The Deseret News – Google News Archive Search
This is certainly a typo, but whatever the actual forecast was – it was also way off the mark.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
- Chief Executive Kamala
- “Investigated And Discredited”
- Ice-Free Arctic Warning
Recent Comments
- Luigi on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Greg in NZ on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- conrad ziefle on Woke Grok
- conrad ziefle on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- arn on Woke Grok
- Tommyb on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Archie on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- arn on Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- arn on Woke Grok
Reblogged this on oneintheirhearts.
Seriously? Surely that was a typo? Didi it ever make it into one of the IPCC’s published reports?
I guess they said it would rise between 0.5°C and 3.5°C and some idiot in the press “converted” it to 33°F and 38°F.
“Adjusted”, perhaps.
That’s funny, but it appears to be the result of incompetence by Reuters. Here’s what the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) WG1 report actually said, on p.289:
Projections of global mean temperature
Using the IS92 emission scenarios, projected global mean temperature changes were calculated up to 2100 assuming low (1.5°C), “best estimate” (2.5°C) and high (4.5°C) values of the climate sensitivity (similar to IPCC (1990)). Taking account of increases of greenhouse gas concentrations alone (i.e., assuming aerosol concentrations remain constant at 1990 levels) the models project an increase in global mean temperature relative to the present of between 1 and 4.5°C by 2100 for the full range of IPCC scenarios. These projections are lower than the corresponding projections presented in IPCC (1990)…
Reuters made two errors:
1. “2010” should have been “2100.”
2. They apparently converted Celcius to Farenheit incorrectly, using a temperature conversion table intended for absolute temperatures rather than temperature differences. (Perhaps they hired a kid with a degree in feminist film studies to be their science reporter & editor, like PBS NewsHour.)
1.0°C is 33.8°F and 4.5°C is 40.1°F, which is close to the “33-38 F” that Reuters erroneously reported. Of course, as any 8th grade graduate should be able to tell you, the proper multiplier to convert Celsius temperature differences to Fahrenheit temperature differences is ((212-32)/100) = 9/5, so “between 33 and 38 F” should have been “between 1.8 and 8.1 F” degrees F.
Clearly that already happened and we died 3 years ago, in a puff of blue steam.
Spectacular find!
That quote should be the epitaph on their tombstone. Let’s shove it right down their throats in every IPCC AR5 article that comes along!
Naturally there is a typo there, or a severe miscalculation by the reporters, but even if they had meant to say 3°F they still have some massive explaining to do. Also it would be interesting to find out whether the climate kooks at the UN IPCC bothered to make an effort to clarify that typo themselves. I suspect they did not because any alarmism serves their purpose and if some alarmed people read that story and question it they would just say it was a reporter error.
We are dealing with snakes here, sneaky slimey slithering snakes that have one goal – to capture a huge, almost uncountable chunk of money through the AGW climate scam, the largest financial crime in the history of the world.
I suspect that the reporter also got the date wrong. The forecast was more likely for 2100 than 2010. More of an expose of idiot reporters than idiot climate scientists.
A similar mistake was made yesterday (28 Sept 2013) in an article by Nigel Lawson in the Telegraph which says
“It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 35F (1.5C)”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html
So I think it is more likely to be innumeracy than alarmism. After all in the 1995 article, if the journalist or editor had thought for a moment what an in increase of 33F in 15 years actually meant, it would have been the headline or first paragraph, and not in paragraph 8.