3 ms·

I don't understand how you can be this cocksure about being absolutely wrong when the first hit on google for "global warming vs climate change" leads to this p

I don't understand how you can be this cocksure about being absolutely wrong when the first hit on google for "global warming vs climate change" leads to this page: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change-1 https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-difference-between-global-war... The term "global warming" doesn't capture everything involved in the climate change that is caused by global warming. This was already known as a myth almost a decade ago: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-b... You should not repeat "talking points" without at least trying at least a little bit to verify them. Please.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> I don't understand how you can be this cocksure Please don't respond in a hostile manner. Responding to a discussion of climate with weather measurements is a non sequitur. Our understanding of climate systems is actually in its infancy. We don't have the observing systems, at fine grained enough resolution, the accurate models, to actually understand what is going on, because in many cases, observations do not match models, or have huge gaps around inputs. > You should not repeat "talking points" The ironic thing about that website you linked is how far it is from the truth of what scientists in the know actually are talking about. We internally talk about the woeful accuracy of our models. "We were only off by 1.8 this year". We talk about the importance of correct siting for in situ measurements, and coming up with better fixes to build a reference system. This is also why our observing systems have changed since the 90s, and why there is an effort to ensure incorrect systems like ASOS do not enter the record, and things like HCN are improved. What were you saying about talking points?
- kazoomonger 5y ago
  It's weird that you bring up responding with a non sequitur when that's exactly what you've just done: - You alleged some vague conspiracy about renaming global warming to climate change ("a name change, a rebranding if you will") - I responded with two links that clarify that there was never any such name change. - You ignored that and started talking about how you think the models are wrong. So do you agree that there was never a name changing or rebranding?
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    Please refrain from an aggressive style of argumentation. Climate is not weather, and weather is not climate. I never said there was a sneaky conspiracy. There was definitely a name change, and my organization at the time (one of the leading data producers for what is happening) changed all of our naming at the same time this occured, in both the media, and other places. Our models are wrong. Deeply flawed. We know this. Just like our HCN siting has been deeply wrong too (the data that is the premise for it occuring). We know that in certain cases ASOS data was incorrectly used in the climate record, and also, in the weather record. That is completely inappropriate use of a data set that was never intended for generalized observations. The process of fixing these things, and making changes to improve them, and iterate upon them - we call that science. This is why the legacy HCN now has been updated by the release of the reference network.
    - kazoomonger 5y ago
      > There was definitely a name change If you read the second link I posted above, you will see that there was no name change. You have not provided any evidence or links to the contrary.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

> I don't understand how you can be this cocksure Please don't respond in a hostile manner. Responding to a discussion of climate with weather measurements is a non sequitur. Our understanding of climate systems is actually in its infancy. We don't have the observing systems, at fine grained enough resolution, the accurate models, to actually understand what is going on, because in many cases, observations do not match models, or have huge gaps around inputs. > You should not repeat "talking points" The ironic thing about that website you linked is how far it is from the truth of what scientists in the know actually are talking about. We internally talk about the woeful accuracy of our models. "We were only off by 1.8 this year". We talk about the importance of correct siting for in situ measurements, and coming up with better fixes to build a reference system. This is also why our observing systems have changed since the 90s, and why there is an effort to ensure incorrect systems like ASOS do not enter the record, and things like HCN are improved. What were you saying about talking points?

kazoomonger 5y ago
It's weird that you bring up responding with a non sequitur when that's exactly what you've just done: - You alleged some vague conspiracy about renaming global warming to climate change ("a name change, a rebranding if you will") - I responded with two links that clarify that there was never any such name change. - You ignored that and started talking about how you think the models are wrong. So do you agree that there was never a name changing or rebranding?
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Please refrain from an aggressive style of argumentation. Climate is not weather, and weather is not climate. I never said there was a sneaky conspiracy. There was definitely a name change, and my organization at the time (one of the leading data producers for what is happening) changed all of our naming at the same time this occured, in both the media, and other places. Our models are wrong. Deeply flawed. We know this. Just like our HCN siting has been deeply wrong too (the data that is the premise for it occuring). We know that in certain cases ASOS data was incorrectly used in the climate record, and also, in the weather record. That is completely inappropriate use of a data set that was never intended for generalized observations. The process of fixing these things, and making changes to improve them, and iterate upon them - we call that science. This is why the legacy HCN now has been updated by the release of the reference network.
  - kazoomonger 5y ago
    > There was definitely a name change If you read the second link I posted above, you will see that there was no name change. You have not provided any evidence or links to the contrary.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...