World leaders duped manipulates global warming data

[Frankfooter]

I normally don't indulge Frankfooter's insane claims about who won the bet. But I'll make an exception in this case, as it proves my point.

The bet was whether the Earth's temperature would increase by a minimum of 0.15 C in 2015.

You should listen to your own words, they are calling you a liar.

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]

You should listen to your own words, they are calling you a liar.

Really?

Here's the full quote:

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.

To review:

- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.68C
- NASA's reported increase for 2015: 0.13C

Frankfooter's Karl-inspired claim: That those two numbers add up to more than 0.83C.

That's "Enron-style accounting." No doubt about it. :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

One study with observations over a decade in a small geographic area, that's what you're pinning man made global climate change on? You're smarter than that fuji, c'mon.

Actually, there's far less to that study than even the points you've raised.

The study only looked at temperature changes that are directly attributable to CO2. The study excluded the possible effects of water vapour feedback, which makes up the overwhelming bulk of the projected warming in the computer-model calculations.

The minuscule and harmless amount of warming that's directly attributable to CO2 isn't really in dispute. Fuji's study was interesting but it tells us next to nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Frankfooter]

Really?

Here's the full quote:

To review:

Fine, we'll review the wording and terms of the bet.
First line:

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

You state the need to identify source we used for reference.
Second line:

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/

You identify the reference, using numbers and link to clarify which chart we'd use for reference.
Third line:

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

Once the reference is set, you agree to the terms of the bet.
The terms were simple, whether NASA's link above would report 0.83ºC as 2015's global temperature anomaly.

The terms were clear and by those terms you lost the bet.
The 'Enron style math' is you attempting to claim that a bet on 2015 hitting a fixed number was instead a bet on the difference in temperature between two years.

To judge who won the bet all you need to do is click on the NASA link above and read the number reported for 2015.
No 'Enron style math' needed at all.

Such a whiny loser.

 

[fuji]

Really?

Here's the full quote:



To review:

- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.68C
- NASA's reported increase for 2015: 0.13C

Frankfooter's Karl-inspired claim: That those two numbers add up to more than 0.83C.

That's "Enron-style accounting." No doubt about it. :thumb:

Here's what matters, other than to your pissing contest with footer:

Temperatures have consistently risen over every thirty year period.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Temperatures have consistently risen over every thirty year period.

According to the peer-reviewed paper that appeared in Nature, there was a "slowdown" from 2000 to 2014 that was completely at odds with what the models predicted.

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

The semantics don't matter. According to the scientific method, the hypothesis should be revisited.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fine, we'll review the wording and terms of the bet.
First line:


You state the need to identify source we used for reference.
Second line:

You identify the reference, using numbers and link to clarify which chart we'd use for reference.
Third line:

Once the reference is set, you agree to the terms of the bet.
The terms were simple, whether NASA's link above would report 0.83ºC as 2015's global temperature anomaly.

The terms were clear and by those terms you lost the bet.
The 'Enron style math' is you attempting to claim that a bet on 2015 hitting a fixed number was instead a bet on the difference in temperature between two years.

To judge who won the bet all you need to do is click on the NASA link above and read the number reported for 2015.
No 'Enron style math' needed at all.

Such a whiny loser.

Dance, weave and bullshit all you like.

You can't make the numbers work because they don't work. Adding 0.13 to 0.68 doesn't give you a number that's greater than 0.83, and you know it.

You and Tom Karl are both big fans of "Enron-style accounting." I, on the other hand, prefer proper accounting.

 

[eznutz]

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the courage of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.

Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.

They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.

No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.

And without this new dataset there would have been no Pausebuster paper. If, as previous sea water evidence has shown, there really has been a pause in global warming, then it calls into question the received wisdom about its true scale.

 

[Moviefan-2]

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

It's an excellent article and should be required reading for everyone participating in this thread.

Part of the reason I think the article is excellent is that it explains in plain English what NOAA did with the data.

As the article makes clear, no one "tampered" with the data. Instead, the Karl paper deliberately adjusted the sea surface temperatures upward based on a flawed methodology using readings from ships that they knew -- or certainly should have known -- would be running too hot.

In effect, the Karl paper replaced good data with bad data to produce a bogus (and politically motivated) result.

 

[Frankfooter]

Dance, weave and bullshit all you like.

You can't make the numbers work because they don't work. Adding 0.13 to 0.68 doesn't give you a number that's greater than 0.83, and you know it.

You and Tom Karl are both big fans of "Enron-style accounting." I, on the other hand, prefer proper accounting.

What do I care about those numbers you keep trying to add together?
Those numbers were not what we bet on.
The bet we made was not based on addition, it was based on reading the number that NASA posted for 2015's anomaly.

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.

By the way, that chart reports 2015's global anomaly as 0.87ºC.
That is higher then your 'Enron math' numbers of 0.68 + 0.13.
Unless of course you are trying to argue that you failed at addition when you set the bet at 0.83ºC....

 

[fuji]

According to the peer-reviewed paper that appeared in Nature, there was a "slowdown" from 2000 to 2014 that was completely at odds with what the models predicted.

Nevertheless the temperature has continued to rise over every thirty year interval including throughout that time. Pick any year you like, the thirty year rolling average temperature ending that year is higher than the prior interval.

You wrongly think that any short term deviation from the long term predicted trend is proof that the prediction is wrong. It's not.

The climate is warming and it's been proven that human emitted CO2 is warming it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You wrongly think that any short term deviation from the long term predicted trend is proof that the prediction is wrong. It's not.

The IPCC's erroneous predictions cover a period of more than 35 years.

 

[Moviefan-2]

"What do I care about those numbers you keep trying to add together?" - The late Kenneth Lay

By the way, that chart reports 2015's global anomaly as 0.87ºC.
That is higher then your 'Enron math' numbers of 0.68 + 0.13.

LOL. Those were NASA's reported numbers, not my numbers.

NASA reported the 2014 anomaly as 0.68C (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/nasa-and-noaa-confirm-that-201/40719208).

NASA said the temperature increase in 2015 was 0.13C.

And NASA now says the final temperature anomaly for 2015 was 0.87C.

Like I have said all along -- it's "Enron-style accounting." :biggrin1:

 

[fuji]

The IPCC's erroneous predictions cover a period of more than 35 years.

And yet the rolling thirty year average temperature was higher in each of those years than the year before. It's undeniable that the climate is warming, and per the Nature study, undeniable that we are warming it.

Your strategy is to try and ignore that fundamental truth by nitpicking more minor predictions in the hopes of creating the illusion of debate.

So let me disillusion you: it's a proven fact that CO2 emissions warm the planet and an observed fact that the climate is getting warmer.

 

[Frankfooter]

NASA said the temperature increase in 2015 was 0.13C.

They still do.
2014's temp is 0.74ºC and 2015's is 0.87ºC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Not only did you lose the bet, you lost your attempt at 'Enron style math'.
Total failure.

And please stop using old copies of the NASA chart, the bet specified we'd use the live and constantly updated chart published by NASA.

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.

 

[K Douglas]

Climate is literally defined as the average temperature ovary thirty years. That's the definition. Temperature has risen over EVERY thirty year period. Over shorter periods effects like El Niño can hide the trend.

I know what the definition of climate is I don't need you to tell me. Temperature has risen over EVERY 30 year period you say? I'm assuming you are referring to the period since 1880 correct? Well let's look at that period shall we. From 1880-1910 global temperatures fell. From 1910-1945 they rose quite significantly. From 1945-1979 they fell again. From 1979-1998 they rose again quite significantly. Since then they have leveled off. Care to revise your statement fuji?

 

[fuji]

I know what the definition of climate is I don't need you to tell me. Temperature has risen over EVERY 30 year period you say? I'm assuming you are referring to the period since 1880 correct? Well let's look at that period shall we. From 1880-1910 global temperatures fell. From 1910-1945 they rose quite significantly. From 1945-1979 they fell again. From 1979-1998 they rose again quite significantly. Since then they have leveled off. Care to revise your statement fuji?

Obviously not going back to 1880, I was responding to MF and talking about the specific 35 year time period he was talking about.

I posted the numbers I'm talking about on the previous thread:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5561247&viewfull=1#post5561247

The climate is clearly warming, and CO2 is clearly a major reason why.

 

[Frankfooter]

I know what the definition of climate is I don't need you to tell me. Temperature has risen over EVERY 30 year period you say? I'm assuming you are referring to the period since 1880 correct? Well let's look at that period shall we. From 1880-1910 global temperatures fell. From 1910-1945 they rose quite significantly. From 1945-1979 they fell again. From 1979-1998 they rose again quite significantly. Since then they have leveled off. Care to revise your statement fuji?

Check the chart on NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Can you really look at that chart and claim that it doesn't show an increase in temperature?

 

[Moviefan-2]

They still do.
2014's temp is 0.74ºC and 2015's is 0.87ºC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Not only did you lose the bet, you lost your attempt at 'Enron style math'.
Total failure.

And please stop using old copies of the NASA chart, the bet specified we'd use the live and constantly updated chart published by NASA.

The 0.83 number that you love to cite comes from "old copies" of the graph. The bet was a minimum increase in 2015 of 0.15C over 2014 -- on your Karl-adjusted graph, that means the bet was 0.89C.

Since you're not good with numbers, let me help you out: 0.87 is less than 0.89.

Sorry, Enron Boy, but the only way you can make the accounting work is to accept the inconvenient truth about who actually won the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

The 0.83 number that you love to cite comes from "old copies" of the graph. The bet was a minimum increase in 2015 of 0.15C over 2014 -- on your Karl-adjusted graph, that means the bet was 0.89C.

Nope, you're lying.
The bet was on the live chart posted here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The numbers you quote are not on that chart anymore, they are totally irrelevant to the bet, since the bet was only on the number that NASA published as the 2015 anomaly at the site specified in the bet below.

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 for the 'Enron challenged', 0.89ºC is definitely more then the 0.83ºC we bet on.
Click on the link you picked, read and weep.
You lost.