Settled science – with an error bar of 7,000%
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Warming Toledo
- One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Cold Hurricanes
- Plant Food
- President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- The Inflation Reduction Act
- Saving The Ecosystem
- Two Weeks Past The End Of The World
- Desperate State Of The Cryosphere
- “most secure in American history”
- “Trump moves to hobble major US climate change study”
- April 11, 1965 Tornado Outbreak
- The CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Climate Correlation
- What Me Worry?
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
- Shutting Down The Climate
- ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Warming Twice As Fast
- Understanding Climate Science
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
Recent Comments
- gordon vigurs on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Crashex on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Allan Shelton on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Luigi on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Luigi on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- D. Boss on Warming Toledo
- gordon vigurs on Plant Food
- Bob G on President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- Bob G on Plant Food
- Bob G on Cold Hurricanes
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.