Climate Change Is Real And This Chart Proves It

Climate Change Is Real and This Chart Proves It

Climate change is real, it's happening right now, and it's pushing us into an increasingly grim-looking future. Still don't believe it? Take a look at this graph. Earlier this month, climate scientist Ed Hawkins put out one of the best visualisations we've seen of the changes in global climate over the last 160 years. Instead of depending on a simple line graph, Hawkins created a visually-arresting climate spirograph showing how -- despite small variations between individual months -- we've moved a long way from our baseline temperatures in 1850.

Now, the USGS has made a new visualisation that projects Hawkins' graph out past the present and into our hot, dusty future. So far, we've climbed almost a full 1.5C since 1850 -- most of that in just the last couple decades. The USGS' Jay Alder used the IPCC's future climate projections of what happens if our current carbon emissions rates continue to rise unchecked. The new visualisation tacks an additional 84 years onto Hawkins original graph, depicting the nightmarish scenario in which global temperatures rise almost 5C by the end of the century.

Of course, this projection is what happens if we don't change our ways. There's still a chance now for us to cut back emissions and prevent the increase in temperature from being so dramatic. Cutting-back won't be easy, though. It's going to take resources, money, time and, perhaps most of all, a firm global commitment to the fact that climate change is real.


    "Climate Change Is Real And This Chart Proves It"
    Sorry that title is bu$$&*it. A significant percentage of that chart is extrapolation.

    Extrapolation, as we were all taught at school, is a dangerous thing. The economist Karl Kapp noted in 1972 that if a computer had existed one hundred years earlier, it would have predicted that the observed growth in the number of horse-drawn carriages would result in the entire planet being submerged under ten feet of manure by then.

    As a believer in man made climate change, i think it just this sort of thing that gives the skeptics ammunition.

      Comments Redacted! It was late, I was in a bad mood....

      Last edited 02/06/16 8:02 am

        @dtpearson's point was that the graphic seems to rely far too heavily on extrapolation for dramatic effect, which makes it an easier target for skeptics. The real evidence that we have should be stark enough on its own without having to rely on more refutable speculation. Don't let your troops go into battle with cardboard armour.

        dtpearson: "As a believer in man made climate change, i think it just this sort of thing that gives the skeptics ammunition."
        You: "I'd wager you beleive this is all part of Green/Communist conspiracy to take over the world?"

        You're basically serving as another example of pearson's point about bad arguments doing harm, by the fact that you believe in man-made climate change, but apparently can't read.

        Why the hell would anyone listen to anything you have to say, when you've proven that you are terrible at comprehending the things you read, and make snap judgments informed only by your own bias and preconceptions, which utterly ignore the evidence at hand?

        You were doing fine until your last sentence (or two). Ditch the attitude. It's probably what causes you to make dumb mistakes like this one.

          978lee (among others) is very protective of climate change. All one has to do is even suggest if something is cyclical instead of change and said user gets extremely defensive and tries the label the poster as a skeptic.

          Like many, I know climate change is real but I think many in said camp are quick to brand something cyclical as climate change.

          Take the seasons; even 10 years ago I saw that temperatures didn't match the month long patterns in the textbook.

          And even if they are lined up to the textbook definition, the temperature extremes are also inconsistent (some winters warmer and some summers cooler).

          Whether that is climate change or cyclical due to the planet's rotation I don't know but even suggesting it's one or the other seems to be enough to get branded as a non-believer.

          Last edited 02/06/16 7:27 am

            It seems like the environment and our measurement of our impact on it is a lot like dealing with diseases which manifest different symptoms, and compete with each other. You've probably heard about 'global dimming', right? The 'warming' phenomenon doesn't exist in a vacuum and it has knock-on effects. The 'dimming' effect is one of those which means that atmospheric changes have actually produced a competing counter-effect to warming which - while still absolutely a sign of harmful atmospheric changes - masks one of the key indicators that people over-rely on as a measure of climate health: temperature. There's plenty of contentious discussion for and against the hypotheses surrounding that, but the basic idea is sound: we're not seeing the whole picture by relying on one measurement.

            It was observed in early antibiotics tests that patients with one relatively benign disease (such as mumps) when exposed to more severe conditions (like smallpox) would temporarily lose the symptoms of their competing condition. It was still there... just not presenting, because there was quite a lot going on in the body. A good analogy is probably the cancer patient who doesn't seek treatment, then reports 'feeling better' and temporarily thinking they've beaten it naturally... because the organs that were complaining the most have outright shut down.

            It's pretty clear that the climate, atmosphere, ocean currents, ocean temperatures, are all linked in a similar way, and that looking for a single, unique, 'smoking gun' as the only sign of change is as misguided as saying cancer isn't present just because there are no symptoms. The problem is that we still don't have the best understanding of how all those components interact with each other, or predicting what impact those competing factors might have on predictions of outcomes.

              It seems like the environment and our measurement of our impact on it is a lot like dealing with diseases which manifest different symptoms, and compete with each other. You've probably heard about 'global dimming', right?

              I haven't but I'd better take a quick peek if I get the time. Being self employed means work is one of two extremes; dead quiet or "the load is crushing me!!!"

              A good analogy is probably the cancer patient who doesn't seek treatment, then reports 'feeling better' and temporarily thinking they've beaten it naturally... because the organs that were complaining the most have outright shut down.

              Doesn't surprise me. Most people tend to view the world as all effects that can be isolated to centralised causes. The reality is just about everything is networked and anything centralised is becoming a thing of the past.

              The problem is that we still don't have the best understanding of how all those components interact with each other, or predicting what impact those competing factors might have on predictions of outcomes.

              Exactly what I'm thinking. In terms of climate change, how can it be known for sure it is change due to CO2 emissions when the seasons themselves now hint they are not fixed regions in the Georgian calendar?

              Nature is clearly showing us that due to the Earth's orbit not only are seasons not in a fixed position they also have expanding and contracting periods.

              But as I said, suggesting there are additional variables, at this time, seems to easily get one branded as a skeptic. But I'm one who things that both are happening at once and are skewing the observations of climate change.

              Again with my earlier example, I found December in Victoria colder than it should be based on my experiences as a child in South Australia.

              First, how much is this affected by the cyclical nature of the seasons?

              Second, even with realignment or ruling out cyclical shift, how much of the change is in fact due to climate change via CO2 emissions?

              Finally, is this all just a side effect of Victoria being smaller in surface area and being closer to Antartica than South Australia?

              Not an easy nor repeatable science.

              Last edited 02/06/16 10:19 am

              I just googled global dimming.
              The idea is that the atmosphere absorbs more light than in the past.

              70% of the light which reaches Earth's surface generates heat, the rest is reflected as visible light.
              Conversely, 100% of the light which is absorbed due to global dimming becomes heat.

              So my question is, how is it argued that global dimming counteracts global warming?
              I mean, it *looks* like it's doing the exact same thing as greenhouse gasses.

              Last edited 09/06/16 1:55 pm

          @transientmind You are absolutely correct on both points. The facts about climate change and what it’s doing right now should be confirmation enough that it’s real and happening. Whilst I think the extrapolations are correct and extremely important to highlight, where this is all going unless we reduce C02 emissions, it does take the focus away from the hear and now.

          Correct on my second point also. At a time when 99% of scientists agree we need to take action we still have many people trying to prevent it, from a purely ideological perspective. I love the quote by Neil Degrasse Tyson “Climate change has taken on Political Dimensions… That’s odd because I don’t see people choosing sides over E=MC2 or other fundamental facts of science” Perhaps @dtpearson isn’t a paid up member of the IPA an I jumped the gun a bit there.
          Note to self, ditch the attitude, stick to the facts :-)

            I was probably a bit harsh, too.

            And I definitely sympathize. I (reluctantly) had a climate change discussion with an old friend of mine who was bitterly cynical about the severity of climate change and considered(s) it to be band-wagon jumping by certain interests with wholly selfish agendas, propped up by some flaws in human psychology where confirmation bias gives greater weight to fears.

            But he was using a LOT of bad data and arguments to support his skepticism. A point of proof that he considered was that the research stations are city-based, which anyone with a passing knowledge of meteorology knows has atmospheric heat impact. But that’s actually wrong. Owing to my position in the government telecommunications space, I have first-hand knowledge of the prolific, remote government research station/monitoring station sites reporting back with their data, run by NUMEROUS departments – not just a climate-change specific body (which doesn't actually exist anymore). It’s outright, provably untrue that we’re not monitoring all over the place, but this is an argument that apparently gets a lot of traction in skeptic circles.

            The ‘cyclical’ argument is also incredibly frustrating. First of all, because the ‘cycle’ we’ve observed through research into historical carbon sequestering etc is not necessarily something which will or should continue occurring. When you throw a rock in the water, there are ripples. Lots of them. But that doesn’t mean that ripples are the natural state, or that they will continue past the impact of the thrown rock. Or, in the case of earth’s atmosphere, the impact of an extinction-event level extra-terrestrial object.

            The other frustrating thing about ‘cycles’ is that EVEN IF we are headed for a natural, cyclical increase, IT IS STILL A BAD THING WITH DISASTROUS RESULTS. And we still need to be working to mitigate its effects, or undercut any impacts that we are provably making that exacerbate that ‘natural cyclical’ condition. So regardless of whether you think it’s 100% man-made, we still need to change policy in dramatic ways to fight that cycle.

            It’s also a staggeringly blind refusal to accept that mankind’s concerted (albeit unintended) acts on the environment could actually affect our atmosphere. They claim that it’s ‘arrogance’ to believe that we can change something as large as the earth. Despite all the first-hand evidence we have of how one company alone can utterly destroy

            Despite all the very reasonable models that we have which not only explain what, but how and why we are having a negative impact. There’s a frustrating complaint that ‘we don’t know for sure’, which willfully ignores everything else ‘we don’t know for sure’ about, like, say… ATOMIC THEORY. No-one’s ever fucking seen an atom. But we have figured out how they work with enough precision to transmute materials based on our models of understanding of how they work. Atomic 'theory' is used to generate power for millions. The same is true of the process researching man-made climate change. We have models – good ones – on the impacts of greenhouse gases, attained through logical deductive processes the same way that we harnessed the atom for energy and war.

            But no, we ‘got it wrong’ THIS time and this time only, because people don’t like the idea that we might have to change socio-economic policy if what we’re being told by 90% of experts in the field is true. There are so many levels of faulty thinking that have to combine, one after the other, to actually be a climate-change denier, these days.

            So yes. It’s frustrating, for many, many different reasons. If only because it’s an ignorant insult to all the dedicated, hard-working experts who’ve invested genuine - and skilled - efforts into seeking truth, and have walked away in ashen-faced horror at the gravity of what they’ve discovered. It feels like people take these positions because they want to feel special; they leap into contrarian, counter-culture positions so that they can cling to some illusion of intellectual superiority, because where's the special snowflake feeling that comes from conforming to an enormous body of near-universally-accepted wisdom? It's so frustrating that I just want to snap sometimes, too.

              Yes, we all want to snap sometimes :-) But thanks for calling me out because it's important to not stoop the level of the deniers and end up name calling and trading personal insults. If someone is genuinely wanting to debate then the truth will always prevail.

      have a look at this article on some of the premises

      every climate skeptic I know agrees the world has warmed from the 1600's, they agree the urban heat island exists, they agree humans have an impact (as do ants) on the climate.. but they see benefits not presented to the public and with little to support the catastrophic theories, they reject them.

      Every skeptic with a knowledge of science, myself included, started out swallowing 'facts' until one day they debated a skeptic.. and went looking at the data to find supporting evidence of AGW only to be dismayed that in fact the data does not support AGW models at all.

      Start with BOMs ACORN set. The homogenized weather data - in science we preserve data sets - you never tamper with raw data or adjust it. You may model variants and play with the data, but you never adjust raw data! So when you look at BOM raw data and find a 'recorded' temperature defying historic data you know something is amiss. When printed BOM table data from 1971 says a certain day was 22C and the current records say nope, it was 19.2C .. you worry. Even moreso when you find the mathematical adjustments done altered records such that daily maximum temperatures are now lower than daily minimum temps (as the min/max sets were adjusted separately) .. surely that has got to ring alarm bells!

      There's a scarcity of MSM reports on the benefits of increased CO2 - increased plant production, more soil moisture, longer growing seasons, greater rainfall. There's little mention of facts like the numerous volcanoes under West Antarctica causing the melt,. Little on the reduction in hurricane, cyclone and storm activity around the world (even the IPCC agrees on that), The fact that we only study 160 glaciers of the 21,000+ in the world and we study those particular ones because they're the ones that are melting while others remain static or are growing.. Finding out some facts from credible research beats the heck out of swallowing MSM hype. It's not hard - just follow the references back. Be warned though - you may be called a denier once you see past the curtain.

    buutt Tony Abbott told me global warming is a hoax and Coal is good for us! This chart is a scam made by a global conspiracy of lizard men scientists looking to install the NWO with their global warming scam!

      Noo, it's all true, listen to these top scientists explain it in their own words!

      "former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015:

      “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”

      (while) Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said:

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

      See, even the government understands it .. here's Senator Timothy Wirth’s 1993 remark.

      “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing

      see - global warming is true

        Yeah, the solutions to climate change will have political dimensions. What does that have to do with the science?

          You see, Karlos52 thinks global warming is some lefty global conspiracy and we should continue using coal at current levels because fuck the enviroment,

            This appeal to consequences seems to be a fairly common line of thought on the right - the most commonly-proposed solutions to climate change aren't compatible with neoliberal capitalism, therefore climate change can't be real.

              You want to know my motives? How many archair activists have donated any time in their lives to cleaning up the environment?.. I have. I was there, cleaning rubbish along the coastline in the 80's, weeks volunteering pulling out weeds in bush reserves, cleaning lakes of 'rubbish'. I studied botany and chemistry at uni because of my love of nature, I read 'how to save the world' which proposed using carbon as a defacto currency to shift wealth from the first world to the third without them having to lift a finger, I watched founding member now-critic of Greenpeace Patric Moore being written out of their history (internet archive never forgets though) as Greenpeace went off the rails.. I was there as the green policy of banning duck shooting in WA saw lakes dying , millions of fish and birds dead by a misguided policy which caused the localized extinctions of many species as the shooters themselves warned against and the greens professed to love. I was there euthenasing botulism affected birds alongside some great ecologists of past years - in tears at the misery.. I remember teaching optical physics and thinking wait, these attributes they're ascribing to CO2 simply aren't true. I was there working in greenhouses pumped full of CO2 to increase plant growth through the roof. I was there reading of the IPCC scientists suing the IPCC to have their names struck off, as their research was twisted and misreresented. I read the IPCC heads stating they exist to compile evidence (using inductive reasoning, not a valid form of conducting any science) to support their stated goal of influencing politicians.

              My time now is spent developing stirling engines in the hope of improved efficiency. I strive for efficiency and truth and the dispelling of myths, which is why I'm troubled that the lead researcher on the Pica with decades studying them is ignored by the IPCC and enviro-activists in favor of folk who write hysterical puff pieces. Why the reasearch body with decades of study on polar bears (who state bear numbers are at a record high) is not consulted .. while the world's top malaria parasitologist and top entomologist's criticism of fabrication by the IPCC about malaria spread is utterly ignored by the media. Why the actual top scientists with lifetimes in the field are bypassed in favour of IPCC 'scientists' with degrees in economics. Do you know in most universities the 'climate science' courses are run through either the computer science or economics faculties ? Not chemistry, not botany, not physics - economics or computing.. You know where the '97% consensus' came from - a 'climate scientist' with a psychology degree (who is currently being investigated for a breach of ethics over this very study). You heard that the RICO 20 are being investigated for graft..

              Please people, act like scientists and do some research - the NOAA data on sea level rise is there on their site for anyone to see - you don't need media puppets to interpret it for you. Act like a scientist and approach everything as though it were false.. if you can find a flaw then no matter how elegant the theory may be, it is wrong. If CO2 is going up and the temperature isn't (as per the latest IPCC report accepts) then how can CO2 be the thermostat? Don't look at the 'worst case scenario' reports in the IPCC - those are mere models and unsupported by evidence included for reference. They even SAY that, but those are the ones the media runs with because they're exciting!

              When you see a 20-something epidemiologist making statement of fact, go look at the 70 year old who's spent his whole life studying the same thing, I can guarantee he's got a better grip on the cycles than anyone fresh out of uni. And be aware of the vested interests on both sides - who mentions the (many) subsidized solar plants when they close owing billions to the tax payers? Not the MSM for sure. Who mentions the $4000 generated in electricity by the 2 million dollar wind turbine before it broke? not the green investors who rake in trillions in government subsidies. Go to retractionwatch and check out the myriad studies pulled each year - and be shocked that even when science papers are retracted, they're still used as supporting references long after they were found fraudulent.

              Science is not about consensus - scientific consensus was what led to the eugenics policies of the past. Think! disagreement is science is normal.. you know that relativistic physics and quantum physics actually oppose each other right? There's little to no evidence that relativistic physics actually exists outside mathematics, and plenty of evidence to support quantum physics - yet you'll find many 'popular science' mouthpieces stating contrary theories of both as fact. It's ludicrous !! So when you read the Nature article says 'The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers' they're saying the climate 'deniers' saw patterns that they did not. Except they're still toeing the party line by chucking in 'denier'.. heck - visit a 'denier' site and check it yourself - you'll see far more mathematic equations, far more references to data sets, far more hardcore biology and far more discussion about the principles of science than you'll ever see at a AGW climate site.

                There's a lot going on there, but I particularly enjoyed
                There's little to no evidence that relativistic physics actually exists outside mathematics
                I do hope you don't rely on GPS for navigation.

                  I don't want to be rude, but what has GPS in orbit got to do with relativistic theories?

                  Let me pose one for you - gravity moving at the speed of light = basic relativistic theory. Our planet sits at a distance from the sun such that it takes light about 8 minutes to get to us .. So it follows that the light that leaves the sun at any given moment will strike a position where our planet *was* 8 minutes ago right? If gravity moves at the same speed as light then the gravity force acting on our planet must also affect us 8 minutes ago - so what holds our planet in orbit? The force has to act on us instantly for us to remain in orbit - therefore the gravity speed =c is wrong.

                  Let's try another - black holes.. they're necessary for relativistic theories to work as they balance the universe mass equation.. but 80 years on and billions spent we've found how many? zero.

                  Another - Light must have mass for e=mc2 to work I'm not suggesting e=mc2 doesn't work.. it's close to the truth but even Einstein knew it wasn't 100% accurate and accuracy is the goal. The fudge he had to add was to give light mass - this satisfies the 'you can't see a black hole' bit and it also means light curves around planets as observed - except it doesn't curve around all planets and masses in space - guess what.. atmosphere around a sun or planet also causes bending, planetary lensing by refraction.

                  basic principles of quantum physics though, that's easy - a double slit experiment demonstrates the principles are sound without any maths at all - it's observable.

                  Please don't take my comments as an assault on you - it's not. It doesn't even matter who you or I are or how many letters there are after our names, in science varying opinions are normal and not decided by credentials but logic and DISproving.

                  I meant to add that the GPS tech survives quite nicely with just good old Newtonian physics - Theoretical physics.. relativistic, quantum and others all have their place - but they still remain largely theoretical and untested and while many have practical applications, many more do not. It may even be that while the numbers add up to make some things work, it's coincidence and the wrong theory may still produce the right answer - that's why the philosophy is to test constantly. With each new fault we find get closer to the truth. To demonstrate theoretical physics I'd use the example of a mass divided by zero = an object with infinite density. Perfectly reasonable and it may even have theoretical applications - the maths is sound but it is still just nonsense.

                  Another about Einstein's theoretical gravity models as pictured graphically here: His theories allow a single body to 'have' gravity. The problem is, gravity can only exist between 2 objects (or more) acting on each other.. with the gravitational force = (mass1 x mass2 / distance squared) x gravitational constant. The force changes with the masses and distance involved - Einstein's allows a body to just 'have' gravity. I'm not knocking the guy, plenty of physics is based on fudges and downright mistruths - but even HE tried to resolve the faults he knew were there, just as others do to this day. I'd be very wary of any 'scientist' who stood in the corner slathering that Einstein was right ..

                  and then quantum physics comes along and says nope, he was wrong..

                  more on the physics house of cards - from physicists not cranks.

                  and the consensus if you'd like to examine the process by which it came to be

                  GPS tech survives quite nicely with just good old Newtonian physics

                  No it doesn't. GPS relies on nanosecond-accurate clocks on satellites. Those satellites are moving very fast relative to the GPS receivers on the ground - so fast that special-relativistic effects cause them to tick more slowly than clocks on the ground. But they're also moving through a less gravitationally-curved area of spacetime than clocks on the surface of the Earth, which causes them to tick faster than clocks on the ground. The net of these two effects is that clocks on GPS satellites have to be set up to compensate for a relativity-induced errors of 38 microseconds a day. If either special or general relativity didn't work, those compensations would put the clocks way out of sync and GPS wouldn't work.

                  we've found how many? zero.

                  Well, zero except for all of these:

                  The fudge he had to add was to give light mass

                  This simply isn't true. I'm not aware of any physical model that assumes that photons have a rest mass (noting that this is not the same thing as being affected by gravity, which light demonstrably is).

                  except it doesn't curve around all planets and masses in space

                  Also a simple untruth.

                  It may even be that while the numbers add up to make some things work, it's coincidence and the wrong theory may still produce the right answer

                  This is a particularly nice out you've given yourself - "It doesn't matter if experiments repeatedly fail to contradict the theory, because the entirety of modern physics could all just be a big fluke." While strictly true, it seems somewhat less likely than the alternative.

                  This last quote does help me understand how you've landed at a position so wildly at odds with the mountain of evidence that the Earth is rapidly warming and anthropogenic carbon emissions are the primary cause. If data fitting a hypothesis is meaningless, you're free to assume whatever you want.

                  the relativity shift appears to be a much perpetuated myth:

                  I''m not the only person to propose light bending is being caused by lensing - there's more than a few physicists who seem to think the same thing - It's hard to establish an experiment to conclude either way, although the fact that some planets or spatial bodies simply do not cause light to bend (such as our moon, a body devoid of an atmosphere) suggests the theory is more sound than that of gravity caused bending.

                  that list of black holes are theoretical - concluded - just as the recent 'gravity waves' experiment concluded the black holes that supposedly generated the theoretical wave.

                  Your concern and wonder about the 'rapid warming' suggests you've not actually read any of the IPCC reports. Please do - they themselves acknowledge the 'pause', the warming is not following any of the models and in some cases even falling temperatures - they acknowledge uncertainty and that the models are far from complete.

                  And that's not a nice "out I've given myself" - that's forgiving the many physics fudges STILL being taught across the world, such things as aircraft wing shape generating lift by low pressure 'sucking' the wing up - it's patently false but even as a false theory, the shape is still a good shape for structural reasons - wings lift because of the angle of attack. Yous see? Understand? No out for me, many for physics fudges..

                  work E=mc2 backward and punch a zero in - light must have mass for mathematical purposes. Einstein himself knew this..

                  Karlos, google 'GPS relativity compensation'.
                  Then google 'Einstein Mercury'

                  Intentionally hiding from belief-challenging evidence is mental self-crippling.

                  Bondles, you're trying to convince a loony to not be loony, just let it go :)

                  If you own a calculator and can perform some rudimentary calculations you'll see as other physics professors have said, the error factor is less than 8cm for GPS with or without the supposed 'relativity adjustment'.

                  I see you ignored the question about how gravitation 'wave speed' could not possibly hold our planet in orbit too..

                  ..and willfully ignore the many, many physicists who openly agree physics is full of fudges to allow calculations to work, but set all that aside - how did your calculations work out for GPS latency? No time dilation, just distance error for time over speed. Once you grasp it, you'll see that idea is as silly as thinking relativity accounts for the internet latency (why not? It's just as valid - the distance and gravitation effects between one side of the planet and the other is even greater than the distance to space - and no don't cheat by presuming the Earth is a theoretical point, after all - gravity binds the planet together)

                  I'm not asking to believe, I'm asking you to do as I and others have done - calculate it yourself and you'll understand why it's nonsense, irrespective of what popular science comentators may say

         Ron Hatch (an engineer with numerous GPS patents) has openly stated for years that GPS has nothing to do with relativistic time adjustments. Bottom of the page - the error factors are irrelevant as they're corrected by earth bound reference stations on a regular basis.

                  Yes I was taught the relativistic theories while studying physics at university some decades back and regurgitated them unquestioningly... it took years to wrap my head around some of the concepts and discover they did not add up. Calling a person a loony because they don't adhere to the currently popular dogma doesn't change anything, I'm not trying to 'win' - I'm offering evidence of alternatives to stuff you and I have been told were 'facts'. Come on, think about it.. if gravity cannot move faster than the speed of light HOW can a planet such as Earth be held in orbit when the 'gravity' from the sun lags the earth by 8 minutes? If you answer gravity is instantaneous or is faster than light then my friend you are denying relativity and are on the path to becoming a questioner of 'facts' (and thus a scientist).

    Would love to see this from the 10th century ... Or the last ice age

    I'd really like to know exactly how you can prove something that hasn't actually happened yet. Human caused Climate change is real no doubt but we have already had predictions that have come way short of what was predicted. There have been other predictions that have exceeded original estimates. It's a calculated guess at best.

      Man you must go to bed every night terrified, seeing as how there is no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow if it hasn't happened yet.

        My understanding was it's the freaked out kids taught the AGW story are the ones who cannot sleep, like the 17 yo hospitalized because he was too afraid to drink any more of our precious dwindling water reserves.

        Those of us with research skills (you know, who can track source references from media hype back to the original articles) probably sleep pretty well - my only fear is western civilization will suicide under a mass of debt generated by tilting at windmills .. or buying too many windmills ..
        Lots of people have seriously no clue how much power they use and rely on.

        Ever heard of the Carbon Cycle? It's the reason we're here on the planet.. Here's some images from NASA plants do love them some of that juicy juicy CO2 ..

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now