Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Astro tard is back. BBC article = #endof

He doesn't know that NASA based their 2015 hottest claim off of land only measurements, they excluded satellite and worse still, ocean data and balloon data. There isn't even data for half of the land area for surface measurements

#endof = nonsense



But why would he know better, he gets his #science from the BBC

 

So NASA excluded the entire troposphere and oceans to claim Earth's "hottest year on record".
#pseudoscience

 

Hottest year on record.. or since the thermometer was invented?

please log in to view this image

Worse still, NASA edited 1900s global temperature over 10 times since 2000 and here are the data sets they had of varying quality.

please log in to view this image

Peterson-Vose-1997.pdf
barely any except for the US. Which is why the alterations to US temps in 2001 match what they did to global temp, adjusted US records and applied it to the world in lieu of actual records, epic fraud

With those records, doing this below to 1900s and before.. is fraud.

please log in to view this image

But I know logic is lost on ye, but they massacred the temp record without the available data to justify it, a fact.

 

Also I read in 2015 no month between January – September set a record for that month according to GISS data, only warmed anomalously in Oct Nov and Dec from El Nino doing it's business.

#daffodils
#muons


El Nino warming = CAGW empirically verified = #endof
Did you bang your head astro?

 

Sisu's news is a big relief for all the people living in the ocean and troposphere

 

You just dont know anything about CAGW do you? You just keep on proving and confirming your epic stupidity.

Maybe you should actually learn something about the theory you "believe" in. Knowledge is overrated is it? CAGW requires the Troposphere to warm, because that is where the feedback effect is where it all allegedly stems from

You think surface readings for 15% of the earth are enough? 70% is ocean, and half the remaining 30% has no data sets.


The longer you talk the more ludicrous you sound, the thicker you reveal yourself to be

 

Classy climate loon scientist cheers death of Geologist Bob Carter.. because of scientific disagreement
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/01/19/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time/

Nutcases

 

Oh the global average 2015 was 56.62f, not 58.62f, the media added 2f degrees, NOAA NASA say 1.62f over the 20th century average which is 55.2f added together is 56.82f, yet the media...

please log in to view this image

@astroturfnaut can you help me, which temperature is higher?
56.82°F or 62.45°F ?

Hottest year, utterly destroyed

 

Hurray Sisu is back again with charts!!!!
I really like this one even though its not very colourful. I liked it so much I am ashamed to say I used your 3 minute research technique to have a look at it on the internet, it did not even take three minutes to find people having serious issues with this chart and its author Mr Pielke. Now it could be that the criticisms against Mr P and his methodology have all been rebutted but I feel I must post some of my favourite bits from the various critiques I read (seeing as that's what 3 minute researchers do).

Why use percentage of GDP as an indicator when GDP has clearly risen in that time?
No account of improvements in engineering to make buildings etc more resistant to storm damage.
No account of the technology to predict storms and warn people thereby reducing damage
My favourite is this though;
USA Today quotes MR pielke as criticising the original study (by re-insurer Munich Re) "Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis", but
Mr Pielke chooses to only use twenty years worth of data from that study (I wonder why?)

Now if I was a nasty mean name calling 3 minute researcher. I might suggest that Mr Pielke has a predetermined point of view and merely cherry picked data to fit that point of view, as I am a nice three minute researcher I will merely say that if true it must just be a coincidence.

 

Hansen et al 2008

please log in to view this image

#hottestyearonrecord was some time 55 million years ago, we are in "N Hemisphere Glaciation" GLAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAATION


UK looks chilly in parts

please log in to view this image

Loonies.

#nothottestyearever
#nothottestyearsince1900

 

please log in to view this image

Raw data bias adjusted, homogenised and the final number.. is not a measurement it is a result of desire to deliver the right result

Without anomalies created by adjustment, the whole scam would collapse instantly.

All the "significant" "warming" from 1960 on is all adjustment, every bit

 

The Planet Nibiru nutcases are no doubt hysterical over this.

 

I see the media are finally catching on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

 

@BringBackFootie.

I found a course that I thought you might like

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0#!

Oh and btw that Booker article has been shredded on numerous sites, as has his book on the subject.

 

What are you on about ******, I never offered it as anything other than showing at least that someone is reporting the data adjusting, all global warming is adjustments.
I have told you to take this course almost 3 months ago. Again last week, now you just throw it back at me?
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0#!


I also posted NOAAs two charts, they edit in global warming. 2014 and 2015 are not even the same data, 2014 got warmer in 2015, how's that work?

Oh and can you tell me, is 56 degrees hotter than 63 degrees? Because 56f is apparently hotter than 63f

1997 was hotter than 2014 AND 2015, by NCDC's own data.

By the way, ALL the data they use, comes from one single source, the USHCN Historical climate network, that's right, 1 data source for all of this nonsense, then NOAA and NASA adjust that data.

Nothing they show is measurement, it is all fudged and altered

 

Besides, someone absolutely scientifically illiterate, telling me about "denial" regarding a very complicated scientific subject. I admire your moxy though to muddle on regardless...

Maybe try being a potato, just bury yourself in ignorance and see if you sprout roots

 

All the lies about ooh "2016 will be hotter" already
Arctic sea ice.

please log in to view this image

Look at that ice gain in Jan.
lets look closer

please log in to view this image

Where I live the cold record was broken twice in 2015 and we had no summer, and are freezing again consistently minus 10-20 mostly. Coldest summer in 8 years.
-20 and below are glacial temperatures.

In a world "heating up to record levels" that don't make a lick of sense. Neither does the ice gains in the arctic as the arctic responds to temperature.
The real world exposes the model fraud.

 

What scientific qualifications have you got again? Remind me......

 

One does not need to have a qualification to understand a science, one needs to learn, it can be books or books and a professor, but professors write books and given modern internought science is so accessible now, if you look on MIT and Stanford university sites there are online classes for free, which I posted on here years ago.

Scientific publications, forums, conferences, debates ect.

Thinking you can only understand a subject because you have a piece of paper is probably the silliest thing I have read today.
If I was looking for a job, proof is required, ergo piece of paper, but once you get the job that paper is useless, it's your knowledge that counts.

I've been big into water chemistry for over a decade. That's why I know the ocean acidification is complete nonsense

 

please log in to view this image