Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[Moviefan-2]

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/

LMFAO. Frankfooter has gone back to his claim that there isn't a single person at NASA who knows how to change a web page.

Apparently, NASA can put a man on the moon. But change the content on a web page? Franky says that's much too difficult for anyone at NASA. :Eek:

For the record, here is the actual graph that was on that web page at the time of the bet:

(I suspect Frankfooter knows all too well that NASA can change its web pages. What he didn't know, apparently, is that it's possible to grab screen shots of images on the Internet.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

And since Frankfooter wants to look at the actual graph from the NASA web page, let's look at the number that was posted for 2014.

Why, it's 0.68ºC.

Indeed, Franky has quoted me confirming that the graph showed a 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5243530#post5243530

And he wants me to confirm that we bet that the 2015 anomaly on that pre-adjusted graph would hit 0.83ºC -- a difference of 0.15ºC.

If the year-over-year increase from 2014 to 2015 was 0.15ºC last May, then it must still be 0.15ºC today. The year 2014 didn't retroactively get warmer or cooler sometime after May 2015.

How does the 0.15ºC increase compare with NASA's final numbers? Here's the direct quote from the NASA news release:

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

No matter how much billshit Franky throws around, he can't change the fact that 0.13ºC is less than 0.15ºC.

Frankfooter lost. He lost the bet, and he has completely lost the argument.

 

[FAST]

Click on the link for the original thread, at the top of the quote.
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.

Weighting,...paying particular attention to the bold parts,...

"The process of weighting involves emphasizing the contribution of some aspects of a phenomenon (or of a set of data) to a final effect or result, giving them more weight in the analysis.

That is, rather than each variable in the data contributing equally to the final result, some data are adjusted to contribute more than others.

It is analogous to the practice of adding extra weight to one side of a pair of scales to favour a buyer or seller."

You can't adjust something,... without altering it,...

Just a time honoured means of cheating,...the old,...put your finger on the scale,...when weighting for a unsuspectiong customer,...in this case,...the whole free world.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

Weighting,...paying particular attention to the bold parts,...

"The process of weighting involves emphasizing the contribution of some aspects of a phenomenon (or of a set of data) to a final effect or result, giving them more weight in the analysis.

That is, rather than each variable in the data contributing equally to the final result, some data are adjusted to contribute more than others.

It is analogous to the practice of adding extra weight to one side of a pair of scales to favour a buyer or seller."

You can't adjust something,... without altering it,...

Just a time honoured means of cheating,...the old,...put your finger on the scale,...when weighting for a unsuspectiong customer,...in this case,...the whole free world.

FAST

Trust me, Frankfooter doesn't know what weighting is.

He thinks he sounds clever when he uses the word -- but he has no idea what he's talking about.

It's similar to his bizarre belief that the word "data" only applies to raw data. That's another in the endless series of words that he uses but doesn't actually understand.

He is both illiterate and innumerate.

 

[Frankfooter]

Trust me, Frankfooter doesn't know what weighting is.

We went over this before.

Using a NYT article you supplied it was shown that the data is exactly the same, the only difference is that NASA had new information indicating that that ocean measurements were made with buckets, instead of directly dipping in oceans, and that technique continued longer then they had previously understood. The data, the reports from weather stations remains exactly the same, the only difference is that ocean temperatures made with buckets were 'weighted' differently to incorporate the inaccuracies of that method.

 

[Frankfooter]

And since Frankfooter wants to look at the actual graph from the NASA web page, let's look at the number that was posted for 2014.

Why, it's 0.68ºC..

Yes, that was the temperature reported at the time of the bet.

But again, the bet was on 2015's temperature, why do you think that it matters what 2014's temperature was?
The bet was on whether or not NASA would report 0.83ºC as the 2015 anomaly.

And you confirmed that bet, after NASA's changes.
Were you lying when you confirmed the bet as being on 0.83ºC as NASA reported it, after the changes at NASA?

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

If the year-over-year increase from 2014 to 2015 was 0.15ºC last May, then it must still be 0.15ºC today. The year 2014 didn't retroactively get warmer or cooler sometime after May 2015.

Bullshit.
The bet was on decadal projections from NASA, not a year over year increase.
As you stated clearly:

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.

You are lying when you try to claim the bet was a bet on a year over year increase.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But again, the bet was on 2015's temperature, why do you think that it matters what 2014's temperature was?

I've explained this to you. Because if you don't get the same result using 1995 and 2014 as your starting point, then there's something wrong with your math.

It's not an either/or situation. To align with the original bet, you must get the same number when you add 0.4 to the 1995 anomaly and 0.15 to the 2014 anomaly. Both calculations produced the same number in the original bet and there's no mathematically sound reason for that to be any different now -- particularly as we agreed to stick to the original terms of the bet.

I also explained to you how to do the math so that the increases do align.

You have to account for the 0.03 difference that was created when NASA adjusted its current anomalies at twice the size of the anomalies from the 1990s. Remember, that 0.03 difference between the 1995 adjustment and the 2014 adjustment is not a temperature increase.

It is failed math to be including that 0.03 difference as a "temperature increase" that counts towards the IPCC's predicted temperature increases and the temperature increases that we bet on. That 0.03 difference isn't a temperature increase and it doesn't apply (it didn't even exist at the time the IPCC made its predictions).

A simple solution is to simply subtract that 0.03 from NASA's newly reported anomaly for 2015 of 0.87ºC. That would give you a 0.84ºC result against your adjusted bet of 0.86ºC.

But if you want to understand how to get the 1995 increase and the 2014 increase to align, then your solution is to add that 0.03 difference to the 1995 anomaly. That gives you an anomaly that is directly comparable with the numbers as they existed when we made our bet.

Adding that 0.03 difference to the new 1995 anomaly gives you a directly comparable anomaly of 0.49ºC. Add in the 0.4ºC increase from the IPCC prediction and you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC -- the exact same number you get when you add 0.15ºC to the 2014 anomaly.

If you're going to insist on applying the original bet to the new data, then it definitely "matters" whether or not you're adjusting the numbers properly.

Indeed, you know that's true.

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

Once you stop treating that 0.03 difference as a "temperature increase" (which it wasn't), you'll get your numbers to add up.

Unfortunately for you, once you stop treating that 0.03 difference as a "temperature increase", you'll also be forced to acknowledge that you lost the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've explained this to you. Because if you don't get the same result using 1995 and 2014 as your starting point, then there's something wrong with your math.

Denier math.

Only in denier math does a bet on the change between 1995 and 2015 also need to equal the difference between 2014 and 2015.

Lets check the statements you've made so far that make this 2014 denier math look like total bullshit.

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.

Yes, the bet as based on a 0.2ºC increase, as projected by the IPCC starting in 1995, or 1995-2015.
Not 1995-2015 plus one year in the middle, that's denier math.

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.

You agreed to continue the bet after the changes at NASA on the original terms, which was for 0.83ºC as the global anomaly as reported by NASA.
Are you not a man of your word, why are you trying to make ' numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology', as you call it?

Again, look at 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.

The link the bet is live, the chart reads 0.87ºC and you lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

LOL. It's clear who the "denier" is.

Since Frankfooter can't get the 1995 increase to align with the 2014 increase -- which they must -- he continues to argue that we should simply forget about 2014.

As I said a few days ago, Franky's solution to his failed math is to simply ignore all of the numbers that don't add up correctly in his calculations.

The reality is that the 0.03 difference in the adjusted anomalies is not a temperature increase. And 0.74 plus 0.15 does not equal 0.86.

And 0.86 and 0.89 are not the same number.

Frankfooter lost.

 

[Frankfooter]

And 0.86 and 0.89 are not the same number.

Frankfooter lost.

And neither of those numbers were the number we bet on, loser.

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.

Were you lying when you promised to continue the bet on its original terms, that is a bet for 0.83ºC, after you brought up these changes at NASA the first time?

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.

Were you lying when you said that?

 

[Moviefan-2]

And neither of those numbers were the number we bet on, loser.

None of the numbers in the graph that you're now using are the ones that we bet on. We bet on a completely different graph.

You spent a month arguing that the original bet should be applied to the new NASA numbers.

If you insist on applying the bet to the new NASA numbers, then 0.89ºC is the correctly adjusted bet. You get that number when you apply the agreed-upon increases to both 1995 and 2014.

 

[Frankfooter]

None of the numbers in the graph that you're now using are the ones that we bet on. We bet on a completely different graph.

Yes, the numbers were updated, including adding in 2015's numbers.
The graph we agreed on is still published at the exact same address it was when we bet on it, updated with the most recent numbers from NASA.
Same chart, updated.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

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.

That chart shows 2015 as 0.87ºC.
You lost the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

You get that number when you apply the agreed-upon increases to both 1995 and 2014.

Who are you claiming agreed to those numbers and when?
Provide a direct quote or admit you are lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The graph we agreed on is still published at the exact same address it was when we bet on it....

In sheer desperation, Frankfooter has returned to his argument that there isn't a single person at NASA who knows how to change content on a web page.

Sure, Franky.

(Once again, here is the graph that was on that web page when we made the bet. It shows a 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png).

Who are you claiming agreed to those numbers and when?
Provide a direct quote or admit you are lying.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Frankfooter's "updated" graph puts the 2014 anomaly at 0.74ºC: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

In another desperation move, Franky says I am "lying" when I say that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89. :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Your reply to my challenge to prove you weren't lying is to provide what you call a quote from me, yet the link in your quote goes to a post where I say no such thing.
My challenge:
Who are you claiming agreed to those numbers and when?
Provide a direct quote or admit you are lying.

This is the post you linked to in your reply:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5456631#post5456631

That post doesn't contain the quote you claim it does.
You are starting to pile lies on top of lies now.
Pathetic.

 

[Frankfooter]

In another desperation move, Franky says I am "lying" when I say that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89. :biggrin1:

Another false claim, your math is shoddy denier math, but that simple addition is within your abilities and you got the total correct. Congratulations, it doesn't happen often for you.
Of course it has nothing to do with this argument or the bet, since as you clearly stated, the bet was based on decadal projections, not a year over year increase.

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.

The second statement is an excellent example of shoddy denier math.
First sentence he declares the bet to be based on decadal projections, second statement he then says a 20 year and a one year period are both the same thing in a bet based on decades.
Shoddy denier math.

 

[Frankfooter]

The big question remains:

Can a climate change denier ever admit he is wrong?


Moviefan has run the gamut of ridiculous excuses to the point where he's getting to the bottom of the barrel, as in a bet on a 20 year projection has to equal a one year period. He's been caught agreeing to continue the bet on its original terms then spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to argue that the number we bet should be adjusted, first to 0.86, then to 0.89.

But the excuses are getting sillier and sillier.
We bet on the global anomaly hitting 0.83º, it hit 0.87º on the chart that we bet on.
Moviefan lost, but can he ever admit it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is the post you linked to in your reply:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5456631#post5456631

That post doesn't contain the quote you claim it does.
You are starting to pile lies on top of lies now.
Pathetic.

Here you go:

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145

 

[Moviefan-2]

Let's review some of the highlights from Frankfooter's various postings.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what "weighting" is.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "adjusted" means.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "data" means.

-- Frankfooter insists there is no one at NASA who knows how to change the content on a web page.

-- Frankfooter says "only in denier math" is it believed that 0.43 plus 0.4 must add up to the same thing as 0.68 plus 0.15.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" and that it is "ridiculous" to believe that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

Frankfooter is both illiterate and innumerate.

He doesn't understand science, he doesn't know how to read graphs and table sets, and he can't even do basic math.