In comments, we’ve been discussing who has predicted various levels of ice loss in the Arctic. It’s seems to me many of the predictions reported by the media are couched in language that is suitably vague. This may be because the people predicting weren’t really intending to predict anything, but the reporter wanted a prediction for the story.No matter what the cause,the prediction can be read as very alarming (or not), but if ice doesn’t (or does) melt, the language seems to give plausible deniability. <\/p>\n
That said: bets generally force a degree of clarity. Someone needs to propose precise terms to decide who wins and who loses. Even if the prize is “quatloos”, we still have a number, a date etc. We know who wins. <\/p>\n
So, I was interested to read Joe Romm’s posted challenge in the form of a bet<\/a>. Though terms of bets are subject to negotiation prior to agreement, if the bet is serious, the proposal<\/i> ought to be sufficiently clear to permit those betting to have some idea what the bet might entail. Otherwise, initiating negotiations about details is pointless. <\/p>\n So, I was wondering if anyone can clarify Romm’s bet proposal for me. I have this snippet:<\/p>\n The Arctic is all but certain to be virtually ice free within two decades (barring extreme volcanic activity). I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m happy to make bets with any bloggers, like Andy Revkin, who apparently believe otherwise.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is followed by the wall of words typical of a Romm post. Despite all the alarming verbiage. I don’t think it’s appropriate to try to hunt down the terms of the bets by reading other<\/i> long wall-of-word Romm posts and trying to tease out what he might<\/I> wish to bet on. Plus, I know some of you might know and save me time. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n My specific questions:<\/p>\n Of course, it would also be nice to know Romm’s criterion for “extreme volcanic activity”. Given the rate of large volcanic eruptions over the previous 120 years, that’s a pretty big “out” clause over 2 decades. Still, I think that’s the least unclear things about Romm’s proposed bet. <\/p>\n For now: I know Romm seems to be using the rhetorical method of “projecting by offering a bet”, but I don’t have any idea what<\/i> would have to happen for him to win or lose the bet. The range of what he might be ‘predicting by offering a bet’ is so huge I think that when 2031 arrives, it’s highly likely no one will be able to figure out if he won. That is: No one will be able to figure it out unless NH ice extent has been reported as 0 km^2 from Jan 2026-Jan 2031. If that happens, he would have won the bet had anyone taken it. Otherwise — who knows? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In comments, we’ve been discussing who has predicted various levels of ice loss in the Arctic. It’s seems to me many of the predictions reported by the media are couched in language that is suitably vague. This may be because the people predicting weren’t really intending to predict anything, but the reporter wanted a prediction … Continue reading Romm’s Bet: Can someone point to details?<\/span> \n