I understand that , I was simply trying to show that when you are dealing with a cycle - and it does appear to be cyclical - that takes tens of thousands of years, 10 years is really nothing.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Scott, we used to think that it took thousands of years for climate to > change. And that is what happens, as I understand it, in "normal" times. In > very extreme times (asteroid impact, world-wide series of volcanic > eruptions, etc) we've seen that things can change surprisingly quickly, > over the course of decades. That is what is worrisome about the data we > have now for the past hundred years. It looks more like an extreme > disruption than it does a normal change. That is worrisome because it means > that we likely have less time to react than we traditionally thought. > > Cheers, > Judah > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago. > > > > > > > > In a system (climate) that takes thousands (if not hundred of thousands) > or > > years to change, 10 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye, and, > > when mapped out relative to the life of the planet is statistically > > insignificant. > > > > -- > > Scott Stroz > > --------------- > > You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder > > what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris > > > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:370752 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
