|
Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warming
An interesting thing I heard in the news recently. Some guy challenged Al Gore to a 10K wager (10k fight yo?) for charity regarding some of his climate change predictions.
The guy is a professor and the story is here (warning, fox news link, try not to go insane) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287045,00.html And someone else pondered, with all these gambling websites out there where you can wager on crazy things (reality tv shows, American Idol, how many iPhones will be sold the first week, etc.) what if you put up lines on some of the global warming predictions? Wouldn't such an exercise be pretty useful in determining whether or not the advocates of such predictions actually believe they will occur? What sort of line would you want or need before committing alot of money? (I know it would depend on the particular predicition in question) |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
|
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warming
I was in a bookstore today (Barnes & Noble) and saw Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, in the nature section of the book store. Thought it should have been in the politics section.
|
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't such an exercise be pretty useful in determining whether or not the advocates of such predictions actually believe they will occur? [/ QUOTE ] Correct. Another way of smelling the BS is looking at the consistency of what they are claiming and how they live their lives. For example: the major war parties should immediately cut all military spending to a bare minimum, if they also talk about how they want to help the environment. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warming
[ QUOTE ]
I was in a bookstore today (Barnes & Noble) and saw Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, in the nature section of the book store. Thought it should have been in the science fiction section. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
Funny, the climate scientists have been trying to get the skeptics to accept bets for years. They've even openly stated "if Exxon was smart they'd front the bets for the skeptics". Now that election season is heating up it will be interesting to see if there will be more of these. Also, if somebody is honestly willing to bet on climate change I know a lot of scientists that don't make a lot of money that are willing to gamble their life savings with a generous 2:1 odds for the skeptic.
EDIT: This guy is a professor of marketing. And from what I can tell he's not a member of the AGU which means he's probably clueless. It would be interesting to see if he could answer some basic questions on the science. I'm wondering if he simply based his conclusion off of an "expert systems" program. When it comes to skeptics it seems that most of them come from the marketing or economics fields. A curious trend to say the least. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't such an exercise be pretty useful in determining whether or not the advocates of such predictions actually believe they will occur? [/ QUOTE ] Pretty much all of the leading skeptics (that actually have a relevant degree) have claimed that there will either be global cooling or some counter consensus variation in front of a camera or infront of Congress. Despite making proud claims that they will bet money they (skeptics with relevant degrees e.g. Lindzen, Gray, Michaels, etc) have all backed down when approached. When election season comes I fully expect some of them to change their mind. I expect the ones with the closest ties to Exxon, CEI, API, etc will be the first to switch. Either that or we will see some irrelevant professor of marketing or anthropology come out of nowhere and make bets. This election season will probably be the last election where the oil industry has a reasonable shot with their denial tactics. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
What sorts of bets would be possible to test this theory over a reasonable time period (less than 30 years)?
|
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
If a politician actually bet money on the outcome of something he advocates (whether or not he has control over the outcome), he would be trivializing both himself and the issue he advocates in the mind of the general public.
To most people, gambling is at worst a sin and at best a petty leisure-time activity. Gore's reputation, which would be hurt by accepting a bet regardless of outcome, is far more valuable to him than any money he would risk. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
One problem of making a workable bet is the nature of the skepticism. Hardcore skeptic believe the warming is close to 100% natural. Next are climate agnostics that believe that the science is too immature to make accurate predictions to make any policy adjustments based on them. The least skeptic skeptic believe that Co2 contributes to warming but not at dangerous levels. For anyone of them the AGW believers need to lay significant odds. Even against the hardcore skeptics, the odds would have to be around 5:1 for it to be reasonable for them to take. On the surface it may seem coin-flippish scenario given the "it is all natural" position, but it could be reasoned that whatever mechanism that is causing the recent warmth may still be in play.
Being a weak skeptic, I am willing to bet up to 1000$ that the average of the decade after 2015 will be cooler than the decade that precedes it if I was given 9:1 odds(which is around the confidence level that the latest IPCC summary feels that CO2 contributed to the majority of the warming). |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Being a weak skeptic, I am willing to bet up to 1000$ that the average of the decade after 2015 will be cooler than the decade that precedes it if I was given 9:1 odds(which is around the confidence level that the latest IPCC summary feels that CO2 contributed to the majority of the warming). [/ QUOTE ] In otherwords you believe the IPCC report is accurate. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Your bet is like saying "i'm a skeptic that you will roll a 6 on a 6 sided die sp lets bet against the 6 while laying 5:1 odds". It's pointless on a political scale. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
What sorts of bets would be possible to test this theory over a reasonable time period (less than 30 years)? [/ QUOTE ] There are many people that are willing to make $10,000 bets after only 12 years. There of measuring the warming. One way is to simply look at the surface temperature record from NASA or the Met Office. People generally take a 6 year temperature average to smooth out any short term fluctuations/noise. Another way is to simply look at the global ice mass of the glaciers. Another way is to look at the temperature readings from the ARGO network in the ocean. There is much less short term noise from these readings. There are dozens of ways to make bets on global warming. Many very knowledgeable people are willing to bet their life savings on a 12 year lifespan. I would prefer to play it rock solid safe and go for ~20 which is a span of 2 solar cycles. But with the speed that parts of the earth is changing I'm certainly starting to think 12 years is more than adequate for betting purposes. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What sorts of bets would be possible to test this theory over a reasonable time period (less than 30 years)? [/ QUOTE ] There are many people that are willing to make $10,000 bets after only 12 years. There of measuring the warming. One way is to simply look at the surface temperature record from NASA or the Met Office. People generally take a 6 year temperature average to smooth out any short term fluctuations/noise. Another way is to simply look at the global ice mass of the glaciers. Another way is to look at the temperature readings from the ARGO network in the ocean. There is much less short term noise from these readings. There are dozens of ways to make bets on global warming. Many very knowledgeable people are willing to bet their life savings on a 12 year lifespan. I would prefer to play it rock solid safe and go for ~20 which is a span of 2 solar cycles. But with the speed that parts of the earth is changing I'm certainly starting to think 12 years is more than adequate for betting purposes. [/ QUOTE ] I think the point of this thread is to make a bet regarding what's causing global warming, not that there is global warming. With that thought in mind how do we make bets on the cause? |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point of this thread is to make a bet regarding what's causing global warming, not that there is global warming. With that thought in mind how do we make bets on the cause? [/ QUOTE ] Well one way to make the bet is to negate other external factors. For example: "if the suns irradiance stays the same within +/- 1 watt per square meter or +/- 0.07%, the cosmic rays exhibit no trend, and there are no explanatory orbital trends then the bet is on. If there is a deviation in any of these factors then the bet is off". If the challenger can't provide an explanation for the warming ahead of time then he's a denier and not a skeptic. The first step in the scientific method is to create a testable hypothesis. That is how I'd create a more scientific bet. Also a large amount of these skeptics used to claim global cooling and some still do. There are plenty of "cooler heads" to bet against. Now that it's obvious that the cooling won't happen many of the more reasonable skeptics have changed their position to "it's just going to be a little bit of warming". There is even a trend forming now where they are saying "the warming will be good for us". The most common argument with this is the CO2 fertilization. But recent experiments (15 years of testing) have shown that this argument is bogus and only applies to fertilized indoor plants due to a variety of bottleneck reasons. Here is an example of a free air CO2 tower setup: http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8890/rings2xt9.jpg So the "big warming is good for us" skeptics backtrack to little warming. Every year theres a new gap in knowledge that the skeptics circle around and every year that another hole gets filled in. Just reading the history of these skeptics it amazes me how often they change their position just to fit an ideology. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Well one way to make the bet is to negate other external factors. For example: "if the suns irradiance stays the same within +/- 1 watt per square meter or +/- 0.07%, the cosmic rays exhibit no trend, and there are no explanatory orbital trends then the bet is on. If there is a deviation in any of these factors then the bet is off". If the challenger can't provide an explanation for the warming ahead of time then he's a denier and not a skeptic. The first step in the scientific method is to create a testable hypothesis. [/ QUOTE ] This approach would assume, would it not(?), that all factors are known and quantifiable. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well one way to make the bet is to negate other external factors. For example: "if the suns irradiance stays the same within +/- 1 watt per square meter or +/- 0.07%, the cosmic rays exhibit no trend, and there are no explanatory orbital trends then the bet is on. If there is a deviation in any of these factors then the bet is off". If the challenger can't provide an explanation for the warming ahead of time then he's a denier and not a skeptic. The first step in the scientific method is to create a testable hypothesis. [/ QUOTE ] This approach would assume, would it not(?), that all factors are known and quantifiable. [/ QUOTE ] Yes it would. I'd be more interested in making a bet on who's got the best climate model FWIW. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well one way to make the bet is to negate other external factors. For example: "if the suns irradiance stays the same within +/- 1 watt per square meter or +/- 0.07%, the cosmic rays exhibit no trend, and there are no explanatory orbital trends then the bet is on. If there is a deviation in any of these factors then the bet is off". If the challenger can't provide an explanation for the warming ahead of time then he's a denier and not a skeptic. The first step in the scientific method is to create a testable hypothesis. [/ QUOTE ] This approach would assume, would it not(?), that all factors are known and quantifiable. [/ QUOTE ] No, not if your intent it to separate the scientists from the frauds. What separates skeptics from deniers is a quantifiable and testable hypothesis. If they can't provide a testable hypothesis then they are operating by blind faith and not science. They might as well say "Zues was angry and he heated up the earth. Don't ask me how, he works in mysterious ways". Btw, I could easily expand on this bet. Just in case you wanted to increase the specificity we could bet on all of these at the same time: 1) Argo temperature records 2) Surface record temps averaged out over a 5 year mean 3) Polar amplification (north an south poles heat up faster) 4) Stratospheric cooling combined with tropospheric warming 5) Sea surface temperature increase (skin layer is a sign of long wave forcing) 6) Continued radiant energy imbalance. This is a massive smoking gun. (it will actually increase but I *think* that's hard to measure on such a short timespan. Dunno will have to check the accuracy of the satellites.) 7) Comparison to James Hansen's model 8) Decreased global ice balance 9) Glacier melt through thermal conductance and not sublimation If you understand the physics you would understand why all of these observations are such a powerful smoking gun that points toward greenhouse gases. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well one way to make the bet is to negate other external factors. For example: "if the suns irradiance stays the same within +/- 1 watt per square meter or +/- 0.07%, the cosmic rays exhibit no trend, and there are no explanatory orbital trends then the bet is on. If there is a deviation in any of these factors then the bet is off". If the challenger can't provide an explanation for the warming ahead of time then he's a denier and not a skeptic. The first step in the scientific method is to create a testable hypothesis. [/ QUOTE ] This approach would assume, would it not(?), that all factors are known and quantifiable. [/ QUOTE ] No, not if your intent it to separate the scientists from the frauds. What separates skeptics from deniers is a quantifiable and testable hypothesis. If they can't provide a testable hypothesis then they are operating by blind faith and not science. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed. Kind of like the theories explaining why CO2 rises follow global warming in historical data intead of preceding it that come from the "CO2 is BAD" camp. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Kind of like the theories explaining why CO2 rises follow global warming in historical data intead of preceding it that come from the "CO2 is BAD" camp. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you realize that James Hansen predicted the lag years before the first ice core was dug up. If you read that paper he attributes the lag to the "trigger effect" of Milankovitch cycles. To use the lag argument the way you do is to display a great deal of ignorance with regard to feedback cycles. As a side note James Hansen, for the first time in his published carrier, *might* have been wrong. There is a paper which is about to be published that passed review and claims that CO2 actually coincides or even leads the temp increases. If that paper passes the reproducibility tests then we will have a lot of investigating to do because the global warming theory actually makes *MORE* sense if it lags the temperature increase which is merely triggered by Milankovitch cycles and multiplied by albedo effects of melting ice. So as a skeptic/denier I suggest you do a complete flip flop and start arguing that CO2 actually LEADS the temp increases. That is unless you are merely talking to the uneducated masses and not somebody that actually knows what they are talking about. If you make the consensus debunking CO2 LEAD argument then you will actually have at least one credible argument. -late for a date, see you in tomorrow afternoon... |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
So you're stating that you believe Hansen's climate model is very accurate apparently. I'm not sure there's enough predictions from the model to make that claim but I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.
Just to elaborate, here's an excerpt from a source that seems to support Hansen's findings: Commentary on the debate between James Hansen and Patrick Michaels, November 1998 What struck me most when reading the transcript was the very different notions contained within of what is proper climate change science. Patrick Michaels (PM) seemed to adopt a strongly empirically-oriented view of climate science, in which hypotheses are tested against good data sets. Yet PM’s approach downplays the vital role of climate models, without which the question under debate cannot really be tackled. (After all, observations of the past and their correspondence or not with climate models’ simulations of the past, tell us little per se about the future.) From PM’s perspective, it is appropriate to put a great deal of onus on the match between observations of temperature and other climate variables and that predicted from the simulations of climate models. If there is a large discrepancy, the case for past and future anthropogenic climate change as suggested by climate models is significantly undermined according to this viewpoint. PM does not appear to ascribe any capacity to climate models for simulating the physical (and chemical and biological) processes which are responsible for generating climate change. If one ascribes some predictive capacity to climate models because of the physical and empirical understanding and knowledge which lies behind them, then PM’s criticisms are less convincing. They are less convincing because PM does not provide us with an alternative method or approach for thinking about future climate change due to human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. The critique is also less convincing because the observations upon which PM draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make. As James Hansen (JH) notes at several points, it is no good comparing climate model simulations against short observational records (10–20 years). Longer time-series of observations would be required for PM’s case against the models to be convincing on this basis. It is interesting that JH does not specify what sort of observational records(how long, with what coverage, including which climate variables, etc) would be needed before the case for or against the ability of climate model’s to simulate past climate would become more convincing. Perhaps the modellers do need to be more up front about what empirical and observational statements would be required for that community to really question their models and the plethora of theories, approximations, data and so forth which goes into making a climate model. Apparently Hansen states himself that observations made over 10-20 year time periods don't say too much about the predictive nature of climate models. If that's the case (and I'm fairly certain that it is), then touting the accuracy of such a model over such a time period is bogus, just as bogus as pointing out that a model was incorrect over such a time period. I want to be able to make a bet such that the variables that affect model are specified, we plug those variables in in 50 years from now (that may be too short of a time period) and see which model was the most accurate over that time period. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Another way of smelling the BS is looking at the consistency of what they are claiming and how they live their lives. [/ QUOTE ] In Gore's movie about global warming they are driving around in a large gas guzzling car/SUV. It's also doubtful he lives in a small home... In a press conference in California about the future of fuel cells, Schwarzenager drove off in a Suburban and everyone knows he loves the Hummer. Yes, it would be nice if these guys lead by example...Maybe its our job to sacrifice while they travel the world and drive SUV's. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Another way of smelling the BS is looking at the consistency of what they are claiming and how they live their lives. [/ QUOTE ] In Gore's movie about global warming they are driving around in a large gas guzzling car/SUV. It's also doubtful he lives in a small home... In a press conference in California about the future of fuel cells, Schwarzenager drove off in a Suburban and everyone knows he loves the Hummer. Yes, it would be nice if these guys lead by example...Maybe its our job to sacrifice while they travel the world and drive SUV's. [/ QUOTE ] QFT. Gore lives in the nicest part of town and ran up a 50k electric bill one month. He is a phony. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
So you're stating that you believe Hansen's climate model is very accurate apparently. I'm not sure there's enough predictions from the model to make that claim but I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong. [/ QUOTE ] The model predicts a lot more than a single average global temperature. Some parts are extremely accurate others (like rain patterns) are not so accurate. [ QUOTE ] Apparently Hansen states himself that observations made over 10-20 year time periods don't say too much about the predictive nature of climate models. If that's the case (and I'm fairly certain that it is), then touting the accuracy of such a model over such a time period is bogus, just as bogus as pointing out that a model was incorrect over such a time period. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, I prefer quotes that are little closer to the source. This could take several pages of text to explain. Here is a quote from Gavin Schmidt who actually works for Hansen: Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a 'precise assessment' of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can't be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get. The models have done an incredible job of reconstructing the past. But exactly how accurate will they be for the future? Well that depends on how you phrase the question. Once we get 50 years out we start dealing with things like massive glacier melt, methane hydrates, soil CO2 respiration which are all positive feedbacks. There are a lot of things that we simply do not understand when it comes to these positive feedbacks and current observational trends are pointing toward the alarming side of things. So the models are very likely underestimating things here. But at the same time we simply don't know enough about this particular aspect of climate change yet. A sample set from 1988 to 2008 is not enough time to fully asses the accuracy of glacier melt predictions. But it is enough time to assess the accuracy of other parts of the model. To make things worse a 20 year chunk starting in 1988 will give us different information than a 20 year chunk in 2060 because different feedbacks (like permafrost melt) will be kicking in at full steam. Each chunk gives us rock solid information about a different set of feedbacks (of which most are positive feedbacks). But to make the matter even more confusing sometimes the lessons in physics from one chunk can overlap with the physics of another. So our gaps in information are constantly being filled in. So for some things 12 years is enough to test certain aspects of the models. For other aspects of the models many more years will be required. It depends on what specific aspects of the model/global warming you are analyzing. I hope this makes sense. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a 'precise assessment' of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can't be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.
This strikes me as a mea culpa. True my models predictive value can't be relied upon to be all that accurate but it's the best we can do. Of course modeling the climate is a worthwhile activity but I'd willing to bet a whole bunch of money that over the next 50 years, the models will be improved upon significantly. I'd also guess that you'd be willing to admit this as well. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
[ QUOTE ]
Of course modeling the climate is a worthwhile activity but I'd willing to bet a whole bunch of money that over the next 50 years, the models will be improved upon significantly. I'd also guess that you'd be willing to admit this as well. [/ QUOTE ] I've already admitted this. But at the same time certain aspects of the models such as the effects of greenhouse gases will not be improved upon significantly, if at all. Radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is well understood. The only areas that are left for meaningful improvement are the positive and a couple of negative feedbacks. |
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warmi
Don't give me sh*t about the temperature in Guatemala, don't really see what all the fuss is about. Ain't gonna worry about no future generations cause I'm sure somebody's gonna figure it out.
|
Re: Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warming
[ QUOTE ]
I was in a bookstore today (Barnes & Noble) and saw Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, in the nature section of the book store. I moved it to the fiction section. [/ QUOTE ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.