Three decades of cooling ahead

Here is not the first expectation of near-term cooling. Maybe mojo knows them all?. But none have paid out on bets, as far as I know. They just slip slide away.

My betting position is that no future decade this century will have +T less than 0.15 oC per decade based on (agreed-upon) surface T data. This can be viewed as conservative compared to IPCC. It certainly is otherwise, for IceAgeNow. If anyone wants to bet against me, we can talk about amounts and terms in detail.

Being an old codger, I cannot presume to survive and take your money beyond the next few decades. Will need to assign an heir; easily done.

So much money could flow to me. So striking an absence of anyone who would put theirs down. I won't buy a Ferrari: I want the Picarro carbon isotope analyzer. Buy it for me.

Bet

Lose

Pay.

 

No ice core for me. (a) too much work (b) need a freezer with reliable backup power.

 

Well, terms can be discussed. Satellite-derived T seems not ideal though. The sensors drift and the selected microwave emission band includes variable and (apparently) unquantifiable signal from the stratosphere. My largest concern is that the level where it attempts to measure T is not where anyone does (or could live). -30 oC up there typically, and 'bring your own oxygen.

Those concerns on the table, what is the full-term trend of RSS and UAH so far? How much negative would it have to go from there to declare 'victory for ice"? Might be nice to call the next year 'pre' instead of 'post' though. El Nino's coming so they say. It made a big bump in T in 97-98. During this year, sunspots are going to be very low, so I guess you'd be happy with this.

Temperatures down here where we do live are neither difficult nor expensive to obtain. Surely there must be some instrumental record that passes muster? Perhaps the HADCRUT 4 that mojo posted before?

What it boils down to, though, is the difference between +0.15 and -0.3 per decade is really large. I don't think that even the most despicable could hide that in all the global records. Seriously.

Iceagenow has hung a juicy fruit very low in the tree. Can't imagine that somebody won't try to profit therefrom.

 

This is what I want to win

CRDS carbon isotopes in methane and carbon dioxide | Picarro

More pricey than their CO2-only model, but a lot of rice is grown around here. Research on how to grow that with minimum methane emission is still incomplete. Heck the whole 'decomp' side of the carbon cycle is incomplete. Gawd, what can be done with one of these magic boxes...

Don't know what the other side wants. I suggest an equally-valued mound of coal, delivered. It would be big.

 

wjtracy @22 asked about ocean acidification from SOx and NOx. Should have jumped on that earlier, because chemistry.

Burn (any) carbon and you get NOx, variable with combustion T, and if $$$, remove it by catalysis.

To get SOx from burning, coal is the only realistic source. Nothing else approaches in terms of %S (well, car tires...)

In either case, the C/N and C/S ratios are high. N and S produce much stronger acids than CO2, but there is much less of the former two. They can (and do) acidify soils on local to regional scales, because they fall out quickly. They can't become global factors unless it just stopped raining. In that case we'd all die anyway for more important reasons.

I'd put the marine acidification potential of SOx + NOx at much less than 1% than that of CO2. Improving the number would require air-transport and marine chemistry modeling. I'm the wrong fella for that, and I think it would be difficult to get the right fellas interested in chasing 1% or (much) less.

Most of the rain falling in the global ocean does so in the tropics, quite remote from S and N combustion sources. Most of that is pH 5.5 to 6, dominated by bicarbonate.

In other words, no.

 

...