"Global Warming" is becoming "Climate Change"...surprise surprise

This has very little to do with the science of it, and more to do with politics and labelling. It's not like scientists are backtracking, they have always said that global warming can lead to localized changes that aren't necessarily characterized by simple warming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will reply by plaigiarising (well OK downright ripping off) a recent post by Ophiolite (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2174773&postcount=426)

I believe
Cazzo has been told this on several previous occasions. She either cannot or will not understand it. That places further discussion on the topic on a par with trying to explain the sub-text of Hamlet to a pineapple.

If however
Cazzo would care to discuss and refute the actual science involved - and perhaps explain why climate change isn't a better descriptor of the phenomena we are witnessing or data that is being collected, then she would be very welcome to continue

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personal insult #4 and counting.
Like I say, you're good at insulting, but not very good at sticking to the subject at hand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Typical right wing extremist - always playing the victim

Cazzo having your failure (or refusal )to comprehend the meaning of the term climate change pointed out after it has been explained to you more than once, may be something that you find personally insulting - I cannot help that - However I suggest that if in future you develop the capability to read and comprehend the english language in such a way that this doesn't happen again - then you will save yourself from being insulted in such a way.

 

As to not sticking to the subject in hand - you''ll notice that an attempt was made on my part to re-open the discussion into something more constructive on your part:

you very conveniently ommitted that when you quoted me - is that because your accusation of not sticking to the subject would have been exposed as an empty and transparent lie if you hadn't?

and presumably because you are lacking in any genuine knowledge on the subject - I am willing to be corrected on that point though - go on - surprise me

 

You can help that by not resorting to personal insults and name calling.
Now not only are you insulting (#5) but stereotyping me as a "typical right-wing extremist"....

 

That's more of an attempt to turn the tables rather than discussing the subject.

 

How can I turn the tables? - you are the OP - you brought up the discussion - now you are refusing to have one - even when given some prompts by me on possible constructive areas of discussion

Your first post was routinely trashed by your own side - since then you have presented nothing more - not even anything to rebutt the drubbing you received.

You are merely being asked to present something in this discussion that goes beyond the alarmism and fact distortion you have hitherto presented

Do you in fact have anything meaningful at all to discuss on the subject?

If the answer is yes then please do so forthwith - if the answer is no then discussion over - you lose- again - goodbye

 

I never lost to begin with, I merely stated my opionion that "human caused" global warming activisits are trying to save face and keep their hysteria going by calling "global warming" instead "climate change", so they can blame any climate change on humanity. This in lieu of the recent cooling trends (http://servo3000.wordpress.com/2008...cooler-winter-if-global-warming-is-occurring/).

If they're so certain of their "human caused" global warming theories, why change it to "climate change" ? Unless of course as I stated, they're trying to use ANY climate change as an excuse to blame humanity.

 

and you have had it very clearly pointed out to you (in the very first response to your first post no less) that that is not the reason why the term climate change has been adopted - and that genuine scientists studying the penomena do not attribute ANY climate change to AGW/ACC- you have still either failed to understand that or refused to acknowledge that.

as such your "opinion" has no basis in reality and thus is at best worthless word salad - and at worst a deliberate lie.

so yes - you really do lose

 

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. This opinion is not factual.

Did you read the article you posted? From the article,

The United States had it’s 54th coolest winter out of the past 113, so it was about an average year temperature wise for us. Globally, however, this winter was in the top 13% of warmest winters ever.​

So this winter has still been quite warm, world-wide. The first thing the author of the cited article does is point to a more detailed article by Jeff Masters. From that article, http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=916&tstamp=200803

Why did we see a cool winter, if global warming is occurring?
It is important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. What we experience in one particular season or year is "weather". Weather has a large variation from year to year, with cool seasons and years mixed in with warms ones. "Climate" is the weather measured on scales of tens of years or longer. One cool winter or year is not an indication that the climate is cooling back to normal. The climate is warming, and unless we see a series of several years of cool conditions, this year's cool winter merely represents a normal fluctuation of the weather. Relatively cool weather is to be expected globally during a strong La Niña event in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and relatively warm weather is expected during an El Niño event. We shouldn't expect to see record warmth for the globe unless an El Niño event is occurring.

Why did we see record snows this winter, if global warming is occurring?
Beware of global warming skeptics trumpeting record snowfalls this winter as an excuse to doubt that global warming is occurring. One should primarily look at global temperatures on a scale of decades to judge the validity of global warming. Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, put it this way in his current blog, Creeping Onset of Spring and in an earlier blog, Water, water, water:

This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. The high mountains near the coast, like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada would expect more snow. This is also true for the high altitudes parts of Greenland and Antarctica. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

I haven't lost anything, and this is your 6th post personally insulting me; implying me as a "deliberate liar".
I haven't been hostile towards anyone in this thread, yet you've been hostile and insulting at me several times now.

 

Indeed global temperatures are slowwwwwly increasing in general, nothing new on Earth.
Just 400,000 years ago sea levels were perhaps 70 feet higher than present !
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0209205314.htm
If that happens again in the next thousand years, no doubt the "human caused" global warming activists will be blaming it on humanity...

Funny how when there's cooling trends it's written off as "natural caused" by El Nina', but whenever there's warming trends natural causes are written off and humans are blamed.

 

Deja Vu Cazzo ?

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80391
(http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1840254&postcount=6)


http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80674
(http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1851102&postcount=14)

 

Personal insult #7, writing immature stuff like this "Cazzo"
just shows immaturity, nothing much more.

And showing old threads doesn't prove much either.

 

what happened to # 6? or is your numeracy as poor as your literacy and language comprehension too?

Whine all you like about personal insults - I know what you are doing - so does everyone else - your attempting to divert attention away from how thoroughly you have been owned in this discussion thus far - and attempting to avoid any meaningful discussion moving forward.

Hey why not ignore me and take DH to task for yet again thoroughly dismantling your pathetically weak arguments?
You could even try using some genuine data to do so - it's a long shot to expect something so honest from you but I haven't given up hope for you yet little girl.

If it demonstrates a trend for you consistently representing articles in a dishonest way just like DH caught you out for doing - and just like I caught you out for doing in those previous examples - then it proves a great deal about both your integrity and your level of intelligence

 

So what? Nature is capable of causing much greater erosion than mankind could every muster. Evidence: The Grand Canyon. Does that mean we should abandon conservationist farming practices? Of course not. To do so would reduce our ability to feed ourselves over the long term.

The same goes for global warming. Nature is capable of throwing the climate into a tailspin. Fortunately for us, nature apparently is not doing so now. We're in the middle of an interglacial. Volcanic activity has been relatively low for millions of years. (BTW, those who say that volcanos spew out more CO[sub]2[/sub] than does mankind are plain wrong. In the remote past, yes. Google Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps. Currently no. For example, see http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html.)

That's alarmists such as Al Gore and misanthropes who dominate Greenpeace who do that kind of crap, not true climatologists. Using individual weather events such as claims that the 2008-2009 winter in the US debunks global warming or claims that global warming caused Katrina is cherry-picking.

Climatologists look at the climate over a long period of time. Global warming is a slow general upward trend in the climate. Things like the El Niño Southern Oscillation can result in swings of 1.5[sup]o[/sup]C warmer or colder over the course of a year, much greater than the 1.5[sup]o[/sup]C or so increase predicted by global warming. The key concept here: the El Niño Southern Oscillation is a period variation, hence the name. The average effect is null. Global warming is a secular trend.

 

Before the discussion moves ahead - a quick question to recap if Cazzo has actually learned anything.

For 10 points Cazzo - can you now - in your own words - give ther REAL reason why the term Climate Change is used in preference to Global Warming

 

Hey Headspin,

Let me inform you further. I have studied this for years. I know people who personally put chemicals into lakes and streams. The truth is that not all water systems have toxic levels. The truth is that people are dumping where they can. So, areas around cities are especially at high risk and areas of high industry are also at risk. Any factory, refinery, or industrial plant with gaseous emissions has the wind decide where the particle matter drops out. I am sorry that I said "ALL." That was wrong of me. The truth is that where people and chemicals are, they go into the ground and water. So not all waterways are toxic. They even might not be at toxic levels, but rather contain low levels of toxic chemicals. Furthermore, the weight of the matter will determine its drop-out point in a waterway, or if it is soluble... thats even worse.

Now as far as my question was asked, how do you think that river and streams become toxic?

In response to culling, I do not want to cull anyone. I want to educate people so that they understand thier impact. There is a point where it is necessary to kill large amounts of people to save the planet. It is purely mathematics. However, we are not at that point. At this point, the amount of people is not the problem (in the US), the problem is the amount of consumption. In other parts of the world, the amount of people is the problem. If people are educated, they usually make decisions for the well being of themselves and thier surroundings.

I watched the video that you posted. Seems silly to me. These guys are trying to come up with solutions to a problem. If we all work for a better lifestyle, there would not be a problem. Understand? History shows thatt people are not proactive, but rather responsive in the face of certain death. So it appears that we will not all try to buy efficient vehicles and will pollute and toxify our environment. In the end, action will occur by the common people or the leaders will take initiative and lay waste our our bad habits. Simple.

I ask again, how is the world and water toxified?

 

"give ther REAL reason why the term Climate Change is used in preference to Global Warming "

Climate is a region specific longterm pattern of weather. On a global scale, the global climate is changing. For people who do not understand this, climate change sounds more local, and it is. There are many changes happening at the local scale.

The Earth's many systems are all connected and all independant. Global Warming is the average accumulated temperatures from a global scale. Climate change is related to global warming, but it is not restricted to this one factor. A climate is region dependant. The region may be on a high altitude mountain slope or a beach on a volcanic island. The climate of these areas is specific to the longterm patterns associated with the location.

There are many factors involved in climate change, which again includes global warming but is largely independant of this. Weather affects plant life, and plant life affects weather. The heat island effect of a city changes the amount of rainfall for the community downwind. This is climate change. The overall pattern for the community downwind changes due to a newly introduced factor into the climate system.

There are many large changes of this nature. I am happy to continue further. Ask and you shall recieve.