Is CLIMATE CHAOS finally a truly accurate description of our climate situation?

Question

I think Envirofundamentalists have finally stumbled upon a good definition of what is happening with our climate, by changing their nomenclature from "global warming" to "climate chaos".

Global warming implied that mankind was responsible for climate change, which is an impossibility. It is scientifically impossible to prove with accurate, reproducable results, which is a fundamental necessity of scientific theory, so it is entirely based on supposition and blind "faith" (even if there is a "consensus" of blind faith). And it goes directly against the scientific record of global warming cycles, that anyone can investigate using tree ring evidence that goes back for centuries and accurately measures global cooling and warming cycles.

Meanwhile, "climate chaos" by definition means something without organization or order, and that necessarilly means something that cannot be controlled nor influenced. In other words, they accept that man has nothing to do with it.

It is nature.

Answer 1

How about "Anthropological Cataclysmic Chaotic Climate Change" instead?

That may scare a few more kids.

And never forget to add it "For the Children"!

Answer 2

Nature is inherently chaotic. They really have no clue what they're talking about, if they think "climate chaos" is supposed to be a scientific term, suitable for propagating apocalyptic mantras.

It's clear few of the above have read the most recent IPCC report, or if they have, they've only read the political section. The scientific section, the long boring part, is a near 180 from the political section.

Answer 3

I can't agree with your supposition that mankind is not, at least, partially responsible. I can only refer you to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which includes many scientists from many countries
It is of course not possible to build a world in the laboratory and test the theories. The process is different. Computer base mathematical models are built and run. The outputs from the computer are then compared with what is actually observed
This is described in chapter 8 of the report.
I prefer the term climate change which is less emotional that climate chaos and encourages people to study the subject and evaluate the evidence to see what is natural and what is likely to be the result of human activity.

Answer 4

No. The science behind this this is quite orderly. The "skeptics" on the other hand are all over the map, with wildly conflicting theories. One skeptic cannot convince even another skeptic that they're right.

You shouldn't trust me, or anyone else on Answers. The proof here is in the links. My words, and those of others, are just to put the links in context.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

I still use the term climate change. :-)

There’s an obvious flaw in your argument that ‘…climate chaos" by definition means something without organization or order, and that necessarily means something that cannot be controlled nor influenced. In other words, they accept that man has nothing to do with it.’

As you use the term it simply means a system becomes chaotic. That doesn’t mean there is not a cause to it or that by implementing changes it can’t become stabilised. If we use ‘economic chaos’ as an example instead we can see that national economies can be stable, destabilise and become chaotic,before stabilising again. But all three states will be caused by human actions and interventions.

Climate chaos can also be used as a term to describe the chaos CAUSED by dramatic extreme weather events, increases to the frequency of their occurrence or changes to region’s climate. In other words the effect that climate change has on human systems (societies, economies etc). The extreme flooding in many parts of the world in 2006 is an example.

Chaotic is also used to imply randomness; the existence of perfectly regular diurnal and seasonal cycles disqualifies climate as being ‘chaotic’ by your definition.

I would disagree that climate is essentially chaotic. It changes over time but that does not mean it is ‘chaotic’ or wholly random, or beyond understanding.

The climate of an area or region is the average pattern of weather conditions in a region over a long period of time. It’s usually measured over at least 30 years, though an average can be taken for shorter periods.

The climate is the description of the average seasonal temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, sunlight wind, humidity, atmospheric pressure etc. It takes into account altitude, latitude, distance from oceans, the direction of prevailing winds and so on.

So climate is about long-term records, trends and averages. Climate is what the weather is normally like year to year, even taking into account exceptional blizzards or heat waves. It is looking at a number of years, not just one year. Weather is the day-to-day variety experienced within that climate. The use of the term Climate Chaos to imply that how climate works is beyond our understanding is simply wrong.

Climate tells you what clothes to buy and have in your wardrobe, weather tells you what to wear each day. If you go on holiday the area’s climate tells you what clothes to pack and what weather to expect for that time of year.
Climate tells farmers what crops they can plant and when to harvest them. Or if you can grow crops at all. Climate determines the vegetation that will grow in a region and the consequent type of wildlife. We know there are many different climatic zones in the world that share common characteristics. These can be characterised by the type of vegetation they support as well as by temperature, seasonal characteristics, precipitation and the like. Many types of plants only thrive in particular conditions.

A region’s climate changes according to the time of year, of the seasons and, less often, because of naturally occurring phenomena such as El Nino/La Nina events (warm and cool waters exchanges across the Pacific ocean), jet stream movements and so on. We understand why there are seasons (the way the earth spins and the angle of its axis, not its distance from the sun) and why between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn there are only two seasons a year; wet and dry. We know many of the factors that determine the climate of a region e.g. Latitude, altitude, its distance from an ocean (water holds heat longer than land because it releases it much more slowly), the direction of prevailing winds and so on.

But changes to any climate zone over a short period (in climate terms a few decades is a very abrupt timescale) would be immensely disruptive.

The physics and chemistry showing how increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases can warm the atmosphere is solid. I take this issue seriously because I understand the physics and chemistry of how different gases (diatomic, triatomic etc) interact with different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Deep sea sediment cores recovered by oil rig drilling show a clear relationship between CO2 concentrations and changes to the earth's climate over 100s of millions of years.

Answer 6

Agreed, It's mans supposed understanding of climate that is in chaos. The greenies have been trying to get rid of the oil industry for 40 years. They finally found an angle that got every ones attention.

Answer 7

The climate has always been changing and will always change. Nothing to get worried about.

A point to ponder: the claims that the number of extreme weather events has increased due to global warming is largely false. The number of reported huricanes and tornados may have gone up but this is largely because technology has allowed us to detect storms that never affect humans.

Answer 8

exaplin how it is impossible that mankind is responsible for climate change? the greenhouse gasses hd to be produced somewhere (manmade factories perhaps?)
your right in saying "it is nature", by the definition "it is nature which mankind is destoroying"