25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Moviefan-2]

Same chart, new and improved calculations that are more accurate.

I see. "Same chart" with completely different data. I don't think you know what the word "same" means.

Indeed, NASA says it "switched" from one data set to another: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/. That confirms that they're not the same.

Indeed, the ERSSTv4 chart didn't even exist when we made the bet in May. The bet was on the ESSRTv3b graph.

If you insist that the ESSRTv3b bet "stands," then there is no reason to wait until the end of the year to determine the results, as NASA has confirmed there will be no further updates to the ESSRTv3b chart.

The final tally for 2015 on the ERSSTv3b was 0.766 degrees Celsius.

You bet on a minimum of 0.83 degrees Celsius.

You lost.

I look forward to your reviews.

 

[Frankfooter]

I see. "Same chart" with completely different data. I don't think you know what the word "same" means.
.

It had to have different data anyways, that chart only 2014's data on it.
They haven't 'switched' data, they adjusted the formula they use to amalgamate all the data they get from various sources.
Its a constant process and it gets better every year, as witnessed by their 'spectacularly accurate' predictions.

But as a reminder this is the bet:

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: 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.

They still have the same chart up there, with updated figures.

So either you give up and forfeit the bet, admitting that you are wrong, or we wait until the end of 2015 and you can pay up then.
Your choice.

But trying to weasel out of a bet is a chicken ass, cheating, lowlife move.
Then again, you've been caught lying about two studies and either being too stupid or dishonest to read another chart you posted and lied about.
So go ahead, weasel out and prove that you have no honesty.

Your choice.

 

[basketcase]

I'm not sure why you're throwing in the "conspiracy" language -- the graph was created by the IPCC.

You measure the accuracy by judging the observed data against the average of the models that the IPCC uses for its predictions (eg., the 0.2 degrees C per decade prediction in the IPCC's 2007 report). There haven't been any results in the 21st century that come anywhere close to the IPCC's predictions.

If you want to look at how the data compare against individual models, that is fine. But you have to understand that not every model's predictions covers the full range in the colours displayed in that graph.

In fact, as I have pointed out before, the University of Hamburg compared the observed results against each one of the models' predictions, and found less than 2% of the models predicted the current temperature trends. The models have a 98% failure rate.

(By the way, I think you have the decimals in the wrong spot in your calculations of the variations.)

What a good job of ignoring that the past following 3 years fit smack in the middle of the projections. In your talk about your bet you even conceded that +0.68 value is accurate.

And I'm not accusing the IPCC of conspiracy the way you do. I'm accusing you of purposely choosing graphs that ignore the past 3 years.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What a good job of ignoring that the past following 3 years fit smack in the middle of the projections. In your talk about your bet you even conceded that +0.68 value is accurate.

And I'm not accusing the IPCC of conspiracy the way you do. I'm accusing you of purposely choosing graphs that ignore the past 3 years.

I had to come back and edit this post because I now understand the Michael Mann-like "hide the decline" approach that Basketcase is using -- trying to make it look like temperatures are increasing by pasting together two completely different data sets.

When it comes to the calculations of temperatures and anomalies, different sources produce different numbers.

On the NASA graph, the anomaly number for 2014 was 0.68 degrees Celsius -- the same level as 2005 and 2010, within the margin of error (a difference of 1/100th of a degree).

On the IPCC graph, that translates to 0.5 degrees Celsius. So if you want to plot the 0.5 degree level for 2014 on the IPCC graph, you get a data point that is at the absolute bottom of the model forecasts.

In fact, the University of Hamburg's study of recent results found that less than 2% of the models correctly predicted the temperatures.

If you look at that IPCC graph that I posted along with other graphs, you see that temperatures in the 21st century have been "flattening", to use NASA's description.

That's not exactly what the IPCC predicted. As you can see in the chart below from the IPCC's third report from 2001, the IPCC was predicting temperature increases of at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade.

(Page 34: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf)

Look at those skyrocketing temperatures. Not exactly a match with the reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In your talk about your bet you even conceded that +0.68 value is accurate.

I don't think I would go quite that far.

I conceded that NASA reported the anomaly figure for 2014 as 0.68, but I don't have any faith in NASA's numbers. More to the point, you can't take that anomaly number and insert it into an entirely different graph that is reporting entirely different numbers.

Like most people who pay attention to this stuff, I have more faith in the satellite data used by the Met Office and others than in the ever-changing thermometer readings produced by the Ministry of Truthers at the NOAA and NASA. I actually think it's appalling that the NOAA and NASA are destroying their historical records for political reasons.

Here's the key point:

I not only say the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, I have been willing to bet on it.

Your friend Groggy, who bet in favour of the IPCC, now feels he has to cheat and lie.

Think about it. The bet was for the final result in 2015, when it is expected that El Nino factors will already push the Earth's temperature artificially high. Yet Groggy still feels he has to cheat and lie.

That's because he knows the temperature at the end of 2015 won't be anywhere near what the IPCC predicted.

Beyond the dispute about who will win the bet, the real point is that I have won the argument.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So go ahead, weasel out and prove that you have no honesty.

Let's review the record.

You had a temper tantrum after you lost the first bet, and said it wasn't fair because you hadn't actually read the terms of the bet.

You welched on the second bet about the IPCC's 2007 predictions because you knew you were going to lose.

And now we have your dishonesty about this one.

You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."

Fine. My position will also be that the May 2015 bet stands.

If you want to wait until January 2016 to settle up, that's fine with me. It's not going to help you. You're still going to lose.

 

[Frankfooter]

Fine. My position will also be that the May 2015 bet stands.

If you want to wait until January 2016 to settle up, that's fine with me. It's not going to help you. You're still going to lose.

I have no idea what drugs you are on about other bets, but this one stands then.
I'm glad you're not going to weasel out.
Good on you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I have no idea what drugs you are on about other bets, but this one stands then.

Do you suffer from short-term memory issues, Groggy? I can find the references to the other bets if you really need to see them again.

In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

 

[basketcase]

I don't think I would go quite that far.

I conceded that NASA reported the anomaly figure for 2014 as 0.68, but I don't have any faith in NASA's numbers. ....

Ah, back to the conspiracy talk. Any evidence you don't like must be lies.

Fact is you posted a chart as 'proof' yet when including up to date numbers, you are exposed as a clown. Add the values for the last 3 years and you spectacularly wrong claims are utter bullshit.

You and groggy deserve each other.

 

[Frankfooter]

In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

Great, lets check in with those numbers.
Here are the top 5 years from NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
2015 0.86°C
2014 0.80°C
2010 0.76°C
2012 0.72°C
2013 0.71°C
1998 0.67°C

Looks like you are in trouble with this bet.
Loser.

 

[Frankfooter]

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: 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.

At present we are 0.02ºC or so from the IPCC's projections being nailed, with Sept 2015 at 0.81ºC.
That, my lying friend, is spectacularly accurate.

 

[Frankfooter]

Update time for the moviefan bet.

NOAA reported October as the warmest on record, at 0.98ºC, while NASA reported it as 1.04ºC.
http://mashable.com/2015/11/17/october-crosses-global-warming-threshold/#2YJWvU6Nwaqg

The year to date according to them is now 0.86ºC, the bet with Moviefan is that it would hit 0.83ºC.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/10/1880-2015

Its not looking good for you, moviefan.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its not looking good for you, moviefan.

Well, now, isn't the big talker precious? He thinks he's ready to play with the adults.

I told you I was ready to settle up any time -- and I stand by that statement. If you want to settle up now, you just let me know.

I also told you we won't be reviewing the numbers until you agree to settle up.

It's your call. Put up or shut up.

 

[Frankfooter]

Well, now, isn't the big talker precious? He thinks he's ready to play with the adults.

I told you I was ready to settle up any time -- and I stand by that statement. If you want to settle up now, you just let me know.

I also told you we won't be reviewing the numbers until you agree to settle up.

It's your call. Put up or shut up.

The only published year to date numbers are from NOAA, so if you want to settle off those we can pick the books you're going to read tomorrow.
S'ok?

NASA's doesn't publish year to date numbers, if you want the official NASA numbers you're going to have to wait.

Your choice.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The only published year to date numbers are from NOAA, so if you want to settle off those we can pick the books you're going to read tomorrow.
S'ok?

NASA's doesn't publish year to date numbers, if you want the official NASA numbers you're going to have to wait.

Your choice.

Bull. The NASA numbers are available. Once again, Frankfooter wants to cheat by trying to insert the wrong data set for the 2015 anomaly. This has been a continuing trend -- but he won't be allowed to get away with it.

For all his huffing and puffing, he remains a total chicken.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bull. The NASA numbers are available. Once again, Frankfooter wants to cheat by trying to insert the wrong data set for the 2015 anomaly. This has been a continuing trend -- but he won't be allowed to get away with it.

For all his huffing and puffing, he remains a total chicken.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

Chicken?

The bet was for a global anomaly for 2015 of 0.83ºC, in september that number was 0.81ºC and after october the number now sits at 0.822ºC.
(NASA doesn't publish a year to date average, so this is based only on the data here)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

You aren't asking me to 'be brave' in this call for chicken, you are asking me to be stupid, and to settle up before the end of the term on a bet that is trending towards me winning.

The bet is for the year, you only want to settle up early because you know which way the global temperature is going.

Global temperature rise set to hit 1C of warming this year, Met Office says | by @rtmcswee http://bit.ly/1Nn6DBX

 

[Moviefan-2]

I also told you we won't be reviewing the numbers until you agree to settle up.

You aren't asking me to 'be brave' in this call for chicken, you are asking me to be stupid....

LMFAO! Since when have you ever waited to be asked? :thumb:

You're the guy that bumped the thread so you could huff and puff about the bet. But I don't want to waste my time listening to your stupidity unless I get to collect on the bet.

Let's remember your history:

-- You spent days having a temper tantrum on TERB last year after you lost the bet about me naming three climate researchers in recognized public institutions who don't support the IPCC. Remarkably, you cried and wailed that it was all so horribly unfair, because you hadn't actually read the terms of the bet that you accepted. :frusty:

-- You also welched on last year's bet about the IPCC's 2007 prediction.

I'm sure you're going to welch on this one, too.

Until then, I don't care about your brain-dead blather. I have better things to do with my time. If you want to discuss the numbers with me, you have to muster up the courage to settle up.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Titalian]

LMFAO! Since when have you ever waited to be asked? :thumb:

You're the guy that bumped the thread so you could huff and puff about the bet. But I don't want to waste my time listening to your stupidity unless I get to collect on the bet.

Let's remember your history:

-- You spent days having a temper tantrum on TERB last year after you lost the bet about me naming three climate researchers in recognized public institutions who don't support the IPCC. Remarkably, you cried and wailed that it was all so horribly unfair, because you hadn't actually read the terms of the bet that you accepted. :frusty:

-- You also welched on last year's bet about the IPCC's 2007 prediction.

I'm sure you're going to welch on this one, too.

Until then, I don't care about your brain-dead blather. I have better things to do with my time. If you want to discuss the numbers with me, you have to muster up the courage to settle up.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

Actually we have no clue ! Yet we think we do.

 

[basketcase]

So what were the conditions of the bet?

 

[Frankfooter]

So what were the conditions of the bet?

The bet was that the global average anomaly for 2015 would be 0.83ºC, as moviefan said that the IPCC projections were 'spectacularly wrong', so we used a 20 year period based on 1995-2015

If you use NOAA's numbers, then we are now off by 0.01ºC
1995=0.57ºC
2015=0.86ºC (year to date).
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/3/1880-2015

NASA doesn't publish a year to date number, but if you do a quick calculation its the same thing, off by 0.01ºC.
Which is why moviefan keeps trying to end the bet early.

The bet is here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530