Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Tobes · Nov 24, 2015

@"Lizards?" he said - seeing as the IPCC and NASA are now credible sources of information on this subject as far as you're concerned, here's a piece that I'm sure you'll agree with....

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-036

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level.

terrifictraore · Nov 24, 2015

"Lizards?" he said said: ↑

Break it down Tobes, lets hear your analysis.
Click to expand...

Tobes said: ↑

@"Lizards?" he said - seeing as the IPCC and NASA are now credible sources of information on this subject as far as you're concerned, here's a piece that I'm sure you'll agree with....

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-036

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level.
Click to expand...

Thats because those climatards took their measurements in the height of summer.

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 24, 2015

Red Hadron Collider said: ↑

Latest experiment at Large Hadron Collider reports first results
Scientists precisely count particles produced in a typical proton collision.

Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
October 14, 2015

Press Inquiries
After a two-year hiatus, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world, began its second run of experiments in June, smashing together subatomic particles at 13 teraelectronvolts (TeV) — the highest energy ever achieved in a laboratory. Physicists hope that such high-energy collisions may produce completely new particles, and potentially simulate the conditions that were seen in the early universe.

In a paper to appear in the journal Physics Letters B, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) collaboration at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) reports on the run’s very first particle collisions, and describes what an average collision between two protons looks like at 13 TeV. One of the study leaders is MIT assistant professor of physics Yen-Jie Lee, who leads MIT’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Group, together with physics professors Gunther Roland and Bolek Wyslouch.

In the experimental run, researchers sent two proton beams hurtling in opposite directions around the collider at close to the speed of light. Each beam contained 476 bunches of 100 billion protons, with collisions between protons occurring every 50 nanoseconds. The team analyzed 20 million “snapshots” of the interacting proton beams, and identified 150,000 events containing proton-proton collisions.

For each collision that the researchers identified, they determined the number and angle of particles scattered from the colliding protons. The average proton collision produced about 22 charged particles known as hadrons, which were mainly scattered along the transverse plane, immediately around the main collision point.

Compared with the collider’s first run, at an energy intensity of 7 TeV, the recent experiment at 13 TeV produced 30 percent more particles per collision.

Lee says the results support the theory that higher-energy collisions may increase the chance of finding new particles. The results also provide a precise picture of a typical proton collision — a picture that may help scientists sift through average events looking for atypical particles.

“At this high intensity, we will observe hundreds of millions of collisions each second,” Lee says. “But the problem is, almost all of these collisions are typical background events. You really need to understand the background well, so you can separate it from the signals for new physics effects. Now we’ve prepared ourselves for the potential discovery of new particles.”

Shrinking the uncertainty of tiny collisions

Normally, 13 TeV is not a large amount of energy — about that expended by a flying mosquito. But when that energy is packed into a single proton, less than a trillionth the size of a mosquito, that particle’s energy density becomes enormous. When two such energy-packed protons smash into each other, they can knock off constituents from each proton — either quarks or gluons — that may, in turn, interact to produce entirely new particles.

Predicting the number of particles produced by a proton collision could help scientists determine the probability of detecting a new particle. However, existing models generate predictions with an uncertainty of 30 to 40 percent. That means that for high-energy collisions that produce a large number of particles, the uncertainty of detecting rare particles can be a considerable problem.

“For high-luminosity runs, you might have up to 100 collisions, and the uncertainty of the background level, based on existing models, would be very big,” Lee says.

To shrink this uncertainty and more precisely count the number of particles produced in an average proton collision, Lee and his team used the Large Hadron Collider’s CMS detector. The detector is built around a massive magnet that can generate a field that’s 100,000 times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field.

Typically, a magnetic field acts to bend charged particles that are produced by proton collisions. This bending allows scientists to measure a particle’s momentum. However, an average collision typically produces lightweight particles with very low momentum — particles that, in a magnetic field, end up coiling their way toward the main collider’s beam pipe, instead of bending toward the CMS detector.

To count these charged, lightweight particles, the scientists analyzed the data with the detector’s magnet off. While they couldn’t measure the particles’ momentum, they could precisely count the number of charged particles, and measure the angles at which they arrived at the detector. The measurements, Lee says, give a more accurate picture of an average proton collision, compared with existing theoretical models.

“Our measurement actually shrinks the uncertainty dramatically, to just a few percent,” Lee says.

Simulating the early universe

Knowing what a typical proton collision looks like will help scientists set the collider to essentially see through the background of average events, to more efficiently detect rare particles.

Lee says the new results may also have a significant impact on the study of the hot and dense medium from the early universe. In addition to proton collisions, scientists also plan to study the highest-energy collisions of lead ions, each of which contain 208 protons and neutrons. When accelerated in a collider, lead ions flatten into disks due to a force called the Lorentz contraction. When smashed together, lead ions can generate hundreds of interactions between protons and produce an extremely dense medium that is thought to mimic the conditions of space just after the Big Bang. In this way, the Large Hadron Collider experiment could potentially simulate the condition of the very first moments of the early universe.

“One microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe was very dense and hot — about 1 trillion degrees,” Lee says. “With lead ion collisions, we can reproduce the early universe in a ‘small bang.’ If we can understand what one proton collision looks like, we may be able to get some more insights about what will happen when hundreds of them occur at the same time. Then we can see what we can learn about the early universe.”
Click to expand...

It's a real pitty that the LHC cannot be used to create electric\electromagnetic pressure on particles at about 5000c degrees using active plasma. There is a theory that with protrons and neutrons you can create atomic nuclei, rather than colliding them. That would be a good focus, because if we cracked it, we can create many different atomic atoms.

5000c is hot but it would be considered cold fusion relative to normal fusion temperature

please log in to view this image

If we could actually figure out this process ^^, the applications are eldless. We'd have access to certain almost infinite elements.

"“One microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe was very dense and hot — about 1 trillion degrees,” Lee says.
Once microsecond after the "bing bang" there was not enough space in the universe for all he matter it contained, let alone the room for moving particles to create a trillion degrees. I see they stepped back from Hawking's Infinite temp and density

"In the experimental run, researchers sent two proton beams hurtling in opposite directions around the collider at close to the speed of light. Each beam contained 476 bunches of 100 billion protons, with collisions between protons occurring every 50 nanoseconds. The team analyzed 20 million “snapshots” of the interacting proton beams, and identified 150,000 events containing proton-proton collisions."

**** me they must have serious hardware there

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

Never mind folks, I was way way off the mark

This lad has cracked it

please log in to view this image

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

astro(Klopp's footbo)naut said: ↑

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

astro(Klopp's footbo)naut said: ↑

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
Click to expand...

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

You do know the difference between Berkely University and Berkely Earth? a privately funded organisation?
#ouch

Here's another ouch, BerkelyEarth uses GISS data to make the global map, land and SST data, they also merged their data with CRU data, yet you'd expect a different outcome is possible
#adjustments #asjustments #adjustments

Meanwhile both satellite data sets and balloon data sets all match nicely and show no warming once temp measurement is not near warming surfaces.
What NASA are doing is trying to take the temp of the kitchen by holding the thermometer over the cooker hobb #satellitedataisthebest

Yet more evidence you have no idea what you are talking about

and better still you copied and pasted your map from a national geographic website You might as well have went to greenpeace for your impartial #science

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

@astro(Klopp's footbo)naut

if you are going to play the arrogant obnoxious game (a game you started) you need to be, above all, accurate in what you say

terrifictraore · Nov 25, 2015

Morning sisu, what was it today, children disrespecting you leaving you feeling powerless? Anyway will leave you with this one once again.

Any chance you could describe the cycle you claim we are in. If not, you could always ignore, dodge, post loads of other stuff, accuse me of all sorts of stuff etc.

Either way will be fine thanks.

please log in to view this image

Peej · Nov 25, 2015

I love this thread. It went from Tobe smashing facts to Prince Charles.

My guess is it will swerve towards Jimmy Saville and the royals abusing kids soon enough

johnsonsbaby · Nov 25, 2015

terrifictraore said: ↑

Morning sisu, what was it today, children disrespecting you leaving you feeling powerless? Anyway will leave you with this one once again.

Any chance you could describe the cycle you claim we are in. If not, you could always ignore, dodge, post loads of other stuff, accuse me of all sorts of stuff etc.

Either way will be fine thanks.

please log in to view this image

Click to expand...

I've only dipped in and out of the conversation on climate because most of it's over my head [no pun intended], and I'm not scientifically minded at all but I know you are genuinely interested in learning [so am I] - with that in mind - my naïve take on this graph is that the cycle we are in is demonstrated by the fact that it's a downward trend until 1800 from which point it starts to rise again and in 2000 we were at approximately the same temperature level as 1000. Since the graph only goes up to 2000 so we can't really tell, if the temperature since 2000 has started to flatten out then fall by up to 1 degree, we are in a cycle.

Red Hadron Collider · Nov 25, 2015

"Lizards?" he said said: ↑

It's a real pitty that the LHC cannot be used to create electric\electromagnetic pressure on particles at about 5000c degrees using active plasma. There is a theory that with protrons and neutrons you can create atomic nuclei, rather than colliding them. That would be a good focus, because if we cracked it, we can create many different atomic atoms.

5000c is hot but it would be considered cold fusion relative to normal fusion temperature

please log in to view this image

If we could actually figure out this process ^^, the applications are eldless. We'd have access to certain almost infinite elements.

"“One microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe was very dense and hot — about 1 trillion degrees,” Lee says.
Once microsecond after the "bing bang" there was not enough space in the universe for all he matter it contained, let alone the room for moving particles to create a trillion degrees. I see they stepped back from Hawking's Infinite temp and density

"In the experimental run, researchers sent two proton beams hurtling in opposite directions around the collider at close to the speed of light. Each beam contained 476 bunches of 100 billion protons, with collisions between protons occurring every 50 nanoseconds. The team analyzed 20 million “snapshots” of the interacting proton beams, and identified 150,000 events containing proton-proton collisions."

**** me they must have serious hardware there
Click to expand...

Erm...........yes

Red Hadron Collider · Nov 25, 2015

Final chapter published in decades-long Gravity Probe B project
Details sum up tests confirming Einstein’s general relativity
BY
ANDREW GRANT
12:30PM, NOVEMBER 24, 2015

please log in to view this image

TESTING EINSTEIN The Gravity Probe B mission used almost perfect spheres made of quartz to measure two predicted effects of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

GP-B IMAGE ARCHIVE/STANFORD UNIVERSITY

please log in to view this image
EMail

please log in to view this image
Twitter

please log in to view this image
Facebook

please log in to view this image
Reddit

please log in to view this image
Google+

SPONSOR MESSAGE
A grueling but ultimately successful effort to test Einstein’s 100-year-old general theory of relativity has come to a close more than half a century after it began. Twenty-one papers published online November 17 in Classical and Quantum Gravity present a detailed summation of Gravity Probe B, a satellite that in 2011 confirmed Einstein’s prediction that Earth dents and whips up the spacetime around it.

“It’s very exciting,” says principal investigator Francis Everitt of Stanford University. “It’s been quite exhausting.”

Mission scientists managed to deliver relatively precise measurements of two general relativity phenomena despite several mishaps that threatened to render the data useless. “I think the Gravity Probe B team is the most heroic bunch of scientists I’ve ever been affiliated with,” says Peter Saulson, a physicist at Syracuse University in New York who monitored the mission as part of a NASA-organized advisory committee. Besides delivering another stamp of approval for general relativity, Gravity Probe B’s enduring legacy may be pioneering technology that enables future discoveries.

General relativity first earned credibility through Einstein’s explanation of Mercury’s orbit and measurements of solar eclipses (SN: 10/17/15, p. 16). In the early 1960s, Everitt began a quest to test some of the theory’s harder-to-test predictions. He planned to measure how much the Earth (and by extension, all objects with mass) warps spacetime, a phenomenon known as the geodetic effect. Everitt also wanted to measure the even feebler frame-dragging effect, in which the spinning Earth should yank and twist the surrounding spacetime.

please log in to view this image

CURVED SPACE Because of its mass Earth warps the spacetime around it. Gyroscopes inside the Gravity Probe B satellite were able to measure two phenomena caused by this curvature.
GP-B IMAGE ARCHIVE/STANFORD UNIVERSITY

After many delays and false starts, Gravity Probe B was finally launched in April 2004. It tested both effects with four gyroscopes consisting of spinning quartz spheres coated with the metal niobium. Under Newton’s laws, the axis of a gyroscope totally isolated from external forces would point in the same direction forever. But because of the geodetic and frame-dragging effects, general relativity predicts that our rotating 6-septillion-kilogram planet should reorient a gyroscope’s axis ever so slightly.

Unfortunately, eliminating outside forces is a difficult task, even in space. Researchers noticed that the ping-pong ball–sized gyroscopes were wobbling in unexpected ways. At other times the axis of a gyroscope would suddenly shift and point in a new direction. Initially, Everitt’s team didn’t know what was causing the deviations, which were tens to hundreds of times larger than the gravity-driven effects the researchers hoped to measure.

Over five years of intense data analysis, the scientists identified issues such as electron interactions between the spheres and casings and subtracted those forces from the measurements. In May 2011, the team announced values for the geodetic and frame-dragging effects that are consistent with general relativity’s predictions (SN: 5/21/11, p. 5). Confirming frame dragging, which has been measured with great precision by only one other experiment (SN: 11/27/04, p. 348), rules out some proposed modifications of general relativity and helps physicists predict the conditions around rapidly spinning black holes. “I think we all consider the mission a success,” says John Conklin, a mission scientist and aerospace engineer at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For Saulson, some of the most interesting material in the new papers discusses instrument design. That’s because the 40-kilogram quartz pendulums in his current experiment, Advanced LIGO, were built using a bonding technique developed by the Gravity Probe B team. The experiment’s two L-shaped detectors, which just started collecting data in September, are searching for gravitational waves: ripples in spacetime also predicted by Einstein’s theory.

astro · Nov 25, 2015

"Lizards?" he said said: ↑

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

You do know the difference between Berkely University and Berkely Earth? a privately funded organisation?
#ouch

Click to expand...

Yes. You understand that Berkeley Earth is run by the same person whose youtube video you linked to? #ouch

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

astro(Klopp's footbo)naut said: ↑

Yes. You understand that Berkeley Earth is run by the same person whose youtube video you linked to? #ouch
Click to expand...

Muller is a both it seems Berkely CA and Founder of BE. You are correct though. It's still a meangingless point. I gladly condede that to you

Now the Berkely data set, where did it come from, you never answered? Is it surface temperaruture?

Worth noting, a whistleblower has come forward from NOAA reporting political interference in the science and the major paper Karl et al, that the IPCC is hinging all of this crap on, was rushed through under protests from scientists, and it's been picked apart since by multiple other papers.
Pending congressional investigation atm

So, do me a favour and cite this paper of Berkely, I want to see where they got their data, cos if they used GISS data I'll laugh in your face, that's the frauded data I've ben showing for months

I don't want a dumbed down nat geo article

Tobes · Nov 25, 2015

"Lizards?" he said said: ↑

So, do me a favour and cite this paper of Berkely, I want to see where they got their data, cos if they used GISS data I'll laugh in your face, that's the frauded data I've ben showing for months

I don't want a dumbed down nat geo article
Click to expand...

You've been calling the NASA and IPCC data a #fraud for months, and yet you cited both sources yesterday trying (and failing) to prove your point....

#ouch

astro · Nov 25, 2015

Meaningless that the person who you quote over "climategate" being evidence of #fraud says "yeah the email was proper dodgy, so we were really concerned, but we repeated all the analysis and have made all our data and code freely available but the result didn't change"

Er, OK mate.

astro · Nov 25, 2015

"Lizards?" he said said: ↑

So, do me a favour and cite this paper of Berkely, I want to see where they got their data, cos if they used GISS data I'll laugh in your face, that's the frauded data I've ben showing for months

I don't want a dumbed down nat geo article
Click to expand...

All data and source code is available on the website I sent you

There isn't a "copy and paste for deniers" option sorry, you'll have to actually read it

astro · Nov 25, 2015

Oh BTW just a few simple ideas to throw into the mix:

1. satellite data will show less heating because you're averaging over the entire atmosphere not just the lower part
2. we don't live in the entire atmopshere. we live roughly at sea level, and so do glaciers etc. so that's where the changes will **** us

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

Tobes said: ↑

You've been calling the NASA and IPCC data a #fraud for months, and yet you cited both yesterday trying (and failing) to prove your point....

#ouch
Click to expand...

I dont even understand this garbage, again, not the subject, you said "it was time I proved it" several times and I proved my glacier point, when I did that, you changed to future computer models of permafrost melt

NASA is not an office with 10 people in it, my ire was directed at Gavid Schmidt, the one who cooks this **** up.

But ironically, when I show data from nasa in 2012 and then the same data in 2015 and it is drastically making the past cooler, and the present a little warmer, then.. wtf are you talking about

NASA have changed all historical temp data for the world for the last 100+ years, they did this in 1999\2000

I've used their own charts to show the rewriting of history.

What have you got? Snidely ego driven moans about me

BBFs Unpopular View · Nov 25, 2015

astro(Klopp's footbo)naut said: ↑

All data and source code is available on the website I sent you

There isn't a "copy and paste for deniers" option sorry, you'll have to actually read it
Click to expand...

Let me for you
Detailed analyses of Tavg have been reported by three major teams: the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [Menne and Williams
,
2005] (the NOAA average land temperature estimate can be
downloaded at ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.
land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat), the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) [Hansen et al., 2010]
(updated land temperature data available at data.giss.nasa.
gov/gistemp/graphs/), and a collaboration of the Hadley
Centre of the UK Meteorological Office with the Climate
Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU) [Jones and Moberg
,
2003;Brohan et al., 2005]. (Temperature data are available athttp://hadobs.metof
fi
ce.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html.)

Yawn, I wouldn't mind, the same paper is not backing the IPCC
It puts the warming down to what the north atlantic is doing, decadal oscillations.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Decadal-Variations-Paper-JGR.pdf

Unless we dont have the same paper

Tobes · Nov 25, 2015

astro(Klopp's footbo)naut said: ↑

All data and source code is available on the website I sent you

There isn't a "copy and paste for deniers" option sorry, you'll have to actually read it
Click to expand...

hahahahaha

He struggles with this concept, he expects you to decipher it for him, preferably with graphs (that he doesn't read the content table properly for #ouch)

Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

johnsonsbaby Well-Known Member

Red Hadron Collider The Hammerhead

Red Hadron Collider The Hammerhead

astro Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

astro Well-Known Member

astro Well-Known Member

astro Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

Share This Page

About Us

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

johnsonsbaby Well-Known Member

Red Hadron Collider The Hammerhead

Red Hadron Collider The Hammerhead

astro Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

astro Well-Known Member

astro Well-Known Member

astro Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

Share This Page

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator