Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

You gave me a list of tags, stupid much?

You still have not answered my post, because it is specific, the NASA temp for 2010, again you go off on a tangent talking about something else.

Why is the record you treat as proof, showing Northern Finland 8.5c hotter than it actually was in March 2010?

Never mind, I just posted the certainties above that debunk your "proof" claims

 

So still not read it then?

Try this bit....

As for your self created NASA global temperature map, YOU'VE set the parameters for the comparison and created that map. The Finland piece states 'compared to the long term average', but doesn't specify the comparison time frame. YOU'VE selected 1971-2000 (why 2000?) for the comparison timeframe without knowing the FMI's comparison period and shouted #fraud.

I've just created my own map on the same site for the same month i.e. March 2010, using the timeframe of 1951-2010 and created the map below

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...010&base1=1951&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=rob

Which shows Finland as being -1 degree C behind the average temp in that period

Do you even know what those maps are btw? 8.5 degrees???

#clownshoes

 

Astro also doesn't know that the papers he is citing as irrefutable proof, are computer models dealing with reconstructions of the last 100+ years, he seems to think each paper (that agrees with him) is empirical rather than huge uncertainty best guesses.

Copy paste
"As for your self created NASA global temperature map, YOU'VE set the parameters for the comparison and created that map. The Finland piece states 'compared to the long term average', but doesn't specify the comparison time frame. YOU'VE selected 1971-2000 (why 2000?) for the comparison timeframe without knowing the FMI's comparison period and shouted #fraud."


You didn't type that, you just edited it, you loser You missed a bit you should have also edited.

Copy paste 3 minute expert strikes again.

That is a NASA corrected chart, of course, because their fraud was pointed out by meteorologists. Have NASA removed that warming from GISS reconstruction (GISS is a model btw, a computer model, in case you did not know)

More to the point how many other countries did they "screw up"?

Explain to me what those maps are for the laugh, you might surprise me. GISS maps are representations of the data from the computer models.
Average mean temp anomalies. Do you know what anomalies means?

The warmest March on record is set in every Finnish station GISS is following. For instance, according to GISS, the mean March temperature in Sodankyläwas a remarkable +1.5c beating the old record (-2.2c) from 1920 by 3.7c
Well, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, March 2010 was colder than usual all over Finland, especially in the northern part. For instance, the mean temperature in Sodankylä was -10.3 °C, which is almost three degrees below the base period 1971-2000 average (-7.5c). So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8c my mistake, not 10 degrees 11.8c

That's 5x+ times the warming Finland has seen in 200 years

You still have not explained how you came to a conclusion on this topic before seeing the evidence? And why you exclude everything without even looking at it.

As seen, I will make an effort to educate your copy pasting stupid self.

 

Now @Tobes can you and @astroturfnaut sort out between yourselves, was there a pause in global warming or not? Because you both have contradicted yourselves with your pasting.

Still waiting to see how I contradicted myself on something you lot banged on about a few days ago.

If I go and cook dinner am I broken and running away again?

 

@Tobes care to revisit all your hottest year claims?

please log in to view this image

I've said since day1 that 1934 was hotter than 1998, and it seems NASA are 96% certain I am right

You've been using those as "irrefutable proof"?

 

Off searching google for knowledge lads eh, but only knowledge that agrees, so that you don't have to actually learn it yourselves and come to a conclusion.

Just looking for stuff to back your uninformed conclusion is how this fraud started.

Time Magazine, 2015 Global warming causes Polar Vortex
Time Magazine, 1974 Global Cooling causes Polar Vortex
I'll pop back later to see what you managed to find.
#3minuteexperts

 

Are you really that thick or are you being deliberately obtuse to cover your massive #fail?

Firstly, I've edited nothing on that post since 11.13, if I'd have edited it since it would have the edited time on the bottom of the post

For the hard of thinking i.e. YOU. I'll spell it out for you AGAIN.

The chart you posted was comparing March 2010 with the global temperatures from YOUR chosen timeframe. Which you entered 1971-2000.
So that comparison chart shows the difference in temperature to the average over that timescale.

The FMI piece you posted made no reference to a timeframe for the comparison All it said was it was "was below the long term average". YOU created the comparison map with a set timescale and shouted #fraud. But you don't know the timescale of comparison made in the FMI piece you ****ing imbecile.

To prove the point I made my own map using a different timeframe 1951-2010 which showed that month was -1 degree lower than the average during that span.

Your final paragraph shows that you haven't got a ****ing clue what you're even posting, let alone what it means. It''s the difference between the average in the chosen timescale and the monthly actual, are you trying to say that difference was 10 degrees plus?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Excellent argument.

You still never clarified as to why NASA showed Finland's northern area as 11+ degrees warmer?

Ignored this rebuttal of your claims of absolute fact when posting NASA charts too.

please log in to view this image

laughy faces and likes and hyperbole and dishonest paraphrases. That's the meat of the argument here. Oh and a picture of a guy in a kayak in water to refute claims of at best errant data analysis, fraud at worst.

Ignore everything that 3 minutes of Browsing cant fix, and failing that post an image from google.

Laughably, you posted GISS chart and said I dont understand it, then copied and pasted a comment from some alarmist site, and edited it as your own which was irrelevant.

You didn't understand what the chart was, and did you look up anomalies yet?

This is almost as embarrassing as the whole Relativity thing, you know, where Astro was shown for the gimp he is, and he hid from this thread for weeks afterwards after the 3 minute fix was not enough to discuss relativity


Few days ago I ran away to Ostrobothnia to ski on my winter holidays, cos of this thread and the ludicrous ****e on it. While you experts on everything sat on yer arses on the internet. I'm such a coward. Tobes do you even have a job? I seriously doubt it given your occupancy rate on this board.

 

Moving on from the idiocy of two individuals

Here is NOAA on ocean acidity. This was from FOI requests for emails, this was a discussion between NOAA scientists about an alarmist NYTimes article

Dr Shallin Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program discussed the draft of the article with fellow scientist Ms Applebaum. She warns that they can’t say that OA (Ocean Acidification) was definitely a problem anywhere at the moment:

""Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"


"2) I think it is really important to resist the NYT editor’s impulse to say that OA is wreaking all sorts of havoc RIGHT NOW, because for ecological systems, we don’t yet have the evidence to say that OA is a problem today because it is changing ocean chemistry so quickly. The vast majority of the biological impacts of OA will only occur under projected future chemistry conditions. Also, the study of the biological impacts of OA is so young that we don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health or trajectory. Best, Shallin..[4]"

NOTE NOAA advised them to report on natural events in nature and claim "this is the future"

Yet the NYT went ahead and lied anyway, NOAA told them twice! and still
Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/our-deadened-carbon-soaked-seas.html?_r=0

No comments on the article, cos they know it's pure bullshit pseudo science
Stop listening to the media for your science folks.

As we can see, there is nothing to suggest ocean acidification is even happening despite the claims of complete idiots. Doesn't stop many militant greens stating that it is absolutely happening. Lets not forget, the oceans never became acidic when CO2 was 5000ppm

 

****ing hell

 

if you are referring to the post above about acidic oceans, each part of this subject, when you loot at the science, it is a completely different story to what the progressive green militants say and obviously, what some say on this thread, believe nothing from the media.

One of the Cern guys was called a denier btw, because of his solar physics predictions, but he's only a "solar physicist not a climate scientist", and not a smug sandal wearing fraud, though he's obviously assured of not harming Cern funding because of his scientific results, unlike many others unfortunately

 

@astroturfnaut

please log in to view this image

By your false sine wave just slapped onto a chart, I really hope you are NOT a data analyst cos you'd be piss poor if you were, and masked the greater increase in warming in the 30s and the lesser warming in the 80s, with huge thick lines to hide the actual data and create a pseudo science visual effect.

By your logic, do your sine wave on these, considering you believe, a belief arbitrary in nature, that temperature should have just gone down post 1980?
IPCC 1990 chart, this shows the earth has been cooling

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pd

please log in to view this image

That became this. Perfect for your sine wave trick, note the green line post 1940
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF

please log in to view this image

that red bit, was deleted from Briffa's reconstruction before publishing. That's science, if you think that is legitimate, god bless you, of course you'd have done the same, cos it didn't match your sine wave

please log in to view this image

This is what they cut out (hide the decline) meant just deleting data, no little ice age, **** gone
This also agrees with your sine wave methodology

please log in to view this image

I see, this fits with the low sun spot numbers and the little ice age.

please log in to view this image

So, let me get this straight. The CRU did a reconstruction that showed this ^^ and they "truncated it" as un chopped bits off when it deviated from Jones and Mann's reconstructions (Mann's has been totally discredited)

Briffa's reconstruction over the 1990 IPCC chart, ooh it seems to agree. Oh do a sine wave on this mate, big huge thick one, to hide what you dont like the look of.

So Briffa CRU, the IPCC 1990 and sun spots and the National Academy of sciences all agreed on the little ice age, as well as quite a few peer reviewed papers over the years for what that is worth, no consensus.

please log in to view this image

Briffa's actually matches the National Academy of Sciences reconstruction in the 70s too. Oops.

please log in to view this image

sn1975_climate_change_chilling_possibilities-1.pdf

This is why satellite data is not used. It's not scary enough for the fraud.
In the 2001 IPCC report, both satellites and balloons showed no warming from 1980 to 2000.

please log in to view this image

Anyways all of that fraud led to this, an unbelievable fraud,

 

One of Macca's very best. Not bad for a B/S.

 

How about first you just explain how the sun only came into existence in 1910 and took a few decades off from heating the Earth in the 50s and 60s

#beforemodernindustry

 

No answer the post, instead of answering a post I did bother to post, you have a meltdown.

Maybe even read it?

For someone who cant even stick around for football abuse after we lose, you are pretty quick with #broken claims

 

Wrong thread?

 

Nope I don't read your new copy and paste vomits since your previous ones were full of **** and you refused to answer any questions about them

You have no credibility

#beforemodernindustry

 

No. it's about rain. Sorry there's no graph with it.

 

You are a pathological debater, that Hadcru chart you mangled, you never said, was it you or did you get it somewhere.

I cannot believe how utterly stupid you are that you drew an arbitrary sine wave on a chart and told me that the global climate should follow that green line

That is the dumbest thing ever, even Tobes is not that stupid like.

That's worse than flat earth **** that .