I have often called the Arctic sea ice melt 'the slowest horse race in the world'. And what is the first thing people associate with horse races? That's right, betting. Every year numerous bets are set up between known and less known bloggers and commenters in the blogosphere. Which is only logical, because despite all the doom and gloom, it's a fun thing to be betting on.
This year for instance William Connolley, the man who controls Wikipedia, has challenged the readers of his blog to a bet. There is some heavy monthly betting going on over at Lucia's Blackboard. Robert Grumbine, the subject of my next 2010 SIE prediction (I hope), is also offering quatloos. And in the style of the biggest casino in the world, the stock market, you can even trade your bets on a website called Intrade (too complicated for my taste).
Even in a comment on my Alarmist's Dilemma blog post David Gould wrote he has been betting with Willis Eschenbach (I don't know the details). But how about WUWT's snow and sea ice expert?
Up till now Steven Goddard has confined himself mainly by replying his critics with very concise snark which prominently features the acronym FUD (which looks kind of funny on a site like WUWT), e.g.: "I expect a full apology from you in September for wasting everybody’s time with your perpetual FUD". Or just below it: "I continue to be astonished by the amount of BS being thrown around by some FUDsters here." It's quite interesting to read from a psychological point of view.
Lately Steven Goddard has been upping the ante in his WUWT articles on the Arctic sea ice. He's been challenging some of his regular critics by saying they should announce their firm belief that the record will be beaten this summer and that they even should be betting large sums of money on this happening in September.
He said this a few days ago:
If you really believe in PIOMAS, then you are going to have to get firmly behind the idea of shattering the record low this summer. You can’t have it both ways, though no doubt you will try.
And only yesterday he wrote:
I can’t imagine why anyone who trusts the experts, wouldn’t go out and bet a lot of money on a record minimum. Seems like a done deal, based on the wealth of informative comments coming from the leading experts.
His critics Phil., R. Gates, Tom P, barry and Anu come across as pretty smart guys and they know that even though everything looks set at the moment for a new record, a shift in weather conditions could still throw a spanner in the works. They can't possibly be 100% sure at this moment in time (although R. Gates has said he believes 4.5 million square km could be in the works). If they would commit themselves to a minimum extent record and it wouldn't come about due to some winds blowing the 'wrong' way all summer or some other phenomenon (like it did in 2008 and 2009 when the ice was exceptionally weak due to the 2007 melt), this would probably be spun to them looking silly. Now, who would want that?
Perhaps I would. It's not like I would invite it, but I wouldn't mind it so much either. I mean, I've never purported to know much about any aspect of climate science, so it wouldn't be a surprise if I turned out to be wrong. In fact, I don't mind being wrong. It keeps me healthy. There exists such a thing as advancing insight and one should always try to remain flexible enough to be able to change one's mind or opinion.
So why shouldn't I take up the gauntlet and challenge Steven Goddard to a small bet on the 2010 minimum Arctic sea ice extent? I'm pretty sure that if this summer's weather conditions come near those of 2007 the minimum SIE record will be broken. If we get clear skies, a positive AO, warm water streaming into the Arctic Basin, etc and the record would not be broken, my alarmism would probably lessen by a great deal (and I'd be greatly relieved).
Now if I would challenge Steven Goddard to a bet, I would favour the following conditions:
Goddard has repeatedly asserted that he is sure minimum sea ice extent will be above the 2006 level. I'm willing to say it will be below 2007. I would like to base this on the minimum sea ice extent as reported by IJIS. The absolute minimum SIE, not the average for September. The stakes would either be quatloos or an amount of 50 USD of which the proceeds would go to a good cause. If the minimum SIE ends above the 2006 absolute minimum SIE, Goddard wins. If it's below the 2007 absolute minimum SIE, I win. If it's somewhere between, the bet is off.
What do you think? Should I challenge Goddard to a bet (if only to hear on what dataset and conditions he bases his prediction)? Or will I subsequently be used as a tool in the Climate PR War? Please advise.
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.
Posted by: GFW | June 16, 2010 at 05:45
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. :)
Posted by: David Gould | June 16, 2010 at 07:17
Dont bet. Stay preciously hidden from the denialosphere as long as you can.
Posted by: Fredt34 | June 16, 2010 at 08:19
Anyone remember this master piece by Mr Goddard?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Posted by: dorlomin | June 16, 2010 at 10:38
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". . .
Posted by: Kevin McKinney | June 16, 2010 at 13:52
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.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | June 16, 2010 at 15:25
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. :-)
Posted by: Patrick Lockerby | June 16, 2010 at 18:11
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.
Posted by: Neven | June 16, 2010 at 22:17
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).
Posted by: Fredt34 | June 16, 2010 at 23:42
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.
Posted by: David Gould | June 17, 2010 at 07:01
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:
http://nsidc.org/monthlyhighlights/august2009.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42456&src=eoa-iotd
Posted by: Anu | June 17, 2010 at 22:22
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.
Posted by: Neven | June 17, 2010 at 23:15
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.
Posted by: David Gould | June 18, 2010 at 05:32