Over the long term, the global "mean" temperature of the Earth has been going up, so people have used the catchy term "global warming". Specifically they are referring to the warming caused by the addition of HUGE amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, by humans. That also means that the climate (actually many different climates) is changing. There may be many different aspects to climate changes other than the temperature going up. Some places may have more rain; some may have less. Paradoxically, there may even be places with more snowfall.

We know that over the history of the Earth, the climate has changed considerably, grower warmer at times and colder at others. What's different this time is (1) humans seem to be responsible for it, and (2) it is changing very rapidly--over human lifetimes rather than the thousands of years that we see it changing in the geologic record.

It is the rapidity of the change that is most troubling. Not only will the temperature rise due to the addition of carbon dioxide and other gases, there are other feedbacks that will enhance the warming further. Raisin Caine thinks that something like Clausius-Clapeyron relation--in use by chemists since at least the middle of the 19th century--is an "assumption" that climate scientists make, as if the physics could be ignored. Another such "assumption" is the belief by climate scientists that open water will absorb more sunlight than does ice. The reason that climate scientists make these "assumptions" is because there is hundreds of years of science to back them up.

Climate scientists--unlike people that deny the science--make the radical assumption that the laws of physics and chemistry will be obeyed by the atmosphere and oceans.

Please note that Gary F is a climate scientist. When you note that his answers are filled with insults and little relevant information, remember that he is a climate scientist and represents the quality we can expect from climate scientists.

An unbiased answer to your question is that Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global warming (AGW) is what we are really discussing. In general, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the Earth. The question is how much and the effect of that temperature increase.

With a rise in the overall temperature of the earth comes other changes to the climate. The climate is always in a state of change, but presumably an overall increase in the temp of the Earth will cause additional changes and hence climate change. The warmers adopted climate change over AGW because of the confusion associated with AGW. AGW is a global change to the temps, whereas climate change would also reference changes to climate caused by AGW, like the rise in the ocean level. It also reflects the fact that while the average global temp is rising, not all locations will see a rise in temperature.

It is actually a rather sloppy catch phrase. It should really be labeled "climate changes caused by anthropogenic global warming" or CCCAGW.

My view is simple. It is true that the addition of CO2 will cause warming. But the past 60-100 years only saw 0.8 degrees of warming and the warming seemed to be linear in nature. What is also clear is that 95% of the climate models that assume exponential warming are overestimating. This inherently implies that the prediction of 1.8-4 degrees of warming are overestimating the warming. So we will see some change. It is not a crisis, but we should start to reduce our CO2 emissions.

The two terms have been used more or less interchangeably (for years, this is not a recent thing, as Gary F pointed out, the IPCC was named in '88), though they mean slightly different things.

Global warming is specifically and only an increase in the average temperature of the planet.

Climate change is any significant change in, well, climate. Long-term weather patterns. This is usually driven by a temperature change, in this case an increase.

Scientists aren't using "climate change" as weasel-wording they're using it to be more comprehensive. The problem with AGW isn't really the direct temperature change, it's all the add-on effects. The difference in average global temperature between now and the last glaciation event is less than the difference, in pretty much any given area on any given day, between the low and high temperatures for the day. And yet that difference was enough to cover what is now Chicago with ice. Is it really that hard to realize that a similarly "small" increase in average global temperature could have *huge* effects?

When talking about global warming and climate change you have to watch the definitions very carefully.

Many will tell you that they are the same thing but they are not. Global Warming is a change in climate but so is Global Cooling.

Remember that the "science is settled". So greenhouse gases cause warming, only. Not change or cooling, just warming. So however much people may want to talk about Climate Change it does not match the science - there is a disconnect. It is one step removed.

It would be logical to claim that the warming was causing change but if there is no warming, as now, then they cannot claim it is causing climate change. Don't let them get away with going straight from CO2 to Climate Change and missing out the warming.

Humans have increased CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere by 40% and we continue to increase the level, this cause the earth to retain more of the sun's energy or in other words the earth to warm. This in turn causes climates to change. When the climates change this does have an impact on agriculture, regardless if the climates change due to human dumping the waste products of burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere or other reasons. I am not worried either, I like think that humans are on average smarter then yeast, which will consume all available resources, or does in it's own waste.

Sagebrush misrepresents what happened in the 70's "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions." [1]

Sagebrush keeps on trying to use association fallacies [2] (often by misquoting and even outright fabrications) that because those people said something that sounds suspicious, that the whole scientific community is "bad" For example I can't find his the quote he attributes to Steven Guilbeault" (whoever he is) anywhere other then right wing blogs.

But rather then trying to use other people to discredit him, let me post some quotes by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause) to show who Sagebrush is.

"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",

"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",

"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch",

"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",

"God has his hand on the thermostat".

While it is painfully obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, if we were to use his "logic" [2] it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that his fans [3] are.

The tone of your question implies that you think that the world is not warming.

That exact same question is asked many times a day, by AGW deniers.

And the implication is always that climate researchers are lying, but sure you can believe blog posters.

And, of course, you're way smarter than someone with an advanced university degree who studies climate.

And also, there's a huge conspiracy to get research grant money.

I wonder how much grant money is available -- particularly compared to coal and oil profits?

Shall we look at what's happening:

The fossil fuel industry is spending quite a bit (tens of millions) to convince people that global warming is a hoax, or it's not warming, or the sun is getting hotter, or it's a plot to give the UN control over America, or that a mere 0.015 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 is far to small to make a difference, or that warming is good, and more food will grow if there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, or that the earth is still warming from the last ice age, or the little ice age.

The idea is to throw as many excuses up against the wall. Different people might be susceptible to one or the other. It doesn't matter which, so long as America doesn't do anything to limit burning fossil fuel, and disrupt the 1/4 of a trillion dollar annual profits of the energy industry.

http://priceofoil.org/2013/09/26/profits...

$271 BILLION $$$$ in ANNUAL fossil fuel industry PROFITS.

Maybe some comparison is in order. How 'bout:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...

"The federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a 21 percent boost over 2010."

OH MY, nearly 1% of the fossil fuel industry ANNUAL PROFIT.

Isn't that just terrible?

Not terribly surprising that the energy industry doesn't want any disruption to their gravy train.

SOOOO, if there is a question about where the money is being spent, clearly the fossil fuel industry wins by a landslide.

Back in the seventies the scare mongers were scaring us with an impending Ice Age. Well, mother nature didn't agree with that because the earth was warming slightly and some real scientists scoffed. Well then these same 'scientists' change the scare to Global Warming. But then some scientists were smart enough to realized that they got caught with their pants down and to prevent that they just scared everyone with Climate Change. They didn't define the term that anyone could pin down. The IPCC defines Climate change as this, "Climate Change is a change in the climate." WOW! Now doesn't that clarify the situation? In other words, the temperature goes up, that is Climate Change. The temperature goes down, that too is Climate Change. The temperature stays the same, that too can be construed as Climate Change. If you think I am kidding just look at this:

Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."

In other words, it can be anything they want to sell you, "Look here all you Peons! Climate Change is what we tell you it is and you just better shut up! Just a month ago I went to Sears and Roebuck and bought this 'Climatology Degree' for $3.95. This gives me the right to declare anything want as Climate Change and you slobs better get in line or else. If you don't get in line and give us all your freedoms and money your great great great grandchildren will fry! Hear me! I really really mean it this time!"

The climate changed long before Al Gore was born. It is nothing new or to be worried about.

Neither is occurring, and I would insist that something like weaseling has DEFINITELY been going on.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quotes like this suggest that something else is going on "under the tent." This is politics and propaganda (and policy), not science.

I appreciate Caine's civil and fairly well-reasoned comment, unlike the rant of the Alarmists, who pretend to be scientists. "Doesn't matter what you say!! Are you a member of the Faith, or an Infidel?!! Die, Scoundrel!!!

Any changes in recent years (and the evidence is anything but unequivocal!) are dwarfed by the massive climate changes which have occurred across the centuries (and the life of the planet). A change of a degree or less is like a mosquito bite upon the skin of war ravaged veteran: objectionable, but hardly momentous.

It's not warming, so the Warmists had to re-brand their scam as 'climate change.'

It's been cooling for at least 12 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle