Natural changes in the Earth's climate

[mybrainhurts]

Toaster said:

mybrainhurts said:

The fraudulent science that climate research is riddled with. You know, the stuff you keep ignoring.

I think the term Troll may just be appropriate in this case so unless you can eloquently explain I am afraid Hurtybrain your new label will be Mr Troll

You've been here for 94 months. If you've missed the years of threads on this forum cataloguing it all, go back and have a look. To start a discussion with you about stuff that's been covered over and over again would be tedious in the extreme for long term participants. I think you know already, though, don't you?

People keep popping up here to drive us round in circles. You know, trolls.

[Lotus 50]

mybrainhurts said:

You've been here for 94 months. If you've missed the years of threads on this forum cataloguing it all, go back and have a look. To start a discussion with you about stuff that's been covered over and over again would be tedious in the extreme for long term participants. I think you know already, though, don't you?

People keep popping up here to drive us round in circles. You know, trolls.

Err this is a new thread about Natural changes in the Earth's climate where the OP thought that people tended not to refer to natural climate variability when talking about climate change. Not the "Climate change the political debate" thread (AKA the thread in which human-induced climate change skeptics furiously agree with one another whilst patronising/name calling anyone who happens to come along and interrupt the party with more mainstream views) or the "Climate change science" thread which generally seems to adopt a more mainstream view. So you popping up in this thread and coming up, yet again with the "no climate change in the last 19 years...the data's fiddled...it's all a conspiracy" stuff could be seen as trolling - at the very least it's trying to generate a discussion that is outside the OP's original question.

Anyway, trying to get back on thread and in response to the article that Ash 73 posted, yes it is very possible for natural incidents to have very significant impacts on climate. In this case the ice retaining a glacial lake melted releasing a huge volume of cold, fresh water that resulted in significant global cooling. You can still see the landforms created by the lake in question (and the valley carved by the water as it escaped), they are huge and the event itself must have been awesome. There are lots of things that can have sudden cooling or warming effects on the overall climate. Volcanic activity can cause cooling and has been identified as a possible factor in mass extinctions in the geologic past alongside asteroid impacts. At the moment we're going through an El Nino event which is a natural cycle whereby the upwelling of a warm ocean current produces warm air masses in the southern hemisphere that ls likely to have lead to the recent warm and wet weather here (and very cold weather in North America). That said some of these natural cycles could be made more extreme as a result of human induced climate changes (e.g. more heat stored in the S. Pacific ocean = more intense El Nino or warming areas of permafrost relates trapped methane which then causes further atmospheric warming). The point is, though, that the OP is right and there probably should be more reference to natural effects in climate alongside those that are as a result of people's activity (it could also be argued that people have occurred naturally so their impacts are also natural!). Scientists generally do try to make this point clear, however, this often gets lost as the information gets reported by the press.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 31st January 09:43

[mybrainhurts]

Lotus 50 said:

mybrainhurts said:

You've been here for 94 months. If you've missed the years of threads on this forum cataloguing it all, go back and have a look. To start a discussion with you about stuff that's been covered over and over again would be tedious in the extreme for long term participants. I think you know already, though, don't you?

People keep popping up here to drive us round in circles. You know, trolls.

Err this is a new thread about Natural changes in the Earth's climate where the OP thought that people tended not to refer to natural climate variability when talking about climate change. Not the "Climate change the political debate" thread (AKA the thread in which human-induced climate change skeptics furiously agree with one another whilst patronising/name calling anyone who happens to come along and interrupt the party with more mainstream views) or the "Climate change science" thread which generally seems to adopt a more mainstream view. So you popping up in this thread and coming up, yet again with the "no climate change in the last 19 years...the data's fiddled...it's all a conspiracy" stuff could be seen as trolling - at the very least it's trying to generate a discussion that is outside the OP's original question.

If you took the trouble to look, t'was not I who derailed it.

Where did you think it was going to go? What's to discuss about natural variability, other than to claim it's not the dominant aspect of change?

[anonymous-user]

mybrainhurts said:

If you took the trouble to look, t'was not I who derailed it.

Where did you think it was going to go? What's to discuss about natural variability, other than to claim it's not the dominant aspect of change?

There's plenty to talk about considering we don't really know the cause and nature of natural variation.

As others have said let's not let the usual suspects turn this into another boring PH dogmatic climate thread.

[ALT F4]

Toaster said:

mybrainhurts said:

The fraudulent science that climate research is riddled with. You know, the stuff you keep ignoring.

I think the term Troll may just be appropriate in this case so unless you can eloquently explain I am afraid Hurtybrain your new label will be Mr Troll

Troll used already?
I thought the usual first step was holocaust denier?


Climategate?
There were a good number of emails from the CRU that demonstrated the scientific method was not being followed and it was more political than anything meaningful.
(These were mostly discussed in one of the previous PH threads for all to review if you need a memory jog).

Then there is the demonstrated practice of weather stations being positioned to record higher than average temps. (ie. next to air-con units, or in areas of concrete density whereby heat is radiated towards the station.

Then there is the failed global warming theory by which all CO2 taxation was based up on - which surprisingly is still in place today even though the theory failed.

Then there is the 'normalised'/'adjusted' data that is fudged one way or another to fit a trend.

Then there are the computer models that are nothing more than 'told' what to produce. (All - of which are publicised for political use - to date have been proven to be wrong on predicting the future trend in the climate).

Then there is the constant pushing of 'scientific consensus' whereby if you look closer at what this is meaning it is clear to see there is no such consensus at all. Which in itself is not important as science operates on the scientific method rather than public consensus.

But never mind, because the science is settled isn't it?

[JoeMarano]

Bring on the clowns said:

Isn't it one of those cliched 'internet hardcore' posts, to show how he's so tough and doesn't care about anyone other than himself. Hope he never has children...

I think it's more the fact i'll be dead. I don't think anyone has cared about anything after they have died...... as they are dead.

[Foliage]

The problems with the science etc doesn't get around the fact we are pumping gases into the atmosphere that are toxic, whether we become extinct or our way of life changes forever due to a change in the weather or our atmosphere becoming toxic doesn't matter, we need to move away from burning stuff for fuel, we need to move onto technologies that are not going to poison the planet for our species....

I think not enough is being done to stop the biggest culprits.

[Jinx]

Foliage said:

The problems with the science etc doesn't get around the fact we are pumping gases into the atmosphere that are toxic, whether we become extinct or our way of life changes forever due to a change in the weather or our atmosphere becoming toxic doesn't matter, we need to move away from burning stuff for fuel, we need to move onto technologies that are not going to poison the planet for our species....

I think not enough is being done to stop the biggest culprits.

What toxins are you referring to? Most tend to be short lived and get "rained out" very quickly (toxins tend to be of the "heavier" elements that do not last in the atmosphere) .

[Einion Yrth]

CO2 is an asphyxiant. At concentrations approximately 2000 times higher than current atmospheric levels.

[Moonhawk]

Simpo Two said:

There's a bit of difference between having frozen poles and being in an ice age. If this was an ice age you'd be under 100' of solid ice...

Is there though? Although we call it the "ice age" - wan't it really just an extension of the polar ice cap to lower latitudes than we currently experience?

The polar ice caps wax and wane over time. There are many periods of earth's history where the planet had no permanent polar ice caps (the majority of the time in fact according to some studies).....so it could be argued earth is still in an 'ice age' of sorts.

[Prof Prolapse]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm just glad they've found somewhere to voice themselves where no one cares.