You can find even longer periods in the past and yet no one argues warming slowed down. And again, while you claim the model was wrong the reality is your alternative theory is FAR MORE WRONG.Indeed. In the 21st century, the Earth's temperature has been stagnant -- confirming that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...KCaDcruk2QI=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
- Status
You've mentioned this before -- they were terrible at predicting the future, but did a better job "predicting" the past. :biggrin1:
As for an "alternate theory" (I think you actually mean hypothesis), my question remains the same as always: An alternate hypothesis for what?
Nothing unusual has happened. There is nothing requiring an explanation.
Sure you have. Repeatedly.
Let's review your numbers again.
- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.74ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443385&viewfull=1#post5443385
- Year-over-year increase that you said was "needed" to win the bet: 0.15ºC:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5499392#post5499392
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145
- Your calculation of what that adds up to: 0.83ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5516415&viewfull=1#post5516415
If you say I have misrepresented one of the numbers in your calculation, tell us which one. Similarly, if you say I have misrepresented your calculations, tell us how.
I can easily confirm that I have accurately quoted your numbers and that my description of your calculations is 100% accurate.
Your bluster isn't fooling anyone. Back it up with something.
CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!
The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls.
This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth. Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels. Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration. Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’
https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/...bate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls.
This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth. Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels. Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration. Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’
https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/...bate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Typical Dunning-Kruger effect bullshit.
You use three totally different posts to grab three different numbers that you then claim I put together.
That is pathetically stupid.
You cannot find a single post where I made the statement or calculation you claimed I made:
You are lying by stating that I made that calculation.
Just stop that bullshit.
Idiot.
The warmest temperature in recorded history is 'nothing unusual' according to you.
That is why you are a 'denier'.
That is the only number that counts, the number we BOTH agreed to use for the bet.
Only a lying weasel would still be trying to break his word, six months later.
Meanwhile, scientists have noted that the amount of ice that has melted off of Greenland has now changed our planet's rotation.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...g-changing-earth-wobbles-160408183026509.html
Here's the killer quote.
Something moviefan would declare as 'nothing unusual'.
You're a bullshitter who tries to use bullshit rules to defend your bullshit.
I said I had provided a completely accurate description of your calculations. I never said it all comes from one quote, nor do I need to find a single quote. You see, in the adult world, there's a thing known as critical thinking where people can draw conclusions using various sources.
Your single-quote nonsense is just a bullshit rule that you're trying to use because you can't refute a single thing I have posted.
Furthermore, it is also bullshit for you to use my quotes to try to pretend I agree with your calculations. Those quotes refer to a completely different graph that used completely different numbers. I have been quite clear that I disagree with your calculations on the current graph.
Let's review the facts again. These are your numbers.
- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.74ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443385&viewfull=1#post5443385
- Year-over-year increase that you said was "needed" for you to win the bet: 0.15ºC:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5499392#post5499392
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145
- Your calculation of what that adds up to: 0.83ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5516415&viewfull=1#post5516415
If you're going to accuse me of "lying", you have to show us what is false in the facts posted above.
The answer is nothing. This is a 100% accurate description of your calculations. Although you now don't want to admit it, you calculated that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.
And you are wrong.
What a total fucking moron you are.
I have never put those numbers together in a calculation, yet you continue to lie and claim I did.
Nor would I ever do so or want to do so because those numbers are again based on your lie that the bet was based on the period 2014-2015, where you got the first two of those numbers.
I never used those numbers in the bet except to say that you are a lying weasel who is trying to change the terms of the bet retroactively because you lost.
As you clearly stated, the bet was based off of 1995-2015.
There is no fucking way I would make calculations to even give the slightest legitimacy to yet another weasel lie like your claim that the numbers from 2014 are relevant to the bet you lost.
Lets review the terms of the bet and the result.
Just stop being a lying weasel and admit that 0.87 is higher then the 0.83 we bet on.
Loser.
Try reading your own quotes.
You said that to win the bet, you "needed" a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC over the 2014 anomaly of 0.74ºC.
Those aren't my quotes. You're the one who said that.
And you keep coming back and saying that those numbers add up to 0.83ºC.
I reject your calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.
I did not say the word 'needed', that is yet another lie coming from you.
Just as I never made the calculation you claim I made, that's two lies in one post.
This continuing Dunning-Kruger fantasy that the bet was based on 2014-2015 is just another lie coming from you.
Just like you lied when you stated that you would keep your word and honour the bet that 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
As noted, your claim about 2014 just proves you are trying to break your word and continue to lie that you didn't lose the bet.
That is your number and your Dunning-Kruger fantasy and its totally irrelevant to a bet based on 1995-2015.
Your continual attempts to lie like a weasel are what you call 'numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology'.
You are trying to change the terms of a bet you lost after you lost the bet, like a loser who bet on the Leafs to win the Stanley Cup and now claims he bet for them to win the draft lottery.
You are a weasel.
March 15, 2016 (emphasis added by me):
I continue to reject Frankfooter's calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.
The quote talks about YOUR claims, not mine. You are lying to state that I 'needed' that math to work.
The bet was never about 2014's temperature, it was on 2015's temperature, you continue to lie and act like a weasel.
I continue to call you out for lying by claiming I ever made such a calculation.
Just as you continue to lie about honouring your word and continue to try to 'not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.'.
Even you are calling yourself a lying weasel for trying to change the terms of the bet 'retroactively'.
Weasel.
First, you said there are no quotes that support what I have been saying.
Then, when I produce the quotes, you state that you did not use the word "needed" in the quotes and accused me of "lying."
Now, you say you did use the word "needed" in a direct quote, but you now say you were talking about my "claims" (although the sentence doesn't say that).
I understand what happened. You forgot some your own bullshit and slipped up -- by mistake, you told the truth. Too bad for you.
You confirmed -- as a fact -- that you "needed" a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015 to win the bet.
According to your graph, that means you "needed" the total of 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC, which you continue to say is 0.83ºC.
I reject your math. Your calculation is wrong.
There are no quotes where I put those numbers together and the closest you can find is a post commenting on your Dunning-Kruger claims. It's moronic to claim my comments on the idiocy of your claims is really a post meaning something else entirely.
You continue to lie.
Moron.
In terms of climate what do you consider a long term trend? The instrumental global temperature record is 166 years old. That is but a blip in the history of climate. So in reality it is the AGW alarmists who are the biggest cherry pickers, wouldn't you agree?
Sure there are.
You stated -- as a fact -- that you "needed" a 0.15ºC increase over NASA's 2014 anomaly of 0.74ºC for you to win the bet.
And there are numerous posts (almost daily over a period of more than three months) where you conclude that the total number comes to 0.83ºC.
I reject your calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83. Your calculation is wrong.
No.
You took a post where I called your equation an example of Dunning-Kruger logic and then claimed I made the statement of yours I was commenting on.
Of all the Dunning-Kruger bullshit you've come up with this one takes the cake.
You are still lying.
And now your lies are getting more and more idiotic.
In May of last year the two of us did the same calculations together to come up with the number we agreed to bet on, 0.83. We both agreed the bet was on 2015 hitting 0.83C until you started losing, then you started all this nonsense about changing the number and the calculations and the basis of the bet.
You lie in every post on this thread when you claim otherwise.
- Status
