Theoretically, those who believe the IPCC predictions should be able to make piles of money off those who are skeptical, because they wrongly predict minimal warming and we correctly predict... well, I can never remember what is is exactly: about 3 oC at CO2 doubling with error bounds. Now there are problems with making piles of money, because this is 50+ years in the future, and trying to predict with shorter horizons runs into problems with natural variability. But still, its an interesting idea. One of the other problems with trying to make bets is that the septics turn chicken on you... here for example we see James Annan trying to get Steve Schulin to face up to his words - an embarassing spectacle.
However, Mark Bahmer is made of sterner stuff perhaps - see comment 6 here.
I'll put this post up now as a marker for the idea.
7 comments:
"Theoretically, those who believe the IPCC predictions should be able to make piles of money off those who are skeptical, because they wrongly predict minimal warming..."
The problem with this theory is that the IPCC predictions are completely bogus.
On my weblog, I've posted the my "50% probability" predictions versus the IPCC's for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and temperatures in the lower troposphere.
I propose the following bet on LongBets: 1 point for closest to atmospheric methane concentration, 1 point for closest to CO2 emissions, 1 point for closest to atmospheric CO2 concentration, and 3 points for closest to (satellite-measured) lower tropospheric temperature.
So that's 6 points total, every decade, starting in 2010. Lower troposheric temperature is computed as a 3-year average centered around the year in question. (So the 1990 baseline would be the average of 1989, 1990, and 1991, and 2010 would be the average of 2009, 2010, and 2011).
It isn't even going to be close. I will crush the IPCC TAR predictions, because they either were dishonest and/or incompetent. (I think it's more the former.)
Mark Bahner (with an "n")
Mark Bahner posts as if he has some expertise from which to judge. Will he post his credentials that demonstrate a formal background or just get mad and defensive. Anybody up for this as a bet?
Anonymous said..."Mark Bahner posts as if he has some expertise from which to judge. Will he post his credentials that demonstrate a formal background or just get mad and defensive."
Though you post anonymously, I can tell you have little or no background in science. Science has nothing to do with "credentials" or "formal background." Science has to do with who is ***right***, and who is wrong.
I have a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineer. For the last 15 years, I've been performing environmental analyses, mostly related to air pollution. Prior to that, I spent about 5 years in various aspects of power generation (coal, nuclear, and municipal solid waste).
"Anybody up for this as a bet?"
If you're asking if anyone is allowed to take the side of the IPCC in the bet...the bet offer is limited to members of the IPCC.
It's not open to twits who post anonymously. (And who have the both the ignorance and nerve to demand and claim to judge "credentials" and "formal background.")
P.S. I also have particular interest in economic growth. My interest and expertise is such that I'm extremely confident that the economic analyses of the IPCC are extremely flawed. I would be happy to bet any member of the IPCC that the world GDP per capita in 2100 will be higher than the IPCC's HIGHEST projection in their Third Assessment Report:
The IPCC Economic Projections are also hopelessly wrong
So this shows you have no expertise in climate science. Just as I thought. Your opinion about the science of climate change is no different than any amatuer and I would not give you any more weight than any other non-expert. Oh and by the way, name calling is one of the lowest forms of argumentation usually indulged in by people of low character.
I can't edit the comments here but I can delete then. Comments with rude language ("twits" is rude, if you were wondering) will in future be deleted. This is your only warning. Be polite.
I will just briefly mention here, as I did on realclimate.org, that I have tried to contac Mark Bahner about his bet, but have not received a reply and he seems to be doing the same wriggle and squirm that all the septics do when asked to put their money where there mouths are.
I wouldn't waste too much time on Mr. Bahner.
Here are two threads from Brad DeLong's site that should give you insight into his technical expertise:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002176.html
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000404.html
---
Finally, he wrote:
'Science has nothing to do with "credentials" or "formal background."'
Look here
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001597.html
to see Mark cite an authority and then bray 'EXPERT' at those who disagree with him.
- chris_a
Post a Comment