Bet180
"Science fiction author Michael Crichton has predicted the world will warm by 0.81 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Thomas Wigley and Sarah Raper ("Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming," Science Magazine, Volume 293, 20 July 2001) examined the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR). Wigley and Raper concluded that the IPCC TAR projections were for a 50/50 chance of 3.06 degrees Celsius of warming from 1990 to 2100. I predict that the actual warming of the lower troposphere (the atmosphere from roughly zero to 20,000 feet), as measured by satellites, will be closer to Michael Crichton's predicted value of 0.81 degrees Celsius, than the IPCC's value (via Wigley and Raper) of 3.06 degrees Celsius. In other words, I predict that the actual warming of the lower troposphere from 1990 to 2100, as measured by satellites, will be less than 1.94 degrees Celsius. Measurements should be done as a 3-year average centered around the year in question (i.e. 1989, 1990 and 1991, compared to 2099, 2100 and 2101). My bet is only open to members of the IPCC."
Re: Bet180
Betting that one or another group of experts has mis-predicted the change in global temperature for the next century isn't terribly controversial. The IPCC's predictions weren't hard and fast, and they hedged their own bets, and quite wisely.
But . . . why the heck would anyone invoke Michael Crichton in this kind of debate? He's a popular author. He's certainly no expert on science, and his track record for science-related predictions is no better than one would expect. This is no slur against Crichton or his fans -- I've enjoyed some of his books myself -- but raising him as an apparent authority on climate change is just bizarre. And unnecessary, since there's no need for an appeal to authority when you're challenging a fuzzy 100-year weather forecast.
Re: Bet180
Mark Wojcik writes, "But . . . why the heck would anyone invoke Michael Crichton in this kind of debate?"
Quite simply, I "invoke" him because he made a projection. And the IPCC made a projection in their Third Assessment Report (TAR). And I think that Michael Chrichton's projection is likely to be more accurate than the projection in the IPCC TAR.
"He's a popular author. He's certainly no expert on science,..."
Who he is isn't relevant in a matter of science. The only question in a matter of science is who is right (and who is wrong).
"... but raising him as an apparent authority on climate change is just bizarre."
Who has "raised him as an apparent authority on climate change?" Not I!
"And unnecessary, since there's no need for an appeal to authority when you're challenging a fuzzy 100-year weather forecast."
There's no need "for an appeal to authority" in ANY matter of science. Like I wrote above, in matters of science, the question is who is right and who is wrong. I think Michael Chrichton is likely to be more right than the IPCC was in its TAR.
If any person in the IPCC disagrees with my opinion (that Michael Crichton's projection is more accurate than in the IPCC TAR), they can bet me.
William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt are included
When I made this bet, I stated that it was only open to "members of the IPCC." I meant "any authors of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)."
However, when I wrote that, I thought that Gavin Schmidt and William Connolley of the website "Real Climate" were primary or secondary authors of the IPCC TAR. My understanding now is that Gavin Schmidt was not, and I don't know about William Connolley. In any case, this bet challenge is specifically open to both of them. I am predicting that the warming of the globe, as measured by satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, will be less than 1.94 degrees Celsius. I challenge both of them to either agree or disagree with this prediction.
Re: William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt are included
Why are you limiting the bet to authors of the IPCC Third Assessment Report?
Re: William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt are includ
I'm limiting the bet to primary or secondary authors of the IPCC assessment reports (or William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt) because the IPCC authors made the "projections." I want them to put their money where their mouths are.
Exponentially warmer
When the ice and snow that is permanently covering the grounds near our polar zones melts, the carbon (and the "pollutions") that have been stored up for many thousand years will be released in a very short time. This will exponentially increase the effect with witch we currently affect our atmosphere. The temperatures will increase faster... since these stored carbon atoms will bind the oxygen atoms and form greenhouse gases.
AND as a disregarded result we will have less oxygen to breath, Air will get "thinner" and in the long run suffocate life as we know it.
How we choose what to believe
In a prediction of world climate, we can go with the world's leading climatologists, or with a science fiction writer. Hmmmm.
Where are all the "world's leading climatologists"?
"In a prediction of world climate, we can go with the world's leading climatologists, or with a science fiction writer. Hmmmm."
If the world's leading climatologists really believe their predictions, why hasn't even one of them bothered to come here and accept my challenge?
Please sign in to comment.