25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Frankfooter]

Go back and read the thread. I didn't "refuse" anything.

I agreed to your proposal to make a bet based on the 1990 prediction (which we already know was wrong).

I also said I was willing to make a bet on the 2001 predictions that were based on Mann's work -- and I'm willing to set the end of this year as the end date (if you can figure out the math to set it for the end of 2014, then I'll happily take that bet).

I even said I would let you amend the 2007 prediction to use 2013 numbers, and let you lower the prediction to 0.15 degrees Celsius from 0.2 degrees Celsius (even though there was actually a significant increase in man-made CO2 emissions).

You don't want to make any of the discussed wagers because you know the IPCC's predictions are wrong. It's that simple.

Your bet was on the 0.2C prediction you read in the 2007 IPCC report.

You are now trying to change it to different numbers from a different report.
You are also only willing to take the bet from one cherry picked date, 2007.
You refuse to take it for years ending on 2014, 2015 or 2016.


You are trying to cheat your bet because you know you've lost.
Only one year works for you 2007.
Cherry picking.

Admit it.
The IPCC is right.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your bet was on the 0.2C prediction you read in the 2007 IPCC report.

You are now trying to change it to different numbers from a different report.

What????

The different numbers from a different report were proposed by you. I was being agreeable and was even willing to let you bet on an outcome that is well below what the IPCC actually predicted.

I don't blame you for not wanting to bet on the IPCC. Given how the IPCC is always spectacularly wrong, I think that is a wise decision.

I just wish you'd stop making false accusations against me as part of your process for backing out.

 

[Frankfooter]

Last year, I made a friendly bet with Groggy about the IPCC's predictions. As we all know, in the IPCC's AR4 report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by an average of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade:

I'll tell you what, Frankfooter -- if you want to make a bet about the IPCC predictions for the period from 1994 to 2014, that's fine with me.

But we use the 1990 predictions, which were made before any results for that period were known. Since the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf), that means you'll be betting that there was a 0.6 degrees Celsius increase from 1994 to 2014.

What????

The different numbers from a different report were proposed by you. I was being agreeable and was even willing to let you bet on an outcome that is well below what the IPCC actually predicted.

Sorry, it was you that tried to change the numbers.

Using the IPCC predictions which were based on a century but only using one cherry picking date, 2007-2017 is dishonest.
The only thing I'm changing is giving you three other possible dates that will come up earlier and increasing the range so that we are covering 3 decades, not the statistically irrelevant cherry picked decade you want to be to.

I'm back dating the bet only so that it includes three decades, which makes the bet terms closer to the IPCC predictions. Nowhere in the IPCC predictions did it say that every decade will be exactly 0.2ºC increases, they said over a century it will average out to 0.2ºC. Your bet is a dishonest cherry picking bet.

So go ahead, pick one of:
1984 for 3 decades
1985 for 3 decades
1986 for 3 decades

Remember, it still has to have that 0.2ºC increase average per decade, which is what the IPCC predicted?
I thought you were really positive that the IPCC will never be right.

Prove it.
Take the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So go ahead, pick one of:
1984 for 3 decades
1985 for 3 decades
1986 for 3 decades

Remember, it still has to have that 0.2ºC increase average per decade, which is what the IPCC predicted?
I thought you were really positive that the IPCC will never be right.

Prove it.
Take the bet.

The IPCC didn't make its first predictions until 1990. Sorry, but I don't put any stock in "predictions" about past results that are already known.

As for the IPCC's "business as usual" prediction in 1990, the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

If you want to make a bet on whether that prediction held up, I'm willing to take the bet (the IPCC also predicted an increase of at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade in its 2001 report).

As for the 2007 prediction of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, that was for the "next two decades": https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html.

I say that prediction was wrong.

If you want to bet against me, bet against me.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is incredibly generous of me, but I'm that kind of guy.

Even though the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade in 1990, I'll let you place a bet on the absolute bottom end of its uncertainly range and bet on 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The period will be from 1990 (when the predictions were made) to the end of 2015 -- in other words, a 0.5 degrees Celsius increase by the end of this year.

On your NASA graph, that means the result for 2015 will be over the 1.0 line.

You get no wiggle room, since I'm already letting you cut the IPCC's prediction by one-third. Anything under that 1.0 line at the end of this year and I win the bet.

Do we have a bet?

 

[Frankfooter]

Ok first.

As for the IPCC's "business as usual" prediction in 1990, the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/...r_wg_I_spm.pdf

WRONG!
(insert giant buzzer here).

This is what they really said:

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

So your bet should be for an increase of 1.0ºC by 2025, not 0.3ºC each and every decade.
That just shows either your dishonesty or your inability to read scientific papers.
I'll allow you to tell me which of those flaws you own.

Wrong.

(and as an aside, I would take the bet that we will have 1ºC global temp anomaly by 2025, since we're already at 0.8ºC now)

As for the 2007 prediction of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, that was for the "next two decades": https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html.

I say that prediction was wrong.

Then your bet needs to be from 2007 to 2027, otherwise you are not betting on the IPCC prediction.
Note they say in that report:

This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

Meaning that their predictions have been spectacularly accurate up to date and are likely to be spectacularly accurate in the future.

I don't want to take a bet that doesn't come to term for 12 years.
But I'll still take the three decade bet that comes to term next year or the year after:

Here are your offers:

So go ahead, pick one of:
1984 for 3 decades
1985 for 3 decades
1986 for 3 decades

Remember, it still has to have that 0.2ºC increase average per decade, which is what the IPCC predicted?
I thought you were really positive that the IPCC will never be right.

Prove it.
Take the bet.

What's the matter, will you only bet with your cherry picked date?
Chicken?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow.

Even when I agreed to Frankfooter's bet on 0.2 degrees Celsuis per decade increases, he still chickens out.

Frankfooter has no confidence in the IPCC's predictions because the IPCC has been spectacularly wrong.

I say I'm right and I'm willing to bet on it. Too bad Frankfooter will never take any of the bets that have been offered to him, because he knows he'll lose.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then your bet needs to be from 2007 to 2027, otherwise you are not betting on the IPCC prediction.

Naturally, you want a bet that can't be settled until 2027. Coward.

 

[Frankfooter]

Naturally, you want a bet that can't be settled until 2027. Coward.

I'm offering you two bets that will come to pass this year and the next year.
You're the chickenshit who's too afraid to take that bet.

Take one of these bets, that fall along the IPCC predictions:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

Why won't you take one of those bets that come up soon?
Why are you only willing to make a bet off of one year, 2007?

Its another chickenshit cherry picking date, isn't it?
You are only willing to make a bet based off of a record warm year, aren't you?
Its only because 2007 was the 10th warmest year on record?

You know you don't have a chance winning this bet unless you cherry pick your date.
Coward.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Take one of these bets, that fall along the IPCC predictions:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade.

I've been more than generous, in terms of letting you make bets that are well below what the IPCC actually predicted.

Here's my offer:

We start in 1985 for three decades, using the IPCC's 1990 prediction of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade.

We go with your preference for a 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade increase, starting in 1990 and finishing at the end of 2015.

Take your pick. The IPCC's 1990 prediction of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade was for the next century. It said nothing about starting the measurement in the 1980s. You can't have both a 1985 starting date and a one-third reduction in the IPCC's prediction.

Your choices are stated above. Make your pick.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its only because 2007 was the 10th warmest year on record?

It was the IPCC that released the report in 2007 and it was the IPCC that made the prediction. The timing had nothing to do with me.

All I have done is pointed out that it is spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've been more than generous, in terms of letting you make bets that are well below what the IPCC actually predicted.

Here's my offer:

We start in 1985 for three decades, using the IPCC's 1990 prediction of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade.

You still didn't tell me.
Are you dishonest or stupid?
The 1990 prediction was for an average increase of 0.3ºC, in an exponential curve, with it hitting 1ºC increase from the 1850-1990 average by 2025.

That is the bet to make, 1ºC increase by 2025, your bet is based off of either dishonesty or stupidity.

We go with your preference for a 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade increase, starting in 1990 and finishing at the end of 2015.

Oh look, more cherry picking.
Now it has be a 25 year period?
What's the matter, you afraid of making the bet even harder and using 3 decades?
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade.

You realize that your total reliance on you using either a) false claims from the IPCC or b) cherry picked dates shows how dishonest your argument is.

The problem is that the IPCC has been incredibly accurate, your claim only works off of one year.
Lame.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry, Frankfooter, but I'm only prepared to bet on actual predictions that have been made by the IPCC -- not things that exist in your imagination.

The IPCC never said anything about backdating its predictions to the 1980s. That is just something you made up because all of the IPCC's actual predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

I have provided you with opportunities to bet on the IPCC's actual predictions.

You can choose to bet or decline.

But I'm going to insist that the bet has to be based on actual predictions, not one of your fairy tales.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What's the matter, you afraid of making the bet even harder and using 3 decades?

Do you want to make the bet to 2020?

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you want to make the bet to 2020?

Are you trying to use new dates now?
I'm not interested in a 5 year long bet.

Take a bet that will finish up next year or the year after:
1985 - 2015, for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 - 2016, for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade.

What's the matter, are you spectacularly afraid of losing?
Aren't you totally sure that the IPCC could never be right?

Take the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you trying to use new dates now?
I'm not interested in a 5 year long bet.

Take a bet that will finish up next year or the year after:
1985 - 2015, for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 - 2016, for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade.

What's the matter, are you spectacularly afraid of losing?
Aren't you totally sure that the IPCC could never be right?

Take the bet.

I think we can draw some clear conclusions.

The IPCC made its first predictions in 1990. I have said I am willing to bet you on the IPCC's predictions.

However, you say that unless the "predictions" are backdated so that the tracking begins four or five years before the predictions were ever made, you won't take the bet because all of the IPCC's predictions will come up remarkably short.

Prove me wrong. Make me a bet on the IPCC's predictions that doesn't include a giveaway of four to five years' worth of results that the IPCC already knew at the time of the prediction.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What's the matter, you afraid of making the bet even harder and using 3 decades?

I'm not interested in a 5 year long bet.

Apparently, somebody is having troubles calculating three decades after 1990.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think we can draw some clear conclusions.

The IPCC made its first predictions in 1990. I have said I am willing to bet you on the IPCC's predictions.

However, you say that unless the "predictions" are backdated so that the tracking begins four or five years before the predictions were ever made, you won't take the bet because all of the IPCC's predictions will come up remarkably short.

Prove me wrong. Make me a bet on the IPCC's predictions that doesn't include a giveaway of four to five years' worth of results that the IPCC already knew at the time of the prediction.

Its not about 'backdating' the predictions.

You claim that the IPCC prediction of 0.2ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
That prediction was based on longer term time scale, all I'm doing is keeping the bet to the terms of the IPCC predictions.
I'll take a longer term prediction, and I'm saying I'm not interested in making a bet with you starting from 1990 because it doesn't come to term for another 5 years.

But I will take a bet that comes to term next year or the year after.
So lets use the IPCC's terms, the 0.2ºC per decade over 3 decades coming into term next year or the year after.

Tell you what, I'll go as far as this comprise for you.
Lets use 1996 - 2016 as our term for this bet?
That's two decades, the IPCC prediction you call spectacularly wrong, with an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade.

Will you take that bet?

What's the matter, too afraid you're going to lose?

 

[Frankfooter]

Apparently, somebody is having troubles calculating three decades after 1990.

Figure it out.
1990 + 30 years = 2020
Time span for the bet to come to term? 2020 - 2015 = 5 years.
The bet would take 5 years before I could collect my winnings, that's too long.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Tell you what, I'll go as far as this comprise for you.
Lets use 1996 - 2016 as our term for this bet?
That's two decades, the IPCC prediction you call spectacularly wrong, with an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade.

Will you take that bet?

Now, we're getting somewhere.

But the IPCC prediction at that time was made in 1995, not 1996.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?