Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Well worth a read and a listen
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Falstaff wrote:
Rob R wrote:

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



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

ok Rob - Goodnight mate

Graham Hyde



Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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



Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Fortunately for you then, the camera battery went flat after my first shot today

vegplot



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Falstaff wrote:

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



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Falstaff wrote:
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



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Five hundred years of being a fool. Nothing's changed.


Troll. Stop feeding. He'll stop frothing.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

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.
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.

Last edited by Tavascarow on Sat Mar 14, 15 5:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Jamanda wrote:
Ty Gwyn wrote:
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.

https://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



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Tavascarow wrote:
[

...... 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



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Falstaff wrote:

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



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 15 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Kippers don't believe in science. They, generally, prefer, dogma and frothing. They're Sayers of no, not askers of how or why.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com