Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Blah blah blah

No answers to the questions that have nailed you so out come the typical changes of topic and insults

#beforemodernindustry

 

Ahhh you made the joking

please log in to view this image

 

You are in meltdown mate, afraid of actually backing up your kiddy colour chart,

What a coward. A man you aint.

 

Doesn't matter if my graph was the worst thing since Hitler, I'm not a climate scientist and nothing you say about it or me changes reality

You've been shown to follow your agenda with the blind fundamentalism of a religious zealot, even using data from #beforemodernindustry to lie about AGW

 

My Post ^^

Your response
"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"

You were saying

A meltdown answer if any, and you crying about insults is total meltdown

 

Lets try again to support the claim you made with your ASTRO kiddy colour chart

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

Now are you going to have a denial meltdown, or are you going to support your childlike sine wave butchery of the CRU chart and the pseudo science claims that accompanied it?

You can leave the proven fraud of the hockeystick, that's probably too much for you, I dont want you to get injured

 

Little song about York atm:

 

Bad up there is it, parts of Ireland are same.
Plus if you turn York and Longford into their respective numerical values, and add the year and deduct the number of cats on your street, it means Thermageddon is imminent.

 

I'll need a chart and several graphs before I believe that...

 

funny, the others were slating me for using charts for ages, it was a sort of funny thing apparently showing data plots to argue against superstitious beliefs paraded by the media. Silly me


Though only a few posts ago today, I proved that quite clearly, ocean acidity disaster is nothing but pseudo scientific nonsense. There were no charts

 

When you start seeing every climate fluctuation as confirmation of CAGW when there is no science to support it, go to the doc and get your meds upped.

#soundadvice

 

I jest. I'll leave yous all to it, as I was only trying to derail as, to my untrained eye, this thread is just going over and over where it's been before and poositions on all sides are becoming more entrenched.

Leave you with this though:

 

And guess what... guess what the answer to this fossil fuel thing is, and I **** you not, burning wood, burning trees.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wood-power-makes-comeback/

When we should be planting as many as possible to eat up carbon (if CAGW wasn't nonsense, which it is) but nope, lets burn more.

 

Quality song

 

Oi! I'll have you know, I post loads of waffle with my charts, not just charts
#getyourfactsstraight

 

I think this is the 3rd time I post the following on this thread.

This is just shooting the ****, this thread. Some seem to think it's more than that given the meltdowns denial and extreme competitiveness from two major protagonists.


Also, it's meaningless, as if what is posted here will change the world for the worse Astro, take your meds and calm down. Analyse some stats or something. Breathe from the diaphragm.

I am pretty certain that this thread will have no effect on climate, but before I can claim such a thing, I need consensus between Tobes and Astro and I to fulfill the scientific requirements to support the claim that this thread will have absolutely no effect on global climate.

 

The name for man boobs.
Some say Moobs but they are wrong, obviously they are MABS. No self respecting bloke has moobs surely?

 

No answer to my post I see, just another diversion post to try and hide your embarrassment, which quite frankly isn't a surprise as it made you look a complete dick (yet again)

Unlike you I copied and pasted **** all in that post btw, so another fail there I'm afraid.

You can't even decipher the basic principle that I've shown you, in terms of your meaningless comparison.

You're nothing but a charlatan

 

Are you back to answer how 38% certainly is absolute fact? Then explain how 2015 was hottest year and also you claimed 2016 will be hottest year.

Your claims are pseudo science, because the actual science is VERY uncertain. You did make those claims

please log in to view this image

 

So if they are that uncertain about the temperature, how is their temperature record valid?

2 in 3 chance? 2 in 5? 3 in 5? what?