Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

[BBFs Unpopular View]

It's not really peer review though is it? After a theory has been put out there, it's past the review stage.

Science has been and will continue to test Einstein's theory of general relativity hoping to disprove it. I agree with you that it will stand the test of time, in fact all the tests so far have only shown how right he was. More tests under way looking for gravitational waves, whether they find them or not won't affect the Theory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34815668

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

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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

You must log in or register to see images

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

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

You must log in or register to see images

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


2007

You must log in or register to see images

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


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

[HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]

 

[astro]

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

You must log in or register to see images

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

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

You must log in or register to see images

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


2007

You must log in or register to see images

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

[HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]

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 [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG] on the [HASHTAG]#bbcsalford[/HASHTAG] website where they delete previous tables and replace them with new ones with bigger numbers every week or so

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

@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.

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%? Or

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

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?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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?

 

[astro]

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 [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]?

 

[astro]

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 [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] that is

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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 [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]?

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?

 

[astro]

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.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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 [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] that is

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?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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

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

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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.

 

[astro]

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 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.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

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

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.

 

[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.''

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

 

[astro]

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.

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.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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.

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

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

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.

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.

 

[astro]

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

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

[HASHTAG]#seemslegit[/HASHTAG]

 

[Tobes]

...and your point is?
Well, you said 80% the glaciers are in retreat (in he contex of defending the global warming scam) meaning you are saying man is responsible for said glacier melt, as you obviously disagree with my view, though mine is supported by actual factual measurements.

"There's been studies into the impact of man on glacial melt since the mid 19thC and present day, in the overall timeframe the impact of man was estimated at circa 25% of the total loss. However, in the last 25 years the impact was estimated to have increased to 69% of the total cause"

Citation needed, you could have read that on the Guardian or Skeptical science. Plus actual reporting at the time is more relevent that a study for specific regions and averaged, that are poster boys for global warming namely

The Himilayas
The arctic
Greenland
Antarctica

Antarctica being the big on obviously because that's where all the ice is. That is why I post about the relevant glaciers and cold spots

Do you understand the relevance of Greenland in all of this?
Source for that study?

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