Has the climate ever not changed?

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,491
62,378
1
If so, how can it be expected that we can stop climate change?

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change? Wouldn't global warming be self evident? Why is change bad?

giphy.gif
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
If so, how can it be expected that we can stop climate change?

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change? Wouldn't global warming be self evident? Why is change bad?

giphy.gif
I see a thumbnail on YouTube sometimes about “that time it rained a million years.” That is a long time I guess but I’ve never watched the video. I suppose it’s been a few thousand years since the Sahara was green.

Every time I read about ancient civilizations, the story ends with “it is believed the members of this civilization moved due to climactic changes causing extended drought.” The only constant is change.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,491
62,378
1
I see a thumbnail on YouTube sometimes about “that time it rained a million years.” That is a long time I guess but I’ve never watched the video. I suppose it’s been a few thousand years since the Sahara was green.

Every time I read about ancient civilizations, the story ends with “it is believed the members of this civilization moved due to climactic changes causing extended drought.” The only constant is change.
Agreed. So climate is, and always has, changed. So that is off the table. We are NOT going to get the climate to quit changing.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
Agreed. So climate is, and always has, changed. So that is off the table. We are NOT going to get the climate to quit changing.
but, isn't that why we're not drilling oil and why we're spending all this money on wind turbines and solar energy? to change the climate? what if we don't like the new climate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,491
62,378
1
but, isn't that why we're not drilling oil and why we're spending all this money on wind turbines and solar energy? to change the climate? what if we don't like the new climate?
I give it that climate change is really just their easy word for global warming. It is their way to weasel out of a difficult conversation when weather is really, really cold someplace. An example is when TX had the very cold weather it wasn't an example that Global warming was BS, it was an example of climate change. But if that is climate change, how do we know that this isn't just the natural process?
 

voltz99

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2015
1,027
763
1
Liberal policies are the main cause of climate change. Dems destroyed the energy efficient and walkable cities which pushed the masses to the burbs where they need cars.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,667
30,375
1
I give it that climate change is really just their easy word for global warming. It is their way to weasel out of a difficult conversation when weather is really, really cold someplace. An example is when TX had the very cold weather it wasn't an example that Global warming was BS, it was an example of climate change. But if that is climate change, how do we know that this isn't just the natural process?
Years ago it was global cooling until that didn't happen.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
I give it that climate change is really just their easy word for global warming. It is their way to weasel out of a difficult conversation when weather is really, really cold someplace. An example is when TX had the very cold weather it wasn't an example that Global warming was BS, it was an example of climate change. But if that is climate change, how do we know that this isn't just the natural process?
in large part, the change from global warming was because very few of the modeled predictions for warming actually came true.
So, we switched to climate change because the climate always changes. You can blame everything on climate change and never be wrong
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,667
30,375
1
in large part, the change from global warming was because very few of the modeled predictions for warming actually came true.
So, we switched to climate change because the climate always changes. You can blame everything on climate change and never be wrong
Exactly, if you recall in the 70s it was global cooling, then warming, now it's change.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
10,381
4,181
1
This is an absurd argument. It's like if OJ Simpson argued that people have always died since people have existed therefore it is impossible I murdered my wife.
Of course climate is constantly changing but it is also now apparent that humans are contributing to changing the climate.
 

Nbergbuck

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2004
1,075
1,041
1
If so, how can it be expected that we can stop climate change?

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change? Wouldn't global warming be self evident? Why is change bad?

giphy.gif
The climate does change if one looks at a timeline of sufficient length. The current problem is the climate is changing much more rapidly than is historically normal. The evidence is everywhere.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,667
30,375
1
This is an absurd argument. It's like if OJ Simpson argued that people have always died since people have existed therefore it is impossible I murdered my wife.
Of course climate is constantly changing but it is also now apparent that humans are contributing to changing the climate.
Go away moron, it is not apparent that what we do has any sort of serious impact. See all of recorded geological history ever,
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,667
30,375
1
The climate does change if one looks at a timeline of sufficient length. The current problem is the climate is changing much more rapidly than is historically normal. The evidence is everywhere.
Not necessarily. We can now study in much more depth than we did because we are currently here. If we look back we have no recorded of any quick fluctuations year to year or month to month. We don't have records of daily temperatures in multiple locations. We don't have records of daily monthly, and yearly precipitation. Hell, we only have accurate weather records of app 150 years which is nothing in geological time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monlion

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
If so, how can it be expected that we can stop climate change?

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change? Wouldn't global warming be self evident? Why is change bad?

giphy.gif

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change?

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature​
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.​
Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.​
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
but, isn't that why we're not drilling oil and why we're spending all this money on wind turbines and solar energy? to change the climate? what if we don't like the new climate?

I thought it was because oil and gas are finite resources that will one day run out?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
in large part, the change from global warming was because very few of the modeled predictions for warming actually came true.
So, we switched to climate change because the climate always changes. You can blame everything on climate change and never be wrong

In large part, the change from global warming was because very few of the modeled predictions for warming actually came true.
So, we switched to climate change because the climate always changes. You can blame everything on climate change and never be wrong


The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.​
Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.​
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.​
The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:​
It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
Yep, they were predicting the next Ice Age in the mid 70's.

Nope.

Despite the majority of studies projecting warming, one common myth today misrepresents climate science in the 1970s by saying that the general understanding was of an imminent ice age. The small fraction of studies predicting cooling received a lot of media attention in the 1970s. The idea of a forthcoming ice age made for great headlines. The effect of this disproportionate media coverage persists today, as some people and organizations continue to perpetuate the idea that an ice age was predicted in the 1970s.​
Those who continue to spread this idea create a straw man argument. A straw man is when an opponent’s position is misrepresented in order to make that position easier to attack. In this case, the position is the cooling prediction that was only held by a small minority of scientists, and has since been abandoned. This straw man results in the distortion of public understanding of climate science, and made it easier to cast doubt on the fact that our planet is currently warming due to human activity.​
The majority of climate scientists predicted warming from CO2 emissions, and data supporting this prediction increased throughout the 1970s. Many lines of evidence continued to build up, all indicating rising temperatures. By about 1980, evidence for warming was so overwhelming that ice age predictions had stopped altogether. This increase in understanding based on new evidence is a key part of the scientific process. Scientific thinking evolves as studies reveal new information. In the case of global warming vs. impending ice age, climatologist Stephen Schneider is an example of this key component of science. He was the second author on the aforementioned Rasool (1971) paper, which asserted that a quadrupling of aerosols would decrease global temperatures and, if this decrease was sustained, might lead into an ice age. However, upon revisiting this conclusion in 1974, when data and climate models had advanced, Schneider retracted the findings:​
“I personally published what was wrong (with) my own original 1971 cooling hypothesis a few years later when more data and better models came along and further analysis showed [anthropogenic global warming] as the much more likely…” (Schneider quoted in Santer & Erlich (2014))
The prediction of cooling was based on the notion that aerosols from human emissions would quadruple. This increase simply did not happen, thanks in large part to actions like the Clean Air Act. Aerosol emissions actually decreased in the late 1970s, as previously mentioned. Thus, the key aspect of the cooling prediction did not come to pass, and the prediction was abandoned.​
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
41,042
12,372
1
SE PA
If so, how can it be expected that we can stop climate change?

And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change? Wouldn't global warming be self evident? Why is change bad?

giphy.gif
Apparently not based on the climate “scientists”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
2,093
861
1

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
41,042
12,372
1
SE PA
Nope.

Despite the majority of studies projecting warming, one common myth today misrepresents climate science in the 1970s by saying that the general understanding was of an imminent ice age. The small fraction of studies predicting cooling received a lot of media attention in the 1970s. The idea of a forthcoming ice age made for great headlines. The effect of this disproportionate media coverage persists today, as some people and organizations continue to perpetuate the idea that an ice age was predicted in the 1970s.​
Those who continue to spread this idea create a straw man argument. A straw man is when an opponent’s position is misrepresented in order to make that position easier to attack. In this case, the position is the cooling prediction that was only held by a small minority of scientists, and has since been abandoned. This straw man results in the distortion of public understanding of climate science, and made it easier to cast doubt on the fact that our planet is currently warming due to human activity.​
The majority of climate scientists predicted warming from CO2 emissions, and data supporting this prediction increased throughout the 1970s. Many lines of evidence continued to build up, all indicating rising temperatures. By about 1980, evidence for warming was so overwhelming that ice age predictions had stopped altogether. This increase in understanding based on new evidence is a key part of the scientific process. Scientific thinking evolves as studies reveal new information. In the case of global warming vs. impending ice age, climatologist Stephen Schneider is an example of this key component of science. He was the second author on the aforementioned Rasool (1971) paper, which asserted that a quadrupling of aerosols would decrease global temperatures and, if this decrease was sustained, might lead into an ice age. However, upon revisiting this conclusion in 1974, when data and climate models had advanced, Schneider retracted the findings:​
“I personally published what was wrong (with) my own original 1971 cooling hypothesis a few years later when more data and better models came along and further analysis showed [anthropogenic global warming] as the much more likely…” (Schneider quoted in Santer & Erlich (2014))
The prediction of cooling was based on the notion that aerosols from human emissions would quadruple. This increase simply did not happen, thanks in large part to actions like the Clean Air Act. Aerosol emissions actually decreased in the late 1970s, as previously mentioned. Thus, the key aspect of the cooling prediction did not come to pass, and the prediction was abandoned.​
That is categorically false. While there was certainly no UN IPCC yet created, the vast majority of scientific journals and reports of the time were in support of a coming ice age. Your straw man argument has been gen’d up by the current policy influencers in the area of climate study in order to whitewash the scientific studies and reporting of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
2,093
861
1
That is categorically false. While there was certainly no UN IPCC yet created, the vast majority of scientific journals and reports of the time were in support of a coming ice age. Your straw man argument has been gen’d up by the current policy influencers in the area of climate study in order to whitewash the scientific studies and reporting of the time.
Again:
<https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm>
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
That is categorically false. While there was certainly no UN IPCC yet created, the vast majority of scientific journals and reports of the time were in support of a coming ice age. Your straw man argument has been gen’d up by the current policy influencers in the area of climate study in order to whitewash the scientific studies and reporting of the time.

While there was certainly no UN IPCC yet created, the vast majority of scientific journals and reports of the time were in support of a coming ice age.

Nope. Most scientific papers published in the 70's talked about global warming.

 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
The climate does change if one looks at a timeline of sufficient length. The current problem is the climate is changing much more rapidly than is historically normal. The evidence is everywhere.
remember, after being named our climate czar, john kerry - of flying his plane around the world fame - said that we could get our emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate.
So, assuming kerry is right, we can erect as many wind turbines as we want, cover the country in solar panels, give every one an EV, and it still would have no effect in climate. So, why are we doing what we're doing? Politics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
While there was certainly no UN IPCC yet created, the vast majority of scientific journals and reports of the time were in support of a coming ice age.

Nope. Most scientific papers published in the 70's talked about global warming.

you might be 100% right. But I still remember the magazine cover - time or newsweek - with the headline about the coming ice age.
So, if there was some other group talking about global warming, I guess once again for every expert opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion. Follow the science!
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
remember, after being named our climate czar, john kerry - of flying his plane around the world fame - said that we could get our emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate.
So, assuming kerry is right, we can erect as many wind turbines as we want, cover the country in solar panels, give every one an EV, and it still would have no effect in climate. So, why are we doing what we're doing? Politics?

What expertise does John Kerry have? Why are do care what he says?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
you might be 100% right. But I still remember the magazine cover - time or newsweek - with the headline about the coming ice age.
So, if there was some other group talking about global warming, I guess once again for every expert opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion. Follow the science!

you might be 100% right. But I still remember the magazine cover - time or newsweek - with the headline about the coming ice age.

Magazine covers are designed to increase magazine sales. They are not scientific journals.

So, if there was some other group talking about global warming, I guess once again for every expert opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion. Follow the science!

The majority of the scientific papers were projecting global warming. So if you are following the science.......
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change?

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature​
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.​
Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.​
I think the point was that since the beginning of the earth the climate has been changing. Now you highlight the reasons why climate might be changing today.......why has it been changing at other times/centuries/decades? Can't be because of co2, or could it?
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,301
8,202
1
What expertise does John Kerry have? Why are do care what he says?
Well, he must have some credibility. He was named as the nation's climate czar by the President. He represents our climate interests in the world. Would't you think he'd have some expertise, or why was he named to the position. We needed another old, white, male in the administration to balance equity?
Personally, I don't care what he says.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
Well, he must have some credibility. He was named as the nation's climate czar by the President. He represents our climate interests in the world. Would't you think he'd have some expertise, or why was he named to the position. We needed another old, white, male in the administration to balance equity?
Personally, I don't care what he says.

He is a politician......

Not only don't I care what he says, I've gone so far as to never even listen to him. I don't believe I've missed out on anything.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,443
24,674
1
And if Climate Change is just another word for "Global Warming" because its potential damage, why do they need to call Global Warming, Climate Change?

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature​
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.​
Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.​
Skeptical Science is anything but skeptical, which makes it not very science-like.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,443
24,674
1
Watch out, folks, the acolytes from the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming are coming out in droves.