Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter:

No matter how many times you try to say it, 83 km per hour and 83 mph are not the "exact same" speed.

And I noticed that you ignored the fact that you were blatantly lying about the NASA link.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter:

No matter how many times you try to say it, 83 km per hour and 83 mph are not the "exact same" speed.

And I noticed that you ignored the fact that you were blatantly lying about the NASA link.

We have been talking about 0.83ºC, not speed.
That was what the bet was made on.

You need to stop changing your story so often.
You agreed to the bet, then when NASA adjusted the weighting of the unchanged data, you tried to change it to 0.86ºC.
Now that is losing as well you are trying to change it to 0.89ºC, its getting ridiculous.

We bet on 0.83ºC and you agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after any changes at NASA.
You were even offered the chance to change the terms and you refused, again confirming that the original bet is the one that stands.


This was the bet:

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

And what do those numbers now read?

0.84ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop whining.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here is the graph we bet on: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

Here is NASA's July 2015 confirmation that the graph that now appears in the link is different than the one we bet on: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

Yes, they updated it.

If they didn't update the fucking graph we wouldn't be able to complete this bet, we'd be stuck looking at May's readings all year long.
That they updated the weighting of bucket uses during ocean measurements is immaterial, NASA constantly updated their techniques as noted in the FAQ, which you should have read. Do you also cancel bets on sports teams when one player gets injured or traded? NASA acted like NASA does, they warned you and you still made the bet.

 

[FAST]

A quote from NASA

Note: The graphics on this webpage were updated Jul 18, 2015, following discovery of a bug in our original handling of the ERSSTv4 data. See note on Updates to Analysis for this date.

So "updating", is the same as correcting a "bug", I don't think so.

And I'm sure NASA warned people that they would find a "bug".

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

So "updating", is the same as correcting a "bug", I don't think so.

And I'm sure NASA warned people that they would find a "bug".

FAST

Thanks for helping make my point, fast.
Yes, that was an update to the update, a fix to a bug they found in their original update.
Just as they noted they do regularly on their FAQ page.

In fact, the updated weighting of the data made some years warmer and some years colder, moviefan is just upset because it made him lose the bet in November, instead of January.
Here, this page shows two example years, one that was cooler and one that was warmer.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/1938+1944.pdf

All this is of course besides the point.
Moviefan agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after the new weighting came out and we discussed it.
He only changed his mind after he lost the bet.

 

[FAST]

All bets are off,...

Yes, that was an update to the update, a fix to a bug they found in their original update.

All one has to do, is read the 1st sentence in your post of diarrhea of the word processor, no need to read the rest.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

All one has to do, is read the 1st sentence in your post of diarrhea of the word processor, no need to read the rest.

FAST

No matter how much garbage he posts, his argument that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them remains absolute hogwash.

Indeed, his math continues to get worse.

The other day he said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

Now, he says it's "ridiculous" to state that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We have been talking about 0.83ºC, not speed.

We'll add analogy to the rather lengthy list of words that you don't understand. Regardless, your argument applies in exactly the same way to both.

You said:

This was the bet:

Originally posted by Moviefan-2:

"If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet."

And what do those numbers now read?

0.84ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You lost the bet.

According to you, the changes that NASA made in July to the methodology and data sets (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/) are "beside the point". You insist that "0.83" is "0.83" regardless of what methodology and data set are being used.

If that's what you believe, then you are arguing that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them.

Indeed, your position has been clear: Frankfooter says that anyone who thinks there is a difference between the Imperial system and the metric system is just "whining."

 

[Frankfooter]

No matter how much garbage he posts, his argument that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them remains absolute hogwash.

There is only 0.83ºC, the number we be on for 2015's global anomaly as posted by NASA.
That's the only number, the only metric, for our bet.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
..
Deal?
Is the bet on?

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

Pay up, loser.

 

[Frankfooter]

We'll add analogy to the rather lengthy list of words that you don't understand. Regardless, your argument applies in exactly the same way to both.

You said:

[/SIZE][/B]
According to you, the changes that NASA made in July to the methodology and data sets (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/) are "beside the point".

Yes, for two reasons.
1) its normal NASA work to update the methods they use to calculate the annual temperature anomaly, as noted on their FAQ.
2) you agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after we discussed those changes.

As for this 'analogy' business. We have only ever been talking about NASA's reporting of the global anomaly as measured in celsius degrees.
We agreed on 0.83ºC for the bet, not 0.83 + 0.03 until you lost with that and now your claim that we bet on 0.83 + 0.06.
We bet on a number, not a formula.

You tried to change the bet to 0.86ºC in june, and now that you're losing with that number you're trying to change the bet to 0.89ºC.
Pathetic.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We bet on a number, not a formula.

You have proven my point. You have confirmed that you believe that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them.

Of course, you keep insisting that we bet on a 0.83ºC anomaly for 2015 at a time when NASA was reporting that the anomaly for 2014 was 0.68ºC. And yet -- somehow -- you simultaneously insist that we didn't bet that the anomaly would increase by 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015, which would mean that we didn't bet on 0.83ºC.

It's confusing trying to keep up with Frankfooter's lunacy.

Here's the current tally. Frankfooter says:

-- I agreed to use (some of) the new NASA numbers in the terms of the bet / I agreed to continue the bet as it stood with no changes.

-- We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC / We didn't bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC.

-- NASA's data sets are the "exact same" / NASA's updated graph has "new NASA numbers".

-- You have to make adjustments when you compare numbers from different data sets / You don't have to make adjustments when you compare numbers from different data sets.

---

Here's what I know.

When we made the bet in May 2015, we bet on whether the final 2015 anomaly would be 0.83ºC -- a 0.15ºC increase over the 2014 anomaly of 0.68ºC.

Since then, the methodology and the data changed. The new NASA data set that Franky is using puts the 2014 anomaly at 0.74ºC and shows the 2015 anomaly to be 0.84ºC -- an increase of only 0.10ºC.

The increase in the new NASA numbers is only two-thirds of the minimum 0.15ºC increase that we bet on.

Franky can keep welching on the bet. Regardless, the fact remains that the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have proven my point. You have confirmed that you believe that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the "exact same" speed because they both have the number "83" in them.

Of course, you keep insisting that we bet on a 0.83ºC anomaly for 2015 at a time when NASA was reporting that the anomaly for 2014 was 0.68ºC. And yet -- somehow -- you simultaneously insist that we didn't bet that the anomaly would increase by 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015, which would mean that we didn't bet on 0.83ºC.

Its here where your lying becomes totally obvious.
The runup to the bet shows that we were betting based on the IPCC's decadal projections, based off of their reporting of 1995 at 0.43ºC and a decadal increase of 0.2ºC per decade as shown in the quotes from post #78 above.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445283&viewfull=1#post5445283

When NASA adjusted their weighting and it became apparent you were now losing, you tried to change the bet to 0.86ºC.
I refused, and you agreed to continue the bet with its original terms.

Now that you've lost the bet even with your 'adjusted' figure of 0.86ºC you are trying to lie and change the bet again, pretending that we didn't bet on a fixed number, but only a formula to add 'whatever NASA posts as 2014 at the end of the year' plus 0.15ºC (your claim of the IPCC's year to year projection - which is ridiculous in the face of a 0.2ºC/decade increase we were discussing).

Stop lying and trying to retroactively change the bet, its pathetic.
How many times do you think you get to try to change the terms of a bet you agreed to and then agreed again to?

Here's what I know.

When we made the bet in May 2015, we bet that the 2015 anomaly would be 0.83ºC

That's where the debate should end.
You lost.
Admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its here where your lying becomes totally obvious.
The runup to the bet shows that we were betting based on the IPCC's decadal projections, based off of their reporting of 1995 at 0.43ºC and a decadal increase of 0.2ºC per decade as shown in the quotes from post #78 above.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445283&viewfull=1#post5445283

Agreed. We bet on whether the anomaly on that pre-adjusted graph would hit 0.83ºC in 2015.

That graph that put 1995 at 0.43ºC showed a 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014. That means we were betting the anomaly would increase to 0.83ºC from 0.68ºC the previous year, as was clearly described in the terms of 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.

Frankfooter: Tell us what kind of increase would be needed to take the temperature anomaly from 0.68ºC in 2014 to 0.83ºC in 2015.

 

[Moviefan-2]

How many times do you think you get to try to change the terms of a bet you agreed to and then agreed again to?

Actually, you're the guy that has been insisting we use NASA's new data and is now talking about wanting to accept the significantly reduced offer that was made in July (and is no longer on the table).

In fact, you've been throwing fits for weeks because I held you to the original terms of the bet:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

 

[Frankfooter]

In fact, you've been throwing fits for weeks because I held you to the original terms of the bet:

Liar.

You've been caught trying to change the bet now twice, how dishonest can you get?

First, you agree to a bet on the 2015 anomaly hitting 0.83ºC.

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

Then, after NASA updated their methods slightly and it appeared you might lose you tried to change the terms of the bet:

Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
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.

Now that the 2015 final numbers are about to come in, and even 0.86ºC will lose you are trying to change the bet again, now to 0.89ºC, though you are too chickenshit to clearly state the number.

Indeed, his math continues to get worse.

The other day he said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

Now, he says it's "ridiculous" to state that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

First, you agree to bet on 0.83ºC
Then you try to change it to 0.86ºC
When even that loses now you are trying to change it to 0.89ºC.

What a fucking, dishonest loser you are.
Just man up and admit you lost the bet.

Loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You agreed to continue the bet as it stood with no changes.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

The "updated" NASA numbers that Frankfooter posted only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

The "updated" NASA numbers that Frankfooter posted only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC.

Its getting to the point where all you can do is repeat this nonsense.
You won't even clearly state what you think winning terms of this bet were, only that somehow, whatever you decided they were, you won.
You need to shut up and admit that you tried to change the bet so you could win twice already, but its too late.
You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You won't even clearly state what you think winning terms of this bet were, only that somehow, whatever you decided they were, you won.

Nonsense. I posted the full terms of the bet and the results back in December when we agreed to settle up:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. I posted the full terms of the bet and the results back in December when we agreed to settle up:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

Nope, that post is pure bullshit and contains no definite terms of what you think the bet was and why you think you won it.

Are you claiming the bet for 0.83ºC, 0.86ºC as you tried to change it, or 0.89ºC as you are now trying to change it?
You can't even give one straight answer, just more lying and bullshit on why you think you won despite trying to retroactively change a bet.

Loser.
Stop this nonsense and admit you lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nope, that post is pure bullshit and contains no definite terms of what you think the bet was and why you think you won it.

Nonsense. Open the link and try reading it.