So far, Al Gore appears to be losing ‘the climate bet’

No cause for alarm at five-year mid-point of the Armstrong-Gore climate “bet”

gore_bet

By J. Scott Armstrong

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Scott Armstrong’s attention was drawn to former VP Gore’s concerns about global warming. Having spent five decades studying the science of forecasting, Armstrong decided to examine the basis for the forecasts of global warming. He was unable to find a single scientific forecast to support the claim that the Earth was becoming dangerously warmer or colder.

Instead, he found that some scientists were using improper forecasting methods to make forecasts. Professor Armstrong alerted Mr. Gore to this fact and suggested that they cooperate in a validation test of dangerous global warming forecasts. He suggested a 10-year bet for which he would forecast no long-term trend in climate, while Mr. Gore could chose forecasts from any climate model.

After a series of emails, Mr. Gore declined, apparently sticking with his claim that no time could be devoted to further study, because we were near a “tipping point,” a position backed by James Hansen of NASA. Professor Armstrong claimed that nothing new was happening, so there was neither cause for alarm nor need for government action.

Professor Armstrong nevertheless determined to pursue his proposed test of the alarmist forecast. By using the commonly adopted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change forecast—3°C of warming per century—to represent Mr. Gore’s position, the theclimatebet.com has tracked the Armstrong-Gore “bet” with monthly updates.

Mr. Gore should be pleased to find that his grave concerns about a “tipping point” have turned out to be unfounded. As shown on theclimatebet.com, Professor Armstrong’s forecasts have been more accurate than Mr. Gore’s for 40 of the 60 months to date and for four of the five years. In fact, the latest global temperature is exactly where it was at the beginning of the “bet.”

Professor Armstrong was not surprised. With some minor exceptions, his forecast was consistent with evidence-based forecasting principles. In contrast, the IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles.

When he proposed the bet, Professor Armstrong expected to have a somewhat less than 70% chance of winning given the natural variation in global mean temperatures for a ten-year period. In light of the results to date, he expects an even better chance of winning, but as Yogi Berra said, “It’s not over till it’s over.” Furthermore, policy decisions will require validations testing for hundreds of years, not for just one decade. At the time of writing, there has been no trend in global mean temperatures for 16 years.

January 19, 2013

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I have a $1000 dollar bet running witha U.S. friend that the trend will be down between 2005 and 2020. At the rate dollars are being printed by Obama, it’ll probably buy us a rice beer each by then.
I’m winning at the moment though.

It’s called putting your money where your mouth is, and Mr. Gore obviously prefers taking money from where his mouth has persuaded gullible others to put it. Not the same thing.

How much money would Al Gore need to “put his money where his mouth is”?

The mean of the models is .2C per decade. Seems as though Armstrong has violated the principle of understanding the actual forecasts.

theduke

Tallbloke, I hate to sound cynical, but I hope the powers that be that are apparently adjusting temperatures to suit the needs of the AGW theory don’t cause you to lose your bet.

grumpyoldmanuk

@krb981. Why do you think POTUS is printing money as if there was no tomorrow?

Steve

Mr. Mosher:
Please explain, and do incorporate details:
A how you derived or obtained the number .2 C
A1 if you did not derive, what is your source
B. name the models and their versions
C. the principle ( one, by your writing ) that has been violated
thanks and regards
Steven

Otter

‘Mr. Gore should be pleased to find that his grave concerns about a “tipping point” have turned out to be unfounded.’
But that doesn’t scare people into giving up their dreames,rights, future, and most important, Money that algor wants.
Steve Mosher~ There’s still time to take your money off algor.

beesaman

Ah, another cryptic put down by the mighty Mosh! Do you think he knows how puerile it makes him seem? Enough folks on other sites have pointed it out. Maybe it’s due a social skills deficiency. Or perhaps he truly is incapable of explaining even the simplest of things in terms that are denuded of childish spittle. Whatever it is, it has reinforced my decision just to quickly gloss over his eviscerations…

re Steven Mosher
Bet has been running 60months or 5 years.
5/100*3= .15C above 2007temp
graph looks right to me, care to help us out?

Kindlekinser

With nearly every month above the 1981-2010 average, seems like that’s evidence right there. If there was no warming, shouldn’t it be cooling?

JC

“The mean of the models is .2C per decade. Seems as though Armstrong has violated the principle of understanding the actual forecasts.”
That would equate to 1.75 C by 2100 provided business as usual continues, which would be no cause for alarm and look very bad for Gore. He wants something = or > 3, at the very least.

Gunga Din

tallbloke says:
January 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm
I have a $1000 dollar bet running witha U.S. friend that the trend will be down between 2005 and 2020. At the rate dollars are being printed by Obama, it’ll probably buy us a rice beer each by then.
I’m winning at the moment though.
===============================================================
It could be worse. My step-grandfather immigrated to the US from Germany between the wars. He never told exactly why he left but he did lament the day the price of a glass of beer went from 4000 marks to 8000 marks.

snopercod

Speaking of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, how would that work with an endoproct like Gore?

Crispin in Waterloo

@Steven Mosher
>The mean of the models is .2C per decade.
I think that the mean of the models varied with time. Are you saying that the mean of the models is presently 0.2 dec C/decade?
It certainly was not 5 years ago! The model means I have seen do not ‘average’ 0.2 it is more like 0.3 but that does not mean I have seen everything nor everything recent.
If the current crop of iterations come up with 0.2 it may only mean that the ridiculous 0.8/decade models have been put into the paper shredder and that saner programmers were hired.
Removing the silly models could easily bring the ‘average’ down to 0.2 but they would still be wrong, of course. If and when it reaches the point of matching reality (zero) we will be having real progress in the dark art of climate forcasting.

be cause

my birthday present to myself tomorrow is a very white hemisphere .. not all evidence can be falsified ,,,

DirkH

Steven Mosher says:
January 19, 2013 at 12:16 pm
“The mean of the models is .2C per decade. Seems as though Armstrong has violated the principle of understanding the actual forecasts.”
I am eager to learn more about the “actual forecasts”, Steven, and, oh, you have violated principle #1 of the IPCC: Never use the word forecast. Always say “projection”. We don’t want anything that can be validated or, egads, falsified, now do we?

CodeTech

Kindlekinser says:

With nearly every month above the 1981-2010 average, seems like that’s evidence right there. If there was no warming, shouldn’t it be cooling?

Evidence of what?
And no, just because there is no warming doesn’t mean there should be cooling, and just because there was some warming doesn’t mean it will continue. The reality is:
1. We don’t have much in the way of really accurate temperature measurement.
2. The concept of a “global temperature” is laughable. It’s meaningless. Assigning meaning to it is self-delusion.
3. Using 1981-2010 as a baseline is, as with any other baseline, arbitrary and meaningless.
4. We simply do not know enough about climate drivers to make predictions of either higher OR lower temperatures. The safe bet is always going to be “Stable”.

Billy Liar

Steven Mosher says:
January 19, 2013 at 12:16 pm
The mean of the models is .2C per decade. Seems as though Armstrong has violated the principle of understanding the actual forecasts.
Perhaps, since the bet was made in 2007, Armstrong was using the TAR as a reference which says:
For the end of the 21st century (2071 to 2100), the mean change in global average surface air temperature, relative to the period 1961 to 1990, is 3.0°C
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/101.htm
It’s obvious that there’s been a 50% reduction in IPCC alarmism between the TAR and AR4 – humiliating enough but more to come!

Bill H

Considering were on the downside of cycle 24 and that the ENSO is going cold I would predict that AL is going to lose the bet big time… If the math holds true, it will be a decline of .1 to .2 degrees C in five years…

davidmhoffer

Mosher got it right.
For all those jumping all over him, cryptic though his answer is (which by all means rake him over the coals for) he does have the facts correct.
Sensitivity to CO2 doubling has had a consensus estimate of 3 degrees since AR4.
Current Warming Rate based on BAU emission scenarios has had a consensus estimate of 0.2 degrees per decade since AR4, and this estimate appears to have been carried into AR5 based on the leaked version.
Of course if one wants to debate the matter from the perspective of actual science, it is ludicrous to attach a linear trend to a logarithmic effect super imposed on a cyclical system with a negative feedback that is exponential. A linear number is easy to calculate and easy to express, but as Einstein would have quipped, that’s not right, that’s not even wrong!

Professor Armstrong will win this bet, Cycle 24 seems to be winding down and the effects of such a weak cycle are only just beginning to be noticed, alarmists are now hoping for business as usual for Cycle 25, I was thinking this is why the met office cooled their prediction to the end of cycle 24.

HaroldW

One can obtain the CMIP3 (AR4) multi-model mean from the KNMI Explorer.
Over the period Jan2008-Dec2017, the OLS trend in global average surface temperature is 0.019 K/yr.

Annonn

Mosh comment like cryptic bunny carrot.

cloa5132013

Where are these 89 principals listed and justified?

Gary Venuti

Don’t forget Hansen’s brilliant pronouncement from March, 2011.
“Finally, we can mention one other high probability bet, relevant to a Congressional hearing later this week. Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania will testify about climate change to a committee of the House of Representatives. Armstrong, we are told, has made a bet that a prediction of no temperature change over a 10-year period starting in 2007 will prove more accurate than predictions of global warming. Observations (Figure 21 of Reference 3) show a linear warming rate over the past 50 years of 0.17°C per decade. Our climate model slows this down to about 0.15°C for the near future because of the change in GHG growth shown in Figure 2(b) above. That bet, warming of 0.15°C/decade would have a high probability of winning over a bet of no temperature change.”

harry

Hopelessly off topic, but when looking at the Arctic ice extent in the resources pages, can someone explain why there is “more Canada” in 2013 than there was in 2007.
Looking at the side by side comparison from Cryosphere Today, I initially noted that the 2013 main body of ice just looked smaller in the middle, ignoring the bits on the edges, the sizes just seemed smaller.
Then I noticed the just west of those polar Canadian Islands in the middle of Canada there is visibly more area designated as land.
I don’t understand this, but it sure will make a comparison rather difficult.

Streetcred

At this rate, Mosher will soon rank below me as a nobody 😉

Mark and two Cats

…Armstrong’s forecasts have been more accurate than Mr. Gore’s…
——————————–
Yeah, so what? What kind of legitimacy can Armstrong have after his confession that he had been using drugs?
And you peeple think your so smart!

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Algore, skilled at fleecing the Al Jazeera crew when he sold bankrupt Current TV to them for a half billion bucks, doesn’t seem to be very good at predicting future temperatures. Perhaps he was thinking of his own hot air? He doesn’t seem too concerned with his own carbon footprint.

pat

18 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Black ice alert: Britain to be stay white for TWO WEEKS as country faces ‘once in a decade big freeze’
Met office warns of treacherous conditions as yesterday’s snow turns to ice with temperatures staying below freezing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264917/UK-weather-Treacherous-black-ice-causes-travel-chaos-country-forecasters-predict-snow-afternoon-Heathrow-cancels-200-flights.html

climatebeagle

> Ah, another cryptic put down by the mighty Mosh!
A safer bet might be against Steven Mosher explaining his one-liners …

Jeremy

Al Gore cannot be expected to make a prediction and bet on that. This is asking too much from a non-scientist and Al Gore is man enough to admit it. Al Gore has agreed to consult an expert on this matter and has already contacted his proctologist.

jim Steele

He coauthored a paper Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy
Forecasting Audit chastising the methods used to predict climate had endangered the bears. While alarmist were predicting the bear populations would soon crash, Inuits argued it is the time of the most polar bears, and the most recent surveys again show the alarmists were wrong and indeed it is the time of the most polar bears!

jim Steele

tallbloke says At the rate dollars are being printed by Obama, it’ll probably buy us a rice beer each by then.
Tallbloke you sound like someone from the Austrian school of monetary value. yes?

ZootCadillac

@mosh. Does it matter what the mean of the models is, if indeed that is a correct number? Did the bet propose to be against the mean of the models or against the IPCC forecast based upon models.
No point wasting time and energy on arguing what it’s not just to find something wrong with it. You’ll end up a contrary old bastard just like me ( please mods, there is no insult intended there, it’s common parlance here )

harry

Ignore that last comment. Seems that they shade of grey they use and only sleepy eyes don’t mix well.

pokerguy

Steve Mosher is ever predictable, just like the continued lack of warming. You can tell when he’s upset because he always drops some contemptuously cryptic put down that no one understands but him. Mr. Mosher, or is it doctor…I’m an open-minded person. I’m interested in contrary view points. Help me understand what you’re talking about.

bw

Shame on Prof Armstrong from taking advantage of a clueless snake oil salesman. A civilized person of acomplishment and wisdom does not make bets with people who are obviously impared.

Australis

What’s up with the academics in Pennsylvania?
Michael Mann is very upset that wunderkind Nate Silver has found Scott Armstrong to be so convincing. He sulks and bitches at length in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
“Armstrong is a well-known climate change denier with close ties to fossil fuel industry front groups like the Heartland Institute, which earlier this year campaigned to compare people who accept the reality of climate change to the Unabomber, and secretly planned to infiltrate elementary schools across the country with industry-funded climate change denial propaganda.”
Does that sound like a pillar of the climate community displaying his cool objectivity?

RoHa

“the IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles.”
Is this written up anywhere is a form intelligible to non-specialists?
“as Yogi Berra said”
Who? Is that a typo for “Yogi Bear”?

Gail Combs

Professor J. Scott Armstrong is the guy who wrote papers like “Bafflegab,” American Journal of Nursing, September 1982. and Wanted: Dull, Obscure Research Absolute MUST READS
More Armstrong Papers are listed with links here.

DirkH

jim Steele says:
January 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm
“tallbloke says At the rate dollars are being printed by Obama, it’ll probably buy us a rice beer each by then.
Tallbloke you sound like someone from the Austrian school of monetary value. yes?”
At some point in the near future – when they have enough trade agreements using Yuan, Gold or barter trade in place – the Chinese will cut the Yuan loose from the USD. That will be the moment when the USD goes into freefall.
Hmm, thinking about it, the Chinese ALREADY control the value of the Dollar.

Bart

Mark and two Cats says:
January 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Took me a few seconds to realize what you were talking about. LOL.

wayne

In so many words Steve Mosher just said proper predicting is chasing red lines off into the future. Best not to let him manage your portfolio.

Nick

Can someone tell me: are the models used for predicting climate temperature based on the assumption that there WILL be a rise, or do they treat the data impartially?

Craigo

@ Mark & 2 Cats … at least Armstrong finally realized the game was up and stopped digging. Same problem, different game for Al et al. LOTS of money as incentive to keep the hole deep and dark and hot!

Jim
Don B

Armstrong made a better bet than Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made. In 2005 they bet $10,000 with climate modeler James Annan that global temperatures during 2012-2017 would be cooler than 1998-2003. Armstrong bet against a rising temperature.
Speaking of bets, Nate Silver in “The Signal and the Noise” quotes Gavin Schmidt:
“I could easily give you odds on the next decade being warmer than this decade,” he told me. “You want 100-to-1 odds, I’d give it to you.”
Tallbloke, you might want to talk to Gavin.

ed mister jones

Apparently, it was once much warmer in the northern latitudes than it has been recently: “In addition, melting patches of ice that had been in place for thousands of years in the mountains of the Canadian High Arctic revealed a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools.” http://news.yahoo.com/storms-turn-lard-wwii-shipwreck-203802175.html
The implication is rather OBVIOUS.