Climate Change, Global Warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming

[chair]

These are three different things, which many here confuse.

Climate Change is just that. Climates are not completely stable, and changes in climate affect humans. An extreme example would be the ice ages. A more recent example is extended drought in parts of the Middle East- which can contribute to social unrest. Climate change is not necessarily caused by human activity.

Global warming is the observed rise in average temperatures over time. This is an observation, and can be a fact without it being caused by human activity.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is attributing the observed global warming to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels. This is a theory of why we see global warming.

I suggest that people here be more careful with their use of these terms.

For example, the current mess is Syria is partially due to climate change. That does not necessarily mean that the drought was caused by human activity, or that it could have been avoided if we all drove hybrid cars. The climate change is observed, is not dependent on any theories or political viewpoints- it's just there.

 

[brewmama]

These are three different things, which many here confuse.

Climate Change is just that. Climates are not completely stable, and changes in climate affect humans. An extreme example would be the ice ages. A more recent example is extended drought in parts of the Middle East- which can contribute to social unrest. Climate change is not necessarily caused by human activity.

Global warming is the observed rise in average temperatures over time. This is an observation, and can be a fact without it being caused by human activity.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is attributing the observed global warming to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels. This is a theory of why we see global warming.

I suggest that people here be more careful with their use of these terms.

For example, the current mess is Syria is partially due to climate change. That does not necessarily mean that the drought was caused by human activity, or that it could have been avoided if we all drove hybrid cars. The climate change is observed, is not dependent on any theories or political viewpoints- it's just there.

Good points. But your last statement (partially due to climate change) has not been proven (despite claims of "experts" like Prince Charles, Charlotte Church and Al Gore)
Even The Guardian, usually a mouthpiece for cagwistas and the left, doesn't buy it.

"First, the study is not even about Syria specifically, nor about the links between Syria’s drought and civil war. Rather, its key finding is that there was a multiyear drought during the late 2000s across the “fertile crescent”, a region defined by the authors as stretching from southern Russia to Saudi Arabia. Through statistical modelling, it is then claimed that this drought was made two to three times more likely by human-caused climate change. On to this analysis the authors simply bolt a few dubious, secondary assertions about the links between drought and conflict in Syria. Crucial among these is that prewar drought in Syria led to the displacement of as many as 1.5 million people to the country’s cities. But this figure – widely reproduced in media reports – is almost certainly wrong: the sole source for it is a single short news report, and it is completely out of line with Syrian government, UN and other estimates, most of which suggested numbers in the region of 250,000."

Most important of all, the Columbia authors present no serious evidence whatsoever that Syria’s “drought migrants” helped spark the civil war...And this, to put it bluntly, is because there is no such evidence."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/climate-change-syria-civil-war-prince-charles

 

[chair]

Good points. But your last statement (partially due to climate change) has not been proven (despite claims of "experts" like Prince Charles, Charlotte Church and Al Gore)
Even The Guardian, usually a mouthpiece for cagwistas and the left, doesn't buy it.

"First, the study is not even about Syria specifically, nor about the links between Syria’s drought and civil war. Rather, its key finding is that there was a multiyear drought during the late 2000s across the “fertile crescent”, a region defined by the authors as stretching from southern Russia to Saudi Arabia. Through statistical modelling, it is then claimed that this drought was made two to three times more likely by human-caused climate change. On to this analysis the authors simply bolt a few dubious, secondary assertions about the links between drought and conflict in Syria. Crucial among these is that prewar drought in Syria led to the displacement of as many as 1.5 million people to the country’s cities. But this figure – widely reproduced in media reports – is almost certainly wrong: the sole source for it is a single short news report, and it is completely out of line with Syrian government, UN and other estimates, most of which suggested numbers in the region of 250,000."

Most important of all, the Columbia authors present no serious evidence whatsoever that Syria’s “drought migrants” helped spark the civil war...And this, to put it bluntly, is because there is no such evidence."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/climate-change-syria-civil-war-prince-charles

The link, by its nature, is difficult to prove. I was trying to separate the issue from the politicized question of man-caused global warming.