Nuttercelli Allergic To Actual Data

ScreenHunter_20 Dec. 11 05.42

ScreenHunter_21 Dec. 11 05.42

Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @LeoHickman @dana1981 HadCRUT4 …

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Nuttercelli Allergic To Actual Data

  1. philjourdan says:

    Nuccitelli and Junk science are redundant in the same sentence.

  2. NikFromNYC says:

    Your variations on the theme of basic data and simple old news clippings combined with Marc Morano of now professionally presenting this basic knowledge base on CNN and not just Fox News are extremely powerful in popping the lefty bubble. The urban high tech hipster crowd still has extreme defense mechanisms due to how college turned into a mere extension of high school so their immaturity alone locks them into bleeding heart liberal snubbing of alternative ideas as being merely evil. There’s kind of a lost generation of proud dummies around age 30 who nostalgically worship the likes of Bill Nye the Science Guy as a modern day Mr. Rogers, but both the older and younger crowd of academic indocrinates both have reason now to lose their illusions, one for survival and the other to simply stop being so youthfully foolish.

    There’s also an ironic effect I notice, that with NYC having a progressive mayor along with Obama being re-elected, the outspoken enraged activism of the Bush era is mostly gone in tone, meaning they have their guard down, like very content sheep. That may relieve some of their knee jerk opposition to reason in science.

  3. omnologos says:

    Still zero examples of Dana writing anything not aligned with his employer’s interests

  4. Cheshirered says:

    Missing heat ‘located’ at bottom of ocean despite mankind being unable to accurately measure missing heat at bottom of ocean.

    So if we cannot accurately measure the ‘missing’ heat at the bottom of the ocean – and we can’t, how can Dana et al prove it’s there? Oh that’s right – they can’t.

    Fail. Back to the drawing board, alarmists.

  5. Cheshirered says:

    The Telegraphs James Delingpole tried his luck in the comments section last night. he asked for evidence of how they got their temp’ measurements at the bottom of the ocean – and was told it was a straw man argument!

    No evidence is all they need these days to produce their ‘evidence’.

  6. gator69 says:

    This is the problem with betting against one’s own team, any victory is a loss.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    The entire “missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean” argument is based on the premise that one can accurately measure the average temperature change of the top 2000 meters of the world’s oceans to within a few hundredths of a degree over the last half century. I would defy any of the so-called “climate scientists” to measure even the average temperature of a bath tub of water in their own home to that accuracy.

  8. henrythethird says:

    The “deep ocean heat” myth can probably be quickly confirmed or denied.

    I’m sure that each time an expedition was dispached to the site of the Titanic, temp readings were taken along the way. Ballard made the first manned dive about 25 years ago, so we can at least see if the temps have changed at the depth of about 12,500 feet for the last two and a half decades.

    And, since 1960, they’ve been diving (manned and unmanned) into the “Challenger Deep” – the deepest known point in the Earth’s seabed hydrosphere, with a depth of 10,898 m (35,755 ft). That’s over five decades of data right there.

    Surely one of these trips has run into the missing heat.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Again, the problem with hiding the heat in the ocean is that the ocean is BIG and consequently the change in temperature is small. We do not have instruments to directly measure heat; instead we measure temperatures and calculate heat. The amount of heat which the CAGW enthusiasts claim is hiding in the top 2000 meters of the oceans amounts to about 24 X 10^22 joules added over a period of a half century.

      But remember, they actually base that claim on changes in the measured average temperature of all the world’s oceans. How much of a change? We are talking about a change of maybe 6/100ths of a degree over fifty years of time. To make matters even worse, we only have even moderately good temperature data over the last ten years or so, and before that — well, to say that we have global data is a very poor joke. In short, we have no way of knowing how the overall ocean average temperature has changed.

      I think it would be interesting to see whether the measured temperatures at the Titanic and at the Challenger Deep have varied — but again, remember that in order to detect the reputed hidey-heat, we would have to have an accuracy of only hundredths or thousandths of degrees. And even then, you can’t very well calculate global changes based on just two locations.

      Now, is it possible that the Earth’s oceans really have experienced 24 X 10^22 joules heat up take? Absolutely! They may have! Or then again, it may have been a 10^23 loss. Or stayed the same. Or actually gained 50 X 10^22 joules. You and I have no way of telling. And neither do the so-called “climate scientists.”

      • henrythethird says:

        “…And even then, you can’t very well calculate global changes based on just two locations…”

        They’re doing that quite well already – remember that GISS “extrapolates” (guesses) the Arctic temps with just a few stations.

      • Billy Liar says:

        … and since there are currents in the deep ocean you would need contemporaneous measurements at a significant number of sites.

  9. Dave N says:

    “Manifested in different ways” = “we were completely wrong about what would happen”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s