Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I have to cover my face going out, my facial hair gets icy otherwise n my bogies turn to icicles.
Dressing for -23 (without wind chill factor) is a pain in the arse #layers

NOTE: This post is not related to CAGW

 

Any daffs over your way yet?

 

What have NASA got to do with the source that you posted i.e. the Finland Meteorological Institute?

You posted a piece from them, I have posted 3 others (more recent) that clearly state the temperature increase in Finland.

They state that 2014 temperature in Finland was 1.6 degrees C ABOVE the average from 1981-2010, is that a #fraud as well like?

As for your self created NASA global temperature map, YOU'VE set the parameters for the comparison and created that map. The Finland piece states 'compared to the long term average', but doesn't specify the comparison time frame. YOU'VE selected 1971-2000 (why 2000?) for the comparison timeframe without knowing the FMI's comparison period and shouted #fraud.

I've just created my own map on the same site for the same month i.e. March 2010, using the timeframe of 1951-2010 and created the map below

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...010&base1=1951&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=rob

Which shows Finland as being -1 degree C behind the average temp in that period

Yet again you show your total lack of your claimed 'scientific' approach by comparing apples with pears and then shouting #fraud when you arrive at the conclusion you wanted it to.

You're a ****ing charlatan.

 

Mysterious LHC Photons Have Physicists Searching for Answers

 

#ouch

 

For half a week? With no wifi?

How many of your friends did you have to eat to survive?

 

I gave the direct link to the paper where the authors of the 1991 paper admitted their error

This is boring if you're just going to flat out lie

 

You've made a similar number of posts to me on your current account, in 6 months less time.

Hardly a scientific analysis of the actual facts there...

#ouch

 

This is the part when #conspiracy theories go from fun to really sad

If Sisu were right why would it be so easy for his arguments to be destroyed? Well at least he can ignore that part because of ego or confusion or whatever.

But now he's deliberately contructing lies to support himself, why can't he notice he shouldn't have to do such things if his case was valid?

 

He got owned with his total contradiction of the ocean temperature 'lag' compared to the solar activity curve and it being the supposed reason for the recent temperature increase, after previously dismissing the oceanic heat sink theory by claiming that there'd been no temperature increase in the Oceans.

He's disappeared for a few days and come back with a whole raft of irrelevant links and no answer to his own #fail.

Lying is par for the course with him, you should know this by know, as is cherry picking of data, using irrelevant comparisons and claiming he's an expert while everyone who disagrees is an idiot.

 

The fact that he's deliberately trying to mislead whilst supposedly talking 'science' shows that he's nothing more than a charlatan.

He proclaimed in his award for winning the internet acceptance speech, that he'd weighed up both sides of this issue in detail and reached his conclusions based on serious analysis. It's patently obvious that he's done nothing of the sort, as he won't concede when someone produces something that counters his posts with facts and logic that there's any sort of issue with that particular belief. He's as much a 'scientist' as I am a brain surgeon. His attitude is as far away from scientific as you can get, as he's concluded his opinion and tries to make the reality fit his conclusion, by selective use of data.

 

So no answer to why NASA warmed Northern Finland by 8.5c degrees (and warmed all of Finland regardless of measurements) in March 2010, that is part of the time series that you post as **** that I claim as fraud.If you claim GISS as proof, you need to explain the above

Again avoiding a simple question as with your glaciers, and Astro with his light clocks and muons (he disappeared for a month after that mullering)



Here's how it works
You came to a conclusion then looked for sources to back that conclusion. That means that any science that does not fit your conclusion is discarded regardless of merit.

I looked at one side for 13 years (pro CAGW), sporadically, then spent 2 years looking at the evidence against, then I came to a conclusion.

See the difference?

This is proven by me saying nothing about CAGW for 2 years as a member here, cos I agreed and as with most, thought it was already decided and proven, hardly though is it, it is a raging debate.

 

That's fair enough, but my point stands, that is one paper, I gave three, you offered nothing for the other two, then I gave 123 papers you are not aware of.

Please post your butchered HADCRUT chart again, I have another chart I want you to apply the same logic to.

Now you claim a "lie" and then use your usual tactic of that one point proving everything that was posted wrong, it's called a character assassination, "I am a liar" dont believe anything I say, when folk resort to that in a debate on science, it's so cute. Emotional much?

I should know better after your relativity arguments, this is your level.

 

I see you ignored the papers. Convenient. In fact you ignored the NASA GISS temp fraud for Finland and didn't even read the post.

Like Tobes, you come to a conclusion then only look at anything that supports that conclusion. A delusional mind therefor can never be wrong.

You actually think rain in December is proof of CAGW, or a hot day at Heathrow You then stepped back from that July claim and pretended you were joking.

 

Same flaccid deflection based arguments and silly claims and likefesting and hashtags.

-25 here now, got two degrees colder when I was out skating, must be proof of global cooling
Colder than last year, also must be proof

#idiotlogic

 

So no one gonna take on that NASA warmed Finland in 2010.

Can you even fathom what that means? Ever hear of quality control? NASA hasn't apparently, because basic quality control would have found the problem, so, why is such a respected institution averse to quality control.. given the belief you lot have in NASA.

I often take logical system reports on hardware, and have to go out make physical confirmations to confirm the data is accurate.

Simply looking at the Finnish met site would have prevented it, and I therefor rightly question how many other problems like this exist when quality control is all but non existent at NASA. A right question is "how many other countries in other years did this happen?"

Lets just pretend it didn't happen, well you both are aren't you.

 

Explain exactly where you've posted something that shows that please.

 

I did, it's on the GISS chart, note the colour of Finland and the temp bar below, you ******
Then read the finnish weather report for March I also posted.

You clueless nitwit

 

Tobes you also posted hottest year crap,
Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: 'According to NOAA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 52%.
According to NASA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 62%.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01...not-the-warmest-year-on-record/#ixzz3wZ18kpgF

please log in to view this image

Yet you use those claims as proof

 

Oh my days.

Do you actually read what's been posted?

Go have a read of my post #3863 and then go and run off for another few days when you realise your error