[metalic]

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!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by metalic

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.

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

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by metalic

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.

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).

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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

[Davonu]

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Davonu

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.

[Bay Kid]

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

[tuccillo]

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 golfing eagles

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

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??????

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

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

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

_____________________________________________

[JMintzer]

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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.

[ex34449]

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

[tuccillo]

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

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Want to bet?????

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

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"