« Resolved: The IPCC global warming projections represent scientific fraud | Main | Projections: IPCC vs Mark Bahner »

January 24, 2005

Comments

Mark Bahner

Peter writes, "Since you make a number of accusations of the IPCC, I'll make one of you ;) I accuse you of keeping quiet about natural forcings. If we get a big volcanic eruption in 2009 I think you'll count that in and say 'see, it's hasn't warmed!' and win the bets. Why do I say that? Because I'm playing the 'rubbish the opposition game' just like you and, like you, I'm not presenting a single jot evidence to back up my accusation and rhetoric!"

Sigh. Peter, Peter, Peter. This one paragraph has so many misstatements and unfounded statements that I probably won't be able to cover them in one lunchtime. ;-) But here goes:

You write, "Why do I say that? Because I'm playing the 'rubbish the opposition game' just like you and, like you, I'm not presenting a single jot evidence to back up my accusation and rhetoric!"

Please point to any accusation I've made that doesn't have "a single jot of evidence" backing it.

You also write, “If we get a big volcanic eruption in 2009 I think you'll count that in and say 'see, it's hasn't warmed!' and win the bets.”

First off, my proposed bet covers more than just lower tropospheric temperatures. It also covers: 1) atmospheric methane concentrations, 2) (industrial) CO2 emissions, and 3) atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Each of those parameters is worth 1 point, and lower tropospheric temperature is worth 3 points. See my latest posts.

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/projections_ipc.html

So even in the event that volcanic eruptions depress global temperatures enough to cause the IPCC to lose on temperature, they should win on the other three. (But of course they won’t, because their projections for atmospheric methane concentrations, and CO2 emissions and concentrations are completely bogus.)

Also, this bet covers every 10 years from 2010 to 2100. That’s 10 tests.

But most importantly, you totally neglect that there were TWO major eruptions during the 1989-1991 baseline period that I am proposing to use! There was the Redoubt volcano in Alaska in 1989-1990, and Mt. Pinatubo in July of 1991. I am not proposing that the baseline be adjusted upward to compensate for those eruptions, so there is no reason to expect that the subsequent tests be adjusted upward for any eruptions that may occur.

You conclude with, “So, come clean now, why the sinister non mention of natural forcings changes? Which ones do you include, which ones don't you exclude?”

Was that last question *deliberately* a trick question, or just accidentally? :-)

In any case, the answer to your question is all natural events are included in subsequent tests, because all natural events were included in the baseline.

Mark

Peter Hearnden

Ok Mark,

Since you make a number of accusations of the IPCC, I'll make one of you ;) I accuse you of keeping quiet about natural forcings. If we get a big volcanic eruption in 2009 I think you'll count that in and say 'see, it's hasn't warmed!' and win the bets. Why do I say that? Because I'm playing the 'rubbish the opposition game' just like you and, like you, I'm not presenting a single jot evidence to back up my accusation and rhetoric!

So, come clean now, why the sinister non mention of natural forcings changes? Which ones do you include, which ones don't you exclude?

Btw, thanks for the reply, and the bit's that were good answers.

p.s. - I'm not keen on having to give you a e amil address to post :( --->"Ze problem ees sol-fed." --Inspector Clouseau. (I haven't taken the time to learn the ins and outs of Typepad. --Mark)

Mark Bahner

Hi, Peter:

You write, "Mark, lets establish what we're betting on and if we're comapring like with like. I'm not sure, but aren't the IPCC figures surface temps?"

Who knows? I don't. Ask the IPCC...if they even know.

If the IPCC numbers ARE surface temperatures, ask them where the h@ll their lower tropospheric temperature projections are? I THOUGHT this whole exercise (the pseudo-science in the IPCC Third Assessment Report) was about figuring out how much governments should force people to cut back on CO2 (and methane and black carbon) emissions in order to avoid heating the world to a "dangerous" degree. Given that objective, why in the world would the IPCC not focus on temperatures in the lower troposphere? (This is a semi-rhetorical question. I think the answer is that the IPCC chooses whatever temperatures are most likely to scare people into thinking the world is warming very fast.)

"Otoh, your satellite figures, (which will be for the mid troposphere not the surface)..."

My plan was for the lower troposphere (zero to roughly 20,000 feet).

"...are, given your views, probably those of S&C (since you're bound to think them right not RSS - right?)."

I don't know who's right on that. I don't think it particularly matters, for the purposes of a bet of my numbers versus the IPCC's numbers. As I see it, the important thing for such a bet is to evaluate consistently. In other words, if we choose S&C for the 1990 baseline (again, I'm proposing a 3-year average, centered around 1990), we use them for all the subsequent decades. If we use RSS for 1990, we use them for subsequent decades. Or perhaps we use the midpoint between S&C and RSS for 1990, and use the midpoint for subsequent decades. I like this last option.

"So we're betting on a comparison between an apple and a very specific species of orange??"

No, that wouldn't be my preference. My preference would be to use an "average" orange. And my preference would be for the IPCC to get beyond their incompetence and dishonesty, and produce projections for lower tropospheric warming. (If their current projections are actually for the lower troposphere, I offer my apologies to them, but strongly suggest that they should have made such an important point clearer in their Third Assessment Report).

"Finally, I'm not sure what you probability figures mean. I assume by a 95% probability of .75C by 2030 you mean you think there is only a 5% chance of it happening?"

Yes, 95% probability of 0.75C means that I'm 95% sure that the warming in the lower troposphere will be LESS than that value.

But it occurs to me that the only REALLY important numbers are the "50% probability" numbers.

My "50% probability" numbers will be closer to the actual numbers for the lower troposphere than the IPCC numbers. (Unless you can find something in the IPCC Third Assessment Report that says, "These temperature increases are for the surface temperature. Multiply by one-third to get numbers for the lower troposphere.")

Peter Hearnden

Mark, lets establish what we're betting on and if we're comapring like with like. I'm not sure, but aren't the IPCC figures surface temps? Otoh, your satellite figures, (which will be for the mid troposphere not the surface) are, given your views, probably those of S&C (since you're bound to think them right not RSS - right?). So we're betting on a comparison between an apple and a very specific species of orange??

Finally, I'm not sure what you probability figures mean. I assume by a 95% probability of .75C by 2030 you mean you think there is only a 5% chance of it happening?

Trudeaupia

Sorry, I should not have used the term "skeptic", which these days has become a loaded term. What I meant was someone who questioned the honesty of the IPCC and some other hypsters.

There are natural variations at play, as well as influences we do not yet understand, and there's the possibility that soot/CO2 emissions projections are wrong. If you're taking bets I'd be prepared to bet on a chance of cooling if appropriate odds are offered.

Mark Bahner

Trudeaupia writes, "This is interesting. The one thing about climate we know for certain is that ice ages happen regularly and that periods of glaciation last several times as long as the interglacial periods. Yet even a global warming skeptic..."

Hold it right there. I'm not a "global warming skeptic"...except in the sense that I'm skeptical about EVERYTHING. I'm a "global warming HONEST."

"Well, I'll say that I think the chance that sometime in the next century the climate will be slightly cooler than now is greater than 5%."

Well, if you look farther down in this weblog, you'll see some projections I made earlier. (Those older projections are also on my global warming website.)

Those projections had a little cooling as a possibility. I bumped everything up by half a degree Celsius, based on my reasoning that the warming that is already "in the pipeline" from the oceans would come to pass.

My predictions are for the temperature change in the lower troposphere, relative to 1990. (I would further qualify that by doing a 3-year average CENTERED on 1990...i.e., 1989, 1990, and 1991.) The lower troposphere has already warmed by...well, there is disagreement about the amount, but let's say somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 degrees Celsius, since then.

My values for "5% probability" are obviously even more speculative than my values for "50% probability." So you may be right. But I'm pretty sure that the odds are against 2010, 2020, 2030, etc. being cooler than 1990. (Again, consider the value in the lower troposphere as measured by satellites, with a 3-year average taken around the year in question.)

Mark Bahner

Hi, James:

You write, "I saw your comment on realclimate and am interested in your bet. However, I have a few suggestions:

First, a 2030(ish) bet would suit me (so one of us can can collect)
Second, rather than this wierdness with distributions, why not just define a threshold - hotter, I win, and colder, you win."

Well, I hope you weren't looking for any "action" any time soon. My argument right now is with the IPCC and the people at RealClimate. I don't think the IPCC and the people at RealClimate are being honest.

I think that everyone who knows about the subject knows that the IPCC projections for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperature increases, are ludicrously high.

I think that Gavin Schmidt, and everyone at RealClimate, knows that. They just won't admit it, because they rely on the fear of uninformed laypeople, through equally uninformed politicians, for their research funding.

So I'm not really interested in betting every member of the general public.


Trudeaupia

This is interesting. The one thing about climate we know for certain is that ice ages happen regularly and that periods of glaciation last several times as long as the interglacial periods. Yet even a global warming skeptic does not grant even a 5% chance of a minuscule cooling trend in the next century.

Well, I'll say that I think the chance that sometime in the next century the climate will be slightly cooler than now is greater than 5%.

James Annan

I saw your comment on realclimate and am interested in your bet. However, I have a few suggestions:

First, a 2030(ish) bet would suit me (so one of us can can collect)
Second, rather than this wierdness with distributions, why not just define a threshold - hotter, I win, and colder, you win.

James

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

August 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad