25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Frankfooter]

I blame the media. In the rush to present every single motherfucking thing as a 2-sided issue, they have failed to point out that the "other side" is wholesale bullshit. It's the same fucking failure to inform that allowed the tobacco companies to obfuscate the connection between their product and cancer for decades after countless peer reviewed studies showed it to be there. But since they had money, lobbyists and snazzy spokespeople, their lies received equal time with the opposing "opinion" (i.e., fact) time and again. So yeah. The media. And stupid people.

Exactly.

Its amazing how stupid some people can be to totally fall for dishonest lobbyists.


Speaking of bets, looks like moviefan2 is going to be losing.
May 2015 GISS is out and its at the level at which I win, at month 5 of this year we are already breaking temperature records.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.08°C (0.14°F).

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505

Moviefan2 is a sucker and a loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Exactly.

Its amazing how stupid some people can be to totally fall for dishonest lobbyists.


Speaking of bets, looks like moviefan2 is going to be losing.
May 2015 GISS is out and its at the level at which I win, at month 5 of this year we are already breaking temperature records.


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505

Moviefan2 is a sucker and a loser.

We only have results for the first five months of the year and already Groggy/Franky is spinning lies to try to weasel out of the bet.

The bet was on NASA's numbers, not the NOAA numbers (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5249502&viewfull=1#post5249502). NASA shows the first five months of 2015 being no warmer than the first five months of 2010:

http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html

 

[Frankfooter]

We only have results for the first five months of the year and already is spinning lies to try to weasel out of the bet.

The bet was on NASA's numbers, not the NOAA numbers (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5249502&viewfull=1#post5249502). NASA shows the first five months of 2015 being no warmer than the first five months of 2010:

http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html

Weasel out?
Hardly, here I am to remind you that you are losing.

I quite enjoy the Guardian's chart of global temperature, depressing as it is.

 

[MrAndersonNEO]

It's all lies....

 

[Moviefan-2]

Weasel out?
Hardly, here I am to remind you that you are losing.

NASA's numbers -- which is what we bet on -- show me winning.

 

[Frankfooter]

NASA's numbers -- which is what we bet on -- show me winning.

I'm not worried in the least, NASA's numbers aren't that far off NOAA's (whose analysis is much clearer).
For instance, according to NOAA from March 2014-2015 I would have already won the bet with their numbers and we are just now heading into a moderate El Nino.

Together, the record warm March and May and fourth warmest April made the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for the March–May period (austral autumn / boreal spring) the highest on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of March–May 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The Northern Hemisphere had its warmest spring on record and the Southern Hemisphere had its second warmest autumn, behind 2010.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505

Shall we up the bet a bit more if you are still confident?
How about adding a film to the books.

You willing to watch this one?

 

[onthebottom]

I find this an interesting debate because no one is willing to outline a plan for resolving the issue - most proposals are modest incremental regulations targeted at "bad guy" industries or activities.

If your car has more than 4 cylinders or you live in more than 2,500 sqft you don't really believe in global warming.

 

[FAST]

I find this an interesting debate because no one is willing to outline a plan for resolving the issue - most proposals are modest incremental regulations targeted at "bad guy" industries or activities.

If your car has more than 4 cylinders or you live in more than 2,500 sqft you don't really believe in global warming.

Good point,...but its not really debating for the looney left,...its just more anti,... free enterprise,...free countries,...democracy,...capitalism,...people who work hard,...people who don't expect hand outs,...small governments,....or anybody who makes more than a teacher,...

Solutions are of no interest to the looney left,...just doom and gloom,...

Not one of the looney left here post about anything positive,...because unless free enterprise and democracy is crushed,...they won't be happy.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Good point,...but its not really debating for the looney left,...its just more anti,... free enterprise,...free countries,...democracy,...capitalism,...people who work hard,...people who don't expect hand outs,...small governments,....or anybody who makes more than a teacher,...

Solutions are of no interest to the looney left,...just doom and gloom,...

Not one of the looney left here post about anything positive,...because unless free enterprise and democracy is crushed,...they won't be happy.

FAST

There are quite a few solutions that we should be working towards.
Almost none of them will be pleasant, but either will climate change.

Outlawing the burning of coal outright.
Bring back subsidies for retrofits for energy efficiency.
Add carbon taxes.
More subsidies for wind/solar, which are already about as cheap as fossil fuels.

The biggest hardest one that nobody will talk about is population.
Recycling your paper bags and even biking instead of driving is a drop in the bucket of saving compared to the energy needs of adding a large family to the planet, and all their subsequent generations.

But we could do quite a bit with the first four suggestions as a start.

 

[nobody123]

Good point,...but its not really debating for the looney left,...its just more anti,... free enterprise,...free countries,...democracy,...capitalism,...people who work hard,...people who don't expect hand outs,...small governments,....or anybody who makes more than a teacher,...

Solutions are of no interest to the looney left,...just doom and gloom,...

Not one of the looney left here post about anything positive,...because unless free enterprise and democracy is crushed,...they won't be happy.

FAST

Are you just a tumbler of random Sara Palin catchphrases, or is there an actual human being typing these words?

 

[FAST]

Outed

Are you just a tumbler of random Sara Palin catchphrases, or is there an actual human being typing these words?

If you are looking for an apology for centering you out,...not going to happen,...live with it,...you earned it.

FAST

 

[nobody123]

If you are looking for an apology for centering you out,...not going to happen,...live with it,...you earned it.

I'm far more amused by your characterisation of people like Ahnold Schwarzenegger, Tim Pawlenty, and the motherfucking Pope as screeching communists. (well, to be fair, the Pope does seem to care about the poor too so I suppose that makes him a rabid Marxist)

 

[onthebottom]

There are quite a few solutions that we should be working towards.
Almost none of them will be pleasant, but either will climate change.

Outlawing the burning of coal outright.
Bring back subsidies for retrofits for energy efficiency.
Add carbon taxes.
More subsidies for wind/solar, which are already about as cheap as fossil fuels.

The biggest hardest one that nobody will talk about is population.
Recycling your paper bags and even biking instead of driving is a drop in the bucket of saving compared to the energy needs of adding a large family to the planet, and all their subsequent generations.

But we could do quite a bit with the first four suggestions as a start.

None of this will have any impact, even the Germans couldn't get the shift to renewable to work.

What it will take is a fundamentally lower standard of living, and as long as those telling us to make sacrifices are flying in private jets I think their calls will go unanswered.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'm not worried in the least, NASA's numbers aren't that far off NOAA's (whose analysis is much clearer).

Believe whatever you want.

The important thing for me was to reaffirm that the bet was on NASA's numbers. I will keep this post bookmarked in case you try to weasel out of the bet in January.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Shall we up the bet a bit more if you are still confident?
How about adding a film to the books.

Not so fast.

Let's review your history when it comes to previous bets on this subject.

Last year, we made a bet about whether or not I could name three climate scientists at publicly funded, recognized universities who don't support the IPCC.

When I produced the three names, you had a temper tantrum and said it was unfair to say that you had lost the bet because -- according to you -- you hadn't actually read the terms of the bet (as if that gets you out of the bet).

We then made a bet about the IPCC's 2007 predictions. Last month, when I offered that bet to you again (not realizing at that time that Frankfooter and Groggy are the same person), you pretended to be unaware of the bet and weaseled out of it (see pages 3 and 4 of this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-The-Global-Warming-%91Tipping-Point%92/page3).

So, you refused to accept that you lost the first bet and you weaseled out of the second one because you knew you were going to lose.

Based on your history, why would I agree to up the ante?

I am very confident that I will win the bet. However, now that I know who you are, I don't have any confidence that you'll actually pay up when you lose the bet.

 

[FAST]

I'm far more amused by your characterisation of people like Ahnold Schwarzenegger, Tim Pawlenty, and the motherfucking Pope as screeching communists. (well, to be fair, the Pope does seem to care about the poor too so I suppose that makes him a rabid Marxist)

HEY,...those are your heroes,...a mediocre actor,...a politician,...and a fanatic religious dictator,...who as your comrade says,...is one of the worlds biggest contributors to man made C02.
But they would make a strong case for the wrong people to put any faith in to correcting any problems of the world,...good choices.
And,...you forgot Al Gore and Bono.

And where in that post did I mention communists in that post,... just confirms your preoccupation with an unworkable economic system, and confirms why you are anti Canadian.

FAST

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'm far more amused by your characterisation of people like Ahnold Schwarzenegger, Tim Pawlenty, and the motherfucking Pope as screeching communists. (well, to be fair, the Pope does seem to care about the poor too so I suppose that makes him a rabid Marxist)

Eh, the Pope is no motherfucker, but if you meant that he's awesome, that's OK then.

 

[nobody123]

Eh, the Pope is no motherfucker, but if you meant that he's awesome, that's OK then.

I kinda like New Pope (TM), so I suppose I do mean it in the Miles Davis sense of the term. (That motherfucker is a motherfucker! Now, that Old Pope motherfucker... motherfucker was just a motherfucker!)

 

[Frankfooter]

Not so fast.

Let's review your history when it comes to previous bets on this subject.

Last year, we made a bet about whether or not I could name three climate scientists at publicly funded, recognized universities who don't support the IPCC.

When I produced the three names, you had a temper tantrum and said it was unfair to say that you had lost the bet because -- according to you -- you hadn't actually read the terms of the bet (as if that gets you out of the bet).

We then made a bet about the IPCC's 2007 predictions. Last month, when I offered that bet to you again (not realizing at that time that Frankfooter and Groggy are the same person), you pretended to be unaware of the bet and weaseled out of it (see pages 3 and 4 of this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-The-Global-Warming-%91Tipping-Point%92/page3).

I have no idea what you are on about.
Keep your old bets to yourself.

This is our bet.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530

I am very confident that I will win the bet. However, now that I know who you are, I don't have any confidence that you'll actually pay up when you lose the bet.

You are just looking for excuses, you know you are losing and will lose this bet.
Chickenshit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I have no idea what you are on about.
Keep your old bets to yourself.

My "old" bets were only from last year and they were with you. You lost one and you weaseled out of the second one because you knew you were going to lose.

The lies in your response prove I have very good reason to think you'll welch on this one, too.

This is our bet.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530

You are just looking for excuses, you know you are losing and will lose this bet.
Chickenshit.

You are clearly innumerate. That's the only answer I can come up with to explain why you think you're winning the bet.

To be honest, I don't give a damn what you think. The only reason I responded to your post from yesterday was to put you on notice that you're not going to fool anyone if you try to replace the NASA numbers with NOAA numbers.