anyone else noticed how "global warming" has conveniently turned into "climate change"?

i guess the eco-advocates have to call it something when its not burning fire and brimstone in May...

5/18/2008 8:08:34 PM

Or more likely, as has previously been stated by at least myself, climate change aptly reflects the total implications from adverse human activity. But nice try.

5/18/2008 10:19:11 PM

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what i said

"climate change" is the new phrase for "global warming" because its not hot

but if its not global warming, it has to be something, otherwise some people won't have a purpose in their life's pursuits

5/18/2008 10:35:58 PM

Although it's obvious you have had your head in the sand on this issue I will go ahead and throw you bone and tell you that "climate change" has been used for a while and not just because "it's not hot in May".

5/18/2008 10:57:59 PM

Quote :

"climate change aptly reflects the total implications from adverse human activity"

even though its impossible to determine the exact contribution human activity has on the climate? we know there are temperature and atmospheric co2 level correlations, but we're far from knowing exactly what influence humans have on climate...so basically your wording is pretty biased

5/18/2008 11:15:18 PM

This isn't just about temperature influence. So my wording is spot on.

5/18/2008 11:18:08 PM

in short, the temperature isn't reeeeeallllllllly changing, so they are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that they TOTALLY GOT IT WRONG.

5/18/2008 11:20:12 PM

Yeah, that's it.

5/18/2008 11:22:43 PM

your wording implies we have some way to calculate the amount of human influence on the climate which we don't so no your wording is misleading

not that it can't discuss human influences, but theres no way to separate human influences from natural fluctuations quantitatively

[Edited on May 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2008 11:26:36 PM

Just because you are too intellectually lazy or perhaps too apathetic to assume responsibility for what we as humans are doing to our planet doesn't mean that it can not be done.

5/18/2008 11:38:20 PM

that has nothing to do with what i said

it just seems as though you're insulting me instead of addressing what i said about not being able to quantitatively attribute human activities to climate change

[Edited on May 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2008 11:39:40 PM

Quote :

"Just because you are too intellectually lazy or perhaps too apathetic to assume responsibility for what we as humans are doing to our planet doesn't mean that it can not be done."

It's intellectually lazy to blame climate phenomena and natural disasters on humans after the fact, when there is little evidence to show any direct link to said phenomena. Unfortunately, that is exactly the kind of alarmism we see from the Gore camp whenever the shit hits the fan.

5/18/2008 11:55:38 PM

I am pointing out that just because you, TreeTwista, say something can't be don't doesn't mean that it can't be done. Just throwing your hands up and giving up isn't going to solve anything. But I guess playing a victim does, right?

5/18/2008 11:57:42 PM

you continue to ignore my points with strawmen...are you honestly unclear about what i'm saying or do you just have YOUR head in the sand about the uncertainty of direct cause versus unexact correlation?

5/19/2008 12:00:14 AM

You are trying to say that humans have no way of measuring how much they put into the atmosphere and how it is effecting the climate. Wow, you win a cookie. What I am trying to get you to comprehend is that instead of just sitting on the sidelines and being a nay-sayer you should propose constructive means as to how we can combat this difficulty. Unless you don't see the inability to measure our negative effects on our environment a problem.

5/19/2008 12:05:44 AM

i just dont like jumping to conclusions...you can feel free to disagree with all my political perspectives if you'd like, but i studied plenty of oceanographic and atmospheric sciences in school, so please don't confuse those with a mostly opinionated political "science"

5/19/2008 12:07:51 AM

this is one argument where i think Treetwista has actually made valid points

5/19/2008 1:19:06 AM

Quote :

"Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, May 9, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth

Quote :

"If [West Antarctica] were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet."

Quote :

"Greenland would also raise sea level almost 20 feet if it went."

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2439769/7534124

"Assessing the Physical Science of Climate Change: IPCC Working Group 1 (2007)" – Slide 26

Quote :

"Future changes from just these processes [hot ocean expansion and glacier melt] could be up to 1.5 feet (0.5 m) by 2100, and up to 3 feet (1 meter) within about 2-3 centuries, depending on how much GHGs are emitted."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

What can we learn from this post? Well, concerning the latter IPCC data for starters, note well the qualifications of the "could be," the "up to[s]," the "about," and the "depending on" in just one sentence from one slide. They sure as hell don't sound too certain about much of anything to me.

Note well the significant difference between the IPCC's prediction of an "up to" "1.5 feet" to "3 feet" rise in sea level in "about" a hundred to three hundred years and Gore's alarmist predictions of "almost" 20 feet--if x, y, and z happen.

Summary:

1. Gore believes that an "over-representation of factual presentations" concerning the danger posed by "climate change" is appropriate--we know this because he told us so. Many of us call this what it in fact is: alarmism.

2. Clearly, Gore used the device of alarmism in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Gore is a scaremonger.

3. The IPCC's own numbers and many other related facts inform us that Gore's numbers and approach are not to be trusted.

4. The imminence of any alleged threat posed by "global warming" and/or "climate change" should be strongly questioned.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 6:56 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 6:51:13 AM

^And this is germane to the discussion taking place how?

^^ Yes, I will agree that Twista has a valid point insofar as at this time there is not an appropriate way to measure the effect that humans are having on temperature fluctuations. This information is not exceptionally new nor exciting to be perfectly honest. What it does point out is a flaw in our ability to take responsibility of our own actions.

It's sad that this has dwindled into another stalemate discussion over temperature. Ugh. It makes one want to employ the hooksaw trademark :rolley eyes:. One can only hope that CharlieEFH has the capacity to understand that climate change is not just a repackaged phrase for global warming.

5/19/2008 7:26:02 AM

^ How is it not "germane"?

What is the difference between climate change and global warming?

Quote :

"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 [other] 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). 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 and climate change can be caused by a variety of factors, both natural and human-induced."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#2

And the term "climate change" moves away from this notion of "global warming." But if warming is not really the problem, the whole alarmist argument begins to fall apart. Hell, the production and effects of GHGs--and consequently their supposedly needed reduction--is at the core of Gore and others' arguments.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 9:49:34 AM

^^of course you're well aware that climate change is a funny phrase to use, since the earth's climate has and always will constantly change.

Oh, and look at this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/19/national/main4106171.shtml

Seems like only yesterday they were saying that warmer weather caused more severe hurricanes.

Looks like people are finally coming to their senses.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ^]

5/19/2008 10:01:58 AM

It is not germane because the discussion on this page had nothing to do with Al Gore. Neither I nor anyone else was evoking his sentiment. As for your definition like I have told you previously there is little chance that anyone would or should take you seriously when you pull a quote from the Environmental Puppet Agency. They have little to no credibility under the Bush regime.

Maybe this will help. Think of "global warming" as a subset of the larger concept of global climate change. Other subsets include desalinization due to retreating sea ice, desertification, prolonged flooding, etc.

While our climate is in a constant state of flux we must not become too complacent as to believe that our actions will be without consequence.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 10:08:26 AM

Quote :

"take you seriously when you pull a quote from the Environmental Puppet Agency. They have little to no credibility under the Bush regime."

Really? Thats the first I have heard of this.

5/19/2008 10:20:58 AM

5/19/2008 10:33:22 AM

so how are those ice caps doing

5/19/2008 11:00:23 AM

Quote :

"While our climate is in a constant state of flux we must not become too complacent as to believe that our actions will be without consequence."

even if our actions are without consequence...

5/19/2008 11:01:06 AM

^^ I don't know they moved to Augusta, GA in 1998.

Quote :

"even if our actions are without consequence..."

Except that they are not.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 11:01:55 AM

I think it's an understament to say that hooksaw is suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome.

5/19/2008 11:02:56 AM

i snapped a few pictures of ocracoke when i went to the beach saturday:

5/19/2008 11:04:03 AM

Quote :

"Except that they are not."

except theres no proof, but who cares right? you continue to prove that its global warming alarmists/proponents who truly have their heads in the sand

5/19/2008 11:07:36 AM

Sigh. This isn't about global warming nor even climate change. I have only advocated that humans should be responsible for the harmful substances they out into our environment. That includes air, sea and soil. I have also argued against the myopic train of thought that humans are the only being that matter on this planet and everything else is just something to be exploited for a profit. Is it really that hard to understand? Please don't be obtuse enough to boil my philosophy down to just alarmism due to temperature oscillation.

5/19/2008 11:19:34 AM

^while thats honorable, most of the people (myself included) don't oppose that view. We too think everyone should be environmentally conscious. But we all have different definitions of it. You say that we need to be careful of the poisons/toxins we release into the air. I agree, but I don't in the least bit think that C02 is anything to worry about, while I believe you beg to differ.

5/19/2008 11:45:39 AM

It doesn't much matter what I personally think CO2 is or isn't in relation to our atmosphere because much to the chagrin of Bush's EPA CO2 is classified as a pollutant. I have, however, always championed the notion that there are larger and yes very measurable destructive effects that humans are causing to our natural world that don't get their due attention.

5/19/2008 11:57:36 AM

Quote :

"but I don't in the least bit think that C02 is anything to worry about, while I believe you beg to differ."

Carbon dioxide, in and of itself, is not a pollutant. It is an essential component of the atmosphere and all life on earth. So yes, CO2 is not "anything to worry about"...

... that unless unnaturally large quantities of it start getting pumped into the atmosphere in a short period of time...

In a similar fashion to your quote, I can say that "water and oxygen are nothing to worry about" as well. The reality is however that anything and everything is toxic at a high enough concentration. Air containing less than 19% or more than 23% oxygen is hazardous if not deadly. The same goes for drinking too much water (or not enough).

In that respect, let's remember that CO2 naturally comprises only 0.0314% of the atmosphere. That means even the small amount of CO2 being released for energy purposes can have a noticeable impact on the environment. And though it is indeed premature to hastily abandon fossil-fuel-based technology to avoid unintended consequences, it's certainly reasonable to suggest that the rate at which we're releasing greenhouse gases is indeed "something to worry about."

That, I believe, would be the "larger and yes very measurable destructive effects that humans are causing to our natural world" HockeyRoman was refering to... and these effects do indeed deserve "their due attention," no more and no less.

5/19/2008 12:38:35 PM

so all this carbon dioxide we are releasing is gonna help the environment? wow, to think there was one bit of truth in this liberal propaganda for votes

5/19/2008 1:24:17 PM

global climate destabilization

5/19/2008 1:25:33 PM

Quote :

"Carbon dioxide, in and of itself, is not a pollutant. It is an essential component of the atmosphere and all life on earth. So yes, CO2 is not "anything to worry about"... ... that unless unnaturally large quantities of it start getting pumped into the atmosphere in a short period of time..."

Except that there is no definitive proof that it harms anything. Lets not forget it helps stimulate increased plant growth.

5/19/2008 1:51:07 PM

Let's also not forget that an increase in carbon dioxide makes those plants less nutritious.

5/19/2008 2:28:05 PM

I wasn't aware of that could you give me a link (not b/c I'm a smart ass, I actually want to read it).

I'll keep that in mind the next time I feel like eating tree

5/19/2008 2:38:15 PM

I'm going to have to put some back of the napkin calculations together on the absorption spectra of CO2, Earth's blackbody radiation, and the sun's spectra. And of course, the consequential raise in temperature of the Earth with an extra 200 ppm.

If you accept the greenhouse theory, then you accept global warming. A sophomore in physics should be able to prove this to you beyond doubt.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2008 2:58:57 PM

you're not talking to me are you? i think everyone posting in this thread knows how the earth retains heat through its atmosphere.

but if you are, no no sophomore in physics can prove what nobody thus far as been able and that is what exact effect increased C02 concentration has.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : d]

5/19/2008 3:01:13 PM

Where I first heard about it was a study being done in Japan. Just a quick search brought up this study in Texas.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080122-co2-nutrition.html
Some more digging might give up more details. I also know of an experiment they are doing here in NC in a pine forest where they are pumping out large amounts of CO2 to study how it alters tree growth and health.

5/19/2008 3:13:09 PM

Does increased plant intake of C02 result in additional methane production?

5/19/2008 3:53:05 PM

Good question. I will have to do some snooping around. Not really being a omg CO2 "alarmist", as some would say, I have not really read everything there is to know about CO2. Suffice to say I have tried to divert my attention to more relevant threats to nature as they relate to human involvement.

5/19/2008 3:57:17 PM

Well, I can say for sure that increased plant intake by animals results in additional methane production.

Farmers hit with gassy cow tax

Quote :

"Estonian authorities have slapped a flatulence tax on farmers to compensate the country for the methane gas produced by cows. The cows produce large amounts of methane gas through belching and flatulence when they digest grass, which accounts for about 15-25% of overall gas emissions. A single cow produces on average 350 liters of methane and 1,500 liters of carbon dixode per day."

http://www.abc15.com/entertainment/weirdnews/story.aspx?content_id=e2529fa6-b1a6-4714-a75c-4a8327abdc9f

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 3:59:33 PM

"In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?"

Yeah, I'm not gonna trust all the media hoopla about "global warming" when it was "OMGWTFBBQ global cooling!" forty years ago.

5/19/2008 4:04:42 PM

hey why don't you go over to that Bush made money off of the Iraq War thread and face up to making shit up and not backing it up and being completely wrong?

5/19/2008 4:09:12 PM

if we keep planting trees, the increase in flora will need more co2 to be able to efficiently photosynthesize

5/19/2008 4:12:02 PM

^^ I did

5/19/2008 4:14:48 PM

^^ Do you have some, I don't know, um, science to back up that assertion?

5/19/2008 4:22:20 PM