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
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
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