So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....

[daws101]

Right of course you would.

Mean time there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

Why?

of course I would what ? point out that your source is a steaming pile?
of course i would.
and of course, when I pointed out that it has zero credibility you,of course side stepped as of course, you have no answer.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

again another meaningless wall of text...

guess you thought this : "But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says." was unimportant.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I really don't know why you call what you may be wearing what you call it ... So why ask me?
Furthermore ... You could call it a skirt for all I care ... I know the difference.

.

Suddenly your logic has changed...Funny how that works almost as if it was bullshit to begin with

My logic never changed because it never relied on your agreement or what you think.
To me they are two different things ... To you they need to mean the same ... Which doesn't answer the original question of why they started calling it something different.

Now either accept it or don't ... The logic is simple ... And if you cannot figure that out, then that isn't my problem.

.

So they arent the same thing because "to you they are 2 different things". Well I guess that it folks. Such overwhelming evidence

 

[westwall]

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

It's more legit than skeptical science. These are actual peer reviewed papers that have not been "pal" reviewed.

written by who and peer reviewed by who?
without that info it's trash..
you'll understand that your word on it's veracity carries no weight.

I don't expect it too. However, if you would dare to open the link you would see they are legit peer reviewed studies. It doesn't get any plainer than that. If you CHOOSE to not look that is on you. The source is fine. It's your motivations and prejudices that determine what you allow yourself to look at.

A person interested in science would look. I look at everything you AGW supporters post. I want to know what is being said or researched. Why do you not want to have every possible scrap of information available to you?

Afraid of what you will discover?

 

[westwall]

Suddenly your logic has changed...Funny how that works almost as if it was bullshit to begin with

My logic never changed because it never relied on your agreement or what you think.
To me they are two different things ... To you they need to mean the same ... Which doesn't answer the original question of why they started calling it something different.

Now either accept it or don't ... The logic is simple ... And if you cannot figure that out, then that isn't my problem.

.

So they arent the same thing because "to you they are 2 different things". Well I guess that it folks. Such overwhelming evidence

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

 

[Roudy]

For those in the East Coast, South, etc. that are suffering from the "rise" In temperatures due to "global warming". Repeat this chant when the temperatures hit below minus 10, it helps alleviate the pain:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=rPdGhaNK0IU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrPdGhaNK0IU]Funniest Arab Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ClosedCaption]

My logic never changed because it never relied on your agreement or what you think.
To me they are two different things ... To you they need to mean the same ... Which doesn't answer the original question of why they started calling it something different.

Now either accept it or don't ... The logic is simple ... And if you cannot figure that out, then that isn't my problem.

.

So they arent the same thing because "to you they are 2 different things". Well I guess that it folks. Such overwhelming evidence

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Now to say that because the name changed that means its not real is fallacy. Like Sneakers and Tennis Shoes...Knickers and Pants..

Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

Inadvertent Climate Modification wasnt catchy enough... Sooo Global Warming caught on instead.

Long story short..You're full of shit

 

[Theowl32]

So they arent the same thing because "to you they are 2 different things". Well I guess that it folks. Such overwhelming evidence

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA

Well, it is about time.

They admit the two terms are different.

Now, why did they change the terminology, if man made global warming is indeed a fact?

Go ahead.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

How does another name mean that it doesnt exist? If you can explain that that would help with your point

 

[ClosedCaption]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

You idiot, one bolt of lightning has the energy to keep new york city lit up for a while. So your saying man is more powerful?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Why did you avoid the question?

this dude ran like shit when he got called on his bolt of lightening response

 

[Theowl32]

How does another name mean that it doesnt exist? If you can explain that that would help with your point

Yeah, uhh no. You did not answer the question.

Why the change in terminology? Since we agree that they do not mean the same thing, why the change.

Well, go ahead. Take an educated guess on why there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

For 1000th time. Why the change?

 

[ClosedCaption]

How does another name mean that it doesnt exist? If you can explain that that would help with your point

Yeah, uhh no. You did not answer the question.

Why the change in terminology? Since we agree that they do not mean the same thing, why the change.

Because they dont mean the same thing. Are you being serious right now? Is Ashton Kutcher somewhere?

Well, go ahead. Take an educated guess on why there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

For 1000th time. Why the change?

Because it refers to two different things. What about it? Is there a point you're making?

 

[westwall]

So they arent the same thing because "to you they are 2 different things". Well I guess that it folks. Such overwhelming evidence

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Now to say that because the name changed that means its not real is fallacy. Like Sneakers and Tennis Shoes...Knickers and Pants..

Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

Inadvertent Climate Modification wasnt catchy enough... Sooo Global Warming caught on instead.

Long story short..You're full of shit

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

 

[Theowl32]

Because it refers to two different things. What about it? Is there a point you're making?

So, when Obama says climate change is a fact, he is not referring to man made global warming? Cool, cause there are assholes on the left that think he is referring to man made global warming when he mentioned that climate change is a fact.

He was not referring to man made global warming, or was he referring to man made global warming?

It is very difficult to lead you double talking hypocrites to the point. You are in such denial. You are either pretending not to know what the point is, or you are that dumb.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I shouldn't. Cause I believe in other posts in this thread you equated to the two terms. Now, you say they are indeed different.

It took us a while to get you to the point where you had no choice but to admit they are different.

Now, back to the point. You still do not get the point, or do I need to drag you kicking and screaming to the point?

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA



Now to say that because the name changed that means its not real is fallacy. Like Sneakers and Tennis Shoes...Knickers and Pants..

Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

Inadvertent Climate Modification wasnt catchy enough... Sooo Global Warming caught on instead.

Long story short..You're full of shit

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No, global warming is completely different from climate change.
Want to know why?

Global warming assumes a continuous rise in global temperature. Hence the term.


Climate Change assumes warmer AND cooler periods in the global temperature record.

See that part where it can be cooler? THAT'S what makes them different.

See how easy it is when you open your eyes?

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA



Now to say that because the name changed that means its not real is fallacy. Like Sneakers and Tennis Shoes...Knickers and Pants..

Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

Inadvertent Climate Modification wasnt catchy enough... Sooo Global Warming caught on instead.

Long story short..You're full of shit

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

UNFALSIFIABILITY
(also known as: untestibility)

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

 

[Theowl32]

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Oh yeah? Where is your evidence that man made global warming has such a dramatic effect?

Not.....global warming. Man made global warming.

DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Oh yeah? Where is your evidence that man made global warming has such a dramatic effect?

Not.....global warming. Man made global warming.

DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?

I didnt say it did. Hence why you are confused.

I'm glad that at least now you understand Global warming and Climate Change arent the same and thats why they have different names. Its a breakthrough. Celebrate it

 

[Theowl32]

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Oh yeah? Where is your evidence that man made global warming has such a dramatic effect?

Not.....global warming. Man made global warming.

DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?

I didnt say it did. Hence why you are confused.

I'm glad that at least now you understand Global warming and Climate Change arent the same and thats why they have different names. Its a breakthrough. Celebrate it

So, again......

When Obama said climate change in his speech, you are saying he was not referring to global warming (man made)?

Now, tell that to your tards on the left that insist the two terms are the same.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.

Fact- Climtae Change exists

Fact- It always has

Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)

You're wrong of course. But let's put aside your last 'fact' and concentrate on the first two. We are experiencing rising oceans and more intense weather (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Ice Storms in the deep south, droughts and regional changes). On that we can agree.

We need to prepare for these events and to do so costs money. Yet we have a dysfunctional H. of Rep. whose entire focus is on the huge debt, and they're unwilling to spent the billions of dollars to rebuild, renew and repair, the nations infrastructure. By doing so jobs will be created, private sector jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation (roads, rivers, man-made canals, rail, etc.) and the economy will once again show robust growth, less citizens will suffer and die, and water can be collected and distributed to regions in need.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh yeah? Where is your evidence that man made global warming has such a dramatic effect?

Not.....global warming. Man made global warming.

DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?

I didnt say it did. Hence why you are confused.

I'm glad that at least now you understand Global warming and Climate Change arent the same and thats why they have different names. Its a breakthrough. Celebrate it

So, again......

When Obama said climate change in his speech, you are saying he was not referring to global warming (man made)?

Now, tell that to your tards on the left that insist the two terms are the same.

It's the echo chamber on the right that insists on calling climate change global warming. Man does have an impact on the environment, how much is man-made is an open question. But put that aside and read my post above.