Slashdot Mirror
Bastardi's Wager
DesScorp writes "AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi has a challenge for climate scientists. He wants one or more of their rank to accept a bet about temperature trends in the coming decade. Bastardi is making specific predictions. 'The scientific approach is: you see the other argument, you put forward predictions about where things are going to go, and you test them,' he says. 'That is what I have done. I have said the earth will cool .1 to .2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data.' Bastardi's challenge to his critics — who are legion — is to make their own predictions. And then wait. Climate science, he adds, 'is just a big weather forecast.' Bastardi's challenge is reminiscent of the famous Simon-Ehrlich Wager, where the two men made specific predictions about resource scarcity in the '80s."
Hypothesis followed by observation... admittedly, it cannot be repeated, but it is, at the very least, a step in the right direction. All too often people let their emotions / politics / media-lust get in the way of doing actual work towards understanding the planet we live on. Is it showmanship for him to do it this way? Sure. But at least it is showmanship with a useful point.
Would have to precisely define "objective satellite data" to a specific measuring methodology, technology, and sensitivity.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Or a physicist building a bridge.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The Earth gets hotter, the Earth gets cooler.
But do WE have an impact on this variation. That is the question.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
For the record, telling engineers that they have no business making bets with their physicist "betters" is likely to get you laughed at by both engineers and physicists.
So....why do the climate scientists keep citing specific decades if 10 years isn't long enough for it to be climate? Why are the 2000's cited as the hottest decade and called evidence for global warming if it's too short a time period to be used for that? You can't have your cake and eat it too. The use of decades as evidence of climate has been pretty consistent for most climate related papers.
meteorologists are not climatologists.
That is correct. Meteorologists are not foolish enough to pretend they understand climate well enough to predict what the climate will do for the whole earth over an extended period of time.
They are also actually judged by results instead of claiming any result obtained verified what they were claiming.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...that he would offer this wager after the warmest year on record. A more reasonable wager would be on whether or not 2020 will be above the historical average for the past century. Smart money says "yes".
It's more like: climate is a probability distribution and weather is the specific outcome measured. If I have a fair coin, I can say that 50% of the time it will come up heads and 50% it will come up tails. I cannot say what the result of any particular flip can be, however. This is why it doesn't make sense to claim, "We can't even predict the weather 10 days from now, so how can we predict the climate 10 years from now?" One thing is a specific measurement (hard to predict) and the other thing is a probability distribution (easy to predict).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Whatever you think of it's relevance for the theory of AGW, Bastardi has made a specific prediction and challenged anyone to take him up on it. If those climatologists who are believers in AGW are true scientists they should be able to make a specific prediction that we can come back to in 10 years and either say, "Way to go, your prediction is correct" or "Sorry, back to the drawing board on your theory, your prediction is wrong."
The last major AGW prediction I can recall was that England would not have snow in winter any more. Of course, now that England has had a very snowy winter, those same AGW guys are telling us, "Well, yes, that is what you can expect from Global Warming." I would put a lot more credence into the latter statement if they had told us we could expect a snowier winter in England instead of telling us that England would be getting less and less snow every year.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
IANA climate scientist, but I suspect that three things will happen:
1. As this is a complicated subject, nobody can predict exactly what will be happening in 2010. Some will be right.
2. Some will be wrong.
3. Supporters will claim victory for the first group.
4. deniers will claim victory due to the second group.
5. Ten years will have passed, and we will still be arguing about whether we should do something about the issue.
Your facts are complete bullshit. The US does not throw out enough food each day to feed the entire world, although enough food is produced worldwide to feed everyone if distribution systems were adequate. The island of floating debris you mention is mostly invisible to the naked eye and consists of small particles of plastic in the upper part of the water column. It's something to be concerned about, no doubt, but your description is hardly accurate. I can't refute your carbon footprint claim any more than you can prove it, but the fact people that are starving and live in filth and poverty may have a smaller carbon footprint doesn't seem to be all that relevant. Should we all live like they do? As for the rest, what's your point? Accusing anyone with money and/or power of being corrupt is the most common excuse for personal failings. If it makes you feel better, great.
Physicist flatter themselves that such is the case, but the reality is a bit different.
http://xkcd.com/793/