He would design it to last for 30 years under three different scenarios, but it would fall down when the first car drove over it.
Then he would blame Chinese aerosols and multi-metre sea level rise for the horrific math error he made – and tell everyone that it is worse than it seems, and that Obama has four years to save the planet (starting in 2009.)
President Obama ‘has four years to save Earth’ | Environment | The Observer
This is classic. The reporter has information which should be allow him to understand, but he is conditioned to do nothing but drool.
Heavier than expected ice in Arctic waters off Alaska will likely delay until August Shell’s long-anticipated exploration drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, a company spokesman said on Friday. Shell, which wants to search for oil in what are considered remote but promising frontiers, had planned to start the wells this month, said Curtis Smith, a company spokesman in Anchorage.
Sea ice is “the number one reason we won’t be drilling in July,” Smith told Reuters. “At this point, we’re looking at the first week of August.” While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre.
Obviously the ice is not melting fast. That is why the drilling is delayed until near the end of the melt season. As far as the sparse ice cover in most of the Arctic goes, what is he talking about? The Arctic is covered with ice from one end to the other.
In the private sector, we engineers and scientists have to be right. People’s lives depend on it. I am doing a lot of avionics and defense work these days which has to be perfect – or people will die. Companies will certainly die if the product is flawed.
The problem with academic researchers who have never worked in product R&D, is that they have no grounding in reality. Some believe that they can spew any BS which suits their imagined needs, and imagine that it is good enough. They have never felt the consequences of error, and have no concept of how much damage they are doing with their lies and hallucinations.
These same people depend on others (whom they imagine are evil) to keep the lights on and food coming to the store – yet they do everything they can to undermine them. I feel sorry for people who are so completely useless and self-destructive.
Get a real job, hippies. Grow up. Stop acting like scared pre-teenage girls. If you keep up your lies, your children will suffer the consequences of your actions. At some point you will succeed in destroying the infrastructure which society depends on.
Trying to get beyond the standard scientific disclaimer that no single weather event can be pinned on global warming, government scientists on Tuesday unveiled a new framework: what are the odds of a specific event being impacted by warming?
They tested it on several extreme events in 2011 — a strong La Nina year — and, in the case of the record Texas drought, concluded that such severe dry spells are 20 more times likely during a La Nina year today than a La Nina in the 1960s, before greenhouse gas emissions jumped.
“Conditions leading to droughts such as the one that occurred in Texas in 2011 are, at least in the case of temperature, distinctly more probable than they were 40-50 years ago,” researchers concluded in a new study.
“It’s quite striking,” Peter Stott told reporters Tuesday at a briefing organized by his employer, Britain’s weather service, and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.
2011 Texas drought was 20 times more likely due to warming, study says – U.S. News
Peter is either wildly incompetent or dishonest. The severity of the droughts in Texas during the 1950s and 1960s was much worse than recent years. He didn’t bother to check the most fundamental facts before going to press.
Texas, Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), June-May 1896-2012
h/t to John Bogen
One thing we know for sure – is that political activists posing as scientists have tampered with the temperature database.
During the last ice age, temperatures were below normal for 1,200,000 months in a row. The odds of this happening randomly are 2 raised to the 1200000 power, or some phenomenally large number.
Thank you climate experts for opening up a whole new world of junk statistics.
From team climate moron, comes this news – being touted by two of Texas’ most clueless.
U.S. heat over the past 13 months: a one in 1.6 million event
U.S. heat over the past 13 months: a one in 1.6 million event | Planet3.0
The way the statistical midget calculated this was by assuming that the odds of each month were one out of three, so he raised 3 to the thirteenth power and came up with 1.6 million.
Now I am going to apply the same math to the ice age scare of the 1970s. In 1974, the CIA reported that Eastern Canada had been below normal for 19 months in a row.
www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
The odds of being below normal are one out of two. So if we raise two to the nineteenth power, we can conclude that the global cooling of the 1970s was a one in 524,288 event, colder than the last three or four ice ages! No wonder Hansen had to erase it!
These folks are dumber than a sack of rocks.
Alarmists like Jeff Masters have been touting the useless statistic of the ratio of record highs to record lows as a sign of global warming. The graph below shows why it is useless.
The graph plots yearly counts of all of the daily all-time record highs and lows in the USHCN database, for all stations which were operating in both 1930 and 2011. A station is marked as having a record if it has the highest temperature reported for any year, or tied for the highest temperature.
The lines are sixth order fits. The first thing that stands out is that the number of record maximums and minimums has tailed off markedly in the last 70 years. Also, the signals are very noisy, and appear to be cyclical and converging.
It is a testament to how poor the science is, that experts would take one small set of data points from one small geographical location, without any historical context, and draw conclusions about “global warming.”
These people are more ignorant and more superstitious than the witch burning crowd in The Holy Grail.
“. . . [Presently] we’re breaking high temperature records much more frequently than by chance. And, by some estimates, the ratio of that exceedance of breaking highs compared to what you would expect by chance would lead to us say to that there’s about an 80 percent chance that the record high you experienced was due to climate change.
Complete nonsense. According to USHCN temperature records, the 1930s holds a wide lead for all-time daily record maximums in the US. There is zero evidence that “climate change” has increased the probability of setting temperature records.
During the week of July 8 through July 14, 1913, high temperatures averaged 129 degrees at Greenland Ranch, California. On July 10 the temperature reached 134 degrees.
docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-01-0010.pdf
August, 1913 also had the hottest daytime temperatures in Oklahoma history, with an average high temperature of 106.4 at Oklahoma City for the month.
Meeker Oklahoma USHCN Temperatures Month Year Average Max Mean Average Min August 1913 106.4 89.5 72.2 August 1936 105.8 90.1 73.7 July 2011 101.9 89.0 75.6
Experts tell us that 100 degree temperatures in 2012 would be impossible without global warming.
