"Climate Change" is a better phrase than "Global warming".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

One of the standard canards being put forwards by people still trying to deny that climate change is a major problem is that in some places things are getting colder rather than hotter.

This is missing the point completely - the problem is that the climate as a whole is changing, and while on average it's getting hotter, even just getting hotter in some places and colder in others is still a problem, because it will kill things off far faster than it leads to new things evolving, and change weather patterns that people depend on.

The average drift of climate change is clearly from colder to hotter, and it's that and not the other that will cause the worst problems (melting at the poles), but it's not universally that way round.

Speaking as a limey, my understanding is that the net effect of climate change will actually be to make Britain colder when the Gulf Stream reverses direction.

[amitten]

1. You're absolutely right. It's a climate imbalance, which leads

to death for different wildlife.

[InvisibleTouch]

2. "Climate Crisis" is even better. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Disagree.

Yes, it may well be a crisis, but I dislike loaded terminology. By all means talk about "the climate change crisis", but set up your terms so that it's possible to discuss whether it is or not.

There's also the issue of whether something happening on a timescale of decades can be a crisis - I think the word implies immediacy.

[InvisibleTouch]

24. I think a change happening on such a rapid scale as we are seeing...

...is unarguably a crisis. Many species simply can't evolve and adapt fast enough to keep pace, while others will suddenly find their living range expanded - which means we're talking mass extinctions, migration of invasive species, new disease organisms and parasites entering into populations that haven't built up resistance, etc. etc.. I stand by the term, because I think it conveys the urgency with which we need to approach the problem.

[bread_and_roses]

36. We damn well ought to call it "crisis" - since it is. Change is way too benign a word

"Change" happens all the time, everyday - there is an expression, "life is change." I doubt anyone could scan through one week's post titles in "Environment/Energy" without concluding that it is a crisis. Discussing whether it is a crisis or not is simply an evasion tactic, rooted in the massive denial we are in about the urgent necessity of changing nearly every damn thing about our gluttonous life-style and that is is WE - here in the industrial "First World" countries - that bear the brunt of the blame and who must make the most radical changes.
edit - sp

[KittyWampus]

9. I prefer "Volatility".

[StClone]

4. I have yet to hear a logical explanation

As to why one is more accurate or scientific. Climate Change is in fact caused by increased Global atmospheric energy capture (warming) which in turn is a result of increased Global atmospheric CO2 concentration (mostly). Lets call it a chicken to avoid an argument even though the egg was invented first.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. All global warming is climate change. Not all climate change is warming.

Which is why I prefer the latter term.

[StClone]

11. So it is more accurate to say the temperature is changing?

Then to state that is in fact warming?

If the effect of CO2 were in fact overall cooling the Earth the Climate Change term would be accurate. Climate is an average of the temps etc. of a certain area over a precised time, so saying some places will cool while some warm is ambiguous when the over-all global temperature is rising. What I am saying is that When speaking Globally Global warming may be more useful but when speaking of regions Climate Change may be more accurate.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Global warming is to climate change

as social disfunction is to being mugged.

It's the underlying problem that causes the symptoms, but the symptoms are what you actually notice and - and from a political perspective this is the important bit - can measure and point at and say "look, major climate change". Not a perfect analogy (I'm sure if I thought for a few minutes I could pick holes in it), but it illustrates at least some of the matter.

The reason global warming is a bad thing is not that the average temperature change is itself *directly* a major problem; it's that it will cause changes in climate (oceans rising, weather patterns changing etc) that are massive problems.

[StClone]

20. Ack Analogies! If this were a car wreck

The collision would be akin to Global Warming and the health changes of occupants would be Climate Change. Police would investigate the crash parameters and health professionals the health aspects of the passengers. I guess since people are paramount the health concerns may hold precedence over time unless there is a big law suit.

[Muttocracy]

17. Climate includes many factors other than temperature, e.g. precipitation

posted longer about it below before I read your post.

[StClone]

21. Yes, yes, yes

But the warming precipitated the climate change. And Warming is shorthand for the multitudes of changes that take place and impinge on cultures, Ecologies and Climate.

[Muttocracy]

22. but some places will see very little warming while they will see large climate change

it's increased solar energy retention that is the problem - which could take the form of temperature, wind, evaporation, etc.

In my experience, most people think of global warming almost entirely in terms of temperature.

[StClone]

23. Global Warming implies average

And Climate Change is climatology language of specific measurable changes over time, over a specific region (that's what climate is). Professions want us to use their language but for even the informed it really is not that big of deal.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. "Climate change" is a creation of the GOP "think" tanks. n/t

[jwirr]

12. I first saw the term stated exactly as the OP does in the book "The

Long Emergency" by James Howard Kuntsler, hardly a right winger.

[StClone]

13. First is best

I guess.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. I did not know that, however ...

... that doesn't change the fact that the GOP are co-opting the phrase.

[SidDithers]

31. The IPCC was convened in 1988...

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

Were GOP think tanks influencing the UN and the World Meteorological Organization that long ago?

Sid

[SlicerDicer-]

7. Yes climate change is so in vogue

Its so scamtastic... I hate the term personally.. When the world stopped warming in 1998 some phrase had to be come up with that was just as fearful.. Instead of Global Warming it slowly morphed into Climate Change. Climate Crisis etc. Now regardless if it gets hot or cold man is responsible. There is no drawing the line..

Yes I am a flat earther according to gore but I like to think for myself and not eat shoveled bullshit. If I wanted to do that there is plenty of free range cattle out here I could go get my own meat pies. Not too shocking that the UN is investigating the IPCC now for massive corruption. Ahh such is what happens..

Can we please focus our energy on something more viable? Like umm getting rid of the internal combustion engine for health reasons.. stop poisoning our FOOD with mercury from coal.. Particulate matter causing asthma attacks.. Water being tainted by various chemicals resulting from the processes revolving around making our fuel.. Synthetic fertilizers causing massive deadzones in the oceans killing off reefs. Thus as they die our food from the oceans may die..

Lets get back to reality and make a difference on things we know we are 100% at fault for. Ohh wait we can just use carbon credits and continue to do as we have been doing. I am so stupid why not _NOT_ change and just say we are? We can continue to tear the world apart and everything in it. Lets do that ok?

Or how about we just make it so the 3rd world cant build out due to not being able to afford carbon credits. Keep africa in squalor so we can exploit their resources and keep _OUR_ way of life going. Yeah thats another option too! How about we do that ok?

I can go on forever.. This by very definition is insanity.


Note: I do not subscribe or believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe it is cyclical. But irregardless of the fact if it is or is not we should take to heart as fellow human beings what I said above. However I will be shouted down likely as a _denier_ instead of addressing real issues.

And please for the love of all that is holy update your info on Britain. Check out Dr. Richard Alley and his infos on it :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. You talk about 'fearful' words, whren you're the one who says 'scamtastic'?

Whose 'scam' are you claiming this is? Remember, the big money in energy has always been with the big oil companies. They're the ones who gain billions from the claims they make - which are yours too.

No, 'climate change' was not just 'come up with' after 1998. Consider the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. Right from the start of the widespread concern about this, the scientists have recognised it's not just a question of an overall warming, but the way that can affect various aspects of climate, in different places.

What's your basis for the claim that "the UN is investigating the IPCC now for massive corruption"?

And <pedantic mode> there is no such word as 'irregardless'. You correctly used 'regardless' earlier in your post </pedantic mode>. :D

[SidDithers]

33. I caught that too...

I find it hard to take the seriously the opinions of anyone whe uses "irregardless" when trying to make an argument :)

Sid

[SlicerDicer-]

35. well there goes my point proven

Real issues will never be dealt with when people wish to attack. There is no rational reasoning to this I can find except YOU do not want your precious lifestyle to go away. You must have your silicon chip sets that power your computer without proper safeguards. Read up on Corrales NM and how lethal quantities of Chlorine Gas are released. This is not speculation this is not conjecture. This is fact! There is a large quantity of arsenic in our water supply here and its curious that it is a byproduct of fabrication of chips. Arsenic is quite a nasty little thing to have in your water do you not agree?

This list goes on all over the country we have things like oil spills that go on daily.. we have gasoline dumped daily (guilty as charged when I helped pull a gastank 2 days ago and siphoned I spit gas out on the ground) yep there is loads of people who do this and why? cause we are slaves to these damn machines... My neighbors help me I help them thats the way it works around here... A little gas wont kill me I think...

But why even have to bother with this? Why not change your lifestyle to be slightly less intensive. You might have to give up your special way of life that revolves around huge unsustainable energy consumption fine... Maybe this would bring back a sense of community in real life instead of digital. Interface with a real human being from time to time its quite rewarding. To help somebody for the reason just of helping people is a great feeling.

I would rather focus on issues of whats happening to life and property.. water and sky over contemplating where the climate will be in 100-200 years time. This is not my concern but my concern is what will happen to us as a people and lifeforms we depend on for survival with their constant ingestion of pollutants. Are we going to irreversibly damage our DNA for the sake of maintaining a lifestyle? Will we continue to attack people who say to fix the problem or will we grow a sack and actually look at real issues. Grammar be dammed I never grasped it so sue me.. It never stopped me from having a reasonable grasp on things.. You attack my message over grammar..

It is no better than the republicans IMO to act like this. Face facts your life must change if you want this cycle of destruction to end. Are you willing to sacrifice? That is the key question here are you willing to sacrifice. Are you willing to grow a large majority of your own food? Are you willing to change the paradigm of far flung goods and produce locally or nearby so goods do not have to travel so far? Are you willing to work in a factory to make this work or is it too degrading for you? Serious questions require serious answers to serious problems. But my guess would be no you are not willing or do not want too and would only do so when forced. Thus your reply.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. You seem to have stopped talking about climate change

You are concerned about environmental damage caused by the use of petroleum products; whether or not you believe climate change is man-made, then there will be an overlap in what we want to see happen - an end to use of fossil fuels.

But your earlier posts made several accusations - that talking about man-made climate change is a 'scam' (when those who most dispute it are the oil companies that make their money from the fossil fuels you hate, while you still haven't made clear who you think is running the scam you worry about); that the phrase 'climate change' was only introduced after some post-1998 years had lower temperatures that 1998 (which I have shown to be wrong); and that the UN is investigating "massive corruption" in the IPCC. I'm unaware of that, but if it is happening, we need to know. So if you could tell us what you mean by it (eg a link to a news story), then it would be helpful.

I agree with you that a change to our lifestyles that use less energy is needed. "Whats happening to life and property.. water and sky" is part of climate change - it's not just about 100-200 years' time, it's about now, and the near future - a drought of several years in Australia, for instance. Warming in Alaska that's melting the permafrost underneath villages, making them uninhabitable. Changes in water temperature that stop fish and birds breeding where they do now - which, for birds that have to breed on islands, may be catastrophic.

Your guesses about what I'm willing to do are far off the mark. I've given up my car. Yes, I do try to get produce from local sources. It's not surprising that someone who think climate change is man-made would do these things. It's people who say "oh, it's all cyclical" are the danger. The vast majority of the scientists in the area think it is man-made, and have written extensively about why. If you're going to claim it isn't caused by humans, then you should give reasons, that stand up to the widespread science.

Finally, the bit about 'irregardless' was just a small joke. That's why I put a smiling face at the end of it, and acknowledged I was being pedantic. Don't ignore the rest of my post just because of that one line. Hey, I did point out you used the correct word earlier on. :D

[SlicerDicer-]

38. Well that is understandable

I do believe that global warming is a cyclical pattern. As such you can look at the 1999 la nina vs 1998 el nino just as example. 1999 was the last year that Australia got a large rainfall barring last year. Last year was a very strong La Nina. This cycle of El Nino vs La Nina reverts to a trend of PDO +/- as such can be found from NASA. This shows that during -PDO you wind up with a far greater occurrence of La Nina. Verify this with James T Cook discovery of what is now called Sydney. This at the time James was there was a lush green land. However a few years later you can find quite simply that it had dried out to the bone. This lead to harsh conditions for the penal colony that loves to be talked about (convict scum jokes and so forth) in and revolving around Australia. Many of these convicts are actually people who knew how to work the land and without such skills they would have died for sure. There was not enough food to be had to create a sailing journey back to the motherland. These ships were in reality stranded. Was this caused due to global warming that there was a massive drought? I look to weather patterns that are a matter of historical record to find out what has happened in the past. Just beacause there was not worldwide temperature metrics does not mean anything. Observed conditions are good enough for me in terms of this. They closely match what occurred in Sydney the past 8 years so much so there could be what is called a correlation.

This is all on the fly off the top of my head I will get you links later if you wish :)

The cycle of the PDO and AMO for that matter are very strong driving forces. with the PDO in positive swing as it was from roughly 1979 (guessing off the top of my head again) to 2007 there was a unparalleled warming. This was the time that Anthropogenic Global Warming was established. Previous to this period there was widespread thinking that we were headed to a Ice Age! As per 1974 june I believe it was Time Magazine. Incoming DOOM!!!! We are to freezle. However as such the climate shifted due to the PDO turning from negative to positive. This closely related to what occurred during the embargo. During the embargo there was quite a substantial drop in carbon emissions due to not enough supply to fuel the vehicles out there. I wonder how many are old enough to remember this? I cannot claim this as my rememberance however I have information from family that I have quizzed that lived all over the USA at the time.

One can look at these things and come up with a clear understanding I think through simple terms. After 1998 things wound down towards the flipping of the PDO becoming imminent. As the El Nino's slowed down in power the rise of the Atlantic hurricane season gave birth. This is verified that in the times of 1930-1960ish (off top of head) there was heightened Atlantic basin activity. Notice if you look at the time frames that the cause/effect of the PDO show wonderful things mesh nicely. We shall see in the coming years how much of a impact the PDO has.

I will not edit above but here is the PDO.

It gives a idea of what the actual time frames were. I really do not care if Global Warming is occurring in all reality. I know that NOAA has issued statements that previous to 1970 many of the hurricanes that have been detected by satellites would never have been seen if they had.. they would have sunk boats. This is likely why they were never reported. There was many of cases that they would not be recorded. This leads us to one conclusion previous to the era of satellites there was the last heightened hurricane season activity. We may have to wait another 60 years to get a clearer picture of it all as the cycles go. This is to find direct sound science if it actually is. But land falling is not that different from the last period.

Its all quite fascinating really to see that the world is going through what seems almost identical changes. During each period there seems to be overdramatica about the whole situation. Look back to early 1900's NYTimes and see incoming ice ages... 1930's global warming. It is a constant scare that is raised a specter if you will. I believe this is due to a innate need for humans to feel frightened or like to disasterbate. If you look at rubberneckers you will see exactly part of my reason behind this. Why do people look at wrecks? Do they really want to see a dead body? I think Humans have a inbuilt need to fear something to keep them on their toes. I really don't know I am not a psychologist maybe somebody can elaborate on that. But I just judge it as I see it :)

Note: I used some unpossible words just for fun :) see: overdramatica and disasterbate etc.

Yes I will get back to you on the UN and mayhaps I am wrong on the 1998 thing with climate change and got mutilated with data on warming stopping then and not peaking higher. I have so much data kicking around in my head its hard to keep everything straight for sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Yes, there are oscillations in the global temperature

not every year's temperature change can be put down solely to man-made influences. But there's a long term trend, which indicates a rise:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather

There are combined natural and man-made effects; with the best models, you need to take them both into account to reproduce what happened over the past century. And that means while you get some unusual peaks (eg 1998), over the long term greenhouse gases will heat the earth more and more, unless we cut down on their emission. From the IPCC (3rd report):

[lunatica]

8. What it's called will so make a difference in the outcome!!!!

By all means let's all quibble about what to call it...

:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

10. Framing the debate is half the battle. The words we use influence how we see the world

and act.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Actually, it may.

If we say "Global warming", people will say "right, here are some examples of places getting colder, that's evidence you're wrong, we don't need to worry".

If we way "Climate change", people will say "right, here are lots of examples of places getting hotter, and a few of places getting colder as well; rather than cancelling them out we will add them together, and see that the climate is changing a lot, we had better do something about this".

[lunatica]

29. The time has passed where it's necessary to convince morons

We have a President in office who believes in science and global warming/climate change being caused by made made emmissions and pollution. It doesn't matter what greedy idiots who pretend they don't believe for the simple reason that they aren't in power anymore.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. a) there are countries other than the US, and b) the US has elections in two years time.

So it still matters what the electorate thinks.

[prayin4rain]

14. absolutely! n/t

[Muttocracy]

15. Climate includes much more than average temperature - precipitation is key

to the distribution of species and to where humans can grow various crops. Rainfall distribution is going to change, and as far as I know it's going to get wetter in wet areas, and drier in dry areas.

Climate also considers temperature extremes, extreme storm events, etc. Overall climate is much more important than a couple of degrees of temperature.

[Bluebear]

19. "Climate change" implies a shifting in climate over a period of time, not man-made

It sounds like a term that someone who denies that global warming is due to our own impact on the earth would use, as if we have no blame or opportunity to change. Just my opinion.

[silverojo]

25. Here's why "climate change" is better

A lot of people are so stupid, they think "global warming" means that it's getting warmer everywhere in the world. So when you have, say, abnormally cold winters, they cite that as proof that "global warming" isn't happening.

[alarimer]

27. I agree with this.

Some places likely WILL get colder. Europe probably. Increased melting of Arctic ice is causing a decrease in salinity. Normally, cold, salty water sinks at the Poles and travels along the bottom of the oceans where it resurfaces near the Equator. This is the engine that drives most of the world's great currents, like the Gulf Stream. Decreasing the salinity of the water at the Poles, breaks the system down. Since the Gulf Stream is what keeps Europe temperate, no Gulf Stream means more severe winters. Unless I suppose the temperature increases enough to offset it.

[SidDithers]

32. Recommended...

and for examples of the "local cooling disproves global warming" idiocy, see the series of "Glaciers are growing" posts by a now TS'd DU'er from earlier this week.

Sid

[sohndrsmith]

34. the scarier the better - get us off our bloody flippin' bums if it is...

a "softer" name helps no one, however more concisely accurate it may be. We need to be concerned. Like, decades ago...