Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I should have said "how can one compare it". But I didn't want to sound like a toff.

 

Yep, or "how can ... be compared with ..."

 

Most threats to humans come from science and technology, warns Hawking
3/15

please log in to view this image

The Guardian
Ian Sample Science editor9 hrs ago
SHARE

please log in to view this image

Jack Monroe sues Katie Hopkins for £50k

please log in to view this image

Chelsea rumoured to be losing four big names

please log in to view this image

© REX Stephen Hawking.
The human race faces one its most dangerous centuries yet as progress in science and technology becomes an ever greater threat to our existence, Stephen Hawking warns.

The chances of disaster on planet Earth will rise to a near certainty in the next one to ten thousand years, the eminent cosmologist said, but it will take more than a century to set up colonies in space where human beings could live on among the stars.

“We will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period,” Hawking said. His comments echo those of Lord Rees, the astronomer royal, who raised his own concerns about the risks of self-annihilation in his 2003 book Our Final Century.

Speaking to the Radio Times ahead of the BBC Reith Lecture, in which he will explain the science of black holes, Hawking said most of the threats humans now face come from advances in science and technology, such as nuclear weapons and genetically engineered viruses.

“We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we must recognise the dangers and control them,” he added.

The Cambridge scientist, who turned 74 earlier this month, said his expectations were reduced to zero when he learned he had a rare and slowly progressing form of motor neurone disease at the age of 21. But reflecting on more than 50 years since the diagnosis, he said he had been very fortunate in almost every other way. In Hawking’s area of theoretical physics, his disability was not a major handicap.

Asked what kept his spirits up, he named his work and sense of humour. “It’s also important not to become angry, no matter how difficult life is, because you can lose all hope if you can’t laugh at yourself and at life in general.”

For thirty years Hawking was Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by Isaac Newton, and one of the most prestigious academic positions in the country. But Hawking said he felt closer to Galileo Galilei, the 16th century astronomer, who overturned the received wisdom of his time with rigorous observations. Given a time machine, Hawking named Galileo as the scientist he would travel back in time to meet.

Hawking was forced to postpone the recording of the Reith Lecture in November due to poor health. But on 7 January, a day before his birthday, he delivered the talk on black holes, and the fate of information that falls inside them, to a 400-strong audience at the Royal Institution (Ri) in Mayfair, London.

Black holes form when stars run out of nuclear fuel and collapse under their own gravity. Previously called “frozen stars”, they became widely known as “black holes” when the phrase was coined in 1967 by the physicist John Wheeler. For some time, the French resisted the change of name on the grounds that it was obscene, but later fell into line, Hawking said.

During the lecture, Hawking asserts that it may be possible to fall into a black hole and emerge in another universe. But he added that it would have to be a large, spinning black hole, and a return trip back to our own universe would not be possible. The lecture will be broadcast in two parts on BBC Radio 4 at 9am on 26th January and 2nd February.

Speaking through his speech synthesizer at the Ri, he answered a question on whether the electronic voice had shaped his personality, perhaps allowing the introvert to become an extrovert. Replying that he had never been called an introvert before, Hawking added: “Just because I spend a lot of time thinking doesn’t mean I don’t like parties and getting into trouble.”

 

Just for Sis

 

Depends on the point you are making doesn't it, and how come you never ever question the irrational nonsense from the resident meltdowns?
You're transparent and you'll tell yourself it's not true. #bias when suggesting bias, interesting contradiction. The pretense of objectivity is made transparent by the fact the two nuts are posting unbelievable nonsense and you seem not to notice, unless you actually agree with the garbage they are posting

However.

Seeing as you just jumped in and cherry picked, I will add the context you are obviously missing.

We are talking the money up for grabs by those who are pro CAGW vs Against. We are told "deniers" are lavishly funded by oil companies.

So the oil companies, all of them in total, if they decided to spend all of their profits on anti CAGW propaganda, it is still 4 times less than the sum reported by the Climate Exchange, the following replies attacked the character of the dude who wrote it, and never actually went and checked themselves to see it was accurate. The oil chart I posted

Not knowing anything makes it hard to discuss this, ffs Al Gore made 18 MILLION from his failed Carbon Exchange project, 200 million from this scam.

Posting "denier" garbage, you seemed to think that was objective, I can see right through you lad.

Oil companies have given more to environmentalist movements than "denier" science as it is called, bad science gets disproven, by empirical scientific research, not calling them denier and looking up where they get their money. Objectivity?

I just posted a recent one from an Oil and mining company who gave 5 million to a research on corals. 100 million has been given to this campaign, far more than any money invested in dissenting science.

The EPA, who want all the controls they will get from this climate change crap, are funding much of the research, as I said, Harvard's Jeol Schwatz writes EPA paper hailing their carbon efforts, when he's received 31m from the EPA, and even asked them for more ****ing money whilst in the middle of writing the paper.

Objectivity?

No scientist or "denier" got anywhere near 30 million from Exxon.

The clima tards went nuts over Willie soon, a solar physicist, who got a 3rd of 10m over 10 years.

#Objectivity.


But really, given some of the tripe the duo posted that you overlook in your quest for objectivity, I really don't believe you are objective at all.

 

Orwell said it long ago, of course he's right, there are like a thousand things more dangerous than a theory about weather 100 years from now.

@astroturfnaut and @Tobes


Ye cited Attenborough I believe as some example of proof, he's only gone and said he doesn't know anything about climate change like

That's what happens when you "believe" because someone else "believes"

Still waiting on someone to post some science about the weather in 2100, that's what this is all about for you after all.

 

From the publicly available data, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert made n discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Another "conspiracy theorist" or "oil shill"

 

Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher

Dr. Woodcock declared there was 'professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world' when it comes to man-made climate change claims. 'The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis'

“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....rming-is-rubbish-says-top-professor-1-6536732

Another denier.

 

I've never mentioned Attenborough, but seeing as you brought him up, he didn't say he he 'didn't know anything about climate change' at all.

He said he wasn't an expert, which he isn't. So yet more hyperbole and misleading comments from you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...itical-suicide-David-Attenborough-argues.html

 

Japanese modeling expert to Hansen at NASA and the other two frauthors and their model.

Kyoji Kimoto to Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess.
======================================

You are the lawbreakers in the court of science
by Kyoji Kimoto
9 January, 2016

Dear Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess,

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC is based on Manabe & Wetherald (1967) and Hansen et al., (1981) which utilize one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2, obtaining the zero feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2-1.3K.

However it is theoretically meaningless when the parameter sensitivity analysis is applied to the lapse rate for 2xCO2 as shown here.

Hansen himself admitted that 1DRCM is a fudge in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA as shown below. Here Dr. Hansen and his colleagues are referring to a paper by W. C. Wang et al., 1976: “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” Science 194, 685-690.

An excerpt from the interview:

Weart:

This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…

Hansen:

That’s trivial. You just put in…

Weart:

… a lapse rate…

Hansen:

Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification. But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

See more: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1

Cess made a mathematical error in Cess (1976), Cess et al., (1989) and Cess et al., (1990) when differentiating his equation OLR=EeffxsigmaxTs^4,which can be detected by any high school student learning differentiation. Manabe and the IPCC AR4 adopted Cess method to obtain the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) =1.2K. The detailed discussions are here: http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.6-7.1055

The AGW theory of the IPCC has caused huge economic losses to the world, including the collapse of British coal industry and the Fukushima nuclear disaster from the nuclear promotion policy of Japanese government to cut CO2 emissions. How will you take your responsibility for this?

As shown above, you are lawbreakers in the court of science. In the farewell lecture held on 26 October, 2001 in Tokyo, Manabe spoke about his research as follows:

Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”

Sincerely,

Mr. K. Kimoto

References

Cess, R.D., 1976. An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology. J.Atmospheric Sciences 33, 1831-1843.
Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Le Treut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Riches, M.R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M., Wetherald, R.T., Yagai, I., 1989. Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science 245, 513-516.
Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., DelGenio, A.D., Deque, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W.L., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Lacis, A.A., LeTreut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., McAvaney, B.J., Meleshko, V.P., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Rikus, L., Roeckner, E., Royer, J.F., Schlese, U., Sheinin, D.A., Slingo, A., Sokolov, A.P., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M. and Wetherald, R.T., 1990. Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J. Geophysical Research 95, 16,601-16,615.
Manabe, S., Wetherald, R.T., 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., Russell, G., 1981. Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 213, 957-966.



Yes copy and pasted, a scientist telling the Nasactivists that their science and modeling was wrong, and why it was wrong.


NASA have been using fudges from the start, I suggest looking up what a fudge is, aerosols are a fudge


Another denier.

Lets ignore the NASA scientist saying "forget scientific truth it's about funding"
They used dodgy science from the start

 

As objective as ever I see.......

please log in to view this image

 

Oh dear. Same old ad hominem **** in lieu of debate.
I don't know why I bother.

In fact I won't any more. You just carry on in your own little world of personal attacks and massaged statistics, and I'll stick with people who actually understand the mechanics of debate.
Don't bother answering.

 

Interesting, but he quotes a discredited denier claim about water vapour and also says this which is confusing:

“We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now desserts" #wut

 

Why don't you ask him? Oh yeah, it would be rather embarrassing, given how uninformed you are, you're a laughing stock after your copy paste relativity debate debacle, it was something to behold. Your effort to try understand ENSO oscillations was also hilarious. This must be why you have such a hardon for a topic you literally do not grasp, let alone know anything about, 3 minute expert, now uses alarmist copy pastes about deniers and pictures of wet days as proof of a theory that actually has 0 proof of scientific nature, they cannot even empirically prove the CO2 increase is man, never mind warming, emissions are judged from sales.. man made CO2 has never been measured

Seriously are you some jobless wonder that pretends to be someone like Tobes? That sine wave trick stank of cluelessness

That water vapor is the greenhouse gas that matters? "denier" is your argument against water vapour being the primary greenhouse gas?

you say denier and expect any rational human being to take you seriously, and now use it as a bubble filter, basically the only thing that penetrates this bubble is stuff that fits your ill founded, illogical, scientifically unsupported almost religious beliefs.

100 years of records, for every decade of floods and storms and plenty examples of warm Decembers have utterly destroyed your alarmism over "weather"

As the science stands, saying lots of rain = CAGW, is A+?+?+?+= BINGO

 

Why should I bother debating with people who go "denier denier denier"

Am I back in medieval times of what

 

You absolute buffoon.

Have you not even applied a seconds thought as to why Oil companies have been spending fortunes on coral 'research' and marine biology in general?

Like BP for example who tried to buy up the entire marine sciences dept at one American University and had 'bought' numerous other marine scientists, as they sought to get them onside so they wouldn't testify against them post the Deepwater Horizon disaster

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

Or BHP funding environmental reef research to ensure that they're seen to be 'onside' with preserving the environment around their huge off shore drilling rigs and of course should the worst ever happen they've got the experts on the ****ing payroll.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/...um-funds-environmental-reef-research-4593720/

What a ****ing plank

 

Tobes, given how embarrassingly scientifically illiterate you are, I don't actually read your posts.

Fools dont know they are stupid. I admire your effort though, but trolls don't really do science well, as Astro and you found out.

And you say buffoon ..
#3minuteexperts

 

So, when I brought up the actual evil oil companies did you called me a conspiracy nut.

Now here you are pushing oil conspiracy because of your inane ****ing stupidity and rose tinted glasses, you are the epitome of bias.

Oil companies have given well over 100 million in total and have been actually using environmentalist groups to block others getting land they could not get.
The point, ******, your feeble mind cant comprehend is, Oil has given more to environmental and the climate change message than to "deniers".

You are a clueless nitwit, which is why as I say, I usually ignore your 3 minute pretence at knowing something ffs

 

What makes me laugh about you oil ******s is, you are using oil, consuming it, and then condemning the supplier of your comfortable life

Epic hypocrisy, a contradiction you ******s cannot even see, ****ing laughable.

I've never even owned a car and here are two people who probably have owned several, telling me about how "evil oil companies are"?

I just cant believe how ****ing stupid ye are not to see that hypocrisy, whilst clamouring for a deal that means your country can buy the carbon emissions and therefor prosperity of poor ass people.

Trees will be bured like ****, solar is a joke, trees will be cut down by the billion if we were 100% renewable, ffs even solar power plants, cant be powered by solar power

THINK you ******s ffs

Rant over

 

Ironically there would be no renewable industry without oil