25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
First things first. I'm going to require some evidence that you have changed.
You need to publicly apologize for welching on the two previous bets on global warming. If you apologize for that, I'll accept the increased ante.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
This is the bet we have made, are you trying to weasel out of it?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530
Bullshit.
Dream on. I've already picked the second book that you're going to be reviewing in 2016.
The NOAA-adjusted bet between MF-2 and Frankfooter
Sadly, with all the Obama-driven revisionism that's been going on with NOAA's and NASA's temperature anomalies, we are left with no choice but to revisit the bet that Frankfooter and I made in May about the year-end anomaly for 2015.
A quick bit of history.
In a debate about how the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, I offered to bet Frankfooter on the IPCC's predictions. After a great deal of back and forth, we settled on a bet that was based on NASA's year-end anomaly for 2014 of 0.68 degrees C (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/).
Using the low end of the IPCC predictions of at least 0.2 degrees C increases per decade, Frankfooter bet me the year-end anomaly for 2015 would be a minimum of 0.83 degrees C -- a 0.4 degrees C increase over the 1995 anomaly of 0.43 degrees C.
Given that his bet represented a year-over-year increase of 0.15 degrees C over 2014, I happily took the bet.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-The-Global-Warming-%91Tipping-Point%92/page5
Everything was going along fine, until the American NOAA rewrote all of the temperature figures to please the Obama administration. Using spurious methodology, NOAA rewrote the numbers to create the false impression the Earth's temperature has been warming in the 21st century (it hasn't).
While the adjustments were to the NOAA figures, NASA uses the NOAA's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset for its calculations and has now rewritten all of the numbers that were the basis for the bet: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
The new NASA numbers look like this:
-- 1995 anomaly: 0.45 degrees C.
-- 2014 anomaly: 0.75 degrees C.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....asa-data-shows-june-2015-tied-as-warmest.html
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.
If Frankfooter wants to accept the revised number, the bet continues.
Otherwise, due to the NOAA's monkey business, the bet must be quashed.
Sadly, with all the Obama-driven revisionism that's been going on with NOAA's and NASA's temperature anomalies, we are left with no choice but to revisit the bet that Frankfooter and I made in May about the year-end anomaly for 2015.
A quick bit of history.
In a debate about how the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, I offered to bet Frankfooter on the IPCC's predictions. After a great deal of back and forth, we settled on a bet that was based on NASA's year-end anomaly for 2014 of 0.68 degrees C (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/).
Using the low end of the IPCC predictions of at least 0.2 degrees C increases per decade, Frankfooter bet me the year-end anomaly for 2015 would be a minimum of 0.83 degrees C -- a 0.4 degrees C increase over the 1995 anomaly of 0.43 degrees C.
Given that his bet represented a year-over-year increase of 0.15 degrees C over 2014, I happily took the bet.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-The-Global-Warming-%91Tipping-Point%92/page5
Everything was going along fine, until the American NOAA rewrote all of the temperature figures to please the Obama administration. Using spurious methodology, NOAA rewrote the numbers to create the false impression the Earth's temperature has been warming in the 21st century (it hasn't).
While the adjustments were to the NOAA figures, NASA uses the NOAA's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset for its calculations and has now rewritten all of the numbers that were the basis for the bet: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
The new NASA numbers look like this:
-- 1995 anomaly: 0.45 degrees C.
-- 2014 anomaly: 0.75 degrees C.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....asa-data-shows-june-2015-tied-as-warmest.html
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.
If Frankfooter wants to accept the revised number, the bet continues.
Otherwise, due to the NOAA's monkey business, the bet must be quashed.
No, you didn't add any qualifiers about NOAA refining their methodology, you are just trying to weasel out of a bet you just lost.
In fact, you tried to change the bet from the original NASA numbers to NOAA's numbers through the bet.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530
You agreed to the terms, trying to change them now is cheating.
You have now lost the bet.
:closed_2:
I will choose the book and you can buy it now, or if you want to extend your punishment in the hopes of your solar mini ice age or more 'natural variation' working your way I can continue to make fun of you for the rest of the year.
Your choice, but weaselling out of your bet is not an option.
Thats cheating.
Wrong. I did include a provision that the numbers had to be based on that 2014 chart (the one using ERSSTv3b):
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530
NASA is no longer using that chart for its calculations: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
Sorry, Groggy, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
I have actually given you a chance to reduce your predicted temperature increase by more than 26%. I'm not going any further than that.
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.
Somebody's been hitting the sauce again. Why would I have wanted to switch to the NOAA's numbers, which were higher??? :Eek:
I never did any such thing.
I think you need to consider AA.
Oh, poor whiny boy.
I'll tell you what, you are now accusing NASA of 'Enron-style accounting'. You are accusing the agency that just sent a probe to Pluto within 72 seconds of their prediction of fraud.
Since you just accused NASA of fraud, you are going to have to prove this or admit that you are wrong and just trying to weasel out of a bet you were losing and knew you were going to lose. You've already been shown to have lied about two census reports and lied about the accuracy of another IPCC chart. The only one here whose credibility is on the line is yours.
Prove that NASA is committing Enron style fraud or just accept that you are losing the bet.
It is funny how we have stopped listening to geographers and only listen to economists. This argument is no longer a scientific one but really a psychological one. Deniers don't want to change and will screw over everyone in an attempt to maintain what they have. I have traveled to Saskatchewan many times and have never met a farmer who does not believe in climate change. Its simple people who live in their urban bubbles don't want those bubbles burst by talk of reality. We live in an urban world with man made rules and are taught that we rule the planet....well we don't. Hey look I have no kids and I am getting old, I should be arguing for the other side. But its your children's future....and what happens to them will be your fault. I really hope the children of deniers can deal with reality better then you can.
How about I start by teaching you the meaning of the word, "metaphor"?
The proposed bet on NASA's new ERSST v.4 chart is 0.86 degrees C by the end of 2015.
Take it or leave it. You have until the end of the weekend to decide.
I notice you completely ignore the other thread where I completely debunked your 'spectacularly wrong' claims.
Don't be so self-absorbed. I don't spend all day on the computer.
In any event, your "completely debunked" claim is a little over the top. You haven't debunked anything at all.
Last edited:
The why did you flee from the other thread where you posted this graph?
Also worth noting is the graph carefully omits the data from 2012 to 2014.
2012 had a +0.6 variation. Well in the middle of the projections.
2013 also had a +0.6 temperature variation. Dead center of the predictions.
2014 was +0.68 which puts it slightly above the central projections.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/
Seems your "spectacularly wrong" description is spectacularly wrong.
Seems to me that except for the year 2000, the the error bars of the observations fit into the projections for the past 15 years or so....
IPCC:
....
Also worth noting is the graph carefully omits the data from 2012 to 2014.
2012 had a +0.6 variation. Well in the middle of the projections.
2013 also had a +0.6 temperature variation. Dead center of the predictions.
2014 was +0.68 which puts it slightly above the central projections.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/
Seems your "spectacularly wrong" description is spectacularly wrong.
If its just a 'metaphor' then you have no claim.
They adjusted the calculations to make them more accurate, and now the are more in line with others.
That works to my favour, but its no excuse for you to demand to change the bet, you just want to change the bet because you're losing.
You've been caught lying about 2 census papers and lying about the predictions in one chart.
Are you going to continue this dishonest pattern by trying to weasel out of this bet?
The bet stands, you have no excuse for trying to weasel out of it.
I'm not sure why you're throwing in the "conspiracy" language -- the graph was created by the IPCC.
You measure the accuracy by judging the observed data against the average of the models that the IPCC uses for its predictions (eg., the 0.2 degrees C per decade prediction in the IPCC's 2007 report). There haven't been any results in the 21st century that come anywhere close to the IPCC's predictions.
If you want to look at how the data compare against individual models, that is fine. But you have to understand that not every model's predictions covers the full range in the colours displayed in that graph.
In fact, as I have pointed out before, the University of Hamburg compared the observed results against each one of the models' predictions, and found less than 2% of the models predicted the current temperature trends. The models have a 98% failure rate.
(By the way, I think you have the decimals in the wrong spot in your calculations of the variations.)
I want to thank you for publicly acknowledging that you're being dishonest. I'm sure there are many TERB members who wish you would acknowledge such things a little more often.
Let's be clear on this: Since you fully acknowledge that the numbers in the graph have been "adjusted" upwards, that is exactly why the bet should also be adjusted.
I made a generous offer to update the bet so that it aligns with the "adjusted" numbers in the new graph. Take it or leave it.
Fine. I'm sick of your crap.
Since you insist we're sticking with the bet on the ERSSTv3b graph, then that's what we'll go with.
NASA has announced that there will be no further updates to the ESSRTv3b graph (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/). Thus, we don't have to wait. We can settle up now.
The final calculation for 2015 on the ESSRTv3b graph was an average of 0.766 degrees celsius for 2015: http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html
You bet on a minimum final of 0.83 degrees celsius on the ESSRTv3b graph.
You lost.
Here are the two books that you are to read and review:
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chang...8350&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+change+the+facts
http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html
Since the second book is a pre-order, I'm going to assume you'll be reviewing the other one first. I look forward to your reviews.
Nope, we bet on the global temperature for the year of 2015, weasel, bets not done until the end of the year unless you're ready to concede defeat already.
Nice try.
Same chart, new and improved calculations that are more accurate.
