The shift in language used by the public happened months ago as a result of the public becoming better educated. Scientists have always used the term 'climate change' or 'anthropomorphic climate change' much more often than 'global warming'. That's why the group that won a nobel prize wasn't called the IPGW, it was called the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
We are seriously not going to pretend it's not happening because a better more accurate term is being used? Is this from the Fox News thing where they said, we should sue Al Gore because the temperatures have been lower this year h'yuck h'yuck.
Harlowe wrote:We are seriously not going to pretend it's not happening because a better more accurate term is being used? Is this from the Fox News thing where they said, we should sue Al Gore because the temperatures have been lower this year h'yuck h'yuck.
The Petition Project... I'll grant that I have an issue with the count of signers, and their relevancy (around 19,000 I think). But if even half of that is correct, it shows a large division within the scientific community over the message being delivered by the IPCC.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Funny I thought saying "Climate Change" and other Luntzian terms was being nice to you. Using language you can wrap your right wing head around.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
I love reading the articles about the cherry blossoms in DC and how they are so much earlier then previously and this is due to the evils of Global Warming/Climate Change. It is like a delusional idea that the world is supposed to have a set cycle or temperature that will never change. The fact of the matter is that we have 3 engines in our world and 2 of the them are dependent on the first: Sun, Earth's Core, and the Moon. Since those engines aren't putting out the same output it is delusional to think that our environment is some pristine thing that will never change if we could only stop the evil polluters and remover our effect on the system.
Rsak wrote:I love reading the articles about the cherry blossoms in DC and how they are so much earlier then previously and this is due to the evils of Global Warming/Climate Change. It is like a delusional idea that the world is supposed to have a set cycle or temperature that will never change. The fact of the matter is that we have 3 engines in our world and 2 of the them are dependent on the first: Sun, Earth's Core, and the Moon. Since those engines aren't putting out the same output it is delusional to think that our environment is some pristine thing that will never change if we could only stop the evil polluters and remover our effect on the system.
Uh its not really a "the climate never changes" thing, its more of a "its atypical for the climate to change this fast" thing...
Do you really think that we understand enough about global climate change to say that this has never happened before? Do we really have a complete understanding of past climate change to make that statement?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Uh its not really a "the climate never changes" thing, its more of a "its atypical for the climate to change this fast" thing...
Just because the speed of the change is changing is not a given that the system is broken. I honestly don't know one way or another. However we do know that the our Sun is aging and the energy output is different because of that. I agree that the Sun hasn't suddenly changed over the last 40 years, but it could be a gradual thing that has reached a tipping point.
The point is that people talk about climate like it is something that is not supposed to change and that spring should always come the same time of the year or the cherry blossoms bloom the same day in April.. etc..
Just because the speed of the change is changing is not a given that the system is broken. I honestly don't know one way or another. However we do know that the our Sun is aging and the energy output is different because of that.
Bwahahahaha!
Think I'll ship this one off to Pharyngula or some other blog so they can mock you, too.
Do you have ... no, strike that. It's obvious you have no clue about the dynamics of a star.
Were you homeschooled?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I don't see it that way Harlowe. There is just too little data, and much of it conflicting (they're constantly having to revise the mathematical models to make them fit the observed data), to say that 1) global warming is occuring, and 2) if it is, man is the cause.
When I posted earlier that now the catch phrase is "climate change" instead of "global warming", I should have pointed out the obvious, which many of you seem to have missed. The climate is ALWAYS changing. It has been changing long before humans evolved, and it will be changing long after humans are gone. Climate is dynamic, its always in flux.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Do you really think that we understand enough about global climate change to say that this has never happened before? Do we really have a complete understanding of past climate change to make that statement?
Pitty we didn't use that thinking 100 years ago.
I assume you are making the arguement that we should not make drastic decisions that could impact our ecomony without knowing it will make an positive impact on our environment......while at the same time turning a blind eye to the drastic economic decisions we make without knowing what impact it will have on our environment.
If you are such an expert on the dynamics of a star then I dare you to show where I am wrong. Or do you declare that the energy output of a star is fixed?
Harlowe,
Just because I am skeptical does not mean my mind is closed. And no I am not in the "world is flat" category. I am absolutely open to the idea that humans fucked the world and there is no hope of recovery... Lets find the evidence that shows that, what can be done to fix it, and what the cost of making those changes. Heaven forbid I ask for anything less then an educated conversation.
I am not against conservation before any of that is proven, but until that time it should be voluntary. I even work for a company that is part of the Clinton Climate Initiative. I have no problem with the actual work being done by it I have to be honest and learn to separate the science, environmentalism, and the politics of it. I know that Clinton is using it for nothing more then publicity and is no true driving force, but even that can allow good to come from it.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Do you really think that we understand enough about global climate change to say that this has never happened before? Do we really have a complete understanding of past climate change to make that statement?
Pitty we didn't use that thinking 100 years ago.
I assume you are making the arguement that we should not make drastic decisions that could impact our ecomony without knowing it will make an positive impact on our environment......while at the same time turning a blind eye to the drastic economic decisions we make without knowing what impact it will have on our environment.
Thats a bit dishonest, don't you think? And there's enough hyperbole there to make Clinton campaigner proud.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
The energy formed by our sun is caused by hydrogen fusion. As any kid who's read a basic science text will tell you, the amount of energy you get out of hydrogen fusion is a fixed amount. Or are you going to argue next that e != mc² ?
Yes, the energy output of our star is fixed. What reaches us may not be due to other factors, but the amount of energy loss is too small to be the full cause of climate change, and there are valid arguments that, in fact, it may not have any effect.
But please, keep parading your ignorance. I'm going with the theory you were homeschooled by a pastor who favored wetsuits.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I'm sorry but you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.
You cannot honestly make the arguement that we should not make economic changes that could potentially have a positive effect on our environment due to an incomplete understanding of the various dynamic systems involved......and then not make the converse. That we should not make economic changes that could potentially have a negative effect on our environment for the vary same reasons cited.
Might I suggest watching Rapa Nui before you decide to chop down that last tree?
As non-fusing helium ash accumulates in the core, the reduction in the abundance of hydrogen per unit mass results in a gradual lowering of the fusion rate within that mass. To compensate, the core temperature and pressure slowly increase, which actually causes a net increase in the overall fusion rate (to support the greater density of the inner star). This produces a steady increase in the luminosity and radius of the star over time.[11] Thus, for example, the luminosity of the early Sun was only about 70% of its current value.[20] The luminosity increase of a star changes its position on the HR diagram; resulting in a broadening of the main sequence band because stars are observed at random stages in their lifetime.[21]
Our Sun has been a main sequence star for about 4.5 billion years and will continue to be one for another 5.5 billion years, for a total main sequence lifetime of 1010 years. After the hydrogen supply in the core is exhausted, it will expand to become a red giant and fuse helium atoms to form carbon.
But if we believe you.. then stars would never change color and never collapse into white dwarfs, black holes, or supernova.
Kulaf wrote:I'm sorry but you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.
You cannot honestly make the arguement that we should not make economic changes that could potentially have a positive effect on our environment due to an incomplete understanding of the various dynamic systems involved......and then not make the converse. That we should not make economic changes that could potentially have a negative effect on our environment for the vary same reasons cited.
Might I suggest watching Rapa Nui before you decide to chop down that last tree?
My stand has always been that we should diversify our energy base, regardless of what is or isn't happening with the climate. And your example above is all about justifying a decision based on a perceived, but unknown outcome.
What if making economic decisions based on concerns about climate change have neither a positive effect, nor a zero effect, but have a negative effect? That's a possible outcome as well, and it's why your argument is logically flawed.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
As non-fusing helium ash accumulates in the core, the reduction in the abundance of hydrogen per unit mass results in a gradual lowering of the fusion rate within that mass. To compensate, the core temperature and pressure slowly increase, which actually causes a net increase in the overall fusion rate (to support the greater density of the inner star). This produces a steady increase in the luminosity and radius of the star over time.[11] Thus, for example, the luminosity of the early Sun was only about 70% of its current value.[20] The luminosity increase of a star changes its position on the HR diagram; resulting in a broadening of the main sequence band because stars are observed at random stages in their lifetime.[21]
Our Sun has been a main sequence star for about 4.5 billion years and will continue to be one for another 5.5 billion years, for a total main sequence lifetime of 1010 years. After the hydrogen supply in the core is exhausted, it will expand to become a red giant and fuse helium atoms to form carbon.
But if we believe you.. then stars would never change color and never collapse into white dwarfs, black holes, or supernova.
You didn't happen to note the part about it not happening until the hydrogen is exhausted, right? You know, in about 5.5 billion years? Or that your first part talked about how the core temperature and pressure change to compensate for the lower hydrogen level?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
