Who knew?
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?
Who knew?
17 comments:
Dear Anonymous,
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
You can stretch the comment box for more space
The management.
Watts is in big trouble, I hear: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/our-group-of-physicists-will-refute-all.html
ReplyDeleteBrian 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.
ReplyDeleteWilliam - 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!
ReplyDeleteMarion - sounds as plausible as the rest of WUWT.
Epicyclic Warming ?
ReplyDeleteA raspberry for these music of the spheres fellows--
they have no ear for optical theory .
You'll never see people so eager to do math problems as climate-change deniers.
ReplyDeleteThey have their calculators out and ready with each new climate report.
It's adorable!
"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.
ReplyDelete"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 ...."
ReplyDeleteWarning : unapologetic laughter may ensue from reading the whole article Sagan began thus 30 years ago.
Indeed, Russell, scientists are never saints, and great scientists can make great errors. Great or not, some of them leave us with pithy quotations.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a robot. That makes me feel so relieved.
Yep. Turns out that global nuclear war would have been safer than Sagan et al. thought, in theory.
ReplyDeleteWhaddaya 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?
OK 1983 was a bit late, but one dimensional models were not so far from SOA at that time.
ReplyDeleteHank, 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.
ReplyDeleteOther possibilities are legion, but that's how Andropov's people wanted to frame it.
Marion , Have you any idea of how small a tonnage of stuf has ben put in long lasting orbit ?
ReplyDeleteJust do some dimensional analysis on the mass to surface area ratio of it all.
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!
ReplyDelete"15,000 or more Warsaw Pact tanks rolling merrily out of the Fulda Gap"
ReplyDeleteThat'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.
Russell
ReplyDeleteAn old, cold war isn't informative about a new hot one.
I know you think history is repeating itself, but things have moved on.
> Warsaw Pact tanks
ReplyDeleteThen: 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
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).
ReplyDeleteNuclear 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).