Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

It didn't come from NASA #ouch

 

You come here trolling me and call me troll
#meltdown

You asked me this several times today and I owned it Now you shed your skin like a snake as usual

 

You've owned it? How exactly?

By posting a piece that says that glacial ice retreat will add to sea levels over the course of the 21st Century?

hahahaha, you've been hoisted by your own petard, you plank.

 

Wondering how it is ouch, are you reduced to point scoring about where a map came from, one with no legend and no shred of credibility?

It is a result of GISS analysis ******

 

Everyone's a '******' eh lad....

There's only you - the sole seeker of truth and justice, who's 'informed', everyone else knows jack and you are an armchair expert.

You've got some serious issues.

@astro(Klopp's footbo)naut - aren't you a scientist by trade mate?

 

Now you are embarrasing yourself, you are talking about a prediction now, a minute ago you were talking about what the glaciers are actually doing and have been doing.

This is what you said "
"You claimed to have evidence that 'proves' that the idea of glacial retreat in Antarctica is incorrect.......I think it's time you posted it "

This is what I replied. Oh I also love the way you call the fourth report assessment AR4 from the IPCC and a scientific study by NASA "a piece"

You literally cannot be consistent from one post to the next, now you are all " will add to sea levels" in the future, again a goalpost move


https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

please log in to view this image

Now, I know science is stupid when making points.

Here is the NASA study that says the Antarctic gains more ice than it loses, or as we like to say in the real world, is growing.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
And I quote "Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1"
glacial ice retreat will add to sea levels over the course of the 21st

 

That explains Astros obsession with graphs if he is.

 

Only Astro may use graphs, only he can understand them, he literally thinks that

 

It came from the Berkeley group, who doubted the original curves, and whose "climategate" youtube video you have quoted

So they reanalysed all the data and found the global warming was still there



Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.




There's the #ouch

 

what data did they analyse? Copy paste pretending to understand does not cut it Astro tard, you also have ignored everything I asked you and just come back with unrelated copy pastes.

What data? There are different data sets

 

Data and source files here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

 

This'll go well

 

I thought the IPCC were all #fraudsters btw?

....and you've spent half the thread calling NASA's information bent.

But as is your standard MO you find one graph amongst a piece that concludes with;

Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2

...and decide that it debunks my statement of fact that the Antarctic glacial mass has been retreating. You're barking mad.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1031/2012/tc-6-1031-2012.pdf

 

Raw data does not tell me what data set they used as there are limited options.

Did they use surface temp data, SST, RSS UAH GISS NOAA RS?

Don't just give me a link, I always at least provide the raw data and the plotted data in graph form as none of us can read raw ****ing data ******

 

#ouch

Suck it up sisu

 

LOL you can't even tell the difference between measurement and prediction. or past present and future
I posted actual fact, what is measured.

You posted this
Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2

Now I wonder what the other scenarios foretold as A2 is one of several

But lets be honest, all the "scenarios" for the arctic said no ice by 2010, no ice by 2012, no ice by 2013, no ice by summer 2014 and no ice by 2015 and they are still going


So tell me what use is a scenario, a prediction, when assessing if the glacier is melting today or for the last 10 years?

I am shocked at how ******ed and ****ing thick you are

And you call me mad, #retard

 

It's brain numbingly duh how ****in stupid both you and astro are given the size of your egos

this is like playing connect 4 vs. a caesar salad.

Ye aint even got as far as taking a turn yet. No arguments made whatsoever, just leaky egotistical arses

 

Be honest, you've lost to a number of salads in the past, haven't you?

There no other logical explanation why you would make such a claim.

 

Source? Are you saying I am not always right? That's a woman's complaint
Didn't I tell you never to go full ******? Dont associate yourself with those two clowns

 

Oh dear, this is about to get even more embarrassing for you.....

As the IPCC graph that you've posted as your empirical fact (irony alert), shows the actual current i.e. factual rise in sea levels due to ice retreat and then shows the modeled data for 2090-99 which isn't 'fact' merely a prediction.....

Hence the reason the piece concludes with a prediction, i.e. the one that I posted - that predicts a sea level rise.........

What a ****tard

Not only using a data source that you've continually discredited, but not even bothering to read it properly,,, an epic fail even by your standards.

Here's that actual factual stuff that you couldn't be arsed reading again btw
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1031/2012/tc-6-1031-2012.pdf