Comments on: Not So Confident http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: FrederickMichael http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11339 FrederickMichael Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:48:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11339 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. 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.

]]> By: Jon Frum http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11337 Jon Frum Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:29:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11337 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? 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?

]]> By: Paul Biggs http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11336 Paul Biggs Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:25:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11336 Good point from Lucia, plus I note that Romm insists on using the GISS temp, as 'adjusted' by Hansen. Good point from Lucia, plus I note that Romm insists on using the GISS temp, as ‘adjusted’ by Hansen.

]]> By: Nigel Sedgwick http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11335 Nigel Sedgwick Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:36:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11335 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 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

]]> By: Jim Clarke http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11334 Jim Clarke Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:44:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11334 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. 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.

]]> By: lucia http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768&cpage=1#comment-11333 lucia Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:13:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4768#comment-11333 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? 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?

]]>