Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Clearly a hoax. There's no way "Eglwyswrw" is a real place.

 

It wasn't raining in the video. NASA rewriting history.

 

yes, you're totally right! Sorry, I was trying to explain why the southern hemisphere (mostly sea) experiences colder winters, and got it 100% wrong.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session4/sess4_act3.htm Evidently, the reason we experience our coldest weather in January rather than at the solstice of December is because the northern hemisphere is mostly land
(or more land the southern hemisphere, at any rate), however the Gulf stream is an example of water storing heat for longer than land.

 

So, they had to cut short Peake's spacewalk as the Yank pissed himself in his suit...

 

"using towels to remove the water from Tim Kopra's face"

#importantdetails

 

A NASA fraud, they could never make it through the Van Allen belt

All filmed in a studio

 

Seriously, Aldrin said in his book that Armstrong may have beaten him to walk on the moon, but he was the first to have a piss on it. Think Michael Collins devised a system with a condom and a colostomy bag. They had no facility to have a **** in their suits though. Maybe they should have just had a flap in the back like a pair of old, Wild West long johns.

#anyexcusetoapollobore

 

That would bring new meaning to the phrase explosive decompression.

 

Abstract
The Greenland ice sheet has become one of the main contributors to global sea level rise, predominantly through increased meltwater runoff. The main drivers of Greenland ice sheet runoff, however, remain poorly understood. Here we show that clouds enhance meltwater runoff by about one-third relative to clear skies, using a unique combination of active satellite observations, climate model data and snow model simulations. This impact results from a cloud radiative effect of 29.5 (±5.2)Wm−2. Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, the Greenland ice sheet responds to this energy through a new pathway by which clouds reduce meltwater refreezing as opposed to increasing surface melt directly, thereby accelerating bare-ice exposure and enhancing meltwater runoff. The high sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to both ice-only and liquid-bearing clouds highlights the need for accurate cloud representations in climate models, to better predict future contributions of the Greenland ice sheet to global sea level rise.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/full/ncomms10266.html


Finally some acceptance that you can't even model regional conditions let alone globally, without modelling clouds.

More on the issue of clouds and climate sensitivity, this deals with the problem for models and explains why there is a spread in the feedback, because obviously clouds are a fudge factor, all models have different values.

Abstract
Uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity impedes accurate climate projections. While the intermodel spread is known to arise primarily from differences in cloud feedback, the exact processes responsible for the spread remain unclear. To help identify some key sources of uncertainty, the authors use a developmental version of the next-generation Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory global climate model (GCM) to construct a tightly controlled set of GCMs where only the formulation of convective precipitation is changed. The different models provide simulation of present-day climatology of comparable quality compared to the model ensemble from phase 5 of CMIP (CMIP5). The authors demonstrate that model estimates of climate sensitivity can be strongly affected by the manner through which cumulus cloud condensate is converted into precipitation in a model’s convection parameterization, processes that are only crudely accounted for in GCMs. In particular, two commonly used methods for converting cumulus condensate into precipitation can lead to drastically different climate sensitivity, as estimated here with an atmosphere–land model by increasing sea surface temperatures uniformly and examining the response in the top-of-atmosphere energy balance. The effect can be quantified through a bulk convective detrainment efficiency, which measures the ability of cumulus convection to generate condensate per unit precipitation. The model differences, dominated by shortwave feedbacks, come from broad regimes ranging from large-scale ascent to subsidence regions. Given current uncertainties in representing convective precipitation microphysics and the current inability to find a clear observational constraint that favors one version of the authors’ model over the others, the implications of this ability to engineer climate sensitivity need to be considered when estimating the uncertainty in climate projections.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0191.1


Good paper on the the ocean record and all the different issues, measuring systems used and so on. (can be read without subscription)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full


The 40 thousands mile volcano.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/s...s&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Volcanic areosols.

please log in to view this image

Volcanic aerosols in models for the Atlantic helps predictions, but predictions less reliable if used in Pacific models.

The impact of stratospheric volcanic aerosol on decadal-scale climate predictions
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067431/abstract?campaign=wlytk-41855.4225462963


Just gonna post papers and scientific studies, tired of the partisan arguing, it's such a waste of time

 

Like a rocket booster

 

Which means what exactly? It rained every day since October.

If I remember correctly, on this very thread you put mankind's advancement down to opposable thumbs over the development of our neo cortex
#3minuteexpert
of course if you give a pigeon opposable thumbs they will have computers and rockets in 100000 years right?

You learned biological history in 3 minutes that day too, to the point you could just dismiss biologists

 

Whales love x

 

So you are discrediting his current posts based on other stuff he has posted in the past?

You do realise that people on here can remember some of the shyte you have posted.

 

? Dunno what that means, do you still believe your opposable thumbs, mind you it was a post about intelligent beings moving from their ecological niche and the risks involved. You jumped right in and blabbed on about opposable thumbs

I guess you never asked yourself why no Chimp or Gorilla has made an iPhone if all you need is opposable thumbs.
#allyouneedisthumbs

 

}Second guy to get water in the suit. The last guy, there was a fair bit more water, drowning in low gravity from a jug amount of water sounds lovely So they pulled Peake quicker this time

 

His post was about ****e, about me, so I returned the compliment, but as usual, you have your rose tinted specs on again, or scutters brown tinted shades

Now toddle off weirdo, It's kind of amusing but ever so slightly sad to see the obvious classroom like behaviour from grown men.

 

Are you talking about rain again Such a meltdown.

You equate rain in parts of wales, as not all of wales was seeing rain since october.. as proof that the mathematical models that cannot predict what observations show.. are valid.

That is essentially what you are saying here.

NASA's data tampering, you try make it seem like some "crazy thing". Except, it's in the media, scientists ae saying it, the new paper has been attacked by many scientists.

It's not the real of conpsiracy theory, it's a scientific debate, with scientists on both sides.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I believe NASA and NOAA are politically mandated. The US Gov is 100% pro CO2, I therefore question their independence and there is nothing to show there is not political direction going on
It's an "opinion"

What I showed and it cant be disputed because I've posted links to the charts from NASA and NOAA sites.
They have systematically cooled the past and warmed the present, with models, not measurements (this is not disputed)

We ae talking a model producing the global mean, not measurements.

Since 2000, the data has been changed several times always in one direction, also a fact so logically that is suspicious.
But what really kicked off suspicion was climate gate emails and the Hockeystick clear statistical fraud, even his biggest defenders had "grave concerns" over his methods. It's been utterly discredited.

So, none of this disproves CAGW. My opinion is that it's nonsense. I've more than provided questions that need answering and science that disagrees.

Sadly, you are one of those people who believe something and block out, literally anything that opposes that view, latching on to the first thing you see as confirmation and everything thereafter is confirmation.

Any extreme weather you will see as proof. Intentionally ignoring the vast historical record out there waitng to be read, accounts of WORSE extreme weather than we see today, by far.

BUt what I really ind totally irrational is the claims that weather automatically gets worse the warmer things get. The medieval warm period is referred to as a climate optimum, for obvious reasons, we have absolutely 0 scientific certainty as to what 1 degree rise in 60 years would do, none nada, any claims of such are science fiction, the met can't even forecast a month or two ahead with any accuracy rate better than a guessing average

But of course, if you dont actually look at one argument then the other argument, the scientific arguments not the media nonsense, arguing one side is possibly ******ed.

Arguing the Antarctic was not melting was "conspiracy" and "denial" for a year till Oct 2015 when NASA admitted it. Oh and I showed the IPCC knew since 2008 by posting their own document.

Yes no reason to be suspicious. There are still loads of sources on the internought saying the antarctic not melting is "denial" and "debunked"

When have politicians all joined together for the benefit of humanity, give me a break.

 

You throw out imbecilic insults and accusations in almost every post. Your lack of self awareness is hilarious.

 

I didn't read any of this but considering how long it is I can only assume it's a #meltdown

 

by Judith Curry
Books: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.Wikipedia

This is a conspiracy theorist, Astro logic..

http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/13/on-the-status-of-scientists-emails/#more-20866
The issue of scientists’ emails is heating up.


One would think that, following Climategate, climate scientists should expect that their emails might by made public, either through hacking or FOIA requests.

Nevertheless, more than 6 years later, the debate continues to rage over the sanctity (or not) of climate scientists’ emails.

Paul Thacker

The flag bearer for the latest push to make scientists’ emails available for public scrutiny is journalist Paul Thacker, who sits on the ‘warm’ side of the climate debate. A few days ago, Thacker wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes Scientists give up your emails. Excerpts:

NOAA has denied this request, and some within the scientific community have called Mr. Smith’s demands a witch hunt. But allowing agencies to keep secret the communications of scientists who work for the government sets a dangerous precedent. Some of what we know about abusive practices in science — whether it concerns tobacco, pharmaceuticals, chemicals or even climate change — has come from reading scientists’ emails.

Last August, a colleague and I wrote an article on the importance of transparency in science for one of the blogs of the science journal publisher PLOS. The argument was fairly simple: When research is paid for by the public, the public has a right to demand transparency and to have access to documents related to the research. This might strike most people as reasonable.

Our article promptly came under attack by several scientists and by the Union of Concerned Scientists. PLOS then removed our article from its site, though left the comments about it online. Never mind that the article had been peer-reviewed and promoted on social media by PLOS. In removing the article, PLOS explained that it “was not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.”


About two weeks later, this newspaper, in a Page 1 article, underscored the importance of access to scientists’ emails. Based in part on emails that had been sought by U.S. Right to Know, The Times reported that university scientists had become part of “an inner circle of industry consultants, lobbyists and executives who devised strategy on how to block state efforts to mandate G.M.O. labeling.” Similar articles appeared in The Boston Globe and in Bloomberg Business.

As interest groups on both the left and right increasingly try to politicize the scientific process, there’s little question that there will be misuse of the Freedom of Information laws that some journalists and watchdog organizations have used to uncover wrongdoing.

Scientists have been harassed in the past and no doubt will continue to be harassed in the future, just like other public servants.

But the harassment argument should not be used as an excuse to bar access to scientific research that the public is paying for and has a legitimate interest in seeing.

Scientists who profess agreement with transparency only when it is on their terms are really not for transparency at all. The public should be alarmed.

Reason

Ronald Bailey of reason.org has an article Government-funded scientists: never hide anything from the public. Subtitle: Actually, science only works well when all scientists show their work. Punchline:

Earlier I was leery of possible FOIA abuse, but I now am persauded that the far greater danger is that researchers and government bureaucrats will use claims of harassment to hamper public debate and as excuses to hide information from the public that would embarrass them.
______________________

Yes science is pure, maybe I should just start posting about dodgy academics and scientists.

The fraud is a handful of people not "all of NASA"

If Gavin Schmidt decides something as director.. who is going to go against the director, tell me who of you have the balls to intentionally run up against the director of the company you work for?

None I'd say. It's career suicide, especially if you've worked for 15 years to get a job at NASA, you aint saying ****

Only a ****** thinks pleasing your boss is not the way to advance.

You live in some fantasy world astro