Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

ALICE?

 

English would be very helpful

 

The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in physics Dr. Ivar Giaever - The Peuedo science of CO2 based climate.
"It is a religion, because you are not allowed to talk about it"

 

So you are using the refusal to discuss the issue as some kind of evidence that there is something wrong with the "official" line?

How does this fit in with your refusal to discuss aspects of the holocaust?

#doublethink

 

A quick recap on where we are with man made c(lie)mate change.

No increase in temp after 1998 (marginal 17 year cooling trend since 1998)
No increase beyond normal trend in ocean temperatures
No acidification of the oceans
No increase in Tornadoes
No increase in Cyclones
No increase in Hurricanes
No decrease in agricultural yields (actual year on year increase in yields)
No increase in droughts (an actual 30 year decrease in fact)
No increase in sea levels beyond last 300 year trend
No catastrophic melting of Himalayas, they are entirely stable (IPCC said they would be gone by 2035)
No scientific evidence of man influencing extreme weather events (there is actually not one bit of scientific evidence for these claims which are made by the media)

Increase in antarctic area of ice cover to highest level in human history
Increase in sea ice
Increase in ice thickness
Increase in earth's Albedo(reflectivity) to highest level in human history in the Antarctic.
Increase in seal populations and Polar bear populations

Greenland, gaining ice inland year on year for decades, the melting is at the coastlines.
Greenland hottest years in the 1940s, Greenland's coldest years in the 1990s

All of the above is verifyable and factual, none of it is "my opinion".

So, yes we have climate scientists telling us one thing, but with the above, where is their freaking evidence, apparently it is hiding with the hidden temperature at the, and get this, "at the bottom of the ocean" now, this is what they say
2 scientific papers conclude the same thing, 0.016C per decade oceanic warming in the past 50 years, a decrease in ocean warming, not an increase. So if the ocean is swallowing global warming as the IPCC claim, where is the temp increase in the oceans then. Of course there is no sceintific evidence to back the claim the ocean is "eating global warming", none whatsoever.

 

Interesting fact from investigative journalist from the US on the IPCC 2007 report.

IPCC claim to be peer reviewed out the arse.
The 2007 report was checked by a team of researchers and a journalist.
The report is publicly available and it's been verified by three different researchers.

The IPCC 2007 report, 30% of the sources being cited were from.. and get this list
Non peer reviewed papers
Press releases. (anyne can say anything in a press release)
Greenpeace documents
Student Thesis
Working papers from conferences (unfinished, unreviewed papers that could not have conclusions as they were unfinished)
Where peer reviewed papers disagreed with the IPCC they went with non peer reviewed papers that agreed instead.
30 ****ing %.

Settled science is what they called it, that's pure bollocks The IPCC repeatedly said "We only look at peer reviewed literature". That's actual factual fraud right there.

Then the report is written in chapters and the teams that write those chapters were headed up by 2 people, 1 or both in every team of those two people had links to the WWF or Greenpeace, then IPCC scientists went to sit on the WWF panel too, nice little Science golden circle" award system for "good scientists) or just plain old good boys. Funding is like crack cocain to them, without it their whole scientific education is pointless. Some report writers were years away from the PhDs in one case a decade+ away from his doctorate. Another who wrote an IPCC report on climate change and Malaria only wrote her first paper 3 years later and more years later she got her qualfications. Experts? Hardly.

What you have is activists, some scientists, herding a load of post grad donkeys, with their careers the proverbial carrot on a stick and that is how you can push the "science" in the direction you want by controlling workgroups who can only continue the work of the previous team, no deviation allowed, no scope to discover it the science is going in the wrong direction. Add a sprinkling of activist scientists with good qualifications and billions in government funding for said scientists and you have the ****ing mess they call "science" at the IPCC.



#activists
#fraud

 

Dr Daniel Botkin, he worked for the IPCC before he left because of the #fraud going on. He details it himself here in 5 minutes. Including the IPCC stating the opposite of what the papers they cited claim in their conclusions.

#epicfraud

 

I had a gander at this subject, they have not actually detected any new particle at all?, they have found 2 extra photos in the signal data from the decay of the particle they wish to prove exists, though are these extra photons from this higgs?
Is that correct? That the particle they wish to prove exists does not exist long enough to reach the detector?

Is it also true that Cern refuse to make ANY of their raw data and tech details of experiments publicly available so other scientists can look at the work?

 

Pretty big discovery made that relates to astrophysics and the possbility gravity alone does not define the universe, this is a win for Plasma physics. Worth noting, when Einstein had General Relativity accepted, he had not known about plasma which is now being found to be billions of time more abundant than the matter we can see, most plasma is invisible unless it is active. I give you "dark Matter", it's plasma, the universe is made of it. Atoms are made up of the molecules in plasma. Makes much more sense than an invisible matter that gives off no radiation whatsoever.

The plasma is always a uniform with along it's string just like a lightning bolt is even in width because current and electric current defines the plasma's consistent shape.

please log in to view this image

Plasma in earth's ionosphere in an astronomer's 3d model to represent their findings, though not said in the article, the tube shapes are the currents flowing through the plasma, as with lightning, it is the plasma's own current that defines the shape though astronomers who are plasma physics ignorant as it is not part of the text books, say this is earth's magnetosphere dictating the shape, could it be the plasma creates the magnetosphere and not the internal processes of the planet, plasma with current in it creates a lot of EM force. Either way this is a big discovery.

please log in to view this image

Article
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-astronomers-real-time-d-movies-plasma.html

Our magnetosphere. The plasma itself possibly provides the EM field as a result of electric current flowing through the plasma.

please log in to view this image

I do wonder, if the sun is consuming plamsa, the pressure and processes of solar activity creates new atoms from the plasma particles and ejects them as solar wind? Plasma is full of protons and electrons and neutrons

A uranium atom. The contents of this atom are in plasma. As are any other elements in the solar wind

please log in to view this image

 

Again more scientific proof that the IPCC are talking bollocks and that their models are a joke

A 'hydrothermal siphon' drives water circulation through the seafloor
http://news.ucsc.edu/2015/06/seafloor-siphon.html

Vast quantities of ocean water circulate through the seafloor, flowing through the volcanic rock of the upper oceanic crust. A new study by scientists at UC Santa Cruz, published June 26 in Nature Communications, explains what drives this global process and how the flow is sustained.
About 25 percent of the heat that flows out of the Earth's interior is transferred to the oceans through this process, according to Andrew Fisher, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz and coauthor of the study. Much of the fluid flow and heat transfer occurs through thousands of extinct underwater volcanoes (called seamounts) and other locations where porous volcanic rock is exposed at the seafloor.

Fisher led an international team of scientists that in the early 2000s discovered the first field site where this process could be tracked from fluid inflow to outflow, in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. In a 2003 paper published in Nature, Fisher and others reported that bottom seawater entered into one seamount, traveled horizontally through the crust, gaining heat and reacting with crustal rocks, then discharged into the ocean through another seamount more than 50 kilometers away.

"Ever since we discovered a place where these processes occur, we have been trying to understand what drives the fluid flow, what it looks like, and what determines the flow direction," Fisher said.

For the new study, first author Dustin Winslow, a UCSC Ph.D. candidate who graduated this month, developed the first three-dimensional computer models showing how the process works. The models reveal a 'hydrothermal siphon' driven by heat loss from deep in the Earth and the flow of cold seawater down into the crust and of warmed water up out of the crust.

"Dustin's models provide the best, most realistic view of these systems to date, opening a window into a hidden realm of water, rock, and life," Fisher said.

The models show that water tends to enter the crust ('recharge') through seamounts where fluid flow is easiest due to favorable rock properties and larger seamount size. Water tends to discharge where fluid flow is more difficult due to less favorable rock properties or smaller seamount size. This finding is consistent with field observations suggesting that smaller seamounts are favored as sites of hydrothermal discharge.

"This modeling result was surprising initially, and we had to run many simulations to convince ourselves that it made sense," Winslow said. "We also found that models set up to flow in the opposite direction would spontaneously flip so that discharge occurred through less transmissive seamounts. This seems to be fundamental to explaining how these systems are sustained."

Winslow's project was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation through a graduate fellowship and as part of the Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations (C-DEBI). UCSC is a partner in C-DEBI, which is headquartered at the University of Southern California.

 

Why are you so desperate to show that Climate change is supposedly a myth?

Are you seriously suggesting that the hydrocarbons that we're burning in such vast amounts doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the environment?

Is the drive for renewables not the right thing to be doing in any case given the finite hydrocarbon resources and the ever more desperate, inefficient and environmentally disastrous ways of extracting the last drops e.g. fracking?

If the entire premise is flawed science (which I doubt) then surely it's not such a bad thing anyway? Why be so vehemently against the notion?

 

Does this mean you have officially abandoned Robitaille's Liquid Metallic Hydrogen theory for the Sun and accept it is a plasma?

 

I can't accept or abandon them mate, I don't possess the mathematics or knowledge though Robitaille;s work is not related to global warming you know that right? Also, it is accepted there is metallic liquid hydrogen on the sun, that is not even disputed. Hydrogen is the fuel source after all, the disagreement is if the reaction happens on the suface in 5000 degrees or in the core at millions of degrees.

You have to admit, with this kind of thing it makes a mockery of IPCC modeling, if approx 25% of earth thermals are distributed to the oceans, cos the IPCC are saying CO2 is warming the oceans.

This paper gets no air time from the media and it should be part of the debate. I think that is fair

 

From the same university that gives us global warming So East Anglia went from "we're heading for a glaciation" to "we are going to fry". **** off

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

@BringBackFootie.

Hottest July day ever.

No global warming like.

All a lie.

 

So was the last hottest July day ever a sign of man made global warming?

 

Who knows

But your reply is the sign of a #bite

 

Just sat down to eat and yours was the first post on my alerts

 

Whats the current status of climate change/global warming.

Mans not to blame right? At least thata what greenpeace say.

 

You lot are so funny, when it is cold and there is snow you say "thats weather idiot not climate"

Then when you get a hot day it's "see global warming is real"

You ****ing ******