What do you believe, Global Warming Vs Climate Change

[Alta4ever]

So what is it.

I'm Curious.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

They're the same phenomena, from what I understand. The average global temperature is raising, and because of this (or in addition to this, not sure which...could be a combination) the climate is changing.

[Keepitsimple]

There are patterns within patterns. There's been a relatively consistent pattern of 25-30 cycles for the last two or three hundred years where temperatures go up, then they stabilize or go down and it seems to net out at about 1 degree per century. This takes place within larger patterns that include glacial and inter-glacial periods. Even though we are in a cooling or stabilized period, the earth will probably continue to warm at the rate it's been doing for some time. It's called Climate Change. That's the foolish part of the Alarmist theory: of course Climate Change is real and of course the earth is warming.....there's little or no debate among scientists. It's all about the misguided theory of human-induced CO2 being the main driver of Climate Change.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

It's all about the misguided theory of human-induced CO2 being the main driver of Climate Change.

CO2 is one of the main drivers, and that has been well studied, and is not substantially disputed by the reputable skeptics either.

This poll is silly - Global Warming and Climate Change are two terms for the same thing, so this is a false dilemma.

[Alta4ever]

This poll is silly - Global Warming and Climate Change are two terms for the same thing, so this is a false dilemma.

This is debatable and the reason for the poll.

More on this later.

[wyly]

CO2 is one of the main drivers, and that has been well studied, and is not substantially disputed by the reputable skeptics either.

This poll is silly - Global Warming and Climate Change are two terms for the same thing, so this is a false dilemma.

right which casts light on how confused the denier world is....AGW and CC could be considered different...

[Keepitsimple]

This is debatable and the reason for the poll.

More on this later.

The reason it is debatable is that when the alarmists starting shouting about Global Warming (i.e. Al Gore) the theory at the time was that temperatures were going to steadily rise, lock-step with rising CO2. The Alarmists and models did not predict the lack of warming for the last ten years or the probable cooling or stabilizing that will continue for another 20 years or so. Back then, the term Global Warming was constantly used - with little or no mention of natural Climate Change. As observational data began to disagree with the theory and the models, the Alarmists conveniently switched their terminology to "Climate Change". So to use the terems as they were used by the Alarmists, the question is valid - does one believe that the earth is warming and that every decade will be noticeably warmer than the previous - like Al Gore said....or does one believe in Climate Change - the cyclical ups and downs of temperature that have shown each recent century to warm by about one degree?

Edited April 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Alta4ever]

right which casts light on how confused the denier world is....AGW and CC could be considered different...

So quit you whining and vote in the poll

[Michael Hardner]

This is debatable and the reason for the poll.

More on this later.

Ok, well... you still have only TWO options here. What if you believe in neither ?

[Michael Hardner]

The reason it is debatable is that when the alrmists starting shouting about Global Warming (i.e. Al Gore) the theory at the time was that temperatures were going to steadily rise, lock-step with rising CO2. The Alarmists and models did not predict the lack of warming for the last ten years

Can you source the lack of warming over the past ten years please ?

or the probable cooling or stabilizing that will continue for another 20 years or so. Back then, the term Global Warming was constantly used - with little or no mention of natural Climate Change. As observational data began to disagree with the theory and the models, the Alarmists conveniently switched their terminology to "Climate Change". So to use the terems as they were used by the Alarmists, the question is valid - does one believe that the earth is warming and that every decade will be noticeably warmer than the previous - like Al Gore said....or does one believe in Climate Change - the cyclical ups and downs of temperature that have shown each recent century to warm by about one degree?

"Climate Change" is the updated term, from my understanding, because not all parts of the globe will warm uniformly. Neither term addresses whether human activity is the cause.

If I'm not allowed to bring up Glenn Beck in these discussions, as Alta has said, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring in Al Gore.

They're both blowhards, IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

So quit you whining and vote in the poll

The poll makes no sense, whether you believe in GW, AGW, or neither. Please do make one that makes sense if you want people to vote on it.

[Alta4ever]

The poll makes no sense, whether you believe in GW, AGW, or neither. Please do make one that makes sense if you want people to vote on it.

It makes perfect sense.

[Michael Hardner]

It makes perfect sense.

What is the difference between the two then ? Are you going to tell us at some point ?

[Alta4ever]

What is the difference between the two then ? Are you going to tell us at some point ?

Perception.

[waldo]

Perception.

... Michael, keep at it - he's obviously floundering. Oh my - lil Altaboy has to actually try to explain something - what a concept!

[Michael Hardner]

Perception.

So it's the same thing, but just how you think about it ? I'm ok with that, I suppose.

And both are caused by humans, of course.

[waldo]

The reason it is debatable is that when the alrmists starting shouting about Global Warming (i.e. Al Gore) the theory at the time was that temperatures were going to steadily rise, lock-step with rising CO2. The Alarmists and models did not predict the lack of warming for the last ten years or the probable cooling or stabilizing that will continue for another 20 years or so.

carumba! Simple, we've already dispatched this nonsense on cooling - would you like the MLW thread links? But let's play - again - do you have anything new... correction... do you have anything to support your claims of lack of warming... and probable cooling (stabilizing - WTF?)?

Back then, the term Global Warming was constantly used - with little or no mention of natural Climate Change. As observational data began to disagree with the theory and the models, the Alarmists conveniently switched their terminology to "Climate Change".

other than your opinion do you have anything to substantiate your claims on terminology usage and attributions therein? I kind of like this little ditty from NASA: What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. 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.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

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.

During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming

[Alta4ever]

... Michael, keep at it - he's obviously floundering. Oh my - lil Altaboy has to actually try to explain something - what a concept!

Can't you understand that this issue centres on perception. That is the purpose of the poll perception.

Obviously you are flounding since you cannot see where this is going.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

So it's the same thing, but just how you think about it ? I'm ok with that, I suppose.

And both are caused by humans, of course.

Like anything that becomes a political issue winning a losing the debate will be based on the perception of the general public, no the data and the sourcing. I myself have now become very suspect of the scientist, before I did not agree with the conclusions reach by the scientists, based on the research so far. But since climategate and litany of other mistakes that have been found in the IPCC report, the lack of sourcing, the re-defining of "peer" review articals. I have simply lost any trust in even the data collected, since cherry picking has even happen. This is not reserved solely to the one side of the argument either.

You have chosen to see this poll like Waldo about whether or not the cause is human. Others will see the poll based on the minor difference in terms.

[Keepitsimple]

Can you source the lack of warming over the past ten years please ?

Just take Phil Jones' word for it - no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Just take Phil Jones' word for it - no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years.

Did all you do is read shady's qoute mine or something? No statistically significant warming doesn't mean no warming.

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

My link

The reason it is not statistically significant is because of the short time period.

You also should look into El Niño and La Niña years. The sun is on a cycle.

Edited February 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bonam]

Sorry but this poll is meaningless.

[Alta4ever]

Sorry but this poll is meaningless.

So don't bother with it, but to me it is quite telling.

[Bonam]

Here's your poll:

What do you believe?

A

B

Both

Neither

Note: Vote now, wait for A and B to be defined later.

[waldo]

Just take Phil Jones' word for it - no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years.

oh excellent! Parroting our own Shady gets you extra bonus points...

we can play your short-term trending game Simple... would you like to associate your cooling claim around GISTEMP, NCDC or JMA data, for example. While we're at it, do you associate warming/cooling strictly to surface land/sea temperatures... is there anything else out there to offer measured reference, Simple?

asked but never answered previously: care to acknowledge the reason CRU data has always shown less warming than all other processed surface datasets? You know... that little ditty about the hadCRUT dataset not including polar related data, where the most significant warming is occurring. Oh... that's right... you recently threw out a one-liner without any citation support - something about lost stations! I let that pass, but on second thought, I do believe we could have some fun here. What does Anthony Watts have to tell you/us about missing surface stations... or related adjustments... particularly related to the polar regions? C'mon Simple, go for it.