Climate Change v Global Warming
 

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

One lazy tactic of climate change deniers is to spout facts without checking. A recent one was that volcanic activity produces more carbon dioxide than human activity. It is actually about 1% - something which is very easy to check just by visiting any one of the reliable sites you can find through a search on the internet. Of course, you may stumble upon a site that claims that just one volcano produces more carbon dioxide than the total that humans have over millennia, the invalidity of which should be obvious to anyone.

Another is to keep referring to "data" from forty years ago as if it were newly released. Science has come a long way since the 1980's. Our measurements are much more accurate. We can glean a lot of information from space, looking back at Earth. Ice samples going back thousands of years have shown that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable until the start of industrialization in the late eighteenth century, since which it has increased by 50%. There have been similar increases (and decreases) in the distant past but these took around 10,000 years, not less than 250 years.

Don't be fooled!

Nice try, but here's a better definition:

Global warming is a sub-category of climate change, during which average global temperatures are rising. The opposite is global cooling, also a sub-category, which is obviously when global temperatures are dropping.

Both have occurred cyclically many times over in the past 4 million years (time frame of our current ice age). Neither have anything at all to do with the last 100 years of burning fossil fuels.

Unless, of course, anyone can name the make and model of Fred Flintstone's SUV:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Gotta be a record. THREE climate change/global warming discussions happening concurrently.

- The end of snow;
- Climate change vs global warming; and
- Cooling is coming.

(maybe there are more; I only looked on page one).

Probably due to the following concept:

The more the indoctrinated and true believers spout out nonsense, misinformation and warnings that the sky is falling, the more push back from those who know what they are talking about. Just a thought:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You know the old mantra…

### The one thing constant about climate is change. ###

Sometimes warming. Sometimes cooling. The debate is how much mankind contributes. But you can’t just point to climate change and immediately blame man for all of it.

Unfortunately, the current narrative by those with an agenda shows that they can.

Keep changing the name to assure they keep the money flowing.

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.

Want to bet?????

And best estimate of 1 C by whom??????

Bee-eye-en-gee-oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________________________

:censored:

Wait... I thought it was called "Global Warming", and when they couldn't prove that, they switched it to "Climate Change"...

And in the 1970's it was the impending ice age. The art of "doublespeak" at it's best.

As a kid I used to collect sharks teeth in a creek in Gainesville. I think the sea level has been changing for a few weeks now. lol

I’ll let you and the other “Google experts” “debate” this.

OK, second bet. I'll bet that I have a lot more expertise than a "Google expert"

I have no doubt that you believe that. Seriously, I don’t really care what you believe.

So, in other words, you won't bet and concede.

Whatever makes you happy.

Thank you.

To ease the handwringing and apoplectic worrying, a glimmer of hope:

Did anyone see the headlines yesterday stating US Scientists have made a major breakthrough in ‘limitless, zero-carbon’ fusion energy discovery? I would think if we can develop a vaccine in less than a year, we should be able to develop this fusion energy with lightspeed shortly, if this pans out. This appears to be phenomenal news!

*Notice I didn’t say implement, I said develop…

Ignorance is bliss.

I would not get too excited. There is often a big span between doing the basic science and engineering large scale production.

There shouldn’t be a big span in this day and age of innovation and stock market investments to say nothing of the panicked global warming brigade. Of course, there probably will be pushback from the solar investors.

Sadly, hesitation on the USA’s part will give China control over that discovery too.

What was accomplished is the creation of more energy than went into the process. This is an important milestone but commercial production is still a long ways away. The engineering and regulatory hurdles are immense.

It is only a long ways off if desired. Will you and I see it’s implementation? Most likely not, but perhaps this discovery will lead to a successful solution. Global warming resolution isn’t required this minute, but it’s development needs to begin.

I’m somewhat surprised by the lack of enthusiasm by climate theorists. I would think they would be all over the discovery and examine it’s possibilities rather than panning the announcement.

Who panned it? I doubt you can find anyone who doesn’t think this is good progress. However, it will be a long time before we see commercial fusion power. How long? Who knows but I doubt within my lifetime.

We’re old and we won’t see diesel construction equipment and factories turned to solar or wind before we die either. I believe we will have commercial fusion power eons before solar and wind for those endeavors.

I’d rather celebrate the half full glass, go America!

And that is a complete misquote.

What Thomas Gray wrote was "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." I see which path you have taken :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Do you feel better now? Seriously dude, take a chill pill.

Yes, thanks to the data that supports it. And the "agenda" is simply to inform the public of the findings, which, if ignored may prove quite problematic in the not to distant future.

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

I believe the climate is changing I do not think the cause is manmade, Especially when the scientist claim it is the fault of the US.

I wonder how many protesters will be up in arms when terraforming begins on Mars to make it inhabitable for humans. It's kind of interesting to read that "experts" say that man can't change the planet of Mars to make it fit for human habitation.

Why are the glaciers melting?

That's the estimate by the global warming establishment -- propaganda. There is no proof it is all caused by man-made CO2.

On earth, CO2 concentration is 0.04%. Mars CO2 concentration is 95%. I wonder how many humans caused that.

C'mon. You know the truly indoctrinated believers will state that our Martian ancestors, with whom we have 99.99999% DNA in common, ruined their planet due to "global warming" by driving SUVs that spewed CO2 into their atmosphere, so they had to move here and start the process over, starting with Fred Flintstone's Lincoln Navigator

But, the ice cores scientists have been studying show significant measurable changes since the Industrial Age. Prior to the Industrial Age the earth had an expectable pattern, but since the Industrial Age the ice cores reflect measurable acceleration not prior. Humans are speeding up the changes,

Probably, but by how much??????
And how much is balanced by volcanic activity?
And how much is offset by variations in the Earth's orbit???
And how much is reduced by decreases in water vapor????

Bottom line---we just DON'T KNOW. We cannot extrapolate 50-100 years of WEATHER data into 4 million years of CLIMATE CHANGE cycles.

Probably for the same reason they've been melting for 10s of thousands of years...

You are aware that most of the midwest was covered by 200 feet of ice at one time, right? Those glaciers melted and exposed what is probably the most fertile farmland in the world...

Was that a bad thing?