S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Apparently, if you produce a **** that touches the toilet water before leaving your arse you are automatically declared the king of all time 
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
**** yis, not you JB, with Tobes and Astro's nonsensicle rubbish I have not had time to reply mate, almost 4pm, gotta do ****, will reply in a bit
Astro, Tobes, make points back them up, dont talk about me and we can have a debate, no doubt when I get back there will be some solid arguments put forward and not a load of childish nonsense.
Astro, Tobes, make points back them up, dont talk about me and we can have a debate, no doubt when I get back there will be some solid arguments put forward and not a load of childish nonsense.
That's a lot of money. I'm all for research but the results of this won't benefit anyone.
For someone who is a self appointed expert of the subject, I'd have thought you'd have understood the basic fact that post the mid C19th there was a melt after a decades of cold weather - a mini Ice Age as it was labelled at the time.
No-one is saying there are no natural reasons for a proportion of the melt, just that it's patently obvious that man is indeed having an effect on it aswell and that effect is increasing.
I was responding to the question of cost.
If you knew anything about gravitational waves you would understand how they are a specific prediction of general relativity as gravity being transmitted as a curvature of spacetime.
Since you've just dismissed general relativity in one post, and a while back dismissed special relativity equally quickly, you should write your ideas up and get yourself a nice Nobel or two rather than waste your time on here.
How do you know he isn't and we're acting as his peer reviewers
So you can predict the future now?
Technology behind scientific investigations has produced lasers, modern computers, the internet etc. even going way back the use of electricity itself.
The multistage pendulum that isolates gravitational wave detectors from seismic activity can also prevent Earthquakes bringing down buildings.
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
You should read what you post, like astro you cant read a scientific paper.
You call "combining climate and glacier models" FACTS!
The purpose of that study was to "prove" humans are causing ice loss yet there is no empirical scientific causation of CO2 melting ice in climate science.
So you call models all of which were created after 1970 by people who want to prove global warming is real, FACTS
No, observation like the science reports I posted from old news papers, actually recording what the Ice has done, does not get overwritten 80 year later by models.
Models are not facts.
You are a complete idiot.
He would do mate, but he's got to clean the flat and cook his Mrs tea before she gets home like.......
I was thinking more of the outcome from 'is there such a thing as a gravitational wave?' Whether the answer's yes or no, they either already exist or they don't and unlike discovering a previously unknown bacteria [for example] that has health benefits, the proof won't benefit anyone. In truth, I never considered that equipment developed for the research could be used in other ways
The level of ice loss is a FACT, the rate of loss is also a FACT, the temperature increase is also a FACT.
Signed off by calling me an idiot
Go polish the bog before she kicks your arse, you emasculated pot head
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
The level of ice loss is a FACT, the rate of loss is also a FACT, the temperature increase is also a FACT.
Signed off by calling me an idiot
Go polish the bog before she kicks your arse, you emasculated pot head
First of all all ice volume is modeled, you go check that out OK, there is no empirical measurement of ice volume and never has been, put that in caps
Secondly your study, where is it, that is a media report, science media but media nonetheless. Where is the actual paper, that's what i want to read
Incase you aint copped it
Snow Ice sea level temperature climate weather everything is modeled ******.
We could not possibly measure exactly how much of any of the above ocurrs globally in any given time you idiot
Here's the thing about models
It's fine to model to get best guess, but models are totally open to bias
What moels should not be used for is changing the past records of the earth
Now Tobes you have made some overarching false argument about ALL ICE. I clearly state Arctic Antarctica and Greenland, not ALL ice and glaciers in other parts of the world respond to local conditions and not "man made climate change"
I tell you that all ice means nothing. The "study" made a fraudulent claim" that the ice loss is anthropogenic and human caused, with no science to actually back that claim up!! No paper no way to check where they got that information which is why I want to see the paper.
You cannot take a model that was made in 1990 and change 1850's ice levels. **** off
You cant make a temp model in 1980 and use it to edit 1880 temperatures.
1880 has cooled by .6 degrees, but this happened between 2001 and 2015, not in 1880
You dont know the subject you cant put it together what they are doing, go back to ****in reading mate come back in 6 months.
It's fine to model to get best guess, but models are totally open to bias
What moels should not be used for is changing the past records of the earth
Now Tobes you have made some overarching false argument about ALL ICE. I clearly state Arctic Antarctica and Greenland, not ALL ice and glaciers in other parts of the world respond to local conditions and not "man made climate change"
I tell you that all ice means nothing. The "study" made a fraudulent claim" that the ice loss is anthropogenic and human caused, with no science to actually back that claim up!! No paper no way to check where they got that information which is why I want to see the paper.
You cannot take a model that was made in 1990 and change 1850's ice levels. **** off
You cant make a temp model in 1980 and use it to edit 1880 temperatures.
1880 has cooled by .6 degrees, but this happened between 2001 and 2015, not in 1880
You dont know the subject you cant put it together what they are doing, go back to ****in reading mate come back in 6 months.
AStro, I cant bear to hear you talk about relativity for one more second, or climate science.
It literally hurts my brain reading the utter ****e you come out with. If you cant openly discuss it and simplify it, then you dont know it
It literally hurts my brain reading the utter ****e you come out with. If you cant openly discuss it and simplify it, then you dont know it
On further investigation of your "glacier study" which involved the scientists not leaving an office @Tobes
You have given me a third hand media article that was copied from a press release, and that press release leads to a document you have to pay to read.
[HASHTAG]#science[/HASHTAG]
Any actual sources?
Can't even follow a claim to it's source how on earth are you meant to know wtf you are talking about
You have given me a third hand media article that was copied from a press release, and that press release leads to a document you have to pay to read.
[HASHTAG]#science[/HASHTAG]
Any actual sources?
Can't even follow a claim to it's source how on earth are you meant to know wtf you are talking about
You really aren't an expert in this area are you mate? You wouldn't make such stupid blanket comments if you were......First of all all ice volume is modeled, you go check that out OK, there is no empirical measurement of ice volume and never has been, put that in caps
Secondly your study, where is it, that is a media report, science media but media nonetheless. Where is the actual paper, that's what i want to read
Incase you aint copped it
Snow Ice sea level temperature climate weather everything is modeled ******.
We could not possibly measure exactly how much of any of the above ocurrs globally in any given time you idiot
Taken from the NSIDC site;
This data set presents measurements of glacier mass balance from records collected over the history of mass balance measurement activity.
The calculations are based on physical measurements taken over time, not some noddy theory pulled out of someones arse.
https://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/
Now Tobes you have made some overarching false argument about ALL ICE. I clearly state Arctic Antarctica and Greenland, not ALL ice and glaciers in other parts of the world respond to local conditions and not "man made climate change"
I tell you that all ice means nothing. The "study" made a fraudulent claim" that the ice loss is anthropogenic and human caused, with no science to actually back that claim up!! No paper no way to check where they got that information which is why I want to see the paper.
You cannot take a model that was made in 1990 and change 1850's ice levels. **** off
You cant make a temp model in 1980 and use it to edit 1880 temperatures.
1880 has cooled by .6 degrees, but this happened between 2001 and 2015, not in 1880
You dont know the subject you cant put it together what they are doing, go back to ****in reading mate come back in 6 months.
It's not fraudulent at all, at worst it's assumptive, based on increased temperature and increased rate of melt co-inciding with the widely held belief that the greenhouse gas effect is a reality and not a 'fraud'
I'm sure better and more informed brains than yours have tried to come up with a reason as to why it doesn't relate to anthropogenic reasons, and you being both a climate change denier and a self appointed expert of the entire subject, I'd expect you to know what they are.......
Back to my original question.........
- Status