I still don't think you know what the word "conspiracy" means.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
I'm not sure about "nefarious", either. Let's go with blatantly political, instead.
Final decision - Frankfooter lost the bet on global warming
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
I'm not sure about "nefarious", either. Let's go with blatantly political, instead.
It looks like there is some good news to report about Frankfooter's memory.Poll results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?548822-Poll-who-has-won-the-global-warming-bet
Time to pay up, Frankie.
Frankfooter has spent months claiming he can't remember ever posting as "Groggy". But if the posts in Smallcock's thread are accurate, it looks like Franky remembers being Groggy, after all.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5431364#post5431364Groggy also voted for frankfooter
It's like a Christmas miracle. :amen:
The bet is easily verified.You two are something else, huh? You're both convinced you're right when you're both wrong. Your justifications for why the data supports your claims are biased by your viewpoints. The bet is unverifiable and therefore should be annulled.
The data is published by NASA, moviefan made the bet based on NASA data but then whined about it 'changing' and now refuses to pay up.
The data is right here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And the numbers show I won the bet, the global anomaly hit 0.83ºC.
Moviefan is just whining.
Of course every month is higher, that's global warming.By the way, I did a side by side comparison of the data sets for the months from January 2012 to May 2015 (the last month for which data exists on the old graph).
Every month is higher on the new graph.
That's why you lost the bet, loser.
Here's why you are whining.
You personally picked NASA as the data source, that was your choice of NOAA, the MET and NASA.
That was your choice.
Now you are whining because they updated their methods, something they have been doing continually for years.
This is the bet:
The reference point you chose now says you lost the bet.If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Time for you to stop whining and pay up.
Loser.
Yup.In victory there is generosity, in defeat there is dignity. Neither betters show these virtues. This bet makes both of you guys look like asshats, regardless of who won or lost.
Oy vey.Of course every month is higher, that's global warming.
The numerical increases from one data set to the other were due to a change in the methodology used for calculating sea surface temperatures.
It had nothing to do with "warming" or any actual change in the temperature.
Oh I've offered to take it easy on him and let him buy the two books he owes on boxing day sales, but moviefan needs to admit he lost first, instead of whining about his referee of choice, NASA.In victory there is generosity, in defeat there is dignity. Neither betters show these virtues. This bet makes both of you guys look like asshats, regardless of who won or lost.
I can't be generous until he at least admits he was wrong.
Another typical statement.It had nothing to do with "warming" or any actual change in the temperature.
Hey, why not a review of some of your finest work.
Maybe not. NASA has it lower and we did agree that we would use the NASA stats to decide the winner.
I'm satisfied with the existing terms of the bet and continue to like my odds. I'll stick with the bet as is.
The fact that most of the warmest temperatures (according to NASA and NOAA) have been in this century merely reflect the fact that the plateau was reached at about the turn of the century.
NASA says the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" over the past 15 years. If you think NASA has it wrong, say so.
The graph does not show any statistically significant increase for the past 15 years. Indeed, NASA -- which produced the graph -- describes that period as "flattening."
I agree with NASA on this point -- a statistically meaningless change of only 0.02 degrees Celsius over 10 years can definitely be described as a "flattening" of temperatures.
2014 was no warmer than 2005
Furthermore, the period from 1940 to the late 1970s shows there was a slight cooling in the Earth's temperature
The satellite data -- which are considered to be more reliable -- show there has been no statistically significant warming since December 1996.
More to the point, I told Frank that I want to see evidence.
Lying about studies:-- Misleading statements about 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century being the warmest on record. While it may be true that temperatures in the 21st century are consistent with the plateau at the end of the 20th century, it isn't evidence of increasing warming.
For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.
As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.
In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
.
Those quotes show that you picked NASA and supported the work of NASA up until you started losing the bet.No.
That's not what the study found, they said:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.
Then you started lying, just like you started lying about those two studies quoted above.
Time for you to own up, moviefan.
You bet that the global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC for 2015 and now its 0.84ºC.
You lost the bet.
First book you have to buy is Michael Mann's book on the Hockey Stick.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
From NASA:Regrettably, NASA's reporting standards got rather shaky along the way. In July, NASA announced that it was switching to a completely different data set than the one we bet on, due to some controversial changes to the sea surface temperature records provided by the NOAA.
Its not a 'completely different data set'."Major improvements include updated and substantially more complete input data from the ICOADS Release 2.5, revised Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections (EOTs) and EOT acceptance criterion, updated sea surface temperature (SST) quality control procedures, revised SST anomaly (SSTA) evaluation methods, revised low-frequency data filing in data sparse regions using nearby available observations, updated bias adjustments of ship SSTs using Hadley Nighttime Marine Air Temperature version 2 (HadNMAT2), and buoy SST bias adjustments not previously made in v3b."
That's a total lie, all they did was improve the way they used the data. They don't come up with the data, after all, that comes from weather stations, all they did was improve their use of the data that's coming in.
Which is something they are doing continually.
But poor whiny moviefan, he thinks that science should stand still and never revise their work for the better.
Too bad you lost the bet, loser, but whiny about standard NASA practices is particularly whiny when you chose NASA as the metric.
You lost the bet.
You have to read the Michael Mann book.
Second book to be decided.
Changing historical data results in a DIFFERENT data set, no matter what "adjustments" were made - and anyone who has followed closely will know that their claimed justifications make no sense and only serve to artificially (not actually) produce the result they predetermined and advocate at great expense to the taxpayer.From NASA:
Its not a 'completely different data set'.
That's a total lie, all they did was improve the way they used the data. They don't come up with the data, after all, that comes from weather stations, all they did was improve their use of the data that's coming in.
Which is something they are doing continually.
The final numbers are in:Poll results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?548822-Poll-who-has-won-the-global-warming-bet
Time to pay up, Frankie.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?548822-Poll-who-has-won-the-global-warming-bet
Thanks to Smallcock for setting up the poll and to everyone who slogged through all the stats and voted.
Should redo the poll with a third option and let people vote on whether you are both losers.The final numbers are in:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?548822-Poll-who-has-won-the-global-warming-bet
Thanks to Smallcock for setting up the poll and to everyone who slogged through all the stats and voted.
Again, moviefan is lying, its the exact same data set, the only difference is weighting sea temps for bucket use in measurements.Changing historical data results in a DIFFERENT data set, no matter what "adjustments" were made - and anyone who has followed closely will know that their claimed justifications make no sense and only serve to artificially (not actually) produce the result they predetermined and advocate at great expense to the taxpayer.
Same data.
Its just one of many moviefan lies.
The final numbers.The final numbers are in:
Moviefan bets for 0.83ºC, anomaly hits 0.84ºC and the denier math sets in as moviefan declares 0.84 to be lower then 0.83
The international media disagree.its the exact same data set
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/s...evidence-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...bout-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-thing-as-the-global-warming-pause-now-what/
Very small number of votes for a terb poll, perhaps the majority thought you both lost.
Typical of you, isn't it?
Trying to use a poll to pretend you won a bet?
I'm sure that works wonders when you bet on Leaf's games.
As soon as you can get a poll that says that 0.84 is lower then 0.83 (though anything is possible on this board), then you might have an argument.
Until then, 0.84 is higher then 0.83 and you lost the bet.
Pay up, loser.
More likely, most people haven't bought into the fairy tale that global warming is some great existential threat to our planet.Very small number of votes for a terb poll, perhaps the majority thought you both lost.
As Rex Murphy recently noted, there was little cheering in the streets when the champagne set reached its allegedly "historic" deal to save the planet. People seemed far more interested in the new Star Wars movie.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-so-why-arent-we-celebrating-saving-the-planet
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
