25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Moviefan-2]

Which is why moviefan keeps trying to end the bet early.

In fact, it was you -- not me -- who bumped the thread. I had no issues with waiting until the end of the year.

That said, I have been very clear with you -- I don't want to waste my time arguing with you over the numbers until it's time for me to collect on the bet. If you want to me to go through the numbers with you, you first have to agree to settle up.

But all you want to do is huff and puff. When you're challenged to put up or shut up, you go scurrying back under the blankets.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's the ultimate display of cowardice.

Last month, Frankfooter hinted he might be willing to settle up, but only if he thought the numbers showed him winning. He wanted me to commit to settling up while keeping the option for himself of possibly settling at a later time.

If the anomaly goes up to 0.83ºC for the year to date in a week and a bit when they release Oct's numbers, will you still be willing to settle early?

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5365483#post5365483

What a chicken.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's the ultimate display of cowardice.

Last month, Frankfooter hinted he might be willing to settle up, but only if he thought the numbers showed him winning. He wanted me to commit to settling up while keeping the option for himself of possibly settling at a later time.



https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5365483#post5365483

What a chicken.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

Its really quite typical of your thinking, this claim I am a 'chicken' for not settling a bet early while you are barely winning.

Just as you are totally confused about climate change, you confuse being a chicken with being a sucker.
Only a sucker would settle a bet early at a loss when the trend is going towards him winning.

Just like you are a sucker for the denier bullshit you post here.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its really quite typical of your thinking, this claim I am a 'chicken' for not settling a bet early while you are barely winning.

Funny enough, you have no objections to settling early if I allow you to extract the 2015 anomaly from a completely different data set than the one we bet on.

Here are a couple of examples:

If you'd like to settle now using the average of NOAA and NASA's published temperatures for 2015 to date, I'd be happy.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5363791&viewfull=1#post5363791

Shall we go with the only published and confirmed global temperature readings for the year to date?
That would be NOAA.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5364058&viewfull=1#post5364058

The only published year to date numbers are from NOAA, so if you want to settle off those we can pick the books you're going to read tomorrow.
S'ok?

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5402347&viewfull=1#post5402347

What kind of person thinks we should settle a bet using entirely different data than the data that we bet on?

A total coward. There is no other way to describe it.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Frankfooter]

Funny enough, you have no objections to settling early if I allow you to extract the 2015 anomaly from a completely different data set than the one we bet on.
.

Completely different?
NASA and NOAA's numbers are very similar.
As NASA says on their website:

relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Unfortunately NASA doesn't publish a year to date figure, so if you want one you have to use NOAA's numbers.
And remember the bet?

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.

This was all based on your claim that the IPCC's predictions were 'spectacularly wrong'.
Like this one:

This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3ºC before
the end of the next century

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Funny how we hit the 1ºC anomaly this year, 10 years ahead of schedule, and you still claim there is no warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Unfortunately NASA doesn't publish a year to date figure, so if you want one you have to use NOAA's numbers.

And the attempts to use a completely different data set continue.

Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny how we hit the 1ºC anomaly this year, 10 years ahead of schedule, and you still claim there is no warming.

OMG!!! He's at it again.

He now claims the 1ºC increase came in "10 years ahead of schedule." But the 1ºC increase predicted in the 1990 IPCC report he cited (on the first page of the executive summary) was "above the present value," meaning the IPCC was predicting a temperature in 2025 that would be 1ºC greater than the temperature in 1990.

However, the 1ºC increase that has been reported in the news was from the "pre-industrial age" to now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperatures-one-degree-celsius-1.3310733

This is not a careless slip-up or an oversight. It's the exact same claim Frankfooter made last week in another thread -- that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990:

1ºC = 1/4 of 4ºC (median worst case scenario).
25 years (1990-2015) = 1/4 of the 100 year projection timeline.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

He genuinely believes the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago! :Eek:

What a total nutjob.

 

[Frankfooter]

OMG!!! He's at it again.

He now claims the 1ºC increase came in "10 years ahead of schedule." But the 1ºC increase predicted in the 1990 IPCC report he cited (on the first page of the executive summary) was "above the present value," meaning the IPCC was predicting a temperature in 2025 that would be 1ºC greater than the temperature in 1990.

Fail.

Boy are you stupid.

At the bottom of page XXII (22 for FAST), there is a chart that shows their projections.
The legend for the chart says:

Figure 8: Simulation of the increase in global mean temperature from 1850-1990 due to observed increases in greenhouse gases, and
predictions of the rise between 1990 and 2100 resulting from the Business-as-Usual emissions

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

The IPCC uses the base 1850-1990 dates as their 'present values' zero point as is shown on their chart.

We are one quarter of the way through their projection period, starting 1990, though the zero point of their data is based on the 1850-1990 average global temperature. You can say that there was a head start of fifty years in their projections, if you like.

But as for this one:

He genuinely believes the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago!

That's just fucking stupid.

 

[K Douglas]

You guys can't agree on the parameters of a bet yet you feel it constructive to debate each other to death about causes of climate change. MF2 you must enjoy beating your head against a brick wall to continue on with this clown.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC uses the base 1850-1990 dates as their 'present values' zero point as is shown on their chart.

The "pre-industrial age" baseline is the period from 1850 to 1900, not 1990: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperatures-one-degree-celsius-1.3310733

Idiot.

You guys can't agree on the parameters of a bet yet you feel it constructive to debate each other to death about causes of climate change. MF2 you must enjoy beating your head against a brick wall to continue on with this clown.

Trust me, the parameters of the bet were crystal clear.

Of course, I won't dispute the fact that Frankfooter is going to welch on the bet. I predicted as much back in June, once I realized that Frankfooter is really Groggy.

It doesn't matter.

I made the bet to show that I could confidently bet against the IPCC because its predictions have been so spectacularly wrong.

Regardless of whatever temper tantrum Frankfooter throws in the new year, the bragging rights will be all mine. I will confirm once and for all that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, as many of us have been saying.

 

[Frankfooter]

The "pre-industrial age" baseline is the period from 1850 to 1900, not 1990:

Great, then we agree.
The baseline is the 1850-1900 average temperature used in the 1990 projections.

I made the bet to show that I could confidently bet against the IPCC because its predictions have been so spectacularly wrong.

Regardless of whatever temper tantrum Frankfooter throws in the new year, the bragging rights will be all mine. I will confirm once and for all that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, as many of us have been saying.

This is really fucking amusing.

Right now the IPCC projections, and the bet, are 0.01ºC off, with two months to go.
Yet you continue to claim that this is 'spectacularly wrong'.

0.01ºC over a twenty year projection.

Its really, quite impressively accurate.
Are you really going to brag that the IPCC was only 0.01ºC off of their projections, should the trend stop and I lose?

That's just pathetic.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Great, then we agree.
The baseline is the 1850-1900 average temperature used in the 1990 projections.

Right. And the 1ºC increase over that baseline was over the past 135 years -- not the past 25 years, as you keep stating.

This year is on track to be a record 1 degree Celsius hotter than the average temperature during the late 19th century....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperatures-one-degree-celsius-1.3310733

The 1ºC increase is the difference between the average in the late 19th century and the temperature now, not the difference from 1990 to 2015.

Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is really fucking amusing.

Little coward, this has been explained to you numerous times. We'll go through the numbers when you agree to settle up. Until then, I'm not interested in your delusional blather.

And let's not kid each other. You're going to welch on the bet, the same way you welched on the first two.

 

[Frankfooter]

Little coward, this has been explained to you numerous times. We'll go through the numbers when you agree to settle up.

In other words, you've been shamed and will shut up for a few days.
Or so we can hope.

 

[canada-man]

 

[Frankfooter]

Hey Moviefan,

Its almost christmas eve.
Tell you what, I'll be generous and offer to buy the first book, the Michael Mann book, if you admit you were wrong and lost the bet.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
But you have to read it and review it here.

The second book is on you.

 

[FAST]

Will he ever STFUP ?

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Will he ever STFUP ?

FAST

As soon as moviefan admits he lost the bet and pays up.
Maybe you can convince him.

Moviefan bet that the 2015 global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, now that its 0.84ºC by his choice of metrics, NASA, all he does is whine about how they changed 1995's numbers.
The bet was about 2015 and he lost.

Tell him to buy the Michael Mann book.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558

 

[FAST]

Tell him to buy the Michael Mann book.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558

Depends on whether or not moviefan likes fiction.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Depends on whether or not moviefan likes fiction.

FAST

Moviefan, like you, has a hard time telling fact from fiction.
That's why the both of you are suckers for the spin from fossil fuel lobbyists.