Tell me what number NASA would have to report as the 2015 anomaly for me to have won the bet according to your 'adjustments'.Nonsense. Open the link and try reading it.
All of your questions have been answered. I'm not starting a second thread to repeat the same thing all over again.Tell me what number NASA would have to report as the 2015 anomaly for me to have won the bet according to your 'adjustments'.
Why can't you come up with a straight answer, bullshitter?
Was it the 0.83ºC we bet on and agreed, the 0.86ºC you used the same bullshit with to try to change it the first time, or is it your new bullshit 0.89ºC number?
Why can't you answer, bullshitter?
You can't do it, can you?All of your questions have been answered. I'm not starting a second thread to repeat the same thing all over again.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544
Get someone to read it to you.
Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.
You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.
Frankfooter, you don't even know what the word "data" means -- or is this another one of your never-ending series of "mistakes"?Again, the 'data', the original measurements have never changed...
Unless you believe NASA has a time machine and some sort of magic way to change the temperatures of the past, the only way some past years could have become "warmer" and others "colder" is if NASA changed the data.In fact, the updated weighting of the data made some years warmer and some years colder...
I can. And I did: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544You can't do it, can you?
Frankfooter,
No you didn't.
Let me educate you on what the 'data' we are talking about here is, since you continue to get it wrong.I know you're illiterate and innumerate, and that you don't understand words such as "data" (see the post above).
Yes, the dataset is the set of readings from the stations as noted above.The data we're talking about, fool, are the published numbers in the tables that were used for the graphs. The data clearly have changed:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
You see in the first sentence where NASA calls it a "dataset".
Idiot.
Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.
You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.
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?
NASA adjusts the weighting of some measurements, moviefan shits a brick and tries to change the bet retroactively the first time:If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Fast forward to November when all of a sudden even moviefan's 'adjusted numbers are losing, what does he do?Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.
You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.
Indeed, his math continues to get worse.
The other day he said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.
Now, he says it's "ridiculous" to state that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.
That's hilarious coming from a guy who started spamming lies in about eight different threads as soon as a poll got started on who TERB members thought won the bet.....moviefan shits a brick...
NASA will publish their findings for the 2015 global temperature anomaly at the same location they did when we place the bet:It's funny that almost every time Frankfooter quotes the terms of the bet (including above), he deletes the sentences about the graph that we bet on.
.
I provided the full terms of the bet (including the parts that Frankfooter keeps deleting) and a detailed analysis of the results on Dec. 20:Why can't you admit what number the bet was on?
A few days ago, Fuji explained to him that even people who share his views on anthropogenic global warming know that he's bullshitting.Franky, you're getting killed bro.
Whats up with all that???? :Eek:
By the terms of the bet, as posted in that message, I won.I provided the full terms of the bet (including the parts that Frankfooter keeps deleting) and a detailed analysis of the results on Dec. 20:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544
Frankfooter lost.
To recap:
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). NASA reported the global anomaly for 2014 at 0.74ºC, so moviefan thought the bet safe. Unfortunately for him and the world, he's losing.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530
Moviefan's attempt to call typical updating of the data processing 'enron-style fraud' is typical of his arguments. He claims that because NASA updated their weightings, as they quite often do, we should therefore stop using any new information from NASA, in effect moviefan claims that he won't include the last half of 2015's temperature readings because NASA's work is now more accurate.Where do the data come from?
Modern observations mostly come from weather stations, weather balloons, radars, ships and buoys, and satellites. A surprisingly large number of U.S. measurements are still made by volunteer weather watchers. There are more than 8,700 citizen observers in the National Weather Service's Cooperative Observer Program who log daily weather data. On the oceans, moored and drifting buoys have begun to replace ships in recent decades as the primary method for measuring temperatures at sea.
The U.S. organization responsible for preserving the global climate record is the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Other nations also maintain archives of global weather and climate observations.
Can scientists use the data as is?
No. To understand why not, imagine you're a nurse checking a patient's chart. You find the following temperature readings (Fahrenheit) for the last few hours: 99.2, 99.8, 1000, 101.4. You'd know immediately that the third number was a mistake. To make a realistic assessment of the patient's condition, you'd have to either adjust it or throw it out.
Weather observers are as human as nurses, and they also make occasional mistakes in recording and transcribing their observations: impossibly high highs and low lows, the exact same temperatures for two months in a row, etc. The first step in data processing is quality control: identifying and eliminating erroneous data.
The link in the above quote is still live and still goes to the chart NASA is publishing, the chart that will show the final 2015 global 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.
