January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

[ChesusRice]

Some contend that CMD is not neutral. CMD has been criticized for having an anti-corporate viewpoint by lobbyists such as Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman specializing in creating front groups for industry clients in the tobacco, food, biotechnology and other sectors. ActivistCash.com, an industry-funded website run by Berman & Co. and associated with Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, has run such critiques.

 

[cannabineer]

Link please

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Democracy

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-partisan progressive watchdog group led by Lisa Graves. CMD manages this website, SourceWatch.org. As noted on SourceWatch's sister site, PRWatch.org, CMD "strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda such as corporate greenwashing, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism." CMD also manages the BanksterUSA website. CMD was founded in 1993 by John Stauber.

 

[cannabineer]

Some contend that CMD is not neutral. CMD has been criticized for having an anti-corporate viewpoint by lobbyists such as Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman specializing in creating front groups for industry clients in the tobacco, food, biotechnology and other sectors. ActivistCash.com, an industry-funded website run by Berman & Co. and associated with Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, has run such critiques.

This sounds like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's basically double-reverse ad hominem, and as such has no value to either support or detract from who the CMD are imo. I'm not here to either praise or bury CMD, but for them to posture themselves as nonpartisan and progressive in the same sentence caught my attention. i don't know about this instance, but it could mean "the Dems are too far to the right of us". I'd need to dig into who the leaders are, to wit Lisa Graves (SourceWatch) and John Stauber (CMD). I would be very surprised to find centrists, but am willing to be convinced.

 

[ginjawarrior]

To the earlier question, man contributes LESS than one tenth of one percent of CO2 emissions.

To Canndo, #2 is exactly correct. Warming has ALWAYS preceded CO2 increases. The notion that it doesn't, didn't even surface until GORE intentionally reversed the chart in his little movie. The Eco-Loons latched on to that and haven't let go since. Why? Because without that blatant fallacy, they have no crisis to use as a vehicle for their actual agenda.

Al gore is nothing but a public face he does not drive the science.

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

• The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
• This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
• This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
• The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

Last updated on 9 April 2012 by dana1981. View ArchivesV

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

[ginjawarrior]

That's awesome, did you get it straight from Al Gore's blog? Or some other blogger of even higher standing? It almost rises to the level of fraud perpetrated by the IIPC and the "cooked" number of climatoligists that signed on with them. That and all the false reports and scaaaary predictions that have now been exposed.

Your play book is a bit dated

​

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (OISM)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.
32,000 Sounds Like A Lot

In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)
According to figures from the US Department of EducationDigest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.
Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
Last updated on 20 August 2010 by gpwayne.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-basic.htm

 

[OGEvilgenius]

It wasn't a reasonable challenge at all, but I'll play.

The answer is: Because the earth has had CO2 levels that high for millions of years, there is no need for alarm because this is a natural cycle occurring hundreds of thousands of times over millions of years.

There, my answer. Now you have to disprove it to validate your alarm.

During prehistoric times there is much reason to believe CO2 levels were significantly higher. Vegetation was gigantic and widespread.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

You are "sure" it did, but strangely, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since we have been recording it, even though the emitions from the sun have fluctuated. We do have a good idea not only of the CO2 content in ages past but of the temperatures back then. If you really want to try to compare, no, the temperatures now are not nearly as hot as they have been in the past - but what past and how has that anything to do with the modern era? I love how the naysayers jump from practicality to theory. In this case, that the average temperature was higher 100 million years ago has no bearing on today.

Except it has plenty of bearing if you're going to attempt to apply the force of government to save us from a potential disaster which may not be so horrible after all. I can't help but notice, that in my humble experience, CO2 and plants mix rather nicely.

 

[ginjawarrior]

During prehistoric times there is much reason to believe CO2 levels were significantly higher. Vegetation was gigantic and widespread.

​

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.

Last updated on 24 December 2010 by steve.oconnor.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

 

[deprave]

Global warming is a real science but to say it has anything to do with politics, politicians....especially us giving money to or supporting politicians/governments/corporations is the bullshit...Giving corporations money for air is not going to solve global warming, don't be retarded, its a scam. I am all for talking about real solutions but I have yet to see anyone bring that forth with the exception of bullshit scams. My bullshit meter goes through the roof when I hear about proposals such as carbon taxes lol, throwing money seemingly and blindly at the problem doesn't accomplish anything but throwing money away, that is one problem with some people, they think you can give people money and you are then relieved of all responsibility and vilified as being compassionate and a good person, doesn't work that way. (only in your head) The sad fact is you are being scammed for your ignorance and guilt, good job throwing your money away for nothing dolt.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Except it has plenty of bearing if you're going to attempt to apply the force of government to save us from a potential disaster which may not be so horrible after all. I can't help but notice, that in my humble experience, CO2 and plants mix rather nicely.

​

CO2 is plant food

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Advanced
More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.

An argument, made by those who deny man made Global Warming, is that the Carbon Dioxide that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. Their argument is based on the logic that, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.
It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the are available for crops.
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?
What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? The following points make it clear.
1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then starts flowing to the lowest level. It then quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.
3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
4. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

Figure 1: Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25, 2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)

Figure 2: More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15, 2008.

Figure 3: Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines
In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

It will simply increase the size of deserts and decrease the amount of arable land. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.
Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.
Last updated on 14 July 2011 by villabolo.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

[ginjawarrior]

Global warming is a real science but to say it has anything to do with politics, politicians....especially us giving money to or supporting politicians/governments/corporations is the bullshit...Giving corporations money for air is not going to solve global warming, don't be retarded, its a scam. I am all for talking about real solutions but I have yet to see anyone bring that forth with the exception of bullshit scams.

When there is a clear problem that the public ignores the government should do something to remedy that problem.

How would you suggest we solve this?

Personally I would like a baseline power supplied by nuke/ hydro electric with renewables being placed where advantageous

But I can't see that happening without government investment

 

[deprave]

When there is a clear problem that the public ignores the government should do something to remedy that problem.

How would you suggest we solve this?

Personally I would like a baseline power supplied by nuke/ hydro electric with renewables being placed where advantageous

But I can't see that happening without government investment

I do not have a speicifc resolution for this issue because frankly don't feel its dire as its made out to be, but obviously Improving Technology is what I am looking for, corporatism being the real core of this however. Can you elaborate more on your idea or its just a general thought? How would that work? Do we give money to billionaires and they just fix stuff for us with magical unicorn powers if we put our trusts and wallets with them like the other "proposals"? If so then no thanks.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I do not have a speicifc resolution for this issue because frankly don't feel its dire as its made out to be, but obviously Improving Technology is what I am looking for, corporatism being the real core of this however. Can you elaborate more on your idea or its just a general thought? How would that work? Do we give money to billionaires and they just fix stuff for us like the other "proposals"? If so then no thanks.

I'd be more than happy for state run nukes but would settle for what ever gets offered be it joint run or just subsidised aslong as the end results are met.

Improved energy effiency can only go so far and often eclipsed by us finding new uses for that power. Small scale wind and solar have their places and it's the most accessible but it's very unrealistic to expect it to support our needs

Big jobs like nuke and hydro electric needs government help to get done

 

[deprave]

I'd be more than happy for state run nukes but would settle for what ever gets offered be it joint run or just subsidised aslong as the end results are met.

Improved energy effiency can only go so far and often eclipsed by us finding new uses for that power. Small scale wind and solar have their places and it's the most accessible but it's very unrealistic to expect it to support our needs

Big jobs like nuke and hydro electric needs government help to get done

for example?

 

[scroglodyte]

die, homo sapiens, die. we did this and Mother Nature has got something for our collective ass. the political end of it................it does matter. the men that caused this are long dead.

 

[ginjawarrior]

for example?

For what bit?

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Is a very good evidence based resource

 

[ginjawarrior]

die, homo sapiens, die. we did this and Mother Nature has got something for our collective ass. the political end of it................it does matter. the men that caused this are long dead.

It's still being caused now and we'll all be dead before the effects of this are felt fully

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Classic mistaken "arguments"

That science gets it wrong before it gets it right is not an indicator that science is always wrong, it is an indicator that science self corrects. Big BIG difference. Science thought the universe was a certain size until it found that it was larger. Science thought that the earth was a certain age until it found that the earth was older, and older still and then even older. No other branch of learning has that sort of self correction.

there is plenty of evidence that the earth is warming and enough evidence still that it is man caused.

Typical mistake here - predicting tomorrow's weather is not climatology, meteorology is not climatology - different things and one does not reflect upon another.

What happens here is that those who don't understand science come out with statements that are preposterous to those who do understand it, yet those who don't still believe that their "common sense" trumps the millions of hours of research simply because those who claim "common sense" think that is all there is to perception of the world around them.

Then again, those weilding common sense are the ones who believed that piles of trash "spontaneously" "created" maggots and even rats. "common sense" tells us that Ice should sink and the world is flat. In short, common sense buys us very little in the effort to understand our surroundings.

Weather is not climate and weather does not "create" climate".

You do realize that climate is what the weather Is like over a period of time, right?

So I'm sorry, but climate is weather.

 

[ChesusRice]

You do realize that climate is what the weather Is like over a period of time, right?

So I'm sorry, but climate is weather.

Weather is
" It isnt going to rain today"
Climate is
"the desert we live in is dry with low humidity and hot"

 

[ginjawarrior]

You do realize that climate is what the weather Is like over a period of time, right?

So I'm sorry, but climate is weather.

​

The difference between weather and climate

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


Scientists can't even predict weather
...Since modern computer models cannot with any certainty predict the weather two weeks from now, how can we rely upon computer models to predict what the Earth's climate might be like a hundred years from now? They can't! Yet people like Al "Carbon-Credit" Gore want you to believe that these models can predict the future. I bet I can do at least as well with a crystal ball (source: Kowabunga)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.
In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades. However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible.
Atmospheric science students are taught "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages.

Figure 1: Record highs are an example of extreme weather, but an increase in record highs versus record lows is a symptom of a changing climate. From Meehl et al.*
A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan!
A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool.
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves). Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs.
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc., 79, 2161-2163
*Image source: Meehl, G. A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling, and L. McDaniel (2009), Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736.
Last updated on 24 January 2011 by dansat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm