The Nimanic carnivore's dilemma

I haven't seen much discussion of the NY Times Op-Ed by Nicolette Niman of former Niman Ranch fame, arguing "that a conscientious meat eater may have a more environmentally friendly diet than your average vegetarian."

Call it highly unproven at this point, even accepting that she's talking about the tiny percent of beef in the US that's grass-fed. Typical grass-fed cattle aren't much better for greenhouse gas emissions than typical factory farmed. Niman has to resort to discussing techniques for reducing methane that are experimental or not widely adopted even among the small percent of cattle that's grass-fed.

She does have an interesting argument that one study shows a 19% increase in soil carbon sequestration from pasturing cattle instead of raising crops. My one-study rule applies though (one study's result isn't proof of anything, it might just show the need for lots of study to confirm the result). And I didn't know that turkeys could be grass-fed.

She left out the issue that most everyone does as well, that ranching provides an alternative land use to sprawl. She also left out the argument that lands that have been pastured for decades/centuries at the current rate of use are carbon neutral for that time period.

Finally, here in California the grass would have been originally grazed by elk and deer, while in the Midwest it would have been grazed by buffalo. It would be interesting to compare emissions on that basis.

Unrelated bonus blogging: Tim "Slob Hunter" Pawlenty may have gut-shot his reputation among the hunting community by abandoning a wounded deer in the field. This may well cause him more trouble in running for the Republican nomination than all the deaths from that bridge collapse in 2007.

Grass-fed beef and greenhouse gas - now with data! (Some data, anyway.)

My business plan, by the way, is to overtake the Huffington Post in traffic counts by focusing on greenhouse gas emissions from cattle. Should take about a month, I figure.

In that Grist article I talked about earlier, someone named CL Weber showed up with data:

J Environ Qual 35:231-239 (2006) compared different types of suckler beef production, while Casey, J. W. and N. M. Holden. 2006. Quantification of GHG Emissions from Sucker-beef Production in Ireland. Agricultural Systems 90: 79-98 .... The JEQ article does indeed show (slightly) lower GHG emissions from organic production, at 11.2 kg CO2eq/kg-yr vs. 12.2-13 kg CO2eq/kg-yr for the conventional production schemes, which is still higher than the 10.8 kg CO2/kg-yr mean value calclulated in the Agricultural Systems piece....

However, again, my point is not that grass-fed is substantially worse than grain-fed but that they're pretty much in the same ball-park GHG-wise, and that the difference between them is in the noise when compared to the difference between beef and chicken (1.4 kg CO2e/kg in the US, according to Pelletier, N. 2008. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agricultural Systems 98(2): 67-73.)

Obviously pastured beef can have much better impacts on many other things, like water and air quality, than CAFO beef, but a substantial GHG advantage can't be had without assuming large amounts of C sequestration and no land use impacts despite the large amounts of land needed.

Not looking good for grass-fed beef. Story's not completely over, though. The commenter acknowledges earlier that indirect land use changes aren't accounted for. He or she thinks that could make cattle effects worse, but not necessarily. The main alternative use I'd expect of ranchlands in the San Francisco Bay Area in lieu of cattle would be sprawl. Also it doesn't include soil carbon, which would be a significant benefit I'd expect (maybe) from switching from tilled agriculture to pasturage.

Without those effects, beef is nearly ten times worse than chicken, which in turn is probably three times worse than vegetarian (my somewhat-eductated guess). It will take a heck of a lot to make up the difference between beef and vegetarian calories. Some interesting high-tech suggestions on page 120 of this UN FAO publication could be a start, if consumers will tolerate changing cattle's internal biota. Could be a split between the hippie and techno sides of the environmental movement.

Grass-Fed Beef and Methane, Part Deux: Still More Armwaving

I've written several times about grass-fed beef not being the climate nightmare that grain-fed beef is, and possibly a better alternative than eating plants. In the comments to one post, Michael Tobis and I engaged in much speculating about whether the methane emissions from cattle were worse than the carbon emissions involved in agricultural production of the same amount of calories. (And I never answered his final point that on already-cleared (regularly plowed) land, farming should be carbon neutral - the response is that it still takes energy inputs to farm, transport, and process the production, and soil carbon is not neutral relative to the possibility of converting the land to pasturage.)

Anyway, it was a data-free discussion, which is fine for what it's worth. Now comes a cattle rancher to make the same argument at Grist. To his credit he raises the methane issue, but after asking questions as to ways that, maybe, somewhat reduce methane emissions, concludes as to whether the methane is a problem, "The fact is clear. It is not the livestock; it is the way they are raised."

I may have been guilty of armwaving in my discussion with Michael, but at least I didn't jump from that to a conclusion. I left a comment saying as much, and a later commenter said it better:

It is conceivable to me that a steer that eats only grass from naturally fertilized pasture could have a negative carbon footprint. Root structures of grasses can be quite large, and soil can become a carbon sink, so the pasture could possibly sequester enough carbon to make up for the methane emitted by a steer during digestion. I'm also open to the idea that manure decomposes differently on pasture than at the feedlot. But someone needs to demonstrate it with some actual measurements and some real science.

NY Times getting its share of climate flubs in too

The New York Times doesn't want the leave the field of bad climate change info exclusively to the Washington Post. The Times doesn't understand the difference between "grass-finished" versus "grass-raised" cattle. That might sound trivial but it's not when they're making the claim that "grass-fed" cattle are bad for climate change.

Here it is:

A report from Science News(via Food Times) argues that beef produces 19 kilograms of CO2 for every kilogram served; that grass-fed beef is worse — yes, worse — for global warming than feed-lot beef; and that for every percentage reduction we make in meat consumption we’ll see a corresponding reduction in its contribution to global warming.

(Also repeated at the Times' Dot Earth.)

If you click the link, as we all should, you get the problem: “We do see significant differences in the GHG intensities [of grass vs grain finishing]. It’s roughly on the order of 50 percent higher in grass-finished systems.”

So what's the difference between grass-raised versus grass-finished? I see it here in Santa Clara County in my work attempting to protect open space. We have hundreds of thousands of acres of hillside ranchlands primarily used for cattle raising, based on grass. Finishing is what happens last, when cattle are taken to feedlots to fatten up before slaughter.

Back to the Science News article:

When an audience member questioned whether he had heard that right, that grass-fed cattle have a higher carbon footprint, Pelletier reiterated, “higher. Yes.” The reason: “It’s related to the much higher volumes of feed throughput and associated methane and nitrous-oxide [GHG] emissions.” He added that most pastures were highly managed, and subject to “periodic renovations and also fertilization.”

The use of "grass-fed" is from the article, not Pelletier, and I think it's a mistake. So is everything else in that quote at least as it applies here. Almost none of the ranchlands in my county are fertilized or irrigated, and I expect the same is true for most of California for non-dairy cattle.

The only realistic food use of relatively dry hillsides here, and I suspect in much of the world, is grazing animal production. The alternative is intensive agriculture somewhere else, and I think that's been missed in the climate analysis.

I don't think this issue is completely resolved - finishing cattle, much of which may be unnecessary, can cause problems, and there's the methane production issue that I don't completely understand, but I'm sure the simple conclusion the Times reached hasn't been proven.

(Disclosure: I sometimes eat beef or buffalo, and try to get grass-fed.)

Grass-fed versus irrigated-pasture cattle

There are important climate-related reasons to eat less meat, as well as other environmental reasons for cutting back. My somewhat-defensive, omnivore's response is that grass-fed cattle can be comparable or even superior to plants as a food source since it doesn't necessarily involve changing land from a closer-to-natural state. (Yes, the vast majority of cattle in the US and much of the cattle in other developed countries are grain-fed.)

There's a complication to my argument. Grass-fed cattle could also be grazing in irrigated pasture. Here in Santa Clara County, there are thousands of acres of irrigated pasture. That type of pasture is only somewhat more valuable as habitat than lawns or farms, and water use could be significant (I'm not sure how it compares to typical farm use).

So the ideal beef is from grass-fed, non-irrigated pasture cattle. When can we get the labeling for that?

The exception versus the rule on meat eating and other stuff

An email conversation I had with correspondent Kathy S. somewhat parallels the enviro blogosphere discussion of PETA's assertion "you just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist".*

Kathy noted how little emphasis the enviro groups place on eating less meat, while I mentioned that sometimes meat can be more environmental. Here in the SF Bay Area, eating locally-raised grass-fed beef, especially if the cattle isn't finished on grain, is more environmental than eating imported tofu.

Still, my response reminded me of a criticism someone posted on the John Edwards blog to my idea that monster mansions should lose the home mortgage tax deduction. The counter-argument ran that some large houses could be more environmentally-sound than smaller ones. Personally, I'm unimpressed with the claim that a generally-good rule should be stopped because in rare exceptions it will be counterproductive. Same holds true about meat.

On the other hand, there's a difference between a general rule and a universal rule. Generally, vegetarianism is better than meat-eating. Transforming that into a universal claim like PETA did is illogical. A better argument is to avoid factory-farmed meat, and choose either veggies or locally-raised animals.**


*I expect the PETA statement will be followed by the nuclear industry's assertion that you can't be an environmentalist and oppose nuclear power).

**Unlike cattle and buffalo, chicken and pigs can't be raised on grass. However, it just takes 2 pounds of feed to make one pound of chicken (including the inedible parts), so the loss ratio isn't all that bad, and free-range chickens live partially off the land.

The Prius and the burger

My Prius is at the shop right now - it seems that the rear shocks did not like all the back roads that I drove on at Death Valley National Park. At least the repair is under warranty. I still like the car.

Meanwhile, hybrid vehicles are under attack as not being as carbon efficient as switching from a meat eater's diet to a vegan diet. In defense of my hybrid vehicle, I would note that part of the problem with this study is that it is conducted by Europeans, who know nothing about what gas guzzling entails. They probably compared the hybrid vehicle to a car, rather than a large SUV that God gave to Americans.

Another problem is this other site which says that switching to a hybrid vehicle saves 1.9 metric tons per year, not the one ton mentioned in the latest study. If the larger figure is right, then the hybrid is even better than switching to a vegan diet. Finally, becoming a vegan is not easy, as many vegetarians can attest. If you're not up for veganism, switching from grain-fed to grass-fed beef could do a lot to reduce to CO2.

UPDATE: James Annan also jumps on this meme sweeping its way through the nerd blogs. I'd add that here in the Bay Area, cattle ranching provides a land-use alternative to sprawling subdivisions that are bad for emissions, even if filled with lentil-eaters. Also, hybrids are a good stepping stone to plug-in hybrids, and that can give us some real emission reductions.

I didn't like James' blonde joke though. It's mean, it wasted A WHOLE LOT of my time, and I was embarassed when someone explained it.

Saved comment thread for "Betting on global warming" post

(I'm saving and recopying a comment thread here for the "Betting on global warming" post in case I lose old comments when I switch to a new system. Please leave any new comments at the Betting post, not here. Sorry for the kludgy system. -Brian)

Vill has given a response to your bet offer on http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/...art=26& posts=37 Tom Rees | 10.01.05 - 7:20 am | #

Thanks Tom - I've tried to explain it to Vill, but no luck. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 10.03.05 - 1:20 pm | #

...large volcanic eruptions at the end of the betting period will skew the results while telling us nothing about humanity's effect on climate... All your bets are temp related, but then you follow up by mentioning one example of temperature change not due to human activity. Have you considered the multitude of phenomena that may cause temperature changes, and further considered that people who understand the science wouldn't take your bet regardless of their position on Global Warming? In simpler terms; The fact that few people are willing to take up your wager does NOT mean they believe that humans are causing any warming, it simply means that they recognize that average temps would rise and fall even if humans never existed. Your bet is a sure winner if offered at the end of every ice age, going back millions of years, even though there were no humans around. Come up with a more targeted wager, and we'll talk. TomK | 12.19.05 - 3:04 pm | #

TomK, if you have suggestions on what would constitute a fair bet, I'm open to it. I think I've made plenty of fair offers for denialists of different stripes. Let's see what bet they want to make. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 12.19.05 - 9:05 pm | #

I bet you're a (expletive deleted by siteowner) kook. I win!! Edited By Siteowner Edited By Siteowner Sean.M | Homepage | 01.05.06 - 10:19 pm | #

I haven't followed all the links to analyze this carefully, but at first reading I don't see anything here that allows people to make bets based on support or denial of human-induced global warming. Giving more generous odds doesn't inject the phrase "human-induced" into a bet that otherwise doesn't have it. And your terms for the "weather cycle" folks are so rediculously narrow they're meaningless--and I think it hits on a major shortcoming in the mindset of the global warming supporters. Weather has been around for one hell of a lot longer then we have weather records. In this case, you claim to set up a fair framework based on 150 years of measurements. 150 years?!? You must be joking. Add 100 million years to that and we'll have a starting point. The bottom line is, we know virtually nothing about weather and its patterns. It's complicated far beyond our understanding. We don't what effect we're having, we don't know what effect we're capable of having, and if we could do something that had an effect, we don't know what that effect would be. And the scientists aren't going to convince the countries of the world to cripple their economies and the people of the world to significantly change their lifestyles based on what is at best pseudo-science. byrd | 01.12.06 - 11:15 am | #

Byrd, you argue that we don't know what's going to happen, in which case the favorable odds I offer should be appealing. Alternatively you mention the "natural warming" theory, but the only support for this theory is the 35-year cycle we had previously. The further back you have to reach into time to find a similar event, the more that you prove the existing warming is unusual, and likely to be artificial. I get into a little more detail about this here: http://backseatdriving.blogspot....al- warming.html Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 01.12.06 - 10:04 pm | #

Hi Brian, I'm happy to place significant bets on nearly all of your categories on the following basis: 1) You nominate within one degree C the range that temperature will increase. If you're out then I win; and 2) You describe, in detail, the exact mechanism driving the increase. On the above basis I'm willing to engage. Can you let me know what your bet limit is as I'd like to place some large bets? Thanks for the idea! Cheers Jack Jack Lacton | 06.16.06 - 8:42 pm | #

Okay Jack, In the year 2015, the global average temperature will be 0.15 degrees Celsius warmer than 2005, plus or minus 1 degree Celsius. This is because temperatures are expected to increase about .1 to .2 degrees/decade according the IPCC, whose detailed mechanism I'd rely on for the second part of your bet. Your terms are exceedingly generous and don't really make sense from a global warming skeptic position. I suggest you reconsider. If you stand by them, let's take this conversation off-line; my email address is posted on the blog. In case you're wondering how .1 to .2 degrees/decade translates into 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 forecasted by the IPCC, the IPCC believes it is possible that warming will accelerate after the first few decades. Brian S. | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:05 pm | #

I'll bet you 1000 units of afterlife / next world currency that within the next 50,000 years, the current interglacial will have ended, with significant ill effects upon living conditions in North America and Europe. Steve Sadlov | 08.07.06 - 3:07 pm | #

Steve, that's as meaningful as many other skeptic responses to my challenges. Brian S. | Homepage | 08.07.06 - 6:44 pm | #

See comment #1 on this thread: http:// sciencepolicy.colorado.ed...sus_statem.html - perhaps SH wants to bet? William M. Connolley | 12.01.06 - 4:53 am | #

I joined the thread - apparently he thinks it's beneath his dignity. Brian S. | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 4:43 pm | #

Hi, Im curious you sound like a betting man so if you are willing to take a bet... what sort of over/under would you bet on. In basketball you bet over/under what both teams will score so say +/- 195 etc... So in this case what temperature are you willing to bet on in 20 years time? This is slightly harder then the bet you have been offering to other people as you have to actually make a realistic assessment of how the temperature will change. Not this bet would be 1:1 so you need to offer a high enough temperature to make it attractive. If for example you say that the temperature will go up by +0.2 then this will not make a very convincing bet nor will it affect the planet very much. But say if you said 1.5 degree maybe i would consider taking it.... Also how would we invest the bet money so that it increases in value during the 20 years... there is a problem freezing some money for this time period if i could just keep it and get 10-15% from it in this time period. PS. If you say 0.4 or 0.6 then you are basically saying it won't make any difference to the planet So! choose wisely young sahib!... my money is waiting for you intelligent and all knowing reply. Adam M | 12.19.06 - 1:17 am | #

Adam, I take the IPCC consensus position as my starting point, and the consensus position is .1-.2oC/decade for the initial decades, likely accelerating thereafter. If you think that means global warming is unimportant, then you haven't been paying attention. I'm not sure exactly how you'd apply over/under in this context. I'm indifferent at 1:1 odds for an increase of .3oC over 20 years, but then there's no incentive for me to bet. I can bet 1:1 for an increase greater than .2oC over 20 years. Remember, that would mean I'm betting for the consensus position that denialists say is garbage. If I've misunderstood the bet you're talking about, please let me know. Brian S. | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 1:11 pm | #

See http://www.desmogblog.com/tiim- b...ate#attachments news | 01.11.07 - 12:11 am | #

I've been told that you are willing to bet on global warming. I thought I would find something on the odds you are offering, but it looks like you are all mouth and no action. What odds are you actually giving? If you are so confident what odds will you bet that 2008 is cooler than say 1998 using Hadcrut3 data? Mike Haseler | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 6:40 pm | #

My, you're a pleasant one, Mike. Okay, compare 5 year average centered on 1998 with 5 year average centered on 2008. I'll bet you that, even odds. I prefer GISS data, but I could think about others. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 11:47 pm | #

I said 2008 and 1998, and using HADCRUT3 data. I'm a scientist not an idiot! Mike Haseler | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 6:19 am | #

Well now you're not fooling anyone, Mike. 1998 had an anamolous El Nino that pumped up temps. Whether any one year is slightly warmer or colder than a subsequent year is only a little more important than whether February 21, 2008 is warmer or colder than February 21, 1998. It's the overall trend that matters and is better captured by the 5 year average. But if you're stuck on 1998 - I will bet you even odds that the next year that has an equivalent El Nino will be warmer than 1998. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 3:29 pm | #

Are you refusing to bet that this next year on Hadcrut3 figures will not be colder than 10 years ago. If you are not prepared to give odds then I will take that as a refusal to bet. Which is all that I want. thanks! Mike Haseler | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 5:14 am | #

I'll answer your question if you promise to answer mine - will you bet even odds that the 5-year average centered on 1998 will be colder than the five year average centered on 2008? Fine, I'll even use HADCRUT data. You don't have to tell me your answer yet, just promise you'll answer. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 4:49 pm | #

I'll take that as a refusal to bet unless you give me odds. I've given you two years: 2008 and 1998 the Hadcrut3 data and that the average for 2008 will/will not be lower than 1998. I'll even make it easy for you by telling you I only want to bet a small amount like £1 or $1, afterall I don't want to take your money I just want to know what odds you will give! You did say you would bet with any sceptic, well here is your chance, tell me the odds. I won't bother to post again time is pressing, and you are just dithering, Either you will accept the bet and post odds, or you are refusing to bet and I'm not wasting more time. Mike Haseler | Homepage | 02.23.08 - 4:56 am | #

I've no more refused your bet than you've refused my offer, which is even odds, 5 year averages centered on 1998 and 2008. It's sometimes hard for me to tell which skeptics believe what they're saying and which ones have no interest in the truth. You've cherry-picked the year and the data set, nothing that indicates that you want a fair bet between two different positions on climate change. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 02.24.08 - 9:27 pm | #

I forgot to add that I don't recall saying I'd bet any skeptic. Part of the reason is I only want to bet skeptics substantial amounts of money, and that means we need to figure out how to ensure payment. It's not easy in the absence of a betting market. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 02.24.08 - 9:29 pm | #

The biggest increase we see is that of a rising lower temperature. More so than the rising high temp. So for instance, here in the Northwest the winter minimum temps are substantially higher over the last few year. Also the night time minimum temps are much higher. Richard Pauli | Homepage | 05.17.08 - 2:38 am | #

Richard - that's my understanding too, and the effect is to raise the average temp. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 05.19.08 - 7:13 pm | #

Brian, a choice of bets: 1) I will bet you $1,000 even money bet that 2008 and 2009 averaged will be cooler than 1998, as measured by HADcrutv3. 2) I will bet you $1,000 even money bet that the average 2001-2010 annual global temperature will not exceed 1998. 3) I will bet you $1,000 even money bet that the 3-year average centered on 2008 annual global temperature will not exceed the 3-year average centered on 1998. 4) I will bet you $1,000 even money bet that the average 2010-2015 annual global temperature will not exceed 1998 plus 0.4C. The is the mean expectation from Hansen's GISS models, so it should be easy to accept. These bets would be easy bets if you think warming is a crisis. Since global warming is not a crisis, we will not see temperatures out side the range of previous temperatures for some time, and this will not happen. Hence you will not accept these bets. All hat, no cattle. PJ | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:07 pm | #

"In the year 2015, the global average temperature will be 0.15 degrees Celsius warmer than 2005, plus or minus 1 degree Celsius." LOL! Nice CYA error bar! I bet the cowboys have a winning season next year, plus or minus 12 games. Who'll take my bet? PJ | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:09 pm | #

"In case you're wondering how .1 to .2 degrees/decade translates into 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 forecasted by the IPCC, the IPCC believes it is possible that warming will accelerate after the first few decades." IPCC takes models that overestimate CO2 climate sensitivity (see http://climatesci.org/2008/05/13...-and-tao-zhang/ for a scientific result that corrects the errors in the models) and makes absurd assumptions of exponential increases in CO2 emissions to come to their faulty conclusions. Simple math will tell you that .1 -.2 /decade means 1-2C per century, unless there is an increase in trend. That increase in trend can only come about by assuming we will emit far more CO2 than we are able to drill and dig out of ground. It will never happen. Actual warming due to CO2 in the next century will be no more that 1-1.5C. PS: Now that a scientific paper has delinked AGW and hurricanes, your hurricane bet is a precarious one. The main reason not to take it up is the subjective measurement aspects of it. PJ | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:17 pm | #

"So for instance, here in the Northwest the winter minimum temps are substantially higher over the last few year. Also the night time minimum temps are much higher." Not recently. PDO has flipped and US northwest is cooling, as is the world this year. If trends persist, 2008 will be the coldest year in more than a decade. PJ | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:19 pm | #

"You've cherry-picked the year and the data set" - actually you are, you didn't take his bet (of course I'm right behind him too, as it is an easy bet that 2008 will be cooler than 1998 was at this point). PJ | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:22 pm | #

Nope. Yes, the weather is colder, the daily highs are cooler. But the minimum low temps are considerable warmer. ie we are not getting the 20 below nights... even though the days may be cooler. This is born out by many studies done in the Pacific NW. You must study the data over many years. http://www.forestry.umt.edu/ pers...rWM64Lite.html# Richard Pauli | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 7:34 pm | #

Important link on how graphics fools: http://www.realclimate.org/index...e-easy-lessons/ Richard Pauli | Homepage | 05.22.08 - 10:20 pm | #

So what's next, the minimum of arctic sea ice in winter 2008-09 or not ? Or do you know if the december slowing is an artefact ? http://nsidc.org/data/ seaice_ind..._timeseries.png jyyh | 12.18.08 - 2:58 am | #

I'd guess that's a question of what's the smallest maximum ice extent. I haven't seen anyone focus on that issue, but maybe they should. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 12.19.08 - 12:11 am | #

Saw your comment over at OB. I hold what I call the well-informed skeptic's position. I think CO2 is a first order forcing but the total second order effect 0. Assuming a first order sensitivity of 1 deg C and doubling period from 1900-2100 (all fairly consistent with IPCC numbers), that works out to a warming of about .05 deg C per decade (yes I understand about linear approximations). Now, it seems like the center of your estimates is .15 deg C per decade. So it seems like we have the prospect of a mutually beneficial bet on .1 deg C per decade. So would you take a bet that three year averages centered around 2000 and 2020 would be less than .2 deg C higher? I'd want to use one of the satellite series, BTW. Kevin Dick | Homepage | 06.01.09 - 4:48 pm | #

Kevin - I think that sounds reasonable. The IPCC estimates are for surface temps and I believe satellites just measure tropospheric temps. I'd have to check to see whether the rate of changes should be the same, but I'd expect they would be, at least in the long term. Why don't you send me an email, schmidtb98 at yahoo, and we can talk offline. Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 06.01.09 - 5:47 pm | #

It is easy to make bets when you know that the people at the CRU are fixing the results! Dr.Jack Savage | 11.25.09 - 5:58 am | #

"Dr." Jack - yes, there are conspiracies everywhere. But we can try GISS data, or satellite data instead.... Brian Schmidt | Homepage | 11.29.09 - 10:06 am | #

I'd gladly bet on the issue of hurricane intensity, only the way you got it set up its a sucker bet. You said: "Readers of this blog will know I'm a one-trick pony when it comes global warming and probability - let's set up a bet! My bet is that the International Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, due out sometime before 2016, will say that AGW likely intensified tropical storm damage in the 1995-2005 period." Given its political nature I'd rather not rely on what the IPCC says, if its all the same to you. It should be possible to set up an easy metric where the data sorts out the winners and losers. Rich Horton | Homepage | 12.03.09 - 11:39 am | #