Sunday, January 18, 2015

Try to argue with this, warmists

Shorter Bob Tisdale:  remove the part of the 2014 dataset that warmed the most, and then 2014 isn't as warm anymore.

Who knew?

17 comments:

William Connolley said...

Watts is in big trouble, I hear: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/our-group-of-physicists-will-refute-all.html

Marion Delgado said...

Brian I have said for years that the so-called atmospheric warming is caused by the "urbanizing space junk heat islands" which produce small amounts of heat and also reflect heat back to the Earth. Since our measurements are also based in the sky, it's obvious that passing satellites artificially raise the registered temperatures. I've been trying to work with Tony Watts in getting permission to use government satellites to take photos of the atmospheric and space-based monitors, but so far have been met with stonewalling. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar effect is at work in the oceans.

Brian said...

William - my first thought was that it's a Poe, but the book really is on Amazon. According to the review comments, it has epicycles. Neat!

Marion - sounds as plausible as the rest of WUWT.

Russell Seitz said...

Epicyclic Warming ?

A raspberry for these music of the spheres fellows--
they have no ear for optical theory .

SummersWood said...

You'll never see people so eager to do math problems as climate-change deniers.
They have their calculators out and ready with each new climate report.
It's adorable!

Mal Adapted said...

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Doug Cotton." - With apologies to Carl Sagan.

Russell Seitz said...

"Apocalyptic predictions require , if they are to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence than do other matters where the stakes are not so great...... we have applied a sophisticated one dimensional model ...."

Warning : unapologetic laughter may ensue from reading the whole article Sagan began thus 30 years ago.

Mal Adapted said...

Indeed, Russell, scientists are never saints, and great scientists can make great errors. Great or not, some of them leave us with pithy quotations.

I'm not a robot. That makes me feel so relieved.

Hank Roberts said...

Yep. Turns out that global nuclear war would have been safer than Sagan et al. thought, in theory.

Whaddaya think, should we have gone for it when we had the chance? Nuked'em til they glowed then pounded the rubble?

Hey, what's the worst that could happen, really?

I'm serious. What do you think?

EliRabett said...

OK 1983 was a bit late, but one dimensional models were not so far from SOA at that time.

Russell Seitz said...

Hank, The worst case from taking Sagan & Ehrlich's equation of NATO's European theater deterrent with "the extinction of Homo sapiens " seriously might have been 15,000 or more Warsaw Pact tanks rolling merrily out of the Fulda Gap and on across a region formerly known as NATO.

Other possibilities are legion, but that's how Andropov's people wanted to frame it.

Russell Seitz said...

Marion , Have you any idea of how small a tonnage of stuf has ben put in long lasting orbit ?

Just do some dimensional analysis on the mass to surface area ratio of it all.

Marion Delgado said...

Russell, we will do that analysis as soon as every NASA scientist has responded to our FOIA requests for their birth certificates and their smartphone passwords!

Mal Adapted said...

"15,000 or more Warsaw Pact tanks rolling merrily out of the Fulda Gap"

That's pretty much the plot driver for Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". NATO wins, because the Warsaw pact doesn't capture enough fuel to keep all those tanks moving. The genre fictional form offers many degrees of freedom, as it were.

Last time I checked, I wasn't a robot.

BBD said...

Russell

An old, cold war isn't informative about a new hot one.

I know you think history is repeating itself, but things have moved on.

Hank Roberts said...

> Warsaw Pact tanks

Then: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/20/opinion/in-the-nation-antitank-and-anti-nuke.html

Now: http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/10/29/to_beat_russian_tanks_the_baltic_states_are_studying_the_georgia_war_107518.html

Everett F Sargent said...

Well, I use too say that 90% of things that were published were junk (then I found out that someone else beat me on that one by several decades), and of the remainder that 90% of that was junk (again someone else beat me to that one also).

Nuclear Autumn anyone.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/

For some reason, I had this filed under "Monkers" so whatever I was doing at that time was related to the Lord of Monkeytown, UK (and I was too lazy to start a new folder).