Slashdot Mirror
Climate Modeller Wins $10,000 Wager Against Solar Physicists, Fails To Collect (blogspot.com)
Layzej writes: Back in 2005, solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made a $10,000 bet that global temperatures, driven primarily by changes in the Sun's activity, would fall over the next decade. The bet would compare the then record hot years between 1998 to 2003 with that between between 2012 and 2017. With temperatures falling from their peak during the 1998 super El-Nino, and solar output continuing to fall, this seemed like a sure bet. The results are now in and all datasets show that climate modeler James Annan is the clear winner.
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
Anyone denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change while at the same time claiming to uphold scientific integrity has none to begin with.
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
Okay, let's discuss. a) Local is not global. b) Global warming leads to more variation, not uniform warming. Look at the polar vortex, for example. That was predicted by models beforehand, as well. c) Warming leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which leads to higher precipitation, including snow when the conditions are right. In other words, you have to show that what is being seen in the global trends and the cherry picked odd local events are both inconsistent with global warming and easily explained by something else. Good luck.
So why the fuck should we care about your anecdote?
Oh, I see. You're one of those jackoffs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Loaning someone $20, and them not paying you back is a great way to never deal with them again.
"You still owe me, I'm not giving you shit."
One of my nephews lost out on $1200 worth of car troubles for $20.
Fuck them if they don't pay, he has no currency. (paul simon, if you don't get it.) ... ...
He holds no currency
He is a foreign man
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
I've tried to understand the phenomena. I think a lot of it stems from training in youth, or perhaps lack of it. While many religions do many good things, they generally all teach belief in what can't be proven beyond any possible doubt, since that is usually the point. Its a curious skill, because it paves the way to believe things without a factual basis. Those without any training at all, and in particular those that have no desire to look at any problem or situation in detail similarly gain the skill or lack of skill in just believing what is in front of them.
Being part of a tribe exacerbates this, particularly if the tribes major goals are considered threatened by members of an opposing tribe. Things seem to be rejected simply because they are of the other. Indeed it seems quite common to make the other as scary as possible, which further makes it difficult for members of the tribe to consider betraying the tribes ideas or even considering the other. Of course if you add religion back in it just adds to the effect, since many religious people are well used to both compromising for the greater good and blocking out any information that conflict with the "greater truths"
Add in foreign powers that want to crank all of our divisions up to infinity and beyond, plus lots of ways to do it, and you have today. Perhaps 1984 was a bit late, and I doubt we have seen the apogee of it yet, but I think we are in it.
The only cure I see is better correct training in critical thinking, preferably when people are young. The scientific method isn't just for science. You can think, reason, understand, hypothesis, check your hypothesis, etc, etc, on any subject. I think this is also why your see the right push intelligent design, textbook editing, etc. They want to indoctrinate early, since it benefits the tribe. Indeed I think much of it is behind the push for anti-intellectualism for well, much of my lifetime I suppose.
In short, saying we need to teach people to think more critically, to be more skeptical, to always test beliefs and theories, is easier said than done. First they would need to win a lot of elections to even have a chance to do that kind of change, which would of course freak out the other side causing even more escalation.
It is a rather curious thing. The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed, which come to think of it, brings us full circle, since that state is exactly the state that makes it easier for foreign powers and well really anyone to manipulate the populous, with the ongoing manipulation from well a lot of sources making it near impossible to take the steps to stop the ongoing manipulation.
A lot of people (here, especially) reject the 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy. It takes some form of 'experts say' and related. They want to see the data and decide for themselves. Whenever they hear an appeal to expert, it turns them off. But if I don't have the time or expertise to delve into the data, one can accept suitably formed appeals.
Some part of the response to climate change does involve power grabs and redistribution.
It is important to separate the question of whether there is global warming or anthropogenic global warming, and the responses to it.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Look, if you're going to put all you money on sun activity and say that the temps will drop then you are denying human activity is a factor. Otherwise you're not very good scientist with modeling. You cannot bet on temps dropping without being a climate science denier. The two are mutually exclusive.
"[the facts of the case] i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out"
and
"i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet."
The first probably leads to the latter.
Why did you post that as AC? It was excellent.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
ShanghaiBill is OK. He's a crusty old fuck and wrong about everything, but he's not horrible and usually argues in good faith (though from a misinformed viewpoint). I don't mind him. When the revolution comes, I don't want to see him put up against the wall. He can work at the Workers' Golf Course as the ball washer until he finishes reeducation camp. [Just joking, Bill. You and me are cool.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
In the UK it was the longest, overall hottest summer (although not containing the single hottest day, which was in 2003) I remember since I was a child. Since my childhood memory of 1976 cannot be fully relied on, possibly ever. Luckily there is also an instrumental record that could confirm this.
Seems like Trump is a Russia then as he's not paying $1m to charity for losing the Elizabeth Warren's DNA test claim - then again, he is just a dishonourable human being anyway
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Slashdot posts don't get deleted. Perhaps they are being moderated below your reading threshold.
As long as you've been around, and you don't know this?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Meanwhile, here in Sweden, we've had the longest and warmest late spring/summer/early autumn on record, and we've still not had the first hard frost we should normally have had 2-3 weeks ago.
You were saying...?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Amen, brother! I have never really understood how anyone could consider blind faith a virtue.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So they whinge that the temperature has gone down over 12 years while CO2 levels rose. That ONLY makes sense when they are insisting that the climate is being driven by only one variable.
They then scream IT'S THE SUN!!!!! because that too pretends that the climate is a single variable system.
So, yeah, every denier pretty much insists it is a single variable system, they all use either one of those two "arguments" to rebut AGW science.
That makes it a pure ad hom. And a genetic fallacy too: if it's "from the left" it "must be wrong".
"independent, trust worthy, banker"
You can only pick 2 of those, the third eliminates all of the prospects.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You cannot run a test if your equipment is incapable of measuring the thing you are testing.
But the intellectual tools of empiricism are adequate to establish the fact of a physical universe. And it that very fact which demands we answer the question of WHY. Why is all of this here? Where did it all come from? What's the point? You cannot say "it came from nothing and means nothing", because it is SOMETHING.
The way that Paul puts it is, "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for, and the certainty of what we do not see." These are philosophical commitments. They are conclusions about the meaning and purpose of life, a meaning which transcends our ability to see physically.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?
This wager was written up in Nature at the time of the bet. It was included in New Scientist's Five scientific theories decided by wager It is included in Wikipedia's article on scientific wager.
If your wager is literally included in the definition of a scientific wager, then I would not be shocked to find it written about.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out.
The graph is showing that every available temperature data set, whether it be it from USA or UK, land or satellite, and even those by skeptics - all show the same thing. Temperature is warming by about 0.2C/decade. The later period is warmer than the former. The climate modeler had greater insights into the mechanisms that affect global mean temperature than the solar physicists. The winner is clear.
For more authoritative reportage, you can read this nature article from when the bet was made, this New Scientist's article on Five scientific theories decided by wager, or this Russian article on why the losers welched, even though they lost.
Slashdot posts don't get deleted. Perhaps they are being moderated below your reading threshold.
As long as you've been around, and you don't know this?
*Ahem*
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot (Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday March 16, 2001 @09:05AM from the i-guess-it-was-inevitable dept.)
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it
Hate to break it to you but when you 'disagree" with a mere objective observation, your whole premise has been shown to be based on delusion.
Face it; you're either mildly insane or very stupid...
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence.
If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
Trump wanted to use DNA, so tough cookies. That just means Trump is going to skip paying yet another bill he created for himself. This shouldnâ(TM)t be surprising since he tried quite often to avoid paying everyone from banks to regular contractors. The smaller the contractor, the better, since it meant the losses might bankrupt them and heâ(TM)d get all the work and materials free! I suggest every Trump supporter skip paying their bills and just point at the president when asked why they think they shouldnâ(TM)t have to pay up.
Most Native Americans, myself included, donâ(TM)t just use DNA. In fact it is possible that someone who is lily white can be considered Native. We usually base it off of cultural upbringing, hence why my friend (who is as white as his Finnish first name and ancestry would suggest) who was raised from 2 in a mixed Native/Finnish family has all the rights of a Native on tribal land. Since he was raised within the tribe, he is considered of the tribe. Conversely some people who are 1/4 Native by blood (genetics) arenâ(TM)t in many cases because they donâ(TM)t know the tribal history/customs.
Lots of places with Earth temp but I see no data on Sun temp yearly. Would be nice to see the two charts side by side. All I see is Earth temp and them saying it went up. Nothing about if maybe they were wrong about the Sun temps going down and maybe that forecast was wrong and the Sun temp went up.
Here's Temp, CO2, sunspot number, and solar irradiance on a single graph. Sunspot number is a proxy for solar irradiance, and lets us peer further into the past. But even direct measurements show that solar irradiance has been dropping while CO2 and temperature rise.
You can see that in 1970 you may have had some reason to believe that temp correlates directly with solar activity, and it undoubtedly does have an impact. Greenhouse gasses have dominated over the last several decades though. To the extent that dwindling solar activity has been driving temperatures down, it has been more than compensated by rising GHG. Hope that helps!
Sure they would, you just don't understand simple math.
The "warming" is actually more like ...
Not even close. Even over 50 years the trend is closer to 0.2/decade:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.177 per decade over the last 50 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.178 per decade over the last 50 years.
But of course this has continued to accelerate so over the last couple decades you get:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.21 per decade over the last 20 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
RSS Satellite data (which doesn't extend back 50 years) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
Don't move the goal posts. The issue was whether or not she had one distant Native American ancestor. She does.
I don't expect him to ever pay, though. He never pays money he owes, and he always lies about what he said. His word is as worthless as his deals are.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population.
Yet that is all she ever claimed: that she had one distant ancestor who was Native American. Or even that that's what the story in her family was, and she wasn't sure. She's not claiming she's Native American now, she's just showing that that family story turns out to be true.
But of course people need to move the goal posts.
âoeIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â
â Epicurus (341â"270 BC)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.