I’m assuming of course the high school science student can read Hansen’s paper and at least understand what he says about “projections” and “scenarios” that are not “realistic under current conditions”.

I assume you can.

Charles

Ok, I bet against you. Pls send me my check. Address is in a post up above.

Also, I note that you continue to not respond to my two other questions: 1) how can you falsify a probabilistic projection with only one outcome, and 2) why do you reject the expert opinion of the blue-ribbon NAS panel review.

I remain interested in your answers to those. In a previous post, you claimed that my silence on the Jesse question meant that I must tacitly agree with you. Should I assume that in this case?

Regards.

I’ll make this quick:

“1) have you mailed my check yet?”

Answers:

1) Have you given my your “best shot” yet?

2) Have you learned how to read yet?

But let’s stop dancing around. We both know the answers to all three of these questions is “no.”

I just thought of good way to stop the dancing. You claim my predictions aren’t science, and that the IPCC TAR projections are the “gold standard.” I’m willing to put $20 of my money where YOUR mouth is.

This is the link to Long Bets #181:

http://www.longbets.org/181

Here is the prediction:

Mark A. Bahner predicts: “I predict that my projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperatures will be more accurate than those found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Third Assessment Report (TAR).

The following are my (MB) projections and the IPCC TAR projections for methane atmospheric concentrations (in ppb, worth 1 point), industrial CO2 emissions (in Gigatons as carbon, worth 1 point), CO2 atmospheric concentrations (in ppm, worth 1 point) and lower tropospheric temperature increases (in degrees Celsius relative to 1990, worth 3 points). The projections are for the years 2030, 2070, and 2100.

2030, MB: 1790, 8.8, 425, 0.36
2030, IPCC: 2060, 13.2, 438, 0.80

2070, MB: 1825, 7.0, 527, 0.82
2070, IPCC: 2300, 16.4, 610, 2.17

2100, MB: 1840, 4.0, 558, 1.20
2100, IPCC: 2450, 16.4, 720, 3.06

Lower tropospheric temperatures are as measured by satellite, in a 3-year average around the year in question (e.g. 2030 would be 2029, 2030, 20310. This bet is only open to members of the IPCC.”

Go to that website, register, and vote AGAINST the prediction. The vote is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FREE. All you have to do is register. It will take you less than a minute, and I’ll send you $20.

Now, when else in your life have you been PAID to vote?

“regards.”

Mark

Suuuure, Charles. Can you give us an example?

Best,

D

James Hansen (one example of a serious scientist and a true AGW believer) states this explicitly.

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html

I’ll make this quick:

1) have you mailed my check yet? (and don’t give me any baloney about how I need to do a few more things before you pay up … I already provided additional info to satisfy your first request. people will lose respect for you if you do not pay up.)

2) you don’t have time to tell me why you reject the NAS report? you certainly seem to have time to write a bunch of other drivel. perhaps you can find the time in the near future. I’m interested in your thoughts of Jesse vs. the NAS.

3) you didn’t answer my question about falsifying a probabilistic estimate with only one outcome. instead, you simply tell me that it’s obvious. that’s not an argument that convinces me.

(btw, your example fails for this reason: assume that I predict that I’ll roll a 6 on a six-sided die 16% of the time, and you predict a 6 will come up 0% of the time. I roll it once and it comes up 3. did we just prove you’re right?)

kevin: I also suggested to mark that he try to publish his work, like M&M did w/ the hockey stick. they engaged the community, and now their ideas are being tested in the crucible of science. but then I took a look at mark’s “science” (http://markbahner.50g.com/) and decided that it probably wasn’t such a good idea. I’m not sure science is ready for the bahner revolution.

regards.

I don’t have time to respond to the second question, but here is my response to the first:

I’ll respond with a question. Suppose Wigley and Raper publish a paper in Science on July 20, 1001, titled, “Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming.” Suppose they are writing about the IPCC TAR.

And suppose they make the comment, “As noted by Schneider, Jones, and Moss and Schneider, giving only a range of warming results is potentially misleading unless some guidance is given as to what the range means in probabilistic terms. The purpose of this paper is to provide such guidance.”

Now suppose that they have a Table 1, that gives the following probabilities for warming in deg C, relative to relative to 1990:

2030: 5%–>0.48, 50%–>0.80, 95%–>1.31
2070: 5%–>1.29, 50%–>2.17, 95%–>3.34
2100: 5%–>1.68, 50%–>3.06, 95%–>4.87

Now, suppose Mark Bahner has the following probabilities for those dates:

2030: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>0.36, 95%–>0.75
2070: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>0.82, 95%–>1.75
2100: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>1.20, 95%–>2.45

Now suppose the temperature rises for 2030, 2070, and 2100 are 0.36, 0.82, and 1.20. Or suppose they are even 0.48, 1.29, and 1.68.

Who is right and who is wrong?

Now, maybe “scientists” can’t tell from those results who is right and who is wrong. But I’m an engineer. IF those are the results, I say, “Mark Bahner is clearly right, and the IPCC is clearly wrong.”

I’m not clear. On November 10 at 7:57PM, I wrote, “If you think you (and any of your scientist friends) can do better, why don’t you take your best shot?”

Was this your “best shot”?