Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice

[firstfloor]

Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!

Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”

[Littlejoe]

Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”

FF, you need to take this kind of stuff to Apologetics. It has nothing to do with the topic.

[Cow Poke]

Start a thread on that if you wish.

[shunyadragon]

within[ATTACH=CONFIG]2978[/ATTACH]

God response!!!

[shunyadragon]

Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!

The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.

[Cow Poke]

The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.

But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!

[TheLurch]

But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!

Actually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.

(We'll see if this successfully embeds...)

Why do they diverge in the late 1980s? My guess is that was shortly after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) was launched, which gets a lot of "climate change" mentions into the news.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.

Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".

[Cow Poke]

...when I was grown up...

Like THAT ever happened!

[rwatts]

The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.

I think another example here is that of the ozone hole, the cause of which was most likely, human induced. While that can never be proved with certainty, in the end people did wake up to the evidence, overcome fears of economic chaos if fixes were attempted, decide on a joint course action, and now there is hope that the hole might be closing.

[TheLurch]

Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".

Yeah, i'm old enough to remember that too. And an ice age most likely would have occurred in a few thousand years - they're the product of orbital changes that we can predict pretty thoroughly. But my memory makes it seem like the press hyped it as if it were something we needed to worry about now. Can't tell if that's my (limited) memory or what.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, i'm old enough to remember that too. And an ice age most likely would have occurred in a few thousand years - they're the product of orbital changes that we can predict pretty thoroughly. But my memory makes it seem like the press hyped it as if it were something we needed to worry about now. Can't tell if that's my (limited) memory or what.

Yeah, from what I understand, it wasn't so much the scientific community making the claim, but it was "the hype", along with overpopulation. As if we didn't have enough to worry about with the Russians putting missiles in Cuba.

[Catholicity]

CFC's were taken out in the 80's for fear of Global cooling,the now rebuilt hole in the ozone then in the late 90's early 2000's it was global warming now its climate change......

[sylas]

CFC's were taken out in the 80's for fear of Global cooling,

No; they were taken out because of fears that they were damaging the ozone layer. Nothing to do with temperature at all.

It's aerosols, not CFCs which have a cooling effect. CFCs actually contribute to warming, though that was NOT the reason for regulation. As for fears of global cooling: there were a few papers in the 1970s (not the 80s) which warned of possible gobal cooling from aerosols, although even then, the majority of research anticipated warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There has never been a consensus on global cooling as there is with warming. Regulation generally needs a much more solid scientific case -- such as the thoroughly solid case that CFCs impact ozone. Cooling predictions, even in the 1970s when it got a bit of coverage in popular press, has only ever been a speculative notion supported by a minority of the research.... and it most definitely had nothing whatever to do with the regulation of CFCs.

With respect to CFCs, the issue with ozone was not cooling OR warming, but the vital role of the ozne layer for blocking of dangerous UV light. The regulation effort was successful, and subsequent research on the matter of CFCs seems to indicate that the ban helped us avoid a global disaster, of a global loss of most of the ozone layer by the middle of the 21st century. The world we avoided is one in which five minutes out in the Sun would result in severe sunburn.

There's a good feature article on this at NASA. See The World We Avoided by Protecting the Ozone Layer at NASA Earth Observatory.

Cheers -- sylas

[shunyadragon]

Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".

Actually the coming 'Ice Age' is likely inevitable, but were talking maybe ~20,000 to 40.000 or more in the future.