Settled science – with an error bar of 7,000%
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
Recent Comments
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Gordon Vigurs on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Jack the Insider on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
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.