No. Climate change is the correct term and should be used free of any
political or other connotation. The long-term trend in climate change,
however, is open for speculation, as is any anthropogenic contribution.
The Earth's climate has changed (and evolved) throughout geological time
(e.g., initially, no or little oxygen). We're presently in an ice age
(Pleistocene), which is characterized by glacial (colder) and
inter-glacial periods (warmer). The question for (paleo)climatologists
is whether the present inter-glacial period will lead to a further
glacial period, or it signals the end of the Pleistocene ice age. Stay
tuned of the next 10 000 years or so.
Weather variation should not be confused with climate change, especially
over such short time spans and decades and centuries. Geological time is
measured in millions of years. Weather is an expression of climate, of
course.
Martin
On 10/02/2013 12:51 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> That's why the cognoscenti call it "climate change" instead.
>
> I've been studying this and "climate change" is the politically
> correct way of saying "global warming". It really is warming and
> climate change is the result.
>
>
>> What are the odds that the east coast would be pounded by two "once in a
>> century" storms in less than a year?
>
> Very likely. When a weather pattern sets up, you'll get multiple
> instances of storms within that pattern. Nothing surprising to this.
> But, here's the question: Why wasn't the east coast getting these
> "storms of the century" every year for the past 10 years? It's because
> a one-year or even a five-year weather pattern does not a climate
> change make.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|