You never have understood the relationship between global warming and climate change, though.
Or any other aspect of climate change, sadly.
Just in a (possibly vain) attempt to make this clear to you:
- “Global warming” refers to the overall average heat content of the atmosphere rising.
- The atmosphere does not heat evenly. Insolation (the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth) varies from latitude to latitude and season to season.
- The fact that the atmosphere heats unevenly, plus the fact that the heat content is rising in many places, so there is an increasing difference between regions, disrupts wind and precipitation patterns.
- THAT is “climate change.”
- Climate change is thus an expected effect of global warming. And what it means, in practice, is seasonal anomalies and increasing numbers of both cold and hot “extreme events”, as formerly stable patterns of climate are disrupted.
…. I hope this is a helpful brief understanding for some, anyway.
anyone who doesn’t think man can change the climate has never been to Beijing during their pollution episodes, Los Angelos for the smog, NYC during a hot air inversion and tons of other examples.but it’s quite believable some do not understand because they do not WANT to understand. Know Nothings. It would be too inconvenient to understand because then you might have to DO something other than what you’ve always been doing.humans hate to change their behavior.clear cutting forests, destroying the amazon, pumping industrial pollutants into the environment, plastic bottles into the oceans all add up and have consequences.
Actually, the Met Office did not publish anything that said “no” warming. What they published showed a lower rate of warming – that is, the increase was less steep than expected – but those of us who regularly read primary reports, not conspiracy theory sites, might have a better handle on that.
The primary data on polar ice mass is also available, you know.
Humans have altered earth’s ecosystems on a massive scale; what is actually arrogant is your assumption that your blind belief that the planet can absorb everything that the industrial output of 7,100,000,000 humans creates without reacting to it is somehow more informed than the thousands of people who spend their adult lives studying the data to see whether that is actually true.
Which, incidentally, is how we know that "natural cycles don’t explain current warming: we study that.
Also, we do have a very good idea of what causes most ice ages and ends them, including the last. You are making the mistake of confusing your own “I don’t know” with the assumption that “no-one knows.” Don’t do that.
As far as the weather goes….^http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html^And as far as Phil the over publicized groundhog goes…^http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-22/national/37922275_1_punxsutawney-phil-bill-deeley-buckeye-chuck^Then there’s the fact the stock market is doing great but the job creators are still not creating jobs at the level our people or our infrastructure need.^Two out of three of these stories are important, and one is a total waste of time.You decide.Respectfully,C.
thank you ScottPM for the url.-here is page 2 of the UK MET release.(following “Flawed science costs us dearly”..)-“Yet, despite the lack of global warming over the last 16 years, we are bombard with stories by the scientific community of impending doom.
Both the EU, Australia and Japan have a carbon ‘market’ aimed at preventing non existent global warming, costing businesses and consumers billions. A tax by any other name.
For instance, the Australian carbon tax has been estimated to cost Australian families up to $540 a year
Carbon tax costs ACT families $540 a year
It has been suggested that UK household Electricity Bills will double due to the global warming hoax.
Carbon Tax Will Double U.K. Electricity Bills
A proposed carbon tax in the USA could cost US industry and ultimately US consumers $144 billion by 2020
U.S. carbon tax could halve deficit in 10 years: report Factbox: Carbon taxes around the world
Yet there has been NO global warming over the last 16 year.
Global warming is a scam used to introduce another tax."(end quote)-as a disgusted taxpayer since 1948, I resent these false “crises” created for the purpose of reaping increased taxes and gaining more and more control over individuals!
“The UK Met office published (quietly) a study that showed there has been NO increase in temperature over the last 16 years.”No, the UK Meteorological Office published a report of global surface temperatures, which a factually challenged guy used to cherry pick data to create his fancy looking charts.The Met Office responded with some harsh words & a fancy chart of their own:http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
It’s easier to believe that the government and everyone paid by the government is lying, than it is to understand climate science, which can get pretty complex.
That has already been answered, if you visit the links I have posted above. Also, you have been told in the past about Milankovitch cycles. I’m sad to see that this just slid off you.
What happened to all those Pleistocene animals when the climate warmed up? Most of course died out, like all the precursor “horses” that didn’t reappear in North America until the Spanish brought their European critters into the Americas. Mammoths, giant sloths, rhinoceros, quite a few species actually. When habitat changes quickly critters adapt, or die, and most die, especially when there’s nowhere left to migrate to, which is where we’re heading today.
Over all not a bad post. I agree that the actual question of whether or not the rapid changes that we are experiencing in the global climate may very well not be all attributable to the activities of mankind. However, what seems to me to being over looked by the deniers of all of this is that there are already many good reasons why we (the world as well as the US) as mankind should be reducing our burning of hydrocarbon fuels up into the Earth’s atmosphere as well as curtailing our polluting activities as far as the Earth’s Oceans are concerned. This is the pertinent fact of the situation!
>br>
In the end of things, it really does not matter just how much of these changes that are truly natural or how much is due to mankind’s activities. Mankind as a whole is going to have to not only figure out how to at the very least ameliorate its own possible contributions to the exponential increase in violent weather and the steady increase in ocean levels and pollutions regardless of just how much of these increasing negative conditions is due to mankind or not!
For the sake of our future generations and their civilization if not their very lives we are going to have to at the very least begin reasonable and rational discussions of what actually needs and can be done about this very important (some might say the MOST important issue of our times) issue, and those discussions can NOT even begin by denying that the situation even exists at all!!
Maybe you would have a better understanding of the difference between weather and climate if you actually read the IPCC report (hint: that report also covers exactly how they know what they say they know), instead of whatever “the IICC report” is.
Given that the problem is probably one of comprehension, however, maybe you should start a little more basic.
No, Tigger, I didn’t. I assume you are referring to the links on the Milankovitch cycles; maybe it escaped your attention that these are cycles, and we can look at what part of the cycles we are in and figure out what the climate ought to be doing according to those cycles.
And in fact, therein lies some of the strongest evidence for human influence on climate — because according to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in a long, mild cooling trend. Since we are still seeing warming, clearly that is not the natural cycle.
There are thousands of climate scientists in the world, swr; they work for hundreds of different institutions in dozens of different countries. There is a broad consensus amongst >95% of these working climate scientists that the climate is changing, and that the human influence is responsible for at least half and probably more than half of that.
So, you have two choices here. You can believe that that the many thousands of scientists in all these different instititions and organizations in many different countries are somehow all involved in a massive conspiracy to defraud everyone else, despite the fact that frankly I have never had any contact with any academic institution where more than 20 people were even able to maintain a conspiracy to get free coffee;
or you could contemplate the possibility that a handful of corporations and politicians have found a way to sow doubt in order to preserve and profit from the status quo for as long as possible.
Remember, when you discuss “whoring”, that (for example) several of the more vocal individuals attempting to call the science into question are the same people who disputed the link between tobacco and cancer.
Tigger, maybe you could answer something for me. Why are you not actually interested in understanding the answer to this question you keep asking in an unchanged form over and over?
lbatik about 11 years ago
You never have understood the relationship between global warming and climate change, though.
Or any other aspect of climate change, sadly.
Just in a (possibly vain) attempt to make this clear to you:
- “Global warming” refers to the overall average heat content of the atmosphere rising.
- The atmosphere does not heat evenly. Insolation (the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth) varies from latitude to latitude and season to season.
- The fact that the atmosphere heats unevenly, plus the fact that the heat content is rising in many places, so there is an increasing difference between regions, disrupts wind and precipitation patterns.
- THAT is “climate change.”
- Climate change is thus an expected effect of global warming. And what it means, in practice, is seasonal anomalies and increasing numbers of both cold and hot “extreme events”, as formerly stable patterns of climate are disrupted.
…. I hope this is a helpful brief understanding for some, anyway.
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
anyone who doesn’t think man can change the climate has never been to Beijing during their pollution episodes, Los Angelos for the smog, NYC during a hot air inversion and tons of other examples.but it’s quite believable some do not understand because they do not WANT to understand. Know Nothings. It would be too inconvenient to understand because then you might have to DO something other than what you’ve always been doing.humans hate to change their behavior.clear cutting forests, destroying the amazon, pumping industrial pollutants into the environment, plastic bottles into the oceans all add up and have consequences.
lbatik about 11 years ago
Actually, the Met Office did not publish anything that said “no” warming. What they published showed a lower rate of warming – that is, the increase was less steep than expected – but those of us who regularly read primary reports, not conspiracy theory sites, might have a better handle on that.
The primary data on polar ice mass is also available, you know.
Humans have altered earth’s ecosystems on a massive scale; what is actually arrogant is your assumption that your blind belief that the planet can absorb everything that the industrial output of 7,100,000,000 humans creates without reacting to it is somehow more informed than the thousands of people who spend their adult lives studying the data to see whether that is actually true.
Which, incidentally, is how we know that "natural cycles don’t explain current warming: we study that.
Also, we do have a very good idea of what causes most ice ages and ends them, including the last. You are making the mistake of confusing your own “I don’t know” with the assumption that “no-one knows.” Don’t do that.
chazandru about 11 years ago
As far as the weather goes….^http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html^And as far as Phil the over publicized groundhog goes…^http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-22/national/37922275_1_punxsutawney-phil-bill-deeley-buckeye-chuck^Then there’s the fact the stock market is doing great but the job creators are still not creating jobs at the level our people or our infrastructure need.^Two out of three of these stories are important, and one is a total waste of time.You decide.Respectfully,C.
disgustedtaxpayer about 11 years ago
thank you ScottPM for the url.-here is page 2 of the UK MET release.(following “Flawed science costs us dearly”..)-“Yet, despite the lack of global warming over the last 16 years, we are bombard with stories by the scientific community of impending doom.
Both the EU, Australia and Japan have a carbon ‘market’ aimed at preventing non existent global warming, costing businesses and consumers billions. A tax by any other name.
For instance, the Australian carbon tax has been estimated to cost Australian families up to $540 a year
Carbon tax costs ACT families $540 a year
It has been suggested that UK household Electricity Bills will double due to the global warming hoax.
Carbon Tax Will Double U.K. Electricity Bills
A proposed carbon tax in the USA could cost US industry and ultimately US consumers $144 billion by 2020
U.S. carbon tax could halve deficit in 10 years: report Factbox: Carbon taxes around the world
Yet there has been NO global warming over the last 16 year.
Global warming is a scam used to introduce another tax."(end quote)-as a disgusted taxpayer since 1948, I resent these false “crises” created for the purpose of reaping increased taxes and gaining more and more control over individuals!
Uncle Joe Premium Member about 11 years ago
“The UK Met office published (quietly) a study that showed there has been NO increase in temperature over the last 16 years.”No, the UK Meteorological Office published a report of global surface temperatures, which a factually challenged guy used to cherry pick data to create his fancy looking charts.The Met Office responded with some harsh words & a fancy chart of their own:http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
chazandru about 11 years ago
Yep. My wife disappeared me. ;DThanks Milord.Take care,C.
lbatik about 11 years ago
The graph that explains how “skeptics” interpret the Met Office/HadCRUT and other temperature data.
Special for ScottPM: Some recent research demonstrating why scientists say “it’s not natural cycles.”
And a plain-English look at what the actual decadal projections are, and how they interplay with natural cycles.
lbatik about 11 years ago
It’s easier to believe that the government and everyone paid by the government is lying, than it is to understand climate science, which can get pretty complex.
It’s not more true. It’s just easier.
lbatik about 11 years ago
That has already been answered, if you visit the links I have posted above. Also, you have been told in the past about Milankovitch cycles. I’m sad to see that this just slid off you.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
What happened to all those Pleistocene animals when the climate warmed up? Most of course died out, like all the precursor “horses” that didn’t reappear in North America until the Spanish brought their European critters into the Americas. Mammoths, giant sloths, rhinoceros, quite a few species actually. When habitat changes quickly critters adapt, or die, and most die, especially when there’s nowhere left to migrate to, which is where we’re heading today.
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
Over all not a bad post. I agree that the actual question of whether or not the rapid changes that we are experiencing in the global climate may very well not be all attributable to the activities of mankind. However, what seems to me to being over looked by the deniers of all of this is that there are already many good reasons why we (the world as well as the US) as mankind should be reducing our burning of hydrocarbon fuels up into the Earth’s atmosphere as well as curtailing our polluting activities as far as the Earth’s Oceans are concerned. This is the pertinent fact of the situation!
>br>
In the end of things, it really does not matter just how much of these changes that are truly natural or how much is due to mankind’s activities. Mankind as a whole is going to have to not only figure out how to at the very least ameliorate its own possible contributions to the exponential increase in violent weather and the steady increase in ocean levels and pollutions regardless of just how much of these increasing negative conditions is due to mankind or not!
For the sake of our future generations and their civilization if not their very lives we are going to have to at the very least begin reasonable and rational discussions of what actually needs and can be done about this very important (some might say the MOST important issue of our times) issue, and those discussions can NOT even begin by denying that the situation even exists at all!!
Or am I being too obtuse for some here??
lbatik about 11 years ago
Maybe you would have a better understanding of the difference between weather and climate if you actually read the IPCC report (hint: that report also covers exactly how they know what they say they know), instead of whatever “the IICC report” is.
Given that the problem is probably one of comprehension, however, maybe you should start a little more basic.
lbatik about 11 years ago
No, Tigger, I didn’t. I assume you are referring to the links on the Milankovitch cycles; maybe it escaped your attention that these are cycles, and we can look at what part of the cycles we are in and figure out what the climate ought to be doing according to those cycles.
And in fact, therein lies some of the strongest evidence for human influence on climate — because according to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in a long, mild cooling trend. Since we are still seeing warming, clearly that is not the natural cycle.
lbatik about 11 years ago
There are thousands of climate scientists in the world, swr; they work for hundreds of different institutions in dozens of different countries. There is a broad consensus amongst >95% of these working climate scientists that the climate is changing, and that the human influence is responsible for at least half and probably more than half of that.
1. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf 2. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf 3. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf 4. http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html 5. http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml6. http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html 7. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/ 8. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/uk-climate-change/ 9. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange 10. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/ …among many, many others.
So, you have two choices here. You can believe that that the many thousands of scientists in all these different instititions and organizations in many different countries are somehow all involved in a massive conspiracy to defraud everyone else, despite the fact that frankly I have never had any contact with any academic institution where more than 20 people were even able to maintain a conspiracy to get free coffee;
or you could contemplate the possibility that a handful of corporations and politicians have found a way to sow doubt in order to preserve and profit from the status quo for as long as possible.
Remember, when you discuss “whoring”, that (for example) several of the more vocal individuals attempting to call the science into question are the same people who disputed the link between tobacco and cancer.
lbatik about 11 years ago
Tigger, maybe you could answer something for me. Why are you not actually interested in understanding the answer to this question you keep asking in an unchanged form over and over?