Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Where you live, you mean Finland?

That's odd, as the Finnish Meteorological Institute appear to have a different view to your detailed 'scientific' "it's cold" summation of the Finland climate in 2015


According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute statistics, 2015 was a record warm year in the most parts of the country


Lapland was the only province in which the year was not quite the warmest but in the shared second place. The mean temperature in 2015 was 4.2°C, which is about 1.9°C warmer than the long-term average i.e. the period 1981–2010. As regards the whole country, only June and July were colder than average. February and March as well as November and December were proportionally the warmest periods as the mean temperature in the whole country was 4-6°C warmer than normal.

Warm weather records were broken in both November and December. The new warm weather record for November, 14.3°C, was measured on 3 November in Kemiönsaari. The record for December was 11.3°C, which was measured in Pori and Kokemäki on 20 December.

The highest temperature of the year, 31.4°C, was recorded on 3 July in Kouvola. There were only 19 hot days during the entire summer, which is about half the normal number of hot days. The first hot day was as late as on 29 June, which makes it the second latest first hot day recorded since 1961. The majority of hot days were not until in August. Because of the bleak summer weather, the number of thunderstorms was record low this year. The lowest temperature of the year, -39.6°C, was recorded in Utsjoki on 11 January.

The new record for annual precipitation measured in Puolanka
The level of annual precipitation varied between the 500mm in Northern Lapland and just over 1,000mm in Kainuu. The highest level of rainfall was measured in Puolanka, where 1,242mm of rain was received at the Paljakka station. This exceeds clearly the previous record for annual precipitation, which was 1,109mm measured in Nupuri in Espoo in 1981.

The annual precipitation was slightly higher than average in large parts of the country. The areas with the highest precipitation in the central parts of the country received rainfall about 1.6 times as high as normally. The areas that remained below the long-term average were mainly in the southwestern parts of the country and in Northern Lapland.

The greatest amount of rainfall in a 24-hour period was 67.1mm, which was recorded in Kokemäki on 16 July. May was exceptionally rainy in some areas on the Ostrobothnian coast and in Lapland, and local precipitation records were broken in these areas. In October, on the other hand, records were broken in the opposite direction as the southern part of the country was exceptionally dry and sunny.

There were a total of 21 stormy days, which is very close to the long-term average, i.e. 19 stormy days per year. By the end of October, there had only been about half the average number of stormy days, but the 11 stormy days in November and December brought the situation back to the normal level.

An exceptionally mild December in the south
In light of the Finnish Meteorological Institute statistics, December was unusually, even exceptionally mild in some areas in the southern and central parts of the country. This means that a December as mild as this year repeats on average once in 10–30 years in the current climate. December was also warmer than average in Lapland; however, rare temperatures were not reached. The deviation of the mean temperature from the normal was greatest in the eastern part of the country, which was over 6°C warmer than average in some areas. Eastern Lapland was closest to the normal levels. Some areas were only 1–2°C milder than average.

The highest temperature in December was 11.3°C, recorded in Kokemäki and Pori on 20 December. This is a new warm weather record for December. The previous record 10.8°C from 2006 was broken on two separate occasions this year. The month's lowest temperature, -31.3°C, was recorded in Kevojärvi in Utsjoki on 18 December.

http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/press-release/132036967

Are they all #frauds as well like? Or could it possibly be that you're talking absolute ****e?

 

Early quark estimates not entirely realized
Excerpt from the February 5, 1966 issue of Science News Letter
BY
SARAH SCHWARTZ
1:30PM, JANUARY 21, 2016

please log in to view this image

INGREDIENTS Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider slams protons and neutrons together, breaking the subatomic particles into a soup of their core ingredients — quarks and particles called gluons (illustrated)

COURTESY BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

• 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

please log in to view this image

‘Quarks’ may be source of quasars’ energy — The mysterious nuclear particles called “quarks,” which have not yet been detected but might nevertheless be basic building blocks of the atom’s core, could be the source of the tremendous energy generated by the puzzling star-like objects known as quasars…. Quarks, if they exist, would have a charge either one-third or two-thirds that of an electron …[and] masses of at least five billion electron volts. — Science News Letter, February 5, 1966


Update
Experimental evidence of quarks first came in 1968 from scientists smashing together subatomic particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. By 1995, researchers had identified six quark “flavors”: up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top. Quarks are a core ingredient of atoms. But they are not responsible for the huge energy outputs of quasars (which are more like galaxies than stars). Quasars are probably fueled by black holes. Although all quarks have a charge that is either one-third or two-thirds an electron’s, only thetop quark is as heavy as the 1966 prediction.

 

This is what I mean by scientifically ignorant, the warm above average warm came from Oct Nov and Dec El Nino effect warming, which in terms of statistical trends is anomalous.

Again you confuse El Nino with climate.

More copy paste 3 minute experting danced on. To further destroy your garbage(cos you dont read or understand what you are talking about.

Finland had its coolest summer since 2008. In my post I said cool summer, not Oct Nov and Dec.. again you makey the false argument
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508

 

You just confirm everything I say Tobes with your reactionary link searching drivel.
#tooeasy

I love the way you guys ignore the arctic SMASHING ice gain records.

 

Not to be picky but aren't quarks the source of all energy? not just quasars

 

I know Finland had a cool summer I ****ing live here like
#Isawitwithmyowneyes

 

So you've got none then......

Ergo you're a layman same as every other person on the planet with access to the internet.

Your pretense that you have you have superior knowledge on this subject is therefore complete cobblers, as you've only accepted one angle i.e. the #fraud.

You've closed your mind to any piece of information that contradicts your already set conclusion, you're therefore not applying #science to your thought process at all, merely seeking to protect your conclusion in an almost evangelical way.

 

I suppose the Arctic is is a "denier". All that ice gain is obviously the Arctic being funded by the Oil companies to lie about climate change

 

He doesn't need one, he knows how to copy and paste stuff with a little but of tweaking so that he can convince himself he is an expert on any subject.

 

The data supplied by the Finland Met Institute says the average 2015 mean temperature was 1.9 degrees higher than the average since '81

Those are the simple #fachkts

You feeling a bit chilly in July doesn't class as research or #science love x

 

******

Let me try explain it to you in your language, idiotic. Average temp for the year does not tell you which months were warm or cool
It's the average of max and min temps for the whole year.

Even a 10 year old knows the average can increase while any given month can be cooler than average.

The average was pushed up by El Nino warming up the last 3 to 4 months, the average would have dropped below average if not for El Nino given the ****ty summer.

So I have no idea what garbage you are on about, you seem to not understand even basic averages of temp, this discussion is not for you.

It's your ignorance of the subject that shields you from seeing you are wrong.

 

As far as I can recall in summer here from the thermometer, I can seldom remember days it was above 20c both in Helsinki and when at the summer gaff in central Finland.

I guess I cant read a thermometer

It looked to be Finland's coldest summer on record but for El Nino saving the day late on.

I suppose you could call those #Fackts

 

My own fault Debating with a dimwit is never rewarding

 

Christopher Booker seems convinced of two things. Climate change is a #fraud and women are ruining the world.

 

So the annual temperature increase was all due to El Nino....I see

So what caused the increase in 2014 then?

2014 was Finland's second warmest year on record
7.1.2015 12:31

According to preliminary calculations, the average temperature for the whole country was around 0.15 °C lower than for 1938, the warmest year recorded. The list of the five warmest years also includes 1989, 2011 and 2000.

please log in to view this image

Photo: Tuija Vuorinen



According to the statistics of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, the year was in regional terms the warmest ever in many areas throughout the region stretching from Satakunta to the western part of North Ostrobothnia and North Savo. Elsewhere the year was unusually or even exceptionally warm. Overall, 2014 was around 1.6 °C warmer than the long-term average for the period 1981-2010.

In terms of individual months, only January and June were colder than normal on the countrywide scale. The most significant periods of warmth were February and March, the hot weather in July and at the start of August, and the first half of December.

The year's highest temperature, 32.8 °C, was recorded in Pori railway station on August 4, and the lowest temperature, -40.7 °C, was recorded at Kevojärvi Lake in Utsjoki on January 20. In some parts of the country 50 days of hot summer weather (temperatures exceeding 25 °C) were recorded between May and August, which is 14 days more than average.

http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/press-release/42503751

#oops

 

Try and explain post #4355 then....

p.s. that last line is the ultimate irony, your lack of self awareness is genuinely frightening

 

BTW I know it won't come as a surprise but Booker has previously worked on denying those other #frauds of smoking and asbestos being dangerous

 

So you and your thermometer trumps the National data from the Finnish Meteorological Institute over the entire 12 month span....I see

#science

 

Sorry one last thing about Booker; evolution is also a #fraud and we should be teaching intelligent design instead

 

The author of that report is a crank and an exposed liar, but you still cite it as a credible source.

How much longer can Christopher Booker go on misleading readers?
Everyone makes mistakes. But journalists must tailor their beliefs to the evidence, not the other way round

You can tell a lot about a newspaper from the way it handles the mistakes its journalists make. Does it correct them? Does it ignore them? Does it allow those mistakes to be repeated long after they have been discredited? You can, I believe, tell a lot about the Sunday Telegraph from the fact that it continues to employ Christopher Booker, without, apparently, insisting that he stops spreading misinformation.

A list of all the howlers he has made in recent years would fill a book, but here is a small selection:

Global warming
Booker dismisses much of climate science, tending to prefer unqualified bloggers to provide his information. This gets him into endless scrapes, the most amusing of which was his observation in February 2008 that "Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". The "warmists", he pointed out, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now it had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. To reinforce this point, he published a graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. Who would have thought it?

Rajendra Pachauri
In December 2009, Booker and his and his long-term collaborator Richard North claimed that the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, had been making "millions of dollars" from dodgy business dealings, which caused a conflict of interest with his official role. These claims were completely untrue: in the period in question Pachauri had earned his annual salary of £45,000, plus a maximum of £2,174 for articles, speaking fees and lectures, and nothing else. Neither Booker and North nor anyone else at the paper contacted Pachauri to check these claims before publishing them.

After exhaustive attempts to get the false claims corrected by the paper, Pachauri found he had no option but to instruct a firm of libel lawyers. By the time it eventually backed down, the Sunday Telegraph had a six-figure bill for costs.

Evolution
In an article for the Spectator last year, Booker questioned the theory of evolution by natural selection, suggesting that it could not answer the following objections:

• If each form of life gradually evolved through tiny variations … why does every fossil we find so identifiably belong to a discrete species?

• Where are all the "intermediate forms" between one species and another?

• How could [Darwin's] gradualist theory account for all those complex organs, such as the eye, which require so many interdependent changes to take place simultaneously?

• How could it account for those startling "evolutionary leaps", when all sorts of changes emerged together in an improbably short time, such as those needed to transform land mammals into whales in barely 2m years?

He appeared to be unaware that all these questions – the tiredest old creationist canards – have been answered many times over by evolutionary biologists.

Asbestos
Booker has now written 42 articles downplaying the risks of white asbestos. His main informant is a man called John Bridle. Bridle has described himself as "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science". He has claimed to possess an honorary professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences, to be a consultant to an institute at the University of Glamorgan, the chief asbestos consultant for a European Asbestos Accreditation Centre in Lisbon, and a consultant to Vale of Glamorgan trading standards department. None of these claims is true. Neither the institute at the University of Glamorgan nor the centre in Lisbon have ever existed. His only relationship with the Glamorgan trading standards department is that he has been successfully prosecuted by the department for claiming a qualification he does not possess.

This has not stopped Booker from repeatedly citing Bridle as an expert, and using his claims to dismiss the scientific work on the subject. Several times the health and safety executive has tried to correct Booker's false claims, but he has kept repeating them, even claiming – wrongly – that the executive's own work supports them.

Speed cameras
In 2007, in the Daily Telegraph, Booker, again with Richard North, asserted that speed cameras had increased the accident rate where they were installed, and had slowed the decline in the overall death rate on the roads. The government's figures, which they claimed to draw on, showed the opposite. In the same article, they misquoted a House of Commons committee, and radically misrepresented its findings.

Europe

Christopher Booker has made a long series of lurid claims in the Sunday Telegraph about the European Union. My favourite example is his false assertion that under EU rules you'll be allowed to bury dead pets only after "pressure cooking them at 130C for half an hour".

All that, you might think, would be bad enough, but now Booker has run into even bigger trouble. He has just been the subject of something that, in 26 years as a journalist, I have never seen before: a substantial section of a high court judgment devoted to the false claims of one journalist.

In a long and detailed refutation, Judge Bellamy shows that, in July and October 2010, Booker wrote two articles which wildly misrepresented a case before the family courts.

Booker had claimed that a couple had sought medical advice for the "faint bruising" they had found on their baby's arm. This, he said "proved to be the start of a nightmare, which led to them being arrested, handcuffed and driven off separately to a police station". He claimed that the couple was being persecuted on the word of a "controversial paediatrician" whom the judge in this case had previously excoriated.

Here's what Bellamy had to say about these claims:

"Far from suffering from 'faint bruising', the baby had a spiral fracture to his left humerus (upper arm bone) and six metaphyseal fractures (breaks close to the end of the bone)."

At no time had the doctor cited by Christopher Booker "had any involvement at all in the case I am now concerned with. Indeed, to the best of my recollection his name has never even been suggested as a possible expert to be used in this case."

Though the press has a right to attend family court hearings, "Mr Booker has not attended any of the hearings in this case and in particular, though being aware of the dates, has not attended on any day of this fact finding hearing, not even for the handing down of this judgment."

Instead he relied on the word of the mother. As Bellamy points out, "to rely uncritically upon what a parent says can lead to reporting that is unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong."

I have begun to wonder whether there's a single subject Booker has tackled in recent years which he has not distorted out of all recognition. For how much longer can this go on?

Everyone makes mistakes. Journalists are especially prone to them, thanks to our short deadlines and the complexity of the subjects we often tackle. What makes the difference between good and bad journalism is, I think, a capacity for self-examination: an ability to challenge your own beliefs, and to subject claims which appear to support them to the same rigour as claims which conflict with them.

This process, as I've been discovering in the past few weeks, can be extremely painful and disruptive, as friends and allies turn on you, alleging betrayal, and as you find yourself questioning some of the pillars of your own identity. But it is essential if we are to avoid misleading our readers. We must tailor our beliefs to the evidence, not the other way round.

But while everyone suffers from self-deception, there must surely be a point beyond which editors decide that they have gone too far. If a journalist keeps making the same serious mistakes, across a wide range of subjects, and if his employers fail either to ensure that he improves the rigour of his research and writing or finds employment elsewhere, then they come to co-operate in a deception of the public. That, I believe, is now the position of the editors of the Sunday Telegraph.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/13/christopher-booker-misleading

Sounds like someone I know this fella, can't remember his name though.....