Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW RESEARCH HAS undermined the idea of a “hiatus” in the warming of our oceans, which have continued to heat up without pause for the past 75 years.
A reported pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014 was false, according to US-British research that confirmed the findings of a 2015 US study on ocean warming that was criticised by climate sceptics.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of York, England, corroborated the results of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) research paper in 2015.
Their findings were reported in the US journal Science Advances.
The NOAA paper had shown ocean buoys now used to measure water temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems.
The switch to buoy measurements had hidden some of the real-world warming during the 1998-2014 period, the NOAA scientists concluded.
The NOAA paper had drawn outrage from some scientists who insisted there had been a “global warming hiatus”, and from critics who consider global warming a hoax.
The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, had even demanded the NOAA scientists provide lawmakers with their email exchanges about the research.
The US government agency agreed to transmit data and respond to scientific questions but refused to hand over the emails of the study’s authors, a decision supported by scientists worried about political interference.
Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and lead author of the new study, said:
Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books.
Debunked
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report published in September 2013, said the average global warming between 1951 and 2012 had been 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
But between 1998 and 2012, it said warming had amounted to only 0.07 degrees celsius per decade, indicating a ‘global warming hiatus.’
Yet the 2015 NOAA analysis, which was adjusted to correct for the “cold bias” of buoy measurements, found there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years.
Reporting in the journal Science, the NOAA scientists said the oceans has actually warmed 0.12 degrees per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as the earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees per decade.
That brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
The new study uses independent data from satellites and Argo floats, a worldwide satellite-based location and data collection system, as well as from buoys.
The information gathered confirmed the NOAA results in 2015 were correct, the scientists said.
Kevin Cowtan of the University of York said:
We were initially skeptical of the NOAA result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office.
“So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think NOAA got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees,” he said.
© AFP, 2016 with reporting from Darragh Peter Murphy.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
With all the misinformation and ignorance out there no one knows what to believe anymore.
On a credibility scale I’d attach far more significance to peer-reviewed scientific papers over fossil-fuel funded blogs or the rantings of far-right politicians any day.
97% of the worlds scientists acknowledge climate change! If you’re going to listen to deniers with no evidence then I don’t know what to tell you.
@Deborah Behan: there’s no denying the change.
What is in dispute is what’s causing it. Whether part of some larger cycle of which we are but a speck, or a more pronounced one of which we’re a major part of.
And that is something that isn’t going to be proved or disproved, easily.
Look at this way: when I was in secondary school the other big scary mary outside of nuclear Armageddon was the forthcoming Ice Age. 35 years later it hasn’t happened, and gone the other way. Who’s to say in 35 years the pendulum won’t have swung the other way again ?
For this reason, the likes of the Greens espousing CO2 as the cause of all ‘eco evil’ is, imho, spurious, and has no credibility. Look at the BS that made everybody rush to diesel and inside 8 years there’s a complete U-turn ?
John Moylan, I think you are confusing secondary school with the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. There is no controversy, the vast vast majority of climate scientists are satisfied that the evidence shows that the current global warming is man made. There is no controversy, the controversy is manufactured by both tin foil hat wearers, and vested interests who are set to lose if penal taxes are implemented, or policies favouring renewables are expanded.
CNN is the epitome of fake news.
@John Moylan: your humble opinion contradicts the scientific consensus. I’ll favour the scientific consensus on this issue.
The hypothesis that increasing densities of CO2 in the atmosphere retains more and more solar energy warming the atmosphere and eventually the oceans is fully consistent with the empirical data being collected.
I’m provisionally satisfied that the primary factor in global warming is anthropogenic and that it may be possible to head off the worst impacts with decisive measures and lifestyle changes.
If you are wrong, it is future generations who will pay the price of our current short sightedness.
There’s a mountain of peer-reviewed science that shows it’s man-made.
We’re pumping an additional 2 BILLION tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day, not to mention the other gases.
When temps reach more than 2 degrees centigrade above norms that brings into threat the billions of methane trapped under ground across vast swathes of Russia. And methane will heat things up much more dramatically. A rise of more than 7 degrees C and it’s curtains for everything.
Whether it’s man-made or not its definitely man aided
@John Moylan:
“What is in dispute is what’s causing it.”
It’s not in dispute.
@Congress Tart:
Whilst the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic factors have an effect on climate we still don’t know enough about what proportion of observed change is down to anthropogenic factors and what proportion is due to external (natural) factors. Trying to determine this is likely to be the focus of much of the research in the coming couple of decades.
Okay, most are in agreement that average global temperatures have been slightly increasing over time in the last 40 years or so. What absolutely no-one can say with any degree of certainty is how exactly that will affect climate in say western Europe for instance. Some say it could disrupt the warming Atlantic drift and cause a dip in temperatures. Others say it will lead to warmer wetter summers. No-one has a Crystal ball. And how come no-one is discussing potential advantages; such as increased plant growth with increased CO2 levels, extended grazing seasons for farmers, milder less severe winters etc
@John B: the fact this thread exists, and the article that started, would illustrate there’s plenty of controversy.
There is no ‘vast majority’, that’s my point. There are two, sizeable bodies each with their own view.
Taxes will in not impact it positively, and only serve to lubricate the financial interests peddling it. You get more flies with honey than vinegar as the idiom says. Same here – beating people into submission – unevenly I might add – is the route to failure.
@John Moylan: the sounder and more prudent risk management approach is to assume that the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused global warming is a valid hypothesis and to act soon enough and decisively enough to head off a catacylismic disaster for human beings.
What if the climate change deniers are wrong?
There is not an even balance between the empirical support for anthropogenic climate change and the empirical support for denial of anthropogenic climate change. There is a huge preponderance in favour of the hypothesis. That does not mean that the established scientific consensus is correct but it puts up a massive challenge to the climate change deniers to disprove the consensus and to offer a more plausible and consistent theory.
@winston smith: Its a failure of the media to fairly report all shades of opinion.
@Val Martin: not all share of opinion are equally valid.
@Deborah Behan: 97% of scientists whose lively hoods depend on the glowbal warming scare continuing. Not the same thing as 97% of all scientists.
Piers Corbyn, Freedman Dyson, Patrick Moore (founder of Green peace), are just 3 of the many scientists and climatologists who disagree. I’ ll give you just one simple example.
There was a warm period from 0 AD to about 450 AD when St. Patrick was going around. There was another between 850 AD and 1250 AD when the Vikings traveled the oceans and the monks occupied Skellig Michael but were forced to leave because it got cold. These two warm periods were removed from the model used to claim a very slight warming trend in the 20th century was unique. In fact there is a lot of evidence that we are in for a mini ice age. I believe its a hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skellig_Michael —— The Irish Energy Blog is useful of it.http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/
Val, the BBC recently ruled (quite rightly) that it’s entirely inappropriate to give an equal anount of airtime to the tiny proportion of climate scientists who dispute climate change as the overwhelming majority who accept it.
It would be akin to giving the same amount of airtime to someone who claimed they could cure cancer by getting patients to walk backwards round a bonfire three times as to a consultant oncologist.
@winston smith: That is very understandable. I have been carefully studying it for over 6 years and concluded that the data and scientific evidence supporting it has been sloppy and in many cases altered. When you examines the models you find that there is some information but that when they come to a stone wall and can’t go any further, they use assumptions based on intuition, not science.
Russian hackers exposed data manipulation at East Anglia University. Bullying is used against those who question them as
torture was used against those who questioned religion in medieval times, If you took the word denier out of their vocabulary , they would be speechless. Google Lord Monckton, Piers Corbyn, Freedman Dyson and Patrick Moore of climate change and check out the Irish Energy Blog and Global Warming Policy Foundation.
You obviously haven’t been studying it closely enough – if you were you would know that the so-called ‘climategate’ scientists were subsequently completely vindicated.
@winston smith: climate change is a scam, its easy to prove.
@Deborah Behan: one of the IPCC panel was questioned by me and others in Trinity College. Couldnt answer any questions. They havent a clue.
Perhaps you could post your proof here so we can all see it Owen.
You could let us know what your Trinity questions were too if you like….
Save the planet one way is promote family planning in places like India and Africa. Europe population is only increasing because of migration and birth rates in imigrant populations
With the start of climate migration already beginning and the population rate climbing alarmingly in East Asia and many third world countries, agreed. It’s one of the most serious issues facing us as a society. I believe its estimated we will reach circa 9. 5 billion in the next 30 years, which only puts even further stresses on resources and energy. We are overrunning the planets ability to compensate for our expansive and destructive nature to facilitate our current standards of living and the results have been glaring us in the face for decades. Our children will live in a very different harsher world, where clean water, labour, money even food for many will be a daily struggle for. Automation will result in upwards of 80% current employed replaced by AI and robotics. The levels of social unrest I’m expecting to be beyond anything humans have seen before.
For some people there’s nothing we can’t blame on foreigners.
I wish liberals would stop pretending that they care about climate change. They don’t give a toss. How many of them will stop buying high end electronics, eating meat, buying foreign products. None. In fact, liberals are the greatest proponents of globalisation and therefore climate change. The only thing they want to change is the taxes, so poor Joe soap is stuck in poverty
@Superfiends: Go back into your cave where you can throw stones at passing trains, and stop being such a whiny Snowflake.
@Superfiends: example
“Leonardo DiCaprio took an outrageous 8000 mile trip in a private jet to pick up an environmental award”
If humans stopped eating animals is would go a long way to slowing down global warming.. Deforestation to enable animal grazing and animal co2 emissions contribute hugely to global warming.. Stop eating Animals if you’re that worried about the Polar Bears… I’ll just sit back and let the red thumbs roll in for that comment
Whats life without a juicy steak or some crispy bacon.
Unrestricted free movement of people and removal of the archaic concept of the ‘nation state’ will lead to a greater balance in how our resources are used.
You all make some good points. But climate change is everyone’s concern. There do exist people who don’t drive or fly because they’re concerned about their carbon footprint. A meat diet is worse for the environment than anything else you can do and vegans will happily remind you of this. But generally people aren’t going to change how they live even if they recognise the dangers of climate change. Most people are the type to go to the gym on January 1st and then not go the rest of the year. The only hope we have is to advance our technology to the point that we can reduce the effect we have on the environment without requiring the vast majority of people to fundamentally change their lifestyle. I’m not very hopeful. But nutters who deny there’s even a problem don’t help.
Long story short there’s too many of us
@Joey Westland: He can’t be a snowflake. A snowflake is Soft, Niaive, oblivious, week, frickle, leftie, aloof, killjoy and empty. Snowflakes were all Hillary supporters in the election.
@Superfiends: Its not abuout the weather or the climate, its about gaining control to tax and pushing through measures which could not be pushed through without it. You remember that picture of a polar bear stranded on a chunk of ice. That was a fake, they admitted it was a collage. See here, where they use sympathy for animals to produce fake reports.
http://lastresistance.com/scientists-admit-dwindling-polar-bear-numbers-made/
See here the comment of the head of IPCC who was sacked for inappropriate advances to women in India.
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: \\\they have bulldozed vast areas of prime forest to grow palm oil which is certified green. https://orangutan.org/rainforest/the-effects-of-palm-oil/
The absolute saps on this website who think it’s a hoax. Lay off the Breitbart. This goes both ways, but it’s ridiculous when people fall fully their political ideology and don’t take each individual issue or event on it’s merits, and instead “tow the party line” so to speak. And I cringe when I see these same people on this and elsewhere with the “stupid liberal/leftist”/ “right-wing nut” ; it’s not supporting a football club ffs
@Showbiz Babyyy:
The problem is it is just not that cut and dry and calling people saps is a great way to be viewed as a sap
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming
A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA), 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change.
Don’t be so naive Padraig – of course geologists and engineers who rely largely on big oil for employment are going to try and deny the link.
Your last paragraph is just a lie.
@Avina Laaf:
The data is not a lie so indeed it is not a lie you may not like the data but that does not invalidate the data. It is not the only data (Canada) and if you cared to look around a bit you would find a great deal of controversy within the scientific community. If you were a little smarter you would understand that fact and see the best option is to move the context to the benefits of green energy instead of the obfuscated subject of global warming/climate change.
Climate change denial takes on a new conference flavour
Well, this is an interesting one to write an introduction. I would certainly believe there is some obfuscation introduced to the global warming/climate change narrative, after all, it is one of the world’s most profitable and subsidised sectors. There is also that sticky wicket, the information released by WikiLeaks that showed data had been manipulated to paint a stormy picture. So we do have a little wind in the sails that all might not be as moonlit as we may believe.
I am also quite happy to believe that the elite sector would want more control over world resources, including politics, people, movement of people and all that lark. That is not a muddy pair of Wellingtons, rather, a logical premise, following known sociology theories and outcomes we are already experiencing. That is also one of my other issues with this article, the muddying of the waters with multiple subject matters.
So let us say, just for a moment that human-created climate change is a blue moon, is that the sum of all parts? With greener industry, we use less water, use fewer chemicals in agriculture (apart from GMO crops) in turn we pollute the oceans less, which have become more acidic. We also preserve water, that no matter what is somewhat a precious resource. Green energy has also taken the electric motor and breathed a new current into her, driving other technologies such as hydrogen-powered, it might not be that long until we see the end of petrol/diesel cars. Again, we use less of a finite resource, oil, needed for shipping/heavy industry for the foreseeable future. We are also on our way to cleaner air in cities. It is not that long ago that we had The Great Smog of 1952 in London that killed over 12000 people. Caused by a pressure system over the city pushing down pollution created by coal-fired electricity plants located in the city limits. Cleaner energy, cleaner air, the want of a more environmentally friendly existence can only be a good thing.
So in that context nothing could be smarter than working towards more environmentally ethical means of production. I would also say it is not out of the bounds of logic that we do have climate (change) and for that to have been railroaded by commerce. When it comes to money, power, and control, ethics, morality, truthfulness, is a lexicon that never sees the light of day. I find it difficult to believe there is not climate change when photos of the polar icecaps, clearly show a massive reduction.
Anyhoo, now can you read the article and give me your thoughts.
Climate Scare Over: Top Experts Expose Scam at Freedom Confab
@Avina Laaf: or, scientists and engineers involved in it know exactly what’s involved, and so are more informed, not less, than everyone else.
It is for a similar reason you visit the dentist for your teeth, not your podiatrist……….go where the expertise and crucially – experience – is.
@Avina Laaf: …forgot to add: the whole CO2 lobby, CO2 fines “industry” is a industry in and of itself , so why would you accord less scepticism to anything from there ?
@Padraig if you had even the faintest grasp of chemistry, environmental gases and their reactions to solar energys you would understand the levels of Co2 and methane we are releasing into the atmosphere (gigatons annually) and how this increase is altering the plants atmospheres natural equilibrium of maintaining our average global temperatures within the livable range you may open your eyes. We are currently only seeing the effects of the 70′s and 80′s emissions are having, the best models still can’t accurately predict what the effects of today’s emissions will have as the planet constantly under go’s changes. Honestly only fools and those with agendas hold opinions against our negative effects to the planet with the mountains of data gathered to date.
@Derek:
Really? So you call opposing scientists fools, interesting that you have the golden orb when the scientific community cannot agree and apparently you did not read the article or my commentary. So while you try and look smart, you overlooked some key aspects of the narrative. 1. Nowhere did I deny climate change and two most are in debate about the cause, not the effects. I welcome your conjecture if it is on point and relates directly to the content.
@Derek: that’s a rather good and sound comment.
There is a huge amount of data carefully collected. A hypothesis was formulated in the early 60s that CO2 and methane in the atmosphere caused the atmosphere to retain solar energy. CO2 is increasing all the time and it is the primary risk factor.
The hypothesis become more and more reinforced.by the data collected. The hypothesis remains a hypothesis. It is not absolutely and conclusively certain but it is an hypothesis whic best fits the data collected.
It is later generations which will pay the price if the hypothesis proves to be correct.
Padraig, there are approximately 50k people working in science in Canada. The number of scientists in Canada employed by environment canada is approximately 400. So a survey of 50000 scientists in Canada is meaningless. That’s like asking a cell biologist his/her opinion on the optimum make up of rocket fuel.
Avina, and ‘climate scientists’, some at least, do not toe the party line of governments, (tax collectors), who provide their funding, eh?
Goose and gander, to paraphrase an old saying.
@John B:
I think you miss the point of the exercise, John. If a high level of people from the scientific community cannot agree or find common ground how can we expect the general public to form a solid consensus. Hence the need to remove the concentration of the context on a highly obfusticated subject shifting it to the green energy benefit that is much easier to understand. For example, many cities are choked with pollution, it is an easy sell, you can see it, taste, it, nevermind breath it. Too much emphasis is out on a subject that is gaining massive pushback as it is too easy to obscure as is clearly visible in politics and industry dragging its feet.
@John Moylan:
That’s precisely the point – if I want to know what’s going on with our climate I talk to a climatologist, not to a petro-chemical engineer or geologist who quite frankly isn’t qualified to talk about climate science.
To do so would be as absurd as asking a climate scientist for an opinion on where the best place to drill for oil would be and attaching more weight to his view than that of a petro-geologist.
@Showbiz Babyyy: 90% of Irish economists agree the Irish economy is in full recovery mode. Recession is over.
Keep the recovery going deniers should not be allowed commend on this Journal.
They are worse than climate change deniers cant handle the truth
Always amusing to see how far into each ramble Padraig first calls someone stupid.
Padraig I think it is you missed the point. A survey of people who know nothing about the subject is meaningless. Just because someone has scientist their job description doesn’t mean they have expertise in all areas of science. Science is so specialized now that in my area of reasearch, even my own colleagues cannot understand my own research because they do not specifically study it. The consensus amongst climate scientists (not a non specific group of people) is that man made global warming is real.
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
(Part of a long list) No matter where you look, there is just not a consensus of thought in the scientific community.
So there needs to be another approach, Trump proves that statement to be the case and other political pundits even in Ireland.
@Dave O Keeffe:
Well in this thread stupid is written twice – once by the first poster and then by you. Always enjoy your trolling son.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
“The data is not a lie so indeed it is not a lie you may not like the data but that does not invalidate the data.”
What data? You haven’t posted any.
Meanwhile here are three separate independent peer-reviewed meta-studies confirming that 97% of climatologists support the consensus on climate change, which blows your claim (that over 60% of them don’t) right out of the water. I’ll wait with interest for your source.
“Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature”
Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Barbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Jacobs, Peter; Skuce, Andrew. Environmental Research Letters, January 2013. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
“The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change”
Farnsworth, Stephen J.; Lichter, S. Robert. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, October 2011. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edr033.
http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033.short?rss=1
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: thank you.
Please now list the top 100 scientists who support the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused climate change.
“Expert Credibility in Climate Change”
Anderegg, William R.L.; Schneider, Stephen H., et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 2010, Vol. 107, No. 27, 12107-12109. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
@Avina Laaf:
97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
To use your own words “if you were a little smarter” you’d realise that you just used it for the third time in this thread in a comment claiming that it’s only used twice. But I digress, on topic time, why do you refer to climate scientists and not climatologists? Are they not climatologists?
@Dave O Keeffe:
Nice try Dave, but you said: “Always amusing to see how far into each ramble Padraig first calls someone stupid.” I said if Avina was a little smarter, that does not say she is stupid, but a few extra smarts would go a long way. Similar to yourself that has a misunderstanding of semantics.
@Dave O Keeffe:
Anyway seeing that you have popped in for no more than a trolling session, son, I am going off to do a little work.
Take care son. happy trolling.
Pádraig “nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called consensus on man-made climate change” throwing that in after a bit about a survey of engineers, geologists and geophysics (I assume you meant geophysicists) which has nothing like those numbers in it is a bit unusual.
Pádraig will only reply if I don’t talk about a claim he has made, interesting. Let’s try this, true or false, all climatologists are climate scientists but not all climate scientists are climatologists
@Dave O Keeffe:
Didn’t you know, Padraig (apparently) has a masters and two degrees and describes himself as an ‘academic’, which means that everybody else is stupid.
For a so-called academic it’s pretty ironic that he apparently thinks that an opinion piece in Forbes somehow trumps a succession of independent peer-reviewed studies….
@Avina Laaf:
Being an opinion piece or not, does not change the content, which is quite evident if you read it. What amuses me to no end is I have not once denied climate change, just that the subject is surrounded with conjecture. With so much content at hand, that is clearly evident.
@Dave O Keeffe:
The data is from an article, let me try and find the source, as I did not write it, so again, you go for the man, as I said, you just troll.
It is the where I found it but mentioned here too.
I went for the statistic you stated with absolutely no reference off the top of your head. I haven’t attacked you personally at all, merely pointed out your habit of questioning the intelligence of others
@Dave O Keeffe:
Except it is not from the top of my head Dave. Indeed, a quick search has it festooned across the internet high and wide from the cesspool to Forbes and beyond. Also, I have not ‘made any claims’ However, authors have made claims, there is a difference. My position is clearly evident in the intro I wrote for the piece on The New American.
Please do carry on, though, Carry on Dave with guest appearances by Avina A Laaf, is always the highlight of any Journal commentory.
@Avina Laaf: I see your point, but the climatologist can tell you what is happening – but he’s qualified to tell you it’s the petro-chemical engineers domain that is at fault, other than superficially -at which point you still need the petro-chemical engineers input – and give it credence..
Blaming the petro-chemical engineer’s of the world is just mud-flinging.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
“What amuses me to no end is I have not once denied climate change”
No, but what you have done is make completely false claims (“Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change”) along with other nonsense (such as the inference that geologists, engineers etc. are just as qualified to talk about climate science as climatologists are).
It is perhaps because the scientific consensus on climate change is so overwhelming that it’s such a huge threat to the denialist lobby (and the various connected vested interests who seek to maintain the fossil-fuel status quo). This is probably the reason why they have sponsored such complete bolloxology as the infamous “Oregon Petition”, which attempted to dispute the consensus on climate change by publishing a list of over 31,000 signatures of ‘scientists’ who disagreed with climate change. It was debunked when it emerged that just 39 (0.1%) of the signatories were climatologists – many of the 31,000 could hardly even be described as ‘scientists’ at all, let alone climate scientists. In addition, the majority of verifiable names had links to the fossil fuel industry, and some were just made-up fake names (several characters from M*A*S*H, and Spicegirl Geri Halliwell even made it onto the list!).
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: what are the disciplines or areas in which you took your post graduate degrees?
@Showbiz Babyyy: You definitely cringe, but you will not enter a fair moderated debate. Both I and many others are all ready to take part in a public debate. It says a lot when an issue costing an amount equal to global internet sales and which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich has never been debated on any broadcast media in Ireland, the UK, USA, Australia or Canada.
Even if it were true, it should be debated. Hopefully the new Trump administration will call an inquiry and force all supporters to provide real scientific evidence rather than the word of unqualified Mary Robbinson,. Peter Sutherland and Byonce
@John B: The theory of global warming is that as time passes the earth’s atmosphere is warming and that it will continue to get warmer for many decades and centuries. Science demands that a theory be tested which would mean the 2016 temperature measure would be compared with a control measure. Where is this control measure?. If the current average temperature is (say 11.64 degrees C) what previous year is it to be compared to? Is it 1916, 1816, 1716 or 1016? Getting warmer means the temperature has increased form year X to 2016. What year is X?
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: You didn’t answer the question.
@Val Martin:
All planets in the solar system possess a climate and in order to specify the type of climate each planet has requires a common feature by which to gauge one extreme to another. If modellers want to be useful they can play around with inclination which determines the rate of change in weather conditions across latitudes . If the Earth had a 3 degree inclination of Jupiter the changes across latitudes would be benign whereas if the Earth had the 82 degree inclination of Uranus there would be extreme changes in conditions across a year.
A planet with a 0 degree inclination has an Equatorial climate or similar to the conditions restricted to the Earth’s Equator where there is no change in the length of daylight/darkness. A planet with a 90 degree inclination would have a polar climate or conditions similar to that close to the Earth’s polar latitudes where conditions change wildly and there are huge swings in daylight/darkness across the year.The Earth with its 23 1/2 degree inclination has a largely Equatorial climate with a sizable but minor polar component.
Climate research needs people who can move the whole topic to the scale of the solar system thereby breaking that awful attempt to squeeze planetary climate into weather modelling.
@Avina Laaf: Fossil fuel sales are not adversely affected by global warming abatement. They are impacted adversely in some countries like Ireland where poorer people have to endure cold in their homes due to carbon taxes, The loss is made up by burning more fuel to support renewable energy production.
Ireland needs 6,000 mw of electrical generating capacity to meet a winter peak demand of 5,000 mw. It has added 2,500 mw of wind generation and 2,000 mw of fast acting gas generation plant to balance wind. We have over 10,500mw of total capacity, of which only 2,500mw is wind. 6,000+2,500 = 8,500 of fossil fuel capacity when we only need 6,000. That is a 2,500 mw excess. All has to be paid for which is why electricity prices are the 3rd highest in the world.
Same with electric cars, instead of burning the fuel in the engine of the car it it burned at the power station and oil is part of the fuel mix there.
@Gerald Kelleher: I have given you a thumps up for that, I still ask, if our climate is changing due to man, what control is that change measured against?
@John Moylan: Science is nature, a scientist studies nature including physics. He reports his finding for use by all including government. In western countries governments are elected by the people. Its a count of heads irrespective of what is in them. Government policy effects us all, so we strive to influence that policy for our own benefit and that of our environment. I try to influence policy by informing the public of what I discovered and combating media bias.
The world would eventually come to realise they have been fooled by climate hysteria transposed to policy, but it could take a long time and after it there will be no sanctions on the liars who caused it. My job is abridge the time frame in which this happens and to bring accountability to those responsible. With Brexit and Trump and indeed Teresa May, I think I am doing quite well. Enjoying it too
Val, if you have reservations about media bias (fair enough) I suggest you ignore the media completely and instead go directly to the peer-reviewed scientific literature – that’s where your education will really begin.
@Avina Laaf:
Wrong again, (I made no claims) you really need to understand an author and a poster of an author. They are not the same thing, as you have chosen to ignore as I outlined several times.
Less kneeJerk more slow thinking, it will serve you well.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: @Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
Taken directly from your post:
“Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change.”
At no point do you attribute this statement to any other author than yourself. Despite asking, I’m still waiting for you to post your source.
@Avina Laaf:
Linked it in a later post and talked about it being all over the place including forbes.
You are a pathetic little troll
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
Your claim:
“Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change.”
You then (only after being pushed for a source) link to a web-based survey of ‘broadcast meteorologists’, ie. the person you see in front of a map at the end of a news bulletin – America’s answer to Martin King and Deric Hartigan!!
These are not climate scientists, and your attempt to claim that they are (not even your linked article makes that claim) is beyond laughable, and truly revealing of either your level of ignorance or your determination to deliberately mislead – which is it?
If you had revealed your source when you first made the claim it could have been shown up for what it was right there and then instead of after you were pushed for a reference (the reason I pushed you for a reference in the first place is because your claim was so completely at odds with a succession of peer-reviewed published studies and reviews which, using different methodologies, all independently made the same (97%) finding. If it doesn’t sound true (c.40% vs. 97%) it usually isn’t.
What exactly are your “two degrees and a masters” in anyway? Certainly not a science-based subject anyway – at least I hope not.
@Showbiz Babyyy: It is a hoax. Notice how there were never any public debate on any mainstream medium. Very few people now believe it and no one is voting for it.
@Gerald Kelleher: You still did not answer the question. If the earth’s temperature is now at an all time high, what temperature is today’s temperature measured against. Temperature cannot be higher unless it was lower in the past. What date do you choose?
@Avina Laaf: I have been examining the scientific literature for nearly a decade and concluded it is false. That falsehood would be uncovered if the media was fair and that would obviate my efforts to end the climate hoax.
The 97% of scientists figure is false. https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report
Climate change proponents on here tell us the earth has warmed up, yet they cannot tell us what previous temperature it has warmed up against. Its not a scientific movement, its a political movement akin to a religion. It costs the equivalent of internet sales every year.
Val, your claim that the 97% figure is false might have carried some credibility if you could have linked to a peer-reviewed study instead of an opinion piece from an ultra-conservative right wing group.
Good thing for America’s Billionaire Cabinet that their leader Herr Trump and his 2nd in Command, Mike ‘Creationist’ Pence don’t like science, their money is safe.
@Joey Westland:
Trump is advocating bringing manufacturing back to the US. Lax manufacturing regulations in other countries and the sheer amount of hydrocarbon fuel burned to ship these products to the US and other developed markets is contributing significantly to global pollution levels.
Trump may not be advocating for climate change prevention, however bringing manufacturing jobs back to the market of consumption reduces fuel burn and irresponsible waste handling.
@Jason Culligan: Lol! Whatever you say Jason!
@Jason Culligan:
Yea good luck with that buddy as possibly the only way is to change the tax rate. Base the corporate tax rate on the geographical location where companies add value to their goods. If enterprises add value domestically with US labour, the tax rate would be low. If the value is added abroad, the tax rate would be high. The tax rate can be adjusted to offset the benefits of lower costs abroad. However, getting it past the goalkeepers would be extremely difficult and that is without taking into consideration the need to physically rebuild the manufacturing sector. Right on the cusp of increased robotisation, which, in turn, requires new legislation so we do not increase inequality at a rate which would look like a rocket ship taking off.
As I say, good luck with that
@Joey Westland:
So you have no actual response to my point as usual? Noted.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
Sure, all valid points which I won’t argue with. However most of those relate to employment created (or lack thereof) with said manufacturing jobs returning and don’t really touch on the subject which is the added environmental benefit:
http://www.nature.com/news/pollution-three-steps-to-a-green-shipping-industry-1.19369
A combination of reduced demand for shipping and a switch to greener fuels for the remaining ships would together contribute to a significant reduction in air and sea pollution.
@Jason Culligan:
I would also say your point is perfectly valid, but we do get to that chicken or the egg. Heavy transport is a massive pollution producer and yet we have no real inroads into addressing that problem.
Going off topic there Jason, but retaining operations in the US will contribute negligible job creation. Job losses in manufacturing have been escalating for decades in the western world, not because of Johnny foreigner taking jobs, but continual technology advancement in automation and robotics. Ford’s recent announcement to invest $700 million in US operations and scrap $1.3 billion investment in Mexico is to modernise their operations to be inline with Asian and German counterparts. This will create jobs for the manufacturers of new equipment who are most likely Japanese ironically and contribute little in domestic job creation. What does lead to unemployment is false promises of job creation that can’t be delivered instead of re-skilling those in dwindling job economies. Here is an example very close to home, of how this works. When Diageo purchased Guinness they made a very controversial move to automate almost the entire production line. This lead to hundreds of jobs being replaced by a handful of engineers. Disaster, no. Those let go got severance pay for their time at Diageo and those with determination re-skilled themselves to find a new opportunity in a growing city. This has allowed the quantity of Guinness being sold around the world to grow dramatically, meaning more jobs for those in tourism in Dublin and more importantly the children of the ex Guinness labourers, who went to third level education now work in the growing accounting, marketing, engineering departments of Diageo instead of washing the inside of beer barrels. The rust belt is called so for a reason. When the rust first started to appear the solution was to sand it down and paint it. It was never questioned why it was rusting. They could have realised before it was too late that the rust was in too deep and maybe build a second structure in case the other fell down. Why do you think the North East and West coast USA have prospered while the once prosperous rust belt faltered. Failure to adapt to 21st century trends in IT and service killed them. But generally it’s easier to blame a fella who you’ve never met from a foreign country, then to blame your own lack of foresight.
@Jason Culligan: Don’t confuse pollution with co2. Co2 is a gas derived from carbon, oxygen and water (which comprises 33% oxygen.) It is at very low levels in the air at present. It is esential for plant growth (being a fertilizer).
Carbon dioxide is no more a fertilizer for plants than oxygen is a food for humans.
@Val: 33% of what? Mass or weight? There’s also no water involved. It consists simply of 1 Carbon atom and 2 Oxygen atoms so it’s per number of atoms 66% oxygen or mass ratio of 12:32 C:O.
@Derek Please do not waste your time with Val. He literally has no background in science, engineering or meteorology yet considers himself a foremost expert on wind energy and climate change because he acquires his information from conspiracy theory websites. I’m still unsure whether he is expert level troll or genuinely suffers from delusional disorder. Either way, any engagement will only further worsen his condition so for his own benefit, please refrain, as frustrating as it may be.
@Derek: Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer, essential for plant growth. In fact it is pumped into greenhouses to increase growth. Tomatoes being a prime example. It is produced in your lungs which is carbon/water based, in volcanoes, animal lungs and many other sources. Production in animals cannot take place without water. The production process is reversed in plants which require water to grow. They convert co2 to carbon which they fix and oxygen. The process is a cycle. co2 is an essential gas for life on earth.
@Derek: Here you are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
and
e.ie/search?espv=2&q=weight+and+mass+compared&oq=weight+and+mass+compared&gs_l=serp.12…0.0.0.978911.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0….0…1c..64.serp..0.0.0.zrdLnD577XE
and
@Derek: check it out your self, here are some links. Its molar mass is 18.01528 g/mol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/difference-between-mass-and-weight.php
@Tom Cullen: You cannot order readers on here whose posts they must read and whose post they should not read. That is censorship. I am on of the few here whose identity is well known and readily provide my identity. I don’t need to hide it behind anonymity. If you have a question ask it, if other want to comment that is their right
@Tom Cullen: Surely if products can be made using all robotics, a combination of human skill and robotics or human skills alone, that can be done in any country with an reliable supply? If you said the cost of human skill was a factor, you might have a point, but not robotics?
@Joey Westland: Al Gore made a lot of money on climate change. Renewable energy is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. In the case of Raragh wind farm planned for near me, there are 49 investors, between 50,ooo and 200,000 euros. Most are South Dublin professionals including medical professionals,
Great job proving Tom’s point there Val. Your answers sound like someone trying to catch up to a conversation by googling what they don’t know and then trying to explain yourself half assed as if you are educating us on the matter. Your on the right track but still if I was grading your answer on accuracy and coherency it would still only get a generous 1/5. It’s far from censorship I’m afraid it’s simply one person wisely saying “know when to walk away” to another as we both realise we are wasting our time when surrounded by ‘experts’ here with more time on their hands apparently to throw random links and bits of copy and pasted wiki pages loosely about while not understanding an iota of it. Take a few hours to look at how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere, its characteristic behavior when excited by sun light, how it for a simple word ‘absorbs’ (excitation) this energy and the resulting effects it has on our atmosphere. It’s isolating effects which should lead to you reading up on the green house effect. How concentrations of CO2 have risen to 400ppm and still climbing, levels not seen before on earth in millions of years. Oh and look at photosynthesis please to understand CO2 role in the carbon cycle, how its formed in the process and how its not a ‘fertiliser’ go check that definition. I wish you an informative and enjoyable day.
Insolation properties*
@Val
You don’t think big oil is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich??
@Jason Culligan: Celery is being shipped from Israel to Ireland, can you credit that? Electric car batteries cause the extraction of rare earth materials in China and elsewhere with terrible environmental consequences. Palm oil is produced by cutting down pristine rain forests which are the home to threatened species. In Northern Ireland the DUP lead government set the subsidy for burning wood @ £1.60 when it only cost £1. It was in the paper where two brothers made £500,000 last year on this scam. Whatever it is about climate, all reason is just dumped out and replaced by policies like one would adhere to if the house was on fire,
“Global warming” or “Climate Change”…tough to settle on a narrative.
@Jimmy Hound: New troll account Jimmy?
@Joey Westland: How’s the climate in Bradford Tariq?
My dad is still waiting for the ice age his generation were promised by climate scientists in the 1970′s.
That prediction was made by a small number of climatologists and was vociferously challenged and disputed by the wider climate science community at the time.
Therefore none of this is true?
@Avina Laaf: it was taught as fact, in schools, as I mentioned up the thread earlier.
Quite why the same bunch of people now with a different opinion on the same matter should be taken over-seriously escapes me.
@Barry Flynn: Yes, I remember it. I remember a BBC Panorama programme in 1978 predicting the oil would run out in 15 years. It prove this is media driven, scares can occur naturally or by accident, but they can be started by clever people. It seems our whole left right political spectrum is based on 1) the left believe the hype, the scare and utopia, 3) while the right caution for prudence and common sense.
The British climate change office was closed down, Trump got elected, this is a reaction or correction brought about by the people. I think climate rejection was a big factor
Yes @Superfiends……and a lot conservatives are also massive proponents of rapid climate change by not acknowledging humans have an impact on it!
The latest Danish research is blaming the movement of the magnetic North Pole, Which in turn is causing the jet stream to alter direction. It is also making storms more dangerous.
That would certainly affect regional weather patterns, but not global average temperatures.
Very hard to justify a tax on that though?
@Martin Sinnott: it was in the Farmer’s Journal before Christmas that Danish Farmers cant pay their way and are going out of business. Highest electricity prices in the world. I had a letter published in the Journal. The shine is gone off renewable energy there.
I heard it was the Russians that hacked the NOAA data base and substituted #fake weather readings for the good ones.
What I’d like to know is why the ocean temperature has been consistently warming by 0.12 degrees per year since 1951 while our globe has become increasingly industrialised and increasingly polluted in the same period. To put it in perspective, in 1950 the global population was about 2.5 billion while today the population stands at 7 billion. You also didn’t have the heavy industrialisation of Asia at that time.
If the two are linked, one would expect a sharper increase that matches the pace of industrialisation. A steady growth would appear to me to be indicative of a more natural growth in temperature.
@Jason Culligan: Quick! Someone call the NOAA, Jason’s been ‘thinking’!
Joey love your scientific arguments they are always rigorous and erudite Excellent point
@Joey Westland:
Smashing response to what is a genuine question Joey. Classy and intelligent as always. Now if anyone with an actual interest in a constructive discussion could chime in that would be great.
@Jason – if you look at the growth in overall global averages instead of lookng at ocean temperatures in isolation you should have your answer.
I would be surprised if the relationship between anthropogenic causes and the observable effect on climate change were to be linear.
It is clear that the earth’s ecosystem has a limited capacity to tolerate significant change. It is a high,y complex system involving a myriad of feedbacks and interconnected effects. It may require quantum computing technology to refine and calculate fully robust predictive models.
The notion that anthropogenic factors are the predominant cause of climate change is a hypothesis. It is a plausible hypothesis and it is an hypothesis which has not yet been shown to be invalid.
From a risk management perspective, so far as the welfare of humanity on the planet is concerned, it would be more sensible to accepted the hypothesis as provisionally valid and to seek to control and to reduce the emission of “greenhouse gases” , primarily CO2 and methane, in case the hypothesis is valid.
Pumping trillions of gas into the air can’t but heat the place up-basic laws of thermodynamics. The most significant factors are explosion in energy use (1) use of motors/cars Asia previously (2) computer revolution-all those smart phones etc gotta be charged +manufacturing energy cost. Combine this w/ cutting down trees for agri to feed exploding population tell me this is not sustainable. Our resources wont last long into the future. Globalization hikes up the environmental cost massively. Why ship meat from South America to Eu? Why if Eu cares (actually doesn’t) about the Environment is unrestricted imports of just about everything from China? Energy cost f transport is huge. The Eu has facilitated multinational corporations in their greed to make products in slave labour countries so those mnc’s can boost profits.
@gregory: good comment.
@gregory: hallelujah, finally.
@Jason Culligan: There was a programmer on TV last week, (I think its on again next Monday) It was about Orkney islands. They did radio carbon dating and found charcoal to be 5,500 years old. They claimed that the trend to build Stonehenge and other such erections begun there, 500 years before Stonehenge. They also said that 5,500 years ago the climate was much warmer than it is now. We know there was a warm period 0 to 400 AD and 850 to 1250 AD, and that there was an extreme cold period in medieval times, so we would expect a slight increase from 1930 to the present. Records from Valentia and Phoenix Park show a very slight increase.
It seems that the NOAA got it right and the corroboration is from respectable sources. This means that the temperature of the oceans is increasing and there is no slow down or hiatus. This is very bad news.
Atmospheric warming is a grave concern. But the heating of the oceans is an even greater concern because the oceans have a profoundly influential effect on climate. The oceans are far more determinant of climate than the atmosphere.
Ignoring for a moment the question of cause, the effect of an ever increasing warming or heating of the oceans is that the oceans act as a massive reservoir of heat energy, increasing volatility and chaos in climate. If the oceans keep warming, this will unleash powerfully destructive forces on the earth’s habitat, with human beings most exposed and, ironically, the human beings most exposed will be those in the lowest carbon emitting societies.
The corroboration of the NOAA results is really bad news. The effects will not be severe in the short term but for following generations, climate will be far more challenging.
Any of the loonies want to bring up Chem Trails :)
We even got an appearance from Gerald!! They are all out talking through their respective holes and apparently only understanding a fraction of that they spout claims about. Too far deep in the depths of the Internets alternative science and radical ‘facts only the knowledgeable few are privy to’ to actually learn the scientific basics and background which from reading any of their posts, the holes, fallacies and factual errors are too many and daft to even start to counter. Pseudo experts do make for a good laugh though so it’s great to see them out in force in the real world every now and then.
I think that we can fund limited consensus on one aspect.
Gun loving, Trump supporters with alt-right ideology are unlikely to support the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused climate change.
@Tony Daly: You will have to wait for a tread on guns, we must stay on topic if we are to make progress
@Tony Daly: Seems the German’s are going to have to start paying they share to NATO. They can ward off Russia by themselves or pay the gun loving yanks to do it for them.
Gun seizures have been the hall mark of the start of oppression for centuries. Before you can subdue a people, you must disarm them. The Irish Penal laws forbid gun ownership be Catholics in the 1700′s.
It does no harm to give the Journal readership a little history lesson in modelling to put these empirical bandwagons in context and where they jump the tracks with their convictions , it won’t be for everyone but then again it is meant for those who can make sense of the real problems that astronomy and terrestrial sciences (geology,climate,ect) suffer from today.
In the mid 17th century the first accurate clocks started to appear and accurate enough to gauge astronomical observations so what they did was gauge the return of a star to the same reference point every weekday and then concluded that one rotation equates to the return of that star within a rotating celestial sphere framework -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
As it takes a star to return in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds they then decided that this was the time it took the planet to turn once and the 3 minute 56 second difference to 24 hours accumulated until there was one more rotation than there was a weekday -
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” Harvard
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
The fact is that the temperatures go up and down each weekday in response to one rotation of the Earth and a thousand rotations in a thousand weekdays so anyone with common sense doesn’t have to suffer the idiocy of modellers. What happened with clocks in the 17th century happened lately with computers and trying to squeeze climate into weather modelling. It is a really long story but this is the thin end of the modelling wedge which has created havoc recently.
It is a true story that academics lost the most basic fact imaginable as the Sun comes into view each morning and the stars after twilight as the Earth gracefully turns once each weekday even though there are knuckleheads on the surface who imagine otherwise.
@Gerald, Seen as you are always having a pop at empirical scientists, what scientific research have you conducted and defended, either at a conference or through peer review? As always….your post is largely irrelevant to the article in question.
@Gerald Kelleher:
You need to do some maths. Yes, it takes a star 23hrs 56 minutes and 4 seconds (roughly) to return to the same position. Guess what – multiply that by 365 days a year (or factor in the leap year if you want to be more accurate) and it comes to 24 hours.
This (as I’ve tried to explain to you several times before) represents an ‘extra’ day which is effectively cancelled out by the Earth’s single annual orbit round the sun.
It’s all about relativity. Another way to explain it is if I’m sitting opposite you on a roundabout that rotates once slowly whilst you do 365 ballet pirrhouettes, I will see you perform 365 rotations but a passer by who’s not on the roundabout will see you do 366 (or 364 if the roundabout rotates in the opposite direction). I’m sorry you seem to be having such a problem grasping this.
Either way, all you’re really saying is that it’s generally warmer during the daytime than at night. I certainly wouldn’t dispute that but it’s hardly ground-breaking news and has shag all to do with climate.
@Roibeard O Beachain:
Most of you , on both sides of climate change, are just impressionable kids who have yet to make it to adulthood where common sense and intelligence normally moves these topics out of the hands of academics and into more stable grounds for discussion.
Yesterday it was evolution where the academics airbrushed the racial stereotypes out of Darwin’s attempt to explain evolution with the Neanderthals replacing the intermediaries between humans and apes and then they lost their nerve and shifted global warming to the mindnumbing ideology of climate change but it doesn’t end there.
The hapless contributor trying to promote the ‘solar vs sidereal’ fiction which is far below a flat Earth ideology as it attempts to sever the 24 hour weekday from one rotation is behind the times. They now say that the Earth rotated once in exactly 24 hours back in the year 1820 and has been slowing down ever since hence these dumb ‘leap second’ corrections at the expense of the genuine links between timekeeping and the rotation of the Earth. The fact is that one rotation equates to the 24 hour system and the Latitude/Longitude system and it is impossible to split apart the relationship which links planetary geometry and geography where 15 degrees of rotation per hour or 1 degree of rotation per 4 minutes. The poor contributor who is busy spinning his wheels with the old system the empiricists now reject is best left to his own devices as he is nothing more than the usual cannon fodder academics require to maintain their salaries and pensions.
Academics I can handle and they pose no problem, it is finding people who can get to the core issues that are difficult to find and especially those who have some interest in the historical developments of modelling.
@Gerald Kelleher:
Just think about that roundabout. The penny might drop at some point.
@Avina Laaf:
You poor thing, you don’t have enough sense to know that they have shifted their story from the idea that the Earth turns once in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds to a new fiction that the Earth turned once in 24 hours exactly back in the year 1820 -
“At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours,” says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. “In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds.” NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/extra-second.html
So, because it suits academic purposes and modern technology, they try to jettison the older and absurd notion and in two decades have changed their tune hence the important point addressed to adults . For over 300 years they believed there were more rotations than weekdays in a year and that is the second lowest possible intellectual level any race who lived on the planet has managed but there is an even lower level and seen in that contrived mess from the modellers in that statement of NASA above.
I give up – just keep believing what you want to believe.
@Avina Laaf:
Believe indeed !, if you ever find yourself able to watch the Sun come into view each weekday and know that it will be the same the next day, and all the days after that without fail while knowing that it is one rotation behind each appearance then you stand a chance of escaping a mass conviction that was last seen in pre-war Germany from the same empirical source.
I am here for people who can untangle themselves from a cult ideology and not entertain the many drones who are mouthpieces for a modelling mess.
@Avina, Spot on with the relativity reference. Gerald doesnt understand the importance of frame of reference, nor does he appear to understand that the earth’s rate of rotation is affected by tidal forces and seismic activity. lest we forget the unit of time has changed over time ( or at least how precisely we define it ). His comments ae repetitive, circular and have little or nothing to do with the subject matter. Either trolling or is suffering from some form of paronia and is looking for attention. Bye bye Gerald. It has been fun.
@Roibeard O Beachain:
What makes you both like pre-war German citizens following empirical convictions is not that you believe the Earth turns once more often than weekdays but rather the academics you follow have recently changed their story and for very specific reasons.
I am looking for adults who can understand that not only does the Earth turn once each weekday hence a sunrise with each rotation but there is a separate sunrise at the North and South poles on the Equinox arising from a separate surface rotation -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
Escaping the comfort zone of convictions is exceptionally difficult as it is drilled into your heads since school that empirical modelling was successful where the motions of the planet link up with terrestrial sciences such as geology and climate. I have taught you the root causes of the modelling mess created back in the 17th century and even though this is just the beginning, if you can manage to associate one weekday with one rotation that blissful brainwashing you and many others are subject to will fade with time.
@Gerald Kelleher: Avina has given a clear and correct explanation. You will only progress if you able to recognise when your assumptions are incorrect or inapplicable and when you are being given a more informed perspective. That is how we all learn and evolve.
Your thought processes remind me of the cognitive version of a needle stuck in a groove on an LP.
Examine the explanations patiently and clearly give to you. Think about them. Challenge yourself or stay cognitively trapped.
@Tony Daly:
Brainwashing is a terrible thing and especially when it is indoctrinated via the education system hence the problem of ‘climate change’ and anxiety projected on to students. You poor unfortunates are stuck with a ‘solar vs sidereal’ fiction which tried to model the rotation of the Earth in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds however that has changed within the last two decades to a new version which is equally absurd both historically and technically.
“At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours,” says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. “In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds.” NASA
Orwell based his dystopian novel on Nazi doctrine which in turn was encompassed within empirical doctrine and the ability to manufacture facts when necessary -
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the
truth” exists. [...] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, “It never happened”–well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five–well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs [...]” Orwell
I saw what Newton and his followers did to astronomy and their awful agenda which tries to squeeze astronomy and terrestrial sciences into experimental sciences produced this current mess, not that the empiricists themselves knew how Newton went about the distortion.
Thanks for the laughs Gerald, I’d imagine you would fit the criteria of someone who would be a great laugh on the Niall Boland show at night. Your sure to be in great company anyway. You remind me of my two elderly folks, mom is lately immersed in faith healing, crystals and angels are the answers to all our problems apparently and my old man now gets his information exclusively from some of the hundreds of spam emails received daily about vitamins and herbs etc (with the typical plastic looking yank or Indian guy in a white coat pitching their wares behind a mahogany desk) claiming your doctors won’t tell you about the REAL cure for all possible alignments because it’s all about profits and the big pharma educating MDs based on their products and pushing them to only treat the affects of diseases instead of the causes. “They are all bast@rds” apparently. I’ve even given up ridiculing it at this stage after years of trying to inform them of the factual errors in their claims or of what they were yapping about made as much sense as a T! ts on a bull.
@Derek:
What can I say !, the other unfortunate contributor is merrily promoting a defunct ‘solar vs sidereal’ conviction that was jettisoned within the last 10 years for another equally contrived conviction so how much dignity and respect can you have for yourselves. This is important insofar as this is ground zero for the empirical modelling cult as it represents the clockwork solar system of Newton where they tried to project the Earth’s rotation into a rotating celestial sphere an the calendar based RA/Dec system.
In your favor I haven’t encountered anyone who can discuss the connection between the motions of the Earth and terrestrial sciences hence the dismay so have a ball throwing shapes at me as it means next to nothing.
And so it begins… New Wars, new famines, new plagues and a whole load of disasters to come because consumerism and greed is causing this.
See this video.
This is produced by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace. Climate Change is a hoax is a hoax. We need more co2, not less. You can google many more videos with the words climate change change hoax, etc.
Trump is sure to tweet his displeasure at 3am
I have to go out to work on my farm so will sign off. Note the vibrant debate on this very important and expensive issue. Good debate too, with a mix of serious hitting, fun and variation. So why is this barred from RTE , TV3 and print media?. Is it not a current affairs topic irrespective of whose side you are on.
Coal merchants in the republic have to charge customers 13% vat and big a carbon tax. In the North its 5% vat and a tiny carbon tax. A bag or coal in the North is at least 3 euros less than its equivalent in the south. Coal in the south must be .7 for emissions, it can be 10 in the North. Northern pensioners get a 300 euros winter fuel allowance. Northern lorries are now seen in the south delivering this coal. We badly need a Trump here to sort them out
You see in the caption that NOAA acknowledges that the method of measuring sea temperature was faulty. They say there is a difference between using buoys and ships. This in recent years when you would expect them to know how to measure it accurately. So if they can’t measure it accurately in the past 10 years, how do we know they measured it accurately 50, 100 or 200 years ago when it was not seen as important? Surely we need data and a control to measure it. Where is it?
The events on Easter Island are an example of how humans can destroy their ecosystem to the extent of making the living environment increasingly unsustainable and eventually uninhabitable.
@Tony Daly: What appears to have happened on Easter Island is that the people engaged in a bout of mass hysteria. Instead of putting their energies into producing food, building houses and making things comfortable, they engaged in a frenzy of statue building. Monuments have been a part of human society since the time of New grange, dolmans etc, but they were usually a lessor part. On Easter Island there seems to be kind of competition to build them. It could not continue because if it did, all the rock would be converted to statues and there was not enough energy in the food to power that revolution.
If you check out my you tube videos valmartinireland you tube myth about wind energy, the Irish Energy Blog , European Platform Against Wind Farms you will see that wind farm don’t work, yet our government is determined to build up to 30 billion euros worth of them in rural Ireland, The object is to build the turbines , there is no known reason to build them. I have given you a like.
burning fuel is good it keeps you warm and powers the entire planet actually as plants die under 180 ppm and grow best at 2000ppm , in fact its the best friggin idea ever . . sea levels will actually fall and the weather will be nice , in fact its a great idea . humans are great ! and probably part of a plan we couldnt understand if we tried like the 4th imension or the shape of the universe . Polar bears are lost brown bears their fur changed colour , so theyll be back no worries when neccesary ! . theres actually mammals that their fur changes colour seasonally . is their anybody actually researching their journalism ?
Wonder what happened with the acid rain from the 80′s?
It’s less prevalent since Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide emissions were curbed, just like the hole in the ozone layer repaired itself after CFCs were banned.
There’s still a long way to go though.
@Avina Laaf: which goes to show that the activities of man can and do adversely affect the environment and, secondly, that if remedial action is taken soon enough, greater damage can be averted.
@Eelco van Rossen: Acid rain was a hoax, I remember it well.
have your say