Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Global Warming And Climate Change


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL

    Thanks to GW in another thread, I have perhaps started to understand the difference between the two (although some or most already may understand).

    So I thought i'd see whether other agree or not.

    Global Warming = Increase in temperature, on a global scale

    Climate Change = A result of global warming, which can cause extremes in weather (including temperature (i.e. hot and cold).

    This is for me the only way I can explain how we experience in certain parts of the world, of below average temperatures.

    Just because we have these cold extremes, still, the overall global temperature is still increasing (or has been on the increase).

    I was just thinking this, as reading some posts, there is an arguement that the global temperature isnt rising, as we experience some colder temperatures in parts of the world.

    Personally, I think one is the cause of the other, and is actually quite understandable.

    Perhaps you agree, perhaps you may not, but globally we are on the increase, and we do also experience extremes of many varieties. Logically, its the only way I see what is actually happening (i.e. they are not exclusively different, but actually come hand in hand).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 56
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    :) Sorry, Chris, I think your definitions are a little bit 'out'. This is my understanding (could be wrong):

    Global Warming = the observed warming of the world (change in the amount of 'heat' in the atmosphere, the oceans and land), since the Industrial Revolution, and specifically in the last 50 years or so. A global measure which flattens out regional variations. A continuing trend over time towards a different climate.

    Climate change = the alterations in the climate of the world, which can be 'natural' or 'forced', and which appear to occur in patterns or 'cycles', some short, some long, some very, very long.

    The current change in our climate is that it is warming. The main debate at the moment is less about whether this warming is 'natural' or caused by us (Anthropogenic GW), and more about how much of it is caused by us, and whether we can do much about it. There is also debate about the value of analysing climate on a global scale, because of the regional variations, revolving around the reliabilty or otherwise of Global Climate Models (GCMs). The third area of debate is about what we should do, if the climate continues to warm, to adapt socially, economically and in other ways to the change; this assumes that the GW scenario is broadly correct.

    Hope this helps.

    :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Guest Daniel
    Thanks to GW in another thread, I have perhaps started to understand the difference between the two (although some or most already may understand).

    So I thought i'd see whether other agree or not.

    Global Warming = Increase in temperature, on a global scale

    Climate Change = A result of global warming, which can cause extremes in weather (including temperature (i.e. hot and cold).

    This is for me the only way I can explain how we experience in certain parts of the world, of below average temperatures.

    Just because we have these cold extremes, still, the overall global temperature is still increasing (or has been on the increase).

    I was just thinking this, as reading some posts, there is an arguement that the global temperature isnt rising, as we experience some colder temperatures in parts of the world.

    Personally, I think one is the cause of the other, and is actually quite understandable.

    Perhaps you agree, perhaps you may not, but globally we are on the increase, and we do also experience extremes of many varieties. Logically, its the only way I see what is actually happening (i.e. they are not exclusively different, but actually come hand in hand).

    Global warming and climate change are both used by the global warming side to explain about climate change. they are trying to drive home the message that global warming is caused by us and climate change is caused by us. As if the natrual functions of climate dont exist any more. When we get an intence heat wave like last month they all come out saying how the heat is caused by us changing the climate. Yet now we in a cool spell they all go silent. Climate change is for the most part driven by natrual forces that we have no control of. The strong warming in the U.K since the 1990s when average Temps have risen by 2C is all natrual driven and its just a phase that we are going through. The medieval warm spell ended with the little ice age and it could just be possible that now that period is over we are just warming up out of it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
    :) Sorry, Chris, I think your definitions are a little bit 'out'. This is my understanding (could be wrong):

    Global Warming = the observed warming of the world (change in the amount of 'heat' in the atmosphere, the oceans and land), since the Industrial Revolution, and specifically in the last 50 years or so. A global measure which flattens out regional variations. A continuing trend over time towards a different climate.

    I think this was what I was trying to get out, but perhaps was looking at it over too long a time.

    Climate change = the alterations in the climate of the world, which can be 'natural' or 'forced', and which appear to occur in patterns or 'cycles', some short, some long, some very, very long.

    Once again, I missed out some detail :) Natural and Forced cycles are something that exist.

    Thanks for the explanations.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
    Global warming and climate change are both used by the global warming side to explain about climate change. they are trying to drive home the message that global warming is caused by us and climate change is caused by us. As if the natrual functions of climate dont exist any more. When we get an intence heat wave like last month they all come out saying how the heat is caused by us changing the climate. Yet now we in a cool spell they all go silent. Climate change is for the most part driven by natrual forces that we have no control of. The strong warming in the U.K since the 1990s when average Temps have risen by 2C is all natrual driven and its just a phase that we are going through. The medieval warm spell ended with the little ice age and it could just be possible that now that period is over we are just warming up out of it.

    grief Daniel give us all a rest will you from your snow and ice warnings.You have now managed, I think, to spread this over 3 threads.

    How about a try on the current weather, its certainly colder than it has been!

    John

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Would the I.A.N. folk care to explain to me why, when I'm topping up my bath with hot water (and I know that I am increasing the general water temperature), that I still get swirls of (relatively ) cool water around me along with the plumes of scolding hot water?

    Am I in danger of miss-reading the signs and in reality am in impending peril of sudden Glaciation due to the interference with my 'tub currents' ?

    If there were not large plunges of displaced polar cool around then how could we say there was more warm air about? The Danielesque gesturing only serves to highlight that the poles are constantly 'changing their air' for something more temperate for as we know from GFS watching cold pools never maintain long out of their latitudes (and so more cold air dies!! :) )

    Climate change is all about witnessing and measuring these alterations of weather over time and Global warming just serves to put more energy into the system to effect these changes leading to more extreme climates in the short term until the 'warmer' planet balences out its act.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    Well said, that person!

    Would the I.A.N. folk care to explain to me why, when I'm topping up my bath with hot water (and I know that I am increasing the general water temperature), that I still get swirls of (relatively ) cool water around me along with the plumes of scolding hot water?

    Don't you think that expecting anything resembling reason from certain quarters is a tad optimistic? Probably best to ignore it; a strategy which works well on dogs and children, and sometimes also wives.

    :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
    :) Sorry, Chris, I think your definitions are a little bit 'out'. This is my understanding (could be wrong):

    Global Warming = the observed warming of the world (change in the amount of 'heat' in the atmosphere, the oceans and land), since the Industrial Revolution, and specifically in the last 50 years or so. A global measure which flattens out regional variations. A continuing trend over time towards a different climate.

    Climate change = the alterations in the climate of the world, which can be 'natural' or 'forced', and which appear to occur in patterns or 'cycles', some short, some long, some very, very long.

    The current change in our climate is that it is warming. The main debate at the moment is less about whether this warming is 'natural' or caused by us (Anthropogenic GW), and more about how much of it is caused by us, and whether we can do much about it. There is also debate about the value of analysing climate on a global scale, because of the regional variations, revolving around the reliabilty or otherwise of Global Climate Models (GCMs). The third area of debate is about what we should do, if the climate continues to warm, to adapt socially, economically and in other ways to the change; this assumes that the GW scenario is broadly correct.

    Hope this helps.

    :)

    Agreed.

    As for Iceagenow, a good tactic would be to look up "Logical Fallacies" and see how many you can count in their arguments, there'd probably be quite a lot of them, as while they might make a valid point once in a while, most of it is utter nonsense.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    Agreed.

    As for Iceagenow, a good tactic would be to look up "Logical Fallacies" and see how many you can count in their arguments, there'd probably be quite a lot of them, as while they might make a valid point once in a while, most of it is utter nonsense.

    Ty TWS. :) It's reassuring to know (no, honestly) that one isn't talking nonsense (cf.sig.)

    Small observation to add; current estimates (guesses) suggest that, even if there was a sudden thermohaline decline over the next 100 years (ain't gonna happen), the compensation forced GW would result in a net slight increase in global temps.

    :) P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

    Okay, but who’s estimates (guesses) and based on what, currently?

    I only ask because even though a certain argument can certainly lose credence from over repetition or, possibly, poorly structured language (not to be confused with poorly constructed analysis,) it doesn’t mean that the core hypothesis might not contain a strand or two of truth. Although I freely admit whether this falls into the categories of probable or possible is obviously a valid topic of debate.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    Okay, but who’s estimates (guesses) and based on what, currently?

    You might start with : 'Assessing the Risk of a Collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation', Schelsinger et. al., 2005, on:

    http://www.stabilisation2005.com/schlesing...hermohaline.pdf

    If you want more, there are other references available; googling will lead you to some; one should be WHOI, press releases, 16 June 2005.

    The only statement in the post you refer to which has a grain of truth is: 'climate change is for the most part driven by natural forces we have no control of.' (sic)

    All of the other statements are false, with the exception of 'it could just be possible...', which is a conditional statement, and not necessarily false, nor necessarily true.

    By the way; I had to read that paper 3 times before it started to get clearer.

    :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

    Parmenides3, I couldn’t get your posted site to open, however I did trawl about a bit and was interested to see that consensus in terms of location, severity, criticality, and timescale is still some way off. This kind of reinforced my original thought, which was as we are still in a monitoring and learning phase how can we be certain of outcomes.

    Going back to the original question though, I subscribe to the view that Climate Change is a given fact, because we know that historically the planet’s climate has changed, whereas Global Warming is only the current phase of Climate Change as acknowledged by most people in most countries of the world,

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    Parmenides3, I couldn’t get your posted site to open, however I did trawl about a bit and was interested to see that consensus in terms of location, severity, criticality, and timescale is still some way off. This kind of reinforced my original thought, which was as we are still in a monitoring and learning phase how can we be certain of outcomes.

    Going back to the original question though, I subscribe to the view that Climate Change is a given fact, because we know that historically the planet’s climate has changed, whereas Global Warming is only the current phase of Climate Change as acknowledged by most people in most countries of the world,

    Sorry about the link; the same paper is somewhere in the Meto files, so I'll try to dig it up.

    I agree, when there is so much uncertainty in the models, not to mention the science, only a fool would claim to be certain of any outcomes, which is why so much of the material is considered in terms of likelihood or probability. As far as consensus is concerned, if you can find an accredited paper which envisages a shorter term scenario, please post it. When I tried really hard to massage the numbers, I could come out with a threshold in around 2031, but I certainly don't have the scientific knowledge to support such an idea, which is why I emailed an expert.

    :)

    Edit: try http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...kCh5Jan2006.pdf

    :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    I tend to trust Govt. sposored outfits (like the British Antarctic Survey) as they aren't as likely to be driven by 'ivy league' in-fights! Interseting enough a March Press release from them (BAS) outlines the findings of a 30yr weather balloon survey over Antartica which points to massive upper level warming over that period (3 times the rate of warming of the Global average) so the recent N.Z. cold may just be a reflection of that 'displacement' of cold air as warmer, upper levels , push in:D .

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    Morning, GW.

    I'm not sure how that would work, but it doesn't sound right. The cold in NZ & SA, storms in Oz , snow & floods in S. Brazil, etc. are more likely to be related to Antarctic conditions, rather than Arctic; I'm not sure how much inter-hemisphere linkage there is between seasonal weather patterns. Certainly is miserable down South at the mo., though. :) P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
    Morning, GW.

    I'm not sure how that would work, but it doesn't sound right. The cold in NZ & SA, storms in Oz , snow & floods in S. Brazil, etc. are more likely to be related to Antarctic conditions, rather than Arctic; I'm not sure how much inter-hemisphere linkage there is between seasonal weather patterns. Certainly is miserable down South at the mo., though. :) P

    Permanides3

    GW is talking about the Antarctic.

    GW

    This gets confusing but isn't upper air cooling and lower air warming to do with GW not the other way round?

    BFTP

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    Permanides3

    GW is talking about the Antarctic.

    GW

    This gets confusing but isn't upper air cooling and lower air warming to do with GW not the other way round?

    BFTP

    ;) 'Course he is. Sleepy head!

    Troposphere/stratosphere interaction is withing the parameters of GW on some timescales. You may have to look at the historic water vapour/cloud records to see if there is a correlation between these and the differences in temperature.

    Some of the consequences of GW can appear counter-intuitive, such as the recent Antarctic cooling, but this doesn't mean they don't fit with either the GCMs or the overall scenario. Recent reading suggests that there is a historically observed lag in reaction to climate warming between the North & South, with the South tending to follow changes in the North some year later. This is thought to be related to the AMOC, but the mechanism is not yet established.

    I know of temperature inversion as a phenomenon of surface-level Polar climate, but haven't come across it on this sort of scale. Could be an interesting idea.

    :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    I generally think of "climate change" as a more neutral term, whereas the term "global warming" I think carries anthropogenic connotations.

    I agree, whether or not it is deserved. Sometimes, the arguments about the climate are more to do with the words we use & what they mean, rather than about what is happening & why (or what we can do about it).

    :) P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
    I agree, whether or not it is deserved. Sometimes, the arguments about the climate are more to do with the words we use & what they mean, rather than about what is happening & why (or what we can do about it).

    :) P

    I think the term climate change is being used because it 'fits' more in with what is happening and going to happen and covers themselves if a natural 'cooldown' occurs :cold:

    BFTP

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL

    I've just thought...I never actually gave the reason why I started this comparitive topic :cold:

    The reason is, that i've noticed on political interviews, both words (CC + GW) being used by politicians to describe the same thing.

    Personally, I do think theyre different, and I think this 'loose wording' used by such politicians is confusing to the general public. The reason being, that everytime they see either word, they associate it to the one thing (which is GW).

    Anyway, just thought i'd add that comment :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    I've just thought...I never actually gave the reason why I started this comparitive topic :cold:

    The reason is, that i've noticed on political interviews, both words (CC + GW) being used by politicians to describe the same thing.

    Personally, I do think theyre different, and I think this 'loose wording' used by such politicians is confusing to the general public. The reason being, that everytime they see either word, they associate it to the one thing (which is GW).

    Anyway, just thought i'd add that comment :)

    I think this is quite a complicated issue, ChrisL.

    The first problem is how politicians use the language. Some of them may well be quite knowledgeable, and choose to use the more 'conservative' term to avoid controversy, or the converse, to provoke reaction. I suspect, though, that many politicians work from briefings and precis (they are generally very busy), and tend to use the language from these documents, rather than consider what they think they are actually talking about.

    The next problem is what we, the public, understand by the terms. Many of us tend to think of the two as the same thing, probably because of the influence of the Media, where the language IS deliberately manipulated for effect; that's their job.

    Finally, there's the issue of how language works, here. Until recently, very few of us (the public) either knew or had even heard either term used very much. As a consequence, we have to go a through process of learning, through usage and interpretation, until we arrive at a consensus about what we mean when we use the terms, a process which takes time and is slow to become 'universal'.

    You are right; they are quite different things, related to another subject (the weather), and misuse of both is common. Hopefully this will improve as discussion of the subject continues. In the meantime, it's worth remembering to think about what the politician/press is meaning, as well as which word they are using.

    :) P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

    I think what they often do is try to upgrade the human input into the climate system, by using "global warming" to mean anthropogenic inputs, and then using "climate change", carrying the anthropogenic implications over to the term and making humans think: we are responsible for changing the climate.

    Although in terms of what the terms mean I personally tend to think along Nick H's lines.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    I think what they often do is try to upgrade the human input into the climate system, by using "global warming" to mean anthropogenic inputs, and then using "climate change", carrying the anthropogenic implications over to the term and making humans think: we are responsible for changing the climate.

    Although in terms of what the terms mean I personally tend to think along Nick H's lines.

    Thanks, TWS. This is helpful because it can give us, on this forum, an opportunity to reach agreement. Can we agree, then, that when we refer to climate change, we are talking about the changes to the climate which are generally 'natural', and when we refer to GW, we are referring to the changes which are, broadly, anthropogenic?

    Of course the two are closely related, and each has an impact on the other, but it might help us communicate our ideas more effectively.

    :)

    The other point you make reaches to another issue, and something I feel strongly about. By upgrading the human input into the climate system, and by implying that 'we' are responsible for changing the climate, there is a tendency to place the burden of responsibility (and the mitigating action required to change things), onto the shoulders of 'us', the public. This allows politicians and governments to transfer responsibility for the problem, and for the solutions, away from the real sources of GW, and introduce initiatives and taxes which make us pay for problems which are not our fault. An example of this could be the forthcoming 'carbon tax'.

    Simply: 70% of the entire global CO2 emission is from the generation of power. The vast majority of this power is used by industry and business. Our entire society and economy is based around the economically viable supply of electricity & heat to end users, in order to generate wealth. For an example, comapre the economies of the USA, China and India. Demand for power in the USA alone is expected to rise by a total of 33% by 2050. China & India are alone responsible for an 8% increase in coal consumption last year alone.

    What governments seem unwilling to address is the issue of how to reduce the global demand for power. Energy saving light bulbs ain't gonna hack it; sorry Mr. Blair. Biofuels and alternative energy sources, even allowing for rapid development, will also not cover the demand.

    If we are going to continue to enjoy a steadily improving lifestyle, and all the benefits that technology can bring to humankind, we need to find better answers. One group of people I know of at the moment who are addressing this are at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Their proposals are based around a simple idea; energy must be used more efficiently. This requires that we get a better 'bang for our buck' from every bit of energy generated. To do this, there need to be radical changes in architecture, car, aircraft and ship design, even town & city design. This seems to me like a sensible attitude.

    Sorry, I've gone all pedantic again. :cold: I'll stop now. Last thing to say: Don't be fooled by so-called 'green' initiatives. most of them, on a global scale, are a complete waste of time. Whci doesn't mean we shouldn't all be doing our bit...

    Hope that's given us something to think about.

    :) P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...