Global warming in summer, climate change in winter. Why?

In spring and fall we just call it trolling.

The real question is why are you asking this on a running forum? Go to a weather forum or something bruh

Yamaha wrote:

Why?

Even if you're a troll playing the part of an idiot, you're still indistinguishable from an idiot. Why?

ShutupGetout wrote:

The real question is why are you asking this on a running forum? Go to a weather forum or something bruh

I agree. Shut up and pay your taxes.

sounds like you've touched on a touchy subject. Just wait until you have to confirm your identity around here then we'll see if you're still so funny.

Yamaha wrote:

Why?

I know you're trolling, but some people really don't understand this.

First of all, the two terms are not interchangeable, and they're not simply used to fit an agenda. Both terms are pretty self explanatory, climate change is changes to the climate such as drought, desertification, ocean acidification, etc. Global warming is an increase of global surface temperature and is one of the pieces of climate change. See the difference? One is an aspect of the other. Neither term is new, and climate change wasn't invented because global warming stopped happening.

Second, global warming happens in every season. In fact, we just had the warmest winter on record (come on Sally, tell me how long the record is). Climate change also occurs year round. Much of the US has been stricken by unusual drought over the past few years.

Touch detector wrote:

sounds like you've touched on a touchy subject. Just wait until you have to confirm your identity around here then we'll see if you're still so funny.

"touched on a touchy subject" ?!? WTF?

Moron!

Touch me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOO9D40EL5g

No Way wrote:

Yamaha wrote:

Why?

I know you're trolling, but some people really don't understand this.

First of all, the two terms are not interchangeable, and they're not simply used to fit an agenda.

Second, global warming happens in every season. In fact, we just had the warmest winter on record (come on Sally, tell me how long the record is). Climate change also occurs year round. Much of the US has been stricken by unusual drought over the past few years.

No, actually No Way is Way off. Global Warming was the original term for the scientific hoax used to try to get the rich countries to transfer money to the poorer countries. The quacksalver Al Gore made hundreds of millions from this fraud and even made a movie about the subject, though it was later revealed that there were many, many mistakes in the movie. Climate "scientists" were forced to adhere to the hoax or lose their grant monies. It was later revealed that climate "scientists" and other "professors" were manipulated the data, to be blunt -- outright lying, because the data did not support their claim that the Earth's temperatures were rising due to increased CO2 emissions.

In 1998, as the Earth's temps stubbornly refused to rise in spite of skyrocketing CO2 emissions (just one country alone, China, has seen its CO2 emissions triple since 1998) climate "scientists" concluded that a game strategy shift was needed. How could they keep calling it Global Warming when there was no warming? They were perplexed and confounded. Voila! How about changing the name to Climate Change?! That way if the Earth warmed or if the Earth cooled they were covered. And that is why Global Warming is now Climate Change.

See, this might make sense if it were based in reality. However, there's one small problem; it isn't!

You may have heard about the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's cited by folks on both sides of the fence. It has climate change in it's name and has been talking about climate change since it was founded in 1988. The term wasn't new to them either.

Any other comments Polly?

Scientists say new study is a death blow to global warming hysteria:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

Have a beer and enjoy the excuses from letsrun's climate morons.

2/10

Check it out:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

popcorn time wrote:

Scientists say new study is a death blow to global warming hysteria:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

Have a beer and enjoy the excuses from letsrun's climate morons.

Wait, wait, so scientists said that? Well, it must be true.

You guys are great!

Polly?

If you actually researched the topic, you'd find that it was a republican that recommended the name change to "climate change" so as to limit the hysteria associated with a term like "global warming."

Moron.

popcorn time wrote:

Scientists say new study is a death blow to global warming hysteria:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

Have a beer and enjoy the excuses from letsrun's climate morons.

The Stevens paper is flawed in that it ignores black carbon effects (a positive aerosol) and discounts volcanic effects without justification. I don't expect you to understand why this matters, but it is why the paper will rightly be relegated to the dustbins of scientific literature. It's also inconsistent with a large body of paleo climate sensitivity studies.

As a general rule, when a article's headline and main quotes come from scientists employed by a politicized think tank, one should not expect a neutral scientific assessment. Enjoy your beer.

I have a PhD in Earth and Atmospheric Science. Both sides of the argument have considerable research and more importantly $ behind them. You can research and "find" a way to justify those $ and make a valid and somewhat defensible argument. My thoughts are that we only have about 100 years of weather related data to prove either argument. And most of that info is not entirely accurate. We simply do not know and someone who says that they do know is not being honest with themselves.

thoughts wrote:

I have a PhD in Earth and Atmospheric Science. Both sides of the argument have considerable research and more importantly $ behind them. You can research and "find" a way to justify those $ and make a valid and somewhat defensible argument. My thoughts are that we only have about 100 years of weather related data to prove either argument. And most of that info is not entirely accurate. We simply do not know and someone who says that they do know is not being honest with themselves.

No offense but the starting point for all such science does not begin with "weather-related data".

And regarding the notion that there is "considerable research" on both sides, etc. - as if this was something like a 50-50 proposition within the related science community is disingenuous at best. And that is being VERY generous. Looks a whole lot more like camouflaged lying but I'm trying to be polite here.

thoughts wrote:

I have a PhD in Earth and Atmospheric Science.

1) bullshit

Both sides of the argument have considerable research and more importantly $ behind them. You can research and "find" a way to justify those $ and make a valid and somewhat defensible argument. My thoughts are that we only have about 100 years of weather related data to prove either argument. And most of that info is not entirely accurate. We simply do not know and someone who says that they do know is not being honest with themselves.

2) The Stevens paper addresses pre-instrumental aerosol levels so your thoughts are not relevant in context. Hence one can deduce 1 with high confidence.