Climate change study had ‘significant error’: experts
“To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold.”
Actually the current temperature trend is negative, so a ten fold increase might lead us into an ice age.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
What’s the trend for the period 1998 to 2008?
Warning; I’m being sarcastic.
virtually flat – a hundreth of a degree or 2 up ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
I said 2008, thats to January 2011.
The decade 1998-2008 should be the the world “normal”.
Here’s from 2002 to now:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend
good – you have taken the 1st step by finding out for yourself.
take the second one and realize that virtually all this global temperature data is likely unreliable trash — perhaps except for the raw Argo buoy data, if they haven’t adjusted it too…..
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
Biobob:
They have been working on that also!
A couple of hundred years of satellite records will give us a fairly decent idea of historic global trends and variations, maybe within a degree. The problem with satellite is it ignores regional and surface temperatures.
My understanding is that sat temps are not properly calibrated via comparison to real world and that sensor errors are fairly common such as the 400+ degrees plotted all over Lake Michigan last year.
The satellites measure temperatures in the troposphere and can not be relied of for individual small regions.
The supporters believe what they are producing and each group claims to have the best results. For Global temperature proxies the satellite records are much better and have better coverage than the very distant second best but I would not want to use the records as proof of anything. Regional biological activity is probably the most reliable proxy for regional long term temperature trends! Tree rings could have been useful if they had not been misused by certain advocates.
Pingback: Questa è proprio carina... | Climate Monitor