Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Monk (in hiding) on Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:44 am

"Global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

Monk (in hiding)

Posts : 1993
Join date : 2014-06-15

Back to top Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Re: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Monk (in hiding) on Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:46 am

§Etymology

According to Erik M. Conway, global warming became the dominant popular term after June 1988, when NASA climate scientist James Hansen used the term in a testimony to Congress[230] when he said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."[231] Conway claims that this testimony was widely reported in the media and subsequently global warming became the commonly used term by both the press and in public discourse. However, he also points out that "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term, because changes in Earth systems are not limited to surface temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Etymology

Monk (in hiding)

Posts : 1993
Join date : 2014-06-15

Back to top Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Re: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Monk (in hiding) on Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:52 am

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. His ideas remained in circulation, but until about 1960 many scientists doubted that global warming would occur (believing the oceans would absorb CO2 faster than humanity emitted the gas).[citation needed] Most scientists also dismissed the greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages, as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles).[citation needed] Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Monk (in hiding)

Posts : 1993
Join date : 2014-06-15

Back to top Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Re: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Lenzabi on Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:40 am

Rockcrusher wrote:Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. His ideas remained in circulation, but until about 1960 many scientists doubted that global warming would occur (believing the oceans would absorb CO2 faster than humanity emitted the gas).[citation needed] Most scientists also dismissed the greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages, as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles).[citation needed] Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Outdated ideas and concepts shown here crusher, both men mentioned died before 1960 and it also says in the 2nd passage you regurgitated without any insight from you, was that the scientific community did not think the warming would occur until 1960 when they started to pay attention to newer models.

Bottom of the source

Although orbital forcing of Earth’s climate is well accepted, the details of how orbitally-induced changes in isolation affect climate are debated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

In other words, while the second man gave an idea that was at first not well received, the orbit does play some roles, but again as in other threads, it is that the planet has tipping points that went on int the past from different factors, but that this time we sped it up as we over tipped the balance. the first man mentioned were older theories from the 1920's

How we are tipping it faster is the speed with which we industrialized burning coal then oil, deforestation, as we cut down trees in vast numbers they release the carbon they have stored over the centuries, the fastest way is how they have burned the Amazon for Mcmeat patties, and now in SE Asia as they burn forest to make palm oil plantations. add ever combustion engine ever and still in use and we added more. Look at the Olympics in China, they had to tell factoreis to stop working till it was over so they would have clear air for the event, but the weather had other ides and other zone smog got pushed over Beijing. We sell the dirty stuff to China and South America or any small nation trying to Industrially climb up. Some got smarter and use their trash as fuel, Debate is now a fools errand crusher, the fix is in , and unless mindsets are changed from the way they are now, I figure when we are all dead, the kids and grandkids will be stuck with the bill for our generations' party.

_________________
Warning!: Those who knock on Dragon's doors un-announced may be flame broiled, unless they bear chocolate/wine, or good foods
Global Warming vs. Climate Change Div20a11
Once they have tried scales, everything else pales! Twisted Evil
Lenzabi
Lenzabi
Admin

Posts : 2325
Join date : 2014-06-11
Age : 55
Location : Earth

Back to top Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Re: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Rockhopper on Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:26 pm

Beijing is a good example of how smog builds up and not too long ago LA had the same problem. London was legendary for smog caused by burning coal and in the 1950's they banned burning it in the city. Cleaned the air no end!

NZ's electricity is mostly hydro with one Gas Station and one coal powered. The latter is being phased out now. We also have some Geothermal Stations (Wairakei is the largest).

The info you posted RC is very old and now out-of-date and as Len remarked the authors are dead.. Natural forcings, like the Milankovich Cycle are factored into the research so don't show up in the result.

We now know that the pause noticed over the ten year period from the mid 90's to 2005 was because the oceans were absorbing the CO2  and getting warmer. Warmer oceans have a twofold effect; it changes the sea currents and warm air (above the seas) holds more water vapour. More water in the air -- more violent storms as the planet's atmosphere balances itself out again. Expect more Katrina's and Sandy's.

Tim.
Rockhopper
Rockhopper

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2014-06-13
Age : 75
Location : Island Paradise

Back to top Go down

Global Warming vs. Climate Change Empty Re: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum