moviefan lost the Climate Change bet, help me pick the books he should read.

Previous Thread Next Thread
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
C'mon Moviefan.
Own up.

We bet whether or not 2015's global anomaly would hit 0.83ºC, by NASA's readings.
Its hit 0.84ºC, so its time for you to admit two things.

1) you were wrong
2) The IPCC's projections are really quite good.

You lost.
Own up.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
C'mon Moviefan.

You lost the bet.

You bet that the global anomaly of 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
Its now 0.84ºC.

Stop whining and pay up.

Its time for you to buy Michael Mann's book on the hockey stick book.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X

That will be book #1, book #2 I'll give you in a day or two.
Settle up loser.


This was the bet:
Moviefan-2 said:
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Click to expand...
And what do those numbers now read?

0.84ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop whining.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
Moviefan bet that the global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC by NASA's numbers.
Now that it has he is just whining instead of manning up and admitting he's wrong.

Poor whiny boy.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
Any claims that NASA 'revised' the data from Moviefan are out and out lies.
From NASA:
Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.
Click to expand...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Just as any claims that NASA 'adjusted' the data only show Moviefan's ignorance.
NASA continually works on adjusting and refining the balancing of different measurements to create the best global measurement they can.
Claims that any one of these adjustments affected our bet on an 0.83ºC anomaly only shows Moviefan's ignorance of the way that NASA works.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.
Click to expand...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html


Further, if Moviefan feels that NASA's changes are wrong, he is free to email them and show them the error of their ways.
Q. What can I do if I notice something odd?
A. If you think the problem is in the GISTEMP analysis, please let us know by email. If it concerns unrealistic looking station data, we will usually forward your note to GHCN or SCAR. If you know who provided that data, you may also contact that source directly. Artifacts do sometimes slip by the quality control checks at NCEI and GISS but can usually be fixed quickly.
Click to expand...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html


In the meantime, Moviefan lost the bet and needs to pay up.

And Merry Christmas or happy holidays.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
Book one of the two moviefan will read for losing the bet will be the Michael Mann book on the hockey stick chart, as noted repeatedly above.

The second book Moviefan will read will be one of:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE

A good texbook, or:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036556?ref_=cm_lmf_tit_2

Jared Diamond's book isn't necessarily a climate change, but an excellent history of previous civilization's collapses, which according to his research were almost all environmental causes.
Which makes it very relevant.

Still considering the options.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,962
22,967
113
Anynym said:
Changing historical data results in a DIFFERENT data set, no matter what "adjustments" were made - and anyone who has followed closely will know that their claimed justifications make no sense and only serve to artificially (not actually) produce the result they predetermined and advocate at great expense to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
Its the same data, all they did was weight some stations or ocean measurements differently to better represent the whole picture.
Here, take a look at moviefan's favourite comparison chart.
There are minor differences, but those differences are minor.
Part of the normal processes that NASA goes through continually.
moviefan is just whining because he lost the bet, he knows full well that NASA constantly works on bettering their results.
Unless he's a total idiot and doesn't understand the scientific process, of course.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom