Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Try reading the one I posted yesterday.........

Remember? the one that you rubbished without reading and when challenged came back with "I aint reading jack lad"....that one

 

Thanks for posting something that shows how much bollocks your "study" source was, we are measuring ice since the 70s. Right when the world came out of a cooling spell. Global cooling was the big scare then so you can imagine glaciers were advancing all over the place.

Since then the planet has been warming and you think it is some point you proved when you say ice is melting on a warming planet? That the mass budget, that is modeled by comparison to earlier satellite readings.. no ice volume is measurement, it is all calculated\modeled duh, measurement would require actual measurement and that is not possible.

The ice mass budget is and will always be down from the deep freeze that ended in the 70s. So I am supposed to believe that the end of that freeze was caused by Man?


Surface mass balance is how much is lost and how much gained, to our best understanding. I am impressed you got this far though. The ice lost is calculated, not measured. But I have not said "glaciers are not melting" have I.

I said Greenland and Antarctica are not disintergrating like is being claimed by NASA.

So while yo continue to make your false argument that you are clinging to, that somehow I said "no glacier is melting" or most are not melting, when did I say that?

When did I say "glacier melt is not adding to sea level"?

Never?
Your nasa link which has merit, does not go towards explaining the lie that Antarctica and Greenland are melting, they are not.

Now if you think I am avoiding something here, you get the post number where I said "mass budget is up globally" or glaciers are "not melting"

Stop moving the goal posts lad.

Unless you claim this debate is about "measurement of mass volume"?

 

Your false arguments are making it messy now.

Lets clean it up so.

My point is and always has been that Antarctica, where almost all of the ice is, is not melting.
Greenland is also not melting away, recoving ice since 2013. Changing it to "all glaciers" to try gain a foothold wont wash.

Now what have you got to refute that?

You did ask me to prove it and I did, so why are we now on total glaciers and mean mass budget loss, that is not the argument and they were never denied

 

What about knowledge for its own sake? If we didn't have curiosity beyond those things that we can predict will benefit us directly then we'd still be in the pre-historic era.
It is human nature to want to discover more about our universe and about what we are, and without that nature we wouldn't be who we are.
It's easy to say that money from this research could be better spent elsewhere but I think society has far bigger problems to solve when it comes to wealth distribution and its usage.
Almost all the world's resources are exploited by a minority of people for personal profit, and if there are any that aren't it's only because they haven't managed to get their grubby paws on them yet. That to me is a much more pertinent topic.
Perhaps we don't need to know the nature of gravity, but then who needs to be a multi-billionaire?

 

Firstly, it's not MY study it was published by the NSIDC, I merely used it to reference my point. I have no personal stake in it, I don't care whether you agree with it's findings or not. It's irrelevant to my being.......

You must have missed the data set, which isn't based on satellite imagery, unless we had satellites manned by lizards in 1945 that is....

http://nsidc.org/data/g10002

Another epic fail....

 

Never claimed it was peer review.

It does however show how important he work was, groundbreaking is anunderatatement to be honest. It's taken billions of dollars to get experimental data that confirms his work.

 

Firstly, it's not MY study it was published by the NSIDC, I merely used it to reference my point. I have no personal stake in it, I don't care whether you agree with it's findings or not. It's irrelevant to my being.......
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191824.htm
I was talking about this non study, its a media article you ******

Now you are avoiding the facts and laughing at your own comments. Interesting.


You are welcome to explain how mass budget is calculated, I am not quite certain and would value your input on that


You keep skipping over inconvenient bits Tobes consistently. You will keep on this to avoid going back to what this is about, greenland and antarctica adding to sea levels, why will you keep avoiding it with your total ice false argument.

 

So ignoring the actual study I posted then and focusing instead on an article that references a study.

I know which is easy to decry....crap tact, but classic conspiraloon behaviour and therefore your #standard MO.

Now try reading the other one and the one from yesterday whilst you're at it.

 

What happens if someone did this earlier in the day and then you beat the depth underwater before nipping?

 

Why, if you have a point surely you can make it in one sentence, because you are not making any points.

My point from day one has been about greenland and Antarctica.

What is your point,

 

Tobes how can i make this simpler for a complete idiot.

what claim of mine are you refuting, that is a very simple question. I am not even denying Glacier retreat I am saying in two specific areas are not adding to sea level, that is what this is about.

So clarify what you say is wrong, as you appear to know where we are at,

Lets have it stop fumbling about

 

Straight answers are anathema to @Tobes, doesn't like beig nailed down because Pseudo logic can't take the focus

What specific claim are you refuting?

 

Sisu now you are back can you confirm and explain your theory that NASA spent 10 years engaging in a massive #fraud campaign just to increase the sea rise rate by 18%

Also, on the topic of calibration, of course past data is recalibrated if models improve. The graphs you post specifically mention the inverse barometric correction related to the sea level being affected by the pressure of the air above it. For another example, measuring the height of ice and calculating the volume might later be replaced with a model that takes into account that the ice at the bottom will be under greater pressure than the ice at the top. So in both these cases the height of the water or ice is not changed, but the inferred sea level/volume of ice might change for a calibration based on an improved physical model.

But don't go offtopic and forget to address how the entire #fraud is just to increase the rate by 18% over a decade.

 

I agree. Knowing the gestation period of jelly fish doesn't benefit mankind other than adding to the collective knowledge, which is a great thing. My comment was more to do with cost as you go on to talk about yourself. I was brought up old school > why do you need three pairs of shoes when you can only wear one pair at a time. A £5 pair of pyjamas does the same job as a £100 pair... It's hard to shake that mind-set.

I think NASA has a Beyond Einstein program that has permanent [?] funding for research into gravitational waves, amongst other things. Good for science - yes, but not if I was in charge of the budget. Infinity and Beyond would be on the wish list not the shopping list.

 

Just seen this, but my whole argument has been about Antarctica and Greenland.
First though I keep having to tell you, NASA is not 10 guys in an office, Jet propulsion labs are one part of NASA.


Lets look at the anatomy of a false argument and disproven claims.

"2003 to 2010 - The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons"
I said Greenland has been gaining ice since 2013, this study predates that. Fail 1.

"with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica."
in other words, this study focused on glaciers outside of the very two I have been talkinga bout. Fail 2



This shows your study was falsified, as Antarctica gains ice not loses it so.. Fail 3
NASA October 2015
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


So this is when you switched from my points of argument to a false argument. A false argument that has failed repeatedly

 

Why do you think I am obliged to answer you cack when you coe on here with your BE study, and then ****ing run off once we actually get to the paper and data.? Then I should answer you?

Never mind the questions you totally ignored today.

And before you create some fiction, answering two people on this subject, would take all of my time up, between you and Tobes I can't keep up, and you interpret that as ignoring you as does Tobes.

When Tobes has the courage to come back and state exactly what he is refuting then I will answer this, otherwise, life's too short.

 

Knowing they don't have one might though.
I know loads of things, the only use of which I've found so far is to win me some free beers in a pub quiz.
Therefore no knowledge is entirely useless.

 

What does this I was referring to mean then? -

Einstein was a genius, a word that's far too over used now.

 

it's all to do with the royals, BBC and Saville. They all knew what was going on.

 

As someone involved in education, I completely agree.

If you'd gone on a pub quiz course that cost you more than enough money to buy a pub and the only benefit was a few free beers, you'd have to say that was a bit bonkers