Final decision - Frankfooter lost the bet on global warming

[Moviefan-2]

With just a few weeks to go until the end of the year, Frankfooter and I have agreed to settle our May 11, 2015, bet on the legitimacy of the IPCC's predictions about man-made global warming.

Here are the official results. I tried to keep this as succinct as possible, but due to Frankfooter's ongoing foolishness and misrepresentations of reality, this analysis is longer than I would have liked.

The bet was on the low end of various IPCC predictions. In this case, we chose the IPCC prediction that the planet would warm by 0.2ºC per decade. Frankfooter insisted we use a 20-year time frame (he needed to include some years from the 1990s, when warming actually occurred) and we agreed to use the following NASA graph to judge the results.

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).

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5425457#post5425457

Here are the exact terms of 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.

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

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5243530#post5243530

The terms were clear and Frankfooter agreed to them. We would use one graph for the results, and it had to be the graph above that showed a temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC in 1995 and 0.68ºC in 2014. The bet was that the final 2015 anomaly on that same graph wouldn't reach 0.83ºC.

Regrettably, NASA's reporting standards got rather shaky along the way. In July, NASA announced that it was switching to a completely different data set than the one we bet on, due to some controversial changes to the sea surface temperature records provided by the NOAA.

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

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

At that time, I proposed that we revise the bet to fit the new data. But Frankfooter wouldn't hear of it. Even though the graph we bet on wouldn't be updated beyond the numbers for May 2015, Frankfooter hurled insults at me and insisted: "The bet stands" (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5301216&viewfull=1#post5301216).

So, the bet stands. Let's look at the final results for 2015 on that graph.

Using NASA's final data from the pre-adjusted period and confirming the numbers via the blog posts by global warming enthusiast Greg Laden, we can confirm that the temperature anomalies for 2015 on the graph we bet on are:

http://bit.ly/1O6YPsX

- January: 0.75ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/16/so-how-warm-was-january/)
- February: 0.82ºC (Laden reported a lower number, but it was subsequently adjusted: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...y-warm-continues-upward-global-warming-trend/)
- March: 0.84ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/04/14/march-2015-was-a-very-warm-month/)
- April: 0.71ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/15/how-warm-was-may/)
- May: 0.71ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/15/how-warm-was-may/)

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC. According to the exact terms that Frankfooter insisted must "stand," Frankfooter lost the bet.

He has pledged that he will honour the decision to stick with those terms, foolish as it was.

I'm content to honour the bet as we made it.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5365706&viewfull=1#post5365706

That said, fair-minded people might question whether Frankfooter is being held to an unreasonable standard, even if it is due to his own blatant stupidity. After all, this is a super El Nino year, and some of the warmest months have been the final months of the year.

In fact, it doesn't matter.

As Frankfooter has noted, you can compare data from different data sets if you make the appropriate adjustments.

You can quite clearly use data from different sources if you adjust for the different baselines.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5413209&viewfull=1#post5413209

Indeed, when we take the 2015 anomaly on the graph that NASA is now using and make the correct adjustment so that it fits the original graph, Frankfooter still loses.

The current years on NASA's new graph have been adjusted upward by at least 0.055ºC. For example, NASA's reported anomaly for 2014 has gone from 0.68ºC to 0.74ºC.

Taking the current anomaly for 2015 on current data set (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) -- approximately 0.845ºC -- and subtracting 0.055ºC, you finish with an anomaly that's comparable to the original graph of about 0.79ºC for the year 2015 (to the end of November).

That's less than the 0.80ºC average for 2015 that existed when we made the bet back in May (NASA hadn't yet reported the April anomaly at the time of the bet).

If NASA's numbers are right (and that's a big "if"), the Earth is no warmer today than it was when we made the bet. And no matter how you calculate it, the anomaly in 2015 is well below the IPCC prediction of 0.2ºC per decade (even the current NASA graph shows a 2015 anomaly that is below the 0.4ºC mark over two decades).

Frankfooter has clearly lost the bet.

More significantly, he has lost the argument. Even in this super El Nino year, using the low end of IPCC predictions, the predictions have still come up short.

The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, as I have said all along.

 

[Frankfooter]

Regrettably, NASA's reporting standards got rather shaky along the way. In July, NASA announced that it was switching to a completely different data set than the one we bet on, due to some controversial changes to the sea surface temperature records provided by the NOAA.

Bullshit.

They updated and revised old data on the same data set.
They will update the exact same chart at the end of the year with a global anomaly that will show I won the bet.
You are just whining.




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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They updated and revised old data on the same data set.

So, it's the "same data set" ... with different data. :biggrin1: That's as idiotic as your claim that the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago.

You fully acknowledge that the numbers were "updated and revised".

If you want to use the "updated and revised" data, you have two options:

- Adjust the bet to align with the revised numbers.

- Adjust the revised numbers so that they align with the graph that we bet on.

You can quite clearly use data from different sources if you adjust for the different baselines.

I chose the second option and have shown that NASA's current anomaly -- adjusted to fit the graph we bet on -- is only 0.79ºC.

If you prefer, we can adjust the bet upward to 0.885ºC.

What you can't do is mix and match numbers from two different graphs.

That is a violation of how statistics are measured. Furthermore, it is a direct violation of the agreed upon terms of the bet.

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

 

[Frankfooter]

So, it's the "same data set" ... with different data. :biggrin1: That's as idiotic as your claim that the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago.

You fully acknowledge that the numbers were "updated and revised".

Hey idiot.

If you don't think we were supposed to use updated and revised data, how the fuck were we supposed to get the results for 2015?
Use the fucking 2014 chart?

That's just fucking idiotic.



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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you don't think we were supposed to use updated and revised data, how the fuck were we supposed to get the results for 2015?

The graph could have been updated without any need for the "old data" to be "updated and revised", doofus.

In fact, the graph was updated. The final anomaly on the graph we bet on was 0.766ºC.

That's less than 0.83ºC. You lost.

If you want to use the "updated and revised" data to calculate the outcome of the bet, you have two options:

- Adjust the bet to align with the revised numbers.

- Adjust the revised numbers so that they align with the graph that we bet on.

 

[Moviefan-2]

These two quotes tell us everything we need to know.

They updated and revised old data on the same data set.

If you don't think we were supposed to use updated and revised data, how the fuck were we supposed to get the results for 2015?

Putting aside the lunacy that a "revised" data set is not the "same" data set, the reality is that NASA didn't need to revise and update its "old data" in order to update its graphs and data sets. All it had to do was add new data.

The fact that Franky would peddle such rubbish shows:

1) He doesn't know what he's talking about

and/or

2) He's peddling total bullshit because he knows he has actually lost the bet.

 

[Butler1000]

I think we need a Mod as an impartial judge. Someone who will enforce an extended leave of absence if a better proper book report is not filed by a certain date.

Obviously the two betters cannot agree, won't agree, and will snipe at eachother as welchers until it's resolved.

 

[K Douglas]

I wouldn't have made the bet in the first place because simply you can not trust NASA/NOAA data. For that I think MF2 should be reprimanded. Along with the fact that he has wasted countless hours of time debating a brick wall.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I wouldn't have made the bet in the first place because simply you can not trust NASA/NOAA data. For that I think MF2 should be reprimanded.

Duly reprimanded. I agree with you about the NOAA and NASA.

I mean, I knew they were bad -- but this year has been unbelievable.

There are lessons here for all:

-- For Frankfooter: Never bet on the IPCC. You'll always lose.

-- For me: Never again agree to use NASA's data to judge the results. What a circus.

I don't really care all that much about the bet or waiting for Franky's Grade 2-level book reviews.

The key point was to prove that the IPCC's predictions are consistently and spectacularly wrong. That point has been proven.

 

[Occasionally]

I'm not going to bother reading all the back and forth bets, but personally I wouldn't trust any data points that are claimed so far back ago. It may be their "best guess" or "best that they could do with primitive tools", but I wouldn't use any data from so long ago.

Also, that chart goes back to 1880, but NASA and the Goddard Institute weren't created until about 1960. So where are they getting such accurate data points for the 80 years before it?

 

[PornAddict]

Bullshit.

They updated and revised old data on the same data set.
They will update the exact same chart at the end of the year with a global anomaly that will show I won the bet.
You are just whining.




This was the 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.

You lost to moviefan!! Man up and honour your bet..stop being a weael !!!

 

[Chloë.]

What was the bet?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What was the bet?

The person who lost the bet -- in this case, Frankfooter -- has to read and post reviews of two books selected by the winner, which in this case is me.

Here are the two books that Frankfooter will be reviewing:

1) A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn: http://www.amazon.com/%22A-Disgrace...TF8&qid=1450706214&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+steyn

2) Climate Change: The Facts, by various authors: http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chang...TF8&qid=1450706214&sr=8-3&keywords=mark+steyn

You know, maybe we should stop thinking of Frankfooter as "the loser."

True, he lost the bet. And he has definitely lost the argument. The mere fact that he needs to cheat ("They updated and revised old data on the same data set") to try to get the temperature numbers closer to IPCC predictions -- in a super El Nino year, yet -- confirms just how spectacularly wrong the IPCC's predictions have been.

But in the grand scheme of things, Franky may actually be a winner today.

If you ask me, I suspect the reason he can't read a graph or a survey of researchers' responses isn't because he hasn't read enough Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes. Quite the opposite. It's possible that he's read too much of their nonsense, and was foolish enough to believe their idiocy.

For all we know, he probably thinks Mann's "hide the decline" trick was legitimate.

We need to set Franky straight and teach him how to properly read graphs. To cite the obvious example, he needs to be deprogrammed from Mann-like thinking and learn that you can't take data from two completely different graphs that are using entirely different data sets (eg., a 1995 anomaly from one graph and a 2015 anomaly from an entirely different graph) and pair them up -- without any adjustments -- to draw fairy-tale conclusions.

The two books he will be reviewing may help set him straight.

 

[Insidious Von]

Fellas please take to snit to the litter box. Moviefan-2 and yourself sound like you're getting ready to 69.

 

[rhuarc29]

Neither of you won or lost the bet, because the terms of the bet will never be met. The chart, as bet upon, will never be updated using the original methods.

Moviefan, you can't just use incomplete data that corroborates your POV.
Frankfooter, you can't use the results at the tail end of 2015 if they are determined using a different method than the one the bet was based on.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefan, you can't just use incomplete data that corroborates your POV.

In fact, it was Frankfooter who insisted we had to stick to the terms of the original bet. I actually made an offer in July to revise the bet after it was revealed that NASA had revised its methodology and numbers. I also said the original bet should be quashed.

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

Indeed, I carefully explained to Franky that if we stuck with the agreed upon bet, the data would be incomplete. Frankfooter responded by accusing me of trying to "weasel out of a bet" and insisted the bet wouldn't be revised.

However, it doesn't matter.

As I explained in my original post, you can use the current numbers, provided you make the appropriate adjustments so that the new data align with the original data. The properly adjusted numbers still show Frankfooter losing.

The current years on NASA's new graph have been adjusted upward by at least 0.055ºC. For example, NASA's reported anomaly for 2014 has gone from 0.68ºC to 0.74ºC.

Taking the current anomaly for 2015 on current data set (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) -- approximately 0.845ºC -- and subtracting 0.055ºC, you finish with an anomaly that's comparable to the original graph of about 0.79ºC for the year 2015 (to the end of November).

Properly adjusted, the final temperature anomaly that should be measured against the 0.83ºC bet is 0.79ºC.

A careful review of the current data set confirms my point.

Sticking with that one data set (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), the numbers show the Earth's temperature today is lower than it was for the first three months of the year (the only months for which there was available data at the time we made the bet). The revised data show a drop from 0.86ºC at the time of the bet to 0.845ºC today.

To sum up:

- The original data had Frankfooter losing on the day we made the bet.

- The new data set -- taken on its own -- shows the Earth's temperature is even lower today.

And this is in a super El Nino year.

The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. The "debate is over," as the pro-AGW crowd likes to say.

 

[basketcase]

I wouldn't have made the bet in the first place because simply you can not trust NASA/NOAA data. ...

Duly reprimanded. I agree with you about the NOAA and NASA.
...

And back to the conspiracy theories again. I'm sure NASA is screwing with numbers just so MF loses a bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And back to the conspiracy theories again. I'm sure NASA is screwing with numbers just so MF loses a bet.

Actually, it was screwing with the numbers so that it could support the bogus claim that the "pause" never happened.

And, for the record, I won the bet.

Frankfooter's own table confirms that the temperature has gone down from the day of the bet to now, and he was losing on the day we made the bet.

K. Douglas's point was that I was foolish to have agreed to use a data set as unreliable as NASA's to confirm the observed temperatures. It's a valid criticism, which I accept without reservation.

 

[red]

Do we need another thread for their mutual jerk off?

 

[basketcase]

Actually, it was screwing with the numbers so that it could support the bogus claim that the "pause" never happened.

So you don't believe it is a conspiracy theory but you think that the scientists at NASA and NOAA are intentionally lying about the data? Sorry but you show your conspiracy theorist credentials clearly here.

And no, you haven't won anything except the booby prize for least scientific arguments.