Remind me - who has bet #2?
I just came across your blog about Global Warming and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a blog about Global Warming so I know I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch!Global Warming Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
William - I'll have to dig it out, but it was at a British newsgroup called something like Stormworld, and one of the guys with the climateprediction.net made a bet for 1,000 pounds on temps going up (like James' bet). Sorry, the details are hazy. I should put a better reference in my blog somewhere handy. James wrote about it too.
James called my bet 'number 2' but it was only for 500 pounds and so it could be disregarded as 'chump change' or below William £1000 threshold to be considered serious.
"From here on in this blog, references to denialist, septics, etc. involve only skeptics who won't put their money where their mouths are."
Well done and well explained. Since this bet appears to be carefully considered, I'll assume that you and Mr. Evans have an agreed upon criteria for what constitutes a a volcanic eruption large enough to affect temperature.
Chris - 500 pounds doesn't seem like chump change to me!
You could nail down the volcano thing by defining it in terms of SO2 injected into the upper trop as defined by the TOMs volcano group Volcanos that blow out sideways like Mt. St. Helens don't affect global T much.
I'm puzzled by the odds. The climate change lobby is urging governments around the world to bet the world economy on the economy-destroying climate change. If that is going to happen, it's worth the bet. But what are the odds? If this bet is anything to go by, your personal appraisal of the risk of continually rising CO2-driven temperatures is, overall, 3:2. That doesn't jell with the public or political perception. That perception is that destructive climate change is, for all practical purposes, certain.
I don't how you define climate catastrophe, Peter, but I think the odds are near certain that the costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions will be less than the costs of not controlling GHGs.
"I'm puzzled by the odds. The climate change lobby is urging governments around the world to bet the world economy on the economy-destroying climate change."
"Even if doubling GHGs only made the globe 1 degree C warmer, we'd still have to control emissions, because without controls we'd just go on and triple and quadruple GHG levels."
There's a lot of coal out there - we could easily get 1000 ppm, so quadrupling is possible.
PJ: "At 0.15C per 10 years, we could have 100 years of such warming and it would have zero meaningful negative effects on sea level, ice caps, etc."
"No - we're already getting impacts that would get worse. More important, most scenarios show accelerating warmth- the ones that don't assume we do something about emissions."
Ron - try to hold back a little on the accusations. If you read what I said a little more closely, or if you knew much about the IPCC, you'd see I was talking about scenarios for future temperature changes.
Our present energy course is not sustainable.Responding to this demand while minimizing further climate change will need all the determination and ingenuity we can muster.The problem is not yet insoluble but becomes more difficult with each passing day.G8 countries bear a special responsibility for the current high level of energy consumption and the associated climate change. Newly industrialized countries will share this responsibility in the future.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Archived comment thread for global warming bet post of 4.24.07
(Old comment thread may disappear, so I'm archiving it here while recommending that new comments be left at the original post. -Brian)