tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post8602503739281585117..comments2023-10-19T05:09:40.165-07:00Comments on Backseat driving: Climate betting baseline setBrianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-54626950701718983372010-02-21T10:27:55.978-08:002010-02-21T10:27:55.978-08:00It is about betting, Nick. I feel like you're...It is about betting, Nick. I feel like you're unclear in your own predictions, but the only thing that matters between two bettors is a divergence in their prediction of the future. If the divergence is big enough, then a bet is possible.<br /><br />My bet is about an increase over background, to twice the the 20th Century rate. You may be postulating that somehow will just happen naturally. I don't think that's very logical, but even if it is, it's hardly likely. I think my bet offer should be attractive to someone who has no reason to expect the increase to be likely.<br /><br />Re volcanism, I don't agree that there's been a long gap, but if it hit at the wrong time, then I could be screwed. In my bet with David Evans, we agreed a large volcanic eruption voids the bet.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-51893408317063411962010-02-17T15:08:24.125-08:002010-02-17T15:08:24.125-08:00It's not about the betting. It's about the...It's not about the betting. It's about the test that you have to make to show AGW.<br /><br />As you've said, its about the acceleration of temperature change over and above any natural change to produce a rate of change that hasn't been seen before, particularly during a time when there is no CO2 increase. <br /><br />ie. What's the CO2 effect, if any. <br /><br />However, your bet is that for some reason there is no natural increase in temperature (or decrease for that matter), and the bet is that any change must be anthropogenic. <br /><br />Hence you're bets don't stack up.<br /><br />Nick<br /><br />PS, what are you going to do if there is a big volcanic event? From the nature of volcanism, we've had a long gap from a large erruption. Pressure is buildingLord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-50447315405327483042010-02-14T08:35:31.086-08:002010-02-14T08:35:31.086-08:00You seem contradictory, Nick. It sounds like you ...You seem contradictory, Nick. It sounds like you think I'll lose my bet, in which case someone really should bet me.<br /><br />Lucia has been dismantled multiple times by Tamino. Try this for one:<br /><br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-climate-observations-compared-to-ipcc-projections/<br /><br />The conversation's been fun, but it's just you and me, so I'm ready to wrap up. If you think there's room for us to bet, we can talk about it, otherwise you can have the last word.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-23580279519319806612010-02-14T02:44:02.702-08:002010-02-14T02:44:02.702-08:00Here are the main alarmists claims. Dispute them i...Here are the main alarmists claims. Dispute them if you think they are wrong.<br /><br />1. The current rate of change is unprecedented.<br /><br />2. The current temperatures are above those in the past. <br /><br />The implication from 1 and 2, is that if we can't think of a mechanism that is natural it must therefore be man made. <br /><br />Now, from the Phil Jones interview, we have one of the main alarmists actually saying that there is no statistical difference between past rates of increase and current rates of increase. So on that basis claim 1 is false. <br /><br />So back to your bet. You've said that you think the rates are accelerating. Why aren't you making the bet on that?<br /><br />What you are betting on is that what must be mainly natural change continuing. ie. You're not making a bet at all on man made versus natural.<br /><br />Your bet is that over the next X years, there is nothing that will change the natural change.<br /><br />Now there is another issue, and the skeptics do this just as much as the alarmists and it gets my goat too.<br /><br />Why are you and others regressing temperature against time? Why are you not regressing temperature against log(co2 concentration)? The claim is C02 is the cause. <br /><br />You're also at financial risk to another factor. We haven't had a large erruption for a considerable amount of time. That's upped global temperatures. A big erruption over the betting period is more than likely to mean you lose.<br /><br />Lucia has one of many posts here.<br /><br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/<br /><br />How to test predictions with a confidence measure of how well they do.<br /><br />By the way, watch for the RealClimate trick on predictions, where they show how well things fit in arrears. Like betting on a horse race when its 90% complete.<br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-56952070827818737912010-02-13T23:17:06.394-08:002010-02-13T23:17:06.394-08:00I'm taking the 20th Century as the "natur...I'm taking the 20th Century as the "natural" rate of warming. I don't believe it's natural, I think it's primarily anthropogenic, but that a skeptic would argue it's natural. I don't see why a skeptic would think that natural rate would suddenly double, 160 years after the "natural" recovery from the LIA when we've mostly recovered or completely recovered from the LIA. Therefore, a bet that warming will proceed at twice the 20th Century rate should seem attractive to a natural warmer as well as to me.<br /><br />We're repeating ground here, Nick. And again, what caused the warming from 1975 to 1998? Just because it warmed before doesn't mean the warming should continue. And I'm willing to bet it will warm at twice the rate that it did.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-67948063379845737192010-02-13T09:34:07.084-08:002010-02-13T09:34:07.084-08:00http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
P...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm<br /><br />Phil Jones interview, of the criminal FOI set.<br /><br /><i>A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?<br /><br />An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.<br /><br />Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).<br /><br />I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.<br /><br />So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.</i><br /><br />Now this is really important. Jones is one of the key alarmists, and here he is stating that the rate of increase is not unprecendented, when you compare the non-anthropogenic era against the so called anthropogenic eraLord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-5371439163801564132010-02-13T09:31:31.436-08:002010-02-13T09:31:31.436-08:00Well, you did say that the trend has accelerated f...Well, you did say that the trend has accelerated from the natural back ground rate. <br /><br />I was wondering how you factor out the natural in order to make a bet on the existance of the anthropogenic?Lord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-45380002462293193972010-02-12T23:08:36.552-08:002010-02-12T23:08:36.552-08:00David and I are measuring increases based on GISS ...David and I are measuring increases based on GISS data.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-36113699251682624362010-02-12T23:08:04.270-08:002010-02-12T23:08:04.270-08:00Saying any natural rate of change that has ever ha...Saying any natural rate of change that has ever happened before is the explanation of the current warming, is totally inadequate. Past changes had something causing them, like CO2 overloads from snowball earths, or (possibly) massive methane clathrate releases. What's causing the accelerated rate now? Simply waving your hands and saying it's happened before isn't science.<br /><br />Re lucia's site, again, I'd like to see a specific link. I'm not going to read everything she wrote.<br /><br />My bets are here:<br /><br />http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111700433898143899<br /><br />As for fair, I try to pick an outcome that's somewhere in between what I expect and what a skeptic would expect would happen in the next 20 years, and bet over that. You seem to be arguing things could continue to warm at the present rate, which is twice the 20th Century rate, or maybe even faster, and still be natural. I see no difference between our predictions that would allow for betting with you, if that's your position.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-14712100323216210622010-02-12T13:17:32.569-08:002010-02-12T13:17:32.569-08:00ie. From your post, its not clear how you are meas...ie. From your post, its not clear how you are measuring the increasesLord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-70052784248359372292010-02-12T13:08:38.896-08:002010-02-12T13:08:38.896-08:00Yes, complex models are proof, especially because ...Yes, complex models are proof, especially because skeptics can't produce a climate model that works the way they want the climate to work.<br /><br />==================<br /><br />Not true. The skeptic model is that the rate of change (and particularly any acceleration) is well within the rates of change from the records (reconstructed). <br /><br />Ditto that the extremes of temperature, sea level rises etc, are also at levels that have been seen in the past. <br /><br />ie. No need to invoke any extra factors to explain what is going on.<br /><br />The comparison of model predictions to actual temperatures shows that for almost all the predictions they have been proved wrong at the 95% confidence level. See Lucia's site for the details.<br /><br />The last part is the really interesting part, because it relates to how bets are constructed. <br /><br />I'm interested in the bets you have made and how you think the odds are fair on the results?Lord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-88894113234822766922010-02-10T07:38:58.685-08:002010-02-10T07:38:58.685-08:00Crandles - have you written up details about your ...Crandles - have you written up details about your betting anywhere? If not, and you feel like it, send them to me and I'll post them.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-68579083597356089412010-02-10T07:37:12.450-08:002010-02-10T07:37:12.450-08:00The simple maths are what Arrhenius did in 1896. ...The simple maths are what Arrhenius did in 1896. Tamino did a more modern version here:<br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/<br /><br />Yes, complex models are proof, especially because skeptics can't produce a climate model that works the way they want the climate to work.<br /><br />I don't know what the maximum rate of natural increase has ever been in the past, but I do know the natural bounceback from the LIA in 1850 was much slower than the current rate of warming, and that generally even the changes from ice ages to interglacials is slower.<br /><br />Your link to to the IPCC being wrong isn't very specific.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-64734128154192617112010-02-09T12:53:04.008-08:002010-02-09T12:53:04.008-08:00Complex models are not proof.
What simple maths?
...Complex models are not proof.<br /><br />What simple maths?<br /><br />So far you haven't said what a natural rate of increase has been in the past?<br /><br />For example take the IPCC predictions. For most of them we are 95% certain they are wrong. <br /><br />see http://rankexploits.com/musings/ for detailsLord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-84985388563356811092010-02-09T12:42:14.373-08:002010-02-09T12:42:14.373-08:00I don't seem to be able to link directly to th...I don't seem to be able to link directly to them.<br /><br />http://www.intrade.com/<br />select climate and weather on left hand side second section down<br /><br />This will probably look horrible but:<br />Contract name<br />BQty Bid Offer AQty Last Vol Chge <br /> GLOBALTEMP.2010>2009 <br /> 1 51.1 79.9 2 69.9 14 0 <br />Trade GLOBALTEMP.2019.0.2C>2009 <br /> 1 30.0 - 0 98.0 1 0 <br />Trade GLOBALTEMP.2019>2009 <br /> 3 15.4 - 0 95.0 1 0 <br />Trade 2010.GLOBALTEMP.WARMEST <br /> 20 32.0 38.0 7 31.0 126 0 <br />Trade 2011.GLOBALTEMP.WARMEST <br /> 10 30.0 40.0 10 - 0 0 <br />Trade 2010.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5 <br /> 20 68.5 69.0 5 66.0 205 0 <br />Trade 2011.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5 <br /> 10 60.0 70.0 10 55.0 15 0crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-35057231098402965042010-02-09T11:10:38.493-08:002010-02-09T11:10:38.493-08:00here is an open source calculation based on real t...here is an open source calculation based on real temperature stations. Betting on the status quo is the safe bet http://www.bestinclass.dk/index.php/2010/01/global-warming/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-29466070320297914102010-02-08T22:48:20.185-08:002010-02-08T22:48:20.185-08:00Good stuff crandles! Got a link for the Intrades ...Good stuff crandles! Got a link for the Intrades bets? (Suppose I could lift a finger and look myself....)Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-78169299705742905312010-02-08T14:22:32.079-08:002010-02-08T14:22:32.079-08:00>"Not much else on climate betting that I&...>"Not much else on climate betting that I've heard"<br /><br />I obviously haven't been posting enough on my $1330 win on 2009 being in the top 5 years per GISS through intrade. Intrade is now running more and longer bets eg 2019 .2C greater than 2009, 2019 greater than 2009, years upto 2014 in top5 temps, 2010 warmest, 2011 warmest.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-56920101214234129092010-02-07T23:19:26.597-08:002010-02-07T23:19:26.597-08:00Temp has accelerated significantly, from .06 to .1...Temp has accelerated significantly, from .06 to .15C/decade. And your own chart showed sea level rise accelerating.<br /><br />There was a natural trend from 1850 to sometime in early 20th Century. The rest is artificial.<br /><br />Since we don't even know if the MWP was global, there's little ability to compare it to modern warming. But yes, to the extent MWP did happen, I can explain it. It's natural variability.<br /><br />The same isn't true now. We have the simple math and the complex computer models to prove it.<br /><br />And I have my willingness to bet that warming will accelerate. My bet is that warming will be twice the 20th Century rate. Even if the 20thC rate could be thought of as natural for some insane reason, a "natural" warmer would have every reason for wanting to bet me when I'm willing to say the rate will continue at twice the pace.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-56174705880376267602010-02-07T00:57:02.160-08:002010-02-07T00:57:02.160-08:00It's not accelerated significantly. However th...It's not accelerated significantly. However the alarmists are claiming all the rise as being anthropogenic. ie. The sea level rises has an anthropognic cause. <br /><br />You've just admitted that this is over and above some trend.<br /><br />As for the warming accelerating, let me turn it round. The MWP is clearly there, however, you can't explain why it got cooler after the MWP. You can't explain why the MWP was warm. However, I can. It's natural variability.<br /><br />The same is true for the majority of the current warming. It is well within the limits and rates of change from the temperature record. That means, by Occam's razor, there is no need to invoke another mechanism.<br /><br />So in order for you to show something unnatural, you have to say what natural warming rates can be (degrees per year) and ask is if the last 100 years years warmed unnaturally quickly. You also need to show that the current temperatures are unatural. ie. We haven't seen them before. Included in this is also why current temperatures are being adjusted.Lord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-76851499555696848302010-02-05T22:36:16.846-08:002010-02-05T22:36:16.846-08:00There was some natural warming post-1850 that comb...There was some natural warming post-1850 that combined with CO2 rise. Natural warming was predominant first, so it could cause the early sea level rise.<br /><br />As for not seeing any acceleration, look again - it's in the increasing curve of the tinyurl you provided. What skeptics can't provide is an explanation of why now, long after we've completely bounced back from the Little Ice Age, would the warming accelerate.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-26202168661587605902010-02-05T15:05:12.556-08:002010-02-05T15:05:12.556-08:00Not true.
Take two graphs.
http://www.myclimat...Not true. <br /><br />Take two graphs. <br /><br />http://www.myclimatechange.net/UserImage/3/Definition/CO2concentration.jpg<br /><br />Take it that any AGW starts 1910. ie. When the concentration rises to a sufficient level to start anything if you believe the litany<br /><br />Now, lets look at sea level measurements (suspect anyway because they don't tie up with rotation times).<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/yg4regr<br /><br />The rise started well before CO2 started rising.<br /><br />Now, lets look at the claims.<br /><br />1) CO2 causes the rise. Here you have to show that the natural rise stopped when you claim CO2 causes sea level rises. You also have to show what was causing the rise before.<br /><br />2) Alternatively, since I can't see any acceleration corresponding to the CO2 levels, the null hypothesis, justified by Occam's razor applies and the non anthropogenic trend prior to CO2 rises has continued. I certainly can't justify why its stopped.Lord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-4335952207985748372010-02-04T23:36:32.641-08:002010-02-04T23:36:32.641-08:00The models demonstrate little warming to slight co...The models demonstrate little warming to slight cooling absent human-caused forcings. The models don't accurate describe present or past conditions unless human forcings are included.<br /><br />Again, CO2's large and measurable effect has been known since the mid-1800s. Only when it became politically inconvenient was it then disputed.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-34927019789192356792010-02-04T10:48:25.011-08:002010-02-04T10:48:25.011-08:00But that's not what is being claimed.
The cla...But that's not what is being claimed.<br /><br />The claim is warming since late 19th century, and it must be unnatural.<br /><br />You claim natural forcings don't explain it, but you have no evidence for that.<br /><br />You need to have evidence as to what the rates of natural temperature changes can be without any anthropogenic CO2.<br /><br />Since you don't have the records, you can't substaintiate that claim.<br /><br />You need both pre and post industrialisation records to ask the question, is the current warming extraordinary. <br /><br />What's your evidence for it being extraordinary?Lord Blaggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06783119146180259097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-44613054742723876102010-01-30T08:08:23.905-08:002010-01-30T08:08:23.905-08:00The instrumental record starts in mid-late 19th Ce...The instrumental record starts in mid-late 19th Century. It's your side that screams about proxies for early periods and claims they're inaccurate.<br /><br />The current warming doesn't need to be unprecedented in the 4.5 billion year earth history, it just needs to be unexplained by natural forces. Natural forcings don't explain the warming, and a huge coincidence of tremendous warming just as we're increasing a gas that's been acknowledged to be greenhouse gas for 150 years, isn't plausibe.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.com