My $1 Million Climate Model Bet

Guest Post by Scott Adams

I will bet anyone $1 million dollars that I can come up with a climate forecast model that ignores C02 and still predicts the temperature 30 years from now to within half a degree. Does anyone want to take that bet?

Obviously there is a trick involved, so I won’t accept your bet for ethical reasons. But let’s see if you can figure out how I could win that bet every time.

I am 100% confident I can build a climate prediction model, using my current skill set, that will predict the measured temperature in 30 years to within half a degree.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Furthermore, you can pick whatever measurement type and place you want for the bet. My trick does not depend on doing anything clever with the measurement itself.

I can also build an accurate climate prediction model for any local geography. I can do it for the ocean or the air. And in each case, I have a 100% chance of getting the right answer to within half a degree.

Would you take the bet?

I’ll tell you the trick at the end. If you don’t understand how I plan to do it, you also won’t understand why this headline is hilarious nonsense.

Still puzzled?

I’ll give you another hint in the form of a thought experiment. What if you got an unsolicited email from a new investment company giving you a hot stock tip. You don’t invest because you have never heard of this company, but a month later, the stock they recommended is way up. Next month, you get another email from the same company, with another stock pick. That too goes up in the coming month. By the third time in a row that this company picks a winning stock, you start to think they must have a secret method. Let’s say the overall market was mixed, so getting three in a row is an achievement. Would you invest with this company?

How did the company get those three stocks right? They used a scam. It’s the same scam I’m playing on you right now with my $1 million bet.

The investment company sent out thousands of emails, and they had different stock recommendations in each. Some of the stocks ended up being winners, some losers. After a month, they see which of the thousands of emails had winning stock recommendations, then they only send their second email to that group. Then they repeat. By the third mailing, they might have reduced their population of “winners” from the original 10,000 recipients to just a dozen who, by chance, got three good stock recommendations in a row.

Now do you see how I could make a climate model that is right every time?

All I need to do is make a hundred different models, each producing output that is half a degree apart, until I have at least one model that fits every possible outcome. My models would look like this:

Model 1: Current Temp + .5 degrees

Model 2: Current Temp + 1 degree

Model 3: Current Temp + 1.5 degrees

Etc.

And I’d include all the temperatures below the current temperature too, just in case we start to cool off. In 30 years, one of my prediction models will be correct by chance. I’ll throw away all the loser models and collect my $1 million bet.

Now keep all of that in your head and take a second look at this headline. Does this model still look impressive? I’m guessing there were quite a few prediction models in the past, and lots of them now too. One of them will be more accurate than the others in 30 years.

Does that really tell you anything?

My point here is that I don’t care how many climate models are accurate if you don’t tell me how many were wrong. If 99 out of 100 climate scientists create models that are wrong, and one gets it right, would you bet on that winning model to stay right in the future?

If you answered yes, I recommend letting someone else make investment decisions for you.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Card802
Card802
March 6, 2017 1:17 pm

This is like, how many people lost their insurance due to changes thanks to the ACA mandates.

All we hear about is how many people got insurance. The truth is out there, once you find it though we’re onto the next crisis du jour.

Bob
Bob
March 6, 2017 2:35 pm

The same method is used by the people who predict the outcomes of football games. They set up two separate hotlines, each touting opposite sides of the spread. So half the people who call in get a winning pick, and some of those subscribe to the service as a result. What a scam!

DRUD
DRUD
March 6, 2017 4:02 pm

I’ll bet you I can predict the score of next year’s Superbowl before it starts.

JIMSKI
JIMSKI
March 6, 2017 4:02 pm

Scott

You can not even get CarFax to straighten out a simple mileage issues on your vehicle.

Just up the fuck shut.

javelin
javelin
  JIMSKI
March 6, 2017 5:20 pm

you missed the point–it’s a clever scam.
To better explain his stock market example: If I sent out 50,000 spam emails predicting that I am a stock guru and will predict for 5 days straight whether the market will rise or dip– Day #1: 25,000 emails say up, and 25,000 say it will drop.
I send the 25,000 emails that I “guessed” right a second email– Day #2 I send 12,500 predicting up and 12,500 predicting down…
Day #3 it is 6,250 up predictions and 6,250 down….Day #4 I am emailing 6,250 people saying, ” I have been right 3 days in a row–you are missing out on cashing in! 3,125 of those get up predictions, 3,125 get down predictions ( I will be right for 4 days in a row with 3,125 of these people- I am amazing!) Day #5 I throw in a bonus offer, sign up now and invest and I’ll waive the sign-up fee !! I send out my 3,125 emails on Day 5 with this special offer, again predicting 1560 or so up and 1,560 down…for 1500 people I am a Market Genius! If I get just 10% or even 5% of these people to sign up I have added a nice chunk to my investor rolls–and I don’t need to know squat about stocks…….

Likewise, if I have 1000 computer model projections of varying changes from 1987 to today’s current climate, I will have several that are ” amazingly accurate” and I can even espouse that my theories are “proven” because my model was right—total crap.

PS: There is a fantastic book I recommend called, “Coincidence, Chaos, and all that Math Jazz”…the writers are quite witty, the book is both entertaining and informative. Whether you are an occasional gambler, fascinated by Fibonacci or simply want to see things with a clearer, more logical perspective…I recommend it.

Yancey Ward
Yancey Ward
March 6, 2017 6:48 pm

I laughed when I read some of the comments on Adams’ essay at his site taking issue with him by, seemingly, arguing that the terms would only allow him to create one model. I mean, seriously, they literally cannot read and understand something written in English.

All his is saying is that he can create a model that matches the the actual temperature in the future that doesn’t give any weight whatsoever to CO2, which is literally true on its face.

Chubby Bubbles
Chubby Bubbles
March 6, 2017 7:28 pm

We won’t be here in 30 years to collect, Adams. Nice try, though.

The sun’s energy that is now going towards the work of *melting* the ice caps, glaciers, permafrost, etc. will soon be dedicated solely to *warming* in earnest.

80 calories/gram(cc) changes the phase of ice at 0°C to water at 0°C. That’s all energy occupied in the phase change, which will be free to heat us up once the ice is gone.

Once the ice has all changed to water we won’t only have the albedo effect to contend with, but that same 80 calories which took a gram of ice at 0°C to a gram of water at 0°C will now be heating that 1g of water from 0°C to **80°C** over the same time frame.

This is all high-school chemistry and physics. You can downvote, disagree, or whatever, but Nature Bats Last. It’s simply not subject to human politics, human religion, or human hysteria/intransigency.

TJF
TJF
  Chubby Bubbles
March 6, 2017 7:47 pm

Why do you think we will not be here in 30 years and where do you think we will be?

Chubby Bubbles
Chubby Bubbles
  TJF
March 7, 2017 3:25 am

I think AGW will have shifted the planet into a temperature range too hot for humans to practice agriculture. This is already happening for those with eyes to see it.

And then there’s the little issue of petroleum declining at 6%/ year.
Oh, and the 4-500 nukes that will go Fukushima when the grid fails (as it will). For those that don’t end up under water, there’s not hundreds of thousands of years of diesel fuel to keep the fuel cooling (pointless anyway, as the water’s becoming too hot to use for cooling.. this already happened in CT).

Just little things like that -and the fact that the trees are dying all around me- have my spidey senses tingling. Wherever we are in 30 years, we’re not going to be chatting with Scott Adams, or anyone else, on the intertubes.

Anonymous
Anonymous
March 6, 2017 8:45 pm

Ha. Assuming the surface ice is now constantly melting AND assuming all the sun’s energy is unchanged over the length of the observation interval, AND assuming the ice phase change absorbs a significant amount of the sun’s -unchanged energy -compared to the rest of the planet

Mind blower #1 = the vastly greater mass of LIQUID ocean is a much larger heat sink than an ice cap

Mind blower # 2 = albedo effect largely confined to the urban areas 0.1% of the earth’s surface -is insignificant – i.e. who cares if ice melts faster in Brooklyn NY today.

Mind blower #3 – alternate reports show vastly increasing southern ice which is bigger than the northern cap

Chubby Bubbles
Chubby Bubbles
  Anonymous
March 7, 2017 3:26 am

The ocean is absorbing a lot of heat. But when the ice is gone (all ice /snow.. not just over the ocean) there will be an even further amount of heat to absorb, and warming will increase rapidly compared to the already-rapid increases of late.

You are wrong about the albedo effect being restricted to cities. Don’t know where ya got that one…

There is no “vastly increasing southern ice”. That’s a complete fabrication.