Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Found this, Channel 4 Busted this man made climate fraud in 1990 with this doc. If they put this on today, they would be called "deniers"

 

gringley will not suffer from the urban island effect Having rode through many times I can tell you I am surprised they have a weather station

 

On your Harley or your white stallion?

 

Nothing was mentioned about Gringley and the heat urban island heat effect though you illiterate

The station is only included as it is part of the met office's record summer heat lies debunk. How can it be the hottest ever when the station is only there 15 years, that was the point

16 years ago the temp might have been hotter than this summer, we don't know but the met office go with "hottest on record" cos they know most folks will think the "record" goes back at least 100 years or more.

 

Don't the official records go back to 1914 but they have lots of other records like the England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall and snow, dating back to 1766?

 

I like to ride a big chopper ;-)

 

Very defensive, I only pointed out that it WONT suffer from the urban island effect.

However I have seen magnetic energy tunnels and such in the surrounding area

 

But that data doesn't fit his agenda

 

Theory maybe rather than agenda and he does have a point that the media like to sensationalise weather. Saying things like 'unprecedented' when referring to the wet summer 6 or 7 years ago when there had been 15 summers wetter than that one. "The 16th wettest summer on record'' doesn't make such a good headline.

 

Don't take it so literally PJ.

 

Want some irony? Those historical temps you speak of were thrown out by the IPCC and "re-assessed". There are about 600+ papers on the medieval warming period and the IPCC just threw it out as they saw fit. That's how you turn an .7.something degree increase into a 1.5 degree increase by filling in the gaps with mathematics and re-asssessing warm periods as being cooler, altering well established history ffs.

That resulted in the now known to be fraudulent Hockeystick chart because the whole thing was hinged on a handful of trees and the width of their tree rings.

And those temps you mention were sparse and not evenly distributed across the country to give an average temp, just nowhere near enough data

 

If you read my reply, you are mistaken Why do you need to weigh in when A you can't read a post (Gringley) and B do not know anything about the subject?

 

hehe, I see Sisu is still fighting the tin foil hat fight over here.
Points for tenacity at least.
Whats the subject now? Rainfall?
It went from JFK, 9/11 and terrorism to rainfall and the age of trees

Anyone thrown in Watergate yet?

 

If you read this thread back which you wont, I have fully backed up with good sources and info my man made climate fraud claims.
Like data from the institutes that monitor the ice in Antarctica and the Arctic. Published peer reviewed papers. Lots of direct evidence of cheating the data.

So I don't know what you are talking about? Not talking about 9\11 that was like a 2 day thing

Watergate.. rofl, When the world was all fizzing a media juzzfest about that almost all of Cambodia's civilian popupation was blitzed to chunks of meat by the US Airforce. I don't care about watergate

 

No, I most certainly won't. **** that.
I didn't say you weren't backing your **** up with sources either, I have no idea.

I am not built for these kinda discussions, I lose patience fast. I just read about **** myself and come to my own conclusion.
No point trying to change peoples minds, especially on a football forum of all places.
You must relish these debates.

In the immortal words of Roger Murtagh "I'm too old for this ****!"

 

But sometimes, isn't it wonderful to be part of the human race?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...planet-from-New-Horizons-spacecraft-live.html

 

Source NOAA\NCDC Reports.
Pink is the raw data . Adjustments are the blue dots, TOBS also adjusted data . This is not a "conspiracy claim", they actually say this in the lit cited.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
""The adjacent plot shows the annual time series calculated from each of the six USHCN data sets. The USHCN adjustment procedures are applied in stepwise fashion so that the effects from each adjustment have a cumulative effect. The data set containing the final adjustment procedure (urbanization adjustments) also contains all of the previous adjustments. Each series contains data from 1900-1999."

please log in to view this image

Adjustments make up all of the global warming shown by the IPCC, all .6 degrees is "adjustments" as shown in the above lit cited.
Hotter years in the 1920s and 30s, 30s still the hottest decade according to the raw data before "adjusting" the data.

Yet here is another chart from NOAA\NCDC
Again the .6 degrees, this chart looks nothing like the above raw data above, it's a fraud hockeystick.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

please log in to view this image

This is why they use ground stations, it can be manipulated where as satellite and balloon data(which correlate pretty well) clearly show there is no significant warming and in fact a slight cooling.

Ahh the infamous "homogeneous reference series". Where they cherry pick stations showing much hotter temps from urbanisation and use them in a series with cooler rural stations to warm the overall average. Maths trickery
""Currently all data adjustments in the USHCN are based on the use of metadata. However station histories are often incomplete or changes that can cause a time series discontinuity, such as replacing a broken thermometer with one that is calibrated differently, are not routinely entered into station history files. Because of this we are developing another step in the processing that will apply a time series discontinuity adjustment scheme described in Peterson and Easterling (1994) and Easterling and Peterson (1995). This methodology does not use station histories and identifies discontinuities in a station's time series using a homogeneous reference series developed from surrounding stations.""

To summarise. the IPCC are admitting that .6 degrees of warming (the entire man made climate change keystone) comes purely from "adjustments" and not historical data. Of course this is admitted in scientific papers, not the media snippets

As we can see here below, the whole "global warming scam" is based on .6 degrees of adjusted temperatures. This is entirely in contradiction with the actual (pre adjustment) data being collected.

please log in to view this image

 

What does a pentaquark mean for you?
Jon Butterworth
Almost - but not quite - buried on the icy plains of Pluto this week, the Large Hadron Collider revealed a completely new type of particle. What does that tell us?

please log in to view this image

Inside a pentaquark? Photograph: Daniel Dominguez/CERN
Saturday 18 July 2015 18.35 BSTLast modified on Sunday 19 July 201508.50 BST

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares
645
Comments
38
Perhaps the first thing it tells us is that scientists at CERN are more focused on their results than on the attendant publicity, whatever the press office might advise them. New Horizons has been on the way to Pluto for more than nine years, and the data in which the pentaquark was discovered were recorded by the LHCb experiment more than three years ago, so you might think they could have arranged things to avoid announcing the new particle on the same day as this. As a friend on the experiment put it, it “Shows how focussed we were on the science.”

Of more lasting importance, the discovery tells us something about the strong nuclear force and the way the smallest constituents of matter behave.

The strong force is responsible for binding quarks together inside hadrons such as protons, neutrons and now, it seems, pentaquarks. It also binds protons and neutrons together inside atomic nuclei, and it does this despite the fact that protons have an enormous mutual repulsion due to their electric charges. The strong force is called “strong” because in comparison to its might, electromagnetism is a mere bagatelle.

There is another sense in which the force is strong, which doesn’t depend on comparing it to other forces.

When we calculate the probability of two particles interacting with each other - either fusing together, or scattering off each other, for example - a number enters the equation called the “coupling constant”. This number characterises the strength of the force - the bigger the coupling constant, the more likely it is that an interaction will occur. When this number is much smaller than one, we can use a technique called perturbation theory to get our results. But if the number is close to or bigger than one, perturbation theory doesn’t work. This is the case for those strong force interactions which confine quarks inside hadrons.

Because perturbation theory doesn’t work, it is very hard to predict the consequences of the strong force. One thing we do know is that the binding energy of the strong force which holds the quarks together inside them is responsible for almost all of the mass of protons and neutrons, and hence almost all of the mass of you. Calculations on supercomputers (such as the DiRAC facility in the UK) use “lattice” methods to make calculations when perturbation theory doesn’t work. These involve approximating the space-time continuum by a lattice of discrete points and events; they are now able to make some pretty firm predictions, although calculating the details of pentaquarks remains in the future - the experiment is ahead here.

All the hadrons known until recently consist of either three quarks, or one quark and one antiquark. The reasons for this are nicely explained in a series of articles by Ben Still here(using Lego!). Particles made of two quarks and two antiquarks (known as tetraquarks) have been seen by the Belle experiment and by LHCb in the last few years, but this one - four quarks and one antiquark - is a new kind of beast.

We would like to know whether pentaquarks are made up of all four quarks and the antiquark clumped together, or whether they consist of a quark-antiquark pair more loosely bound to the other three quarks, as shown in the illustration below.

please log in to view this image

Possible layout of the quarks in a pentaquark particle. The five quarks might be tightly bound (left). Or they might be assembled into a meson (one quark and one antiquark) and a baryon (three quarks), weakly bound together. Like Pluto and Charon. Only smaller, closer and less photogenic Photograph: Daniel Dominguez/CERN
In general, understanding the consequences of the strong force, and learning how to make and test calculations for strong forces, is an important area of physics. The other forces can also become strong (in the sense that perturbation theory fails) in some circumstances, and sometimes in materials and situations that are much closer to everyday life than what is happening in LHCb. It is a frontier of knowledge just as much as the high-energy frontier, or the outer reaches of the solar system.

I began the article asking “What does a pentaquark mean for you?” Maybe the answer is “Not too much, directly”. Certainly at least one columnist in this paper regularly insists that the money we spend on exploratory science is a frivolous waste, when we could be spending it on prisons, medicine, art or practically anything else I presume. However, it won’t be a surprise to you that I am of the strong opinion that allocating an amount (a small fraction of a percent at present) of our resources to such things is not only fun and interesting, but a worthwhile investment too, given the inherently unpredictable nature of exploration.

Pentaquark discoveries have been claimed before; I was involved in one of them myself a few years ago, though we didn’t claim that the bump we saw was definitely a pentaquark, and whatever it was, the bump was nowhere near as clear as those seen by LHCb. I think the force is strong with this one.

please log in to view this image

FacebookTwitterPinterest
The Force is strong with this one Photograph: Cine Text/Allstar/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar
Jon Butterworth’s book Smashing Physicsis available as “Most Wanted Particle” in Canada & the US. He is also on Twitter.

 

Royal Astronomical Society.
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”


Europe did have it's coldest winters in about 100 years in the past 5 years.

We even had hail in July in helsinki and Germany had frost in june. Ireland coldest summer for 70 years this year. Summer frosts in Scotland, Belgium, Switzerland, England.

We are gonna see increased snows and floods because there is more clouds, they are increasing expoentially due to cosmic rays. Peru predicted to get 100 inches of snow.

NASA say cosmic rays at all time high since the space age..
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html

Clouds and cosmic rays
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation