Betting

Bet on Dec. UAH!

30 Comments

No announcement on November UAH from Roy yet. I hope nothing is wrong with him or his equipment and a temperature emerges…. I’m going to open bets on Dec. UAH anyway. Bets are open through 11/14/2012:
[sockulator(../musings/wp-content/plugins/BettingScripts/UAHBets5.php?Metric=UAH TTL?Units=C?cutOffMonth=12?cutOffDay=15?cutOffYear=2012?DateMetric=December, 2012?)sockulator]
Bets Close 12/14/2012

You know the drill. If you don’t know, ask! (If UAH doesn’t come out by Monday, we’ll do bets on GISTemp in parallel. For betting the ‘bets’ agencies are those that issue their results early, consistently, and with as many significant figures as possible! Those who complain that’s not “science”: this betting.)

Open thread!

For those wondering about the pause.

  1. I’ve been engaged in inspecting bot data that I started collecting in April. Eli accused me of rather enjoying that– which is true.
  2. I also noticed that my knitting blog was being framed. That’s a pain because even though it is totally unmaintained, I do make a bit of Google ad money on that site and framing interferes with that. I have a frame buster buster buster plugin for WordPress posted. It is a slight extension of the javascript I wrote when Newsblur was framing (in one pane) and copying and framing their copying (in another frame) — but the message posted doesn’t involve the word “ass-hat”. Plugin testing was is limited to making sure it works at my blog. Nothing more. I’m not entirely sure how to submit a to WordPress as a plugin, and I don’t plan to do it if they really require people to identify the earliest version of WordPress for which it works. People can find the plugin and use it… or not.
  3. During various evenings weekends, I’ve crocheted a lot of things. Slippers. Big cozy sweater. Hats. I had several hand-warmer requests.

Anyway, feel free to talk about whatever you like– provided it’s fairly polite. Yes, there is a backlog of papers I need to look at. 🙂

30 thoughts on “Bet on Dec. UAH!”

  4. The good Doc is killing me with his late in the month update. MV model works pretty good, but data move too much :O( Ces’t la vie.

  6. I mentioned last month that Roy Spencer’s blog has a graph of recent UAH v5.5 anomalies. The most recent update is still from 5 November 2012, going through October 2012.

    In related news, here’s a recent post from Randall Parker, Why We Do Not Demand Prediction Accuracy.

    Lately I’ve been reading articles and books on why predictions are hard…, the incredible inaccuracy of the vast bulk of predictions, even and especially by experts, and how people are unaware or disinterested [sic] uninterested in all this inaccuracy. Just came across a 2011 article by economist Robin Hanson on Cato Unbound where he [discusses punditry].

    “Consider first the many possible functions and roles of media pundits. Media consumers can be educated and entertained by clever, witty, but accessible commentary, and can coordinate to signal that they are smart and well-read by quoting and discussing the words of the same few focal pundits. Also, impressive pundits with prestigious credentials and clear ‘philosophical’ positions can let readers and viewers gain by affiliation with such impressiveness, credentials, and positions. Being easier to understand and classify helps ‘hedgehogs’ to serve many of these functions.”

    [continues…]

  7. AMac, that Randall Parker post sounded interesting, but your link did not go where you wanted, I think.

  8. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #107212) —

    Thanks for spotting my error. Talk about circular reasoning, LOL! The correct link is here.

  9. On the thread where Zeke is presenting his AGU poster, there’s a side discussion concerning some oft-discussed general issues with climate science, and the conduct of mainstream scientists and technically-minded skeptics. Picking up part of the back-and-forth in the middle:

    bugs (Comment #107243)

    I think from past performances on their blogs, a “technical issue” becomes another headline scandal. Or it would be if Michael Mann’s name was on the paper.

    Steven Mosher (Comment #107245)

    that doesnt mean that its not a technical issue. Can you stop being stupid for two seconds. Unlike you, I choose to put aside the political and personal issues. They raise an interesting issue, I think if I look at it that I am more prepared to answer questions in the future from other people who may have the same issue.

    bugs (Comment #107250)

    You act that way, then you start the old routine on blogs about irrelevant garbage about FOI requests or other nonsense whenever you lose the nice, new, reasonable persona you have been trying to create. If you could actually rise above that, I might believe you, but the old Mosher keeps re-appearing.

    Steven Mosher (Comment #107260)

    Bugs. Only you would fail to understand the importance of FOIA.

    to keep the discussion technical , we need the code and the data.
    If you dont give the code and the data, when you publish, then
    we ask nicely. If you say no, we ask the journal. if the journal says no, we use FOIA. If you break the law fighting FOIA, then YOU
    have made it a non technical discussion.

    You guys have never understood this.

    .

    Earlier today, Steve Sailer posted Two modes of intellectual discourse: Taking everything personally v. debate as sport, wherein he quotes extensively from a U.K. theology-and-morality-themed blog by Alastair Roberts.

    Roberts’ description of two conflicting approaches to ethical and religious controversies are quite relevant to the debates over AGW, IPCC, climate modeling, paleoclimate, and so forth. This is surprising… or perhaps not.

    Roberts on the formerly-accepted debating method, stemming from traditional, male-oriented values —

    [This approach ] is characterized by a sort of playfulness, ritual combativeness, and histrionics. This ‘space’ is akin to that of the playing field, upon which opposing teams give their rivals no quarter, but which is held distinct to some degree from relations between the parties that exist off the field…

    This ‘heterotopic discourse’ makes possible far more spirited challenges to opposing positions, hyperbolic and histrionic rhetoric designed to provoke response and test the mettle of one’s own and the opposing position, assertive presentations of one’s beliefs that are less concerned to present a full-orbed picture than to advocate firmly for a particular perspective and to invite and spark discussion from other perspectives.

    The truth is not located in the single voice, but emerges from the conversation as a whole. Within this form of heterotopic discourse, one can play devil’s advocate, have one’s tongue in one’s cheek, purposefully overstate one’s case, or attack positions that one agrees with. The point of the discourse is to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions through rigorous challenge, not to provide a balanced position in a single monologue. Those familiar with such discourse will be accustomed to hyperbolic and unbalanced expressions. They will appreciate that such expressions are seldom intended as the sole and final word on the matter by those who utter them, but as a forceful presentation of one particular dimension of or perspective upon the truth, always presuming the existence of counterbalancing perspectives that have no less merit and veracity.

    Describing the ascendant feminine-centered approach to discussion —

    In contrast, a sensitivity-driven discourse lacks the playfulness of heterotopic discourse, taking every expression of difference very seriously. Rhetorical assertiveness and impishness, the calculated provocations of ritual verbal combat, linguistic playfulness, and calculated exaggeration are inexplicable to it as it lacks the detachment, levity, and humour within which these things make sense…

    Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven discourses will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked. Unable to sustain true conversation, stale monologues will take its place. Constantly pressed towards conformity, indoctrination can take the place of open intellectual inquiry. Fracturing into hostile dogmatic cliques takes the place of vigorous and illuminating dialogue between contrasting perspectives. Lacking the capacity for open dialogue, such groups will exert their influence on wider society primarily by means of political agitation.

    The fear of conflict and the inability to deal with disagreement lies at the heart of sensitivity-driven discourses. However, ideological conflict is the crucible of the sharpest thought. Ideological conflict forces our arguments to undergo a rigorous and ruthless process through which bad arguments are broken down, good arguments are honed and developed, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different positions emerge. The best thinking emerges from contexts where interlocutors mercilessly probe and attack our arguments’ weaknesses and our own weaknesses as their defenders. They expose the blindspots in our vision, the cracks in our theories, the inconsistencies in our logic, the inaptness of our framing, the problems in our rhetoric. We are constantly forced to return to the drawing board, to produce better arguments.

    Granted immunity from this process, sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.

    It is worth scanning Sailer’s essay, though Roberts’ original posts are… long!

  11. lucia, that is one of a number of things Roberts gets wrong. Typically,when you see a long-winded essay saying there are two groups and one group is better, you should distrust everything it says.

    The male/female aspect isn’t based on actual males and females. It’s based on stereotypical views of what males and females are.

  12. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #107273)

    > The male/female aspect [of Roberts’ essay is] based on stereotypical views of what males and females are.

    That’s my sense as well.

    I’ve listened to the British Parliament’s “Question Time” on the U.S. C-SPAN network, and it is as Roberts describes — characterized by spirited challenges to opposing positions, hyperbolic and histrionic rhetoric, assertive presentations of one’s beliefs, with hyperbolic and unbalanced expressions commonplace.

    I don’t think this is the best approach to technical issues — e.g. I try in my comments to write carefully and dispassionately, and to act as though there is great potential for literate and numerate people of good will to find much common ground. Sometimes this proves to be the case, at other times not.

    On the other hand, I think there have been numerous incidents over the past few years where “sensitivity-driven discourse” has been a major driver of mainstream consensus climate scientists and advocates. This has led to the sorts of outcomes Roberts described in the final paragraph quoted in #107266 supra.

  13. AMac, his descriptions are accurate to an extent. That is what makes his writing so deceptive. Over-simplifications rely on telling partial truths to provide an air of accuracy.

    While he praises the combative style for bringing out the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, he overlooks the fact that very same combativeness often hides the truth. That style focusing on winning, not on being right. Often, the two don’t go hand in hand. Even worse, the style encourages deceit. To win, you should try to get people to overlook flaws in your position. This practically necessitates dishonesty. So forth and so on.

    There are also benefits to the other style, and the two styles aren’t actually disjoint. It’s more of a spectrum. And the best place to be on that spectrum is the middle, which (perhaps not so) coincidentally is the style you promote.

  14. Brandon:

    There are also benefits to the other style, and the two styles aren’t actually disjoint. It’s more of a spectrum. And the best place to be on that spectrum is the middle, which (perhaps not so) coincidentally is the style you promote.

    I find the forced dichotomy of either “taking everything personally” or “debate as a sport” to be completely silly. That may be 2 out of 200 different “modes of intellectual discourse” out there, with any given person engaging in as much as a 1/3 of them.

  15. IMHO it was better in tone and content when such discourse took place in bars over several pitchers of beer. Less chafe and less chaff.

  16. Carrick, I don’t think there are that many distinct “modes of intellectual discourse.” If nothing else, most of the differences in modes have nothing to do with intellectual matters.

    mwgrant, I usually don’t find conversations at bars to be intellectually stimulating. Maybe I need to try new bars.

  17. Brandon —

    Note the use of past tense and the use of the phrase “such discourse.” However, your point is taken. A further point here, however, is that you have to take your conversation partners with you to the right bar.

    BTW I agree with your comment to Carrick:

    “If nothing else, most of the differences in modes have nothing to do with intellectual matters.”

    This is reflected in the character or flavor of the different blog sites, e.g., The Blackboard, Climate Etc., and die Klimazwiebel.

  18. Lucia,
    Could we do a parallel bet with RSS?

    They publish early, with 3 significant figures… and personally, I prefer betting on satellite based anomalies.

  21. AMac

    there are people who like to turn debates into issues of intelligence because they have no facts to deal with, only emotions. So Bugs, for whatever reason, feels an empathy with sociopaths such as Mann. He cannot help it because the conclusions that Mann reaches appeal to him, regardless of how they are derived. Every attack on Mann’s work is like an attack on Mann the person for him. And it works in reverse for people who cannot separate personalities from issues.

  24. lucia

    No hurry re betting from this quarter. I am fine just knowing the numbers. I already know I’m out of the money. It’s all the prediction game for me…and crawling thru the numbers each month–they really are a great tease when playing with stats and graphics. As long as I have I reasonable predictor I’m a happy camper. The earlier RSS value of 0.195 for Nov suggested my UAH predictor might be too much out of wack sans reason–well, other than Mother Nature.

    Hope dinner was nice.

  25. lucia (Comment #107269)

    “I’m not groking the “male/female” aspect. Seems to me that an awful lot of guys participate in echo chambers.”

    I would heartily have to agree. In fact some, such as myself, are so far out there that they have their own individual chambers where they bounce ideas off themselves.

    Surely some of the conversation within the climate community, as witnessed by the climategate emails and mostly between guys, would appear to be intent on avoiding conflict. The few that expressed an individual and unique point of view on an issue were exceptional and refreshing. Of course, I do not believe the email venue or the back and forth posts on a blog are necessarily very intellectual in nature. There just is not the space and time to properly develop ideas and thoughts. I do, however, think that blogs can create interest that approaches intellectual curiosity and do a decent job of sorting out facts and doing enlightening analyses.

    I guess the excerpt that AMac presented above was an either or proposition of group think versus some higher level debating approach. I would agree with Brandon that neither is the optimum approach, but I would never say the optimum is the middle way as that way could be adopting the worse of both worlds.

    The phony debates that we have between our politicians in the US are certainly exemplar of something that is at best a waste of time and at worse anti-intellectual.

  26. Surely some of the conversation within the climate community, as witnessed by the climategate emails and mostly between guys, would appear to be intent on avoiding conflict.

    Some of it looked like “enforcing group norms”. It makes me think of the behavior often claimed to be typical of “mean girls” groups. But we see it in male groups often enough.

  27. Here is my analysis of the December betting:
    NO. OF BETS 39
    MAX 0.42
    MIN -0.14
    MEAN 0.218
    MEDIAN 0.241
    STD DEV 0.121
    MEAN 1-20 0.193
    MEAN 20-39 0.236
    MEAN PLUS 1 SD 0.339
    MEAN MINUS 1 SD 0.097
    WITHIN +/- 1 SD (%) 79.49
    ABOVE MEAN (%) 58.97
    BELOW MEAN (%) 41.03
    Both the mean and median figures suggest a fall since last month.
    After going too high last month, I find myself in the high end of the betting again this month.
    Unfortunately the November winners don’t seem to have entered bets this month, but I am slightly alarmed by this month’s bet of – 0.14c from ScottBasinger.

  28. Ray – having ‘picked’ a very similar anomaly to you, I suggest we appear at the high end of the betting simply because most people are betting too low…
    …Think positively! 🙂

  29. Anteros,
    As you can see, I was going lower, but bumped mine up at the last minute.
    Unfortunately, I still haven’t found the correct relationship between aqua ch5 and UAH v5.5, (even though aqua ch5 isn’t used for UAH any more).

Comments are closed.