Like Me, Do you accept the concept of Climate Change, but not Global Warming?

Climate Change and Global Warming are both very real Meteorological functions.

What the politicians have done is create Man Made Global Warming, which I don't outright reject but look at with very skeptical eyes.

Why, you ask?

In our everyday lives we encounter matter in three forms; solid, liquid and gas. For example, we are all familiar with water as solide ice, as liquid water and as a vapor. The atmosphere is made up primarily of a mixture of gases that include liquid and solid particles suspended in air, such as water droplets, ice crystals and dust particles.

The molecules of gases and liquids are in constant motion. They naturally spread out, or diffuse, from high areas of concentraion to areas of low concentration. This begs the question "if our atmosphere is an area of highly concentrated molecules, why don't they diffuse into empty outer space?" Gravity.

Gravitational attraction plays an importatn role in the evolution of the concentration of gases in our atmosphere. Since it's formation approximately 4.5 billion years ago the Earth and its atmosphere have undergone extraordinary changes. In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere was hot and consisted mostly of Hydrogen (H), Helium (He), Methane (CH4), and amomia (NH3). Only small amounts of these gases remain in today's atmosphere. The gases composing today's atmosphere are mostly nitrogen (n2) and oxygen (O2).

If you measured the percentage of different gases in some fixed volume of air you would find 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Only small amounts, or "traces", of other atmospheric gases.

Here is a list of todays composition.

Nitrogen = 78.08%

Oxygen = 20,95%

Argon = .93 %

Trace gases are as follows.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = 0.038%

Methane = 0.00017%

Ozone = 0.000004%

Chlorofluorocarbons = 0.000000012%

Water Vapor = Highly variable (0-4%)

These percentages haven't changed much (0.0001-0.001%) since man has been keeping track.

The gases in today's atmosphere are largely a result of emissions by volcanoes over billions of years. A volcanic eruption throws ash and rock, and large amounts of gases, into the atmosphere. The major gases in a volcanic plume are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. But what happened to these gases? After it's formation, the Earth began to cool. During the cooling process, the water vapor from volcanic eruptions condensed and formed clouds. The percipitation from the clouds evenutally formed oceans, glaciers, lakes and rivers. The development of oceans affected the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Some carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolved and accumulated in the oceans as they formed.

Additionaly, a very prominent theory on the causes of Ice Ages is our polar magnetic field. We know that it changes from North to South periodically (by periodically I mean in cosmos time, every 50,000 - 100,000 years). The years when it is stretched thin is when our Ice Ages occur because gravity and other forces that keep the atmosphere in place are weakened and the gasses in our atmosphere can more freely diffuse in to outer space.

Most Global Warming (around 70%) is due to water vapor and cloud cover.

You can't "accept" the concept of climate change without accepting the concept of global warming. If we had climate change without ever having global warming, the Earth's atmosphere would be at 0°K and the climate would no longer exist. If you are asking, "Do you accept the concept of Climate Change, but not *Anthropogenic* Global Warming?" My answer would be "mostly yes." The climate is always changing. It always has and always will. Without perpetual climate change throughout geologic history, we would have no sedimentary rocks. Anthropogenic activities do affect the process of climate change. In some localities (i.e. cities) AGW is real and often very pronounced. Deforestation and other land use changes definitely affect the natural process of climate change. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions minimally contribute to the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Mankind's presence on the Earth alters the ecology of the Earth. It's impossible for us to exist in a system without altering that system. That's life. The Enviromarxists need to accept that fact and leave the productive segment of society the heck alone.

"Climate Change" is a recently coined political term in attempt to find a middle ground between the believers/disbelievers of global warming.

I'll admit that I don't know all of the facts surrounding this subject, I honestly don't think anyone does. As others have said, it's basically two agendas intersecting and attempting to debunk each other. "Climate Change" itself doesn't even remove the possibility of global warming. Seeing as climate would cover both heating and cooling.. Seems to me like a backdoor response by desperate politicians to 'agree' with whatever turns out to be the truth. How that is ANY better than the "global warming" theory, I do not know.

I don't think global warming is a solid fact, but I don't doubt it's possibility. I also do not doubt that humans could in SOME SMALL way be responsible for "climate change", "global warming" or whatever you want to call it. Even if it doesn't exist, does that give people a free pass to do whatever they want? Environmentally speaking. Pollution IS a problem. Limited resources is BECOMING a problem, even if global warming turns out to be a hoax, these things still need to be addressed. And it seems like the same "global warming is definitely not real" crowd, also care little to do anything about those things as well.

So, you are saying if you call it by a different name it is okay.

"A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Are you also saying that if we add more carbon dioxide to the air, it will not increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air?

WMDs in Iraq are inconslusive and a means of politicians taxing us with impunity.

The last ice age, covered most of the northern USA with over a mile of ice. During that time, there was a land bridge between Asia and America, where the Berring Strait is today, that land bridge was 600 miles wide. When the ice over the USA melted, it raised sea levels by 200 feet, covering that 600 mile wide bridge.

If Antarctica melts, the ocean levels will rise another 200 feet, covering most of Florida, and of course, any other lowlands.

Perhaps burning several million gallons of oil a day will not add enough carbon dioxide to the air to make a difference. About half of the exhaust from a car is carbon dioxide, and since it burns oxygen, it also reduces the percentage of oxygen in the air. The carbon dioxide by weight, is actually greater than the weight of the fuel being burned, as oxygen is added to it from the air, to produce carbon dioxide.

But we are lucky, there is no problem, the trees in the South American rainforests, will convert the carbon dioxide into sugars, starches, cellulose and water, by photosynthesis. It is such a good thing to know that those forests are not being burned down, as that would make more carbon dioxide, and there would be fewer trees to use up the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Maybe there really isn't a problem, and this is all so politicians can tax us more, and the polar caps will not melt. It is all a conspiracy to deprive us of tax dollars.

Uhhh, this just doesn't sound right to me. Did you drink the kool-aid? I hope that your question borders on sarcasm, because I don't know how we can deny that millions of gas and oil hogging vehicles crossing the continents of this world, never mind ripping up miles and miles of the earth to make roads, factories that blow chemicals into the air, our poisoned food, etc. has had absolutely no effect on the environment and think that what is happening is natural? It's natural considering the abuse we have heaped upon the earth.

If you chose to believe that it's not happening, you are buying into the fear theory...no one wants to believe that it's happening, but putting your head into the sand while believing their lies isn't the answer either. Notice that it's only the US who is refuting the theory of global warming.

I'm really shocked and surprised by you, Humanist. Have you gone over to the Dark Side? LOL

It is not a matter of whether you believe that global warming is happening. It is a matter of what is causing it. It is also not a matter of whether or not pollution is real, and clean-up necessary! The problem is that certain officials on the highest levels are using this issue and manipulating data in order to pursue a far less than noble agenda! There are serious environmental issues that do need to be addressed, but these people are ignoring the ones that really matter, and putting all their focus on the ones that they can exploit to gouge the people out of their money! It is a complicated issue, and most people don't understand what is really going on. And, many of us do understand to a degree, but don't know all the specifics. I would advise everyone to be leery of anything that certain high level officials are using to levy taxes on the people. There are better ways of dealing with these issues that don't have to put more money into the pockets of the already super wealthy, at the expense of ordinary Americans! *sm*

Global Warming is more of a media term than the proper scientific phrasing, which is Global Climate Change.

As with many things, the terms are used largely interchangeably, though one is potentially inaccurate.

Yes.

As I look at what I have learned in Geology, it really puts "Global Warming" in persepctive. Millions of years ago, where I am standing now (West Virginia) was about where the Atlantic Coastline stood. There is evidence in fossils, rock layers, etc. Then, there came an Ice Age which allowed for many of the mountain formations where I live to be carved out by glaciers. The land remained frozen under 100's of feet of ice for thousands of years. ALL OF THIS OCCURED NATURALLY AND WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERACTION.

Trying to fight "global warming" is like trying to fight continental drift. The earth has been warming at a constant rate for the last 10,000 year as were are still coming out of the last ice age. The scientists you hear whining on TV are paid to do that. The information they are using is base on the fact that we have only recorded temperatures since the late 1800's. Scientists who have actually studied core samples from the polar ice caps tell a different story based on thousands of years of RELIABLE information.

I agree that we should take better care of our environment which is essentially only on lease to us, but don't fall victim to the hype. It will pass as the facts come out.

Follow the money trail. A lot of people have made a lot of money touting Global Warming, as opposed to climate change.

However, that being said, even if there is no such thing as global warming, a cleaner environment and a lesser dependence on foreign oil are not necesssarily bad things. Not to mention that at some point and time, the supply/demand function of dwindling oil/gas reserves will make oil/gas so expensive that we will HAVE to find an alternative. Might as well start looking into it now rather than later.

I'm sorry, but if global warming isn't causing climate change then what is?

If you answer "natural causes", then what specific causes? The sun? Nope.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Volcanoes? Nope.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957...

Pixie dust? What is it?

Sorry, but not only is the existence of global warming conclusive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te...

but humans have caused 80-90% of the warming over the past 40-50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_...

There's simply no plausible scientific alternative explanation:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aliro...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AikbV...

Sorry for all that evidence. I know that kind of stuff puts a kink in the global warming deniers' style.