New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 8, 2005

Ron Bailey challenges participants in the global warming debate to put their money where their climate models are.

Comments

|6.8.05 @ 9:37PM|#

I have 10000 kip that says my model will be more frigid in ten years. I'm willing to give odds, 4200 riel will get you 24000 metical. Come to think of it, buy me a beer and you can have her.

Mark Bahner|6.8.05 @ 11:43PM|#

Ron Bailey's column mentions my bet #180 on Long Bets, where I bet that Michael Crichton's temperature prediction for the year 2100 will be more accurate than the IPCC's.

But he doesn't mention my bet #181 on Long Bets, where I bet that my own projections for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases, will be more accurate than the IPCC's.

My bet #181 is even more impossible for the IPCC to win, because the bet includes methane atmospheric concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Also, I have projections for 2030, 2070, and 2100, rather than just the year 2100.

Actually, I think it will be hard to find an IPCC member who is even willing to bet me. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that the projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report are absolute rubbish.

Mark Bahner

|6.9.05 @ 12:21AM|#

Ron's idea of active wagers on scientific controversies could be quite revealing, especially in areas of politicized science where there is an incentive to distort the truth.

Ron:

"James Hansen or Stephen Schneider could represent those worried about dangerous global warming, and John Christy or Patrick Michaels could pony up for the skeptics. It's time to put up or shut up."

Indeed, it's time to put up or shut up but it's pretty clear that Schneider wouldn't wager since he doesn't seem to actually believe the global warming disaster scenarios himself. Note that he advised global warming activists that: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/science.htm

|6.9.05 @ 1:04AM|#

...That is a well known quote but I just noticed that the citation that I happened to googled up for it is a religious site and, just for the record, that's not my bag baby. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or that there aren't things of value to be found on religious sites.

|6.9.05 @ 1:29AM|#

Mark Bahner:

...is even more impossible...

Oops, just one little logical error in an otherwise stellar comment. :)

Ok, I'll move away from the keyboard now...

|6.9.05 @ 9:46AM|#

I'm confident that reality-based policies are going to win out, and steps will be taken to prevent the environmental problems being extrapolated from current trends.

So there's that wrinkle.

Mark Bahner|6.9.05 @ 12:51PM|#

Joe writes, "I'm confident that reality-based policies are going to win out, and steps will be taken to prevent the environmental problems being extrapolated from current trends."

???

1) What "reality-based policies" and "steps (that) will be taken" do you have in mind?

2) I don't understand your use of the word, "extrapolated." "Extrapolation" is a method of analysis. It is not an action. For example, one typically wouldn't say, "Let's continue extrapolating down this road." One would say, "Let's continue driving down this road."

3a) You mention "current trends," but don't identify what those "current trends" are. Which specific "current trends" do you have in mind?

3b) The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) analysis is a piece of garbage specifically because it completely ignores--actually, "lies about" would be a better characterization--"current trends."

For example, the IPCC TAR analysis basically predicts a 50/50 chance that methane atmospheric concentrations will rise from 1698 ppb in 1990 to 2250 ppb in the year 2060. That's an average increase over the 70 year period of 7.9 ppb per year.

Absolutely NO knowledgeable and and honest person would have made that projection in the year 2001 (when the TAR was released).

The IPCC TAR predictions for CO2 emissions are similarly ridiculous.

The IPCC TAR temperature projections are garbage because the inputs they used to make those projections (e.g. methane and CO2 atmospheric concentrations) are garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. It's that simple.

|6.9.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Mark,

1) Policies to reduce greenhouse gas output. Possible contenders include imposing emission standards on the industrial, transportation, and energy sectors; investment in cleaner energy technologies; or codes requiring better design for buildings.

2, and 3a) The environmental problems predicted from global warming are based on extrapolating future GHG output from current practices. I don't believe that current practices will continue, because of the adoption of the policies I mentioned above. I guess I could have put that more clearly.

3b) I'll leave those arguments to the giant brains in the lab coats, and I am not remotely qualified to make such judgements. I must defer to the large and growing consensus that manmade global warming is a real and dangerous development.

|6.9.05 @ 2:06PM|#

In 2 and 3a, make that "based on the policies I mentioned above, combined with advancing technology."

moorlock|6.9.05 @ 4:13PM|#

One thing I didn't see in Bailey's article was where *he* was putting down money and on what.

He was eager to challenge other people to put their money where their mouths are, but Bailey's been one of the bigger mouths on the "climate change isn't happening" - "okay, maybe it is happening, but there's no reason to believe people are to blame" - "oh, maybe it's happening, and it's because of increased CO2, but heck maybe it'll make Antarctica the vacation resort of the next century" - "okay, maybe it isn't likely to all come out okay in the end, but it would be too expensive and futile to do anything about it at this stage" circuit. Where's *his* money?

Bailey's articles for Reason typically report favorably on the views of climate change skeptics, with Richard Lindzen a frequent favorite. He could offer to put money down on any number of the claims that he has reported from this crew, or on variations of them.

Mark Bahner|6.9.05 @ 5:14PM|#

Joe,

You support, "Possible contenders include imposing emission standards on the industrial, transportation, and energy sectors; investment in cleaner energy technologies; or codes requiring better design for buildings."

But would you support all those things if you knew that even without ANY of them, the amount of global warming has an approximately 50/50 chance of being 1 degree Celsius, and is almost certain to be less than 2.5 degrees Celsius (less than 1 chance in 20 being more than 2.5 degrees Celsius, even without ANY of those things)?

Then you write, "I don't believe that current practices will continue, because of the adoption of the policies I mentioned above."

Later you add, "combined with advancing technology."

That's the thing...that "advancing technology" will (in my informed, considered, and *honest* opinion) produce warming that has approximately a 50/50 chance of being less than approximately 1 degree Celsius. (My actual calculated value is a 50/50 chance of less than 1.2 degrees Celsius. But that's up from a previous estimate of 0.7 degrees Celsius...and I probably should not have gone up by so much.)

Finally, you write, "I'll leave those arguments to the giant brains in the lab coats, and I am not remotely qualified to make such judgements."

This is not a matter of "rocket science," Joe. I think an intelligent layperson can understand why the IPCC TAR projections are garbage with only a couple hours of reading. You could start with my (rough and incomplete) website.

CAUTION: Pop-up ad blocker needed!

http://markbahner.50g.com/

Mark

P.S. To bring this back to the subject at hand: The IPCC TAR projections are garbage. The temperature increases they project are much too high (and they KNEW that was the case, which is why it is a matter of scientific fraud). Even without ANY "imposing emission standards" anywhere, the warming is likely to be about 1 degree Celsius, which is so modest it's not worth worrying about. (Especially given the fact that the average person in the world in 2100 will be more than 100 times more wealthy than the average person in the *U.S.* in the year 2000.)