October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear

[Frankfooter]

No, we didn't say "NASA's dataset."

The bet was much more specific. It was whether the "NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43ºC degrees Celsius...will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015."

And what numbers do they use for that chart, asshat?
The NASA numbers I've been linking to, asshat.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Those are the numbers they will use in the chart that they will publish.
And what do those numbers now read?

0.84ºC

You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop whining.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And what numbers do they use for that chart, asshat?
The NASA numbers I've been linking to, asshat.

Wrong again.

Take a look at the link.

- It doesn't show the 1995 anomaly as 0.43ºC.

- It doesn't show a 0.68ºC for 2014.

- It doesn't even show a 0.2ºC increase per decade from 1995 to 2015.

...we bet on whether or not the IPCC's 0.2ºC increase per decade would be accurate...

It's the wrong data set. Even you can figure that out.

The correct data will be posted tomorrow. You should start preparing for that reality.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong again.

Take a look at the link.

- It doesn't show the 1995 anomaly as 0.43ºC.

- It doesn't show a 0.68ºC for 2014.
.

So what?
That's not what we bet on, asshat.
We bet on whether 2015's global anomaly would be 0.83ºC.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So what?
That's not what we bet on, asshat.

Actually, it is.

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.

Ok bets on.
Using that NASA figure of 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and waiting for the 2015 NASA anomaly figures to come out.

It was explicitly stated in the terms of the bet that the graph we were using had to include those anomaly figures for 1995 and 2014.

In fact, you know that's what we bet on. You described it in full detail to AK-47.

I bet Moviefan that the IPCC's projections would be accurate over a 20 year period. He waffled around and finally agreed to use 1995 as the start year, which was reported at 0.43ºC global anomaly by NASA. So we bet on whether or not the IPCC's 0.2ºC increase per decade would be accurate or whether the global anomaly would hit 0.83ºC for 2015 (0.43ºC plus 0.4º increase).

You knew what the terms of the bet were. And you agreed to them.

 

[Frankfooter]

It was explicitly stated in the terms of the bet that the graph we were using had to include those anomaly figures for 1995 and 2014.
.

Nope, nice try loser.
We did not bet on what the 1995 NASA numbers were going to be, we bet whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC for the years global anomaly.


This was the bet:

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

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.

 

[AK-47]

One of you guys is chickening out of the bet.
I'm not sure which one because I cant be bothered going through all your posts.

Here's a solution, start an entirely new bet with new parameters. The person who will NOT agree to the new bet will be found guilty of chickening out of the old bet by default

 

[bishop]

Technically moviefan is correct. In frank's defense though, he is a retard, and should not be subjected to bets in the same vein as to why children should not sign contracts.

You guys should stop doing this bet sh*t, it just floods the threads with this stupid nonsense. I think both you guys are silly to bet on 0.4C + whatever, as the standard deviations are larger than 0.4C in question. It is like walking into a casino and betting on black, and by chance you get it right, then using that as proof of something other than chance.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Technically moviefan is correct. In frank's defense though, he is a retard, and should not be subjected to bets in the same vein as to why children should not sign contracts.

In my defence, I didn't realize that Frankfooter was actually Groggy when I made the bet back in May.

Had I known that (it became clear to me about a month later), I wouldn't have made the bet with him, for the exact reasons you described.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's a solution, start an entirely new bet with new parameters. The person who will NOT agree to the new bet will be found guilty of chickening out of the old bet by default

From July 17, 2015:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5300467&viewfull=1#post5300467

 

[Moviefan-2]

I should note that when I post my analysis tomorrow, I will start a new thread. As always, people will be free to read it or ignore it as they wish.

I think AK-47 should at least take a peek at it, to gain a better understanding of why I recommended he not try to referee this thing. :biggrin1:

 

[fuji]

Technically moviefan is correct. In frank's defense though, he is a retard, and should not be subjected to bets in the same vein as to why children should not sign contracts.

You guys should stop doing this bet sh*t, it just floods the threads with this stupid nonsense. I think both you guys are silly to bet on 0.4C + whatever, as the standard deviations are larger than 0.4C in question. It is like walking into a casino and betting on black, and by chance you get it right, then using that as proof of something other than chance.

I don't think either of them understand statistics.

 

[AK-47]

From July 17, 2015:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5300467&viewfull=1#post5300467

In all fairness to Franky, did you not change the parameters of the bet by adding the new NASA numbers?? And I'm not good in statistics or math, so please try to keep your response as basic as possible to a simpleton like me....LOL
:faint:

 

[fuji]

In all fairness to Franky, did you not change the parameters of the bet by adding the new NASA numbers??
And I'm not good in statistics or math, so please try to keep your response as basic as possible to a simpleton like me....LOL :faint:

He is making a funny argument. MF is trying to get out of the bet by saying he had been wrong all along, that based on the global warming that he accepts took place up to 2014 the 2015 delta for the bet is too small. Hilarious, he wins the battle by conceding the war.

And yes a bet on a single year was silly.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He is making a funny argument. MF is trying to get out of the bet by saying he had been wrong all along, that based on the global warming that he accepts took place up to 2014 the 2015 delta for the bet is too small. Hilarious, he wins the battle by conceding the war.

????

I haven't said anything remotely similar to whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In all fairness to Franky, did you not change the parameters of the bet by adding the new NASA numbers?? And I'm not good in statistics or math, so please try to keep your response as basic as possible to a simpleton like me....LOL
:faint:

No. What happened is that NASA changed all of its numbers midway through the year and announced that it would no longer be adding data to the graph that we made the bet on.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v3b+v4_lrg.png

Given that the graph was no longer going to be updated, what I had proposed is that we revise the bet to align with the new numbers on the new graph. Actually, I designed the revised bet in such a way that it was heavily weighted in Frankfooter's favour (he might have had a chance of winning the revised bet if he had taken it ).

As you'll see tomorrow when I post the full analysis, Frankfooter insisted that we stay with the original bet based on the original graph. His exact words: "The bet stands."

It was an insane decision, as it guaranteed he wouldn't win -- something I had pointed out to him at the time.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5301260&viewfull=1#post5301260

That said, the bet has always been of less interest to me than the overall point about the IPCC's predictions. Thus, in addition to the specific results for the bet, I will also show what happens when you take the new data and properly compare it with the data from the original graph (Frankfooter still loses).

 

[fuji]

????

I haven't said anything remotely similar to whatever that is supposed to mean.

Yes you did:

The new NASA numbers look like this:

-- 1995 anomaly: 0.45 degrees C.
-- 2014 anomaly: 0.75 degrees C.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....asa-data-shows-june-2015-tied-as-warmest.html

If we were to add 0.40 degrees C to the 1995 anomaly, we get a new figure of 0.85 degrees C for 2015

However, if we take the projected 0.15 degrees C year-over-year increase (the calculation I used when I accepted the bet) and add it to the adjusted 2014 anomaly, we get a new figure of 0.90 degrees C for 2015.

You argued that the warming from 1995 to 2014 shouldn't count against you. Fair point, if you accept that there warming up to 2014, and lose the entire debate, then sure you should be let off the hook for the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You argued that the warming from 1995 to 2014 shouldn't count against you.

I now have a better idea what you were getting at in your previous post, but you've misunderstood the point I was making.

I wasn't making any kind of argument about the temperature difference from 1995 to 2014, or how it should be applied to me. I've never disputed that there was warming in the late 1990s (the 21st century is another matter).

As I said in my response to AK-47, the point I was making was that NASA's graphs had been completely changed.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

Thus, to keep the bet alive, I was proposing that the bet should also be adjusted.

Given that the NASA/NOAA changes were messy (the adjustments for recent years were nearly double the adjustments for the 1990s), I cited the numbers above to explain my calculations for the new bet that I was proposing.

 

[Frankfooter]

I was proposing that the bet should also be adjusted.

This is where you have been caught out.
We bet on the year's anomaly, you found you were losing and tried to weasel out and change the bet.
But its failed, you lost the bet.


We did not bet on whether NASA would revise any historical numbers, we bet whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC for the years global anomaly.


This was the bet:

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

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.

 

[AK-47]

Franky, just make him a new bet on temperatures for 2016. Then we'll revisit this thread on January 1st 2017

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky, just make him a new bet on temperatures for 2016. Then we'll revisit this thread on January 1st 2017

As if this hasn't been boring enough for one year.....
Besides, moviefan would just try to pull the same shit when he loses again.