Re # 33, there are
still large error bars in temperature rises due to soot, black carbon and aerosoles and hence temperature rise predictions are cautionary in nature.
Not exact matches
That's a tiny amount — 1 fm is 0.000000000001 millimeter — but is
still significantly
larger than the
error bars on either of the other measurements.
Given the noise level, a trend 75 % as
large, would
still be within the
error bars of the observation (i.e. 0.18 + / -0.05), assuming the transient trend would scale linearly.
The statistical significance is, however,
still limited as the
large error bars suggest.
Given the noise level, a trend 75 % as
large, would
still be within the
error bars of the observation (i.e. 0.18 + / -0.05), assuming the transient trend would scale linearly.
All these make some difference — and the
error bars are
still quite
large on all this.
We're
still talking about estimates from between 500 and 400 million years ago with
error bars large enough to drive a herd of pre-Columbian buffalo through and you want to quibble about one degree Celsius.
Then we misapply the law of
large numbers to say there is no way that many stations could all be wrong, and apply tiny
error bars on populations that
still have
large unresolved systematic
errors and biases.