Betting

Bet on February UAH:

39 Comments

As mentioned, I’m opening bets for February so you can all bet. For those wondering: I am going to bet the lagging 4 month average. I can do this before the post is even published: So I’ve bet the temperature will be 0.260C.

Going forward, I’m going to see how my method does. I expect not especially well. In principle if people are betting ‘realistic’ temperatures, lots of bets should be clustered near this current values. That means even though my bet should be ‘close’ to the right value, I should get edged out a lot. Losing by a little and losing by a lot both win you 0 Quatloos. So, when betting really is no financial advantage to losing by a “not embarrasing” amount. That said: in practice there seems to be a low bias. So it’s possible that any ‘unbiased’ strategy will– in the long run– net me quatloos. I’ll try to do this each month this year. We’ll see.

Now, bet however you like!

[sockulator(../musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/UAHBets5.php?Metric=UAH TTL?Units=C?cutOffMonth=2?cutOffDay=21?cutOffYear=2014?DateMetric=February, 2014?)sockulator]
Last day to bet is February 20, 2014.

39 thoughts on “Bet on February UAH:”

  1. Lucia,
    Winning quatloos is like making a hole-in-one in golf. Lots of very good/very accomplished golfers have never had one, while lots of absolutely awful golfers have more than one. I once saw my dad hit a terrible shot on a par-3 that bounced off a hillside well left of the green, over a sand trap, across a steeply sloped green and finally into the cup… his SECOND hole-in-one… and he never came close to breaking 90 (18 over par) in his life. Very much like winning quatloos.

  7. such as those due to variable water vapour levels, are shown in a study in the Appendix to lead to cooler mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures

    The Appendix? Hmmmm….

  9. DeWitt, I wasn’t sure of this was Doug or one of the other ‘alternative physics’ proponents. Difficult to tell them apart sometimes.

  11. Visiting Physicist, If I have a heat sink at the bottom of a gravity well and an heat sink at the top, can I get work out of any temperature difference between the two sinks?

  13. I think Visiting Physicist has a stragedy as well.

    Hope he’s a betting man, more quatloos in the pot.

  14. I find it ironic that those who profess to know the future the most the least willing to bet on this.

  15. Scott Basinger,
    Visiting Scientists has posted two comments which are in moderation and which I will release “in the fullness of time”– likely about two weeks from now.

    I will however reveal partial content. Among other things Visiting Physicist writes

    If you read my comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s blog you may realise that you are missing out on a lot of interesting and helpful discussion which, for my part, is soundly based and supported by both valid physics and empirical data. Such data includes the study (in the Appendix of my book)

    Doug Cotton posted extensively at Roy’s blog.

    my book is entitled […] and will be available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble for $13.95 in paperback or $8.95 electronically by mid March at the latest, as it is now in the printing process. […]Free copies of the book will be sent (with a compelling cover letter) to hundreds of politicians, universities, media outlets and government authorities throughout the world. I am not doing this to make money – I am putting tens of thousands of my own money where my word is.

    He does not actually say he is “Doug Cotton”, but I believe him to be “Doug Cotton”. Doug Cotton is banned from this blog. Among other things: he jumps into comment threads, posts Off-topic comments (like here) which are attempts to promote his theories (as the recent comment appears to do)

    Because (a) Doug is banned, (b) I believe this is Doug and (c) he is doing precisely what Doug did to get himself banned, I am holding his comments back and will release later on. Those interested can return and read the comments when I eventually release them. They appear to be “standard Doug Cotton” explaining his theory about the climate of Venus and Uranus. Of course now that I have allowed to permit the “sales pitch” about his book through, those interested in learning Doug’s pet theories can visit Doug’s own blog (wherever that might be) and learn the title of the book. They can keep an eye out for it at Amazon.

    Perhaps they can get themselves on the list of hundreds people who are sent free copies of Visiting Scientists upcoming book. I am predisposed to believe the value of the book is $0, and most those receiving it won’t bother reading it– but some might do so if paid at a rate of $1/page.

  16. Hopefully you took his (undoubtedly, brilliant) bet and his quatloos before he got shuffled into moderation. Nobody’s going to read his book here, so his stragedy of hawking it here doesn’t do him a lot of good.

  17. Scott-
    He can read. He can bet. He can even submit comments. They just go into moderation. I read and decide whether to release them. Based on the content, he seems to be here to hawk his book, try to get readers for his pet theories. My view is if people are interested, they already know who “Doug Cotton” is and they can go find him. Am I mistaken or was he even kicked out of “The Dragon Slayers” lair?

  18. Lucia,
    “I will release “in the fullness of time”– likely about two weeks from now.”
    .
    I was thinking the “fulness of time” ought to be at least two years.

  19. Yeah… but I have to keep seeing it in the moderation bin. So… probably 2 weeks. Long enough only the curious will see it.

  20. Oh… new gem from Visiting

    PS If you consider I am OT, then why not have an open thread or one specifically about the models and why they are wrong, or a general one about whether GH gases warm or cool?

    Uhhmmmm…. ‘cuz I’m not required to create topics just because you visit and want to discuss you pet theory. If you want to talk about that, start your own thread at your own blog and discuss it with whomever you can attract.

  22. Jeff ID:

    How long is the fullness of time?

    I thought it was $latex T_{\hbox{\it fullness of time}} \equiv \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} T(t)$

    Clearly an easily testable quantity. If you are an immortal deity, anyway.

  28. JeffID:

    I’m laughing at a climate blog again. It must be a sign of infinite coolness.
    […]
    Probably not.

    There’s something lukewarm about that…

  29. Andrew_FL (#124209)-
    NOAA’s AGGI page cites two Etheridge et al. papers for CO2 and CH4. They also cite a Butler et al. paper for halocarbons, but I suspect that just the CO2 & CH4 forcing will get you pretty close to the AGGI curve. The NOAA page helpfully reproduces the forcing functions used by the IPCC TAR (from Myhre et al.) so you don’t have to chase those down.

    [Edit: I checked the links, and clicking the link to the CH4 paper doesn’t seem to get the paper. I could get the paper by pasting the URL into the browser’s address window, though.]

  35. at WUWT I posted on a tidal force thread
    February 16, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Canute Ponders The Tides Posted on February 14, 2014 by Willis Eschenbach
    Short Post. You can skip this if you understand the tidal force.
    A better heading would be Canute ponders the tidal force as the tides as commonly understood on earth alone are infinitely complicated.
    Sticking to your analogy of the 3 1 Kgm masses in free fall into the sun.
    presumably all launched at the same time , at the same initial velocity
    You are basically saying the difference in distance between them will increase over time as they get closer to the sun as the gravity differential is different proportional to the distance between them.
    If this is the radius of the earth for a sol sized attractor and they are starting at the distance of the earth from the sun.
    The speed of the fall would have to be equivalent to whatever speed is keeping the earth in orbit so it would be pretty fast.
    I don’t know if there would be time for a tide differential to develop before the earth would crash into the sun.
    So the tide differential shown at the time we are discussing would have to match some previous condition to get us to this point in time.
    At which previous time the 3 balls would have to have been released at different speeds
    A bit like the tortoise and the hare really, I need better maths with these infinite regress problems that I don’t have yet.
    So, its not a short post, Its not simple.
    Centrifugal, centripetal forces are irrelevant for this post only.
    I now understand that when ball B gets to where ball A was, Ball A is slightly further apart from ball B by Richard’s delta amount due to the fact that it has had a slightly stronger G working on it over that distance and has therefore traveled further.
    This is called a tidal force in this thread but would be basically the force of different strength gravity.
    I f the gravity was the same for all 3 balls they would never move apart no matter how fast they all were accelerating.
    I don’t understand how one can be falling but not moving [as in orbit] thus giving a tidal force.
    It like saying yes the gravity difference is working but there is no gravity angech 117/2/2014.
    It might need the explanation of centripetal forces which is a way of saying infinitely falling and accelerating but not moving in position.
    Any help in explaining this to me Lucia

  36. Re: angech (Feb 16 17:42), Totally and completely OT, but I’ll answer one point anyway.

    I don’t understand how one can be falling but not moving [as in orbit] thus giving a tidal force.

    This sentence makes no sense. Why do you think that an object in orbit is somehow not moving? Of course it’s moving. It has an orbital speed of approximately 17,000 mph for low Earth orbit. The necessary orbital speed declines with altitude. The Moon, for example is moving at about 2,300 mph. In a geostationary orbit, where the satellite remains above the same place on the Earth’s surface, the orbital speed is 6,935 mph at an altitude of 35,786 km.

    For free fall into the sun, the objects would have an orbital speed around the sun of 0 mph. If they had the same orbital speed as the Earth, they wouldn’t be falling towards the sun.

    You might try reading the Wikipedia article “Orbit”. Or the section on Newton’s cannonball in the Mass article. An object can be accelerating towards the mass around which it’s orbiting without the distance between the centers of mass decreasing.

Comments are closed.