Is it more appropriate to use the term "global warming" or "climate change"?
Of course, like anything, it's complicated. For a bit of history lesson on the terms there is a great post on the NASA Global Climate Change blog.
To break their very detailed explanation down a little:
1970: referred to as "inadvertent climate modification."
UPDATE: an astute reader just pointed out that the term "global warming" was actually used first in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green.
1975: the first reference to the term "global warming." A 1975 article by by geochemist Wallace Broecker appeared in the journal Science titled: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
1979: a National Academy of Science study abandons the use of the term "inadvertent climate modification."
1980's: the term "global change" began to be used.
1988: "global warming" is popularized by NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen. According to NASA, it was the highly publicized Congressional testimony of Dr. James Hansen in 1988 in which he stated that, ""global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming," that saw the term "global warming" become a popular reference in the mainstream media.
Today most scientists use the term "global warming" when referring to surface temperature increases, while "climate change" is is used when referring to everything else that contrinutes to the increases in greenhouse gas emissions and all other effects.
So that ends the history lesson.
While these are the technical uses of the terms there is an argument made that "global warming" should be used instead of "climate change" when writing in the popular media, especially online. This is because the term "global warming" is searched out on Google millions times more a month than the term "climate change." The argument goes, if you want to increase the number of people reading your material you should use the lexicon that will most increase your chances of appearing in the search engines.
For example, here's a screenshot from Google trends showing the search volume for the term "global warming" compared to "climate change" since 2003:
So the question is this: When writing or commenting online do you use the technically correct term or the one that will likely garner you the most visits?
Ask a public opinion researcher and they'll say use "global warming" all the time. Ask a scientist or policy wonk and they'll no doubt recommend the appropriate technical use.
I tend towards using the term global warming. But I am torn between being technically correct and getting the most eye-balls on a story.
So what do you think the answer is?
So you are saying the Hoax started in 1988?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
I like the rest of your idea though.
"....getting the most eye-balls on the story."
That is what takes precedence over facts.
Hmm
So lets just find something to blame it on.
The climate has been "changing" since the begining of this planet and it will continue to change long after we are gone and my SUV has NOTHING to do it.
Get over yourselves Libs, you can't change or control the climate, just adapt.
Blue Mars, is much bettter than a dead earth.
Man made global warming (via increased CO2 emissions and decimation of carbon filters (the rain forests and increasing acidification in the oceans which reduces plankton populations) causes climate change on a scale we have not seen for millions of years and in a timeframe this world has never seen.
Global warming wouldn't be a problem is climate change wasn't the result.
One thing is pretty certain, even if we spend tens of trillion of dollas, hobbling the worlds most productive and innovative economies and technologies for decades, the environment will still be problematic and inequities among the world's nations will be driving policy and the super rich will prosper.
Let's address the problem of poverty by making access to wealth easier which will do wonders for population (wealthier people have (and need) fewer offspring). A sensible approach is better than the alarmist predictions that are whipping policymaker's decisions now while other more genuine and frightening scenarios go unaddressed and our species eventual destination, space, is delayed.
The term "Climate Change" is too vague. I mean that could encompass any kind of change whether by human factors, or the direct correlation between solar activity and these changes, or even just the natural cyclical nature of the climate on earth. It invites an examinaion of how the climate has changed and the actual data, including the little ice age, the late medieval warm period. It confuses people because then they might think that burning fossil fuels was not the only enemy to purge. Better to show them some hockey stick graph made up of three totally different sets of data which represent different things, but provide a clear upward or "warming" trend.
But the main thing is that we have to find a way to grind the world to a halt by doing things like banning air travel so that we can reduce by 0.01% the emissions of some "greenhouse gases".
I did my part yesterday for global warming when due to all the -24 degree warmth we had a 20 hour power outage. I produced almost no carbon while my two year old nearly froze.
Doing what we can!
Where there is disagreement among scientists is as to when an environmental tipping point will be reached. Some say it can come in as little as 10 years, and some say it will come within 200 years. Either way, we need to start listening to the scientists, and we need to start paying attention to science.
Also, there is another reason for promoting the term "warming" - because it implies that the only (main) problem is the Co2 emission. Despite more and more evidence that it is not so, the "climate-talk profiteers" such as Al Gor are still pushing for the "warming" jargon because it provides them with a "sustainable" source of funding...