Final decision - Frankfooter lost the bet on global warming

[Moviefan-2]

Typical of you, isn't it?

What's "typical" is how you once again evaded the fact that the international media all say that you are completely wrong and that the adjustments to the data were significant.

To quote the bolded sub-headline in the Dana Nuccittelli article: "The Adjustments are Important"

Dana also quotes Zeke Hausfather on the significance of the methodology used for sea surface temperatures (with emphasis added by me): "This change is by far the largest single factor responsible for changing global temperatures in the past 17 years compared to temperatures found in the prior NOAA record."

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...bout-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper

That sounds a lot bigger than the "minor differences" from "normal processes" that you've been talking about. Doesn't it?

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5433084#post5433084

 

[Frankfooter]

What's "typical" is how you once again evaded the fact that the international media all say the adjustments to the data were significant.

So what?
Even with the 0.03ºC you wanted to 'add' to the bet, your still going to lose.
Its a normal process for NASA, they talk about similar changes on their FAQ page, you weren't smart enough to know that it was an El Nino year when we made the bet and you weren't smart enough to know that NASA constantly updates their processes.

You made a bet, would you try to change a sports bet because a player got injured or the other team traded for a star?

Sorry moviefan, 0.84 is still higher then 0.83.
You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Even with the 0.03ºC you wanted to 'add' to the bet, your still going to lose.

"Going to lose"?

The bet's already been settled.

Its you that keeps waffling here, I've said lets settle right now repeatedly.
What's keeping you?

There's no waffling. We'll settle up.

And the differential between the two data sets is a minimum of 0.05ºC, which means you lost.

Pay up, Franky.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Going to lose"?

The bet's already been settled. And the differential between the two data sets is a minimum of 0.05ºC, which means you lost.

Pay up, Franky.

You're still lying.
Its the same data set, the only difference is is weighting sea temps for bucket use in measurements.
Same data.

You picked NASA, you have to live with the way they calculate the global anomaly, you can't just arbitrarily decide they are wrong.
Do you cheat at sports bets the same way and claim bets don't count after a team does a trade?

When are you going to man up and admit you lost?


And here's the clincher.
After NASA updated their methods with the same dataset, moviefan whined about the changes but then agreed to continue the bet.

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

He agreed to continue with the bet, then when it turns out he lost he tried to pretend he didn't agree to continue with the updated NASA methods.
Liar.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He agreed to continue with the bet, then when it turns out he lost he tried to pretend he didn't agree to continue with the updated NASA methods.

Actually, it turned out I won.

As for the quote you cited, there is nothing in the quote that said I agreed to switching to a different data set. I certainly would never agree to allow you to mix and match numbers from different data sets to create fairy-tale conclusions.

Actually, my quote clearly states that I agreed that the May 2015 bet on the original data set "stands."

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its the same data set...

Au contraire.

This change is by far the largest single factor responsible for changing global temperatures in the past 17 years compared to temperatures found in the prior NOAA record.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...bout-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper

 

[Frankfooter]

Au contraire.

This is from the NYT article you linked to:

For many decades, into the mid-20th century, the main measurements came from sailors hauling up buckets of seawater and plopping thermometers into them.

The buckets varied, the thermometers varied, and some of the sailors were more diligent than others about following instructions. On average, scientists believe, the water tended to cool off a bit before the temperature was recorded.

NOAA had long believed the data glitches from the buckets had largely disappeared after World War II, but new information suggests that bucket measurements continued on some commercial vessels long after the war. The new NOAA data set attempts to correct for this and other problems in the ocean records.

That's it, what you call the 'biggest change ever' is adjusting for bucket use.
Shows you how small the margins are, doesn't it?

Loser.

 

[Frankfooter]

As for the quote you cited, there is nothing in the quote that said I agreed to switching to a different data set.

Sorry buddy, this quote says you agreed to continue the bet on the original terms, NASA's global anomaly for 2015.

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

There never was 'two different data sets'.
Its the same data with an adjustment for bucket use.

You agreed to the terms and you lost.
Own up.