|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
 |
jamanda
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 35056
Location: Devon
|
|
|
|
|
Falstaff
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 14, 15 12:41 am Post subject: |
 
|
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
..........It answers most questions about it. ............ |
To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years !   |
Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years. |
Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !
However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)
 |
The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.
The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough. |
Rob - it goes Up and Down !
What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " |
0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it. |
|
|
|
|
Falstaff
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 15 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
..........It answers most questions about it. ............ |
To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! |
Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years. |
Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !
However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)
|
The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.
The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough. |
Rob - it goes Up and Down !
What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " |
0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it. |
0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years ! |
|
|
|
|
Graham Hyde
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 15 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Falstaff wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
..........It answers most questions about it. ............ |
To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! |
Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years. |
Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !
However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)
|
The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.
The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough. |
Rob - it goes Up and Down !
What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " |
0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it. |
0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years ! |
The source you cited gives 0.85 degrees, but yes. A small amount over a relatively small period of time.
I've only been around 30odd years, but even I can see it changing, and it's getting wetter, here. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Hyde
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4563
Location: Lampeter
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 15 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
Rob,
I watched the remainder of Climate by numbers,very interesting indeed,
But one of the calculations made by the 2nd presenter based on Kreager in the South African gold fields,when working out the value of gold in the area,just did`nt add up for me,
If that had been working out the value of coal in the under lying land with varying horizontal seams,it was feasible,
But with most metal minerals,the lodes are varying vertical with barren ground between,and only following the course of the lode could a fairly accurate value be based on the land.
What also bug`s me is,of these climate change scientists given the data they have at hand,proven in the link,and numerous links following,20 -30 years ago they were predicting a return to the Ice Age,then all of a sudden it was the Ozone layer,Green House gases,Global Warming and now Climate Change. |
|
|
|
|
Graham Hyde
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
Falstaff
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Hyde
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
| Ty Gwyn wrote: |
Rob,
I watched the remainder of Climate by numbers,very interesting indeed,
But one of the calculations made by the 2nd presenter based on Kreager in the South African gold fields,when working out the value of gold in the area,just did`nt add up for me,
If that had been working out the value of coal in the under lying land with varying horizontal seams,it was feasible,
But with most metal minerals,the lodes are varying vertical with barren ground between,and only following the course of the lode could a fairly accurate value be based on the land.
What also bug`s me is,of these climate change scientists given the data they have at hand,proven in the link,and numerous links following,20 -30 years ago they were predicting a return to the Ice Age,then all of a sudden it was the Ozone layer,Green House gases,Global Warming and now Climate Change. |
I don't know about the gold analogy, but presumably it worked.
As for the inaccuracies of science, most may be wrong, but the more we learn, and the more changes we make (like CFC's) moves the goalposts. I don't know how accurate the estimates are, but one things for sure, reducing and stabilising carbon emissions can't do any harm, and getting more carbon in our soils can only do us some good, particularly if we have to deal with wetter seasons. |
|
|
|
|
Graham Hyde
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts