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
|
Hi RobR.
I've not been paying utility bills in the UK for some time so am not aware of the manner of your bill.
CCL used to be itemised on all utility bills. I do not know if it still is. What I do know is that it is vatable. |
Electric generated by renewables is exempt from the levy.
Graham Hyde
|
Hi Jamanda.
Who or what are 'scientists' Someone in a white lab coat?
I am not saying all are wrong about everything, just some about something.
Read Patrick Moores first book where he explains that the craters on the moon are extinct volcanoes.
Read how 'scientists' say over 70% of the universe is missing and mumble about dark matter.
People do make mistakes, speak about things when ill informed.
This world is amazing and I don't think we will ever know all its mysteries. What I do know is life is too short to get annoyed with people over silly differences of opinion.
|
Ty Gwyn
|
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
|
Hi Rob R.
Yes, always was but the remaining is VATable.
|
Falstaff
|
Quote: |
......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 - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !
However, each of us remembers those "Long hot days of summer" from our childhood - and yes for a young man, whatever the age, the weather DOES seem to get wetter as we become adult !
That is to do with how the brain remembers time as we get older - that's all !
Graham Hyde
|
There is no doubt that humans are impacting on the earths environment. However, what is in doubt are the proposed measures to be taken to manage that impact.
Influential people and institutions have goals that are not the aim of the common man.
If, for your own and your children's sake you wish to make a difference, however small, I admire you.
|
Rob R
|
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
|
R22 was banned in most 'developed' countries. These 'developed' countries had a safe and efficient operating procedure with R22.
R22 was therefore sold and is still to 'developing' countries who had no safe and efficient operating procedures.
Look to the Middle East, an extremely large market for an example.
|
Rob R
|
Quote: |
......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 - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !
However, each of us remembers those "Long hot days of summer" from our childhood - and yes for a young man, whatever the age, the weather DOES seem to get wetter as we become adult !
That is to do with how the brain remembers time as we get older - that's all !
I'm thinking more of the frequency and severity of flooding events in the valley - how I wished the village would have been cut off so that the school bus couldn't get through, it never did. Since I left school it has been up and over several times, nothing to do with memory or perceptions.
Falstaff
|
ok Rob - Goodnight mate
|
Graham Hyde
|
Hi Rob R
Here, we've had the windiest, wetist winter in living memory.
It could be caused by the northward current off the South American coast causing an El Nino which may be caused by the de-forestation of South America or it could be peoples memory.
Who knows, but change happens.
The American version of the UK Forestry Commission has recently granted access to logging companies to trees with an average age of 200 years.
The common man by his efforts alone will not make a difference but institutions such as governments may.
Your opportunity to make a difference is coming soon in the shape of a general election.
|
Rob R
|
I aim to make a difference every single day, in the choices I make. Today's effort involved planting some trees in a new managed wetland - I've given up trying to get rid of the water, and instead decided to embrace it, and store it longer so that the good people of Hull can drink it.
|
Graham Hyde
|
Rob R
Your pictures and life style are an inspiration.
You cause me no end of trouble.
When you post photos I HAVE to go to the internet café 20 miles away.
Regards,
Graham
|
Rob R
|
Fortunately for you then, the camera battery went flat after my first shot today
|
vegplot
|
Rob - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !
|
The lull has been puzzling but there have been insights as to why as research suggests it's latency in the system much in the same water that the temperature rise water turn from liquid to vapour or steam is not linear but has a step in which there is no temperature rise for a period. The planet's thermodynamics are exceedingly complex but the models continue to forecast an overall rise in temperature despite the lull.
It's misleading to take a small section of data and try to represent that as any sort of justification. You might get some comfort from it but it's delusional. You have to look at the whole dataset continuously refining your models, testing hypothesis, and questioning the data and its sources. That's what climate scientists do and I'm sure the majority of them would love to be wrong about the conclusions they've come to.
Falstaff
|
A simpler solution might be that Global warming is Not consequential on the levels of CO2
Occams razor suggests that when presented with a very complex solution and a simple one, it is often the simple one which is correct !
|
vegplot
|
A simpler solution might be that Global warming is Not consequential on the levels of CO2
Occams razor suggests that when presented with a very complex solution and a simple one, it is often the simple one which is correct ! |
And completely wrong. Only the ignorant or stupid would come to such a conclusion given the evidence.
Occam was a theologian. Says it all.
Nick
|
Five hundred years of being a fool. Nothing's changed.
Troll. Stop feeding. He'll stop frothing.
|
Tavascarow
|
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. |
The reason it is now called climate change instead of global warming is the publics inability (as has been shown here on this thread) to believe the average global temperature is rising. But there is an increase in 'freak' weather events, hence the name change. Yes twenty or thirty years ago we where talking about triggering a new ice age. That is still possible. It has nothing to do with average temperature rises directly, but the increase of fresh water mixing with the sea water. This will (as has happened in the past, proved by ice core samples) switch off the Gulf stream that keeps our climate mild. See shutdown of thermohaline circulation. So in answer to your doubts they are all true. The planet is warming. The climate is changing. & we could all still freeze our knackers off if we dont wise up.
Tavascarow
|
The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,
And their both advanced countries. |
97% of scientists do agree with each other. Scientists are not the politicians who make the decisions.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ & no doubt the majority of the 3% are employed or funded by the industries responsible for said. Big industry is very good at buying yes men. & they don't come any bigger than the oil, gas & coal industries.
Falstaff
|
[
...... The reason it is now called climate change instead of global warming is the publics inability (as has been shown here on this thread) to believe the average global temperature is rising. But there is an increase in 'freak' weather events, hence the name change. ............
. |
Thanks for that Tc- I have wondered for a while why they dropped "Global warming"
Your explanation makes perfect sense
Now they don't even have to prove any warming !
So where does that leave the "Warming is consequential upon CO2 levels " argument ?
vegplot
|
So where does that leave the "Warming is consequential upon CO2 levels " argument ? |
That's called science. You know, the stuff that based on measurable repeatable evidence.
You could do the experiment yourself with the right equipment.
Nick
|
Kippers don't believe in science. They, generally, prefer, dogma and frothing. They're Sayers of no, not askers of how or why.
|
Falstaff
|
Kippers don't believe in science. They, generally, prefer, dogma and frothing. They're Sayers of no, not askers of how or why. |
I presume that is aimed at me ?
What a load of dross !
You're actually behaving like quite a significant bully aren't you ?
Nick
|
Yes !
No !
|
Falstaff
|
Yes !
No ! |
How do YOU classify you're behaviour then ?
vegplot
|
Lock yourself in an airtight box. As the CO2 levels rise I can guarantee so will the temperature. But don't take my word for it.
|
Nick
|
I don't !
STOP being a bell end !
|
Falstaff
|
I don't !
STOP being a bell end ! |
1
No Nick, I don't suppose you do !
I don't suppose you ever even consider that you might just come over as a bit of a boor and a bully.
I have to say that I was amazed when Chez said something a few weeks ago and you grabbed it and stuck it in your "sig" straight away :-
“……Broadening Chez's arse and Chris' Old mind….”
How do you think those two feel when they see your crassness highlighted every time they come across one of your posts ?
No Nick YOU Stop being a "Bell-end" [/b]
jamanda
|
<Official hat >
Simmer down boys.
<Official hat/>
|
Nick
|
Dunno. Ask them.
http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1426195#1426195
Having it as a .sig was Jamanda's idea.
|
jamanda
|
Might have known it was all my fault
|
Home Home Home Home Home