First 6 months of 2016 hottest ever recorded in New Zealand

July 4, 2016 by Nick Perry
In this Feb. 6, 2016 file photo, tourist relax at the end of the track at the Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. Ski fields are struggling to open and winter electricity consumption is down in New Zealand after the first six months of 2016 proved to be the hottest start to a year that scientists have ever recorded. Temperatures in the South Pacific nation were 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 Fahrenheit) above the long-term average for the first half of the year, according to the government-funded National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.(AP Photo/Nick Perry)

Ski fields are struggling to open and winter electricity consumption is down in New Zealand after the first six months of 2016 proved to be the hottest start to a year that scientists have ever recorded.

Temperatures in the South Pacific nation were 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 Fahrenheit) above the long-term average for the first half of the year, according to the government-funded National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

That's the highest since record-keeping began more than a century ago, and significantly higher than the previous record of 1.1 Celsius above average, reached in 1938 and again in 1999.

Chris Brandolino, a scientist at the research agency, said Monday that in the Tasman Sea to the west of New Zealand have been unusually warm this year and that warmer winds from the north have also predominated.

"What's happened in the background is that the Earth has continued to warm as greenhouse gas levels have risen," he said.

The agency reported that carbon dioxide levels recorded at a station near Wellington passed 400 parts per million in June for the first time. The threshold is seen as significant internationally as an indicator of climate change.

While many New Zealanders reveled in a summer that never seemed to end, commercial ski fields including Coronet Peak, Mount Hutt and Turoa have found themselves with little snow, electing to delay opening or operating with limited runs as the Southern Hemisphere winter gets underway.

In this Feb. 6, 2016 file photo, tourist relax at the end of the track at the Fox Glacier in New Zealand. Ski fields are struggling to open and winter electricity consumption is down in New Zealand after the first six months of 2016 proved to be the hottest start to a year that scientists have ever recorded. Temperatures in the South Pacific nation were 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 Fahrenheit) above the long-term average for the first half of the year, according to the government-funded National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.(AP Photo/Nick Perry)

Brandolino said the rise in doesn't necessarily mean the ski season will be bad, "although if I'm a skier or snow enthusiast, record warm temperatures aren't going to bode well for me."

Transpower, the government agency which owns the national electricity grid, provided figures to The Associated Press showing that New Zealanders consumed about 2 percent less electricity in June than they did during the same month a year earlier, likely due in part to lower heating requirements.

The Transpower figures showed a June drop of 8 percent in Wellington and 7 percent in Christchurch compared with a year earlier. Those cities are typically cooler in winter than the largest city, Auckland, where the drop was 2 percent.

The June month was the third-hottest June ever recorded in New Zealand and the hottest ever recorded in Christchurch, according to the research agency.

Explore further: Stuck on hot: Earth breaks 12th straight monthly heat record (Update)

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

Study suggests trees are crucial to the future of our cities

March 25, 2019

The shade of a single tree can provide welcome relief from the hot summer sun. But when that single tree is part of a small forest, it creates a profound cooling effect. According to a study published today in the Proceedings ...

How tree diversity regulates invading forest pests

March 25, 2019

A national-scale study of U.S. forests found strong relationships between the diversity of native tree species and the number of nonnative pests that pose economic and ecological threats to the nation's forests.

80 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2016
This is crazy.

Hasn't anyone told them AGW is just a hoax?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2016
LOL.
More fodder for the ignorant hungry Chicken Littles, New Zealand temperatures have been dropping since the 60's.
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (24) Jul 05, 2016
Solar system is getting hotter. Globalists continue to beg the question and dabble in Rothschild-funded pseudoscientific religious fascism
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (24) Jul 05, 2016
This is crazy.

Hasn't anyone told them AGW is just a hoax?


Nope cause it's real, Antigoricle and his horde of clowns showed us to be a hoax for the past decade now.
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (26) Jul 05, 2016
LOL.
More fodder for the ignorant hungry Chicken Littles, New Zealand temperatures have been dropping since the 60's.
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1


Monkey trying to cherrypick on data he does not understand... again ? Here's your Banana... you deserved it... ;)
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2016
Solar system is getting hotter. Globalists continue to beg the question and dabble in Rothschild-funded pseudoscientific religious fascism

No, it's not, and you are becoming even more idiotic than usual. Have they recently lowered your meds or something?
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2016
"winter electricity consumption is down in New Zealand"

A benefit of warmer temperatures and a "natural" means of reducing ghg since heating is by far the greatest consumer of household energy.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2016
Have they recently lowered your meds or something?
No, it recently got outed as a Russian Nazi bigot who thinks "the Jews" are engaged in a conspiracy to take over the world using AGW. And now it's all hurt and stuff.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2016
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2016
Thanks, @antigore, in your vernacular that means I'm the smartest and most irritating. See what you reveal when you use insults?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2016
You're welcome Da Idiot, I expected your response as I knew your condition would preclude you from realizing that you are the second most ignorant of the Chicken Littles.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2016
And thanks again. Keep 'em coming, it tells me I'm really getting to you where you live. :D
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2016
At this stage, this is less a comments section and more some weird social experiment.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2016
At this stage, this is less a comments section and more some weird social experiment.
Keep watching. The experiment is not over. It's just getting good and started. ;)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2016
At this stage, this is less a comments section and more some weird social experiment.
@Leetennant
it actually is a great place for experiments like that
and for experiments on pseudoscience belief structures

,

@antigTROLL
New Zealand temperatures have been dropping
1- weather isn't the same thing as climate
2- new zealand isn't the globe
3- Lacis et al
4- Francis et al
5- 3 & 4 are validated studies

learn to read

- already linked them to you at least 15 times, so no point in linking them again
the reference should be enough to explain the point

if' your literate, that is

gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2016
if' your literate, that is
-----------------------------

Did you intend to write "If you're literate"?
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2016
LOL. NIWA
What a surprise, the most ignorant of the Chicken Little pops up.

https://quadrant....atology/


Naa, we only hear the corn in your brain starting to pop popcorn... :D
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2016
Did you intend to write "If you're literate"?
@Stolen Valor liar-kam AKA joanna
do you not comprehend humour?

perhaps it is due to your own literacy issues?
KaFaraqGatri
Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2016
A benefit of warmer temperatures and a "natural" means of reducing ghg since heating is by far the greatest consumer of household energy.

1/5 (9 votes)

One has to wonder if these folks are getting paid to troll comment sections in an attempt to maintain a particular narrative or if they're simply the most pessimistic people in the world, hell bent on believing the end is nigh? Either way, their capacity to engage in intelligent discussion is minimal.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2016
@jeffensley, the amount of CO2 emissions saved by warmer winters and less heating use will not form a sufficient negative feedback to significantly alter AGW, particularly not in the face of electricity generation with coal to run air conditioners more in the hotter summers.

That's why you got all the 1 votes. And incidentally not from me.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2016

And incidentally not from me.
@DaSchneib
historically jeffe has attempted to discuss the science but then resorted to refusing to accept validated evidence over his belief, while refusing to actually produce equivalent evidence

blogs or belief isn't science or evidence

that is far more likely the reason for his continued downrating by some
skepticism about intent is another reason

.

.

I see you understand how the human anatomy functions about as well as the rest of your "scientific comprehension"
@bschitt
pot-kettle
you are the last one to talk about not comprehending human anatomical function considering your magic megnetic cancer-fighter machine
see: http://phys.org/n...ant.html

http://phys.org/n...apy.html

http://phys.org/n...ing.html

belief isn't the same thing as evidence
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2016

And incidentally not from me.
@DaSchneib
historically jeffe has attempted to discuss the science but then resorted to refusing to accept validated evidence over his belief, while refusing to actually produce equivalent evidence

blogs or belief isn't science or evidence

that is far more likely the reason for his continued downrating by some
skepticism about intent is another reason

.

.

I see you understand how the human anatomy functions about as well as the rest of your "scientific comprehension"
@bschitt
pot-kettle
you are the last one to talk about not comprehending human anatomical function considering your magic megnetic cancer-fighter machine
see: http://phys.org/n...ant.html

belief isn't the same thing as evidence


Good one Captain, as always well said.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2016
1- weather isn't the same thing as climate
2- new zealand isn't the globe

LOL.
Thank you, Cap'nStumpid, you and the Chicken Little collective who gave you 5s for that, never fail to amuse. Now, could you inform those who published this article, of those two points.
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2016
@bs
LMAO

You are such a retard.

Right back at ya spaz. Got any of your amazing insights about science to share with the forum today, or is that the extent of your wisdom?

I see the science proved your iq as 1 out of 5 today (sayyyyy.. that's not just for today, but for the past 10 years... just like your other socks) ;)
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2016
1- weather isn't the same thing as climate
2- new zealand isn't the globe

LOL.
Thank you, Cap'nStumpid, you and the Chicken Little collective who gave you 5s for that, never fail to amuse. Now, could you inform those who published this article, of those two points.

the ramblings of antigorilacle (ir baboon) never makes sense, but i'll intepret so he feels better that everyone understands him, here's what he is actually trying to express to the world:
https://66.media...._400.gif
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2016
@Bschitt
soon
i'll believe it when i see it
I would derive great satisfaction from telling you where it is at right now, but as with our little bet and your court of law stipulations, I cannot jeopardize the work or the other people involved
but you refused to accept the bet
Why was that (if you're so sure)?
LOL

i'm still willing if you are
feeling lucky?
you refer to disputed evidence as validated
transference

validated isn't the same thing as disputed - see: https://en.wikipe...c_method

you're the only one posting disputed and/or blatantly false claims and considering them scientific (or even factual/evidence based)
see links above re: your machine claims or any thread where you post as evidence

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true unless you're building a cult

you building a cult?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2016
@full-of-bs cont'd
the mainstream explanation for the emissions is just awesome...not likely, but just awesome)
feel free to link the studies that validate your claim
along with a methodology that gives the same predictability as the MS theories, that is

yet another problem with your cult-like beliefs

just because you have free access to dump your beliefs to a science aggregate doesn't mean it lends any credibility to your comments, and considering the lack of moderation and evidence, it actually detracts from your eu beliefs as it demonstrates your inability to comprehend the scientific method, evidence as well as the nature of claims vrs evidence (as noted in the links above re: anecdote)

if you want to convince science of something, you need:
evidence
repeatable experiments
predictability
validation from sources not your own
IOW- acceptance of the scientific method

none of which are available at the eu or with your own posts

still want to bet money?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 08, 2016
's the "I told you so"
@bschitt
i am still willing to bet money that you won't even be able to say "i told you so" and get FDA approval for your magic box
i know you won't because you know you will lose
Yes hard evidence, not mathematical interpretations which support a theory
and your magic box has none of even the latter
or did you miss that?

the rest of your posts are full of BS
you can't even comprehend what peer review means!
LOL

tell you what: learn about reality before you attempt to redefine it
http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

repeating your lies doesn't make them more true unless, like your con men who sold you the magic cancer box, you're attempting a con or starting a cult

evidence: ya got none
actually, ya got nothin period
BiteMe
Jul 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BiteMe
Jul 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2016
You're referring to "THE scientific method" (as though there is only one way to "do" science...hilarious).
There are indeed many things that you can do that might or might not be science, but if you don't use the scientific method, they aren't science.

Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2016
Captain Stumpy only asks for due diligence - otherwise we are at the mercy of the pseudoscientists. I am with captain on this issue.


Especially so because the "issue" is about a really off-beat "alternative" treatments for some very serious medical conditions that peoples should not go to the interweb to buy treatments from people with no medical training. What the Captain-Skippy is doing in this case is providing a very important service to the publics. It's even worse than the EU peoples, this guy is pushing a magnet cure for, for, well the web place says it cures just about everything.

It's all part of David Lapoint's PrimeMagnetFieldForces scam. Now he is not only pushing the magnet universe with no gravity, but he is using the same crankpot stuffs to sell treatments to peoples. The soon he lands it the jail, the better. Worse than JVK-Skippy's foolishments if you can believe that.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2016
I was thinking more along the lines of all the people you guys worship...
That would be all the people you imagine we worship.

On Earth.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2016
pick any article about Black holes. Now, between steps 1 and 2 from your link add "step 1.5", make an assumption as to the forces at work despite the non testable nature of the assumption, state your assumption as though it is proven fact


.....like making assumptions that Schwarzchild Radii math can be applied to a given finite mass to create a stellar body which at the surface exists infinite gravity, so-called Black Holes. The hilarity of of the past 100 years of science is this BH perpetual motion crap conjured up by an Astro-physicist who thought he'd come up with a clever way to make photons travel at a speed less than light speed, zero actually.

Astro-physicists are laughed at by by those of us working in Nuclear Physics, we believe in Conservation of Energy & Gravity. We know when an atom is split that corresponding gravity forces of the progeny mass remains, gravity too is neither created or destroyed & is mass dependent, not density dependent.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2016
@bschitt
I never said we are seeking FDA approval. Why the hell would we want to be endorsed by one of the most corrupt agencies on the planet?
ROTFLMFAO
from your own primercube site
The statements on this website have not been evaluated by the FDA and the PrimerCube will not be available in the United States of America until all necessary approvals have been granted by the FDA
http://proxy2974....sclaimer

so if that means your idiot magic machine distributors/creators are trying to get FDA approval, per your own admissions then, you don't trust your own idiot box creators!
ROTFLMFAO

funny thing: it doesn't take a lot to get FDA approval https://clinicalt...cs/fdaaa

i told you here on MAR 09 http://phys.org/n...ant.html

if they can't get approval with those minimal req's
why do you believe?
LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2016
@bschitt cont'd
I will link you the publication when it is proven what the "magic box" does
okee dokee
i just can't wait...
You said it doesn't cure cancer without knowing anything about it
try again:
I said you can't validate the claims that it does what you claim it does because you can't produce any evidence that is empirical and unbiased

you have anecdotal stories from folk you can't even guarantee are not all the same poster

you have religious styled "belief" that something happened

you have exactly zero evidence that would be required to substantiate your own claims of magic healing, and you're taking advantage of people who are either too stupid to spot a con or just scientifically illiterate

I am neither
you are both
you've already demonstrated that one

but you won't even put your money where your mouth is: i say put up or STFU
i am willing to bet a years pay
I know why you won't - because you're a fraud promoting a bigger fraud

'nite, troll
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (19) Jul 09, 2016
... providing a very important service to the publics. It's even worse than the EU peoples, this guy is pushing a magnet cure
ABSOLUTELY TRUE
thank you Ira

and those who are in a bad place seek anything they can (even snake oil) to survive
this is where the frauds like bschitt prey on people

consider the magic box:
FDA requirements have been so relaxed that even dangerous drugs make it to market
https://clinicalt...cs/fdaaa

http://www.fda.go...3534.htm

if the magic box can't get approval, that means, by definition, it's incapable of meeting even these insanely low requirements that have allowed Crestor, Rezulin and others to market

meds less effective than the bschitt claims is "real" about the magic box!
think about that...

the magic box can't demonstrate effectiveness better than a placebo or even carbonated water!
but he is trying to advocate for the science behind it

it's a con
period
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 09, 2016
O man 'ol biscuitt antigoracle sock really got stumped by Captain... Again... :D
Benni
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 09, 2016
Schwarzchild, "Radii Math" can be applied to "a given finite mass".
Why not?


Because you can't prove by calculation or observation that decreasing the volume of a "given finite quantity of mass" will result in an increase of GRAVITY.

It requires the general assumptions underlying GRT to be valid


Oh really now? What are those "general assumptions"? There are no underlying GR assumptions that decreasing the displacement volume of a given mass increases gravitational attraction.

This is how Schwarzschild did it 100 years ago but of course you better since you know all that difficult PDE stuff better than anyone


Those of us who actually work in Nuclear Physics comprehend very succinctly the minuscule level of comprehension that Astro-physicists have for Nuclear Physics, the same problem you have with all your psycho-babble Perpetual Motion Math concocted by your favorite Astro-physicist.....Schwarzschild.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2016
Because you can't prove by calculation or observation that decreasing the volume of a "given finite quantity of mass" will result in an increase of GRAVITY.
Sure you can.

Calculation is simple; gravity is an inverse square force so as the volume for a given mass decreases the force of gravity at its surface must increase as the inverse of its surface area.

For someone who claims to be able to work differential equations, this is pretty brain dead; it's not even calculus, it's simple algebra. I can't imagine someone working in nuclear physics making this mistake unless they're a janitor or a purchasing clerk where they can't do much damage.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2016
Calculation is simple; gravity is an inverse square force so as the volume for a given mass decreases the force of gravity at its surface must increase as the inverse of its surface area


....obviously not so simple for you Schneibo. So you have these funny farm math fantasies whereby you imagine applying the Inverse Square Law to Schwarzchild Radii by some stroke of magic increases the gravitational attraction of one body to another? You need to actually study the Einstein Field Equations in General Relativity & learn something about gravity.

If a BH changes in radius from 10 miles to 5 miles, all that changes is DENSITY, without the inclusion of additional MASS no new gravitational forces just sort of appear out of nowhere. You are too oblivious to the facts of GR to comprehend that simply changing the units of surface area cannot magically create new forces of gravity, it only changes the area of concentration over which existing gravity exerts attraction.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2016
I don't see a lot of point in arguing about inverse square laws with someone who can't do algebra.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 09, 2016
I don't see a lot of point in arguing about inverse square laws with someone who can't do algebra.
..........such as yourself.

You are totally oblivious as to the application of the Inverse Square Law. You imagine the ISL can be applied to a given concentration of MASS to create new gravity without the inclusion of additional mass. Show us the math for that in the Einstein Field Equations, then tell me about who can, or can't, do algebra, or Differential Equations for that matter.

You'd make a great Astro-physicist Schneibo, most of them can't figure out your math either........Oh, that's right, you are an Astro-physicist, an expert Perpetual Motion Mechanic.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 09, 2016
Just as a reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 09, 2016
For the rest of us, the proof is quite simple.

Consider two bodies of equal mass and unequal radius. Will the gravity at the surface be the same?

We don't really need relativity for this; Newtonian gravity can provide the answer.

Consider the equation of Newtonian gravity:

G = gmm'/r²

Now, for a solid body, r is just the size of the radius of the body. Obviously, since it is squared and in the denominator we are dealing with an inverse square law; equally obviously, as r becomes smaller for the same m and m', G becomes larger.

Like I said, simple algebra.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2016
Moving right along, we can see that as r approaches zero, G will approach infinity. But in fact, it will cross another critical point long before that.

A crucial concept in dealing with a gravity field is that of escape velocity. Imagining a body with no atmosphere, this is the velocity that a test body must have from the surface if it is to escape the gravity field. Below this velocity, it will return to the main body; at or above it, it will not. This velocity depends on G, the force of gravity. And since G varies as the inverse square of r, it is obvious that escape velocity depends upon not merely the mass of the main body, but the mass of the test body, and-- crucially, for this discussion-- upon the radius of the main body.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2016
[contd]
Now, light has no mass, but it does have a velocity, and furthermore we know from relativity that gravity bends light. In fact, we can calculate that if the escape velocity at the surface of a body is greater than the speed of light, light emitted at the surface cannot escape the gravity field.

Also, since nothing can go faster than light, and no material object can go as fast as light, nothing at all can escape such a gravity field. This is a black hole. Note that the gravity is not infinite as @Lenni claims; it is merely sufficient at this surface, called the event horizon, to prevent anything ever attaining escape velocity. The body may be just the size of the event horizon; it may be smaller; but what is certain is that if m is big enough and r is small enough, this event horizon will exist and nothing can escape from inside it.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2016
[contd]
So from this we can see that black holes aren't just a feature of relativity; they also exist in Newtonian gravity physics. In fact, John Michell first proposed black holes in 1784. Pierre Laplace also found the black hole solution to Newtonian mechanics, and since the speed of light was known from 1724 due to the aberration of light, Laplace put it on a firm theoretical basis and noted that a star 250 times the size of the Sun and the density of the Earth would be a black hole.

Most people think that black holes are associated with relativity; this is incorrect. In fact the idea has been around since the eighteenth century as noted above.

Sources:
http://www.narit.....90M.pdf
https://en.wikipe...ack_hole
https://en.wikipe...ck_holes
https://en.wikipe..._Michell
https://en.wikipe...of_light

Now can we stop this bullsh*t about black holes?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2016
Last but not least, note that the system of equations I began with is the Schwarzchild solution to the EFE, that is, the relativistic black hole. But there is also a Newtonian black hole, and that solution is given in the first of the five links I posted just above.

Here's an easier challenge, @Lenni: tell us how big the Newtonian event horizon is for a black hole of one solar mass. The equations to do it are right there in that paper.

And if you don't I'll be back here and do it for you.

Good luck.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2016
You imagine the ISL can be applied to a given concentration of MASS to create new gravity
What does that mean, create new gravity?
This idiot troll doesn't understand that the force of gravity is dependent not only upon mass but upon distance. Even though it's right there in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, and has been since the seventeenth century.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2016
You imagine the ISL can be applied to a given concentration of MASS to create new gravity


This idiot troll doesn't understand that the force of gravity is dependent not only upon mass but upon distance.


The "idiot troll" is you. You remain stuck in a morass of Perpetual Motion Math unable to explain how applying the Inverse Sq Law to a finite stellar body will create "infinite gravity" at it's surface preventing photons from reaching Escape Velocity.

Even though it's right there in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, and has been since the seventeenth century.


Newton? First it was GR you tried to fall back on, & failing to come up with solutions to those Partial DEs you claimed existed, now you reach even further back in time seeking to contort yet another thesis into your favorite twisted pretzel, that INCREASING DENSITY with no addition of INCREASED MASS can eventually result in a stellar body with infinite gravity at it's surface.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2016
@Lenni, dude, this one is even more unbelievable than claiming to be able to do PDEs and not being able to do

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

You can't do

G = gmm'/r²

and you don't know what it means.

There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. I wouldn't use that handle any more if I were you. You are a complete fraud. The inverse square is right at the end. This will be infamous.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2016
Fluxions.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 10, 2016
OK Benni, since you default on this one, the escape speed in Newton gravity is:
v_e=√(2GM/r).
Well, I was gonna give him until tomorrow. But yes, that's the solution I was thinking of.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2016
OK Benni, since you default on this one, the escape speed in Newton gravity is:
v_e=��š(2GM/r).


Well, I was gonna give him until tomorrow. But yes, that's the solution I was thinking of.


A couple weeks ago you claimed the solution was to be found in Partial DEs hidden in between the lines of General Relativity. I challenged you to cite the text of the section those PDEs were to be found & you punted to some Astro-physicist's website who himself couldn't cite the section of GR you were claiming.

So now you're punting to this? All because you couldn't locate an Einstein Field Equation to back up your claim that INFINITE GRAVITY WELLS exist on the surfaces of BHs? You still have no clue as to how to apply the ISL to gravity. You don't even know that at the center of EVERY stellar mass the force of gravity is zero. You two neophytes need a better math pretzel than this.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2016
A couple weeks ago you claimed the solution
What "the solution?"

@Lenni, there is no "the solution."

Partial DEs hidden in between the lines of General Relativity
Nothing's "hidden" anywhere.

You're showing how little you know about mathematics again.

This is silliness. It's like arguing with a horse about Gaugin.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2016
A couple weeks ago you claimed the solution


What "the solution?" @Lenni, there is no "the solution."
... ...and you only found that out after I informed you of it. Prior to that you were claiming to having solutions to Partial DEs in GR for which no solutions existed.

Partial DEs hidden in between the lines of General Relativity
Nothing's "hidden" anywhere
......and it remains that you didn't know those PDEs didn't have solutions, all the while you were claiming that you knew such solutions existed. The fact of the matter is you simply never knew what a Partial DE was until I started making references to them, and those references were a set up by me to test if you knew what a PDE was, you didn't.

You're showing how little you know about mathematics again
I certainly know more about Partial DEs than you do. Hey Schneibo, got more PDE solutions you'd like to run past this guy who knows how to design nuclear reactor systems?

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2016
Pro Tip™, watching you making lies up is boring.

Solve the PDEs, @Lenni.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2016
I think it *is* trying to make sense. That's what makes it so pitiful.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2016
If we take the density to be unity
.........this is why your dumb math won't work, "unity" is a real number, the infinite density ascribed to BHs is not.

You need to try the Schneibo routine, tell me you have a Partial DE hidden away somewhere & one of these days you're gonna find someone else who can solve it, and then presto, you're up for a Nobel Prize as the Astro-physicist of the century.

jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2016
to greenonions

All your questions are valid... I'm simply pointing out a possible silver lining, particularly for the doom-iclined personalities who fret over every new study suggesting the Earth is changing. I personally don't fear for the Earth's or our survival. Both will adapt as needed. I still have seen no evidence to suggest a warmer planet is a bad thing. Regarding curbing ghg's, I am not for any legislation directed specifically at controlling CO2 as a pollutant (which it's not) because of the risk of government overreach. Based on changes we can already observe, the Earth is equipped to deal with increases in CO2 concentrations and temperatures. I am however for us becoming far more efficient regarding transportation and energy usage as a safeguard of our finite resources... which to your relief will have the effect of reducing GHG output. That you would expect any particular outcome from such a decrease in output is where we will once again disagree, however.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2016
@jeffensley, the amount of CO2 emissions saved by warmer winters and less heating use will not form a sufficient negative feedback to significantly alter AGW, particularly not in the face of electricity generation with coal to run air conditioners more in the hotter summers.

That's why you got all the 1 votes. And incidentally not from me.


Lets be honest here... we both now our expressed opinions aren't fact, As greenonions pointed out, it would take a LOT of calculation to even get close to guessing the overall result of using less heat given the possibility that some areas may use their AC more. In the end, local weather will be more a factor than anything. Imagine an Eastern US with milder winters and cooler summers? Between population density and our high energy usage per capita, this would result in a significant decrease in energy usage. Like most things related to climate change, I'm merely speculating from an optimistic viewpoint.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2016
Lets be honest here..*snip* Like most things related to climate change, I'm merely speculating from an optimistic viewpoint.
Hey Jeff, thanks for participating! I do wonder though, can you actually be honest? You have stated an opinion that is not supported by the studies, the evidence, or the scientific predictions made by the vast majority of scientists. So, honestly, what is your opinion worth?

GO, on the other hand, has stated opinions that are well supported by nearly 200 years of science investigation and discovery. He does not invoke some nebulous entity or use falsehood and conspiracy to support or excuse his opinion. He considers what real people, doing real studies, say.

You speak of optimism, but your argument is rooted in ignorance. It is not "optimism" to hope things won't get as bad as the science suggests - it is the willful disregard of the science, and a belief in miracle.

So, honestly, why should we believe you?
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2016
Hey Jeff, thanks for participating! I do wonder though, can you actually be honest? You have stated an opinion that is not supported by the studies, the evidence, or the scientific predictions made by the vast majority of scientists. So, honestly, what is your opinion worth?


Everything regarding the future and not observation is "opinion"... some are just based on glorified Excel spreadsheets that some of you place an undue amount of faith in. You talk about my opinions being unscientific yet you without question use models as "evidence" to prove a point about what's happening with the climate. There are plenty of studies (many of which I've cited) illustrating the planet's ability to adapt to changing conditions. I know you don't pay attention to those because they don't fit your doomsday narrative but it's not my job to provide a link every single time I make a point.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2016
Everything regarding the future and not observation is "opinion"... some are just based on glorified Excel spreadsheets that some of you place an undue amount of faith in. You talk about my opinions being unscientific yet you without question use models as "evidence" to prove a point about what's happening with the climate. There are plenty of studies (many of which I've cited) illustrating the planet's ability to adapt to changing conditions. I know you don't pay attention to those because they don't fit your doomsday narrative but it's not my job to provide a link every single time I make a point.
I suppose that in the strictest sense of the word. you are correct, but there is a big difference between a prediction that is made using careful observation and scientific rigor and one based on one's desire that something be so in the face of observations. If I take issue with anything, it is that you ignore the bulk while clinging to anything that supports your narrative.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2016
More than that though, I challenge you to show any instance where I have ignored or disputed evidence of adaptation. Your narrative again, Jeff, is to disparage anyone who agrees that human caused global warming is a problem.

I further challenge you to show where I have unquestioningly used "models" as evidence. It suggests you have a poor understanding of what a model is, nor how a model is constructed.

I don't have a doomsday narrative Jeff. I accept the evidence as provided, because the evidence is overwhelming. There is NO evidence supporting the opposite. As in none Jeff - and I challenge you to show different.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2016
To be clear, I've never suggested the Earth isn't warming nor that human activity plays a part in it. I believe that is undeniable whether we are talking about air pollution or land alteration. But when you define a "problem" as any change in our complex climate system (sea levels, wind patterns, precipitation, temperatures, ice cover, etc) from a human-defined "norm" (which is flawed as we are basing our definition of normal almost solely on 200 years of meteorological data) then I feel you are warranting an undue amount of control and regulation to whatever body you believe can "fix" it. We simply have too much information at our fingertips and our human nature is to take that, extend it indefinitely into a distant future, and fret over any trend. Without this information, primitive man would simply move north if it got too hot, move south when it gets too cold, move inland when water got higher, move towards the sea when levels dropped... (cont'd)
jeffensley
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2016
Just because in our shortsightedness, we've built cities on shorelines that have never remained stable doesn't mean we have to do whatever we can to prevent seas from rising or falling. Carefully regulating (and making money off of) a fairly common atmospheric gas suggests the ability to effect some kind of change. Why else would you do it? But that's the false premise... as one of you recently agreed, we can't expect a single thing to happen by reducing CO2 output. So then logic suggests we approach it from another direction instead of feigning a godlike ability to control the planet just so some feel "safe" in the illusion of knowing humanity is in control. This should be approached from a principle of efficiency... efficiency of land use, efficiency of energy use, efficiency in solid waste generation, etc. The focus on CO2 is a distraction (unless you can "prove" that regulating it will effect a particular outcome which we agree you cannot). (cont'd)
jeffensley
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2016
Focus on efficiency of land-use, energy use, waste production... do the best we can there and then go along for the ride. Move cities when the sea rises, change land-use as weather patterns change, grow crops where Nature dictates, not where we think they SHOULD be based on history, and take advantage of the boons of a warmer planet (because it's not all doom and gloom).
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2016
jeff, you do not understand the magnitude of the changes. Entire growing areas will become displaced, . . . and the people with them? We are facing the spread of diseases, not the other way around. The oceans are starting to die, which will be our own death. Acidification is already taking its toll.

You completely miss the point of what we face.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2016
I agree with jeff's concentration on efficiency, but must add efficacy. And those alone cannot save us - it is too late. We have to stop the increase of GHGs, and reverse the concentrations.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2016
Corporations own the government, we have a divided society with a few very rich and the rest of us, the Earth gets grossly polluted, and the oceans are dying - it's Soylent Green.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2016
Everything regarding the future and not observation is "opinion"
jeffe
yes and no (as Maggnus stated)
it is not verifiable until it is observed, but we can still make predictions based upon known laws of physics and past validated studies... it's like making a prediction that [x] will get coffee when they wake up because [x] always gets coffee when they wake up
it is far more probable that [x] will get coffee than not
some are just based on glorified Excel spreadsheets that some of you place an undue amount of faith in
this demonstrates your conspiracist ideation, D-K and denial of the evidence, not science

In science, those "spreadsheets" or statistics are based upon known validated observations so we know that a+b=c

your problem is that you don't like the conclusions, so you choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for the sake of your own personal beliefs

therefore: conspiracist ideation + D-K = faith in a delusion

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2016
@jeffe cont'd
But when you define a "problem" as any change in our complex climate system... from a human-defined "norm" ...then I feel you are warranting an undue amount of control and regulation to whatever body you believe can "fix" it
1- this implies you feel doing nothing will be ok

2- we *can* predict, based upon those 200 yrs, what will happen due to our influences far better than simply guessing

3- your problem, as stated, is the political "fix" - but without the guiding knowledge of science, where will that be? that is what you are afraid of
Just because in our shortsightedness
shortsightedness in *correcting the problem* isn't the solution to the shortsightedness of the problem

what you indicate in your posts is to use the shortsightedness as a correction, and that is crazy, IMHO
we can't expect a single thing to happen by reducing CO2 output
immediately, no
but that is shortsightedness, isn't it?
not considering the long term?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2016
@jeffe last
Focus on efficiency of land-use, energy use, waste production
whereas i agree with a lot of that last post, you are being shortsighted as well, don't you think?
more importantly, as the situation was complex in it's making, then it will be at least equally complex in it's fixing

you argue (above) about the focus on CO2
The focus on CO2 is a distraction
but it is a major player in the problem, as noted by various studies which have been validated

that would mean, by definition, that it will not be controlled in the future
& by definition (again) that means the problem will be at least as bad as it is now (assuming efficiency increase immediately, which we know isn't happening)
so that means it will continue to worsen as we know the current input is more than the planet can handle

so then you can see how ignoring this point is shortsightedness
right?

regardless, controlling CO2 is a major factor, along with other stuff.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.