Climate Change

[BigStar]

Bull. It was changed for public relations. When you use the term "global warming" you are attaching a specific phenomenon to your thesis. But "climate change" is so incredibly vague, it can be applied everywhere.

Lot of hurricanes this year? Climate change!
Very few hurricanes this year? Climate change!
Lot of tornadoes this year? Climate change!
Very few tornadoes this year? Climate change!
Hot outside? Climate change!
Cold outside? Climate change!

Of course, all this conveniently ignores the fact that in the 4 billion year history of our planet, there has never been a period of time where the climate was not changing.

This was covered in the link provided.

"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."

Something tells me you wouldn't like the term "inadvertent climate modification" either...

 

[zrinkill]

Bull. It was changed for public relations. When you use the term "global warming" you are attaching a specific phenomenon to your thesis. But "climate change" is so incredibly vague, it can be applied everywhere.

Lot of hurricanes this year? Climate change!
Very few hurricanes this year? Climate change!
Lot of tornadoes this year? Climate change!
Very few tornadoes this year? Climate change!
Hot outside? Climate change!
Cold outside? Climate change!

Of course, all this conveniently ignores the fact that in the 4 billion year history of our planet, there has never been a period of time where the climate was not changing.

Nice

 

[BigStar]

Nice

 

[jrumann59]

comparing 200 years of industrialized nations' effect on earth climate is like saying you can point to that 1 second 20 years ago a week from friday at 2:05 pm having a major impact on your life overall.

 

[burmafrd]

.

comparing 200 years of industrialized nations' effect on earth climate is like saying you can point to that 1 second 20 years ago a week from friday at 2:05 pm having a major impact on your life overall.

and there are no reliable or accurate records from half of that time span. That is why I laugh at those claiming that they can show that the earth has warmed .5 degrees in the last 100 years.

 

[Rockport]

comparing 200 years of industrialized nations' effect on earth climate is like saying you can point to that 1 second 20 years ago a week from friday at 2:05 pm having a major impact on your life overall.

That's BS and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it. You should think before you post something so ridiculous.

 

[jrumann59]

That's BS and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it. You should think before you post something so ridiculous.

Ad hominem thanks you for your contribution.

Well I find it extremely arrogant that mankind can do damage to this planet on such a scale it is incapable of recovering especially in what probably equates to less than second in the Earth's existence. Anything short of total nuclear war man is as irrelevant as a gnat on on horse's butt. Show me with 75% certainty that the Earth is not in a natural warming cycle that can be contributed solely to man's interaction with nature.

 

[Rockport]

Ad hominem thanks you for your contribution.

Well I find it extremely arrogant that mankind can do damage to this planet on such a scale it is incapable of recovering especially in what probably equates to less than second in the Earth's existence. Anything short of total nuclear war man is as irrelevant as a gnat on on horse's butt. Show me with 75% certainty that the Earth is not in a natural warming cycle that can be contributed solely to man's interaction with nature.

Show me it isn't.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Ya'll are not trying hard enough. I'm waiting for CBZ to solve this crisis.

 

[Tio]

Just want to be clear, there is a big difference between your day to day weather and climate. It has been an incredibly nice summer for a lot of states in the U.S.

This is probably a large reason for that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-flow-air-lead-longer-harsher-winters.html

Also, google positive feedback loops on our globe, or check out how we are now starting to see methane be released from deep within our oceans. Don't look out your window and tell me everything is fine.

 

[TheCount]

comparing 200 years of industrialized nations' effect on earth climate is like saying you can point to that 1 second 20 years ago a week from friday at 2:05 pm having a major impact on your life overall.

Tell that to the Passenger Pigeon.

 

[TheCount]

Bull. It was changed for public relations. When you use the term "global warming" you are attaching a specific phenomenon to your thesis.

You are getting distracted by terminology. "Climate Change" is far broader than "Are humans messing up the weather". It's not a term that was created for PR, it's a legitimate scientific study.

 

[jrumann59]

You are getting distracted by terminology. "Climate Change" is far broader than "Are humans messing up the weather". It's not a term that was created for PR, it's a legitimate scientific study.

You are right Climate Change Study is the study of the overall climate on the planet today, yesterday, and 2 billion years ago and trying to extrapolate what it will be 2000 years from now. I have no issue with that science finding patterns and data to say well the earth has glacial ice ages every X amount of years to be followed by very temperate to arid climates for Y amount of years. The issue I have is with the Global Climate Change Alarmists that hyper focus on one thing, mankind, Tio posted a very interesting link mentioning jet streams, and that proves a point that rabid Climate Change Folks lock on to one thing like a pitbull and ignore other science to prove their points. The jetstream stagnation is also contributed to by pending magnetic polar shift, which also leads to ozone holes, more violent storms and further unpredictable weather anomalies.

 

[Rockport]

You are right Climate Change Study is the study of the overall climate on the planet today, yesterday, and 2 billion years ago and trying to extrapolate what it will be 2000 years from now. I have no issue with that science finding patterns and data to say well the earth has glacial ice ages every X amount of years to be followed by very temperate to arid climates for Y amount of years. The issue I have is with the Global Climate Change Alarmists that hyper focus on one thing, mankind, Tio posted a very interesting link mentioning jet streams, and that proves a point that rabid Climate Change Folks lock on to one thing like a pitbull and ignore other science to prove their points. The jetstream stagnation is also contributed to by pending magnetic polar shift, which also leads to ozone holes, more violent storms and further unpredictable weather anomalies.

I don't see where it says that in the link. You're making stuff up. Only neanderthals would scoff at the notion that climate change is a hoax in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[cml750]

The thing about the climate change hysteria is that it is based on models predicting long term results. Any model can be skewed based on the data you enter into to make the prediction and a big part of any modeling is doing a proper PCA (Principle Component Analyses). What that means is each data set has to be checked to see how much it leverages the model. You have to create calibration and validation sets and plug them back into the model to check accuracy. The data used to make infamous hockey stick model was never put through a proper PCA. Besides, the farther out you run a prediction model the accuracy goes down, way down even when the proper PCA was done on the input data. Part of my job is building computer models so I know what I am talking about. While my field is not weather based, all computer prediction models work on the same principles. Personally, I think the whole thing is more politics than anything. It i important to remember that most all the climate scientist who are making these dire predictions were paid to find global warming. There were millions, probably billions given in grants to fund these studies. If they started proving it did not exist then the money would have dried up rather quickly.

 

[jrumann59]

I don't see where it says that in the link. You're making stuff up. Only neanderthals would scoff at the notion that climate change is a hoax in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Here you go you bastion of knowledge and evidently more wisdom than I.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...llapsing-affect-climate-wipe-power-grids.html

 

[BigStar]

The thing about the climate change hysteria is that it is based on models predicting long term results. Any model can be skewed based on the data you enter into to make the prediction and a big part of any modeling is doing a proper PCA (Principle Component Analyses). What that means is each data set has to be checked to see how much it leverages the model. You have to create calibration and validation sets and plug them back into the model to check accuracy. The data used to make infamous hockey stick model was never put through a proper PCA. Besides, the farther out you run a prediction model the accuracy goes down, way down even when the proper PCA was done on the input data. Part of my job is building computer models so I know what I am talking about. While my field is not weather based, all computer prediction models work on the same principles. Personally, I think the whole thing is more politics than anything. It i important to remember that most all the climate scientist who are making these dire predictions were paid to find global warming. There were millions, probably billions given in grants to fund these studies. If they started proving it did not exist then the money would have dried up rather quickly.

I won't argue with your expertise in computing aggregate analysis because I'm not versed. "Facts can prove anything that is remotely true" The one problem I had with your argument fell on the last few sentences. Financial resources have increased towards renewable energy and further research on the topic. The only error I see is accounting for the 89% of scientists in other fields who support man induced climate change. Why would they agree that climate change is human induced if it decreases their funding?

 

[burmafrd]

I don't see where it says that in the link. You're making stuff up. Only neanderthals would scoff at the notion that climate change is a hoax in the face of overwhelming evidence.

only neanderthals here are the ones that have drunk of the Wacko Kool Aid like you have.

 

[burmafrd]

Show me it isn't.

actually the burden of proof is on you and the other fanatics.

 

[Rockport]

actually the burden of proof is on you and the other fanatics.

The proof can be seen every day. Rising sea levels, diminishing ice at the poles, species going extinct, drought, floods, record high tempertures, 97% of climate scientists agree man is causing climate change. Only idiots with political agendas deny it.