Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I asked him beards ago whether he worked for an oil company (it was a question not an assumption), as he appeared to be taking the oil industry financed and driven anti climate change doctrine as gospel. Which I thought was very odd given his stance on America and the corporate World in general. It was juxtaposed to his normal stance on anything relating to either, so I wondered if there was a driver behind that.

He said no, that was the end of it.

He's now trying to make out (wrongly, yet again) that it was something more than a simple question.

 

Dude I have been saying that for years that petro chemical is evil, now PJ called me an Oil Shill, his words, Tobes actually asked me if I work for an oil company. Basically I have been lying in wait since 2011 to carry out my mission starting 2014
Now all of a sudden, you are all saying they are bad (oil companies) They hire ****ing mercs and police to kill people in Africa ffs in Sudan for land. Climate nonsense, oh that matters, murder, ignored. People are mouth breathing morons mostly

Preaching to the choir, and now I apparently work for these people, PJ now says carbon shill.. without carbon he would not exist

Why is everyone ignoring the post that matters, ask yourself that. The one with the data and the reasonable factual argument. Nope, no one wants that, lets talk about me. Rinse and repeat, they didn't even read that post. I'm done responding to people who insist on constantly and consistently talking about me instead of this topic, granted 9\11 draws some ire, fair enough, but this subject is nothing like that. Yet I get "conspiracy loon" thrown at me in a scientific debate, insane

 

Avoid this of course

please log in to view this image

temp and CO2, only since 1980, for the whole record, the sun and temp match, you religious clowns
Only a pseudoscientific theory would say hydrocarbons are causing the warming.

please log in to view this image

Before denial sets in, the arctic has been used by the IPCC and NASA as the health indicator of the planet.. until it started gaining ice, now it is only relevant in July and August when the summer is at it's peak, not so much in winter when record gains are happening, those gains are in like with low sun activity, but please post some nonsensical charts showing correlations of things not in the same system of data and science. Oh wait.. you've done that already

http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/74272.php?from=269309

please log in to view this image

More recent results from solar and temp correlation. Note the 1998 and 1930s warms in the sun's activity? Coincidence of course, just talk about some unrelated ****e instead yes?

This backs up RSS Radiosonde and UAH datasets, and NOAA Rural\Unchanged stations, it shows the cooling that "does not exist" according to lunatics, that 1998 spike is represented in solar record above and temp record below. #denial

please log in to view this image

This data set is an IPCC used one btw but they never mention it. RSS the other record matches it perfectly, nothing matches GISS. Yes warming, and no trend since 98. To say 2000 to 2010 is the hottest decade (on record of 100 years) is true, but if 98 was hottest year, and the record plateaued, then obviously that decade will be hottest, even if the temp is not increasing, this seems lost on people like tobes and Astro. 1998 is only hotter than the 1930s because NASA decided to rewrite history.Arctic records show the 30s were hotter. Measurement not models

If you climb to the 10th step on a stairs (highest step on record) and the next ten steps are flat and level with that 10th step, they will also be the highest steps on record.

Expecting this to be either ignored or some non related argument to be put forward. Warming of the troposphere, unbeknownst to Astro, is where you measure global warming by the very theory put forward, seeing as it is proven incorrect, they use surface temps.

Now, take a lamp and point it at a table close enough to warm it, and try measure the temp of the room by measuring the table surface.. you will fail. That's the folly of surface temps.Many temps are from urban areas that warm like airport runways where the Met's record came from this year (Astro), while places like the snow covered Andes mountains are estimated, even though data is available.

Little side note for the met illiterate, Finland the US and UK are all between cold and warm fronts. Climate fluctuations are not only likely, but are guaranteed as the sun goes through 11 and 22 year cycles as well as ocean oscillations. Heat is moved around the planet by the climate system otherwise the tropics would be completely dead and the north and south would be uninhabitable due to ice gains.

________________________________

So no takers no? About me is it? Seriously, this is schoolyard kids behaviour, from grown men

 

please log in to view this image

Oh look here's the ice core data for the last 350,000 years, see how there's a massive co-incidence in the fact that the CO2 levels and temperatures go hand in hand.

Note the massive spike to the end point of 2007 (and it's still rising) to over 30% more than has ever been previously recorded from the ice cores, a huge co-incidence spread by climatards of course....

They've very cleverly managed to make 10 of the hottest years on record co-incide with this obvious #fraud since 1998. With 2014 being the hottest on record and now 2015 about to surpass it.

#hugeconspiracy

please log in to view this image

 

So, ignore my whole post and then copy and paste a reply you spent all of 2 minutes working on. My post took me over 20 mins, cos I have to "think" and word it correctly

What about my post do you disagree with, just slapping **** up means nothing, other than you dont understand what you are posting, you think it fits, you do this repeatedly.

So lay our your argument, dont paste it

 

here's a clue, explain how your post refutes my previous post. I don't see how.

The chart you've shown, there is an 800 year lag, Temp, 800 approx years pass, then CO2 goes up, that is natural Co2, the climate science doesn't touch natural CO2, they state this repeatedly, you have no idea what that chart means

We are talking about man made CO2 mate.

I've also destroyed that NOAA chart, by posting their own raw data that shows .7 warming and they cooled the 1880 temp by .6 degrees, between 2001 and 2015, so fail

 

Try reading it, it's self explanatory.

The ice core data shows the correlation between Co2 and temperature in 'real time'.

 

Excuse for being a simpleton about this (and I'm a newbie here, so try not to bite my head off), but does that graph not indisputedly prove a mean rise in global temperature? The contention is that the sun is the main cause (wow, the star 90 million miles away is the main factor in our climate and weather - who'd have believed that?) of that increase, not industrial activity. Okay so far?

CO2 can, in large enough amounts, increase the temperature in the atmosphere, again, is there any dispute to that? Forests and jungles love consuming CO2 - the earth has been de-foresting globally at the same time as emissions have risen. So, we have a situation were the sun is raising global temperature and we, humans, are increasing emissions and decreasing the earth's natural ability to process these increases. Am I doing okay so far, without any graphs?

We can do **** all about the sun, and even won't be able to for tens of thousands of years, if at all. So we can't do everything - but shouldn't we do everything that we can?

 

You see this is how you dodge to hide your ignorance, you posted the data that has been edited by NASA (ADMITTED) They cooled 1880 by .6 degrees, how can warming come from cooling the past 120 years later? I showed the real records for many areas that NASA decided to just change, all over the world, you know this you know that NOAA are currently being investigated for political interference for the paper that created that chart.. you are funny, repeating the same **** over and over, like your WMO article that used that data too

Avoiding my post.

You dont even understand your second chart.

 

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2 overleaf). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years. The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1,000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 10 years!

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

please log in to view this image

 

haha, the classic conspiraloon retort. Dismiss the content out of hand as it doesn't fit your script and decry the knowledge of the person who posted it instead.

 

Excuse for being a simpleton about this (and I'm a newbie here, so try not to bite my head off), but does that graph not indisputedly prove a mean rise in global temperature? The contention is that the sun is the main cause (wow, the star 90 million miles away is the mean factor in our climate and weather - who'd have believed that?) of that increase, not industrial activity. Okay so far?

1. No not ok, CO2 emissions only rose significantly after 1950, yet the temp did what the sun did, only when emissions rose high enough did they correlate with temp after 1980, if temp increase was greater than emissions, and emissions went up and up, they would eventually correlate, as they did from 80 onwards, but.. temp has stopped going up according to 4 data sets, and CO2 is still going up, the correlation broke after el nino in 98.

You know NASA rewrote the entire historical record several times since 2001? They adjusted it twice in 2015 to make the past cooler and present warmer. I posted their originals and edited versions.

Do you know? No one monitors natural sources of CO2, including those oceans... go figure mate. Termites create 20 or more times what we do yearly.. fancy that. Killing termites will save the planet by the same logic.

The industrial period had no effect, nothing, any claim of such is pseudoscientific. CO2 was stable around 200, critically low for the earth.
Scientifically, CO2's logarithmic effect started to run down when CO2 first went from 10 to 20ppm.

This is proven by simple experiment. A tube with a IR radiation source at one end and a detector at the other, fill it with CO2. No IRR will make it to the other end, this is because all the IRR hits CO2 before it gets to the end. Now, seeing as it is all CO2 in the tube, you cannot tell when saturation was complete. So you lower the PPM until you get a signal at the other end at the sensor, testing has shown that you have to lower CO2 to below 400ppm to get any significant IRR to the sensor, meaning CO2 saturation maxes out at below 400PPM/ See what I am getting at, once CO2 reaches a certain level, all the heat it will block is already blocked, adding more does nothing.

please log in to view this image

Water vapour aborbs nearly all of the IRR wavelength, CO2 only as small part, you have to be challenged or a fraud to point at CO2, the earht would be an iceball with no life without water vapour and we have no way to monitor water vapour. It would take our best super computers 100 years to model water vapour FOR ONE YEAR to any real degree

I could go on and on about this ludicrous "science" that is refuted by many scientists regardless of what the media tell you.

CO2 can, in large enough amounts, increase the temperature in the atmosphere, again, is there any dispute to that? Forests and jungles love consuming CO2 - the earth has been de-foresting globally at the same time as emissions have risen. So, we have a situation were the sun is raising global temperature and we, humans, are increasing emissions and decreasing the earth's natural ability to process these increases. Am I doing okay so far, without any graphs?

I explained this above. I totally expect you to grasp this and understand it and make up your own mind mate, the others tho..

We can do **** all about the sun, and even won't be able to for tens of thousands of years, if at all. So we can't do everything - but shouldn't we do everything that we can?

We can adapt? We can build flood defences for example.. you know what I am talking about, adaption is 10 times chearper and actually saves lives, than regulation and taxes,, do you really trust the IPCC with your money, the GreenFund has been giving billions to cowboy cronies of government officials, developers in asia, they build places with no walls and no water or leccy that collapsed after two months. For all that money these governments are happy to sign deals.

answers are this, IPCC logic
Taxes
Regulation
Carbon trading
Wealth transfer, 2% of global GDP to poor countries so they wont advance their cheap energy needs

Try a life without electricity, 2 billion currently do, it's a short hard brutal life mate, and we are now telling them htey cannot have the prosperity we had.

 

@donga kloppo CO2 IRR absorption compared to other gases, notice water.. completely unmonitored, cos we just cant. Bote other gases absorb some of the same CO2 wavelength, meaning CO2 is not even responsible for much of the wavelength it absorbes

please log in to view this image

 

Same conspiracy crap.

I proved they edited the data by posting their own NASA charts, the old and new, and alterations, like a 100 times. The Tom Karl paper is involved in a legal case right now, NOAA are being sued. Conspiracy.. OK I posted the congressional investigation paper from the US gov site, you clown

Are you saying they did not re write the historical record many times since 2001, and always making the past colder and the present warmer as a result?

 

Only it hasn't, has it?

As 10 of the hottest years on record have been post 1998 and the 2 hottest years on record are 2014 and now 2015.

You're using selective 'facts'

 

I tried the common sense approach a long time ago -I've long since given up.

 

I'm intrigued. Are you saying mean temperature is not rising? Are you saying CO2 does not increase global temperature? (I'm well aware that CO2 reversed the global snowball hundreds of millions of years ago - I saw that Horizon episode!). So we need some CO2, but not 'too much'? This sort of indicates CO2 does effect temperature.

So temperature is rising, and so is CO2? My solution is nuclear (especially fusion research). Btw, and I'm just asking, but are you aware of the decades long struggle against leaded petrol and the petrol companies' political and media war to defend lead? It's a salutary lesson, with lots and lots of graphs and charts that they used back then to say that lead was as good for you as vitamin C.

 

First of all you obviously didn't read my factual scientifically backed post. You in fact refused to explain your own post, cos you copy and pasted stuff you dont understand cos you thought it fit.

According to GISS, which makes up half of the planet's temp from thin air. That "record" has changed twice this year for that "decade" you talk about.
According to UAH RSS Radiosonde and Rural\unaltered station data, it hasn't.

You are selecting 1 out of 5 and I am selecting 4 out of 5, who's cherry picking, do you know what that term means, really you are dumb ****

Now which NASA data are you talking about? 1990 record and 2001 record for the US. Magic. That was when altered the data to make 98 the hottest year.
This?

please log in to view this image

The EPA for 10 years after that alteration to data had this

please log in to view this image

10.000 temp records fell in 34 and 46. The hottest year on record is still 1922, the arctic was melting in 1917 as bad as today, worse than today actually.

Here is raw data before NASA gets it and what happens after they get it

please log in to view this image

Here's a clue, the raw matches solar activity.


Here again, to increase the x axis to it in their new cold in 1880, in 2012
You think it is quite alright to go back and re write the temp records for the world, every country.. because people couldn't read thermometers then?

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

I could post many of these, this year in march and oct they edited the 120 year record again in the runup to Paris.

 

Oil shrill/carbon shrill....call it what you wish. Climate change denier

What a man Thomas Midgley was. Lead additives to stop engine knocking and CFC'. Imagine the world without his inventions

 

Given I posted the records from Greenland. Greenland is important because Greenland responds to temperature changes like no place on earth, literally.
So, mean temperature rises as we come out of glaciation. We are still in there, namely because there is ice. Earth has swung between ice and no ice. The planet was green pole to pole in the past and thriving in far warmer periods. If you remember your dinosaur stuff, plants were massive, it was far warmer than now and CO2 was in the thousands of PPM, all history like. Note the mean temperature going up, why is now man? For an 18 year correlation.
This matches what we think the sun has done, but we have no records for solar activity for that long, only 400 years and it matches temp

please log in to view this image

So, if the planet was green pole to pole, and CO2 was several thousand PPM, and life thrived, and no catastrophe came.. how is 500ppm and much ice and cold, bad?

Climate optimum is no ice mate. People need to get that into their heads, that is when the whole planet is habitable, but for that to happen Co2 would need to increase, with warming it eventually happens, the ice melts, as it always has, and the oceans warm, ice melting and warm oceans create much CO2, as does thriving insects in warmer climates, given green globe, insect populations of then would make today's look like church gathering. This is why warming causes CO2.

Then life adapts to more CO2, it takes plants several generations to grow bigger from more CO2. Life needs to catch up with the added CO2, it takes hundreds if not thousands of years for that carbon to make it's way back into the ground, it used to be all in the air mate. It's nothing but a cycle of carbon based life.

I was not kidding when I said we only have deserts because CO2 is so low. Too low for plants to survive on such little moisture. Green life creates cloud nucleation particles which brings rain and rain and plants bring insects and life and all of that brings soil. Driving this process is the sun.



CO2 is rising because we are warming because of the sun, people literally think the sun has no real influence, because of a joke of a paper from Gavin Schmidt at NASA to refute all of solar physics, even Cern.. seriously, the guy has a PhD in maths, he's an environmentalist and politicaly appointed to head up NASA, he made a video calling for a global carbon tax.... to control the weather.

The Royal Academy of sciences, just published a paper this year, severe global cooling by 2050, which if accurate would kill billions if a 5c drop occurred, compare that to the frightening of a warmer planet by 2 degrees, and doom saying 100 years into the future, unfalsifiable science is not science, it's mayan calendar predictions

Svensmark paper results, 400 years of correlation compared to 18 years of temp and man made Co2

please log in to view this image

Clearly man made CO2 and temp only match from 1980 to 98, chart stops in 2000

please log in to view this image