Jump to content

Climate Change thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

So you're STILL trying to claim that naturally occurring climate change doesn't exist??!

Using the term 'naturally occurring' is rather simplistic. Climate scientists will factor into their calculations, volcanism, solar output, orbital variation AND human factors.

There is no one factors that can be called 'naturally occurring', its a long list of things that affect the climate.

The human factors are the millions of acres of forests lost every year,  the increase in CO2, methane and the list goes on.

The most recent substantial 'naturally occurring' cooling due to volcanism was the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century, affected the climate substantially, subsequently global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 °C for up to three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Using the term 'naturally occurring' is rather simplistic. Climate scientists will factor into their calculations, volcanism, solar output, orbital variation AND human factors.

There is no one factors that can be called 'naturally occurring', its a long list of things that affect the climate.

The human factors are the millions of acres of forests lost every year,  the increase in CO2, methane and the list goes on.

The most recent substantial 'naturally occurring' cooling due to volcanism was the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century, affected the climate substantially, subsequently global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 °C for up to three years.

It is very simple though. Climate change occurs because of naturally occurring and human causes. Glad to see you appear to no longer be denying the naturally occurring factors.

1 hour ago, altus said:

 

I've never claimed that so don't try and use it as a rebuttal to my arguments.

I never claimed you did. I was referring to El Cid, who is the whole reason I'm still getting dragged into this pointless 'debate'. All I pointed out (about 6 pages or so ago now) was that both naturally occurring and human factors are causing climate change, in response to El Cid's bizarre claims. I wish I hadn't bothered but I couldn't let such inaccuracies go unchallenged.

Edited by WiseOwl182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 16/02/2019 at 17:34, WiseOwl182 said:

It's not "nonsense" that climate change has always happened with or without humans. The earth's climate has always changed in cycles. The debate is the extent to which modern civilisation is impacting it.

How much of a debate is there amongst the scientific community?  Because this was the contentious statement that you made.

On 16/02/2019 at 15:50, FinBak said:

Climate Change has happened since the Earth was born into existence.

 

Nothing humans do on the planet will ever change that.

 

Mother Nature.

But when you jumped in this was the post which you were actually supporting.

 

Which quite clearly does say that humans cannot change the planet.

 

Perhaps you should have seen the context before trying to score a point.

Context is king isn't it.  I'd encourage you to go back and read the exchange before you quoted #110 and stuck your oar in.

 

Funny how you can't let inaccuracies go unchallenged, but post #109 didn't interest you, whilst the obvious and correct rebuttal to it in post #110, that you felt needed correcting with a brief strawman argument that you have then continued for 6 pages.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

How much of a debate is there amongst the scientific community?  Because this was the contentious statement that you made.

But when you jumped in this was the post which you were actually supporting.

 

Which quite clearly does say that humans cannot change the planet.

 

Perhaps you should have seen the context before trying to score a point.

Context is king isn't it.  I'd encourage you to go back and read the exchange before you quoted #110 and stuck your oar in.

 

Funny how you can't let inaccuracies go unchallenged, but post #109 didn't interest you, whilst the obvious and correct rebuttal to it in post #110, that you felt needed correcting with a brief strawman argument that you have then continued for 6 pages.

 I said:

 

"It's not "nonsense" that climate change has always happened with or without humans. The earth's climate has always changed in cycles. The debate is the extent to which modern civilisation is impacting it."

 

Post 109 said:

 

"Climate Change has happened since the Earth was born into existence.

 

Nothing humans do on the planet will ever change that.

 

Mother Nature."

 

 

Someone said it was "nonsense". But it isn't. Climate change has always happened and humans won't change that. We will add to it though.

Edited by WiseOwl182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 I said:

 

"It's not "nonsense" that climate change has always happened with or without humans. The earth's climate has always changed in cycles. The debate is the extent to which modern civilisation is impacting it."

 

Post 109 said:

 

"Climate Change has happened since the Earth was born into existence.

 

Nothing humans do on the planet will ever change that.

 

Mother Nature."

 

 

Someone said it was "nonsense". But it isn't. Climate change has always happened and humans won't change that. We will add to it though.

Post #109 was nonsense.  Humans quite clearly impact the climate.

You then argued against post #110 with a strawman, nobody had claimed that climate change didn't occur naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Someone said it was "nonsense". But it isn't. Climate change has always happened and humans won't change that. We will add to it though.

Your thinking error occurs right here in the bold, where you simply pretend that adding to something doesn't change it.

Think about that for a moment. If your boss adds twenty quid a week to your wages, what's happened? He's changed your rate of pay.

You add three stone to your weight by eating loads of pies and cake. What happened? You've changed your weight.

A breaking wave dumps 500 litres of seawater into your already leaking boat. What happened? Your chances of not sinking have just changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 03/03/2019 at 20:48, Cyclone said:

I thought that the little ice age had now been linked to human activity as well, a huge drop in farming in the new world as the native americans were exterminated by settlers.

The current balance of evidence is in favour of volcanoes having been the cause, along with subsequent feedbacks like the increased solubility of CO2 in cooler oceans.   Decreased solar output (Maunder minimum) might also have been a factor.  Possible human impacts include the American reforestation that you mention and (conversely) a reduction in the magnitude of the LIA due to excess CO2 that was already there due to deforestation and rice growing.  But the LIA still isn't completely understood.  Another thing to remember about it is that it was regional rather than global - the effects were greater in the northern hemisphere than in the southern.

 

You could look at William Ruddiman's book Earth's Climate if you're interested in climate on geological as well as shorter timescales.  Detailed but not too technical, and he's a leading proponent, in fact basically the originator, of the 'early anthropocene' idea ... not that he'd call it that.

Edited by CaptainSwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cyclone said:

How much of a debate is there amongst the scientific community?  Because this was the contentious statement that you made.

But when you jumped in this was the post which you were actually supporting.

 

Which quite clearly does say that humans cannot change the planet.

 

Perhaps you should have seen the context before trying to score a point.

Context is king isn't it.  I'd encourage you to go back and read the exchange before you quoted #110 and stuck your oar in.

 

Funny how you can't let inaccuracies go unchallenged, but post #109 didn't interest you, whilst the obvious and correct rebuttal to it in post #110, that you felt needed correcting with a brief strawman argument that you have then continued for 6 pages.

I wasn't trying to score a point. ! There is NO Strawman argument either.

 

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

 

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

There are lot's of people who believe all that they read and there's always difference of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FinBak said:

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

They call it computer modelling  ;)

 

Climate change computer model vindicated 30 years later by what has actually happened.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-computer-model-princeton-stouffer-manabe-vindicated-30-years-global-warming-a7609976.html

 

Is it just my computer/connection that struggles with The Independent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, FinBak said:

I wasn't trying to score a point. ! There is NO Strawman argument either.

 

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

 

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

There are lot's of people who believe all that they read and there's always difference of opinion.

Putting 'FACT' after a claim tends to indicate the opposite.

 

Also, please expand on the Anti-Scientific notion. I'm sure scientists in the climate change field would be interested in understanding how they're getting it all wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Putting 'FACT' after a claim tends to indicate the opposite.

 

Also, please expand on the Anti-Scientific notion. I'm sure scientists in the climate change field would be interested in understanding how they're getting it all wrong.

 

 

Putting FACT after a claim can also mean it is right.

 

Attempting to evaluate climate change caused by Humans on planet Earth is Futile. It's not testable.

 

It's not Systematic or Scientific. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.