, India, Brazil... (Score:4, Funny)
Only people who hate america are for the kyoto protocol.
Re:Kyoto DOES include China, India, Brazil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kyoto DOES include China, India, Brazil... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kyoto DOES include China, India, Brazil... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe sticking to low tech is fashionable in the US these days, but we Europeans will pass, thanks.
Re:I'm leaning towards the Ruskies on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another good way to do it would be to leave America largely dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia, a country which may suffer a political and economic implosion [theatlantic.com] any day now. Or to continue to pour money into that country when there is no doubt that a lot of that money is being used to fund the very people who are trying to kill you.
Global warming isn't the only reason to get off oil. If Kyoto will have that much of an impact on the economy, it's a good sign that something is already very wrong.
Nuclear power, by the way, has experienced something of a renaissance with environmentalists, especially with recent innovations like the pebble bed reactor which are far more resistant to meltdown. The problem with nuclear reactors is that they're expensive.
As for China, they aren't likely to do anything as long as their disregard for the environment and their labour gives them a competitive advantage. Because it isn't like a totalitarian regime is going to listen to the environmentalist lobby--they'll do whatever they can get away with. The only way to put pressure on them is to stop buying their goods. To spell it out for you, we would have to stop buying goods simply on the basis of cheap prices, and start considering the hidden costs. But too many large corporations cut costs by buying from countries that pay their people almost nothing and disregard the environment (Mexico is another example,) and the government looks the other way.
So yeah, that's a good question: why isn't anyone pressuring the Chinese to clean up their neighborhood?
A Simon vs Ehrlich type wager (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A Simon vs Ehrlich type wager (Score:2)
Re:A Simon vs Ehrlich type wager (Score:5, Informative)
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] [wired.com]
Re:A Simon vs Ehrlich type wager (Score:4, Insightful)
"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."
is not scientific? Rather, it's just subjective and made up? Really, what's the difference between this impression of his and reading tea leaves?
Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:4, Informative)
"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?
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:2)
Well, that really says it all, doesn't it?
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:2)
Incorrect! Or partially anyway. In addition to things that produce carbon dioxide (cars, volcanos, mammals, power stations, etc) there are also things that consume it (plants, plankton, ????).
Additionally, these CO2 consuming things are capable (under the right conditions) of absorbing large amounts of CO2 very quickly, especially if they are assisted in their CO2-consuming-end
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are indeed other words. In fact they're words with a completely different meaning to the previous ones.
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:2)
If he is such a dependable man, so concerned about his children, then why has he no problem with wagering the future of all mankind by downplaying global warning?
He doesnt trust his believes enough for $15k, so why should anybody trust him when the future of billions is on the table?
Re:Are climate change skeptics cowards? (Score:2, Informative)
there is a school of thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Gentlemen.. (Score:3, Funny)
So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In 10 years (or 2018 whichever comes first) (Score:3, Insightful)
Money Where Mouths Once Were (Score:3, Interesting)
- Feynman bet a $1000 that no one could construct a motor no bigger than 1/64th of an inch on a side
- Hawking bet against his own theory of black holes (a subscription of Penthouse to the winner, no less)
And other similar stuff...Re:Money Where Mouths Once Were (Score:2)
Thats 2 very different things.
Weather futures (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Weather futures (Score:5, Interesting)
Robin Hansen [gmu.edu] has been trying [gmu.edu] to set up markets in this sort of thing [wired.com] for a while, but with little success. It seems that, for the most part, people get more than a little conservative*, and not only don't want to bet, but also don't want to see the odds.
*I'm using that in the general sense, not the current flame-fest sense.
Oh, forgot to add... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia.. (Score:2, Funny)
Global Climate Change (Score:3, Interesting)
After a 1 month Summer in Calif* (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:After a 1 month Summer in Calif* (Score:3, Interesting)
People I work with who have recently returned from China described the air as being extremely polluted. I was offered a two year job in China and declined because I didn't want to expose my family to that kind of environment.
Sooner or later we are going to have to cut down on airborne particles. Just as we are clamping down on smoking. When this happens global temperatures are going to rise, quickly.
Global warming could cause an Ice Age (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Global warming could cause an Ice Age (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously not visited a vineyard in Kent or East/West Sussex or tasted their wines recently eh?
Pop over and visit one here's a list of the ones nearest me together with a history of English winemaking: [naturaldiscovery.co.uk] Quote: "There are now in excess of 400 vineyards in England and Wales."
Oh - greetings from West Sussex!
warming to war to hotter then to cooling off (Score:4, Insightful)
We *are* releasing a ton of gasses, much more than can be reabsorbed, and two giant economies, india and china, are just the past few years really bumping up the volume on what they burn.
So combine that with the aforementioned geophysical realities, and it looks like more warming coming to me. How long it will last I don't know because of political wildcards. All you can do is guess, but there's only enough oil for some countries to have a robust middle class, not enough for all nations. Anyone can do the math there, it's not that hidden or weird or debateable any longer. There is x-amount projected global demand, with y amount proven reserves/refinery capacity, etc. They aren't the same number and x is a lot larger. That and other strategic minerals, etc. We just *may* have a tremendous global warfare period over natural resources and availability (some contend it has started already),and if this happens, the amount of fires started (call them megafires, as in regional sized) and resultant release of even more gasses plus extra heat that will get trapped WILL be catastrophic. and large wars have started over much less than large nations economic survival.
I think it pays to remember that "leaders" in these various very large nations by and large tend to be *quite mad*. I am pointing in all directions right now, no favorites. You cannot predict what they might do or how things might spiral out of control.
I tend to think at best, just for a SWAG, we have to go on past planetary history. We usually wind up with major wars fought by major powers with whatever the major weapons of that time period were. It has eventually always happened. I see nothing that convinces me todays humans are any better than yesterdays humans in that regard. So the combination of lame hoomannz and natural cyclical warming trends should indicate for the next generation or more we will have _more warming_.
In other news, (Score:3, Funny)
They're not getting my money... (Score:2)
global warming and peak oil (Score:4, Informative)
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 [thewatt.com] 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.
Re:global warming and peak oil (Score:4, Informative)
Also once oil gets expensive enough, like it pretty much already is, it becomes economical to start tapping oil shale and tar sands in the Western U.S. and there is most probably enough oil there to last for hundreds of years too. Its just really dirty, expensive, energy intensive and hard on the land scape cooking it out of the rock and sand. Pilot projects started during the energy crisis in the '70's, then oil prices cratered and it wasn't economical so they all stopped. All indicators are oil is going to stay high now and that is going to green light resuming oil shale and tar sand extraction.
The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W. It also should be noted gas and oil prices are high more due to market manipulation than shortages. Supplies are tight but speculators are taking advantage and inflating prices far beyond market realities. In the U.S. refiners have also intentionally reduced refining capacity to insure there is a perpetual tight supply of gas. They make huge profits maintaining an artificial shortage in refining capacity. If they built adequate refining capacity they would make much less money. Oil is not a real free market in this world. Oil companies have consolidated back to a near monopoly status, and they collude to rig prices. If we lived in a world with real free markets someone would step in, build new refineries and create competition and lower gas prices but for some reason no one does.
There is irony that it Russian scientists betting against global warming and you have to wonder if there is an ulterior motive. The Russian government has as much incentive as Exxon Mobile to deny global warming and launch a PR blitz against it. People forget but Russia is one of the worlds largest oil and gas exporters. Europe is massively dependent on Russian gas. The one save grace for the Russian economy is its vast oil and gas reserves. The current high oil prices have been a major boost to Russia's economy which was a key motivator in Putin and his cronies seizing control of Yukos, one of Russia's largest, formerly privately held oil, companies.
Obviously the world will be cooler in 10 years. (Score:3, Funny)
but the Question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Climate change depends on ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Global Dimming says no to cooling (Score:4, Interesting)
The greenhouse particles exist for greater than 100 years, meaning the only solution would be to remove both the greenhouse particles and the UV blocking particles, how that may be achieved is unclear.
Annan's global warming claim on Foresight Exchange (Score:3, Informative)
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 [nature.com] covering this.
Other wagers on longbets.org (Score:3, Informative)
A few examples [longbets.org]:
* 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
The exaggeration of science (Score:4, Insightful)
(i) the advantages of a reusable Shuttle.
(ii) the advantages of a Space station.
(iii) the exaggerated AIDS risk, where the NIH kept on promising a million infected Americans every year, for nearly two decades, before it came true. This one has the distinction from the two above that fighting AIDS is a worthwhile cause that was not properly funded until alarmist statements were made.
(iv) the risk of meteorites hitting earth.
(v) the risks of overpopulation (see Malthus).
(vi) the risks of shortages (see the Ehlrich-Simon wager).
(vii) the benefits of the next $20B megasuperduper-cyclotron (still waiting for my muon toaster oven).
(viii) the benefits of artificial intelligence.
and on and on.
The publicity seekers have been talking about global warming of several degrees C as a fact since the mid 1990s. Examining the literature the picture is different: global warning of just half a degree C was conclusively proven only a couple of years back.
So to sum it up, the risks of global warming are overstated by the scientific press. Something to keep in mind is that tempering the claims of global warming does not mean completely ignoring them (like Dubya does today or Regan did with AIDS in his time).
Re:What Metric? (Score:2)
Ah, perhaps that's the sublime nature of this little jest! It's hard to settle a bet about a change when no one can settle on the baseline.
From TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say to RTFA next time, but this is
Re:What Metric? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I think.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think.... (Score:3, Funny)
"Not so fast, Comrade. You have heard of NUCLEAR VINTER?"
Re:umm... (Score:3, Funny)
God plays at dice.;)
Re:Russians should start saving in case they lose. (Score:2)
Re:2018? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:terminology (Score:2)
Re:terminology (Score:2)
Bias is a risk on both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you mean the pro-warming scientists or the anti-warming scientists?
Grants from the Sierra Club spend just as well as grants from Exxon, and carry the same risk of biasing a scientist to report what he thinks his patron wants to hear.
I'd be interested in an analysis of the source of funds for climate scientists. How much is coming from the evil corporations, how much from scaremongering environmentalists, and how much from supposedly apolitical government agencies?
Also, you must not underestimate the power of peer review and tenure decisions to bias scientific research. The academic world is tough on people who undermine articles of "progressive" faith.
-ccm
Re:I'm sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)
But
Interesting how you were still afraid to risk your karma on that statement.