But, don't be afraid to take Ian's challenge to use UAH data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...
Ian
You do realize that our bet was based on the GISS dataset.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Shame on those people for taking thermometers out of parking lots.
GraphicConception nailed what is wrong with this argument as well as the argument that 'x of the warmest years on record happened in the last x+2 years'
If global warming stopped at a higher level then average, you will continue to have higher averages than before. To get a bet with the global cooling folks, you would have to say 1998-2028 will be positive(this is actually 31 years). Alternatively, Kano has suggested a reasonable bet, though the time frame is too small for you. Joe Rom and Thomas Fuller have made a similar bet, though instead of 0 warming, it is at a level of .15C over ten years, which is 1.5C per century, the low end of IPCC 95% confidence range, and at the time the bet was made below the IPCC range. It is looking like Thomas Fuller will win this bet, with less warming than predicted by alarmists.
Additionally, note that there are some Russian scientists who have taken such a bet some years ago, stretching out 2025. I think it is with James Annan, but not sure.
Also, how would you define no warming? Are you using a least squares trend, and if so, are you accounting for statistical certainty, or calling for the end temperature to be cooler than the start point?
I don't like the least squares trend, because you can put in cooler years and end up with a higher trend. Particular the cooler years of 1999 and 2000 increase the trend from 1998.
Even still your bet is not as guaranteed as it first appears. 1989-2014 in RSS does not show warming, according to Skeptical Science's trend calculator.
The flaw in the 'no warming' argument rest on the physics of heat and atmosphere. Heat doesn't remain in the atmosphere. Heat migrates rapidly to a cooler venue. Ocean water and ice are the best examples. The effect of this heat transfer is most pronounced in the northern hemisphere because that's where the most land mass resides. I could type out the reasons for this, but why bother? Even with all of the published data concerning the melting of glaciers and the artic ice pack the deniers refuse to accept this reality. The answer to the question is...No, they won't take the bet!
The problem I have with your argument is that it doesn't matter. Global warming and cooling is directly related to SOLAR activity. The difference man makes is trivial.
We need to stop wasting our time and money on trying to maintain some particular temperature zones when over thousands of years they have been changing all along - we have merely not been measuring long enough to record this.
Instead we need clear plans on how to deal with temperature changes that ARE coming. Mankind has migrated since the beginning to better areas.
That's the obvious outcome. More important will be the effect of pollution on our bodies and maintaining a balance between population and resources no matter where it happens to be a few degrees warmer or cooler.
Are you willing to take the bet that from 1998 to 2019, there will be no statistically significant warming? I will take that bet. Because while I think warming is occurring, I do not think it is as powerful as you all seem to think it is. You see, that time period from 1940 to 1970, looks remarkable similar to the time period from 1880 to 1910. I do not believe the warming is strong enough to overcome those 30 year down cycles.
As to your bet. You are still adding in 10 years of warming at the beginning of the 30 year period, so I would not take that bet as you are padding it.
I might, however, take a bet for any warming (statistically significant or not) from 1997 to 2019. OR, take the bet that on average there is no warming over the next 5 years. You know a bet that is equally weighted. I am also not going to bet even money that the Chiefs win the Superbowl and I root for the Chiefs.
Gruber, it isn't conservatives that are spreading lies but thanks again for demonstrating who alarmists really are.
Ian and Graphic provided the real answer. If you are just playing games, then it is fine to make your bet but if you are actually interested in facts and science, than you should try to understand why it makes no sense. I would be willing to bet that the number of Swedish women will remain near all time highs, as well as the revenue of the Federal Government. Some trends are hard to fight against and some you don't really want to.
So, let me see if I have this straight.
You want someone to bet that the temperature graph will look like this?
(I took the figures for the last 25 years from HADCRUT4 and added a falling temperature that was sufficient to show a level trend over 30 years.)
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
I often see claims of "no warming for 17 years", "no warming for 15 years", or whatever the particular "skeptic" wishes to claim. But, the thing is, actual climate scientists think in terms of 30-year periods (or longer, but that's the minimum).
So. I am willing to bet any of you actual cash that, over the next, let's say, 5 years (I don't want to extend it indefinitely, for practical reasons), the 30-year graph of surface or near-surface temperatures, by any basically global data set you care to use, will continue to show an increase. That is, for example, the 1985-2015 graph will show an increase, the 1987-2017 graph will show an increase, and so on.
Will any of you take that bet? If not, what does that say about your claim that warming isn't happening/has stopped? Any other thoughts?
the conservatives who abuse yahoo answers by spewing propaganda and lies in the global warming section are cowards because they won't ask any of their 'questions' in the science section because they know they are not interested in science or learning. They are only here dishonestly and cannot be trusted with a friendly bet. The Conservative Movement is dangerous and must be stopped.
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
I will take the bet, that there will not be an averaged rise over the next five years (I don't agree to excursions) I am willing to bet $200 do you agree?
Measured by RSS or UAH
My local election results determine if over the next 30 years
billions of Pacific NW freshwater gallons become the sole
responsibility of an Asian Coal Export Corporation. Go figure.
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
The Left's solution to almost every problem kill the 1st world's economy. Their cheerleaders, it appears, don't wish to lead by example. Take its today's leader, the fool Obama, as he rails against the Rich. Does austerity enter his life style. Obama expects his sheep to adore him & lavish him with both praise & toys, because he praise them as victims while stealing dignity. If Obama respected their dignity, he would say you should use what this great country has offered you & create economically viable solutions.
The Global warming whiners haven't convinced me "that man made" is part of the problem. I'm not winning to kill the 1st world economy when the Left's Cheerleaders aren't willing to lead by example.
If you allow 12 more years, I will bet you 1000 dollars there will be no statistically significant warming from 1996 - 2026.
30 years is BS! 30 years isn't even close to what it takes to get a clear picture of how the planet reacts to "all" of the variables involved. We are talking about a climate system that has at least 2,000 30-year periods in it, and if you truly believe in evolution that started with a "BIG BANG" 4.5 billion years ago, then there has been approximately 150,000,000 30-year periods of temperature fluctuations and I'll bet you that science can find at least 99% of those 30-year periods had a change of more than 0.2C in either direction (warming or cooling) that were not caused by humans. (current warming is 0.87C in 353 years, but will grant you the 0.2C rise in 30 years)
That's another hypocritical question from an alarmist. You can't find a 30-year period in recent history that hasn't had at least 0.2C fluctuation in it. You can pick "any" 30 year period that you want to. There's always "natural" fluctuations. That's how our climate maintains a balance on its own and always has.
Your monetary bet is exactly how Margaret Thatcher helped to jump start the IP CC. Using a monetary settlement as an incentive to prove something is exactly what the fossil fuel industry uses to bring people positive energy (warmth, ease of movement, sterilization of water, etc...). That's called "profiting from your own actions". Instead of asking science to define the limits of "natural climate variability" as it pertains to warming and cooling, they only focus on the anthropogenic warming or changes in the climate (through environmental media reporters) that seemed to have never happened before humans "invaded" Earth. LOL!
When you "climate clowns" can provide a formula in scientific terms as to how CO2 has a dangerous impact on our climate (instead of using inferences or preponderances - 'increased ocean acidification' is an inference), then you "might" have a valid bet. Basic Physics has shown you time and again that CO2 is very limited on its warming effects. The IP CC has also downgraded their "dangerous" inferences in their climate reports and now is reporting that not mitigating CO2 levels is "risky". That seems to infer that they still don't know a lot about how the climate reacts in certain situations. When they completely stop being so biased with their climate models, they might get some informative answers with them.
Looks like you accept the idea of "operating for a profit" anyways. You people are a joke!
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
I would add a buck to Darwinist's.
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
I would add a buck to Darwinist's.
It stopped in 1998 . All the graphs are rigged with false data
I would add a buck to Darwinist's.
So, you want to double down, now that you've lost the original AGW bet.
No I will not take this bet, I win, you lost, pay me, I won!
I would add a buck to Darwinist's.
I would add a buck to Darwinist's.
Hi Chem; have a star! I bet you a dollar you don't get any takers!
Hi Chem; have a star! I bet you a dollar you don't get any takers!
