On the Prometheus
website, Andrew Dessler wrote "Until a counter example is
provided, I stand by my statement that there is not a 'single
advocate arguing against action on climate change (which he
later clarified as being 'mandatory reduction of GHG emissions') that
uses legitimate *scientific* claims as the basis of their
argument.'"I responded that I don't support mandatory reduction
of GHG emissions, and provided 9 scientific claims to support my
argument. Here are my claims #3 and #4, and Andrew Dessler's
responses:
I wrote, "3) A
preponderance of evidence suggests that CO2 emissions will peak circa
mid-century, or earlier, and will decline by the end of the century
to a value that causes atmospheric concentrations to plateau at a
value below 560 ppm (i.e., double pre-industrial concentration). This
will happen through normal technological evolution…"
He responded, "Some
of your points are scientific, but they have no merit. I was
especially amused by number 3, that CO2 will peak mid-century w/o any
policy to reduce GHGs. You say the "preponderance" of
evidence supports you, when I think "no evidence" would be
more appropriate."
I wrote, "4) The
resultant temperature increase (approximately 90% probability of
lower tropospheric temperature increase from 0 to 2.2 degrees Celsius
above current value) will be such that a preponderance of evidence
supports either minimal net harm, or even net benefit."
"We discussed
your number 4 before, so you know I think it's balderdash. I won't
repeat that discussion here."
Oh, my!
Probably psychology
books and any understanding at all of human behavior would counsel,
"Don't reward bad behavior." But I haven't read any
psychology books, and have never understood human behavior...so I'm
going to respond by offering you, Dr. Andrew Dessler, a Fabulous Free
Money Offer.
First, I will give you
$10 if you answer the following 3 questions…but only if you
answer the first 2 correctly. To show you that I’m not
attempting any trick questions, I will even give you helpful links to
where you might find some answers to the first 2 questions:
1)
What were the approximate worldwide per-capita industrial CO2
emissions (i.e., from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels) in
1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and
2005?
Energy Information Administration emissions data
2)
What are the projected worldwide per-capita CO2 emissions in the
IPCC TAR for the years 2030, 2050, 2070, and 2100 under the following
scenarios: A1F1, IS92a, B2, and B1? Here is a helpful
site for CO2 emissions:
IPCC Third Assessment Report Emissions.
Also, to answer this question, I want you to use the following
assumed world populations: 2030: 8.2 billion; 2050: 9.1
billion; 2070: 10 billion; 2100: 11 billion. (See “Medium
Variant” on this site, if you’re interested in the general basis
those numbers: U.N. population projections.)
3) What
is your scientific opinion of the implications, if any, of the
correct answers to those first two questions?
I'm offering you an
additional $10 to provide your BEST estimate values for worldwide
industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., not including land use changes) every
decade from 1990 to 2100, in the form of 5 percent probability, 50
percent probability, and 95 percent probability estimates. (The
meaning of the probability numbers is that that's the probability
that the number will be BELOW the value you estimate. See
the blank template table below for the form I want. You
can use a value of 6.0 gigatons as carbon for the 1990 value, if
you want (that would be 22 gigatons of CO2). I
want to emphasize that I want your BEST estimates. I don't know
if Texas A&M has an honor system, but before I give you any
money, I want you to certify, on your honor, that the estimates are
the BEST you can come up with at present.
Finally, I am offering
you another $10 (that's $30, total) if you will provide me your BEST
estimates of average temperature changes in the lower troposphere (as
measured by satellites) every decade from 1990 to 2100. I
also want them in the form of "5 percent probability, 50 percent
probability, and 90 percent probability" estimates. And
once again, I want you to certify, on your honor, that they are your
BEST estimates. You should of course start the 1990 values with
all zeros.
So there it is...a
Fabulous Free Money Offer of $30. You obvious think you're a
real hot shot (no global warming pun intended). I'm willing to
pay $30 to be dazzled by your brilliance.
| Year |
5% probability |
50% probability |
95% probability |
| 1990 |
|
|
|
| 2000 |
|
|
|
| 2010 |
|
|
|
| 2020 |
|
|
|
| 2030 |
|
|
|
| 2040 |
|
|
|
| 2050 |
|
|
|
| 2060 |
|
|
|
| 2070 |
|
|
|
| 2080 |
|
|
|
| 2090 |
|
|
|
| 2100 |
|
|
|
Recent Comments