CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change

[Moviefan-2]

You failed to answer these two basic questions:
a) Why do you think that the temperature change from 1995-2015 has to equal the temperature change from 2014-2015?
b) What quotes do you have that confirm that was part of the bet and that I ever agreed to such terms?

Actually, Flat Earth Boy, I did answer the questions.

Since the answers were apparently too challenging for you to follow, let me answer the first one this way: We live in the real world, not in your land of make believe.

 

[Moviefan-2]

At the time of the bet, the 2015 year to date anomaly was 0.79ºC.

At the time of the bet, the 2014 anomaly -- the one on the NASA page that you insist is our only source -- was 0.68ºC.

I can't believe you're evading the question. A child in elementary school could figure this out.

Let's try again.

Little Franky made a bet that the Earth's temperature at the end of 2015 would be 0.40ºC higher than it was in 1995.

At the time of the bet (May 2015), the Earth's temperature anomaly for the year 2014 was 0.25ºC higher than it was in 1995.

Question: How much more would the Earth's temperature have to increase in 2015 for Little Franky to win the bet?

---

What was the record year-over-year increase that you said you "needed" to win the bet? :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, Flat Earth Boy, I did answer the questions.

Since the answers were apparently too challenging for you to follow, let me answer the first one this way: We live in the real world, not in your land of make believe.

No, you didn't.
You failed to answer these two basic questions:
a) Why do you think that the temperature change from 1995-2015 has to equal the temperature change from 2014-2015?
The closest to this you came was to state a coincidence as if it was important to the bet.

At the time of the bet (May 2015), the Earth's temperature anomaly for the year 2014 was 0.25ºC higher than it was in 1995.

That's just a coincidence, it has no bearing on a bet that was calculated off projections between 1995-2015.

b) What quotes do you have that confirm that was part of the bet and that I ever agreed to such terms?
On this one you failed entirely, there is no quote that ever states that this was a term for the bet that I agreed to, and you didn't even try to make an argument for it.

Since you can't articulate a logical claim for either of these questions I'm going to have to call this Dunning-Kruger example #3.


Its time to end this debate with the understanding that you lost but will never recognize it due to your Dunning-Kruger issues.

You lost this bet, but your Dunning-Kruger keeps you from admitting it.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's just a coincidence, it has no bearing on a bet that was calculated off projections between 1995-2015.

That's not what you said this morning:

Instead you fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

Indeed, it sure did. And exactly how much of a year-over-year increase was it that you "needed" to win the bet?

I wonder if I can find the answer somewhere in your previous quotes? :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

That's not what you said this morning:

Indeed, it sure did. And exactly how much of a year-over-year increase was it that you "needed" to win the bet?

I wonder if I can find the answer somewhere in your previous quotes? :biggrin1:

Sorry, nothing in that statement contradicts the claim that 2014's temperature difference was anything more then a coincidence.
You're just chasing Dunning-Kruger nonsense now.

Perhaps the best example of your Dunning-Kruger incompetence was this post (with corrections in red) on the same subject of you arguing your 2014 claim:

Your claim that the coincidence with 2014 has to match the 2015 numbers is impossible. Follow the numbers, it doesn't add up, even when you try to use the numbers you used, the math just doesn't add up.

Its full on incompetence.
Full on Dunning-Kruger.

Sorry, moviefan, but you are just too incompetent to continue this thread.
You lost the bet though you will never admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Follow the numbers, it doesn't add up, even when you try to use the numbers you used, the math just doesn't add up.

Using the 1995 anomaly as a starting point: 0.46 + 0.03 + 0.40 = 0.89
Using the 2014 anomaly as a starting point: 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5455248&viewfull=1#post5455248

The numbers add up just fine.

 

[Moviefan-2]

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

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

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Follow the numbers, it doesn't add up, even when you try to use the numbers you used, the math just doesn't add up.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

Using the 1995 anomaly as a starting point: 0.46 + 0.03 + 0.40 = 0.89
Using the 2014 anomaly as a starting point: 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5455248&viewfull=1#post5455248

The numbers add up just fine.

Idiot.
You are a total idiot, an incompetent Dunning Kruger idiot.

That 0.03 is just a fudge number that you added because your math didn't add up above. You went on and on for a page of Dunning Kruger type nonsense to try to justify turning the bet from a bet on IPCC projections (0.2ºC per decade x 2 decades) into (0.2ºC per decade x 2 decades plus a fudge factor of 0.3ºC) purely because otherwise you'd have to admit you lost.

The proof?
You did the exact same justifications and math earlier, came out with entirely different numbers, and then said the bet should be adjusted to 0.86ºC.

The new figure: 0.86 degrees C for the end of 2015.

That's the NOAA-adjusted revision: A year-end anomaly on NASA's chart that is a minimum of 0.86 degrees C for 2015.

Einstein said 'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It should be updated to include this:
Dunning Kruger incompetence: doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results each time.

moviefan Dunning Kruger example #3 is complete.
Verdict:
moviefan suffers from over confidence that keeps him from understanding his total incompetence, ie Dunning Kruger.
He will never admit that 087º is higher then the 0.83º we bet on and that he lost the bet as his over confidence won't let him admit his incompetence.

I'm done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That 0.03 is just a fudge number that you added because your math didn't add up above.

Nonsense.

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.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

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

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Follow the numbers, it doesn't add up, even when you try to use the numbers you used, the math just doesn't add up.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense.

Yes, its just nonsense.
Trying to change a bet you promised you wouldn't change into a bet on IPCC projections + 0.03ºC (the fudge number it would take for you to win).
You lost and its done, I'm tired of your Dunning Kruger spam posts.

The only good news on climate change I've heard recently is that globally 2015's CO2 output for the first is slowing. 2014 increased only 0.6% and 2015 may have had a slight decline. And most of this is through one countries changes, China, who cut a fair amount of coal use.

https://theconversation.com/growth-...015-so-have-we-finally-reached-the-peak-51669

The globe needs to do a lot more to not hit 2ºC seriously, and it may not happen, but this at least is a start.

 

[Moviefan-2]

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

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

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

I'm done.

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you still posting more of your Dunning Kruger nonsense?
Are you so incredibly incompetent that you don't even realized when you've been publicly shamed?
Ok, one more time for you.

You are incompetent, every time you try to use math it comes out with a different number, you aren't smart enough to understand how stupid you are.

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC. According to the exact terms that Frankfooter insisted must "stand," Frankfooter lost the bet.

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

If we were to add 0.40 degrees C to the 1995 anomaly, we get a new figure of 0.85 degrees C for 2015

However, if we take the projected 0.15 degrees C year-over-year increase (the calculation I used when I accepted the bet) and add it to the adjusted 2014 anomaly, we get a new figure of 0.90 degrees C for 2015.

Houston, we've got a problem.

A fair tradeoff would be to split the difference and agree on a new figure of 0.875 degrees C.

However, in recognition of the fact that there has been some warming in 2015 (not anthropogenic, but due to factors such as "The Blob" and El Nino), I've crunched the numbers and come up with a calculation that I believe is the most closely aligned with where things stood in June before the NOAA went all "Ministry of Truth" on the numbers.

The new figure: 0.86 degrees C for the end of 2015.

That's the NOAA-adjusted revision: A year-end anomaly on NASA's chart that is a minimum of 0.86 degrees C for 2015.

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.

Why are you still here?

 

[Moviefan-2]

....every time you try to use math it comes out with a different number.....

Had you read the FAQ's you would have known that the numbers are updated fairly often

LOL :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

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

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

I'm done.