I think the wingnuts have it all wrong
- Thread starter Original Mountaineer1
- Start date
WTF are you talking about...
How do you know "man" caused those variables? Doing what?[/QUOTE]
You said nothing has turned out like they predicted. Wrong.
You mean hearing him speak or reading his childish rants on Twitter don't make you cringe?
Bingo Bama......I agree. But there was this panicked rush to blame America and their love of fossil fuels from the beginning. I had a neighbor that had signs in his yard that said "No Wind Turbines, No Coal fired plants, and No Fracking." And when asked, they didn't care for the risks associated with nuclear energy. But he drove a F-150 and his wife a BMW and they lived in a big house!!..... The biggest kicker in my conversations with him, he was a true blue CONSERVATIVE (hated Obama) but a global warming guy!!!
His tweets make me cringe. I posted an entire thread on that issue. His policies are much better than Hillary's, imo. Much, much better.
You said nothing has turned out like they predicted. Wrong.[/QUOTE]
We're all supposed to be underwater by now...that's what they said back in the 70's. DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!
[QUOTE="The warmists first coined the phrase "global warming." Why did they change to to "climate change?" I'll tell you why. It is because the earth stopped warming. And who can deny that the climate changes. It has always changed. And always will.
."[/QUOTE]
In the scientific community, the term "climate change" came earlier and was more common before "global warming." Both have been about equally used since the 70s.
The media seemed to be more attached to "global warming" until recently.
."[/QUOTE]
In the scientific community, the term "climate change" came earlier and was more common before "global warming." Both have been about equally used since the 70s.
The media seemed to be more attached to "global warming" until recently.
We're all supposed to be underwater by now...that's what they said back in the 70's. DEAD WRONG!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
The world's top climate scientists admit the warming models were way off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
You said nothing has turned out like they predicted. Wrong.[/QUOTE]
What did we (man) do to dry up those coral reefs shown in that pic inside of one year? Who predicted that, and what did we do?
What did we (man) do to dry up those coral reefs shown in that pic inside of one year? Who predicted that, and what did we do?[/QUOTE]
Reefs died due to rising temps. We predicted this.
Reefs died due to rising temps. We predicted this.[/QUOTE]
How did we cause the temps to rise...by how much...doing what? Who predicted it? Who is "we"?
How did we cause the temps to rise...by how much...doing what? Who predicted it? Who is "we"?[/QUOTE]
Google Greenhouse Effect.
Google Greenhouse Effect.[/QUOTE]
And so why don't you post on here what the exact "predictions" were, and how close we came to meeting them? Also who "predicted" the reefs would dry up inside of one year? From what? What did we do besides "raise the temperature" to kill them? How did we raise it? By how much?
Where were those dead reefs located? Did they all die? Why not? Why did other reefs near those survive if we heated up the Earth enough to kill em all off? Why was the temperature increase we caused limited to only one area? How did we do that? Was that phenomenon predicted? By whom? Why not?
Good lord man, take some friendly advice. You are not a scientist. Stop commenting on global warming. You look like a complete moron. You constantly deny things that are proven facts.
Warmer ocean temperatures contribute to higher likelihood of hurricanes.
That's just one of many.
OK let's say you're correct countryroads89 and we've managed to heat up the Oceans? How do we cool them?
Where's the "thermostat gauge" we need to set on Ocean temperatures and how do we maneuver it back down a little?
We've been in a hurricane drought. LOL.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/number-of-hurricanes-reaches-30-year-low/
http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found in 2013.
Last edited:
What planet do you live on?
2016 produced the most hurricane deaths since 2005. There were 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes.
That is one year and our average number of hurricanes is 6.2 over the past 1509 years or so. Give me a break.
As the IPCC states:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found in 2013.
They discuss trends, not just one year. And the IPCC is the go to place for warmists.
The term "Climate Change" is not a recent invention. In the scientific community, it started earlier and had more use initially than "global warming."
The changes in terminology were driven by people with different agendas. The media began using "global warming" more frequently because it is somewhat more sensational. In the 90s, it was a specific Republican strategy to use the term
"climate change" because it sounds much less ominous. This is all documented in the Frank Luntz strategy memo to the administration that was leaked.
The misinformation on this board is amazing!!
The changes in terminology were driven by people with different agendas. The media began using "global warming" more frequently because it is somewhat more sensational. In the 90s, it was a specific Republican strategy to use the term
"climate change" because it sounds much less ominous. This is all documented in the Frank Luntz strategy memo to the administration that was leaked.
The misinformation on this board is amazing!!
A more accurate picture:
What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
12.05.08
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
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?"1
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."3
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."
Definitions
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
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.
1 Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.
2 For example, see: MIT, Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).
3National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.
4U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.
Written by Erik Conway/Global Climate Cha
Suits the liberal narrative now, doesn't it. Sorry, I just don't think that man is the cause.
You cite one year and claim a trend and a year where we had just 1 more hurricane than the average. The IPCC states the opposite, no trend. Talk about imitating a scientist, you take the cake. And Live Science states we are in a hurricane drought.
It has nothing to do with liberal narrative, it's fact ... it just upsets you that it doesn't fit the conservative narrative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
"This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature"
I just showed where you were blatantly wrong on two occasions. I never claimed a trend. Last year's numbers shows we are not in a drought.
The poster has blocked me so he can't read this. The warmists, like himself, are true believers. It is now a religion for them. We have had no warming for the past 18 years according to our most accurate measurements of temperature, satellite and weather balloons. All of the models used by the IPCC have been proven wrong and all on the high side of warming predictions. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before an no warming. The Medieval Warming period was warmer than today and we had no industrial activity at that time. Our climate is simply far too complex to model. We have a lot more to learn.
It's one year. If the IPCC says no trend can be determined, do you dispute the IPCC findings? Talk about blatantly wrong.
Warmists have claimed the Arctic to be ice free by now. Does the Arctic still have ice? Why is the Antarctic at near record sea ice extent? So many questions so few answers from the warmists.
This is absolutely beautiful. Taking such fixed positions and none of you suggest that you are expert in the field. With that lack of knowledge, you are willing to bet the entire world economy that someone is actually going to be able to predict accurately what is going to happen based on a theory they have developed. Obviously I don't know jack **** about weather variation and what causes it. I do not question that there are changes, but I question that any one or any group can significantly change what is going to happen. Does anyone even know that the desired changes are appropriate in the long run?A more accurate picture:
What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
12.05.08
By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
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?"1
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."3
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."
Definitions
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
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.
1 Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.
2 For example, see: MIT, Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).
3National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.
4U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.
Written by Erik Conway/Global Climate Cha
Sorry, sports fans, I will never put that much faith in a mortal man. Like any event, can we predict the outcome with any degree of certainty? I am pretty sure we can all predict the sun rise and sun set here in the South. Failure to make the correct predictions are not earth shattering, but you are attempting to make life change prediction on someone else analysis of the real facts. No thanks. Too much money could be involved to anticipate no one would attempt to prejudice the scales.
All of you who are experts in the field, step forward and identify yourself and share your credentials.
Help us a little bit. What caused 2005 and 2016 to be similar? That should be very easy. And when will we have another season so busy? Can you change the future outcomes?
If you cannot use your information to make predictions and how the outcome can be altered, what is the benefit of your two worthless pieces of information?
A more accurate picture:
What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
12.05.08
By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
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?"1
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."3
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."
Definitions
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
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.
1 Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.
2 For example, see: MIT, Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).
3National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.
4U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.
Written by Erik Conway/Global Climate Cha
That's the 3 page version of what I was summarizing in a couple sentences. In any case, it shows that the ongoing narrative on the board that "climate change" was a recent liberal creation was incorrect. Phrases such as:
"The warmists first coined the phrase "global warming." Why did they change to to "climate change?" I'll tell you why. It is because the earth stopped warming. And who can deny that the climate changes. "
are completely incorrect
You posted this:
The changes in terminology were driven by people with different agendas. The media began using "global warming" more frequently because it is somewhat more sensational. In the 90s, it was a specific Republican strategy to use the term
"climate change" because it sounds much less ominous. This is all documented in the Frank Luntz strategy memo to the administration that was leaked.
The misinformation on this board is amazing!!
And you have the audacity to claim that I was misleading the board.
If you prefer the term adopted, I have no problem with that. Since the earth is no longer warming, warmists could not claim global warming and still keep a straight face. So they adopted the term climate change because the climate is always changing and no one can doubt that.
Wallace Broecker coined the phrase climate change in 1975 not Frank Lunz.
You Claimed it was a specific Republican strategy to use climate change directed by Frank Lunz with the implication being the Republicans created the term based on his advice. But as the article stated from the warmists, it was much broader term coin by Broeckner and therefore they decided to use it. The unstated part of that sentence is that the globe was no longer warming. So the warmest wanted to point to other things like sea levels etc.
This information came from my warmists' website. You also forgot to mention that the warmists gleefully adopted climate change and the compliant media followed along.
You also posted a video from Judith Curry where she said in response to the 98% question: "Ironically the way the question is framed about the consensus…That yes there’s warming. Yes humans contribute to it. Everybody agrees with that. I’m in the 98%.
It’s when you get down to the details there is general disagreement that is glossed over in the media."
So yesterday you believed the earth was warming but today you don't??
It’s when you get down to the details there is general disagreement that is glossed over in the media."
So yesterday you believed the earth was warming but today you don't??
I didn't write that as well as I should have. The Luntz statement was only an example. I didn't mean to imply that it was a main driver of the use of the term.