Carbon dioxide levels grew at record pace in 2016, U.N. says

[taipeir]

It's coming the same like autumn follows summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-shanghai-3c-warming-cities-underwater



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[taipeir]

Rick, my complaint remains. Look at the long sweep of a century in the lower chart - lots of bumps in the road, but a trend upwards that you are avoiding.

I supposed it has to be spelt out again -- I was not making any point about temperature or climate itself, but about the media treatment of it. Of course the temperature has gone up -- I even helpfully quantified the amount: 0.66C in the 150 years since 1867.

 

Yes, there are sensationalists in the media. They exist on both side.

That is trivially true. The overwhelming majority of media reports are of the Imminent Thermageddon Earth On Fire Death To the Poley Bears type.

 

 I think the effect on food, especially grain crops of the world, will be far quicker and cause much more conflict. Mass crop failures are likely to appear by mid century, even in the USA corn belt.

You echo the sentiments in this government report:

 

The economic and political impact of a major climatic shift is almost beyond comprehension. The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world. The resultant unrest caused by the mass movement of peoples across borders cannot be met with existing analytical tools.

 

That was written by the CIA, in 1974. Subject: Catastrophic Global Cooling. So forgive me if I remain skeptical of apocalyptic claims. History does not support them.

 

 

Again good point about false warnings before.

 

However our climate modelling ability using super computers and better datasets , satellites and ocean sensors is vastly superior compared to 40 years ago.

 

This time the science is really strong.

History is not compatible in terms of science here.

 

Now we also have to take into account the massive population growth and factor in much higher energy use due to improved living standards worldwide.

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

However our climate modelling ability using super computers and better datasets , satellites and ocean sensors is vastly superior compared to 40 years ago.

 

This time the science is really strong.

History is not compatible in terms of science here.

 

It would be nice to think so, but the newer predictions coming from the climate community are frequently just as bad as those of the 1970s.

 

Who could forget this clunker, supercomputers and all.  In 1987, Dr. John Holdren, University of California physicist [later, Obama's science director] said it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. In a 2009 Senate hearing, he restated the claim. Reality? There was a 42% reduction in the number of hungry and undernourished people from 1990-1992 to 2012-2014.

--

2008 - UN Deputy secretary-general Srgjan Kerim, tells the UN General Assembly, that it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. Nope, didn't happen. So, reboot, according to the playbook. 2011 - Cristina Tirado, from the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, says 50 million “environmental refugees” will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change. Reality? As of 2017, one man from Kiribati tried to claim refugee status in New Zealand as a "climate refugee". His plea was dismissed.
---
Probably my favourite is this one:

In 2007, Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that global warming will make Earth spin faster. In 2015, Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change.

 

That's the magic of climate change, which can do one thing and its opposite simultaneously.

 

You name it; warming, warming rate, sea ice, sea level, demise of poley bears, glaciers, sinking nations, climate refugees, food shortages, the supercomputers are hardly even hitting the dartboard.

 

Then there's the things they didn't predict: greener planet, more forest biomass, greater carbon sinks, the warming slowdown.

 

Conclusion: These people, with or without supercomputers, are clueless when it comes to prediction, and governments shouldn't base policy on what they say.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I supposed it has to be spelt out again -- I was not making any point about temperature or climate itself, but about the media treatment of it. Of course the temperature has gone up -- I even helpfully quantified the amount: 0.66C in the 150 years since 1867.

 

That is trivially true. The overwhelming majority of media reports are of the Imminent Thermageddon Earth On Fire Death To the Poley Bears type.

 

You echo the sentiments in this government report:

 

The economic and political impact of a major climatic shift is almost beyond comprehension. The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world. The resultant unrest caused by the mass movement of peoples across borders cannot be met with existing analytical tools.

 

That was written by the CIA, in 1974. Subject: Catastrophic Global Cooling. So forgive me if I remain skeptical of apocalyptic claims. History does not support them.

 

 

ANd of course, the theory of global cooling gained wide currency until 97 percent of climate scientists accepted it. In your alternative universe. In this one, it never gained much traction.  

[RickBradford]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

ANd of course, the theory of global cooling gained wide currency until 97 percent of climate scientists accepted it. In your alternative universe. In this one, it never gained much traction.  

A very silly comment, since it's impossible to tell how many climate scientists there were back then (not many) and how many of them were needed to convince the CIA that a dangerous new ice age was just round the corner.

 

Nowadays, there are multitudes of climate scientists of one stripe or another, all of them with access to social media. Most of them, I would like to believe, are acting in good faith and doing the science as best they can, without fear or favour.

 

But there are people in the climate science community who regard the topic  as just another branch of social justice warrior politics, agit-prop against racist and sexist oppressors, and part of their desperate search to achieve "victimhood" status.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It would be nice to think so, but the newer predictions coming from the climate community are frequently just as bad as those of the 1970s.

 

Who could forget this clunker, supercomputers and all.  In 1987, Dr. John Holdren, University of California physicist [later, Obama's science director] said it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. In a 2009 Senate hearing, he restated the claim. Reality? There was a 42% reduction in the number of hungry and undernourished people from 1990-1992 to 2012-2014.

--

2008 - UN Deputy secretary-general Srgjan Kerim, tells the UN General Assembly, that it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. Nope, didn't happen. So, reboot, according to the playbook. 2011 - Cristina Tirado, from the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, says 50 million “environmental refugees” will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change. Reality? As of 2017, one man from Kiribati tried to claim refugee status in New Zealand as a "climate refugee". His plea was dismissed.
---
Probably my favourite is this one:

In 2007, Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that global warming will make Earth spin faster. In 2015, Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change.

 

That's the magic of climate change, which can do one thing and its opposite simultaneously.

 

You name it; warming, warming rate, sea ice, sea level, demise of poley bears, glaciers, sinking nations, climate refugees, food shortages, the supercomputers are hardly even hitting the dartboard.

 

Then there's the things they didn't predict: greener planet, more forest biomass, greater carbon sinks, the warming slowdown.

 

Conclusion: These people, with or without supercomputers, are clueless when it comes to prediction, and governments shouldn't base policy on what they say.

Actually, one of the biggest reasons for the civil war in Syria was the unprecedented heat wave and drought that proved devastating for Syria. And I've got news for you, the year is 2017. It's not 2020 yet.

 

[luk AJ]

This report just came out
https://futurism.com/humans-dominant-cause-global-warming-us-government-study/


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[RickBradford]

Quote

Actually, one of the biggest reasons for the civil war in Syria was the unprecedented heat wave and drought that proved devastating for Syria.

 

That is far from being accepted as true. One of the latest studies says the claim is simply untrue:

 

“Our paper finds that there is no sound evidence that global climate change was a factor in sparking the Syrian civil war. Indeed, it is extraordinary that this claim has become so widely accepted when the scientific evidence for it is so thin,” said Jan Selby, who directs the Centre for Conflict and Security Research at Sussex University in the UK.

 

Not that lack of evidence ever bothered the activists. Just because something feels like it should be true, doesn't make it so.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

That is far from being accepted as true. One of the latest studies says the claim is simply untrue:

 

“Our paper finds that there is no sound evidence that global climate change was a factor in sparking the Syrian civil war. Indeed, it is extraordinary that this claim has become so widely accepted when the scientific evidence for it is so thin,” said Jan Selby, who directs the Centre for Conflict and Security Research at Sussex University in the UK.

 

Not that lack of evidence ever bothered the activists. Just because something feels like it should be true, doesn't make it so.

The study did not dispute the strong likelihood that climate change was responsible for the prolonged drought and high heat. It disputed that this contributed to the Syrian civil war. But it's hardly definitive.

 

 

Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought

There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.full

[ExpatOilWorker]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The study did not dispute the strong likelihood that climate change was responsible for the prolonged drought and high heat. It disputed that this contributed to the Syrian civil war. But it's hardly definitive.

 

 

Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought

There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.full

Try watching "Cries from Syria", if you can stomach a bit of reality. The war is Syria was a political conflict, period.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Try watching "Cries from Syria", if you can stomach a bit of reality. The war is Syria was a political conflict, period.

 

 

 

Because political conflicts are just about politics? And politics are uninfluenced by major events in the world? Nonsense.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Because political conflicts are just about politics? And politics are uninfluenced by major events in the world? Nonsense.

Then in your twisted world of logic the Scandinavian peninsula will soon be a raging fireball of war, since we all have been told that climate change affects the northern region more.

But, hey maybe you are onto something here, the madness of Brexit was also caused by climate change, right?

The nonsense part we totally agree on.

[RickBradford]

Quote

The study did not dispute the strong likelihood that climate change was responsible for the prolonged drought and high heat. It disputed that this contributed to the Syrian civil war. But it's hardly definitive.

No, it isn't definitive, by any means. 

 

It may be that there are as many, if not more, reports suggesting that climate change did contribute to the Syrian civil war as those which say it didn't.

 

Different people, analysing data in different ways, perhaps with different agendas influencing their work, consciously or unconsciously, come to radically opposed conclusions. It's called a "difference of opinion".

 

If such differences of opinion were tolerated across the entirety of climate science and climate policy, that would be beneficial all round.

 

But the activists demand that climate matters be treated as entirely separate and special ("The debate is over, the science is settled") which is neither a scientific attitude, an honest attitude, or one that helps efforts to combat the impacts of climate change effects, whether natural or man-made.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Then in your twisted world of logic the Scandinavian peninsula will soon be a raging fireball of war, since we all have been told that climate change affects the northern region more.

But, hey maybe you are onto something here, the madness of Brexit was also caused by climate change, right?

The nonsense part we totally agree on.

You don't seem to understand how the political and natural world interact. Thanks to socialism ,strong economies and a collective ethic, the Scandinavian countries are well able to adapt to climate change. But take an unstable country like Syria with a weak economy, a divided populace, and throw in a massive drought and high heat, and that can tip it into disaster..

[taipeir]

You don't seem to understand how the political and natural world interact. Thanks to socialism ,strong economies and a collective ethic, the Scandinavian countries are well able to adapt to climate change. But take an unstable country like Syria with a weak economy, a divided populace, and throw in a massive drought and high heat, and that can tip it into disaster..

Yep, the gulf is also excepted to suffer major temperature rise over next few decades, making some areas extremely difficult to live in.

 

Although I'd be more concerned about countries like Bangladesh flooding cresting huge refugee waves or cities like Delhi or Islamabad becoming so heat stressed that they are barely functional.

 

 

This is a good article, air cons pushing heat into public spaces abd releasing some greenhouse gases and more concrete buildings are going to accelerate temp rise in cities.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16290934/india-air-conditioner-cooler-design-climate-change-cept-symphony

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

On 11/3/2017 at 6:45 PM, RickBradford said:

It would be nice to think so, but the newer predictions coming from the climate community are frequently just as bad as those of the 1970s.

 

Who could forget this clunker, supercomputers and all.  In 1987, Dr. John Holdren, University of California physicist [later, Obama's science director] said it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. In a 2009 Senate hearing, he restated the claim. Reality? There was a 42% reduction in the number of hungry and undernourished people from 1990-1992 to 2012-2014.

--

2008 - UN Deputy secretary-general Srgjan Kerim, tells the UN General Assembly, that it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. Nope, didn't happen. So, reboot, according to the playbook. 2011 - Cristina Tirado, from the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, says 50 million “environmental refugees” will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change. Reality? As of 2017, one man from Kiribati tried to claim refugee status in New Zealand as a "climate refugee". His plea was dismissed.
---
Probably my favourite is this one:

In 2007, Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that global warming will make Earth spin faster. In 2015, Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change.

 

That's the magic of climate change, which can do one thing and its opposite simultaneously.

 

You name it; warming, warming rate, sea ice, sea level, demise of poley bears, glaciers, sinking nations, climate refugees, food shortages, the supercomputers are hardly even hitting the dartboard.

 

Then there's the things they didn't predict: greener planet, more forest biomass, greater carbon sinks, the warming slowdown.

 

Conclusion: These people, with or without supercomputers, are clueless when it comes to prediction, and governments shouldn't base policy on what they say.

What warming slowdown?

[RPCVguy]

DOES it matter thatCO2 concentrations are growing faster now, even as human emissions are leveling off?
Check the "Executive Summary" of the most recent and comprehensive of reports on climate change - this
Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
Climate Science Special Report

The global view... " (left) Global annual average temperature has increased by more than 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960. Red bars show temperatures that were above the 1901–1960 average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the average. (right) Surface temperature change (in °F) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960. Gray indicates missing data. From Figures 1.2. and 1.3 in Chapter 1. "

 

 

The change in the balance of Earth systems over the past century [read Greenhouse Gas Emissions above and beyond prior natural balances] is listed as "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence. Solar output changes and internal natural variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and there is no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate. (Very high confidence)

As others here enjoy pointing out, there are consequences that are yet unquantified as to what KNOWN processes will or will not unfold. 
These are introduced as 3 Key Issues in Chapter 15 of the above report. [https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/]

I have combined that listing of key issues with a graphic by an acquaintance of mine.
THESE ARE THE RISKS OUR GLOBAL SOCIETY FACES - GAMBLING THE HABITABILITY OF THE ONLY PLANET WE HUMANS OCCUPY.

Reading through the many comments and retorts posted above, I also repeat my sad assessment that humans will not unify to face these issues in a way that has a likelihood of seriously/ significantly mitigating the damage and destruction that lies ahead. Lessening economic inequality would buy some time, a significant version of family planning (maybe by some lottery system) and shift away from the marketing of consumption would each be needed as beginning steps. No-way, no-how do I see that happening.

What we have started is gaining momentum beyond our continued emissions:

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

35 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

The global view... " (left) Global annual average temperature has increased by more than 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960. Red bars show temperatures that were above the 1901–1960 average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the average. (right) Surface temperature change (in °F) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960. Gray indicates missing data. From Figures 1.2. and 1.3 in Chapter 1. "

 

It is really sad how this debate have becoming misleading and all about cherry picking date points. In the above graph, they have selected 1901-1960 as the golden standard for the global average. This was probably a relative cold period and viola, the current warming look ohhh so scary again. 

 

[RPCVguy]

22 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It is really sad how this debate have becoming misleading and all about cherry picking date points. In the above graph, they have selected 1901-1960 as the golden standard for the global average. This was probably a relative cold period and viola, the current warming look ohhh so scary again. 

 

No! The debate in this thread has not been about the preindustrial baseline temperature (which is the horizontal line) Most of the debate is about what consequences are following the adding of insulating greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
The cherry picking you are suggesting is when people pick and choose start and end points arbitrarily as in this graphic, a number of short start and end points each seem opposite to the long term trend. (As was done in a prior post picking the dates Feb 2016 vs Sept 2017.)

1880 is about as far back as various national records go back  - so as to allow instrumental readings. Check web searches and see, 1880 is generally the modern starting point.
In my earlier post, the annual averages were then listed. Look at the slope of the graph from 1880 or 1900, it is still showing a long term and persistent warming trend...

Next, look from the mid 20th century onward. The trend from about 1960 diverges from what all other known energy influence (orbital patterns, aerosols, volcanoes, solar radiance) would predict UNTIL one includes the imbalances of human changes to greenhouse gases. Scrolling down this one link to see the various interactive graphics is extremely helpful at comparing the various effects.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[TKDfella]

20 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

No! The debate in this thread has not been about the preindustrial baseline temperature (which is the horizontal line) Most of the debate is about what consequences are following the adding of insulating greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
The cherry picking you are suggesting is when people pick and choose start and end points arbitrarily as in this graphic, a number of short start and end points each seem opposite to the long term trend. (As was done in a prior post picking the dates Feb 2016 vs Sept 2017.)

1880 is about as far back as various national records go back  - so as to allow instrumental readings. Check web searches and see, 1880 is generally the modern starting point.
In my earlier post, the annual averages were then listed. Look at the slope of the graph from 1880 or 1900, it is still showing a long term and persistent warming trend...

Next, look from the mid 20th century onward. The trend from about 1960 diverges from what all other known energy influence (orbital patterns, aerosols, volcanoes, solar radiance) would predict UNTIL one includes the imbalances of human changes to greenhouse gases. Scrolling down this one link to see the various interactive graphics is extremely helpful at comparing the various effects.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Yes that's quite good as it is brief and straight to the point...as long as the one accepts the the results that produce the graphs. However, one point that might, and I do say 'might',  have an effect but was not not included. It talked about the Earth's orbit, the Sun's influence and what should have been in that category was the Solar System's movement through the galaxy. The probable reason for omitting that is because we just don't know what is different now to say, a 100, 200, etc. years ago. Space is not empty especially within a galaxy, with all forms of radiation, 'dust' particles and so on.  Although biological prehistoric records might show this & that they won't show the why's and the wherefore's. However, having the said that IMHO even going through some 'dust clouds' probably wouldn't attribute too much to the increase in Earth's temperature. Would be interesting to see the 'log book' in say, a couple of hundred years time...assuming we don't suffocate ourselves before then, Ha!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:47 PM, taipeir said:

Why is climate change not valid? 

 

Climate change is linked to population growth but it is also a specific problem from burning fossil fuels worldwide.

Its real, it's here and it has serious consequences, as I described it's already very apparent in Taiwan over the last decade.

 

As for population growth not being our problem it does become our problem because it really is a small world, it's impossible to be isolated from the effects.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

It's not valid because the vast, vast number of ( rapidly increasing ) people all want to live like Americans and scorn any attempt to make them live like primitives for ever ( only a tiny minority of the world's human population currently live like Americans ).

Saying that all people should give up fossil fuel use is ridiculous as it is probably impossible. The west would have to pay the poor nations to change to a non fossil fuel energy economy and that would bankrupt them.

 

Climate change apparently happened ( according to the C C scientists ) because too many people are burning fossil fuel, "too many" being the operative words. Reduce the population to pre 20th century levels and the problem goes away.

However, mankind will not do it willingly so it will be done unwillingly through war, starvation and disease.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:50 PM, RPCVguy said:

I've no doubt as to where we are headed. Sadness at the folly of how we are proceeding, ... but not doubt.
 

 

Last night I stayed in a restaurant on top of the hills between Lampang and Lamphun and watched over 5,000 fossil fuelled vehicles proceed at walking pace to try and get over the hill at the same time. It took over 5 hours for the traffic jam to end.

I thought to myself that it was the very definition of how INSANE the modern world had become.

The pity of it all is that there is a railway line between Lampang and Lamphun/ Chiang Mai where most of the vehicles were undoubtedly headed. If the railways were run properly, they could have taken most of those people and cargoes at a fraction of the carbon output.

The tragedy is that even if the railways were run properly, probably not a single person would have taken a train in preference.

Looking at the 5 hour disaster taking place, I had to question if humanity even deserves to survive, considering that such events take place every day all over the planet, even if not so prolonged. IMO only collective stupidity allows such farces to continue day after day after day without taking steps to change it.

To date the only change taking place is building wider roads to allow even more CO2 emitting vehicles to travel on the roads. Insane? You be the judge.

[TKDfella]

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not valid because the vast, vast number of ( rapidly increasing ) people all want to live like Americans and scorn any attempt to make them live like primitives for ever ( only a tiny minority of the world's human population currently live like Americans ).

Saying that all people should give up fossil fuel use is ridiculous as it is probably impossible. The west would have to pay the poor nations to change to a non fossil fuel energy economy and that would bankrupt them.

 

Climate change apparently happened ( according to the C C scientists ) because too many people are burning fossil fuel, "too many" being the operative words. Reduce the population to pre 20th century levels and the problem goes away.

However, mankind will not do it willingly so it will be done unwillingly through war, starvation and disease.

There is a difference between climate change and global warming so it's important to use the correct terms when discussing the matters. Climate Change is a continuing process from year dot (as it were). The Earth's climate can change to cooler temperatures or go to opposite depending on factors. Global warming is more specific as it clearly implies a temperature rise. It is that temperature rise currently happening that is a matter of debate, One camp says the cause is antropogenic and the other camp says it isn't.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, TKDfella said:

There is a difference between climate change and global warming so it's important to use the correct terms when discussing the matters. Climate Change is a continuing process from year dot (as it were). The Earth's climate can change to cooler temperatures or go to opposite depending on factors. Global warming is more specific as it clearly implies a temperature rise. It is that temperature rise currently happening that is a matter of debate, One camp says the cause is antropogenic and the other camp says it isn't.

It is worth knowing that the term "global warming" that was initially used by the "man made" group was changed to "climate change" because the world wasn't actually "warming" ( much ). Hence it is now a political term, rather than a literal term.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It is worth knowing that the term "global warming" that was initially used by the "man made" group was changed to "climate change" because the world wasn't actually "warming" ( much ). Hence it is now a political term, rather than a literal term.

And where did you come up with this factoid? Got some kind of link to provide support?

[TKDfella]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It is worth knowing that the term "global warming" that was initially used by the "man made" group was changed to "climate change" because the world wasn't actually "warming" ( much ). Hence it is now a political term, rather than a literal term.

Nope! Global Warming is technically known as 'Inadvertent Climatic Variation' (some use 'trend' instead of 'variation' ). This was to distinguish it from Climate Change which is viewed as a natural phenomena. The term 'global warming' isn't a new term and can be traced back about 50 years (give or take a bit). Climate Change refers to Long term natural changes whereas ICV implies thermal changes over a much shorter period and 'Inadvertent' was also intended to imply artificially produced GHG's. Perhaps ICV is rather a mouthful for some so various 'corruptions' are spoken. I would suggest that if you hear someone, including politicians, using Climate Change and Global Warming interchangeably that you be careful of their conclusions.

There is one exception to this rule (that I know of) and that is usage by NASA. But that is due to the fact that NASA sees a global temperature variation (a climate change) from a rather different perspective than most of us. 

[RPCVguy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It is worth knowing that the term "global warming" that was initially used by the "man made" group was changed to "climate change" because the world wasn't actually "warming" ( much ). Hence it is now a political term, rather than a literal term.

No, both are still used. They have different meanings. See below.
 

3 hours ago, TKDfella said:

There is a difference between climate change and global warming so it's important to use the correct terms when discussing the matters. Climate Change is a continuing process from year dot (as it were). The Earth's climate can change to cooler temperatures or go to opposite depending on factors. Global warming is more specific as it clearly implies a temperature rise. It is that temperature rise currently happening that is a matter of debate, One camp says the cause is antropogenic and the other camp says it isn't.

First off, the planet is warming, has been warming , and the rate of warming is increasing - though hard to perceive because the planet is big and warms slowly - with over 90% of the excess warming going into / being stored as heat in the oceans. (Air temps have a far wider daily variation, seasonal variation - and we usually refer to the variations as weather.) The reason the warming rate is increasing is because the net insulation factor of the atmosphere has been increasing faster than any of the other factors (Earth orbit, volcanoes, etc) that would help lower the rate of warming.

While the planet as a whole is warming, the variations in regional trends that are considered as climate for each region do not all change in the same way or rate. Arctic regions are warming at a faster rate, some regions are getting drier, others have more precipitation, etc.
[example Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier? - YouTube]
The cumulative term encompassing these regional variations is Climate Change. The cause for the change has been intensely studied since the early 1960's and the data consistently points to the human caused increase in greenhouse gases as the cause for the warming.

This isn't hard to demonstrate. As shown above, this link covers the results of possible causes individually then collectively. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

While TDKfella points out that cooler temperatures are a possible direction, the observations for the planet as a whole have been warmer. The regional variations that can occur that are short term (like a polar vortex cold snap) are quite localized on the planet - balanced by warm air pushing into the arctic from the other side - usually because the jet stream has become more wavy.  Even the changes in the jet stream wave patterns can be explained in terms of the lower temperature gradient between the equator and the polar regions.

 

There is one worrisome regional long term variation cooler that will likely occur. As the rate of fresh water from glacier melt off of Greenland increases, the Gulf stream will weaken and possibly shut down. The cooling of salt water in that region causes an increase in density that results in the salt water sinking there - acting as the pump for all the world's current oceanic currents. Fresh water is lighter - weakening the flow, slowing the current. Without that Gulf Stream current, northern Europe would lose the benefit of warmer waters off the coast, and Europe would experience a cooling trend - and the East coast of North America would be warmer.
Without the ocean currents moving the waters, surface waters may warm faster and deeper in some areas - leading to more storms. It isn't a pattern we know much about. Again, it is another way we are doing a real time experiment on our planet

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Nope! Global Warming is technically known as 'Inadvertent Climatic Variation' (some use 'trend' instead of 'variation' ). This was to distinguish it from Climate Change which is viewed as a natural phenomena. The term 'global warming' isn't a new term and can be traced back about 50 years (give or take a bit). Climate Change refers to Long term natural changes whereas ICV implies thermal changes over a much shorter period and 'Inadvertent' was also intended to imply artificially produced GHG's. Perhaps ICV is rather a mouthful for some so various 'corruptions' are spoken. I would suggest that if you hear someone, including politicians, using Climate Change and Global Warming interchangeably that you be careful of their conclusions.

There is one exception to this rule (that I know of) and that is usage by NASA. But that is due to the fact that NASA sees a global temperature variation (a climate change) from a rather different perspective than most of us. 

Given that the world hasn't warmed significantly, and that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind released CO2 is changing anything temperature wise, all the discussion regarding "climate change" is political, whether referred to as GW or CC.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, the vast majority of the world's rapidly increasing population doesn't give a rat's bottom for any of it and will carry on driving fossil fuelled cars, flying in fossil fueled planes and not making any differences in the way they live just because some people with a vested interest in man made GW or CC think they should, even though said people do nothing personally to change their lives.

I bet almost every pro man made GW or CC protagonist posting on here will use fossil fuelled vehicles and planes, and electricity generated in fossil fuelled power plants.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that the world hasn't warmed significantly, and that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind released CO2 is changing anything temperature wise, all the discussion regarding "climate change" is political, whether referred to as GW or CC.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, the vast majority of the world's rapidly increasing population doesn't give a rat's bottom for any of it and will carry on driving fossil fuelled cars, flying in fossil fueled planes and not making any differences in the way they live just because some people with a vested interest in man made GW or CC think they should, even though said people do nothing personally to change their lives.

I bet almost every pro man made GW or CC protagonist posting on here will use fossil fuelled vehicles and planes, and electricity generated in fossil fuelled power plants.

Another person who doesn't understand the scientist and statistical use of significance.

[VocalNeal]

^ or does perfectly?