Replies

Actually, I wasn't using the worst case IPCC numbers, but their best case numbers (which are really worst-worst case numbers). But anyways the 0.3F degree rise is probably a reasonable place to set the mark. Here is NCDC data for the US:

I don't think a single year would work very well as the yearly values vary too greatly and it would be very likely one year would be higher. We could set the starting point at 54.2F for 2001 and if the data for 2002-2012 produce a best fit line with a tempreture greater than 54.5F in 2012, you win.

I'll consider over the weekend. What about the spring thaw criterion?

Agreed if the alternative criterion (an additional one day earlier spring thaw trend for Northern Hemisphere rivers and lakes) is the alternative "win" scenario.

And I also wanted to note that you've successfully moved me from my original betting position, which was that a majority of a selection of fifteen currently deleterious environmmental trends would show "worsening" over the next decade. The reason that I actually wanted to state the bet that way was that climate and environment are variable, and a variety of "probes" are required to provide a genuine overall assessment. Your doctor doesn't base his entire assessment of your health on your blood pressure and temperature, for example (or if he does, he's a quack). SOOOO... just because I think the terms are reasonable despite the full focus on global warming, for the fun of it I'll take them. But I also know that we could easily hit a decade-long lull in warming rate, and you'd win. But it's worth a 12-pack of my favorite beer.