Comments on: This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is still over http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:27:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13968 Nylo Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:08:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13968 Polar bears moving SOUTH: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1024243/First-polar-bear-swim-Iceland-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html Polar bears moving SOUTH:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/ worldnews/ article-1024243/ First-polar-bear-swim-Iceland-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html

]]> By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13904 Nylo Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:47:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13904 May's lower troposphere temperature anomaly the lowest since Jan 1999. May's lower troposphere temperature anomaly in the tropics the lowest since 1989 and the lowest "ever" (since measures began) for any May. May’s lower troposphere temperature anomaly the lowest since Jan 1999. May’s lower troposphere temperature anomaly in the tropics the lowest since 1989 and the lowest “ever” (since measures began) for any May.

]]> By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13628 Nylo Thu, 29 May 2008 11:02:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13628 Fine enough. Then if I lose, I would just state that I lost in a similar way right? Now back to the terms, what do you prefer the comparison to be with, 1998-2007 or 2001-2007? Fine enough. Then if I lose, I would just state that I lost in a similar way right? Now back to the terms, what do you prefer the comparison to be with, 1998-2007 or 2001-2007?

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13588 Dano Wed, 28 May 2008 18:57:00 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13588 Try a straight bet without nutter ululating ideological terms that don't follow from the science. E.g.: Dano must state he lost the cooling bet to Nylo on 10 sites of Nylo's choice. See? Simple. Leave out the denialist cr*p and you won't get deleted. Best, D Try a straight bet without nutter ululating ideological terms that don’t follow from the science.

E.g.: Dano must state he lost the cooling bet to Nylo on 10 sites of Nylo’s choice.

See? Simple.

Leave out the denialist cr*p and you won’t get deleted.

Best,

D

]]> By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13514 Nylo Tue, 27 May 2008 18:08:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13514 No longer interested. Especially after my response to your post has been deleted once again without explanation. Business as usual here. No longer interested. Especially after my response to your post has been deleted once again without explanation. Business as usual here.

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13447 Dano Mon, 26 May 2008 15:41:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13447 No, I'm not accepting payment terms. I told you why your strawmen as terms above are unacceptable. Restate without ululating ideological payment terms, lad. Best, D No, I’m not accepting payment terms. I told you why your strawmen as terms above are unacceptable.

Restate without ululating ideological payment terms, lad.

Best,

D

]]> By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13353 Nylo Sun, 25 May 2008 10:12:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13353 I sometimes think you have serious problems in reading comprehension... Using GISS data, the average of the anomalies between 2008 and 2017 will be lower, by any extent, than the average of the anomalies between either 1998-2007 or 2001-2007, you choose, meaning a colder decade than the present and already stabilised decade. If you think it will be higher, accept the bet, and accept the payment of the loser. If not, shut up with all the nonsense of me allegedly not wanting to bet on cooling trends. I sometimes think you have serious problems in reading comprehension…

Using GISS data, the average of the anomalies between 2008 and 2017 will be lower, by any extent, than the average of the anomalies between either 1998-2007 or 2001-2007, you choose, meaning a colder decade than the present and already stabilised decade. If you think it will be higher, accept the bet, and accept the payment of the loser. If not, shut up with all the nonsense of me allegedly not wanting to bet on cooling trends.

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13257 Dano Fri, 23 May 2008 20:12:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13257 Nylo, I merely point out that you wish to bet about cooling, starting with a record high year (HadCRU, GISS includes very warm Arctic temps that year, but we can say 2005 if you wish). This gets to numerous analysis and critical thinking skills. I wish to avoid nothing. <i>however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it, </i> No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point <i>The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing. </i> No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point <i>no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation </i> and no. No one with a modicum of sense says that climate or weather is controlled by only one factor. ----- As for the terms, in 1) we already know that your date range was partially caused by these factors, 'exaggeration' is not quantitative and thus not reproducible (IOW, your opinion), and your SLR cannot be connected with the terms and given parameters. The question is simple: will temps rise or fall? The bet is simply yes or no with agreed-upon time periods. I don't care what the payment is. <b>Rise or fall by how much between when and when?</b> That's all I want to know. Best, D Nylo, I merely point out that you wish to bet about cooling, starting with a record high year (HadCRU, GISS includes very warm Arctic temps that year, but we can say 2005 if you wish). This gets to numerous analysis and critical thinking skills. I wish to avoid nothing.

however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it,

No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point

The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing.

No. The 1998 El Nino a case in point

no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation

and no. No one with a modicum of sense says that climate or weather is controlled by only one factor.

—–

As for the terms, in 1) we already know that your date range was partially caused by these factors, ‘exaggeration’ is not quantitative and thus not reproducible (IOW, your opinion), and your SLR cannot be connected with the terms and given parameters.

The question is simple: will temps rise or fall? The bet is simply yes or no with agreed-upon time periods. I don’t care what the payment is.

Rise or fall by how much between when and when?

That’s all I want to know.

Best,

D

]]> By: Nylo http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13207 Nylo Fri, 23 May 2008 11:39:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13207 Dano, I am ready to compare 2008-2017 with 2001-2007 instead, if you prefer to avoid 1998. However, and in spite of all those things you say that I am unable to do, you seem unable to notice that, according to GISS, whose data I have agreed to use for these bets, 2005 was hotter than 1998. So 1998 would no longer be cherry-picking the hottest year, would it? Am I the one with problems to analize data and ignorant about anomalous temps? And not only that, but 2002 and 2007 had temperatures also quite close to the ones in 1998 according to GISS. That makes 1998 a rather normal individual year in the last decade, doesn't it. Or will you claim that the "normal" years of the decade were 1999 and 2000? You accuse me of not knowing the difference between weather and climate, however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it, (weather can only stop warming like now, but noway could it have increased the previous trends, according to the AGW histeria) no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation that even a 5-year-old child could identify only by looking at the graph of the temperatures of the 20th century. The problem here is not that I don't distinguish weather and climate. The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing. Let's move on to the price of the bet. As I am not willing to bet money to you in particular, let's put it this way: 1) IF I WIN, you will agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs I may decide at that moment, admitting that the warming between 1975 and 1998 was partially caused by natural weather oscillations; that the IPCC AR3 and AR4 predictions for temperature trends were most probably exagerated; and that no catastrophic sea level rise will probably happen that endangers our civilization in the ways predicted by IPCC AR3-AR4, before we run out of petrol. 2) IF YOU WIN, I will similarly agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs you may decide at that moment, admitting that the IPCC predictions in AR3-AR4 were most probably right, that stopping any CO2 emissions is a top priority, and that our civilization will suffer countless damages unless action is taken immediately. Are those terms OK for you? Dano, I am ready to compare 2008-2017 with 2001-2007 instead, if you prefer to avoid 1998. However, and in spite of all those things you say that I am unable to do, you seem unable to notice that, according to GISS, whose data I have agreed to use for these bets, 2005 was hotter than 1998. So 1998 would no longer be cherry-picking the hottest year, would it? Am I the one with problems to analize data and ignorant about anomalous temps? And not only that, but 2002 and 2007 had temperatures also quite close to the ones in 1998 according to GISS. That makes 1998 a rather normal individual year in the last decade, doesn’t it. Or will you claim that the “normal” years of the decade were 1999 and 2000?

You accuse me of not knowing the difference between weather and climate, however you AGWers are the ones claiming that the temperature rise until this decade was purely climate, without any weather on it, (weather can only stop warming like now, but noway could it have increased the previous trends, according to the AGW histeria) no matter the crystal clear 30-year PDO oscillation that even a 5-year-old child could identify only by looking at the graph of the temperatures of the 20th century. The problem here is not that I don’t distinguish weather and climate. The problem is that you reject that any recent temperature rise could have posibly been caused by weather, even when there are clear evidences of such a thing.

Let’s move on to the price of the bet. As I am not willing to bet money to you in particular, let’s put it this way:

1) IF I WIN, you will agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs I may decide at that moment, admitting that the warming between 1975 and 1998 was partially caused by natural weather oscillations; that the IPCC AR3 and AR4 predictions for temperature trends were most probably exagerated; and that no catastrophic sea level rise will probably happen that endangers our civilization in the ways predicted by IPCC AR3-AR4, before we run out of petrol.

2) IF YOU WIN, I will similarly agree to make a public declaration, in this blog and in up to 10 other forums and blogs you may decide at that moment, admitting that the IPCC predictions in AR3-AR4 were most probably right, that stopping any CO2 emissions is a top priority, and that our civilization will suffer countless damages unless action is taken immediately.

Are those terms OK for you?

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13141 Dano Thu, 22 May 2008 17:46:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this-just-in-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-still-over/#comment-13141 <i>I am not going to bet more than something purely symbolic with you, because of your bullyish, insulting and disrespectful behaviour, which makes me profoundly dubious about [yada]</i> Playing the victim bully doesn't distract away from the fact that you have an inability to analyze data, are ignorant about anomalous temps, confused between weather and climate, unable to choose appropriate datasets, make confident assertions based on ideology rather than evidence, and cherry-pick convenient starting points to support pre-conceived notiions. So therefore _I'm_ a bully instead. Gotcha, lad. So you appear to want to bet that the trend in temps will be less than a particular decadal period that started with the highest recorded anomalous temp - most would call that cherry-picking. Nonetheless. Judging from your inability to discern that this past April - according to UAH TLT - did not, in fact, have the coldest global temperature anomaly since July 2004, are you sure I'm not taking your money that you don't really want to bet? That is: you are stating that the trend for the next decade will be lower than the previous decade that started with a high anomalous temp. I'll take that bet on the trend (after all, that is your argument). Best, D I am not going to bet more than something purely symbolic with you, because of your bullyish, insulting and disrespectful behaviour, which makes me profoundly dubious about [yada]

Playing the victim bully doesn’t distract away from the fact that you have an inability to analyze data, are ignorant about anomalous temps, confused between weather and climate, unable to choose appropriate datasets, make confident assertions based on ideology rather than evidence, and cherry-pick convenient starting points to support pre-conceived notiions. So therefore _I’m_ a bully instead. Gotcha, lad.

So you appear to want to bet that the trend in temps will be less than a particular decadal period that started with the highest recorded anomalous temp – most would call that cherry-picking.

Nonetheless. Judging from your inability to discern that this past April – according to UAH TLT – did not, in fact, have the coldest global temperature anomaly since July 2004, are you sure I’m not taking your money that you don’t really want to bet? That is: you are stating that the trend for the next decade will be lower than the previous decade that started with a high anomalous temp.

I’ll take that bet on the trend (after all, that is your argument).

Best,

D

]]>