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
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
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