Not So Confident
December 7th, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
I notice with some mild amusement that Joe Romm, who viciously attacks anyone daring to offer a view on climate change science or policy that differs from his own, has offered a bet on future climate change (emphasis in original):
So for all the deniers and delayers touting the coolest year of the decade (if the decade starts in 2001) meme, I stand by my offer to bet $1000 that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the decade from 2000 to 2009. I’ll even give you 2-to-1 odds or spot you 0.1°C.
The funny thing is that Joe’s terms indicate an expressed confidence in warming in the next decade of only 66% (2 to 1 odds). If there is really a 33% percent chance that 2010 to 2019 will be cooler than 2000-2009, then advocacy based on assertions, like Joe’s that, “Global warming is accelerating, as predicted“, is quite a gamble. If Joe thinks skeptics have gotten loud based on the coolest year this decade, just image the state of the debate after a decade of relatively cooler temperatures.
If you want to know why self-described climate skeptics are going extinct no time soon, look to the remarkable lack of confidence shown by one of the most strident voices in the climate corner of the blogosphere. This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps them going.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The IPCC projection is the underlying trend is 0.2 C/decade. So, as long as he’s proposing the bet, why isn’t he spotting 0.2 C for 50%-50% odds?
December 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Two points:
Earlier this year, I tried to take Joe up on a similar bet, but he failed to respond to my offer and then later claimed that no one would bet him. I imagine something similar might happen this time, if anyone tries to take him seriously.
The reason why self-described climate skeptics are not going extinct anytime soon has nothing to do with Joe Romm and everything to do with the Earth’s climate. The evidence continues to mount that changes in CO2 at this level have only a minor impact on global temperatures, and that the suggested CO2 mitigation procedures will have a great and terrible impact.
While the theory continues to suggest that the crisis skeptics are wrong, the evidence indicates that they are correct. It is a sad day for science when evidence is dismissed in favor of theory.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:36 am
The offered bet relates to two 10-year periods, yet the sunspot cycle is 11 years. The first period omits a year (1999) that is higher in solar irradiance than would typically be expected for the year (2020) omitted from the second period.
Thus it seems to me that there is an intrinsic bias in the offered bet, in favour of Mr Romm’s side of the wager.
Though I am not sure how significant this effect would be in its totality, it strikes me that it would be much fairer if the wager were over two adjoining 11-year periods.
Best regards
December 8th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Good point from Lucia, plus I note that Romm insists on using the GISS temp, as ‘adjusted’ by Hansen.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
How about betting him $1000 that he can’t prove that he predicted the current plateau in global temps? Did he predict ten years ago that temps would stop rising for (going on) a decade?
December 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Forget the odds. Who gets to measure the temperature?
I’ll bet him a six-pack (the American gentleman’s standard) but insist on the UAH data set. I don’t need any odds or 0.1 degrees.