/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10343479
>Why do they call it climate change now instead of global warming?
They don't. Both terms have always been used roughly interchangeably in public discussions.

>>9820060
>the entire IPCC case against greenhouse gases rests on forecasts that are so far in the future that they can't be proven wrong.
No it doesn't. The IPCC reports aren't even a "case" - they're a synthesis of a bunch published work. The individual papers all rest on different things, so a single piece of work getting overturned wouldn't significantly alter the conclusions of the reports. That's the whole point of a consensus.

>>9820080
>When the weather is warm, it's global warming. When it isn't, it's climate change.
When a denier is making shit up, it's a day that ends with "y".

>That wasn't always the case. Global warming was used for years until people disputed the warming trends and then the term "climate change" came into use.
That never happened. Both terms have been used interchangeably in informal discussions for as long as the subject has existed.

>Like John Christy who developed global temperature data set from satellites? He vehemently disputed the corrections made to the very datasets he recorded.
What does that have do do with your statement "Record heat waves is evidence for climate changes just like blizzards and record cold is proof of climate change"?

>The model prediction which was published in the August 28, 1981 edition of "Science" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957).). The other link (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308)) is to an article about observations that disproves the model's prediction.
No it doesn't.
The first article doesn't even make a prediction of sea-level rise rate - the closest it gets is mentioning the possibility of a West
Antarctic icesheet collapse. And the second article is specifically about corrections to the known rate of sea-level rise.
How can it disprove something that wasn't even addressed?