How predictable.
One month after we settled, Frankfooter tries to rewrite the outcome by switching to NOAA and Met Office numbers -- even though the bet was explicitly based on NASA's data -- and mixes in some bullshit about a "retroactive" change to the size of the bet.
False.
I quoted NASA's numbers and noted that NOAA and MET numbers beat even your ridiculous claim that the bet was a year over year bet, and not a bet on a fixed number.
In fact, the size of the bet was clearly described in the original terms. Working from the data that NASA was using at the time (May 2015), we bet on a year-over-year increase in the anomaly from 0.68ºC in 2014 to 0.83ºC in 2015. There's nothing "retroactive" about the size of that increase -- it was 0.15ºC in May 2015 and it remains 0.15ºC today.
False, we didn't bet on a year over year number. That is you trying to retroactively change the terms after you lost. Twice.
The bet was based on the decadal projections of 0.2ºC from the IPCC, based on the published 0.43ºC NASA number at the time. We used that to get the number we bet on, 0.83 (0.43 + [2x 0.2] = 0.83).
Nowhere in the bet or IPCC projections is there mention of a 0.15º year over year change.
Pure nonsense.
Frankfooter knows all too well that the difference between the two years was 0.15ºC. He admitted as much just 10 days ago.
Again, that is your note after the fact. It wasn't part of the bet or part of any IPCC projection, which was the basis for the bet.
And what did NASA actually report? Here's the money quote that comes directly from NASA's news release.
NASA has updated the chart, the number they published is
0.87ºC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Same chart from the bet, now updated with 2015's numbers.
And they show I won the bet.
Last time I checked, 0.13ºC was less than 0.15ºC. Putting aside that Frankfooter has broken his pledge to settle up last month based on the numbers that existed at that time, the final numbers reaffirm that Frankfooter lost the bet.
The bet was not on 0.15ºC.
This was 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.
Note that the same chart is now updated, showing 0.87ºC.
Way over the terms of the bet.
More importantly, the numbers -- which came at the end of a super El Nino year -- reaffirm that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Nope. The bet was based of IPCC projections of 0.2ºC per decade. Even with the updated earlier numbers the IPCC is deadly accurate. The updated 1995 numbers show 0.47ºC, and two decades later its 0.8675ºC which is pretty much spot on @ 0.2ºC per decade.
Deadly accurate.
(For the record, he isn't calculating the increase to the 1995 anomaly in a way that is legitimately comparable to the new NASA numbers. But I won't bore everyone with the details unless there is actually someone foolish enough to think that NASA waved a magic wand and made the past temperatures cooler or warmer).
For the record, the bet is won on the original numbers and the updated numbers with your 'adjusted' claim as well.
I won the bet we made and the IPCC projections are also shown to be accurate with the final published NASA numbers.
Moviefan lost.
