Climate Change or Global Warming?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Climate Change or Global Warming?

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

• natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun;
• natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
• human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)

Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

[timeforpeace]

1. It's an embarrassing admission that global warming, as Prof Phil Jones admits, hasn't been happening

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[Mumblefratz]

4. That's BS ...

See http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/#more-2302

and http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/16/bbc-interview-phil-jones-climate-science-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife/

[TheMadMonk]

20. And the little bits that aren't BS can be explained by the simple fact...

...that it takes a lot more energy to melt ice than it does to simply heat it up.

While ice was heating up to the point where is could melt the extra heat from greenhouse effect was much more evenly distibuted throughout the system and could contribute to overall environmental warming. Now that ice is actually melting it is actually pulling a lot of heat out of the environment keeping temperatures over the past decade or so relatively constant even as greenhouse gas quantities continue to increase.

Exactly the same principle is at work in an ice chest. The extra energy required to effect the phase change from solid to liquid is what allows a relatively small amount of ice to chill a considerable amount of warm beer. Try chilling beer with ice water alone and you end up with a simple equilibrium of temperature and a beer that will be cool at best.

[Mumblefratz]

21. Yep. The water in a glass with an ice cube in it ...

will stay a constant 0C (technically just slightly below 0C) until the last bit of ice melts. Plus it takes a lot more heat to melt ice than it does to raise the temperature of water. It only takes 1 calorie to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1C, it takes almost 80 calories to melt 1 gram of ice.

[Mumblefratz]

2. Personally I prefer Global warming because ...

The trend is in only one direction and that is up.

However I can see the point about using the term Climate Change because once you use the term Global Warming every year is expected to be monotonically warmer than the previous year and even though the science says that is not the case every time it snow some nimrod is sure to say "what happened to all that Global Warming?"

All in all I believe Global Warming is the more accurate term.

[guardian]

3. Use neither

I propose everybody starts saying "Climate Prediction Fabrication" or CPF to reflect the AGW scientific method.

[timeforpeace]

12. Well said.

[FBaggins]

5. I think the answer depends on when the question is asked.

Would "climate change" have been preferable "way back when" ? Sure.

Now that we have decades with one label? I'd say that the negative impact from changing the label would outweigh the more accurate term.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Personally, I prefer "The Greenhouse Effect" as that was the term we used in the 70's

In 1990, The National Academy published, http://www.nap.edu/backend/blurb/blurb2.phtml?isbn=0309043476">Confronting Climate Change: Strategies for Energy Research and Development

In 1991, they published http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1794.html">Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming

In 1992, they published http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1792">Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions and http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1435.html">One Earth, One Future: Our Changing Global Environment

---

However, I realize that no one who gives a damn has any serious issue with terminology. It's just a trivial thing to treat as if it was a big deal.

[bbinacan]

7. Neither

the "scientists" have pretty much made asses of themselves.

[jimlup]

8. No the media has made asses of themselves

The scientists have done what scientists do. They are not politicians and don't specialize in spinning stories. The media on the other hand has done a terrible job of reporting this winters attack on the scientists. It is obvious from your post that you have not been paying attention.

[bbinacan]

10. I have been paying attention.

When the "scientists" can't support their conclusions, they are useless.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. They have supported their conclusions

No rational arguments have been presented to refute the basic science.

Watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timeforpeace]

13. +1. n/t

[beardown]

14. Yep, every single one of them.

I grew up loving scientists because they kept saving us from the space monsters in the movies. Now, thanks to a series of well funded and frequently and massively distributed 'issues' they are all asses. I've given up my believe in ass scientist lies of global warming and gravity and I'm going to fly to work tomorrow by just flapping my arms because all scientists are asses.

It's hard to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the research surrounding global warming with the zombie army of deniers who get turned loose every time that there is a single shred of an issue that they can lock their skeletal teeth into to prolong and avoid dealing with the massive, worldwide body of evidence produced by tens of thousands of scientists, asses everyone of them, that support the theory.

These asses have consistently UNDER estimated the speed and the effects in trying to present conservative predictions. When they find mistakes, such as the Himalayan glacier disappearance time line, they remove the incorrect data as asses are known to always do.

The most amazing thing about the army of the zombie deniers is that if a group of the leading zombie studying scientists came to them and told them that they had a cure that had a 90 percent chance of curing their brain eating condition and return their skin to a more human color, they'd jump at the chance for a cure with that high a success rate, asses delivering the cure or not.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. What!? No :sarcasm: tag?

:applause:

[petronius]

9. Depends on context - if I'm talking about the GHG related increase in

global average temperature then it's global warming. If I'm talking about an alteration to global or regional climate that is 'permanent' relative to a time period of interest then it's climate change. Climate variability refers to oscillations and swings (usually natural) in a climate variable over a particular time scale...

[Dogmudgeon]

16. How 'bout "Climate Destabilization" -- ?

That's easier to remember than "We Don't Know What The F**k We Have Been Doing To Our Climate And Biosphere For The Past 150 Years".

--d!

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. It has a certain "ring" to it.

In the end, a rose by any other name...

[guardian]

22. a [global warming] rose by any other name

would smell as shit

[tinrobot]

19. I like it.

[eppur_se_muova]

23. "Global Warming" is both accurate and to the point.

"Climate Change" is deniers' framing, meant only to stir up doubt as to whether GW is man-made, or part of a natural cycle. DON'T LET THE ENEMY CHOOSE THE BATTLEFIELD.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guardian]

25. "Climate Change" is deniers' framing

You mean like in the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE? Do you think deniers somehow manipulated the UN in naming the IPCC?

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. "Global Warming" is simply one aspect of "Climate Change"

One problem with it is that some people think it means that every day is like the 4th of July everywhere on the planet. (You know, "Global Warming.")

As I've said, I prefer "The Greenhouse Effect," since it has the longest history. However, if the National Academy of Sciences prefers "Climate Change" who am I to argue?

[stuntcat]

26. Planet-Killing

:puke: if you look at All the trashing.. All the shit piled up, listed neatly for presentation to the retarded monkey trying to say "Everything's fine, let's keep on fucking the world because everything the HuMans do is natural and good!"

[abqmufc]

28. Global Climate Shift (GCS)

copyright pending. :)