And not before time, you might say. Sea ice this year reached a new record minimum in the Arctic (though not in the Antarctic, which begins to look wind-driven. And before you think the two trends might be opposite-and-nearly equal, look at Tamino's convenient analysis which I can never find). Which means I lost some of my bets. Now, what exactly was I betting on?
Crandles helpfully points me at Betting on sea ice: $10,000 although the $10k doesn't fall due until 2016. But in the comments (the one from 2011/07/04, since perma-linking here remains invisible to all but me) we agreed:
we are betting £x that either 2011, 2012 or 2013 will beat the minimum extent record of 2007, based on daily IJIS SIE numbers (which makes it more fun), but the record has to be confirmed by the monthly NSIDC extent number.
where x=100. Neven had the same bet (recorded in Sea ice, part 2, but for E50. In defence of my own tattered reputation I'll point out that I said at the time So to re-visit some earlier stuff: I said the chance of something beating 2007 and setting a new record low within the next 3 years (including 2011) seems quite good. So I’m not betting on that in response to Neven’s offer. But if I switch to the not-so-safe green line I think that just about fits the error bounds and only took it on for the thrills. But now I've lost so N and C need to email me their bank account details or some other such method of xfer (paypal would be convenient for me).
And what of the future? Who knows. Closer inspection of this post will reveal traces of me intending to talk about the actual ice, but I think I'll postpone that for a while.
[Update: per agreement in the comments (see! I can do permalinks), Neven and I are converting our bet to double-or quits: "either 2013, 2014 or 2015 will beat the minimum extent record of 2012, based on daily IJIS SIE numbers (which makes it more fun), but the record has to be confirmed by the monthly NSIDC extent number" for E100.]
WC -- "Closer inspection of this post will reveal traces of me intending to talk about the actual ice, but I think I’ll postpone that for a while."
I hope that you will revisit the question Rob asked back on 10/01:
Rob Dekker -- "William, I ask you as a scientist, what is the probability that the models seriously underestimate snow/ice cover, and that we need consider the very possibility that planet Earth is much more sensitive to an external forcing than even the IPCC models suggest, if the model projections are 2-3 sigma’s off after just 5 years ?"
[I'm going to duck out of that for now, as there is more to look at. But I'll return to it -W]
Tamino most recently considers, from a purely statistical view, untainted (or informed) by physics, when an 'ice free' minimum might first be reached.
It irritates me when tamino goes off and does something like that. He's got the caveats in there, but still - let's leave the curve-fitting-without-any-physics to the fake sceptics.
[I saw the post and I'm inclined to agree. I think he's wrong (both in the result, and in the exercise) -W]
It irritates me when tamino goes off and does something like that. He’s got the caveats in there, but still – let’s leave the curve-fitting-without-any-physics to the fake sceptics.
It's an interesting exercise, which I suspect is partially triggered by Judith Curry's performance at Climate Dialog, in which she's claimed that statistical fitting is sure to be wrong and that we're most likely to see a reversal of trend over the next several years.
It will be interesting to see which approach is closer to reality - suggesting that the recent trend leads to a particular result, or suggesting that the recent trend will be totally reversed and that the near-term (decadal?) trend will be upward.
My bet is that 1) Tamino's projection is too pessimistic (as he himself believes) but that 2) hand-waving Judy's belief in "recovery" will be far, far more off the mark.
Curry's ex cathedra pronouncements are worse than curve fitting. Just as farmers in Kansas draw down the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate their crops, Curry draws down the good standing of Georgia Tech to bolster her bilge. "Closer to reality" would require that Curry offter some kind of science to back up her sentiments rather than her Papal Bulls.
William, we can play double or nothing, if you like. Same bet, different numbers:
either 2013, 2014 or 2015 will beat the minimum extent record of 2012, based on daily IJIS SIE numbers (which makes it more fun), but the record has to be confirmed by the monthly NSIDC extent number
I think this time you have a better chance of winning, as the 2012 record is mindblowing, and it gets more difficult to melt the ice in the middle. On the other hand, the record was set sans the perfect 2007 circumstances...
Either way, I'm sending the 50 EUR to Darfur.
[I gratefully accept your offer to double-or-nothing. I really can't see 2012 being beaten in a hurry -W]
My bet for 2013: 3.8m km² ± 0.2m km²
[Don't leap too far ahead. The book for 2013 isn't open yet -W]
While prediction is an important part of the scientific method ( provided the variance of results from prediction leads to greater understanding and refinement of the hypothesis ), betting is not.
Jan Morten ...
There is more to life than science ...
Jan - Originally these bets stemmed from a desire to encourage climate skeptics to put their money where their mouth was re their predictions that ice would stop melting etc. As far as I know they have been remarkably reluctant to do so and W has had to make do with more specific bets on melting details with the likes of Neven.
Area max could be more than a month away and we are already almost at the minimum maximum area.
Is it too soon to start nagging about whether that might be a suitable time for the 2013 book to be opened?
[Its not too soon to start nagging, but expect a little while longer before it has any effect -W]