Why is it still called Climate Change instead of Global Warming?

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

Wait. So you are offering me the wager, but you've already determined the results? Who's the troll here? You post your wager while insulting the people you are offering it to. Who's the troll? You offer up a wager, don't even effectively define the rules, then call me a troll for not accepting it?

Thank you Elite Senior Trollinator for proving that your wager is nothing but BULLSCHIAT.

I'm willing to put up the $100. Apparently, you already know what the outcome is, unless you've had your head under a rock. (Or unless your head is made of a rock.) Despite a plethora of evidence that the Earth is warming, I'm willing to give that evidence the benefit of a doubt, and put up my $100 against your $100. Of course, you can use all sorts of diversionary tactics, calling ME the troll, etc. But, you have a LONG history of being nothing but a troll on these forums who should have been nuked the first month you were here. And, here you are again, unwilling to take a stand for what you "believe" in. You're just here to cause trouble & argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of the facts. Put up, or shut up. We can hash out the details of the wager in PM or through some 3rd party.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

I can't believe wikipedia doesn't have a picture of you next to that definition.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

Wait. So you are offering me the wager, but you've already determined the results? Who's the troll here? You post your wager while insulting the people you are offering it to. Who's the troll? You offer up a wager, don't even effectively define the rules, then call me a troll for not accepting it?

Thank you Elite Senior Trollinator for proving that your wager is nothing but BULLSCHIAT.

I'm willing to put up the $100. Apparently, you already know what the outcome is, unless you've had your head under a rock. (Or unless your head is made of a rock.) Despite a plethora of evidence that the Earth is warming, I'm willing to give that evidence the benefit of a doubt, and put up my $100 against your $100. Of course, you can use all sorts of diversionary tactics, calling ME the troll, etc. But, you have a LONG history of being nothing but a troll on these forums who should have been nuked the first month you were here. And, here you are again, unwilling to take a stand for what you "believe" in. You're just here to cause trouble & argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of the facts. Put up, or shut up. We can hash out the details of the wager in PM or through some 3rd party.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

I can't believe wikipedia doesn't have a picture of you next to that definition.

If you would ANSWER my questions instead of deflecting maybe I would take you up on my offer. How are you defining global warming.. MAN MADE, or just Global Warming in general? And WHO is going to be the judge of the 'winner'?

I ask you once again to answer my questions.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Bush, thru the Repub word machine, threw out the term Global Warming and replaced it with a more business friendly sounding 'Climate change.'

So with the Dems back in control, why is Climate change still used?

Why hasnt it reverted back to Global Warming?

Global Warming is a stupid name anyway. It's not just the Warming cycle but the cooling cycle as well. I think Climate Change is a better name for it.

Why are you worried??? Maybe you've seen the light?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Isn't this alot like 'Pascal's wager'? I mean if you simply accept Global Warming to be true and act accordingly you have everything to gain. The historians will praise this generation while if you act contrary to it and it is true, you have everything to loose and the historians wont be around either to tell. Maybe it is to do with the future regardless of the reality of today's knowledge. It can't hurt to go the route of 'acting in the best interest of our progeny'.

Put down the joint. Blow out the smoke. And just listen for a second. If Global Warming DOESN'T exist, and we impose BILLIONS of dollars in taxes, spending, fees, fines, and punishments, Yes, there IS something to lose. People can lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their freedoms.. all in the name of 'Global Warming' which may or may not exist. This is not Pascal's Wager..

Ok.. I put down my cigarette, well, first blew out the smoke... and I don't have that speech reader thing... can't make it work. But, I'll read your comments.

People will lose jobs? You mean if we obsolete the fossil fuel stuff and introduce a 'greener' method we'll import it from China? I'd hope we'd use USA stuff. Lose their savings and freedoms? Guess those with investments in Oil related stuff can divest by the time the transition occurs. They can keep an eye on T. Boone Pickens' actions. Not sure what freedoms are lost but guess other freedoms are gained. I'd hate to lose out on moving down the road on my '43 Indian, if I had it but think I'd love to drive one of those all electric ones... so quite and all... sneak up on stuff...
I have not the intellegence myself to determine if Global Warming is real nor the inclination to learn it. I rely on the folks who I think know. Jim Hansen is one and some folks at UCSD and Scripps who I know know stuff.

Pascal's Wager is maybe not the right term. Maybe it is simply IF true and we do nothing then what? IF false so what. I can't get much poorer and the only right I care about is seeing my great grand daughter grow up and her kids and on down the line... I'll wager my today for their tomorrow... and do it gladly.

 

[LunarRay]

FNE,
I keep hearing a tune from the movie Jaws... Where the skipper was chuckling at the gear the Ichthyologist was bringing to study the big ole shark... You put that cage in the water? You get in the cage? Shark's in the water? Our Shark?...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Sure here are my conditions to prove global warming.
Option 1:
1. Every 10 square miles a temperature sensor with an accuracy of 1/100 of estimated change in temperature.
2. 10,000 years of data from said sensors.

Or make a computer model for the weather that is valid for a month.

Therefore, according to you, we can't come to any agreement about doing something about climate change for at least 10,000 years. :disgust:

As to your "computer model" statement, you show a complete lack of understanding about climate models. Let me make it REALLY simple for you:

We KNOW FOR SURE that if (say) 1000 people smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for decades, the rates of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, stroke, and death will be MUCH higher than for a matched, 1000-person control group of non-smokers. We CANNOT predict which specific people will get any of those diseases or will die. We CANNOT predict specifically WHEN those people will get those diseases or die. The fact that we cannot make specific predictions about which people will get sick with which diseases, and when, doesn't invalidate our ability to make very accurate predictions about the consequences of smoking over the broad population.

This is known as statistical modeling. The same applies for climate. A good climate model can predict with great confidence overall climate trends over a period of many years. Thus, we can predict that average global temperatures will increase. We can predict that there will be more and more-severe hurricanes. We can predict areas of the earth that will overall receive less rainfall, and areas that will overall receive more rainfall. But it is and will continue to be impossible to predict what the specific weather will be on specific days.

I didn't say you need to wait 10,000 years but you need to have 10,000 years of past data to determine if what you are seeing is normal. You know like that mini-ice age and medieval warm period.

Name one computer model from 1998 that predicted the temperature for 2008 correctly, and I'm willing to bet I can find another 10 that where wrong. Throw enough darts at the board and every once and a while you might hit something.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Sure here are my conditions to prove global warming.
Option 1:
1. Every 10 square miles a temperature sensor with an accuracy of 1/100 of estimated change in temperature.
2. 10,000 years of data from said sensors.

Or make a computer model for the weather that is valid for a month.

Therefore, according to you, we can't come to any agreement about doing something about climate change for at least 10,000 years. :disgust:

As to your "computer model" statement, you show a complete lack of understanding about climate models. Let me make it REALLY simple for you:

We KNOW FOR SURE that if (say) 1000 people smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for decades, the rates of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, stroke, and death will be MUCH higher than for a matched, 1000-person control group of non-smokers. We CANNOT predict which specific people will get any of those diseases or will die. We CANNOT predict specifically WHEN those people will get those diseases or die. The fact that we cannot make specific predictions about which people will get sick with which diseases, and when, doesn't invalidate our ability to make very accurate predictions about the consequences of smoking over the broad population.

This is known as statistical modeling. The same applies for climate. A good climate model can predict with great confidence overall climate trends over a period of many years. Thus, we can predict that average global temperatures will increase. We can predict that there will be more and more-severe hurricanes. We can predict areas of the earth that will overall receive less rainfall, and areas that will overall receive more rainfall. But it is and will continue to be impossible to predict what the specific weather will be on specific days.

I didn't say you need to wait 10,000 years but you need to have 10,000 years of past data to determine if what you are seeing is normal. You know like that mini-ice age and medieval warm period.

Name one computer model from 1998 that predicted the temperature for 2008 correctly, and I'm willing to bet I can find another 10 that where wrong. Throw enough darts at the board and every once and a while you might hit something.

We can barely predict weather 24 hours out. On Saturday our weather people were saying 20% chance of rain on Sunday. We got SWAMPED.. the ENTIRE area.. it rained most of the day on and off.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

We can barely predict weather 24 hours out. On Saturday our weather people were saying 20% chance of rain on Sunday. We got SWAMPED.. the ENTIRE area.. it rained most of the day on and off.

Who cares? It's really hard to predict whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow, but it's much easier to predict the total amount of rainfall likely for an entire year. How is it that global warming deniers continue to trot out this argument after it has been destroyed over, and over, and over again?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

We can barely predict weather 24 hours out. On Saturday our weather people were saying 20% chance of rain on Sunday. We got SWAMPED.. the ENTIRE area.. it rained most of the day on and off.

Who cares? It's really hard to predict whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow, but it's much easier to predict the total amount of rainfall likely for an entire year. How is it that global warming deniers continue to trot out this argument after it has been destroyed over, and over, and over again?

Ya it's really just impossible to argue against global warming. There have always been cycles of weather, I mean how do you think the world is as warm as it is today after the Ice Age? Because it warms and cools all the time, it's natural. What we can argue about is to what effect mankind is upon climate change. We do contribute, just like the cows' farts do, and the volcanoes, and lots of other things. I think where alot of deniers go wrong in is thinking that if they deny global warming they don't have to feel responsible for it. Well, you can live a good life, accept climate change, and still not be responsible. And besides, even if it's not because of climate change, it's still a good thing to support more efficient energies.

Anyways I'm one who thinks that while we do have a significant effect on the weather, it's not one that the climate can't handle, and all those "we're gonna die in 20 years if we don't start riding bikes to work" people are retarded. As long as we keep on trying to find ways to replace fossil fuels, we'll be moving in the right direction, and that's good enough.

 

[DealMonkey]

Climate change, or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is one of those rare things that some folks just will never accept unless they see it with their own eyes. It kinda makes me wonder how many of them accept Jesus as their lord without any such standards of evidence and/or proof, but I digress. These same folks are also likely to insist that our banks were really just fine on their own and we should have just let them fail. They'd never believe that we faced the real possibility of a global great depression without seeing the global economy unravel and implode in front of them. The problem with this, of course, is that once they've been convinced, it's far too late to do anything about it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Climate change, or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is one of those rare things that some folks just will never accept unless they see it with their own eyes. It kinda makes me wonder how many of them accept Jesus as their lord without any such standards of evidence and/or proof, but I digress. These same folks are also likely to insist that our banks were really just fine on their own and we should have just let them fail. They'd never believe that we faced the real possibility of a global great depression without seeing the global economy unravel and implode in front of them. The problem with this, of course, is that once they've been convinced, it's far too late to do anything about it.

Unfortunately, when the connection between cause and effect is extremely complex, many people reject science and fall back on faith. This is especially true when science is at odds with peoples' comfort zones.

 

[yllus]

Not that I want to willingly fraternize with some of the people in this thread who scoff at climate change science, but there really is a boatload of non-consensus that could confuse the impartial reader.

August 20, 2007: National Geographic: Arctic Ice at All-Time Low

There is less sea ice in the Arctic than ever before recorded, thanks in part to a warm, sunny summer, a climate scientist said today. And the melting season isn't even over.

The current rate of sea ice melt is much faster than predicted by computer models of the global climate system.

Just last year the National Snow and Ice Data Center's Serreze said that the Arctic was "right on schedule" to be completely free of ice by 2070 at the soonest. He now thinks that day may arrive by 2030.

September 21, 2009: National Geographic: Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought?

This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say.

Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.

However, that scenario required Arctic sea ice to shrink at the record-setting pace of summer 2007, when sea ice coverage dropped to 1.6 million square miles (4.13 million square kilometers), said Walter Meier, a scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

This summer Arctic sea ice shrank to only 1.97 million square miles (5.1 million square kilometers). The 2009 drop is still the third largest on record, but it's not as big as some scientists had feared.

2070? 2013? 2040? All of those dates are a cause for concern, but the constantly shifting expectation doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

Wait. So you are offering me the wager, but you've already determined the results? Who's the troll here? You post your wager while insulting the people you are offering it to. Who's the troll? You offer up a wager, don't even effectively define the rules, then call me a troll for not accepting it?

Thank you Elite Senior Trollinator for proving that your wager is nothing but BULLSCHIAT.

I'm willing to put up the $100. Apparently, you already know what the outcome is, unless you've had your head under a rock. (Or unless your head is made of a rock.) Despite a plethora of evidence that the Earth is warming, I'm willing to give that evidence the benefit of a doubt, and put up my $100 against your $100. Of course, you can use all sorts of diversionary tactics, calling ME the troll, etc. But, you have a LONG history of being nothing but a troll on these forums who should have been nuked the first month you were here. And, here you are again, unwilling to take a stand for what you "believe" in. You're just here to cause trouble & argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of the facts. Put up, or shut up. We can hash out the details of the wager in PM or through some 3rd party.

LOL at you guys placing side bets. :laugh:

Gentlemen, let me offer you a way to place your bets and make some REAL money, or maybe lose whatever you are willing to risk, on your convictions.

Professionals, like commodity traders, place these kind of bets every day and they are moving substantial sums based on their evaluation of weather and climate forecasts. Do you seriously think they don't have access to the latest data sets when they are committing millions of dollars/euros/yen/etc.?

Right now the trading action is definitely net long. The pros are betting that heating oil is going to be in high demand as their models are showing one of the coldest winters in a long time coming up.

So, place your bets, but as amateurs your best bet might be to remember that the trend is your friend... :laugh:

Myself? I just upgraded my ski equipment and picked up a new parka!

U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade

U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade

By Todd Zeranski and Erik Schatzker

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

?Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,? Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. ?About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It?s pretty good odds.?

Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.

Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased their net-long positions, or bets prices will rise, in New York heating oil futures in the week ended Sep. 22, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data Sept. 25.

?It could be one of the coldest winters, or the coldest, winter of the decade,? Rogers said.

U.S. inventories of distillate fuels, which include heating oil, are at their highest since January 1983, the U.S. Energy Department said Sept. 23. Stockpiles of 170.8 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 18 are 28 percent above the five-year average.

Heating oil for October delivery rose 1.38 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $1.6909 a gallon on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

Wait. So you are offering me the wager, but you've already determined the results? Who's the troll here? You post your wager while insulting the people you are offering it to. Who's the troll? You offer up a wager, don't even effectively define the rules, then call me a troll for not accepting it?

Thank you Elite Senior Trollinator for proving that your wager is nothing but BULLSCHIAT.

I'm willing to put up the $100. Apparently, you already know what the outcome is, unless you've had your head under a rock. (Or unless your head is made of a rock.) Despite a plethora of evidence that the Earth is warming, I'm willing to give that evidence the benefit of a doubt, and put up my $100 against your $100. Of course, you can use all sorts of diversionary tactics, calling ME the troll, etc. But, you have a LONG history of being nothing but a troll on these forums who should have been nuked the first month you were here. And, here you are again, unwilling to take a stand for what you "believe" in. You're just here to cause trouble & argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of the facts. Put up, or shut up. We can hash out the details of the wager in PM or through some 3rd party.

LOL at you guys placing side bets. :laugh:

Gentlemen, let me offer you a way to place your bets and make some REAL money, or maybe lose whatever you are willing to risk, on your convictions.

Professionals, like commodity traders, place these kind of bets every day and they are moving substantial sums based on their evaluation of weather and climate forecasts. Do you seriously think they don't have access to the latest data sets when they are committing millions of dollars/euros/yen/etc.?

Right now the trading action is definitely net long. The pros are betting that heating oil is going to be in high demand as their models are showing one of the coldest winters in a long time coming up.

So, place your bets, but as amateurs your best bet might be to remember that the trend is your friend... :laugh:

Myself? I just upgraded my ski equipment and picked up a new parka!

U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade

U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade

By Todd Zeranski and Erik Schatzker

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

?Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,? Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. ?About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It?s pretty good odds.?

Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.

Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased their net-long positions, or bets prices will rise, in New York heating oil futures in the week ended Sep. 22, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data Sept. 25.

?It could be one of the coldest winters, or the coldest, winter of the decade,? Rogers said.

U.S. inventories of distillate fuels, which include heating oil, are at their highest since January 1983, the U.S. Energy Department said Sept. 23. Stockpiles of 170.8 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 18 are 28 percent above the five-year average.

Heating oil for October delivery rose 1.38 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $1.6909 a gallon on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Your article would have a point if the topic under discussion was 'Northeast United States Warming'. Since it's Global Warming though, lets see how the planet as a whole is doing.
Crap... and it's this bad during an abnormally low period of solar activity. I like how El Nino warms the planet as a whole, but you attempt to link an article talking about one of the areas where it makes things cooler in order to make a dishonest point. Cold weather in one area of the country means almost zero. How many times must this be told to people?