SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 My first instinct is to say that the term "global warming" has become loaded with negative meanings like "liberal" and you are seeing a switch in terms similar to the shift to "progressive". But I think a better explanation is that what we are seeing is more complex than just the planet warming, we are seeing changes in the frequency and severity of storms, precipitation distribution, etc (assuming that you believe these changes are actually occurring). So "climate change" more accurately captures the full scope of what is happening.http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/ ahhhh, I see. I wonder what made the negative associations for Global Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 What ever happened to Global Warming? Why is it called Global Climate change instead these days? Because too many were either too stupid, or too willfully ignorant, to comprehend that small increases in global temperature would do more than just make last decade's average temperatures slightly warmer than the one before. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Maybe people don't care that it will get a few degree warmer. But there are consequences in weather and the impact on human development and agriculture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 But there are consequences in weather and the impact on human development and agriculture. both beneficial ones and not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 ahhhh, I see. I wonder what made the negative associations for Global Warming? Conservative pundits saying it was BS? Again, that was just a previous speculation of mine, I think the scope of changes argument makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 I think it's because while humans like things in simple black and white terms reality is not so clean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I think it's because while humans like things in simple black and white terms reality is not so clean Very true, not so clean indeed. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2012 at 12:26 PM ---------- Conservative pundits saying it was BS? Again, that was just a previous speculation of mine, I think the scope of changes argument makes more sense. Conservative pundits caused the entire scientific AGW community to change the name of their entire cause? I wouldnt have thought that A) anyone from that side of the fence caring what they say and that they would be concerned why the new terminology was needed to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 What ever happened to Global Warming? Why is it called Global Climate change instead these days? Because not everyone on the planet is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Very true, not so clean indeed.---------- Post added December-2nd-2012 at 12:26 PM ---------- Conservative pundits caused the entire scientific AGW community to change the name of their entire cause? I wouldnt have thought that A) anyone from that side of the fence caring what they say and that they would be concerned why the new terminology was needed to begin with. You are focusing on the explanation I discounted and ignoring the explanation I said was most likely. And climate scientists are not backing away from the notion that temperatures are rising. In fact, two recent studies suggest that "alarmist" predictions from the 90s understated the impacts of climate change (AGW if you prefer) that we are seeing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Because not everyone on the planet is an idiot. Yeah, I definitely agree that not everyone is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Yeah, I definitely agree that not everyone is an idiot. Do you agree that a mutual tailgate/SS vacation is overdue? Because I have really been getting that sense and I'm not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I am dumbfounded that Global Warming is a political topic. Why can we all not accept that climate change is fact??? There are not that many glaciers these days that I am aware of in the lower 48 states, or a whole lot of Wooly Mammoths running around right now (but understand scientists are looking to change the later just like Jurassic Park). Antarctica was once a tropical rainforest and now the driest / coldest continent on the planet. Can we all not also agree that pollution is not good??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 both beneficial ones and not Sure. But the point was that for years certain factions were denying that was any change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 I am dumbfounded that Global Warming is a political topic. Why can we all not accept that climate change is fact??? There are not that many glaciers these days that I am aware of in the lower 48 states, or a whole lot of Wooly Mammoths running around right now (but understand scientists are looking to change the later just like Jurassic Park). Antarctica was once a tropical rainforest and now the driest / coldest continent on the planet.Can we all not also agree that pollution is not good??? That's one of the reasons I respect you as a poster. You are not so in bed with the ideology that you can't be pragmatic. That's more or less my view... that there's a problem and it can and is harming us... let's step and stop worrying about blame. We can look at the environment, the rise in cancers, asthma and other symptoms and clearly see that we are harming ourselves. It's pretty obvious on most metrics. What we can do to mitigate the damage is less clear... if it is cyclic, we can certainly try not to accerbate it... if it is largely our doing we can reduce it. In any case, there is a tipping point that we don't want to go over. No one's really sure where that it is, but I bet absolutely no one is truly eager to find out. That would be the worst "I told you so" in species history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Sure. But the point was that for years certain factions were denying that was any change. You mean like those that deny the cooling now ? just a matter of degree and what the drivers are for most...and the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 You mean like those that deny the cooling now ?just a matter of degree and what the drivers are for most...and the response It's a waste of time trying to have a dialog with you. You sidetrack every thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 It's a waste of time trying to have a dialog with you. You sidetrack every thread. my email must not be on the list for the script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 You mean like those that deny the cooling now ?just a matter of degree and what the drivers are for most...and the response Nobody has ever said that the temperature would only go up. For the last 80 years, there have been "local" highs and from those local highs there has been "local" cooling. According to GISS, 2011 was the 9th warmest year on record. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf Hadcrut has it as the 11th: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2011-global-temperature Satelite data has it as the 9th warmest year: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/december/Dec2011GTR.pdf And every data set has this year being warmer than last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 ...We can look at the environment, the rise in cancers, asthma and other symptoms and clearly see that we are harming ourselves. It's pretty obvious on most metrics. What we can do to mitigate the damage is less clear... if it is cyclic, we can certainly try not to accerbate it... if it is largely our doing we can reduce it. In any case, there is a tipping point that we don't want to go over. No one's really sure where that it is, but I bet absolutely no one is truly eager to find out. That would be the worst "I told you so" in species history. I ran into a TED talk a little while ago about eventually having to do geo-engineering. Even if we do not hit a runaway situation, the delay between putting up CO2 and feeling the result essentially guarantees that we will not get the political will to solve this problem by limiting emissions. So, we will probably need to block out the Sun a little bit at some point. Just a little bit and only at the poles. It's going to be great. Now lets get those Giants tomorrow!!! ---------- Post added December-2nd-2012 at 09:59 PM ---------- Here it is http://blog.ted.com/2007/11/13/david_keith/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Nobody has ever said that the temperature would only go up. For the last 80 years, there have been "local" highs and from those local highs there has been "local" cooling.. and not just for the last 80 yrs Do you have enough faith in the models to endorse geo-engineering ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 and not just for the last 80 yrsDo you have enough faith in the models to endorse geo-engineering ? Not in the way alexey means, I don't think at this point in time. No, I don't. I don't think there is even models that have tried to take into account various geo-engineering options other than the basic put aersoles up there, but the problem is that aersoles have very limited half lives with respect to CO2 so over any sort of reasonable amount of time you are talking about huge amounts of aersoles. Other forms of geo-engineering are essentially science fiction. Right now I think the plan should be you reduce CO2 output and start planning on mitigating on the local level. The big thing is to figure your 100 year flood plains for areas like the east coast are going to become your 20 year flood plain and plan building and building codes accordingly. Deal with global issues as best you can as they come. And then you go from there based on what happens and what research shows. But that doesn't make your point any more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 we have reduced co2, and should be able to increase the trend utilizing NG(as well as reducing other problems) probably not going to have much luck getting other countries to do so the accuracy of my point matters about as much as my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 the accuracy of my point matters about as much as my opinion One of your more valid observations. :pfft: :evilg: I'll be here at least another week. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 we have reduced co2, and should be able to increase the trend utilizing NG(as well as reducing other problems)probably not going to have much luck getting other countries to do so the accuracy of my point matters about as much as my opinion We still use way too much CO2 as compared to the rest of the world: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities" http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html And going to NG doesn't necessarily help depending on emissions at NG mining sites, especially because NG is a more powerful GHG and over time is converte dinto CO2. I think NG can certainly help the situation, but there is going to have to be pressure on companies to do it manner that greatly minimizes emissions from the sites. **EDIT** And other have countries have lowered emissions too: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:DEU&dl=en&hl=en&q=germany%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:FRA&dl=en&hl=en&q=france%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions Partly, this was the result of the recession, but part of is directly related to environmental related policies. **EDIT 2** If we'd even do some relatively small things like try and minimize packagin waste the way that Europe has we'd use a lot less CO2, save ourselves money, and have fewer land fills (which would help save us money) https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1044&bih=573&sclient=psy-ab&q=Europe+packaging+waste+%22united+states%22&oq=Europe+packaging+waste+%22united+states%22&gs_l=hp.3...12154.15954.1.16241.16.16.0.0.0.0.110.1473.15j1.16.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.kcsCpj2dph4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=98e3c25732cb68a3&bpcl=39314241 There are so many SMALL things we could do that its laughable until you think about it much, and then it is depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 What about this tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 One of your more valid observations.:pfft: :evilg: I'll be here at least another week. :cool: At least? Face it,you are a addict :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.