Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Explain how you happen to know it was changed for political reasons not because of better calibrations?

If it's a #fraud why do they still have the old version on their website? #sortyourstoryout

 

I would imagine Chomsky's done his homework on this Sis

 

So let me get this straight.

Astro believes that NASA systematically changing the entire temperature for all recorded regions around the world over the last 100 years, with all adjustments making the past cooler and the present warmer, without even consulting experts from those regions, is not suspicious.

It's not suspicious that the most accruate and best coverage method, BY FAR, satellites, have not shown any of the warming and all these adjustments have made. All of the warming is adjustments.

So I wonder why NASA could not read the data in 2012, cos they had to edited it after 2012.

Give me a break @astro(Klopp's footbo)naut you surely must be a mouth breathing moron?



So by that logic, if Microsoft change the cost of their shares in 1980 to half what they actually were, then that would make the current share price look even more of an increase.

Better trend line on the graph as it were. That's why NASA cool the past, to steepen the mean temp trend line to scare climatards and ignorant fools

 

No I believe a government funded agency with no profit incentive wanted to create a massive fraud for some reason so faked some data and kept the original non-fake data freely available on their website for some reason

 

If you are back talking about graphs and temperatures, any chance you could answer the question re the cycle and "that graph"?

 

The fact that the data is still there is yet more evidence of the fraud , honestly just listen its true, because apparently they had to leave the other data on there after being ordered to so by " insert latest crazy idea here" , this then allows them to fool the "mouth breathers" of the world that there is no cover up.

The only alternative to this was remove the other data thereby providing yet more evidence of the fraud etc etc

So to sum up, its a fraud and I know it is because I read a lot.

 

Meanwhile back at NOAA, fraud continues

please log in to view this image

#scientistsagree
#politicsnotscience

 

NOAA Radiosonde (measurements taken from balloons) vs ground station temp stations

please log in to view this image

data
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat


Radiosonde does not pick up urban island heating effect because of balloon altitude where ground stations are often on roofs and in cities and over airport runways lol

just because the media and IPCC do not show this data, it is actually there for anyone to use.
So 3 of 5 data sets for NASA do not show warming (the 2 that do are "adjusted" to ****, and that is why they are only 38% certain. or as we like to call it, 2 in 3 change they are wrong or 62% uncertain


#fraud

 

NASA 1990. "satellites are the best way to measure global temperature"
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963

Satellites

please log in to view this image

 

Can you please explain the cycle in this chart,

please log in to view this image

 

Explain the continued glacial melt that you swerved weeks ago while you're at it

 

Latest experiment at Large Hadron Collider reports first results
Scientists precisely count particles produced in a typical proton collision.

Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
October 14, 2015

Press Inquiries
After a two-year hiatus, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world, began its second run of experiments in June, smashing together subatomic particles at 13 teraelectronvolts (TeV) — the highest energy ever achieved in a laboratory. Physicists hope that such high-energy collisions may produce completely new particles, and potentially simulate the conditions that were seen in the early universe.

In a paper to appear in the journal Physics Letters B, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) collaboration at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) reports on the run’s very first particle collisions, and describes what an average collision between two protons looks like at 13 TeV. One of the study leaders is MIT assistant professor of physics Yen-Jie Lee, who leads MIT’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Group, together with physics professors Gunther Roland and Bolek Wyslouch.

In the experimental run, researchers sent two proton beams hurtling in opposite directions around the collider at close to the speed of light. Each beam contained 476 bunches of 100 billion protons, with collisions between protons occurring every 50 nanoseconds. The team analyzed 20 million “snapshots” of the interacting proton beams, and identified 150,000 events containing proton-proton collisions.

For each collision that the researchers identified, they determined the number and angle of particles scattered from the colliding protons. The average proton collision produced about 22 charged particles known as hadrons, which were mainly scattered along the transverse plane, immediately around the main collision point.

Compared with the collider’s first run, at an energy intensity of 7 TeV, the recent experiment at 13 TeV produced 30 percent more particles per collision.

Lee says the results support the theory that higher-energy collisions may increase the chance of finding new particles. The results also provide a precise picture of a typical proton collision — a picture that may help scientists sift through average events looking for atypical particles.

“At this high intensity, we will observe hundreds of millions of collisions each second,” Lee says. “But the problem is, almost all of these collisions are typical background events. You really need to understand the background well, so you can separate it from the signals for new physics effects. Now we’ve prepared ourselves for the potential discovery of new particles.”

Shrinking the uncertainty of tiny collisions

Normally, 13 TeV is not a large amount of energy — about that expended by a flying mosquito. But when that energy is packed into a single proton, less than a trillionth the size of a mosquito, that particle’s energy density becomes enormous. When two such energy-packed protons smash into each other, they can knock off constituents from each proton — either quarks or gluons — that may, in turn, interact to produce entirely new particles.

Predicting the number of particles produced by a proton collision could help scientists determine the probability of detecting a new particle. However, existing models generate predictions with an uncertainty of 30 to 40 percent. That means that for high-energy collisions that produce a large number of particles, the uncertainty of detecting rare particles can be a considerable problem.

“For high-luminosity runs, you might have up to 100 collisions, and the uncertainty of the background level, based on existing models, would be very big,” Lee says.

To shrink this uncertainty and more precisely count the number of particles produced in an average proton collision, Lee and his team used the Large Hadron Collider’s CMS detector. The detector is built around a massive magnet that can generate a field that’s 100,000 times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field.

Typically, a magnetic field acts to bend charged particles that are produced by proton collisions. This bending allows scientists to measure a particle’s momentum. However, an average collision typically produces lightweight particles with very low momentum — particles that, in a magnetic field, end up coiling their way toward the main collider’s beam pipe, instead of bending toward the CMS detector.

To count these charged, lightweight particles, the scientists analyzed the data with the detector’s magnet off. While they couldn’t measure the particles’ momentum, they could precisely count the number of charged particles, and measure the angles at which they arrived at the detector. The measurements, Lee says, give a more accurate picture of an average proton collision, compared with existing theoretical models.

“Our measurement actually shrinks the uncertainty dramatically, to just a few percent,” Lee says.

Simulating the early universe

Knowing what a typical proton collision looks like will help scientists set the collider to essentially see through the background of average events, to more efficiently detect rare particles.

Lee says the new results may also have a significant impact on the study of the hot and dense medium from the early universe. In addition to proton collisions, scientists also plan to study the highest-energy collisions of lead ions, each of which contain 208 protons and neutrons. When accelerated in a collider, lead ions flatten into disks due to a force called the Lorentz contraction. When smashed together, lead ions can generate hundreds of interactions between protons and produce an extremely dense medium that is thought to mimic the conditions of space just after the Big Bang. In this way, the Large Hadron Collider experiment could potentially simulate the condition of the very first moments of the early universe.

“One microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe was very dense and hot — about 1 trillion degrees,” Lee says. “With lead ion collisions, we can reproduce the early universe in a ‘small bang.’ If we can understand what one proton collision looks like, we may be able to get some more insights about what will happen when hundreds of them occur at the same time. Then we can see what we can learn about the early universe.”

 

You have asked that question like 10 times and I repeatedly said the climate fluctuation oscillations are there in red ******.

Just saying "cycles" is meaningless, but why would you know that

 

Really, that I swerved? Show me the data. You run off and hide when anything gets technical if you cant learn it in 3 minutes

 

But you said it shows we are in a cycle so tell us what that long term cycle is.

 

oh and while you are at it seeing as explaining data is all the rage here, explain the data too

 

You were going on about sea ice expanding, and I pointed out to you that the on land glaciers were still reducing thus adding to the sea volume, which sea ice doesn't affect.

It's a simple known fact, unlike you I didn't need google and some crank websites to post reems of 'data' to back that simple known fact up.

So try explaining it please? In your own time....................

 

get the quote where I said that "this reconstruction shows a long term cycle" and if legit I will correct.

 

no no, show me the data and explain it, that's what is expected of me, actually haven't you slated using data?

 

No answer then....thought so...

#standard