Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Gravitational waves are nonsense mate. If Newton heard you say that gravity can be present with no mass to create the gravitational field, he'd savage you

He is spinning in his grave right now

 

An important tool in detecting .org data fraud is the way back machine web archive, cos these fraudsters delete the old data.


CU sea level research group Colorado.
2015

please log in to view this image

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

So I put the link to that into the way back machine and found many edits, the original is 2004

please log in to view this image

https://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/


2007

please log in to view this image

https://web.archive.org/web/20070208193323/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/


ect 201 versions, every one makes the ocean level rise faster.

#fraud

 

Nice one Sherlock. By "delete old versions" and "many edits" you mean "updated to include new data". And by "fraud" you mean the improved data, and longer time series, give a rate of 3.3 compared with 2.8.

So this is all a massive fraud to inflate the rate by 18%?

I've discovered a similar #fraud on the #bbcsalford website where they delete previous tables and replace them with new ones with bigger numbers every week or so

 

@johnsonsbaby

There are indeed parts of Einstein's work that will be around in years to come, but not all of it, not by a longshot.

League tables change, history does not change can't you actually see that

Now if the BBC changed LAST YEARS league table final standings, or the one from 1970, would that be fraud?

 

fair question by your logical argument here astro, what do you reckon, yes it would be fraud if BBC edited history to suit their argument?

 

Calibration can change.

Anyway answer the question, the end result of all this is a decade more data puts the rate 18% higher than before. That is the extent of this #fraud?

 

VW: hides the fact that emisisons are 400% the legal limit

NASA: spends a decade bumping the sea level increase rate by 18%

**** me, what a pathetically small #conspiracy that is

 

Now I already covered this calibration topic, which you conveniently forget.


Expain why data from 3 decades ago needs to be recalibrated? you do know that they are adding data to the rise with each buoy they install, and call it calibration.

Yes you nailed it, the increase is all calibration NOT MEASUREMENT>

half the warming is "adjustment" not measurement, coincidence

Also conveniently when they switched systems years ago, a convenient thing happened, sea level rise doubled, fact, it's in the data.


But what do you know, you say "calibration" on its own like it means anything.

Mind you after your BE paper fail, should I expect more?

 

Point out how any of this drivel is related to the images you posted.

 

Air traffic makes VW look like a cough of smoke, but why would you know that.

VW issue was not CO2.

I already told you that the emissions stated globally is bollocks, China and India and all cars produce more than you are being told.

FFS they let lead be in petrol for donkeys knowing it was killing people ffs. You think politicians have changed? FFS are you that ****ing naive?

 

Youa re not reading you are not interested, except to come and "flex" your debate skills but end up looking entirely ignorant like yesterday

You really are thicker than you think, proven by the fact you cant see it

 

You scuttled off after your science debacle there yesterday, "raw data" and runs

I guess being some sort of stats analyst is not preparation for actually understanding the real world.

Stick to what you know, making lies up from numbers.

 

You are the one not interested. Waffling on about bouys and temperatures when you have posted satellite data for the sea level. Saying there's never any reason to recalibrate old data when your graphs clearly show one saying inverse barometer correction applied and the other doesn't.

And even if everything you say were somehow true, this decade long fraud equates to an 18% bump to the rise rate.

 

I have no idea what a gravitational wave is, whether they exist or not is open for debate, the search for them however, isn't. I wonder how much that's costing.

 

''There are indeed parts of Einstein's work that will be around in years to come, but not all of it, not by a longshot.''

I agree, some of it's already been debunked but his greatest theory hasn't ............. yet.

 

Possibly a few hundred million. As with most science projects though, the "real cost" is usually far less, or even profitable, since they also develop useful technology, employ scientists who actually pay tax etc.

 

talk about me, boring, it is all you can do, obviously

So bitter. You use words like "calibration" without even understanding how it is applied and why, an insult to learning and a testament to ego.

I am 2hrs ahead of the UK and I need to be actually productive and make dinner or she beats my ass.

As usual you first of all see this as winning or losing (creepy) and think that if you keep replying you win.

No citations, no support of points, nothing, just loads of opinions about me personally


Carry on lad, if you have any actual factually supported arguments to make, them make them, dont just post a link loser

 

If you understood the theory and how actual physical interactions are defined then you'd know there is no gravity without mass. That is what a graivty wve suggests.

So I don't even know what ****e you are mumbling here, it is not related to the science

IN a universe with only 1 mass gravity would not exist duhh

Stop gobbing off about **** you just dont understand, go read some.

 

You have no time to respond to the simple points I made but enough time to post why you have to go.

#seemslegit

 

Firstly, save the umpteenth attempt at patronising me, as your nonsense in that regard is completely wasted on me pal, as I can stand my corner with an intellectual lightweight like you, no problem .

Now for your actual post;

1. I never gave my view on what was causing the glacial melt when I brought the issue up (and still haven't) I asked what you thought was causing it, then you launched into a denial that it was actually happening at all. You still seem to be struggling with the difference between FACT and PREDICTION, I gave you FACTUAL data, you came back with PREDICTION.

2. The study I mentioned that concluded that the impact of man on glacial melt had increased from 25% to 69% was from a study by the University of Innsbruck.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191824.htm