Vill has given a response to your bet offer on http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/...art=26& posts=37
Thanks Tom - I've tried to explain it to Vill, but no luck.
...large volcanic eruptions at the end of the betting period will skew the results while telling us nothing about humanity's effect on climate...
TomK, if you have suggestions on what would constitute a fair bet, I'm open to it. I think I've made plenty of fair offers for denialists of different stripes. Let's see what bet they want to make.
I bet you're a (expletive deleted by siteowner) kook. I win!!
I haven't followed all the links to analyze this carefully, but at first reading I don't see anything here that allows people to make bets based on support or denial of human-induced global warming.
Byrd, you argue that we don't know what's going to happen, in which case the favorable odds I offer should be appealing.
I'll bet you 1000 units of afterlife / next world currency that within the next 50,000 years, the current interglacial will have ended, with significant ill effects upon living conditions in North America and Europe.
Steve, that's as meaningful as many other skeptic responses to my challenges.
See comment #1 on this thread: http:// sciencepolicy.colorado.ed...sus_statem.html - perhaps SH wants to bet?
I joined the thread - apparently he thinks it's beneath his dignity.
Adam, I take the IPCC consensus position as my starting point, and the consensus position is .1-.2oC/decade for the initial decades, likely accelerating thereafter. If you think that means global warming is unimportant, then you haven't been paying attention.
I've been told that you are willing to bet on global warming. I thought I would find something on the odds you are offering, but it looks like you are all mouth and no action.
My, you're a pleasant one, Mike. Okay, compare 5 year average centered on 1998 with 5 year average centered on 2008. I'll bet you that, even odds. I prefer GISS data, but I could think about others.
I said 2008 and 1998, and using HADCRUT3 data. I'm a scientist not an idiot!
Well now you're not fooling anyone, Mike. 1998 had an anamolous El Nino that pumped up temps. Whether any one year is slightly warmer or colder than a subsequent year is only a little more important than whether February 21, 2008 is warmer or colder than February 21, 1998. It's the overall trend that matters and is better captured by the 5 year average.
Are you refusing to bet that this next year on Hadcrut3 figures will not be colder than 10 years ago. If you are not prepared to give odds then I will take that as a refusal to bet.
I'll answer your question if you promise to answer mine - will you bet even odds that the 5-year average centered on 1998 will be colder than the five year average centered on 2008? Fine, I'll even use HADCRUT data. You don't have to tell me your answer yet, just promise you'll answer.
I'll take that as a refusal to bet unless you give me odds.
I've no more refused your bet than you've refused my offer, which is even odds, 5 year averages centered on 1998 and 2008.
I forgot to add that I don't recall saying I'd bet any skeptic. Part of the reason is I only want to bet skeptics substantial amounts of money, and that means we need to figure out how to ensure payment. It's not easy in the absence of a betting market.
The biggest increase we see is that of a rising lower temperature. More so than the rising high temp.
Richard - that's my understanding too, and the effect is to raise the average temp.
Brian, a choice of bets:
"In the year 2015, the global average temperature will be 0.15 degrees Celsius warmer than 2005, plus or minus 1 degree Celsius."
"In case you're wondering how .1 to .2 degrees/decade translates into 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 forecasted by the IPCC, the IPCC believes it is possible that warming will accelerate after the first few decades."
"So for instance, here in the Northwest the winter minimum temps are substantially higher over the last few year. Also the night time minimum temps are much higher."
"You've cherry-picked the year and the data set"
Nope. Yes, the weather is colder, the daily highs are cooler. But the minimum low temps are considerable warmer. ie we are not getting the 20 below nights... even though the days may be cooler. This is born out by many studies done in the Pacific NW. You must study the data over many years.
Important link on how graphics fools:
So what's next, the minimum of arctic sea ice in winter 2008-09 or not ? Or do you know if the december slowing is an artefact ? http://nsidc.org/data/ seaice_ind..._timeseries.png
I'd guess that's a question of what's the smallest maximum ice extent. I haven't seen anyone focus on that issue, but maybe they should.
Saw your comment over at OB. I hold what I call the well-informed skeptic's position. I think CO2 is a first order forcing but the total second order effect 0.
Kevin - I think that sounds reasonable. The IPCC estimates are for surface temps and I believe satellites just measure tropospheric temps. I'd have to check to see whether the rate of changes should be the same, but I'd expect they would be, at least in the long term.
It is easy to make bets when you know that the people at the CRU are fixing the results!
"Dr." Jack - yes, there are conspiracies everywhere. But we can try GISS data, or satellite data instead....
I'd gladly bet on the issue of hurricane intensity, only the way you got it set up its a sucker bet.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Saved comment thread for "Betting on global warming" post
(I'm saving and recopying a comment thread here for the "Betting on global warming" post in case I lose old comments when I switch to a new system. Please leave any new comments at the Betting post, not here. Sorry for the kludgy system. -Brian)