[ramidarigaz]

The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it.

About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.

[TriinT]

The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation.

If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.

[mighty]

Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.

[TriinT]

English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer.

What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?

[lanaer]

If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary!

“Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all.

“climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period”

In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period.

“Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both).

Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.

[TriinT]

Please note that you defined "climate" in terms of "weather", and "weather" in terms of "climate".

"in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms"

Temperature and precipitation can be measured. Windspeed can also be measured. One can't really measure a storm, but one can measure how violent the storm is, roughly speaking. If you discretize physical space and assign values of temperature, pressume, etc to each cell in the grid, and you log them over a certain period of time, then you obtain a microscopic description of the "weather".

The laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer define the dynamics of the system. Knowing the inputs, we obtain a trajectory in a very high-dimensional state-space. This is too much information for humans to digest. Hence, the order of the model is greatly reduced, and instead of microscopic description, we have a macroscopic description which we call the "weather". After all, we need to know if it's gonna rain or how cold it will be, we don't need to know the temperature and pressure at every single point in space, nor do we need to know how fast each droptlet of rain is falling.

I agree with you. In my view, the dynamics are the same, and the "climate change" people talk means that the trajectories in state-space are approaching regions they usually don't go to. But since trajectories are inherently dynamic, I think the word "change" is weak. That is why I proposed the word "crisis".

[lanaer]

The dictionary definition of climate was in terms of weather. My own definition of climate which followed was explicitly written to get rid of the mention of weather. I then defined weather myself, in terms of climate.

I didn’t enter the argument of change vs. crisis in my post, though I do think crisis makes more sense.