Betting

April UAH: Up from March.

41 Comments

Roy’s back from helping out victims of tornado hits; he posted April’s UAH TLT value: +0.120C. Some will recall RSS was also up for April, this uptick suggests the effects of the recent La Nina are now diminishing. Meanwhile, the trends since 1980 continue to distinctly lag the multi-model mean projection for surface trends from the IPCC AR4. Here is a comparison to the multi-model mean of models forced using the A1B SRES:

And now for the important portion of this post: The distribution of your winnings.
This month, win, place and show went to Amac, TimTheToolMan and Robert Leyland. The rest of the winners can discover how much they won below:

Winnings in Quatloos for UAH TTL April, 2011 Predictions.
Rank Name Prediction (C) Bet Won
Gross Net
— Observed 0.120 (C)
1 AMac 0.11 1 15.534 14.534
2 TimTheToolMan 0.135 5 62.137 57.137
3 Robert Leyland 0.104 4 39.768 35.768
4 Bob Z 0.15 5 25.451 20.451
5 Tamara 0.089 4 16.289 12.289
6 Tim W. 0.152 5 10.529 5.529
7 John F. Pittman 0.081 3 0 -3
8 Anamoi 0.08 5 0 -5
9 Troy_CA 0.07 3 0 -3
10 plazaeme 0.06 1 0 -1
11 nzgsw 0.053 5 0 -5
12 Les Johnson 0.05 5 0 -5
13 Layman Lurker 0.05 5 0 -5
14 Jon P 0.195 4 0 -4
15 ErnieP 0.043 3 0 -3
16 Cassanders 0.198 5 0 -5
17 Freezedried 0.03 4 0 -4
18 Steve T 0.03 4.2 0 -4.2
19 Paul Butler 0.03 3 0 -3
20 Owen 0.022 4 0 -4
21 Spellbound 0.02 5 0 -5
22 Arfur Bryant 0.013 2 0 -2
23 dallas 0.01 5 0 -5
24 enSKog 0.001 3 0 -3
25 Guy Fardell 0 4 0 -4
26 AFPhys 0 2 0 -2
27 ob -0.014 1 0 -1
28 Earle Williams -0.015 5 0 -5
29 harrywr2 -0.02 5 0 -5
30 Don B -0.021 4 0 -4
31 Lance -0.021 4 0 -4
32 KÃ¥re Kristiansen -0.022 3 0 -3
33 Pieter -0.026 4 0 -4
34 Bob Koss -0.027 3 0 -3
35 Jennie -0.032 3 0 -3
36 Mike P -0.038 4 0 -4
37 Gareth -0.04 5 0 -5
38 Ed Forbes -0.08 5 0 -5
39 J.Mens -0.1 5 0 -5
40 intrepid_wanders -0.1 5 0 -5
41 David L -0.1 5 0 -5
42 herb in edmonton -0.105 3 0 -3
43 Vernon -0.11 5 0 -5
44 Edbhoy -0.113 5 0 -5
45 Hal -0.12 5 0 -5
46 Anton -0.12 2 0 -2
47 SteveF -0.124 2 0 -2
48 ivp0 -0.133 5 0 -5
49 Zer0th -0.137 5 0 -5
50 Nyq Only -0.15 5 0 -5
51 MarcH -0.155 4 0 -4
52 RobB -0.165 5 0 -5
53 DeNihilist -0.24 3 0 -3
54 Dudley Robertson -0.32 3 0 -3
55 Adam Gallon -0.35 5 0 -5
56 Larry 0.675 5 0 -5

The net winnings for each member of the ensemble will be added to their accounts.

41 thoughts on “April UAH: Up from March.”

  2. I meant to bet 5 quatloos, really!
    I’m planning to put down another 5 on this year’s Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom to win.

  3. “I’m planning to put down another 5 on this year’s Kentucky Derby”

    After-The-Fact-Attribution Wagering.

    Stingy Lucia won’t allow it. :/

    Andrew

  5. Since my bet of 0.05C is statistically indistinguishable from 0.12C I have no choice but to challenge Lucia’s payout. 🙂

  10. “Some will recall RSS was also up for April, this uptick suggests the effects of the recent La Nina are now diminishing.”
    _____

    May be, but the ch5 chart at Roy Spenser’s site shows an April uptick in all previous years(2003-2010).

  11. According to Tisdale – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/april-2011-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    “The weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies have just risen above the threshold of a La Niña, and are just barely in ENSO-neutral territory. The NINO3.4 SST anomaly based on the week centered on May 4, 2011 is -0.495 deg C.”

    Since “neutral ENSO” is defined as between -0.5C and +0.5C, we have exited LaNina conditions.

  12. …uptick suggests the effects of the recent La Nina are now diminishing.

    Does that mean this La Nina didn’t turn out to be as strong as claimed by those who attributed the third cold winter in a row to its strength? This layman’s eyeball assessment of the relevant graphs in WUWT reference pages suggest this La Nina was nothing like exceptional.

  14. Yay, I’m in the black with my Quatloos. I’d retire to the Bahamas now except they’ll probably sink.

  18. this uptick suggests the effects of the recent La Nina are now diminishing

    No, not so soon! They have barely started milking it…

  19. Neven–

    No, not so soon! They have barely started milking it…

    Could you be a little less cryptic? Who are “they”? What is this “it” are they are milking? And what actions constitute “milking”?

  21. nazlfrag–
    Did you get it right?

    Well… if you are going to post you should at least know how to respond to things people say.
    For example, when they complain about averaging of the models, point out the IPCC did exactly the same thing in Figure 10.4 of the AR4. Also, when they complain about 10 years, point out that this particular comparison is since 1980. But also, you need to concede that you are showing the case that makes models look worst: Comparison to UAH. They don’t look as bad compared to the surface measurements.

    Other than that, I’m not going to get involved in arguments at slashdot.

  22. Lucia, ‘they’ is the IPCC. ‘It’ is the trillions of dollars they are swindling (‘milking’) out of our pockets.

  23. Lucia:

    And what actions constitute “milking

    Easy enough (you can search for these in google, they are exact headlines, I’m leaving the links out to avoid the spam monster):

    • UN Links Pakistan Floods to Climate Change
    • Heat wave and drought in Russia linked to climate change
    • Australia drought is climate change warning: UK
    • Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods
    • Unrest in Egypt is also about food, which is about climate change
    • Tornadoes, extreme weather, and climate change

    In short, anything including a strong La Niña can be “milked” and linked to climate change.

  24. Thanks Lucia and please don’t waste your time there, the groupthink is unbearable. I’m just glad I know enough maths to recreate and thereby trust what you do, and when I can’t follow it, well it’s still out in the open where all real science belongs. I get a lot of stuff wrong though, so I thought I’d check. Anyway, thanks again for all you do for us amateurs, you keep it technical and I love it.

  25. Neven–
    Thanks for clarifying. I have to admit I would never have guessed who you were referring too.

    Carrick– Now that Neven has clarified who “they” are, I can see that I would have guessed what they were milking and how. But believe it or not, I thought Neven meant the group he called “d******”.

  27. Being forced to state my case for a share of the payout, here is the distribution of April UAH ‘estimates’. The verticle lines show the CI’s, the mean April ‘estimate’, observed April UAH anomaly, and my estimate.

    –
    Note the +/- 2 sigma range contains both the observed UAH April anomaly and my estimate. 🙂
    –
    It would be kind of fun to compare the ‘ensemble’ of estimated values for all months against the observed values to see if the betting gives you an unbiased estimate of observed UAH anomalies.

  29. You’re right I wouldn’t want to dilute my winnings. Perhaps the award range should be +/- ‘Best Estimate’ minus ‘observed’.

  30. lucia (Comment #75820) May 11th, 2011 at 11:56 am

    “Layman…. So everyone wins?”

    As long as we are within the ‘good agreement’ error bars that major climate scientists proclaim as ‘good enough’ to base trillion dollar decisions of course we should be rewarded 😉

  31. just womndering if even neven still prays to the gods of the IPCC any longer. We all know that Connolley is still in bondage to them.

  32. Neven (Comment #75814) ,
    I do enjoy your non-responsive answers to simple questions. But, do you imagine this approach helps to advance your position? (Not a rhetorical question.)

  33. SteveF–
    What’s I’ve never understood is people thinking utterly cryptic comments are useful. The bunny seems to be particularly fond of that sort of thing. I think generally, most people reaction is, huh?

  34. lucia #75827,
    I imagine that those who post this way are just taking the normal level of disdain and sarcasm that is omnipresent on many ‘warmist’ blogs and transplanting it here, and assume everyone ‘in the know’ understands what they are saying in their cryptic remarks. Neven’s sarcastic reply to your request for clarification pretty well sums it up. Like you, I think it is counterproductive. It tends to either confuse or piss people off.

  35. SteveF–
    To be fair, at least one “cooler” posting here also seem to adopt the style of “argument by obscurity”. What, precisely, did diogenes above mean?

    But I agree with you that this sort of communication style seems ominpresent and appears “above the fold” at some “warmist” blogs that actually get some traffic. (Example: Rabbet Run.) In contrast, as far as I am aware, “cooler” and “lukewarmer” blogs with traffic don’t use that bizarre style– particularly not above the fold (i.e. in the blog post itself.)

  36. On the subject of milking weather events (h/t, Steve McIntyre)

    Preliminary Assessment of Climate Factors Contributing to the Extreme 2011 Tornadoes

    punchline:

    Despite various limitations in data and tools, it should be noted that applying a scientific process is essential if one is to overcome the lack of rigor inherent in attribution claims that are all too often based on mere coincidental associations.

    Scientists debate about the appropriate process and use that to guide them to the most plausible conclusion for a given question (e.g., is there a link between this tornado outbreak and changing climate and how to we go about testing that).

    Advocates start with their desired policy outcome, and that drives what science they accept as plausible.

    Guess which blogger is which.

  37. lucia, not that it really matters, but you might want to be cautious about labeling “above the fold” as “in the blog post itself.” It is certainly true in many cases, but some bloggers view it differently. For example, I’ve seen Arthur Smith make the distinction about one of his posts mentioning Steve McIntyre.

  39. Re: lucia (May 12 10:33),

    Wikipedia says this about ‘above the fold‘.

    I think that it could mean in the first few paragraphs rather than in the entirety of the post as opposed to the comments. For example, if you have a lengthy post where most of it doesn’t appear until you click the ‘read more’ link, what appears in the teaser would be considered above the fold. The narrative hook, as it were.

  40. DeWitt–
    Ok. That makes sense. Do we have any individual word for the distinction of “in the blog post” as opposed to “in comments”.

    I would suggest that those who spend a lot of time advancing their arguments by series of cryptic snark generally do so above the fold in the sense too. But that wouldn’t make my usage standard. So… is there a word? (There doesn’t have to be a word.)

  41. DeWitt Payne beat me to the answer, though I’d add in the case in question, there was even an obvious change in narrative to signal the break.

    As for your other question, I can’t think of any word to fit it. I usually just see things referred to as in “posts” or “comments.” Sometimes I see things like “the main text” or other phrases, but that’s about it.

Comments are closed.