Is it Global Warming or Climate Change?
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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Most recent and best science indicates we may be in a cooling trend. The 'global warming' hoax is being abandoned in favor of a 'climate change' hoax to ease transition to a 'global cooling' hoax if needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC
So you are saying the Hoax started in 1988?
Saying "most recent and best science indicates we may be in a cooling trend" does not make it so, sparky:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
MH, if you're still reading this thread see my latest response in our discussion.
Whatever it is, it is a distraction from the problems we CAN solve, like ending the wars, reverting the economic disaster by stopping the every increasing transfer of wealth from the middle class to the money managers, the subversion of the Constitution and the corrupt "main-stream" Media. Simply a distraction. Leave this discussion to the academic professional.
Ending the wars? HAHA! We have a better chance of becoming completely carbon-free in ten years than we do of ending all the wars. You would have to make us nonhuman before you could get rid of the wars, we just like to kill so damn much.
I like the rest of your idea though.
If you could understand what plant life and insects were saying about you as an illogical and harmful species, then you would have a much different label for what you are doing to your world. Humanity need not be the pestilence it has become. There is time to change, very little time, but there is still time.
And what are these plants and insects saying, Dr. Doolittle?
I'll take a shot at that one. That life's going to be a lot safer, and a lot cleaner, and a whole lot quieter WITHOUT US.
It is ENOUGH changing FAST enough THAT IT THREATENS OUR VERY SURVIVAL AS A SPECIES. Call it mashed potatoes if you like, but it is real. This coming decade will prove to be the most important decade on record for the human race. It is actually less time than we actually have to hope to reverse all the damage we are doing to the delicate balance that allows us to inhabit this living creature we call home. What we do NOW is all that matters, the label is meaningless.
"living creature we call home"? The Earth isn't alive, turbo.
The earth is not alive? Ok, a little more time needs to be spent by you on the Discovery Channel, and National Georaphic and all of them there educational channels for YOU. So, the earth is not alive huh? Answer me this one question then. When you plant a seed and something grows, is that life, and if so, where did the seed come from, life?
The last eight words are the most telling.
"....getting the most eye-balls on the story."
That is what takes precedence over facts.
What do people expects going to happen when you have more people, cars,trucks and plane traffic.
Hmm
So lets just find something to blame it on.
"Climate change" is more of a blanket phrase, because the leftists in government who want to control everything will use it justify their socialist agenda no matter what the weather does.
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.
Getting rid of your weenie car is a good way to adapt.
I already did, that's why I got an SUV, so I can be safer driving is all this global warming snow.
I think the best term is be global climate disruption.
As a science teacher I like to use the term climate change. Infact what we're doing is terraforming our own planet. Something we should be doing to Mars. Dr. James Lovelock the head scientist of the Viking Mars missions said that with a united effort we could turn Mars into a livable planet within 300 years by creating a greenhouse affect there. Basiclly, he said what we're doing here on earth, we should be doing on Mars.
Blue Mars, is much bettter than a dead earth.
Both appropriate, and talk about different things.
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.
I know I haven't seen it like this in millions of years.
After all, the climate never used to change before us humans showed up to mess it all up.
Regardless of the terminology, no matter if the climate is getting warmer or cooler, the fact is that there is no ideal climate and the rate of change is always going to be too fast for an industrial economic infrastructure based on the misinterpreted notion of gradualism in planetary processes. So the sea levels arent rising...the shoreline still sinks as the earths crust slowly cools and is subducted. Our cities and industries are build on the misguided notion that the earth is completely stable due to our relatively short lifespans and history.
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.
I prefer the term "Global Warming" because it covers so much more than just warming. It really simplifies things. If our only problem is Global Warming and the single cause of this that we should target is human activity causing emissions of carbon then we can all concentrate on that to the exclusion of everything else.
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!
Strange why so many Americans deny simple scientific observations. My assumption is: some think Al Gore is not relevant, therefore what he suggests is not relevant as well. With your poor media and your big country it is almost isolation for those of you who don't travel. Something like Russia before Gorbatchov. The Russians would also buy the most unbelievable crap, especially when their patriotic nerve was touched. However the rest of the world is working on solutions for the important issue of global warming. The US has stayed clear of treaties on that matter as their industry is not willing to invest, rather pointing fingers to India or China. Feel free to remain among rising 3rd world countries or make some constructive contributions .
Europe can't even stick to it's so-called solutions it has created. They lead the way to show the rest of the world what a waste of time cap and trade systems are. Thanks Europe.
Thank you, and a good point. Polar warming is a scientific observation, not a theory. Deniers can make all the noise they want to, but the observations are that average year-round temperatures in the polar regions have increased by about 9 degrees fahrenheit since the mid 20th century. We are seeing global changes not just in climate (temperature, rainfall, wind), but we are likely to see a drastic change in the very composition of the atmosphere in as little as 100 years. Those who are making fun of the science and of the scientists will not live long enough to regret their words, but our grandchildren might. It is time to pay attention to what 99.9% of the scientists are telling us, and to be willing to at least look into what we can do to keep this planet habitable for life as we know it.
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.
It is clear now that the problem of climate is not only about warming - and that a more complex environmental change is taking place.
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...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
