[Caymus]

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.

]

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

[banjobob]

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.

[Byte1]

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.

[JoelJohnson]

Why are the glaciers melting?

[sounding]

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.

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

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Byte1

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.

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by sounding

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

[Ptmckiou]

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,

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

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.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

Why are the glaciers melting?

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?

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

The China Flu.

[sounding]

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.

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!

Because of a Cold Front ... The Dec 15 Weather Club meeting is cancelled due to the threat of severe weather. However, the same talk (How The Oceans Influence Our Weather) will be given Dec 16 (Friday) at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

[dtennent]

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.

[rogerrice60]

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.

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!

Here is a quick solution to your concerns.
In the 1960's Global Cooling was the new WORRY of the climate group, they were on most radio stations spreading FEAR that the ice cap was growing so fast it would flip the world off its axis.
Find out how they solved that state of "PANIC" and DIAL IT BACK THE 0.02 deg. You are concerned about..

[sounding]

Originally Posted by dtennent

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.

The sun controls our climate -- except for short term affects of volcanoes. Also, we are in a CO2 famine, so the more greenhouse emissions we create the better.