Talk of The Villages Florida - Climate Change v Global Warming

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- Weather Talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/weather-talk-515/)

- - Climate Change v Global Warming (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/weather-talk-515/climate-change-v-global-warming-337410/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon (Post 2166673)

Every word I post is the truth to the best of my knowledge. Are you now insulting my intelligence?

Not at all, I actually think you are fairly intelligent. You just happen to be on the wrong side of this issue. Remember what I wrote in the PM-----my posts deny any significant impact on climate from human activity TO DATE. When it comes to predicting the future, you might be right, and then again might not be. We simply don't have enough data compiled for 50-100 years to predict the next 10,000 years. Those who lack intelligence are those that think Florida will be under 100 feet of water 5 years from now.

Quote:

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!

No one (that you are claiming or are calling one) is denying climate change. It always has and always will occur. The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim humans are affecting the climate in a dangerous manner. This whole eco-fear program is a power and control grab by goverment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2166651)

Sorry ... the provided reference only points to old reports! Note ... the USGS has stopped reporting on glacier status after 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey . Why did they stop? In 2017 the USGS removed signs saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Why did they take them down? What are they hiding? Funny how our tax dollars only work when glaciers are melting.

What is funny is you discount the article without reading it.
You continue to accuse the USGS of no longer reporting when it is evident from your link that the USGS never provided yearly reporting at all. This has been brought to your attention twice before yet you disregard that and continue to misrepresent the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsimpson (Post 2166707)

I've pointed out before how similar this argument about climate change is to the argument about Covid vaccines. Just a small change to the wording of the quote above:

The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim the so-called "vaccines" are effective. This whole vaccine program is a power and control grab by goverment(sic).

Some on this thread believe both statements.

Some on this thread appear to wholeheartedly agree with the first but have spent endless paragraphs disputing the second.

I disagree with the second which causes me to sincerely question the first due to the essentially identical arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalic (Post 2166186)

Very good and well-worded thread starter. Kudos. I agree with 95% of everything stated there. I am definitely NOT a climate denier (see my other posts). However, I prefer to use the term Global Warming. As you say it was the original term. I like it, personally, because the words seem to have more "punch and pizzaz" than Climate Change, which seems a little "wimpy" and a cop-out to dumb down the immediacy of the problem. This is nothing more than a personal preference for me - I don't want to die on a hill debating the word choice. Climate Change is really fine with me and may better widen people's focus to include rivers and lakes drying up and species going extinct or losing population. For example, boats in the Mississippi which are a key part of the Us supply line were slowed due to low river conditions. The same situation has happened to the Rhine River which affects all of western Europe. The water is so low that a 2,500 metric ton freighter can ONLY carry 500 metric tons.

I prefer the term Global Warming because it shows the direct cause and effect between glaciers melting and rising ocean levels - between heating the earth and earthworm habitat moving steadily northward. The term GW better describes the increased absorption of CO2 into ocean water and bleaching and killing reef coral, which is a building block for fish species and the fishing industry. That is a good example of human fossil fuel combustion activity where humans are THEIR OWN worst enemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bay Kid (Post 2166239)

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

Destroying the lobster and fishing industry of the US does NOT add money to the US GBP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon (Post 2166676)

Will you ever consider or respond to the points I and others have made about the errors of your posts instead of ignoring those points and acting as if we never made them?

Additionally, Arctic sea-ice is greater than its 30-year low, Greenland snow mass is at record levels, Australia had a record cold spring, Antarctica had a record cold low, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing (in addition to many other glaciers) -- all because of global warming -- and the ongoing "end-of-snow" as promised by so many man-made global warming advocates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2166709)

So where's the latest USGS glacier report for GNP (Glacier National Park)? This report should on the front page of the NYT every year to highlight how the glaciers are dying horrible deaths. You can actually hear the glaciers scream "I'm melting". Why don't they report this? Maybe it's because all 7 glaciers on Mt Shasta are growing.

Quote:

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.

That's interesting about the next 100 years. I believe that we are already seeing geo-consequences. In the US, we have up to 1,000 per day Climate Refugees crossing our southern border. And masses of Climate Refugees are moving northward from recently uninhabitable regions of Africa due to heat and crop failures. It seems like Mr.Climate is "COOKING UP"something similar to what has been often predicted in Apocolypse-type movies. Good thing that we are old, but pity the grandchildren.

I came here to find out if man made climate change is a thing and I found out we can't even agree on "is there more ice now than 100 years ago" so good luck on convincing anybody of anything. It certainly looks like some part of the government thought there would be no glaciers left in glacier national park by the year 2020....which, obviously, they were wrong.

Nice discussion though (for the most part)

Joe

Quote:

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2166728)

Amazing! You don't try to comprehend what I wrote in my post and you have somehow relocated Mt Shasta from California to Montana!

Not so fast. It is ONLY a "proof of CONCEPT". A noted scientist stated that the problems associated with bringing the CONCEPT to a practical functioning generator is years, probably decades away. One major problem is the heat shield needed because of temperatures many times hotter than our sun. There are also other problems.

To better help one's grandchildren today we all need to sell our fossil fuel burning Golf Carts and get electric ones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 2166440)

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.

I believe that GW resolution needed to begin in about 1980 - when world population was much less than today, when we have Climate migration northward in the US and Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2166506)

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

I thought it was an asteroid crashing into earth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by banjobob (Post 2166520)

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.

Since the cause is fossil fuel engines emitting CO2 and the US and China are #1 and #2 in that pollution hierarchy, then it figures that the US has a large share of the blame. In point of fact, the 3rd world countries DO blame the US, China, and Europe and they demand reparations. I would say that they have a case in a theoretical way.