“I left Earth three times and found no other place to go. Please take care of Spaceship Earth.” -Wally Schirra
We've made it through another amazing week here at Starts With A Bang, and what many of you might not realize is that there was a fabulous new release thanks to the support of everyone on Patreon: a new Podcast, this time on Planet Nine!
- Why don't you look like a scientist? (for Ask Ethan),
- Mars gears up for its closest approach to Earth in over a decade (for Mostly Mute Monday),
- 99.8% wrong: how NASA's Fermi scientists are fooling themselves about gamma rays from black holes,
- NASA unveils greatest views of the aurorae ever,
- The biggest question about the beginning of the Universe, and
- The most important Earth Day lessons, from beyond this world.
There's lots more in the pipeline, but let's take a look back at what you had to say for our Comments Of The Week!
Image credit: The Millenium Simulation, V. Springel et al., of the cosmic web of dark matter and the large-scale structure it forms.
From Chris Mannering on the Universe's homogeneity: "What is the scale at which the universe is homogenous? How well can we observe that scale?"
If you look at planet-sized scales, star-sized scales or even galaxy-sized scales, the Universe is wildly inhomogeneous. But if you start looking at sizes of around ~100 Mpc on a side or more (about a few hundred million light years), the Universe starts to look pretty similar everywhere, where the biggest density differences are less than a factor of two. If you head to much larger scales, on the order of about ~1-2 Gpc or more, or roughly about 10% (on a side) of the observable Universe, the Universe starts to look homogeneous to about 1 part in a few thousand in most regions. We can observe that scale very, very well, especially with the advent of both 2dF and, more recently, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
Image credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey - III / Data Release 8.
Upcoming, larger surveys from things like the LSST (from the ground) and WFIRST (from space) will go even farther, to higher resolution and with greater coverage. The largest scales of all, of about 5 Gpc (~15 billion light years on a side) will then be better probed, where the density differences between regions should be under 1-in-10,000. In summation, large-scale homogeneity is very well established, and we are striving to do even better. This is 100% consistent with the CMB and with our models of structure formation, but is also, observationally, completely independent of them.
Image credit: Breakthrough Starshot, of the laser sail concept for a “starchip” spaceship.
From PJ on the breakthrough Starshot and a different power idea: "By the time this project happens, there will be regular visits to space from the private sector & contractors."
I don't have anything negative to say about the lens-focusing idea, since this is plausible and, moreover, scalable in the same sense that using a large number of lasers is scalable. But the sentence I quoted above... that is really optimistic about the future of space travel over the next 20, 30 or even 50 years. We can't even get regular visits to low-Earth orbit right, and we've been going to low-Earth orbit for nearly 60 years now. PJ, I hope you're right, but I'm not certain.
Image credit: J. Cummings (foreground); NASA, ESA, SSC, CXC, and STScI (background), of Ethan Siegel in 2014.
From Chris Mannering on judging my... photographic mannerisms: "The way you look is fine but something that is curious is just that you never use your natural face. Your mouth is always wide open as the centrepiece of more or less the same facial contortion. I think you must be doing this for a reason."
So I'm going to punt this answer over to someone much more famous than I am, and let Miley Cyrus take it away, since she's been asked so frequently about sticking her tongue out all the time in pictures instead of smiling:
"The tongue started from, again, with me having to go on red carpets, and everyone would just tell all these girls that had so much makeup on and their hair all done in their perfect, little, pretty dress to smile and to wave. I hated when the paparazzi would tell me to blow them a kiss. It just felt so gross, and like, sexist for me to be standing there and these men to be taking my picture. So I just said forget it."
Image credit: Hollyscoop, via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSqUmuKlcFI.
So there are a lot of valid reasons one can pose in a particular set of poses for the camera, including smiling, blowing a kiss, appearing expressionless, or -- as you've noticed I've chosen -- appearing kind of like a muppet, with my mouth ajar a bit. If you're going to be seen by the world, you have every right in the world to present yourself to it according to your own choices. Personally, I hate the way I photograph in candids and in most standard smiling poses, so I found one that I like best and I stick with it.
Lots of people feel awkward in pictures, like it doesn't represent the way they actually look (or more importantly, the way they actually see themselves), and practically everyone is sensitive about some physical feature about themselves. I don't know why you want to figure out what my own insecurities are, but I'll be generous enough to tell you that in general -- and I do this, too -- people pose for pictures in ways that reflect how they feel best about being photographed.
Dianne Feinstein and Bobak Ferdowsi (a.k.a. “NASA mohawk guy”), the activity lead for NASA’s Curiosity mission. Image credit: AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes.
From Denier on appearances and professions: "While I understand and even cheer your sentiment, it is unfortunately not the world many, if not most, live in. My scientist wife is a perfect example. She has wanted to dye her hair blue for as long as I’ve known her, but a big part of her job is testifying in court on criminal cases. Neither my wife or I have any social media footprint so as to keep her attack surface minimized. Lawyers and their investigators look for everything they can find to damage credibility. Not only is blue hair out, but even the color of her suits and style of shoes is dictated."
This is an unfortunate reality of many jobs: there are certain appearance requirements that, if you fail to meet them, will inherently make you less effective at what you do. For better or worse, this is life in our society as it is today. It sounds like your wife could dye her hair blue if she wanted to bad enough, but there would be consequences, and she's decided the consequences aren't worth it. By the way, though, I did find this:
Image credit: The Lawyer Lifestyles website, via http://www.lawyerslifestyles.com/i/diy-temporary-dip-dye-hair.html.
There's a website -- and possibly a community -- of people in professions like law who can't fully express themselves and still be accepted professionally, who do their best to live their lives the way they choose outside of the courtroom while still appearing lawyer-ly inside the courtroom. For what it's worth, my own choice-in-appearance has consequences, too, but they are minor enough that I've decided that living this way rises past the "worth it" line for me.
Image credit: J. Cummings, of Ethan Siegel in 2015.
From CFT on me, personally, and my appearance: "Having seen Ethan in his various costumes, I had at first assumed he was a themepark/videogame spokesman or mascot entertainer, or possibly an exhibitionist about to be arrested before I learned he was connected in any way to astronomy or science. In any case, If Ethan wants to distinguish himself, perhaps he should do so with the quality of his work, rather than the eccentricity his cosplay wardrobe."
A good friend of mine never knew my profession until we had known each other for almost a year. When we were just talking and I mentioned something about being on the news to explain the landing of the Mars Curiosity rover, he was shocked! I asked him what he thought I did for a living. He told me, "I don't know, I just assumed you were, like, a janitor or something."
But you made assumptions (quite negative ones) about what I was (and what I was capable of) based on my appearance, which is my choice. Now that you know that I have an eccentric cosplay wardrobe (which some consider impressive), you still assert that I'm better off trying to distinguish myself through the quality of my work. Can't I do both, without you negatively judging the quality of one from your distaste of the other?
Venus, Earth, the Moon and Mars to scale, images courtesy of NASA.
From Denier on Mars and the Moon: "Time for the ‘Mars bigger than the Full Moon’ hoax email to make the rounds again."
Mars is always bigger than the Moon, full or empty! About twice the diameter... all the time. Of course, the hoax is that Mars will appear bigger than the full Moon, and that's so not true that even if you confused arc-seconds (for Mars) with arc-minutes (for the Moon), the Moon is always larger. Not that I expect facts to change what people believe in this instance.
Varying views of Mars near opposition over the course of many years, from 1995-2005. Image credit: NASA/Hubble Heritage team, via https://www.flickr.com/photos/hubble-heritage/3195427662.
From Michael Richmond on Mars in the sky: "Alas, Mars will be at quite a southerly location in the sky, at Declination -21 degrees or so. Those of us in the northern hemisphere will have to look through quite a bit of the Earth’s atmosphere to see Mars during its opposition. The view from the southern hemisphere will be much better."
The northern hemisphere doesn't have it so bad! Those of us who get up early -- while it's still dark before the dawn -- are already being treated to a spectacular triad of Mars, Saturn and Aldebaran in the southern parts of the skies in the early morning. Yes, the low declination means that people in the southern hemisphere get less atmospheric distortion, whereas someone up were I am (above the 45th parallel) has it much rougher. But it's still a sight worth seeing, and the best views we'll have of Mars until 2018, even with the additional atmospheric effects.
But yes, astrophotographers will have a much better opportunity to see this from, say, Chile than they will from the northern United States.
Image credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
From See Noevo on probabilities and errors: "In other words, that “0.22%” chance actually indicates that there’s a high probability this signal is, in fact, a false alarm.”
Ethan, I know this is outside your area of expertise, but how would you consider a 2,000,000.00% error/false alarm?"
I would consider those to be two entirely different things. When one speaks of probabilities, the number must be between 0 and 1, or 0.0% and 100%. So in the example I referred to, reporting a "detection" of 99.78% probability grossly underestimates the false positive signal and the lack of a signal observed by ESA's Integral satellite, and so is much more likely to be false.
On the other hand, a 2 million percent error means you've got the wrong answer by a factor of about 20,000. Which is probably an indication that you're using a lousy technique to measure the thing you're attempting to find out. How do you interpret a 2,000,000.00% error?
Image Credit: SXS, the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) project (http://www.black-holes.org).
From Ragtag Media on some fun pattern recognition: "Is that first image a Galactic Size pig poking his snout into our universe?"
It's obviously Pluton from One Punch Man.
Image credit: screenshot from One Punch Man.
Although I suppose he's not really as big as a galaxy, you have to remember -- as Denier reminded us earlier -- that angular size is all about perspective!
Image credit: NASA/International Space Station.
From PJ on the aurorae: "Having seen Borealis for many years out of Toronto, I appreciated the lights whilst living there. Thanks for the aerials; just a different and pleasant visual – brings back the memories."
I only saw the northern lights once with my naked eyes: while traveling in Glacier National Park in Montana. In general, you need a combination of clear, dark skies and to be in a location within ~35-40 degrees of one of Earth's magnetic poles. (Although there are exceptions.) Despite being at almost the same latitude as that park now, I have yet to see an aurora here. But for the ISS astronauts, they circle the globe from above about 15-16 times per day, and see pretty much every aurora there is. It's not a bad view, from what I hear.
Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team.
From See Noevo on cosmic inflation: "It seems to me that this invention (i.e. Inflation) is considered to *surprisingly* find and fix the very things it was invented to find and fix."
Or, you could read about the predictions it made that have been borne out since it was first proposed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/07/why-cosmic-inflations-last-great-prediction-may-fail/#76942d753118
Note that it made six, and five have been confirmed. The sixth may not be, and that article details why.
Image credit: NASA / Johnson Space Center, of astronaut Karen Nyberg.
From Denier on Earth Day: "Have you noticed that the same people who scream the loudest about GMO crops seem to have no problem with the latest strain of Cannabis?"
People have their own blind spots about scientific evidence, and what they will or won't conclude based on what they'd like the outcome to be on a particular ideological issue. I don't think there are any scientific studies that could come out showing the robustness of the scientific evidence countering their own gut instinct that would convince them that they've taken up the wrong position on their pet issue.
Good thing we're all above that, right?
Image credit: NCEP CFSR 1981-2010 Climatology / Ryan N. Maue / WeatherBELL.
And finally, from Ragtag Media doing his best Rick Astley impression, because he's never going to give this thread up: "As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate."
Then you can start by looking exclusively at the full suite of scientific evidence about Earth's climate, and at the full body of climate science work done by the full field of actual climate scientists, rather than any claims by meteorologists, celebrities, politicians, etc. unless they themselves are actual climate scientists, too. I like to fancy that's what I did before arriving at the conclusions I did as respects climate science; I'm curious what conclusion you'd reach if that's what you did?
No matter what you think, feel or believe, I hope you've had a great week and you're stoked for the week ahead. I'll see you then!
- Log in to post comments
"But you made assumptions (quite negative ones) about what I was (and what I was capable of) based on my appearance, which is my choice."
Umm, What is so negative about being employed as a " themepark/videogame spokesman or mascot entertainer, or possibly an exhibitionist"
Pleaze don't hate on folks employed in those fields. Most college aged students would LOVE to intern at Disney theme parks as a spokes person or character.
And exibitionist are great marketers that create interest in ideas and concepts where it otherwise may have gone unnoticed or unappreciated.
.
Heck I would love to be a spokesman for Rockstar Video Games.
I LOVE the GTA series.
OR even EA games... The Sims series is timeless.
Seriously Ethan, I wouldn't diss on the marketing part either.
You could make some decent side cash as a Axe Cop Impersonator:
http://axecop.com/character/axe-cop/
"Rick Astley impression"
OK..that was funny. But don't quit your day job just yet as a stand up comic.
LOL.
BUT.... Seriously folks.
I back up my skepticism with not just my unabridged worldly opinion but with a variety of others.
Here, that this one:
Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tamper…
Paraguay is "ANOTHER" the proverbial "smoking gun"
Woozy Wowzer, notice this from a well respected UK publication:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-…
Perhaps with more teams such as Richard Branson & Bert Rutan working together, the goal of regular low earth orbit missions can be reached far quicker than parties working on their separate projects.
Me: “Ethan, I know this is outside your area of expertise, but how would you consider a 2,000,000.00% error/false alarm?”
Ethan: “… a 2 million percent error means you’ve got the wrong answer by a factor of about 20,000. Which is probably an indication that you’re using a lousy technique to measure the thing you’re attempting to find out. How do you interpret a 2,000,000.00% error?”
Right. That’s what I thought, too.
But I guess what I was really asking was this:
Why wouldn’t the scientists who were off by 2,000,000% be shocked and humbled enough to re-evaluate *and test* ALL of the assumptions they had made that led to this cosmically large error?
Ref: #63 at
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/04/09/ask-ethan-why-is-jup…
Me: “It seems to me that this invention (i.e. Inflation) is considered to *surprisingly* find and fix the very things it was invented to find and fix.”
Ethan: “Or, you could read about the predictions it made that have been borne out since it was first proposed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/07/why-cosmic-infla…
Note that it made six, and five have been confirmed. The sixth may not be, and that article details why.”
…...
Firstly, a correction is in order.
From your Forbes piece:
“But there were a few questions that were unanswered when it came to the Big Bang, a few phenomena that were completely unexplained within this framework.
1.Why was the Universe the *exact* same temperature everywhere?”
I’ll try to correct you gently, Ethan:
The Universe is *not even close* to the *exact* same temperature everywhere.
For a close-to-home example: The temp of our sun vs. my temperature right now. (And I’m pretty damn hot.)
Secondly, of the five things you say Inflation has confirmed, how many were known and considered problems/issues *prior to* the invention of Inflation?
"Umm, What is so negative about being employed as a ” themepark/videogame spokesman"
Umm, so why did it matter how he looked?
"or mascot entertainer, or possibly an exhibitionist”"
A mascot, do you know what that is? Someone who is nameless and pointless and dressed up against their will for miniscule pay. And an exhibitionist is always put forward as a negative "reason" for actions.
But you prefer to pretend that your meanings, since you did not explicitly delineate them, had no meaning.
Well the answer to that is ALWAYS DELINIEATE YOUR MEANING. If we cannot and are not allowed to infer, you must be explicit and nothing you say or ask can be considered until you do so.
Moreover, you must refuse yourself to infer from your own interpretation of the blank verse, since you feel this is so unnecessary. Doing otherwise would be hypocrisy.
And if you're a hypocrite, then your post is completely 100% bullshit, and you know it.
"I back up my skepticism"
You aren't a skeptic. You're gullible as hell for what you want to be the case and mulishly intransigent for those you do not wish to be the case.
You're a denier.
"but with a variety of others."
But the massive number of others disagreeing with your assertion or the assertions of the "experts" you prattle on about are vastly overwhelming.
If all you have is a miniscule supporting cast, then you're no different from ISIS who have "backed up" their theology with "some experts on the Koran". That 99.7% of experts in the Koran reject their interpretation is of no more import to them than it is for you.
"Here, that this one:
Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America:"
And here's an alternative: there is no tampering with temperatures in south america that get through to the quality controlled global record.
So I've backed my statement up (see above). It's as rigorous at least as your link.
You have to up your game.
"Woozy Wowzer, notice this from a well respected UK publication:"
The torygraph isn't well respected. It's about as well respected as, say, MSNBC.
But this is not even the paper. It's the comment section by an unlettered oaf who doesn't know what the hell they're going on about.
Might as well link to me here saying that's a load of bollocks: there's as much weight behind it. Both are just comments by nonspecialists in the field (theirs: climate, mine: journalism), ergo just as valid and countering it.
"But I guess what I was really asking was this:"
Well what you asked was different, everyone agrees.Ergo your complaint starting that comment is unwarranted ego stroking on your part.
"Why wouldn’t the scientists who were off by 2,000,000% be shocked and humbled enough to re-evaluate *and test* ALL of the assumptions they had made that led to this cosmically large error?"
Why should they? You've been wrong by 200,000,000% and STILL insist that NOTHING is wrong in your claims of faith.
"Firstly, a correction is in order."
More ego stroking, see nowt?
The sixth may not be
Is your "correction" going to say that the sixth REALLY IS right???
Nah. Course not.
I bolded two words.
Are they the same word?
Do they mean the same thing?
Did you notice?
"No" was the answer to all three questions.
You're an ignorant arsehole, see nowt, with absolutely no redeeming feature and no care to be a better human being since your cult of personality is insisting that because you "have faith" (whatever the fuck THAT is supposed to mean) you are right no matter what reality says.
"Secondly, of the five things you say Inflation has confirmed, how many were known and considered problems/issues *prior to* the invention of Inflation?"
Why does that matter?
What does it change if it were none, one or all of them?
Given you have nothing alternative to explain the situation seen, why the hell should anyone care what you "think"?
SN,
Still at it on the soft tissue thing, huh? Well, I'll ask again. How many years DOES soft tissue last before decomposing? If it can't last 200,000,000, can it last 100 million? 10 million? 1 million? 100,000? Exactly how long? And if it lasts X years, what mechanism prevents it from lasting X+1 years?
"A mascot, do you know what that is? Someone who is nameless and pointless and dressed up against their will for miniscule pay."
God, why does Wowzer constantly genuflect at the alter of ignorance?
Wow, you been toking on deano's dope pipe again?
Here oh ignorant one read for yourself. Get Acquainted With The Top 10 Most Expensive MLB Mascots:
http://goo.gl/khVXoM
And that's just baseball.
Full-time, costumed team mascots, even those who have just started in the industry, regularly earn a minimum of $50,000 annually, with thousands more in incentive-based earnings, Raymond said. More seasoned performers, like Clutch of the NBA’s Houston Rocket
$100- $600 an hour. Most folks would be glad to be a mascot make over 1000 quid for a days work having fun.
rt cherrypicking? Say it ain't so. Oops, it is.
From a firm that supplies mascots to professional sports teams.
Raymond Entertainment Group provides mascots for NBA teams. Starting salaries are in the 40 to 50 thousand dollar range. Eighty percent of NBA teams have mascots
Major league baseball: Starting salary under $30,000. Numerous teams have part-time mascots earning $100 to $200 per game.
NFL: 27 of 32 teams have mascots. Salaries range from $23,000 to $65,000 (possibly more if the team makes the Super Bowl). Some teams pay mascots on a per-game basis (as the Vikings do).
To Sean #16:
Assuming you’re the same as “Sean T”, I’m glad you showed up here. I tried responding to your #197 on the “Why Is Jupiter Hit…” thread, but was prevented from doing so. I’ll try posting my response to you here:
Part 1/5
You: “OK, SN, put up or shut up time. You say soft tissues can’t last 200,000,000 years. Okay then, what is the upper limit for how long soft tissues can last? How do you arrive at this upper limit? How can we test this limit? That’s how you do science.”
Whoa! Whoa!
You shouldn’t have opened your mouth, my “put up or shut up time” friend.
It is YOU, SEAN T, who have to show these things.
For it was YOU who said you “fail to see why it’s a big issue… Under conditions in which decomposition is inhibited, they can last an indefinite time period. All of that is WELL UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE…”
So, show us.
And I never said “soft tissues can’t last 200,000,000 years.” The SCIENTISTS SAID IT, prior to about 2005.
For God’s sake, THAT WHY THEY WERE SO SHOCKED at the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur remains, which they assumed to be 200,000,000 years old.
I merely pointed out that they haven’t come close to figuring out definitively how this could be.
And I merely pointed out that their prior conventional scientific wisdom in this regard was wrong by 2,000,000 percent
Part 2/5
“That’s how you do science. It’s not just questioning current understanding, but when you do question it you put forward an alternative hypothesis and test your alternative.”
OK.
Let’s play scientist.
Here’s an alternative hypothesis: The reason the dino still has soft tissue is because it’s not 200,000,000 years old but rather something closer to 6,000 years old.
And we test this alternative hypothesis by subjecting the subject dino remains to a blind C-14 test.
Simple.
But why doesn’t anyone want to play?
"Some teams pay mascots on a per-game basis (as the Vikings do)."
Yep Ragnar priced himself out of a Job. He was banking $1500 a game and got to be a part of it all on the field and sidelines and got greedy wanting 20 large a game and the Vikings called him on it:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13719798/ragnar-priced-job-minnesota-…
!5 Grand a year (8 regular season and 2 pre season games ) to be an NFL mascot and all the attention that comes with it. Hell he could have made big bucks at venue's all over town signing autographs.
So That Be a Big NO!!! of the "cherrypicking" clain dean.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Please try again.
Part 3/5
“Surely, you aren’t saying that dinosaurs existed during any period of recorded human history, are you? Surely someone would have written something down about these huge lizards, right?”
Maybe that’s what Job was writing about:
"Behold, Be'hemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
"He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
Can one take him with hooks,
or pierce his nose with a snare?”
[Job 40:15-24]
See also the Leviathan of Job 41.
Isaiah mentions him too:
“In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.”
[Isaiah 27:1]
But, since we can all agree that the Bible was never intended to be a biology/zoology science textbook, we can also agree we shouldn’t expect the Bible to spend verses saying much more about animal subjects.
Part 4/5
“There are cave paintings that predate written history. These cave paintings depict most large animals that are found in the fossil record. Why are there no dinosaur paintings? You’d think early humans who were hunters would notice these large animals, and try to hunt them, right? Why no dinos in the cave paintings?”
Maybe there are.
Google “prehistoric cave art depicting humans hunting dinosaurs discovered in Kuwait”.
Part 5/5
“You express skepticism about 200,000,000 year old soft tissue, but would it really be any better if it were 20,000 years old instead?”
Obviously, yes.
"I merely pointed out that they haven’t come close to figuring out definitively how this could be."
You are the most brazen liar around sn. You've been led to several articles where the explanation was given. The fact that you continue to repeat this line of crap simply reinforces how completely lacking in integrity you are.
Let's see who flings that line of shit.
world news daily
genesispark
conspiracyclub
Nope, no sane, honest, intelligent people pushing that sn. Just losers like you.
ragtag, you were cherrypicking. denying may work with people of your low level, but not in reality.
SN, if you have to write about paleontological topics, how about going to such a site which caters for people as yourself instead of thread bombing us on this site, huh?
dean, put the peace pipe down, sober up and reread my post and with a sober clear mind you will then feel compelled to apologize to me.
No apologies are necessary though as I freely teach the unlearned ignorant the error of their ways.
Regards
"And here’s an alternative: there is no tampering with temperatures in south america that get through to the quality controlled global record."
Wrong Wooozy:
You did see the where the data came from correct?
Sources
Raw data from GISS is here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Adjusted data here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
But what is the actual effect of all this adjusting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
"God, why does Wowzer constantly genuflect at the alter of ignorance?"
Gobshite, why does teabagger make rhetorical gambits as if he's the repository of all knowledge, when for all the good it does him, he might as well shove it up his ass?
You didn't answer, did you.
No.
Because you're not here for answers, you're here to scream and shout and pout like a two year old.
Since you CLEARLY don't mean anything by what you say, what's the point of reading any more of that crap?
"Here’s an alternative hypothesis: The reason the dino still has soft tissue is because it’s not 200,000,000 years old but rather something closer to 6,000 years old."
Since you have nothig to back that up, it's refuted by evidence that the tissue is 200,000,000 years old.
See Nowt, here's an alternative hypothesis for you: your holy book is just a myth and the accounts are entirely fictitious, just like Harry Potter.
"Adjusted data here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/"
As is the raw.
And the raw data shows a higher trend than the adjusted.
Not to mention that they have to be adjusted for the heat island effect.
Rt, I read your piece. You misrepresented the facts.
This is just painful to witness.
Never more appropriate: the stupid, it burns.
deano, wowzer you folks have been "climate hustled"..
See how May 2nd one night showing:
http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/
ragtag, one of the benefits of having an education is the ability to understand the difference between science and crap. The fact that you never post anything that is remotely close to science is telling.
deano, depends on what type of "education" you mean.
Your type is actually an Ivy league indoctrination NOT education. You are told what to think, not how.
I come from the school of hard knocks which I gladly pass on that education to those wise enough to listen.
Disregard it at your own peril.
For example folks.
Target stores is fine with dudes, men, males or anyone who are of that sex BUT!!! claim to be FEMALE can use the same restroom as your daughters, wives, mothers sisters ect.
deano's education at his Ivy league educated university tells him HEY THAT's O.K!!!
My Common Sense University Degree tells me HELL NO!!! That RIDICULOUS, INANE AND INSANE.
BOYCOTT TARGET STORES!!!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/conservative-christian-g…
Oh wow. A link to a movie. That’ll prove there’s no global warming. Guess I’ll have to revise my ideas about aliens on the moon, too, since there’s a movie about that. The truth is exposed!
Oh, and some raging, off-topic bigotry, too. Now I remember why normally avoid the comments here.
"You did see the where the data came from correct?"
Yes, I did teabaggie.
Did you LOOK on the website you posted?
"deano, wowzer you folks have been “climate hustled”.."
Nope, you've been lied to.
But you LIKE the lie, so you cling to it.