Poll - who has won the global warming bet
- Thread starter someguy77
- Start date
Frankfooter,
Don't bother wasting your time on guys like movie fan. He is not a policy maker or person who has any influence. It's not like convincing him will change anything.
Same goes for the poll. If you did a random sample of people I think most people would say they believe in global warming. Now that doesn't mean they are right. But this poll requires people to have
1) kept up with the back and forth you two have been into
2) have strong feelings about global warming one way or the other
In other words this poll is a waste of time and so is trying to convince someone on the internet who has already made up their mind. Unless the two of you sit down with all the data available it will be an endless back and forth of cherry picked information that goes in circles until you both end up back where you started (disagreeing with each other)
Don't bother wasting your time on guys like movie fan. He is not a policy maker or person who has any influence. It's not like convincing him will change anything.
Same goes for the poll. If you did a random sample of people I think most people would say they believe in global warming. Now that doesn't mean they are right. But this poll requires people to have
1) kept up with the back and forth you two have been into
2) have strong feelings about global warming one way or the other
In other words this poll is a waste of time and so is trying to convince someone on the internet who has already made up their mind. Unless the two of you sit down with all the data available it will be an endless back and forth of cherry picked information that goes in circles until you both end up back where you started (disagreeing with each other)
Agreed.I didnt vote because i don't know which person supports which stance.
But you have to be pretty foolish to think that human activity in the last century is not having an adverse effect oncthe planet.
I bet that the IPCC reports are accurate and that we are in the middle of serious anthropogenic climate change.
Moviefan bet is based on his belief that there is no human caused climate change going on.
That is the correct basis for the bet, but your math is that of a denier of science.Bullshit. You don't know how to do the math to properly adjust the data for the new data set.
The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.
If you do the math properly, you get the same adjusted bet using either 1995 or 2014 as your starting point, and it works out to 0.89ºC.
Lets go through it.
At the time of the bet NASA reported 1995 with a 0.43ºC global temperature anomaly.
So we bet whether or not the 0.2ºC per decade IPCC projection would be accurate from that year.
That made the bet work out like this:
0.2 X 2 =0.4 (two decades at 0.2/decade)
0.43 +0.4= 0.83 (1995's temp plus the IPCC projection = our bet of 0.83ºC
NASA reported 2015 @ 0.87ºC, which is more then 0.83ºC.
That bet you lost.
Now, most of your whining is based on the fact that NASA upgraded the weighting of historic ocean temperatures based on new information on how those measurements were made. Typical NASA work, continually upgrading what they do, as noted on their FAQ page. When they upgraded those historic readings 1995 went from a reading of 0.43ºC to 0.46ºC.
So lets check that math:
0.2 X 2 =0.4 (two decades at 0.2/decade)
0.46 +0.4= 0.86 (1995's adjusted NASA temp plus the IPCC projection = moviefans 'adjusted' bet he tried to change it to of 0.86ºC
NASA reported 2015 @ 0.87ºC, which is more then 0.86ºC.
You lost that bet as well.
You lost the bet twice.
For reference, here are the NASA's annual numbers.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/inte...original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt
Here is the danger. The people who believe there is no global warming are at risk of thinking there isn't a problem with the environment due to human activity.
To me this is like two people arguing whether the terminal cancer is lung or intestinal. Either way the person is going to die a horrible death.
People think science has it all figured out. But thr truth is that there are a lot of things that scientists have not solved.
How can you tell if there is something wrong with the earth if you don't fully know how it works?
I have had to sit in a doctor's office and listen to what they can't cure much less figure out. So as a scientist i found that extremely humbling.
So my question to the denyers of global warming is..... do we need to regulate pollution or are we safe as is?
To me this is like two people arguing whether the terminal cancer is lung or intestinal. Either way the person is going to die a horrible death.
People think science has it all figured out. But thr truth is that there are a lot of things that scientists have not solved.
How can you tell if there is something wrong with the earth if you don't fully know how it works?
I have had to sit in a doctor's office and listen to what they can't cure much less figure out. So as a scientist i found that extremely humbling.
So my question to the denyers of global warming is..... do we need to regulate pollution or are we safe as is?
You've made a start, but you conveniently ignored all of the facts that throw a wrench into your math.When they upgraded those historic readings 1995 went from a reading of 0.43ºC to 0.46ºC.
So lets check that math:
0.2 X 2 =0.4 (two decades at 0.2/decade)
0.46 +0.4= 0.86 (1995's adjusted NASA temp plus the IPCC projection = moviefans 'adjusted' bet he tried to change it to of 0.86ºC
NASA reported 2015 @ 0.87ºC, which is more then 0.86ºC.
Let's look at the NASA revisions in more detail.
We cited the anomalies for two years in the original May bet -- the anomaly for 1995 and the anomaly for 2014. Let's look at what happened when NASA changed the weighting of its ocean temperatures.
-- The 1995 anomaly went from 0.43ºC to 0.46ºC -- a change of 0.03ºC.
-- The 2014 anomaly went from 0.68ºC to 0.74ºC -- a change of 0.06ºC.
The increase in 2014 and other recent years was double the increase for 1995 and other years in the 1990s.
So what are we to do with that difference of 0.03ºC?
Frankfooter thinks the answer is to simply ignore the difference. But whether he understands it or not (with Franky, you can never tell), that is blatantly dishonest. The difference matters, particularly as it represents a 20% cut in the size of the bet from 2014 to 2015.
Frankfooter's calculations simply award that 0.03ºC change to Frankfooter, wrapping it in as part of the IPCC's predicted "temperature" increase.
It is nothing of the sort.
The bet we made was on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases that were supposed to be produced by man-made emissions. We weren't betting on numerical changes to past years that were created by a change in methodology.
That 0.03ºC difference is not a temperature increase. It does not count toward the bet.
To bring the 1995 anomaly in line with the original bet, you need to add that 0.03ºC difference to the 1995 anomaly. That brings the corrected (for the purposes of the bet) 1995 anomaly to 0.49ºC.
Add in the wager of 0.40ºC over two decades that was in the original terms, and you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC -- the exact same number you get when you add 0.15ºC to NASA's newly adjusted anomaly of 0.74ºC for 2014.
When you do the math correctly, you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC -- regardless of whether you use 1995 or 2014 as your starting point.
The final 2015 anomaly of 0.87ºC at the end of the super El Nino year was less than 0.89ºC.
Applying the original terms to the new data -- as Frankfooter has spent weeks arguing for -- shows the final anomaly is less than the minimum increase we bet on.
Frankfooter lost the bet.
More significantly, he has lost the argument.
There are multiple problems with your denier, anti-science math, but lets look at the three major ones.You've made a start, but you conveniently ignored all of the facts that throw a wrench into your math.
Let's look at the NASA revisions in more detail.
1) We made a bet based on a fixed number of 0.83ºC as the global anomaly as reported by NASA.
2) After the NASA changes were made you tried your denier math the first time and came up with the number 0.86ºC, not 0.89ºC.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.
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.
3) After trying the faulty denier math the first time and failing, you agreed to continue the bet on its original terms.
You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."
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.
To sum up.
1) The bet was made on a fixed number to be reported by NASA as the global anomaly for 2015, not a formula.
2) You tried the same attempt at the math twice, the first time it came out as 0.86ºC, now that NASA reported the year at 0.87ºC your denier math comes out with a different answer.
3) Most importantly, you already agreed to continue the bet on its original terms.
You lost.
We can definitely agree on that.That 0.03ºC difference is not a temperature increase. It does not count toward the bet.
0.03 degrees isnt even statistically significant
Now, we know you're bullshitting.2) After the NASA changes were made you tried your denier math the first time and came up with the number 0.86ºC, not 0.89ºC.
After NASA came up with a whole new data set, I did offer you a new bet. And I told you that it was a revised offer that was dramatically reduced in your favour.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5300894#post5300894I have actually given you a chance to reduce your predicted temperature increase by more than 26%. I'm not going any further than that.
Only a total idiot would have turned that down. And yet ... that's exactly what Frankfooter did. :thumb:
Frankfooter has insisted the original bet "stands" and he has demanded that the original terms be applied to the new data.No, you didn't add any qualifiers about NOAA refining their methodology, you are just trying to weasel out of a bet you just lost.
Fine. But the agreed-upon increases from 1995 and 2014 haven't changed. Frankfooter's math only makes sense if you accept his argument that 0.86 and 0.89 are the exact same number.
Pure comedy gold, in the form of anti-science denier math.To bring the 1995 anomaly in line with the original bet, you need to add that 0.03ºC difference to the 1995 anomaly. That brings the corrected (for the purposes of the bet) 1995 anomaly to 0.49ºC.
Translated into English:
Despite the fact that the bet was made on a decadal projection, 1995-2015, you need to add in last years NASA adjustment to make the bet 20 years plus one extra year near the end of the bet, or else the number doesn't come out high enough for a denier math win. Never mind any other years in the 20 year span, you only need to add in one year's bonus numbers to make up the imaginary 0.89 number, so don't you look at the changes in any other year. The moviefan denier math tries to change the bet into the difference between 1995 and 2015's global anomaly plus one random year in the middle.
Its so random its comedy gold.
Frankfooter has insisted the original bet "stands" and he has demanded that the original terms be applied to the new data.
Fine. But the increases from 1995 and 2014 haven't changed. Frankfooter's math only makes sense if you accept that 0.86 and 0.89 are the exact same number.
Its pure comedy gold that you still think 2014's numbers are relevant to a bet made on changes between 1995 and 2015.
1995 and 2015 are the goal posts, the two years the bet were based on.
Do you also try to win bets based on the score in the second period of hockey games as well?
So, now, 0.89 is an "imaginary" number.Pure comedy gold, in the form of anti-science denier math.
Translated into English:
Despite the fact that the bet was made on a decadal projection, 1995-2015, you need to add in last years NASA adjustment to make the bet 20 years plus one extra year near the end of the bet, or else the number doesn't come out high enough for a denier math win. Never mind any other years in the 20 year span, you only need to add in one year's bonus numbers to make up the imaginary 0.89 number, so don't you look at the changes in any other year. The moviefan denier math tries to change the bet into the difference between 1995 and 2015's global anomaly plus one random year in the middle.
Its so random its comedy gold.
Let's go through this again. We bet on a temperature anomaly (0.83 in the old data set) that produces the exact same number by adding 0.4 to the 1995 anomaly or 0.15 to the 2014 anomaly (both years were described in the original terms).
Frankfooter's description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.86
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
My description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.89
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
Remember: To align with the original bet, the two numbers have to be the exact same.
You've made a start, but you conveniently ignored all of the facts that throw a wrench into your math.
The year "2014" clearly appeared in the original terms of the bet that were written by me (it appeared twice, actually, in the same sentence ... it was a late night full of Frankfooter stupidity):Its pure comedy gold that you still think 2014's numbers are relevant to a bet made on changes between 1995 and 2015.
1995 and 2015 are the goal posts, the two years the bet were based on.
As I said, he is ignoring all of the numbers that prove his math is crap.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.
You are getting weirder and weirder in your increasingly strange denier math.So, now, 0.89 is an "imaginary" number.
Let's go through this again. We bet on a temperature anomaly (0.83 in the old data set) that produces the exact same number by adding 0.4 to the 1995 anomaly or 0.15 to the 2014 anomaly (both years were described in the original terms).
Frankfooter's description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.86
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
My description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.89
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
Remember: To align with the original bet, the two numbers have to be the exact same.
First, the bet was a fixed number based on the IPCC decadal projection from 1995, or 1995-2015.
2014 is not relevant, not applicable, it has nothing to do with this bet.
The bet was made on 0.83ºC, a number you agreed on and then confirmed you agreed on.
For a refresher, here is the bet:
Click on the link and look at the chart.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.
Tell me if its higher then 0.83ºC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
So what?The year "2014" clearly appeared in the original terms of the bet that were written by me (it appeared twice, actually, in the same sentence ... it was a late night full of Frankfooter stupidity):
The reference to 2014 and 0.68ºC was to show how risky the bet was on my side. A year over year change of 0.15ºC would be and is the highest year over year change ever recorded. That was the reason you took the bet, that betting on the IPCC decadal increase required the temperature to go up a lot to hit that target, which it did. But if you were to claim that the IPCC projected year over year changes of 0.15ºC you'd be laughed out of the lower troposphere where you apparently live. That would mean an increase of more then 1.5ºC per decade, as opposed to the 0.2ºC we bet on.
That wasn't the bet, the bet was whether 2015's anomaly would hit 0.83ºC.
Do I need to go back and link back to our conversations one more time that show how we came up with the bet?
How about we go to the top of this page and look at your post #145:
2014 is irrelevant to this discussion and the bet.The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.
Why are you trying to retroactively change the numbers?
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
LMFAO!2014 is irrelevant to this discussion and the bet.
Franky says 2014 is "irrelevant" because his numbers don't add up.
I wrote the terms of the bet and I certainly did not consider the year-over-year increase to be "irrelevant." Neither did NASA, which reported on the year-over-year increase this week (and reported a number that was less than the minimum increase we bet on).
The reality continues to be this: We bet on a 2015 anomaly that was a 0.4ºC increase over 1995 and a 0.15ºC increase over 2014. It's not one or the other -- to properly apply the terms of the bet to the new data, the adjusted number must prove true for both, as it did in the original bet.
Frankfooter's description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.86
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
My description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.89
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
As I said: To correctly align with the original bet, the two numbers have to be the exact same.
Frankfooter's math is crap. That's why he keeps trying to evade the year-over-year increase from 2014.
LMFAO!
My description of the bet:
-- Using 1995 as the starting year: 0.89
-- Using 2014 as the starting year: 0.89
As I said: To correctly align with the original bet, the two numbers have to be the exact same.
Frankfooter's math is crap. That's why he keeps trying to evade the year-over-year increase from 2014.
You are relentless, as well as ridiculous.
Lets do a review of the bet, here's the post just before the bet was agreed to:
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?
Your direct reply:
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.
And a review of the first attempt at moviefan 'science denier' math, as you tried to 'adjust' the bet retroactively after NASA upgraded their weighting of the data, during which you went so far as to accuse NASA of fraud, a statement you later called a 'metaphor':
That was your first round of 'denier math' in which you tried to retroactively change a bet you were losing.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.
Of course I called it what it was, bullshit denier math and an attempt to change a bet retroactively. You whined so much more but then agreed to continue the bet.
Now, after the final numbers are in and even your first denier math number of 0.86ºC loses you put the exact same numbers through the moviefan denier math and it comes up with a totally different number, just big enough to declare yourself the winner. 0.89ºC. But this time, you need to add an adjustment of a totally random year, 2014, into a bet on the difference between 1995 and 2015.In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.
Lets once again review the real math:
At the time of the bet NASA reported 1995 with a 0.43ºC global temperature anomaly.
So we bet whether or not the 0.2ºC per decade IPCC projection would be accurate from that year.
That made the bet work out like this:
0.2 X 2 =0.4 (two decades at 0.2/decade)
0.43 +0.4= 0.83 (1995's temp plus the IPCC projection = our bet of 0.83ºC
NASA reported 2015 @ 0.87ºC, which is more then 0.83ºC.
That was the bet we made and the bet you lost.
Now, most of your whining is based on the fact that NASA upgraded the weighting of historic ocean temperatures based on new information on how those measurements were made. Typical NASA work, continually upgrading what they do, as noted on their FAQ page. When they upgraded those historic readings 1995 went from a reading of 0.43ºC to 0.46ºC.
So lets check that math:
0.2 X 2 =0.4 (two decades at 0.2/decade)
0.46 +0.4= 0.86 (1995's adjusted NASA temp plus the IPCC projection = moviefans 'adjusted' bet he tried to change it to of 0.86ºC
NASA reported 2015 @ 0.87ºC, which is more then 0.86ºC.
That was first attempt at denier math, and I include it here because it also confirms that the IPCC projection was right on the money for this time period.
You lost the bet.
Twice.
This third attempt at retroactively changing the bet with your anti-science denier math is pathetic.
Man up and buy the books.
Apologies everyone for the endless and long posts.
Lets simplify this a bit.
Moviefan, were you lying when you said this, after the NASA updates?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Lets simplify this a bit.
Moviefan, were you lying when you said this, after the NASA updates?
Were you lying when you agreed to continue the bet on 0.83ºC being 2015's global anomaly as reported by NASA at this address?You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."
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.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You quoted moviefan,...Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2Apologies everyone for the endless and long posts.
Lets simplify this a bit.
Moviefan, were you lying when you said this, after the NASA updates?
Were you lying when you agreed to continue the bet on 0.83ºC being 2015's global anomaly as reported by NASA at this address?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."
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.
Just what the hell does that quote got to do with NASA altering data,...and thus the outcome,...NOTHING.
FAST
Click on the link for the original thread, at the top of the quote.Just what the hell does that quote got to do with NASA altering data,...and thus the outcome,...NOTHING.
FAST
You will note that moviefan agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after NASA changing the weighting of some reports, not 'altering data' as you call it. Moviefan and I discussed the changes and moviefan agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after the changes came out.
