Settled science – with an error bar of 7,000%
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- Climate Expert Discusses Politics
- “reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035”
- Five Years Of No Conversation
- “‘abnormal individuals’ that require medical attention”
- Poisoning The Climate Soup
- Eight Years Ago
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- Robertvd on Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- Robertvd on Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- Greg in NZ on Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- Disillusioned on What About The Middle Part?
- arn on Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- Gamecock on “filled with racist remarks”
- czechlist on Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- Bob G on What About The Middle Part?
- Ulric Lyons on Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
That error bar is pretty good by CAGW standards 😉
I was curious of how this looked like. Made this excel file with graphs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pkt1orkfwr4ssdm/1988_consensus_sea_level_rise.xlsx
They basically missed the target by a max of 908% in a range of -85% to 908%.
Those super large range of prediction would fail any university level exam !
Sir I predict I will lose 85% of your investment or gain 908%! Would you hire this guy to take care of your future?
Nice work! I wonder what caused the big drop in sea level in 2011?
A prediction like that is obviously useless, but, unlike most climate predictions, at least it’s not wrong. In most locations, the correct number is indeed between 20 mm and 1370 mm.
To be on the safe side they could have said “The rise can be from 0 to 1370 mm, or it might fall by up to 1370 mm”
The Economists error bar on the UNIPCC report findings is within 0.3%.
Global air temperature alledgedly rose by 0.05 deg C since 1998??!!
When most global temperature observations are taken to 0.1 deg C accuracy and many are effected by UHI? This from the same publication who thinks Obama is a fantastic economic manager and that Obamacare is a sensible reform, and is owned by the Rothschilds.
They are compromised in so many ways.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587224-all-means-question-climate-policies-facts-are-facts-stubborn-things?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/stubborn_things
The 1.37 meter number suggests fantastic predictive powers with an accuracy of +/- 1 cm.
What a load of CACC.