Blast of Global Warming in Early April

[GPIDEAL]

To the climate change deniers, what is your best alternative theory that explains receding polar ice caps or mountain snow peaks or glaciers or droughts or bush fires?

Or do you really echo the words of Senator Ted Cruz "There is NO global warming!!!"?

 

[canada-man]

To the climate change deniers, what is your best alternative theory that explains receding polar ice caps or mountain snow peaks or glaciers or droughts or bush fires?

Or do you really echo the words of Senator Ted Cruz "There is NO global warming!!!"?

the claim that CO2 which is 0.039% of Air causing global warming is alarmism.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry but that is false, the warming trend had resumed, and the hypothesis has correctly predicted much data that has been collected. In any case, it has much more predictive power than your hypothesis.

You basically aren't even debating the substantive issue. You want to go back to pointing out the holes in a hypothesis that has fewer holes than your own does.

That is exactly like refusing to believe in gravity because it doesn't handle quantum cases. Every scientific hypothesis we have--all of them in every field of science--is wrong. Every one. Being wrong isn't an argument against a scientific hypothesis if it's right more often than every alternative theorem.

You simply lose this point, and if you are forced into a debate of which hypothesis has made better predictions overall, you will lose that debate too.

You're trying to sound clever but you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence, and if the predictions that have been made can't be consistently replicated.

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

It's also worth noting that a hypothesis is usually created to try to address an unexplained occurrence. It's debatable whether such an occurrence even exists in this case.

---

As for the law of gravity, the gravitational forces are consistent.

By contrast, the climate modellers are consistently wrong.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

 

[Moviefan-2]

To the climate change deniers, what is your best alternative theory that explains receding polar ice caps or mountain snow peaks or glaciers or droughts or bush fires?

This is the problem with "climate change." It is an empty expression that means nothing.

The climate changes. Always has. Always will.

If you're going to use changes in the climate as evidence that man-made emissions are destroying the planet, you need to make clear predictions and have clear standards for measuring the accuracy of the predictions. Man-made "climate change" has none of that.

Consider the case of Tim Flannery, Australia's former chief climate commissioner.

When Australia was experiencing droughts in 2005, Flannery predicted that the droughts "seem to be of a permanent nature." Since then, Australia has experienced severe flooding.

Not to worry, though ... whether it's droughts or floods, as long as something has happened somewhere, the doomsday predictions continue.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ho-gets-it-wrong/story-fni0ffxg-1226838538089

We see this kind of idiocy all the time. Perhaps you're familiar with Dr. David Viner, of the University of East Anglia, who famously predicted in 2000 that children living in Britain today wouldn't know what snow looks like.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/more_of_those_predictions_to_snow_us/

And, of course, there was the IPCC's notorious fairy-tale prediction that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by the year 2035.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ience-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html

Without clear standards for measuring the predictions, all you're doing is accepting man-made "climate change" as a matter of faith. Not science.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's also worth noting that a hypothesis is usually created to try to address an unexplained occurrence. It's debatable whether such an occurrence even exists in this case.

More total nonsense from the Dunning-Kruger suffering denier.

Look, I'm posting this bloomberg graphic again, as it points out how incredibly stupid your ideas are.
First, it shows all the 'natural' forcings that could possibly effect our climate, such as solar activity and deforestation.
Then it shows the amount of change that scientists predict for the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere.

It posits a hypothesis and shows the possible explanations.
The only realistic explanation for the change we are living through is anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Your really basic claims have been answered over and over again, but you are too stupid to accept the facts.

 

[Frankfooter]

Without clear standards for measuring the predictions, all you're doing is accepting man-made "climate change" as a matter of faith. Not science.

Meanwhile, the site you get your 'research' from is full of crocks and lobbyists.
You can't tell science from fantasy.

For instance, you put your reputation on the line and bet that the global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and when it hit 0.87ºC you just went all weasel like and denied that you lost. And in this case, the bet was on IPCC projections, which were proven accurate just as you were proven wrong. Again.

You are no judge.

 

[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.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your really basic claims have been answered over and over again, but you are too stupid to accept the facts.

Let's take a look at the so-called "facts" in question. Here's an updated list of Frankfooter's greatest hits.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

 

[Frankfooter]

Its really quite sad how you go all Dunning-Kruger every time you've been exposed as being totally incompetent on this subject or even when the bet you lost is mentioned.

How many times do you have to be publicly embarrassed before you stop posting the same nonsense over and over again?

Did you forget how you were challenged with your 'hit list' and it was exposed as just more incompetent nonsense?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5498865&viewfull=1#post5498865

 

[bishop]

To the climate change deniers, what is your best alternative theory that explains receding polar ice caps or mountain snow peaks or glaciers or droughts or bush fires?

Or do you really echo the words of Senator Ted Cruz "There is NO global warming!!!"?

Lack of an alternative theory is not a free pass to latch onto anything that sounds good. We have no theory for many things; how did the big bang begin, how does consciousness arise, how does intelligence arise, how did life arise, etc... There are things we can not answer and there is no shame in admitting it. AGW is a stats without controls, it is finance not science.

I am maybe 70% sure that AGW is real, but I am 100% sure that every year I live above 30 is due to science. The scientific method must be protected, science can not be turned into a popular vote, it can not be turned into finance, it has to be rigorous and not turned into "that graph looks pretty accurate" or "well the next statistical model will be better". A statistical model has no explanatory power, why was there a slowdown/pause in warming over the last decade? A statistical model offers no insight into that. Science offers us explanations to a broad set of questions, the more broad the better the theory, if there is a theory that offers little to no explanations then that theory is worth next to nothing.

I do not have a problem with governments passing legislation to control CO2, I do not even have much of a problem with a carbon tax, the way I see it; it will be the 3rd world that will burden the brunt of this, and financially my business will benefit from a clamp down on carbon emissions. What I do have a problem with is a non science being elevated as science.

 

[fuji]

You're trying to sound clever but you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence, and if the predictions that have been made can't be consistently replicated.

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

It's also worth noting that a hypothesis is usually created to try to address an unexplained occurrence. It's debatable whether such an occurrence even exists in this case.

---

As for the law of gravity, the gravitational forces are consistent.

By contrast, the climate modellers are consistently wrong.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

By your reasoning we should reject the theory of gravity since I can clearly point to evidence that contradicts it, specifically at the quantum level. The theory of gravity is flat wrong and totally contradicted by empirical data at that scale. It's just wrong.

Your theory, that there is no human caused climate change, fails badly and has far less predictive value than the models that say there is.

You point out a few data points the human causation model predicted incorrectly but neglect to mention the many, many more data points that your alternate theory gets hopelessly wrong.

I return to the example of the rigged roulette wheel: a theory that predicts the wheel 40% of the time is "wrong", but a much better theory than one that only gets the wheel right 3% of the time.

Bet on the winning model.

 

[bishop]

By your reasoning we should reject the theory of gravity since I can clearly point to evidence that contradicts it, specifically at the quantum level. The theory of gravity is flat wrong and totally contradicted by empirical data at that scale. It's just wrong.

Your theory, that there is no human caused climate change, fails badly and has far less predictive value than the models that say there is.

You point out a few data points the human causation model predicted incorrectly but neglect to mention the many, many more data points that your alternate theory gets hopelessly wrong.

I return to the example of the rigged roulette wheel: a theory that predicts the wheel 40% of the time is "wrong", but a much better theory than one that only gets the wheel right 3% of the time.

Bet on the winning model.

We know our theory of gravity is wrong on small scales, that is why we do not take gravity into account when dealing things on the atomic level. Your position on AGW is akin to saying; well lets just shoehorn in any theory of gravity into quantum mechanics since it is better than no theory of gravity on the Atomic level and it is up someone else to prove that the shoehorned theory is wrong by shoehorning in a slightly better theory. You treat science like your personal jizz rag.

 

[fuji]

We know our theory of gravity is wrong on small scales, that is why we do not take gravity into account when dealing things on the atomic level. Your position on AGW is akin to saying; well lets just shoehorn in any theory of gravity into quantum mechanics since it is better than no theory of gravity on the Atomic level and it is up someone else to prove that the shoehorned theory is wrong by shoehorning in a slightly better theory. You treat science like your personal jizz rag.

And you ignore the white elephant in the room: it if a better theory with a better track record than yours is. Your opposing theory is a disaster which has gotten it wrong most of the time.

Here is how a rational person sees it: the climate is complex and we have only a partial understanding of it. The global warming hypothesis is correct, and has proven to be a better model than the alternatives. It partially explains the data we have while the theory that humans have not caused climate change has utterly failed to explain the data. However there are clearly additional factors at work creating effects we haven't explained.

Again, you are at a rigged roulette table. One advisor has been right on 40% of the spins, the other has only been right 3%. Neither theory is right--they both get a lot wind, but one is clearly right a lot more often. Whose advice do you take when you place your bet?

 

[bishop]

Quantum mechanics matches experimental results down to 20 decimal places, The Higgs Boson was confirmed with certainty down to 10 decimal places. A CPU has somewhere in the order of 5 billion transistors, 1 transistor not working means the CPU goes to the junk pile, the fact that you can post your replies on your computer is testament to how good our model of transistor physics is. When AGW gets into those ball parks then let me know because it might just have a chance to be a real scientific theory.

The advice I would take in regards to placing the bet, is my own advice; I would not place the bet.

I am not saying AGW is not correct, I am saying is that at this point it can not be proven to a standard that all other sciences are expected to. We are not talking an order of magnitude or 3 orders of magnitude, we are talking 10 or more orders of magnitude difference. Take your at best AGW predictions, it might be 80% accurate, maybe more maybe less, and go apply your standard of 80% is good enough to a real science, you will be laughed at.

 

[fuji]

It's a fallacy to argue that you need that level of precision to have a valid scientific theory. You're grasping at straws.

If you have two theories about a rigged roulette wheel and the best one is accurate 4% of the time and the next best is accurate 3% of the time then you have Terry theories that are both better than the null hypothesis, and you use the 4% theory try place your bets.

Or to put it in terms a statistician would, you can have statistically significant parameters in your model even though the residual is very large.

The usual interpretation of a large residual is that your parameters you have modeled are correct but you haven't yet included ALL the parameters. Further investigation should add more parameters.

In plainer English: human caused global warming is real but there are a lot more additional factors that impact climate that we haven't understood.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You point out a few data points the human causation model predicted incorrectly....

Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

You seem to want to give the climate researchers all kinds of credit for correctly predicting past temperatures (pre-1990) that were already known to them. I would politely suggest to you that anyone can "predict" results for past events where the outcome is already known.

I'll bet you I can correctly predict who will win the Second World War.

In terms of the climate researchers' incorrect predictions about the future, we're not talking about "a few data points." The climate researchers have been completely wrong for the majority of the period in question.

They overestimated temperature increases in 1990 and all of the predictions from 2001 onward have been completely wrong. It's only in the period from 1995 to 2001 where you could say their scaled-down predictions briefly appeared to be correct.

Indeed, in 2001, they were warning about a possible temperature increase of almost 6ºC over the next 100 years: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jan/23/globalwarming.climatechange2

Even though the Earth's temperature has barely changed since then (or perhaps because it has barely changed since then), the dire predictions have now been scaled down to warnings about an increase of just 1ºC (or 2ºC above pre-industrial levels). Talk about moving the goal post!

I don't give the climate researchers credit for "predicting" the past. When it comes to predicting the future, the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

Furthermore, I don't make hypothetical bets on these matters. I make real bets. And I always win.

If you want to bet on a sure thing, bet against the IPCC.

 

[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.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

How many times do you have to be publicly embarrassed before you stop posting the same nonsense over and over again?

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.

I'm done.

 

[Frankfooter]

Lack of an alternative theory is not a free pass to latch onto anything that sounds good.

There is an excellent theory, with plenty of evidence to back it up and that work is backed up by the very vast majority of people who know what they are talking about.
There is absolutely no alternative theory that holds water and you can't even come up with one possibility.
Its you that is working on 'faith' and not science.

 

[Frankfooter]

Furthermore, I don't make hypothetical bets on these matters. I make real bets. And I always win.

If you want to bet on a sure thing, bet against the IPCC.

You are a total moron, still trying to claim that 0.87 is lower then 0.83?

In May, 2014, we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate, from 1995-2015, based on the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC.
We bet whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
2015's global temperature anomaly came out as 0.87ºC.
You lost.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a 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?

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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

You lost the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

:thumb:

Just for reference, moviefan's 'six attempts at moving the goal posts', quote came from a post from me, where I noted the 6 different way the weasel tried to cheat the bet, complete with links to the original posts.


The Seven attempts at Cheating the bet of Moviefan:

First, for reference, the 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?

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.

#1 - 0.86ºC

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.

#2 - 0.766ºC

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...made-up-your-mind-on-climate-change-yet/page8

#3 - 0.89ºC

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.

#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post

And 0.745ºC is nowhere near the IPCC "projection" of 0.85ºC for 2015 (which was derived from the same 1961-1990 baseline, as shown in the Hotwhopper graph).

#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

#6 Deliberate use of quotes out of context.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475426&viewfull=1#post5475426

#7 - Trying to retroactively claim that the bet was based on a year over year change instead of decadal projections.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780