Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[Moviefan-2]

I'm aware of the terms of the bet.

Using the 1995 anomaly on the pre-adjusted graph as the starting point for the IPCC's predictions, we bet on whether the temperature would increase from the 0.68ºC anomaly in 2014 to at least 0.83ºC in 2015.

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.

Franky, you said I was "lying" when I said that is a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC.

So, tell us what you believe 0.83 minus 0.68 equals. :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky, you said I was "lying" when I said that is a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC.

No, I said you were lying when you claimed that is what the bet was based off of.


Now, lets get back to your faulty math.
Moviefan, is 0.84 higher then 0.83?

And if you can figure that out, why are you still denying you lost the bet?

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, I said you were lying when you claimed that is what the bet was based off of.

The bet was based on the NASA graph that existed in May 2015.

It showed a temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC in 1995 and 0.68ºC for 2014. We bet on whether the temperature anomaly on that graph would rise to 0.83ºC in 2015. That's a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC, as was spelled out in the terms of the bet -- terms that you agreed to.

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.

Your "new NASA numbers" only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC.

You lost.

 

[Frankfooter]

The bet was based on the NASA graph that existed in May 2015.

It showed a temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC in 1995 and 0.68ºC for 2014. We bet on whether the temperature anomaly on that graph would rise to 0.83ºC in 2015. That's a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC, as was spelled out in the terms of the bet -- terms that you agreed to.

No, once again you are lying.
We bet on the 2015 global anomaly as reported by NASA, not on 'the difference between last years posted anomaly and this years' as you are now trying to claim.

The number we bet on was 0.83ºC for 2015, not 'whatever they post for 2014 + whatever it takes for moviefan to win'.
Nice try, again, let me refresh your memory.

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.

There was no mention of NASA's numbers for 2014 or 1995 other then in calculating the number we decided to bet on.
We bet on the 2015 global temperature anomaly.

You lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There was no mention of NASA's numbers for 2014 or 1995 other then in calculating the number we decided to bet on.

Bullshit.

Here's the complete quote with all three sentences that describe the full terms of the bet, not just one cherry-picked sentence.

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.

Here's the NASA graph as it existed at the time of the bet: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

Frankfooter wants to believe the Earth's temperature was going to magically go from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC in one year without necessarily increasing by 0.15ºC. That would be quite a trick.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC. Nor is there any dispute that NASA's new numbers only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- one-third less than what we bet on.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bullshit.

Here's the complete quote with all three sentences that describe the full terms of the bet, not just one cherry-picked sentence.

Lets look at those three sentences:
We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


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/

This confirms the use of the chart, and makes the example of 1995's global anomaly to calculate the number upon which the bet is laid.

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
That is the bet, the confirmation of the NASA chart, with a link included previously, and the number that chart needed to hit for the bet to be decided.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC. Nor is there any dispute that NASA's new numbers only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- one-third less than what we bet on.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet. But the terms of the bet were clear, they were based on the global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC, not 0.83ºC + 'whatever it takes to make moviefan win'.

You agreed to continue the bet on its original terms, not to change the terms to your 'adjusted' numbers.

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

But I'm getting so tired of your whining about this bet that I am considering challenging you to up the stakes and adding in your 'adjusted' target of 0.86ºC.
Those numbers come out in a week or so, are you interested?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets look at those three sentences:
We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


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/

This confirms the use of the chart, and makes the example of 1995's global anomaly to calculate the number upon which the bet is laid.

What it confirms is that you are lying.

You know full well that the numbers in the link have changed since the time of the bet. Your link doesn't show a 0.43 anomaly for 1995 and it doesn't show a 0.68 anomaly for 2014.

Here is what the graph in that link looked like at the time of the bet:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

 

[Moviefan-2]

But I'm getting so tired of your whining about this bet that I am considering challenging you to up the stakes and adding in your 'adjusted' target of 0.86ºC.
Those numbers come out in a week or so, are you interested?

Franky, after all your bullshit, you don't really think the offer that I made in July -- that was heavily weighted in your favour (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5300467&viewfull=1#post5300467) -- is still on the table? You turned it down and called me a weasel.

After all your crap, you no longer get incentives to take a new bet.

You want to make an apples-to-apples bet on the new data? Fine. The 0.74ºC anomaly for 2014 plus the originally agreed-upon year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC equals 0.89ºC.

If you want to propose a revised bet of 0.89ºC, you might get an agreement.

 

[Occasionally]

Are you two guys meteorologists at The Weather Network? You two are bickering back and forth on a negligible topic as if the winner will get a job promotion.

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky, after all your bullshit, you don't really think the offer that I made in July -- that was heavily weighted in your favour -- is still on the table. You turned it down and called me a weasel.

After all your crap, you no longer get incentives to take a new bet.

You want to make an apples-to-apples bet on the new data? Fine. The 0.74ºC anomaly for 2014 plus the originally agreed-upon year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC equals 0.89ºC.

If you want to propose a revised bet of 0.89ºC, you might get an agreement.

Fine, I'll take this as agreement that the original bet's terms of 0.83ºC still stands, not a bet with your 'adjusted' number of 0.86ºC or any other number.

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

By those terms you have lost the bet.
Time to pay up, loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fine, I'll take this as agreement that the original bet's terms of 0.83ºC still stands, not a bet with your 'adjusted' number of 0.86ºC or any other number.



By those terms you have lost the bet.
Time to pay up, loser.

I'm afraid not. Try reading the results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

Or, if you like, you could simply calculate whether a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC is less than 0.15ºC.

Alternately, you might just want to look at the poll results at the top.

No matter which option you choose, the result is the same. You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you two guys meteorologists at The Weather Network? You two are bickering back and forth on a negligible topic as if the winner will get a job promotion.

I thought this issue is the greatest threat facing the planet today? :biggrin1:

 

[Occasionally]

I thought this issue is the greatest threat facing the planet today? :biggrin1:

One day I will go over the details of the bet.... too lazy right now.... but it is a funny thread.

 

[Moviefan-2]

One day I will go over the details of the bet.... too lazy right now.... but it is a funny thread.

You won't get an argument from me.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm afraid not. Try reading the results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

Or, if you like, you could simply calculate whether a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC is less than 0.15ºC.

Alternately, you might just want to look at the poll results at the top.

No matter which option you choose, the result is the same. You lost.

Now you are getting really, really desperate.

Lets go over the details, yet again.
1) moviefan agrees to a bet of 0.83ºC for 2015's global temperature anomaly as reported by NASA
2) NASA changes the weighting of their data (which remains the same) based on new information on bucket use in measurements of ocean temperatures historically.
3) moviefan whines, tries to change the bet to 0.86ºC
4) moviefan accuses NASA of fraud
5) moviefan finally agrees to continue the bet with the original terms, 0.83ºC for the 2015 global anomaly as reported by NASA.
6) moviefan loses, pretends he never agreed to continue the bet
7) moviefan tries to run a poll to show that his climate change denier friends think that 0.84 is less then 0.83.
8) frankfooter challenges moviefan to up the stakes, using moviefan's 'adjusted' temperatures of 0.86ºC
9) moviefan declines, admits that the original bet was on 0.83ºC and refuses to take on another bet for 0.86ºC

We are at the point where you now are denying that the bet was based on the IPCC's decadal projections of 0.2ºC/decade, now, since you are losing by that metric as well as the original bet, you are left trying to claim that the bet was on a year-year projection. But its clear from the quotes provided here that the bet was based off of decadal projections.

You've lost based on the numbers.
You've lost based on the decadal projections.

You lost the bet.
There is no other logical conclusion.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter.

Try reading the results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

If you only want to use the new NASA data, it's simple enough to do.

We bet on an increase of 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015 (from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC based on the numbers that existed at the time of the bet). The NASA data that you posted show the year-over-year increase was only 0.10ºC -- just two-thirds of the increase we bet on.

It makes no difference which data set you use. They both show that you lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

2) NASA changes the weighting of their data (which remains the same)....

????? :crazy:

We'll add "weighting" to the list of words that Frankfooter doesn't understand.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter.

We bet on an increase of 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015 (from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC based on the numbers that existed at the time of the bet).

No, you are lying.
We bet only on the 2015 global anomaly of 0.83ºC.

As noted before, the calculations we used to get that number were based off of the decadal projections, not year to year.
This was the post before the bet was finally agreed:

You are cherry picking.
You just won't admit it.

There are only 2 dates you'll take of this bet, aren't there?
Doesn't that show how fucking lame your case is?
I can give you a whole ton of possible start dates, but your bet only has a small, tiny chance of working from 1995 or 2007.
That's the definition of cherry picking.

And you know what?
Even your 1995 bet stands a really good chance of losing.

You picked 1995 because it was a warm year.
0.43ºC anomaly according to NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Did you check the temperature lately?

Do you know what the anomaly was for March of this year?
0.85ºC
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201503

How about the year to date?
0.82ºC


I think I'll take you up on your cherry picked date, but lets up the payoff.
2 books each, winner chooses the books, loser has to read the book and review it here to prove they read it.

Deal?
Is the bet on?

And this was the very next post, in which you agreed to bet on 0.83ºC for the 2015 anomaly.

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.

Two references only to NASA's published findings for the year's anomaly as 0.83ºC at this address:
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


You lost.
Pay up.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again, Frankfooter is arguing that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them.

---

Franky.

I'm not disputing that the 0.83ºC number came from adding 0.40 to the 1995 anomaly that existed in May 2015.

However, I wrote the terms of the bet that you accepted, and I clearly spelled out -- as you have confirmed in the quote that you cited -- that we were betting on whether the NASA graph that "put 2014 at 0.68 degrees" would increase to 0.83ºC by 2015. That's a year-over-year increase of a minimum of 0.15ºC.

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.

It is a blatant lie to say we only bet on whether the number 0.83 would show up somewhere on a graph. Indeed, you know you are telling blatant lies and that the graph that now appears in the NASA link isn't the one we bet on.

Here is the graph we bet on: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

Here is NASA's July 2015 confirmation that the graph that now appears in the link is different than the one we bet on: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

You agreed to the terms of the bet and agreed to use the graph that put 1995 at 0.43ºC and "put 2014 at 0.68 degrees." You even cited the 0.43ºC number in your response (a number for 1995 that doesn't appear in the graph and data set that you are now using).

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

The new NASA data set that you posted only shows a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- just two-thirds of the increase we bet on.

Even in a super El Nino year, the outcome proves that the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong. Deal with it.

(By the way, Liar King, why do you think I made a screen shot of the graph we bet on? It's because I knew you would welch on the bet. You don't really expect us to believe that NASA doesn't know how to change a link on the Internet.)

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again, Frankfooter is arguing that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them.

---

Franky.

I'm not disputing that the 0.83ºC number came from adding 0.40 to the 1995 anomaly that existed in May 2015.

However, I wrote the terms of the bet that you accepted, and I clearly spelled out -- as you have confirmed in the quote that you cited -- that we were betting on whether the NASA graph that "put 2014 at 0.68 degrees" would increase to 0.83ºC by 2015. That's a year-over-year increase of a minimum of 0.15ºC.

The bet was made on the 2015 global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC, we reached that number by using the IPCC decadal projections.
You are trying to change it to a year over year bet because you have lost the bet by the original terms and have now lost the bet by the decadal projections (2015 is likely to hit 0.86ºC, your 'adjusted figure' that you no longer accept).

You agreed to continue the bet on its original terms, not an adjusted number.
I already gave you a chance to change the bet to your 'adjusted' terms and you refused.
Now you are clinging to some imaginary belief that the bet was on a year over year increase based off whatever NASA ends up with as their 2014 numbers.
The bet was on 2015's anomaly.

You lost.
Pay up.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
..
Deal?
Is the bet on?

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

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

Pay up, loser.