« Sea ice extent update 4: there's my update! | Main | Animation 2: Concentration »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

GFW

Heh, everything will be used as a tool in the WUWT PR campaign. In particular, I would put the onus on the self-purported expert who confidently said he was expecting 500,000 km2 increase over 2009. Remind him of that and ask for a bet where he wins if 200,000 km2 over 2009, you win if under 2009, and a "push" for in-between. No sense in conceding ground that's already been handed to you on a silver platter.

I would note that even the scientists behind PIOMAS are predicting slightly higher than 2007, although lower than everything else. The weather in 2007 was truly statistically abnormal. The question is how much "less abnormal" will still beat 2007 as the background thaw continues.

David Gould

It could be fun. I agree with GFW - you should go with the most favourable conditions that you can. My bet is a bit of a wild one, but I think that I have a pretty good chance of winning it ... unfortunately. It would be interesting to see what conditions Mr Goddard puts forward at any rate. :)

Fredt34

Dont bet. Stay preciously hidden from the denialosphere as long as you can.

dorlomin

Anyone remember this master piece by Mr Goddard?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Kevin McKinney

It's certainly the case that everything possible will be used for propaganda purposes. Personally, I'd not bet--mainly because the variability is high, and that's part of the reality that needs to be reflected, and partly because I'd be disinclined to do anything Mr. Goddard favors!

That said, though, I doubt it will do any harm, and conceivably could do some good, so if you want to do it, hey, "it's your money." If you do, I'm inclined to agree with GFW and David. G's position seems really wrong-headed, so why not emphasize that?

Off to look up the word "quatloos". . .

Lou Grinzo

Don't bet. Doing so only feeds the trolls.

Any bet you make, even with ground rules you design, will still be spun as insignificant should you win. They'll call it nothing more than weather, say you got lucky, etc.

Patrick Lockerby

If you bet with a pseudo-skeptic on x amount of ice based on any satellite data set or its interpretation then you can't win.

The pseudo-skeptic will show how the data is skewed due to faults in the satellite, sensors, computer analysis, science team, science team's dress sense, ley lines, etc. -
even if the Boy Scouts paddle to the north pole on inflatable sunbeds and hold a jamboree.

You can't argue with bilateral amblyopia. :-)

Neven

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I would bet with him most of all to pin point him on his prediction. He's challenging others to bet on an extreme prognosis (beating the 2007 record would be pretty extreme), but his own prognosis is pretty extreme as well IMO. It looks like an intimidation tactic to shout down his critics and evade their questions (particularly Tom P has him cornered).

But I think he's bluffing, and would like to call him out on it, for everyone to see. The die-hard people in denial won't be swayed by anything, but the lurking doubters might be convinced that Goddard (and WUWT by proxy) isn't a reliable source of information, analysis or theory. If his prediction of a minimum SIE of 5.5 million square km doesn't come about of course. However extreme it is, everything is possible in the Arctic.

On the other hand, I agree with Fredt34's advice: "Stay preciously hidden from the denialosphere as long as you can." I like the way the blog is developing so far, and attracting too much attention from contrarians would come a tad too soon, although the opportunity for betting might be gone come July.

I'll think about it a few more days. I'm a bit impulsive, so must be careful not to rush.

Fredt34

I'll repost my current position about Sept. minimum: nothing between 3.2 and 5 million sq meters would surprise me. Clouds, current and wind can change a lot of things...

ARCUS/SEARCH first post should appear soon, I hope you'll comment them (meanwhile previous years are worth being reread).

David Gould

For his predicted minimum to come about, he would need this year to be another 2006 or 2003 in terms of the rate of melt from here. If it is an average melt, we will get below 5 million. A melt like 2007 would see us close to going below 4 million.

Anu

In 31 years, the September average has not gone up more than 2 years in a row:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
(note that the blue trend line is adjusted every year as a new data point is added)

I would just bet that this September average and minimum will continue the trends - it's a high probability bet, and betting on a new minimum, and losing, will just distract the Science Doubters from the main point - that the Arctic sea ice is not recovering. (They actually think it is, from 2007). Betting low and losing will just feed their notions of unfounded "alarmism", even if the ice comes in lower than 2008.

Also note that new September minimum records were set in 2002, 2005 and 2007: every 2 or 3 years this decade. But I wouldn't bother with a "new minimum" bet - the "Doubters" are already almost hopelessly confused.

Keep it simple - bet that the trend continues, and the September minimum is less than 2009.

Two interesting articles on this trend:

Neven

Anu (and others), you're right. Betting on a new minimum SIE record involves the risk of being wrong and then get spun out of all proportions. I don't mind being ridiculed, but I would mind being used to tarnish other people. Calling Goddard out on his bluff is tempting, but emphasizing his extreme position will probably work just as well. I'm not sure though if he will take any other bet.

Thanks for the good advice, Anu, and keep up the good work over at WUWT.

David Gould

The current rate of melt, if evaluated using how much per cent faster it is melting than the average (using JAXA values) indicates that a minimum value of 3.5 million may not be out of the question. However, it is highly unlikely - imo - that the current much higher than average melt rate (25 per cent higher than average) will continue for the whole melt season.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment