Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

...and yet you still cite their data on the subject yesterday (without actually reading the content properly and failing in an epic way)

Sort of makes you a.........hypocrite

 

1. satellite data will show less heating because you're averaging over the entire atmosphere not just the lower part
That might be true except Radiosonde, when they send balloons at lower altitudes, show hte same as the two satellite data sets, better find a better source than skeptical science, run by that fraud John Cook

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
Meangingless.
We don't live in a thin film on the earth where it is a closed system either, also meangingless, the atmosphere and oceans are how heat is transferred, ALL of the atmosphere is involved as are the oceans from the bottom to the surface.

We have ocean to 2000 meters I think, surface, balloon and satellite, that covers ocean to reasonable depth to upper atmosphere, yet we go with surface data only?
Cos it is the only data showing the warming. Why do you think NASA are only 38% certain of their record last year, cos 3 out of 5 data sets said "NO RECORD" but hey ho, surface station did

 

Via the 'sewing circle'.

 

Thanks, yeah I am probably about the same as you re knowledge and the chart. problem is sisu tells us the chart does not show one cycle it shows lots but for some reason he does not want to answer my questions on it.

 

Fudge factor, not experimental result. Data processing to get the right result, false positive.
"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."


They got the wrong results, and then used a fudge factor on the data to produce right results that never appeared in the experiment.

You should actually read these things carefiully
"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."

So they messed with the data for 5 years and got the right results, produced by altering experimental empirical data.

So nothing is proven at all essentially it is interpreted. There is a big difference

I wonder what the fail rate is for these expensive studies, so many of them seem to produce "positive results".

Then again who wants to admit they wasted 5 years of their lives and look like failures to their peers, very hard to go down that road, better to "reinterpret" data and get your paper published and your kudos, theoretical astrophysics is riddled with this ****

 

Glaciers move faster than this thread.

#fakht

 

I guess I have a different way at looking at physics but also, it's worth noting that pseudo forces have been created before, the Coriolis effect force is a pseudo force, meaning it is not a force at all, it's a perecption.

Same goes for relativity Frames of Reference, like the Coriolis force, for Relativity or the Coriolis force to be able to achieve anything physical and real, they have to be converted to Newton's laws for each physical interaction between bodies, and Newton's laws doesn't do warp of space time, only perceptual ones, so does frame of reference in Relativity.

When you throw a ball straight when rotating on say a merrgoround, the ball travels in a straight line but you perceive it as curving towards your direction of travel (the frame of reference must be in motion or the the coriolis force does not exist, no physical interactions for Newton's law to translate) , but that perceived curve can be quantified by calculating the variables of each interacting body with Newton's laws, converts it into a pseudo force, it is ficticuous. Not a real force.

I think myself personally that Relativity frames of reference are just perception like Coriolis, given physical properties, but they are not real.

 

Maybe we need to start a science for beginners thread

 

lol too right, I wonder who thinks they are qualified to teach us?

 

Honestly if you put any stock in what Tobes is saying on this thread about Einstein or climate change, that is certainly your problem that's for sure, he's no clue what he is talking about but as long as him PJ and Astro and you agree, that consensus somehow makes it true

It takes at least 6 months of intense reading to get up to speed on the climate change argument cos there is just so much material and a steep learning curve.

To have people who search for 3 minutes and come back with links they don't even understand.. and then tell me I get smashed.

PJ is still recovering from his peer review Einstein debacle. So he's still smarting from that gaping

and Tobes calls science journals, NASA, NOAA, CRU, RSS, UAH, IPPC Assessment reports and NOAA Radiosinde data, "crank websites"

 

My point was not a technical one, I was merely saying that instead of smashing them together, we experimented on arranging them into atomic neuclei. A better use of the protons and neutrons

No doubt there are technical limitations aplenty, with most beyond my understanding to even consider. Just seems to me that following a more useful path of inquiry might be beneficial. If we could actually pull it off, it could possibly explain more than smashing them in the LHC can tell us.
The requirements for such experiments and the risks would be pretty high maybe, on that LHC type scale anyway, you'd probably need a lot more juice than the LHC currently uses (minus the black holes currently powering it of course), and Selafield

 

Do people actually read these things or just post them? Not up for discussion though it seems.



"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."

We have a signal to noise ratio 1\10 to 1\100, enter the fudge factor. Work on subtracting all of the data until you are left with the results you want. I know physics can be abstract but that is taking the piss. Each variable used to calculate what way to manipulate the measurement data, whatever those additional influences were (seperate calculations based on something they didn't realise before they send the gear into orbit, doh, fail, a ****** could figure there are gong to be serious influences and I bet far higher than 100 times the signal), and given the scientists didn't even expect these interferences, moulding equations to remove everything (you didn't even figure was there) and leave you with what you need, is too ****in convenient.

So forgive me if I have doubts, I'd be more convinced if someone would actually come up with some hard empirical proof of space time, and explain why there are things that defy this and why they do.

The reality, they sent the gear up and the experiment failed because they could not shield the gyroscopes from many other influences up to 100 times (likely far more than admitted) stronger than the signal they were looking for. The rest is bullshit.

 

I made you look a complete **** on the subject of glacial melt and tied you in knots, with fackhts. You got that desperate you even tried using sources that you'd spent the entire thread discrediting, and then like the complete reactionary idiot that you are, didn't even bother reading the graph data information on your own data source correctly before posting it, nor the summary.

Hence the reason you dropped the subject and moved on to Prince Charles, you absolute ****ing whopper

 

Let's arrange something. Something that nobody knows how it is arranged?

I guess being spoon fed a science book doodle is a start

 

Please point out, exactly where I stated that any of those specific science journals or assessment reports were 'crank websites'?........in your own time......

Oh and while you're searching, why don't you look for quotes by yourself that clearly state that the IPCC and NASA are #frauds and providing disinformation on the subject of climate change.......

Such is your conspiraloon contrary personality, that despite calling them from a pig to a dog, you still attempt to cherry pick information that they have published to somehow try and justify your denier conclusions, despite completely ignoring the conclusions that they ulitmately make on the holistic view of the Industrial Age on the planets climate.

 

I predict a #meltdown

........and I'm not talking about glacial

 

Any news on the news you mentioned a week or so ago @Tobes

 

Ye make a cute couple.

Tobes climate change and this other stuff is not three minute grab a link kind of stuff. There are three sides to this debate.
The planet is warming
The planet is warming and it spells doom
The planet is not warming

I am in the planet is warming area, we are interglacial so I ****ing expect it to warm. I disagree about how much warming and I know for a fact there is no credible science to suggest it has not happened before OR that an extra 2 degrees and 750ppm would be a bad thing.

What do we know for a fact? When CO2 was higher and it was far warmer than today with almost or no ice, the planet biosphere thrived. The temperatures and CO2 from millions of years ago make a ****ing joke of todays CO2, 4000 - 6000ppm comapred to where are we now? 500ppm even?

deserts don't get rain because there are no forests, there are no forests in low water regions because CO2 is too low. Because CO2 has doubled, and this is scientific, hte Sahara and other areas are starting to green up, certain trees have come back to parts of Africa that havent grown for a long time, CO2 is meant to have a big part in that. More science, More CO2 makes planets drought resistant because they need less water, and vegitation and trees turn sand to soil and the emissions from forests create clouds. The earth likes CO2, it's good for plants and everything (including us) who depend on them. More Co2 means reclaimation of large tracts of desert, with growing populations, not a bad outcome. That means CO2 would do the opposite of the doom sayers, decrease drought not increase it. Stats dont lie, 30 year global decrease in severity and length and area of drought affected land


Drought resistant crops would be a useful thing in Africa for sure. But why save millions now when you can cook up some ****ing dream of possibly saving an incalcuable number of people later because we have no idea what an extra 2 degrees would be like, quite ****ing pleasant i'd imagine.

what makes me laugha bout his ice nonsense is that do these climatards not realise it's melted before? Such arrogance to think we can control climate and weather now and in the future with carbon taxes and cap and trade. You bear the whole cost, can't wait to see the look on your face when you are paying a carbon tax and triple for electricity, plus the extra cost in everything you buy as commercial renewable is expensive too, so get reading to be hit from all directions, sew your pockets up lad, sadly that means more old people freezing in winter and said price increases pushing peole beloew the minimum calorie intake.

But it's ok once one has a liberal save the planet outlook, save it "for themselves", not for those who'll die during this "saving of the earth" You have to be mentally ill to think taxes an fines fix anything, those that can pay them without blinking are essentually absolved of all social responsibility.

The scam also has all developing nations signed up because they get to sell their carbon credits to rich western nations so they can keep producing CO2.. hows that work?

IPCC's green fund just built homes somewhere in Asia, no walls, no water no electricity and collapsed after two months cos corrutpion is costing the fund billions. can cite if needed.

PJ.. need I say anything. "peer review"

 

I hope this investigation into NOAA tampering leads somewhere.

relates to this, the 2015 "adjusted data", at this stage I have shown NASA have altered US temp record, iceland Siberia and Global., all adjusted the same way, all making the past cooler and the present a little warmer.
The latest fraud. If you keep cooling the past, you will keep making global warming more extreme, that's the trick.

please log in to view this image

We're about .8 warming atm, not 1.1


NASA's Gavid Schmidt thinks people could not read thermometers in the past. 1880 warmed half a degree from 2001 to 2015, weird

2015 version: Fig.A.txt
2001 version : FigA.txt