DRBUZZ0
24th September 2007, 07:44 PM
I don't have time right now to say all that I think of this page: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
But it's ridiculous. It's from the junk science people at junkscience.com. it offers a $125,000 prize to prove global warming thus disproving two things:
UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
Okay... hypothesis 1. I think these guys (who get to judge this) are going to make it pretty hard to prove number 1, because I am going to guess that proving that the earth is warming, that the earth's warming cannot be attributed entirely to natural forces, that the CO2 emissions from humans can account for this and that the amount of warming from humans exceeds that which might occur due to random variation...
I'm sure that will be *difficult* to prove to their satisfaction. But the second one is *IMPOSSIBLE*
How can you predict the future with any certainty? Could Global Warming end up benefiting the world?
Sure it could. The increase in temperature could save humanity if there were a couple of major volcano eruptions that would otherwise cause a small ice age. And I cannot prove that will not happen in the next 93 years.
And what kind of temperature increase will be expected?
Will China continue to grow economically? What if there is a popular revolt which leads to a civil war in china and sets them way back?
Will there be a major war elsewhere? Will cheap and efficient nuclear fusion be discovered? Will the price of oil increase? What if an economic slowdown combined with the discovery of better deep-sea drilling methods cause the price to fall?
And how do you define "benifits" vs "costs"?
If the great barrier reef is destroyed and the majority of Africa becomes a dust bowl and much of Western Europe have a huge drop in temperature... But eastern europe gets a much more moderate climate and in East Asia there is a longer growing season and North atlantic fisheries have bumper harvests, while Canada needs way less energy in the winter and millions are saved on the cost of snow cleanup...
Can you *prove* that the "costs" are worse than the "benefits"?
What if the energy supply of the US is vastly improved when unlimited drilling in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean is approved on the grounds that "There's not much left there to worry about protecting. All the native species are dead anyway" Then... is the cost more than the benifit?
What if dikes have to be built around cities which cost billions but reduce unemployment?
So... even if you *could* predict the future with enough accuracy to qualify, how do you define when the benefit exceeds the cost?
Somebody needs to make a judgement call and guess who it is? The junkscience.com crowed.
Oh and by the way: Theres no gaurenteed winner. The context ends at the end December 1 2008. And you have to pay $15 to just submit an attempt at this.
This is such a sham it's shameful. They want to be paid for this crap?
If I were a Nobel Prize winning climotologist who had one of the most complete studies on global warming, I would NOT submit to this, since I'm just paying them 15 bucks. If it were free I would to make a point, but I doubt anyone serious would submit to this crap.
But it's ridiculous. It's from the junk science people at junkscience.com. it offers a $125,000 prize to prove global warming thus disproving two things:
UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
Okay... hypothesis 1. I think these guys (who get to judge this) are going to make it pretty hard to prove number 1, because I am going to guess that proving that the earth is warming, that the earth's warming cannot be attributed entirely to natural forces, that the CO2 emissions from humans can account for this and that the amount of warming from humans exceeds that which might occur due to random variation...
I'm sure that will be *difficult* to prove to their satisfaction. But the second one is *IMPOSSIBLE*
How can you predict the future with any certainty? Could Global Warming end up benefiting the world?
Sure it could. The increase in temperature could save humanity if there were a couple of major volcano eruptions that would otherwise cause a small ice age. And I cannot prove that will not happen in the next 93 years.
And what kind of temperature increase will be expected?
Will China continue to grow economically? What if there is a popular revolt which leads to a civil war in china and sets them way back?
Will there be a major war elsewhere? Will cheap and efficient nuclear fusion be discovered? Will the price of oil increase? What if an economic slowdown combined with the discovery of better deep-sea drilling methods cause the price to fall?
And how do you define "benifits" vs "costs"?
If the great barrier reef is destroyed and the majority of Africa becomes a dust bowl and much of Western Europe have a huge drop in temperature... But eastern europe gets a much more moderate climate and in East Asia there is a longer growing season and North atlantic fisheries have bumper harvests, while Canada needs way less energy in the winter and millions are saved on the cost of snow cleanup...
Can you *prove* that the "costs" are worse than the "benefits"?
What if the energy supply of the US is vastly improved when unlimited drilling in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean is approved on the grounds that "There's not much left there to worry about protecting. All the native species are dead anyway" Then... is the cost more than the benifit?
What if dikes have to be built around cities which cost billions but reduce unemployment?
So... even if you *could* predict the future with enough accuracy to qualify, how do you define when the benefit exceeds the cost?
Somebody needs to make a judgement call and guess who it is? The junkscience.com crowed.
Oh and by the way: Theres no gaurenteed winner. The context ends at the end December 1 2008. And you have to pay $15 to just submit an attempt at this.
This is such a sham it's shameful. They want to be paid for this crap?
If I were a Nobel Prize winning climotologist who had one of the most complete studies on global warming, I would NOT submit to this, since I'm just paying them 15 bucks. If it were free I would to make a point, but I doubt anyone serious would submit to this crap.