8 ms·

You're not trying to prevent a budding flame war, you're just trying to preempt the "deniers" from denying. And I guess you didn't get the memo. You can't cal

You're not trying to prevent a budding flame war, you're just trying to preempt the "deniers" from denying. And I guess you didn't get the memo. You can't call it global warming now. You have to call it climate change. That way, no matter what happens and no matter how cold it gets, evil man and evil capitalism can still be blamed.

Afforess 13y ago
Give it a rest. "Climate Change" is a term for any change in climate in any timeframe. The ice age was climate change. Global Warming refers to man made climate change. It's a more specific term.
throwaway9848 13y ago
He's quoting the article verbatim.
btilly 13y ago
And I guess you didn't get the memo. You can't call it global warming now. You have to call it climate change. That way, no matter what happens and no matter how cold it gets, evil man and evil capitalism can still be blamed. If you're trolling, that kind of trolling is not wanted around here. If you're not trolling, then you didn't understand the article. This study finds a rate of warming at 80% the consensus average of predictions from several years ago, and well within the previous uncertainty bars. So evidence of warming is getting stronger, not weaker, even though the exact predictions of how fast it is warming are coming in on the conservative side of previous estimates.
- Falling3 13y ago
  >If you're not trolling, then you didn't understand the article. Not only did he not understand the article, he doesn't understand any part of climate science.
- gwright 13y ago
  The dispute has not been about 'warming' in the abstract but about 'catastrophic warming'. So while the evidence for 'warming' may be getting stronger, the evidence for 'catastrophic warming' would seem to be getting weaker. The longer we go without significant warming, the lower that growth rate will get and the weaker the argument for a catastrophic warming will be.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Define catastrophic. At current rates of change we are looking in near decades at changing rainfall patterns that will result in regions and countries suffering permanent drought, and others suffering regular flooding and other forms of extreme weather. Among the areas predicted to have severe and permanent drought is the southeastern USA. Furthermore we are learning about new risks. For instance ocean acidification has put us on a possibly irreversible path towards world-wide mass extinctions of organisms that use calcium carbonate for protection. This includes coral and shellfish. Nobody knows what resulting ecosystem changes will happen, or what the consequences for commercial fisheries which are a critical food supply for populations around the world. The only way in which these things do not qualify as "catastrophic" is in comparison to worse catastrophes that were within the realm of theoretical possibility, but which now seem less likely. For the planet as a whole, and for people on the planet, the current course bears a series of inevitable catastrophes in our future.
    - gwright 13y ago
      It is all about the feedback. No one disputes the physics of warming created by CO2 emissions. But that warming is insufficient to create the run-away warming predicted in climate models. The increases necessary to generate the catastrophic scenarios that you (and many others describe) requires that there be an aggregate positive feedback mechanism in the climate system to magnify the CO2 warming (the anthropomorphic warming). If you read any of the literature you'll see this refered to as the 'climate sensitivity'. No one knows the actual climate sensitivity relative to CO2 concentrations. No one knows what all the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms are. These are all suppositions by climate scientists that are plugged into their models in order to make the models accurate output the historical record. Then there is a grand leap of faith that says that the models will accurate predict the future record. Except that for the last 10-20 years, the models have been wrong. CO2 has increased but the temperature has not changed according to the models prediction. The original article says: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F). But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C. So the models will be tweaked (for example by reducing the climate sensitivity) in order to generate output that matches the new historical record which has 10-20 years of no statistically significant warming. The problem with all this is that the models can always be tweaked to match the historical record while at the same time generating whatever future prediction you want. And if that doesn't work, you just tweak the model again. I'll start to believe that the models are reasonable when they remain unchanged for several decades while still tracking the actual observations.
enraged_camel 13y ago
You sound angry. Relax. Take a deep breath. Maybe go outside and enjoy the nice late-May weather. Hell, it may not be a bad idea to fire up the grill, even, and make yourself a nice hamburger or hot dog. I promise you will feel better afterward.
emmett 13y ago
1) I agree with you that the parent comment is not preempting anything, it's just a political jab. 2) You're simply wrong that the name change to "climate change" was a leftist thing. Luntz is a chief political strategist for the right wing in America: The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.cli...
rickhanlonii 13y ago
You're using two terms which are propositions (that is, they can be either true or false), and demonizing them as if they're subjectively defined and able to be manipulated for individual or group gains. That's simply not the case. Global warming is the fact that the global temperature of Earth has been rising since the 19th century. It either has been warming, or it has not been warming. By fact, it has. Climate Change is a statical fact. If the Earth is in a state of Climate Change, then there is a significant change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over a given time period. Whether or not the change is hot or cold is irrelevant, as both cases are alarming. It's called Climate Change now because it's better defined, characteristic, and accurate than the rather obvious and uninformative term 'global warming.' The planet is not just warming, it's warming at a rate that is statistically significant. If that warming slows, but still stays above a significant rate, then we're still in a state of Climate Change and should still be alarmed. Now, if you want to have a conversation about the validity of Climate Change with integrity, you would need to focus around the merit of the statistical thresholds defined. It could be the case that the thresholds in which leading climatologists have set are too low to merit being alarmed about. Make that case if you can. Otherwise, there's really no basis to make an argument against it.

Afforess 13y ago

Give it a rest. "Climate Change" is a term for any change in climate in any timeframe. The ice age was climate change. Global Warming refers to man made climate change. It's a more specific term.

throwaway9848 13y ago

He's quoting the article verbatim.

btilly 13y ago

And I guess you didn't get the memo. You can't call it global warming now. You have to call it climate change. That way, no matter what happens and no matter how cold it gets, evil man and evil capitalism can still be blamed. If you're trolling, that kind of trolling is not wanted around here. If you're not trolling, then you didn't understand the article. This study finds a rate of warming at 80% the consensus average of predictions from several years ago, and well within the previous uncertainty bars. So evidence of warming is getting stronger, not weaker, even though the exact predictions of how fast it is warming are coming in on the conservative side of previous estimates.

Falling3 13y ago
>If you're not trolling, then you didn't understand the article. Not only did he not understand the article, he doesn't understand any part of climate science.
gwright 13y ago
The dispute has not been about 'warming' in the abstract but about 'catastrophic warming'. So while the evidence for 'warming' may be getting stronger, the evidence for 'catastrophic warming' would seem to be getting weaker. The longer we go without significant warming, the lower that growth rate will get and the weaker the argument for a catastrophic warming will be.
- btilly 13y ago
  Define catastrophic. At current rates of change we are looking in near decades at changing rainfall patterns that will result in regions and countries suffering permanent drought, and others suffering regular flooding and other forms of extreme weather. Among the areas predicted to have severe and permanent drought is the southeastern USA. Furthermore we are learning about new risks. For instance ocean acidification has put us on a possibly irreversible path towards world-wide mass extinctions of organisms that use calcium carbonate for protection. This includes coral and shellfish. Nobody knows what resulting ecosystem changes will happen, or what the consequences for commercial fisheries which are a critical food supply for populations around the world. The only way in which these things do not qualify as "catastrophic" is in comparison to worse catastrophes that were within the realm of theoretical possibility, but which now seem less likely. For the planet as a whole, and for people on the planet, the current course bears a series of inevitable catastrophes in our future.
  - gwright 13y ago
    It is all about the feedback. No one disputes the physics of warming created by CO2 emissions. But that warming is insufficient to create the run-away warming predicted in climate models. The increases necessary to generate the catastrophic scenarios that you (and many others describe) requires that there be an aggregate positive feedback mechanism in the climate system to magnify the CO2 warming (the anthropomorphic warming). If you read any of the literature you'll see this refered to as the 'climate sensitivity'. No one knows the actual climate sensitivity relative to CO2 concentrations. No one knows what all the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms are. These are all suppositions by climate scientists that are plugged into their models in order to make the models accurate output the historical record. Then there is a grand leap of faith that says that the models will accurate predict the future record. Except that for the last 10-20 years, the models have been wrong. CO2 has increased but the temperature has not changed according to the models prediction. The original article says: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F). But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C. So the models will be tweaked (for example by reducing the climate sensitivity) in order to generate output that matches the new historical record which has 10-20 years of no statistically significant warming. The problem with all this is that the models can always be tweaked to match the historical record while at the same time generating whatever future prediction you want. And if that doesn't work, you just tweak the model again. I'll start to believe that the models are reasonable when they remain unchanged for several decades while still tracking the actual observations.

enraged_camel 13y ago

You sound angry. Relax. Take a deep breath. Maybe go outside and enjoy the nice late-May weather. Hell, it may not be a bad idea to fire up the grill, even, and make yourself a nice hamburger or hot dog. I promise you will feel better afterward.

emmett 13y ago

1) I agree with you that the parent comment is not preempting anything, it's just a political jab. 2) You're simply wrong that the name change to "climate change" was a leftist thing. Luntz is a chief political strategist for the right wing in America: The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.cli...

rickhanlonii 13y ago

You're using two terms which are propositions (that is, they can be either true or false), and demonizing them as if they're subjectively defined and able to be manipulated for individual or group gains. That's simply not the case. Global warming is the fact that the global temperature of Earth has been rising since the 19th century. It either has been warming, or it has not been warming. By fact, it has. Climate Change is a statical fact. If the Earth is in a state of Climate Change, then there is a significant change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over a given time period. Whether or not the change is hot or cold is irrelevant, as both cases are alarming. It's called Climate Change now because it's better defined, characteristic, and accurate than the rather obvious and uninformative term 'global warming.' The planet is not just warming, it's warming at a rate that is statistically significant. If that warming slows, but still stays above a significant rate, then we're still in a state of Climate Change and should still be alarmed. Now, if you want to have a conversation about the validity of Climate Change with integrity, you would need to focus around the merit of the statistical thresholds defined. It could be the case that the thresholds in which leading climatologists have set are too low to merit being alarmed about. Make that case if you can. Otherwise, there's really no basis to make an argument against it.