TalkClimateChange

I’m almost at a loss for words here, and I guess the simple thing would be just to attempt to explain what is happening.

The “scientists” over at RealClimate.com have challenged German climate modellers - who recently published their “peer reviewed” paper on the results of their new climate model runs - to a wager on the validity of their predictions. This new paper Keenlyside et al. 2008 makes some short term, single decade long predictions regarding the global combined land and ocean surface temperature record.

The basis of the wager is simple;

If the average temperature 2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or equal to the average temperature 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet will be decided by the end of 2010. We offer the same for their second forecast: If 2005-2015 (*) turns out to be colder or equal compared to 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500 – if it turns out to be warmer, they pay us the same. The basis for the temperature comparison will be the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set used by the authors in their paper.

This paper has received a lot of media attention because it predicts a pause in Global Warming through 2015 which is the point of contention for the “boys club” over at Real Climate, who instead of actually doing some good old fashioned research have chosen to simply bet on the findings of others. Not very sporting, most  betting is based on at least two participants actually competing to be the best and wagers are placed on the outcome. This is coin toss gambling.

Put Your Model Where Your Mouth Is

I would suggest that the “Group of Six” (Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann) over at Real Climate should run their own model predictions and the bet should be on the most accurate of the two predictions. It is not like these guys are not scientists with access to their own computer models, so make a real wager of it and put your egos and the predictive skills of your own models on the chopping block along with Keenlyside et al. If the Real Climate boys lose, they do not stand to be out of anything but some cash.

I say put your own research up for possible ridicule and make a real sport of it, a competition rather than a wager.  That way we can all bet on the team that we feel is most accurate in their predictions, in it’s current form the only ones with something to lose are the scientists that actually did some modelling, so let the best climate model win!

Watch This Site

I will be following the developments on this closely, and if the wager is accepted in any form I will let you know. I think this is interesting since Real Climate authors have refused to debate the science, but they seem to have no problem betting. In my opinion this is proof of their fear that their theory is starting to unravel and that they have no basis for rebuttal against the results of the paper. Instead, they are placing a bet not on the out come of the prediction, but more generally on the future of the AGW theory and the “proposed casual relationship between climate feedbacks and CO2 concentrations”.

Would you take this bet?