[OT] James, you're on /.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You probably know this already, but...

<URL:http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/20/1845247&tid=126&tid=14>

$10,000 in 13 years time .. probably be worth about a pint.

Quoted message said:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/20/1845247&tid=126&tid
=14

"the Russians believe the world will be cooler in 10 years. "If the
temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to
about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go
the other way."

Russians eh? The gits are betting on a nuclear winter!

Simon Brooke said:

You probably know this already, but...

<URL:http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/20/1845247&tid=126&tid=14>

/. and urc are two things that I habitually refresh throughout the day.

Odd when two worlds intersect...

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

Jeremy Collins said:

Simon Brooke said:

You probably know this already, but...

<URL:http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/20/1845247&tid=126&tid=14>

/. and urc are two things that I habitually refresh throughout the day.

Odd when two worlds intersect...

Roll up! Roll up!

I'm inviting bets from all sides - IOW, I'll try to act as a matchmaker
for people to set up individual agreements.

Possibly, just possibly, a real betting/futures market might get
started up. Of course, any up-front stake would have to be invested in
a sensible place - a FTSE tracker might be most sensible for decadal
and longer term bets.

There are already quite a few who have indicated to me that they are
prepared to weigh in on the "consensus" side. Perhaps Tony Raven or
some others here might care for a little wager? I've heard that Piers
Corbyn is "happy to bet loads of money" (quote in Nature article) on
the sceptic side but not got any firm commitment out of him yet.

James

James Annan said:

Roll up! Roll up!

I'm inviting bets from all sides - IOW, I'll try to act as a matchmaker
for people to set up individual agreements.

How are you planning to measure it? Get enough bets and you corrupt
the whole science, to the extent of having dubya-style denials
floating around.

There's a tenable position on the will-be-colder side, which is that
right now we're on a blip above the long-term trend. That doesn't
deny the direction of the trend.

--
Nick Kew

James Annan said:

Certainly I would not claim I am 100% certain to win - for instance, I
turned down Lindzen's 50:1 offer.

So what odds are you offering?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Certainly I would not claim I am 100% certain to win - for instance, I
turned down Lindzen's 50:1 offer.

So what odds are you offering?

At the moment I'm not looking for bets for myself, already having a
$10k stake in things. However, there are certainly plenty of others who
have said they would match my offer, which should be attractive enough
to someone who genuinely believes that the recent warming is natural in
origin and therefore overdue for a reversal (the temperature has rarely
been close to this high over the last couple of millennia at least).

James

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

At the moment I'm not looking for bets for myself, already having a
$10k stake in things. However, there are certainly plenty of others who
have said they would match my offer, which should be attractive enough
to someone who genuinely believes that the recent warming is natural in
origin and therefore overdue for a reversal (the temperature has rarely
been close to this high over the last couple of millennia at least).

Oh, I don't know. The period 800-1300 is reckoned by some to be warmer
than the 20th century although its difficult to tell because no-one
measured it so it has to be inferred from other sources and different
sources come up with different answers. 1300 to 1900 is thought to be a
cool period.

In fact I was reading only this winter of a Swiss glacier that has
retreated quite significantly but that is from a recent maximum in the
late 1800's and is still 300m below its extent in Roman times.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

At the moment I'm not looking for bets for myself, already having a
$10k stake in things. However, there are certainly plenty of others who
have said they would match my offer, which should be attractive enough
to someone who genuinely believes that the recent warming is natural in
origin and therefore overdue for a reversal (the temperature has rarely
been close to this high over the last couple of millennia at least).

Oh, I don't know.

Clearly not. But don't worry, help is at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

So, about that bet?

James

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I don't know.

Clearly not. But don't worry, help is at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You mean the most recent reconstruction "plotted in red"? The one from
Nature which says:

"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures—similar to those
observed in the twentieth century before 1990—occurred around ad 1000 to
1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of
1961−90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the
past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability
that is likely to continue."
Moberg et al, Nature 433, 613-617 (10 February 2005) http://snipurl.com/h5fu

Yes, I think that illustrates my point.

Of course there are other papers that come to different conclusions
illustrating as I noted the problems with having to use proxy data to
infer temperatures instead of direct temperature measurement.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I don't know.

Clearly not. But don't worry, help is at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You mean the most recent reconstruction "plotted in red"? The one from
Nature which says:

"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures-similar to those
observed in the twentieth century before 1990-occurred around ad 1000 to
1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of
1961-90 occurred around ad 1600.

Yes indeed, that (and the conclusions of the several other
reconstructions provided) seems to be essentially equivalent to my
previous statement:

"the temperature has rarely been close to this high over the last
couple of millennia at least"

Since you quoted it, you'll have noted in particular how Moberg talks
about the highest historical temperatures only being "similar to those
observed in the twentieth century before 1990" and therefore clearly
cooler than the average temperatures over the 15 most recent years.
Perhaps you could review the picture again and note how the 2004
temperature value (that asterix, at about +0.45C) compares to the
previous two millennnia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

(There's nothing particularly special about 2004 - indeed, 2003 and
2002 were warmer, let alone 1998.)

But of course this is all a bit of a sideshow. The question was whether
you are prepared to bet on the sceptic side, and your ducking and
weaving provides a clear enough answer to that.

James

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

>Oh, I don't know.

Clearly not. But don't worry, help is at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You mean the most recent reconstruction "plotted in red"? The one from
Nature which says:

"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures-similar to those
observed in the twentieth century before 1990-occurred around ad 1000 to
1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of
1961-90 occurred around ad 1600.

Yes indeed, that (and the conclusions of the several other
reconstructions provided) seems to be essentially equivalent to my
previous statement:

"the temperature has rarely been close to this high over the last
couple of millennia at least"

Since you quoted it, you'll have noted in particular how Moberg talks
about the highest historical temperatures only being "similar to those
observed in the twentieth century before 1990" and therefore clearly
cooler than the average temperatures over the 15 most recent years.
Perhaps you could review the picture again and note how the 2004
temperature value (that asterix, at about +0.45C) compares to the
previous two millennnia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

(There's nothing particularly special about 2004 - indeed, 2003 and
2002 were warmer, let alone 1998.)

But of course this is all a bit of a sideshow. The question was whether
you are prepared to bet on the sceptic side, and your ducking and
weaving provides a clear enough answer to that.

James

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

James Annan said:

Perhaps you could review the picture again and note how the 2004
temperature value (that asterix, at about +0.45C) compares to the
previous two millennnia:

You mean "The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for
comparison"?

Quoted message said:

But of course this is all a bit of a sideshow. The question was whether
you are prepared to bet on the sceptic side, and your ducking and
weaving provides a clear enough answer to that.

I don't think this issue will be resolved on a ten year time frame -
these changes happen on centennial time scales - so I don't expect,
unfortunately, to be around to see a resolution, especially given that
the climate went through its coldest period for the past 10,000 years
over the last 500 years.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Perhaps you could review the picture again and note how the 2004
temperature value (that asterix, at about +0.45C) compares to the
previous two millennnia:

You mean "The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for
comparison"?

Yes, that's right. Of course smoothing (like was performed for the time
series) would not have made a signficant difference, as the adjacent
years are all quite similar. You will note how much higher this 2004
value is than all of the reconstructions, over the entire history
plotted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But of course this is all a bit of a sideshow. The question was whether
you are prepared to bet on the sceptic side, and your ducking and
weaving provides a clear enough answer to that.

I don't think this issue will be resolved on a ten year time frame

The issue _has_ been resolved:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

The question is whether you are prepared to bet on this summary being
wrong. The answer still appears to be "no".

James

On 23 Aug 2005 05:04:44 -0700,

James Annan said:

The question is whether you are prepared to bet on this summary being
wrong. The answer still appears to be "no".

Hijacking this thread slightly - I'm willing to bet on the "hotter" side
but in a slightly different way:

Where is likely to be the best place to have land/property[1] in the time
scale 0-60[2] years? We are seeing a lot of flooding recently. Gales
seem worse than I remember as a child.

I'm hoping to be in a position where I can comfortably retire within 20
years. And as part of that I'm willing to buy a property now that might
be let at a loss but become my main residence when I retire in an
environmentally "desirable" area in the future.

[1] UK preferred although with Blair/Blair and the police state I might
decide I can't stay :-(

[2] I don't expect I'll live another 60 years but it's not impossible
that I will. I don't (and won't) have children so anything beyond 100
years is of no interest at all

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Tim Woodall said:

On 23 Aug 2005 05:04:44 -0700,

James Annan said:

The question is whether you are prepared to bet on this summary being
wrong. The answer still appears to be "no".

Hijacking this thread slightly - I'm willing to bet on the "hotter" side
but in a slightly different way:

Where is likely to be the best place to have land/property[1] in the time
scale 0-60[2] years? We are seeing a lot of flooding recently. Gales
seem worse than I remember as a child.

Somewhere that isn't in a flood plain that is going to get developed!

James

Also sprach Tim Woodall <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm hoping to be in a position where I can comfortably retire within
20 years. And as part of that I'm willing to buy a property now that
might be let at a loss but become my main residence when I retire in
an environmentally "desirable" area in the future.

Have you considered a boat? :-)

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
und keine Eie.

Tim Woodall <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Where is likely to be the best place to have land/property[1] in the time
: scale 0-60[2] years? We are seeing a lot of flooding recently. Gales
: seem worse than I remember as a child.

Depends how much of a pessimist you are.

If you're really really into the Peak Oil/doom/melting icecaps type stuff
then a small town somewhere would be ideal. Probably not in the SE due to
water shortages. Nowhere on a flood plain. Oh, and nowhere that's a risk
of flash floods either 🙂

Personally I don't think this is very likely.

If you think that temperature rises will be at the moderate end of things,
then I see no reason to let it affect where you want to live much. Avoid
the SE (because it's an awful place to live), avoid flood plains.

If I could live anywhere I wanted, I'd be very attracted by the Scottish
Borders, bits of Wales (one side of my family is from there) or Hebden
Bridge (becuase I just like Hebden)

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

in message <[email hidden]>, Tim

Woodall (') said:

On 23 Aug 2005 05:04:44 -0700,

James Annan said:

The question is whether you are prepared to bet on this summary being
wrong. The answer still appears to be "no".

Hijacking this thread slightly - I'm willing to bet on the "hotter"
side but in a slightly different way:

Where is likely to be the best place to have land/property[1] in the
time scale 0-60[2] years? We are seeing a lot of flooding recently.
Gales seem worse than I remember as a child.

Portugal, a few miles in from the coast, and a hundred metres up (a place
to which I've never been).

Reasoning?

If the Atlantic Conveyor hypothesis is correct (and seriously
knowledgable people believe that it is) North-west Europe will cool
dramatically against a background of net global warming. In this
scenario Portugal will be a little cooler and damper than it is
currently, but still warm and pleasant and capable of supporting food
crops. The highest estimate I've seen for maximum sea level rise is 30
metres.

If the Atlantic Conveyor hypothesis is wrong and heating is relatively
even across Northern Europe, much of Iberia will become very arid, but
the coastal fringes should remain green and relatively cooled by onshore
winds.

My personal bet is

(i) James is right that overall global warming will continue for some
time to come
(ii) The Atlantic Conveyor hypothesis is correct and Scotland is going to
cool, possibly sharply

Nevertheless I am going to stay put. This place may become a great deal
less comfortable, with shorter, wetter winters and bitter winters.
However, it is my home, and I don't particularly want to have to put
down roots anywhere else. I may move into a more insulatable house.
Also, once it becomes clear that western Europe is cooling sharply,
people living in more favoured places are /not/ going to welcome new
immigrants - so if you're going to go, go now.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>