It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.
:Eek:The bet just says read the NASA chart and if its higher then 0.83ºC....
No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.
It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.
:Eek:The bet just says read the NASA chart and if its higher then 0.83ºC....
No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.
Hey, speaking of dodgy charts and sources, the only other image up on your 'dvdfan05' moviebucket account is the one above.
Where did you get that one, another dodgy denier site?
When you have a link showing it comes from Schmidt, then it passes as legit.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:Yes, that is a legit link and is acceptable.
Thanks for showing why the charts you post from your photobucket are suspect.http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/moviefansweaselpictures.png
:Eek:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Wow, its almost like you are capable of learning, except you really aren't, are you?LMFAO!
So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:
It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.
NASA said:Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
That's not NASA.
...now you're faking charts.
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
:biggrin1:Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Interesting article.this guy has the best view....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...-says-Earth-looks-sick-and-fragile-from-space
Hey weasel, your out of context quote thing is getting really old and its really, really stupid.http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5473909#post5473909As if I ever stated that its 'a lie' that we bet on the NASA chart?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:
The link above is good, it goes directly to NASA.
It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.
NASA said:Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
That's not NASA.
...now you're faking charts.
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Quote 2 was about you weaselling around and posting possibly doctored images through photobucket.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.
Correct link to a legit source with the chart that shows you lost the bet.
Link to your personal photobucket account where weasels post pictures of their dicks. (and some other denier images)http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/moviefanweaseldick.png
unable to complete Grade 3 math.
Its really easy to fake quotes, idiot.I'm "lying," ... and "moving the goal posts."
Another classic.
2 fake linksIt's time to update Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest global-warming hits from the past few months.
- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5404144
Fake link- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.
2 fake linksNov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5416739
Fake link- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.
Fake link- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5414060
Fake link- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.
Fake link-- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5443355
Fake link- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5445053
Fake link-- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He says the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5466417
Fake link-- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5466781
Frankly, the only thing that embarrassed me was your admission that you were unable to complete Grade 3 math.
:biggrin1:Its really easy to fake quotes, idiot.
The links were fixed two days ago. But it is time to update his greatest hits.Speaking of dodgy, check out how many faked links moviefan uses in his accusations, its time to update how dodgy everything he says is:
Now, he says it's "denier math" and "moving the goal posts."
So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Back to tired old lies, I see.The links were fixed two days ago. But Franky's right, it is time to update his greatest hits
So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
You do realize that each of the links you posted say nothing of what you claim, don't you?The links were fixed two days ago. But it is time to update his greatest hits.
For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.
Furthermore, the Netherlands Environmental Agency conducted a similar survey in April 2012 of scientists with expertise in this area that was specific to the post-1950 period. It found 66 per cent support for the hypothesis -- once again, not a consensus.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses
As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.
In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
.
And every one of those links you posted does the exact opposite of what you claim it does. Your 'feb 3' link, for instance, shows you were caught making up 3 different sets of numbers on your three different attempts at 'moving the goal posts' or cheating on the bet.No.
That's not what the study found, they said:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.