http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/ar...
Pindar
Gotham and the Big Apple are both names for New York.
http://suite101.com/article/new-york-cit...
I think you have to stick with global warming, because that was how it was sold to the public and that was the supposed reason behind all the money spent and extra taxes etc etc. Suddenly changing the name to the catch all of climate change is unethical, especially when it hasn't warmed. If you're gonna pull off a scam and rob the world then you should at least have the decency to stick to the same story/lie.
Hey Dork, the difference between Gotham and the Big apple is that 1 is real and the other is out of your comics, and btw 2+2=4, and 6-4=2. Totally different numbers, so not a very impressive grasp of basic math there either.
It's not one or the other, the claim is one, which is caused by man, causes the other. The justification in using climate change instead of global warming is because you can alarm the public more by claiming bad weather is a sign of climate change. It's hard to convince someone in the middle of a blizzard that it's caused by AGW, it's far easier to scare that person into believing the blizzard is a result of climate change caused by global warming and that more bad weather is on the way.
Addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing the earth to retain additional solar energy as heat. This can he sensible heat that is making the atmosphere, the oceans and the land warmer, or this could be latent heat that is melting ice sheets and glaciers, or evaporating ocean water to increase world average humidity. So, perhaps the most correct description would be "Global Heating", or to borrow from physics where heat energy is conventionally represented by the letter Q, we are experiencing "Global Plus Q".
The differentiation between Global Warming and Climate Change is a bit of nonsense. Yes, the climate is changing and it is a result of man made greenhouse gas warming (heating). The "dog" is earth's temperature (heat content) and the "tail being wagged" is the climate. If we were were somehow able to reverse the process by taking ghg out of the atmosphere at a rapid rate, global cooling would be expected (Global Minus Q), and the climate again would be changing. If you change earth's heat content either by increasing it or decreasing it you are going to force changes to the climate.
I am a nature lover, outdoorsman, and consider myself to be a practical conservationist. However, when I first read about Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre (M&M), I sympathized with their efforts to get information used to substantiate the "Hockey Stick" rise in temperature. Why would Climate Research Unit (CRU), a publicly-funded organization, stonewall them (M&M) to prevent what would seem to be an attempt by an independent agency (M&M) to confirm their (CRU) research and analysis? It became apparent that political pressure motivated the conclusions, and that numbers and scientific methods were fudged and manipulated to support the foregone agenda. It was also apparent that Groupthink played a role in what was portrayed as the party line, that Global Warming is unprecedented and that humans are causing it. It had a foundation of militant environmentalism and Malthusian philosophy. Add to that the sensational nature of catastrophic weather and rising seas! Perfect fodder for a mass media that loves death and destruction!!!
The earths climate has always changed and always will (vikings in Green land, a green Sahara) are just two examples, so how can you attribute climate change to man made Co2 when there are so many natural variations, how do you pick out the changes caused by Co2 against the natural.
Global warming doesn't seem to be doing to well either, with the (according to who you listen to) the 10, 12, 15, or 17 year pause.
So for me to pick one is not sensible, because we haven't got warming, and the climate is always changing.
These are just names, deniers try to attach importance to the difference in the names in their ignorance, climate change is what scientists have always called this process, deniers invent stories of a name change which fools few, your physics teacher seems to be an exception) sadly in the modern school system teachers with little understanding of physics often teach it as a subject.
Global warming is more a name used by the popular press, the fairy tale that there was a name change is quite easily proved wrong by look just at the name of the UN body who have looked into this from the start the IPCC, it should be pretty obvious what the "CC" stands for and has since that body was formed back in the 80's.
The science on this is well and truly in and Co2 (a strong green house gas) is the cause, the source of that extra Co2 is us (no doubt of that either) temperature is up, sea level is up and rising, glacial ice is declining. Deniers have made up stories about volcanoes, clouds, cosmic rays and a host of other things to try and explain this and none of then hold up. They also have a host of lame conspiracy theories that get ever more ridiculous as they sink further and further from reality.
There is a reason no scientific body in the world support denier BS, and it's not because of sinister global conspiracies, it's because denier rot simply can't stand up to even basic scientific scrutiny, which is of course why almost all their "facts" come from blogs.
The science on climate change is quite solid, no matter what you call it.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
I ask you to not the complete lack of science links in deniers answers (and I can say that without even looking at their answers).
Hey Dook
"Or the difference between 2+2 and 6-4."
do you mean 6-2 as there is actually a difference in the results of the sums you have posted.
Well the general population is still struggling with the concept. Particularly in the US where they are mistrusting of science
With the abundance of lies and misrepresentation of GW by the deniers/GW skeptics the general public doesn't know what to believe
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...
I take the side of Global Warning because it is the most hot and emerging issue relating to the environment.
Climate change is more likely, because not all areas of the earth will heat up, so it is not called 'Global Warming'. Some areas will get cooler and some will have more cyclones, more snow etc...
The world won't heat up all over the place. The climates of places will change.
Hope this has helped, but it's not really from a physics perspective. (:
I am doing a presentation for my physics class about Climate Change and how it is more likely vs Global Warming. Please note that this was an assigned topic and does not necessarily reflect my beliefs. I would like to get a consensus from some of the general population of certain individual's beliefs and justification as to why one may pick one of the other!
The question is nonsense.
Like asking for the difference between "Gotham" and "The Big Apple."
Or the difference between 2+2 and 6-4.
It is a very odd definition of "physics class" where such ignorant silliness is "assigned" as a presentation topic.
I suggest a class in remedial English instead.
It's both, the climate is changing and that change is that the globe is warming
It's interesting that it's for a physics class. You'll find that among the people that participate in here, those that have advanced training in physics accept the science of global warming, while those that are untrained in physics reject it.
Both are happening at the same time.
Its all garbage made up by some scientists
