Settled science – with an error bar of 7,000%
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
- The Canadian Hockey Stick
- Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- 50 Years Of Climate Devastation
- Climate Cycles
- Hiding The Decline
- Careful Research At BBC News
- New Video : Man Made Climate Emergency
- Geoengineering To Save The Planet
- Geoengineering Genocide
- No Crime On Capitol Hill
- Chief Scientist And Religious Leader
- Heroes Saving The Climate
- “15 DAYS TO SLOW THE SPREAD”
- “Gell-Mann Amnesia effect”
- Socialism Couldn’t Save The Glaciers
- Record Slow Ice Melt
- “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help”
- Latest Research In Climate Science
- UK Sucking Carbon
- Price-Free Tesla
- Four Years Past The Deadline
- Cooling Minnesota
Recent Comments
- Alastair on President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Bob G on Net Zero In Europe
- arn on Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- Bob G on President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- william on Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- arn on Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- william on Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- arn on Net Zero In Europe
- Robertvd on Net Zero In Europe
- Robertvd on Net Zero In Europe
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.