I'll hang out the shingle here for folks who want to talk about sea ice wagers with me. Keep in mind that I don't bet real money, quatloos instead. Call them points of honor.
I don't take any of this very seriously. Seriously enough to mention that so far, I have won all my wagers of quatloos.
The serious part is how rapidly pseudoskeptics leave the room if one raises even a casual honor bet that takes their statements seriously. People who claim that temperatures are just as likely to go down as up demand 50:1 odds if challenged to a bet on whether temperatures will go up or down. If they believed what they were saying, they'd take 1:1 odds, and be happy with either side of the bet.
Last fall as I was evaluating the seaice ... statements from Wattsupwiththat , Joe Bastardi declared (over there) his belief that September 2011 ice would be at least 5.5 million km^2. If anyone can find Bastardi's address, I would be happy to bet quite a few quatloos with him. If he believed what he said, he should pay off infinity to my 1 if ice is less than 5.5 million km^2. I'll pay him 1 if it's over.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts and notes on science from another blogging Grumbine.
Welcome
I'll be trying what seems to be an unusual approach in blogs -- writing to be inclusive of students in middle school and jr. high*, as well as teachers and parents (whether for their own information or to help their children). To that end, comments will have to pass a stricter standard than I'd apply for an all-comers site. It shouldn't be onerous, just keep to the topic and use clean language.
I expect it to be fun for all, however, as you really can get quite far in understanding the world, even climate, by understanding this sort of fundamental. If I get too much less fundamental, let me know where I went astray.
* Ok, I concede that not many middle school students will get everything. Even a fair number of adults will find some parts hard to follow. Still, some middle school kids will have fun. And almost everyone will follow a number of posts just fine.
Please see the comment policy for details. And the link policy for details about that. The latter is more open than you might expect.
I expect it to be fun for all, however, as you really can get quite far in understanding the world, even climate, by understanding this sort of fundamental. If I get too much less fundamental, let me know where I went astray.
* Ok, I concede that not many middle school students will get everything. Even a fair number of adults will find some parts hard to follow. Still, some middle school kids will have fun. And almost everyone will follow a number of posts just fine.
Please see the comment policy for details. And the link policy for details about that. The latter is more open than you might expect.
Translate
Posts
Share this blog
Blog Archive
Science Links
Blogroll
-
-
-
Greenhouse Forces3 hours ago
-
-
Historicism1 week ago
-
-
-
-
Climate Rocks Again9 months ago
-
-
-
-
Labels
doing science
(66)
project folder
(53)
sea ice
(46)
meta
(40)
being a scientist
(31)
mathematics
(31)
weeding sources
(30)
climate
(29)
misc
(23)
questions
(23)
modelling
(21)
reading
(21)
climate change
(16)
observations
(14)
weather
(14)
health
(13)
blogs
(12)
politics
(12)
running
(12)
concepts
(11)
data
(11)
astronomy
(10)
history
(9)
science
(9)
philosophy
(8)
temperature
(7)
young scientists
(7)
greenhouse
(6)
oceanography
(6)
antarctic
(5)
co2
(5)
genealogy
(5)
ice
(5)
Arctic
(4)
atmosphere
(4)
pseudoscience
(4)
sea level
(4)
spectating
(4)
sst
(4)
biology
(3)
experiments
(3)
ice age
(3)
media
(3)
recommendations
(3)
scientists
(3)
technology
(3)
travel
(3)
computers
(2)
earthquake
(2)
elements
(2)
engineering
(2)
evolution
(2)
ice sheet
(2)
international
(2)
news
(2)
opportunities
(2)
prediction
(2)
unreliable
(2)
clouds
(1)
faqs
(1)
lakes
(1)
laurentide
(1)
numerics
(1)
research discussion
(1)
satellites
(1)
About Me
- Robert Grumbine
- In my day job I work on the oceanography, meteorology, climatology, glaciology end of my science interests, but I'm interested in everything, science or not. So I've also been on stage in a production of Comedy of Errors, run an ultramarathon, and been to Epidaurus, Greece, to see a production of Euripides' Iphigenia among the Taurians Prior to starting the current job, I was a post-doc in oceanography in the UCAR ocean modelling program, and earned my doctorate from the Department of the Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago (1989). My undergraduate degree involved Applied Math, Engineering, Astrophysics, and Glaciology. Of course I don't speak for my employer, whoever that may be.
2 comments:
"People who claim that temperatures are just as likely to go down as up demand 50:1 odds if challenged to a bet on whether temperatures will go up or down. If they believed what they were saying, they'd take 1:1 odds, and be happy with either side of the bet."
I don't know if I buy that. I'm risk averse: I would probably stay away from a 50/50 bet without some pretty good odds - 5 to 1 or so. It might not be a rational use of expected value analysis, but then... a really good expected value analysis takes into account irrational reactions. I kind of like the approach (I can't remember who right now - Stoat? Tamino?) of having a "neutral zone" with no winner, where that neutral zone would ideally be the intersection between my likely range and my opponent's likely range. So I'd only lose with sea ice so high that I considered it very unlikely, and my opponent would only lose with sea ice so low that they considered it very unlikely.
-M
M:
I think you're considering real money, rather than quatloos. For real money, I don't make bets, regardless of the odds.
It is Stoat who introduced the neutral zone. He did so after losing a bet with me :-) It was a matter of some hundredths of a million km^2, perhaps only one. But the number was on my side (low) of the critical.
Introducing the neutral zone doesn't fundamentally change the computation. What we're still, in principle, doing is saying that the odds we're willing to accept are related to how much more likely we think something is than the other person.
This relates to Alastair's comments as well, and I see from your comment and his that this warrants some more discussion. New post to come tomorrow (22 July 2011).
Post a Comment