Originally Posted by metalic (Post 2166186)

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.

]

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 2166241)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2166526)

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.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2166540)

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

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou (Post 2166566)

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,

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson (Post 2166531)

Why are the glaciers melting?

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2166506)

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

Originally Posted by metalic (Post 2166186)

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!

Originally Posted by metalic (Post 2166186)

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!

Originally Posted by dtennent (Post 2166595)

When looking at any set of data, it is important to take notice of inflection points. There are several studies now that indicate the inflection point occurred at the start of the industrial age. While we can argue whether this is an artifact due to other causes, we should consider the impact of different paths. For example, if you believe that climate change is not real, you can assign it a value of 1 (out of 10) However, that doesn't change the potential impact which would be very large. (10) . In a failure mode analysis, you would apply the resources to make sure that the negative impact doesn't happen. All the glib statements about Fred Flintstone's SUV will not help if the impact of climate change really occurs. Conversely, what happens if we take steps to minimize climate change? We will have spent resources on solar and wind power which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, our cities will have fewer IC engines contributing to air pollution. To me, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions is a much less risky path for the coming generations.