Settled science – with an error bar of 7,000%
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
Recent Comments
- Stuart Hamish on Extreme Weather
- Bob G on Analyzing Big City Crime
- arn on Analyzing Big City Crime
- Gordon Vigurs on UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Gordon Vigurs on Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- conrad ziefle on UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- arn on UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Robertvd on UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- scott allen on Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- arn on Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
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.