Global Warming To Climate Change

[paul tall]

You know, I've been thinking.

We've been brought up on a diet of global warming, backed up by temperature trends going upwards. Global Warming.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that at the moment, the rate of temperature increase has slowed down somewhat, perhaps even plateaued.

Funny then, that Global Warming seems to have been replaced more and more by Climate Change. I mean if you're in the global warming industry and the world shows signs of stopping warming, you're going to need a new angle to keep the money rolling in.

Climate change, fits the bill. Gets warmer - climate change. Have an unusually bitter cold spell in some part of the world - climate change. Hurricanes - climate change. Rain - climate change. Drought - climate change. Doesn't matter what unusual event happens in the future, of any nature, the climate change industry is sorted. Whatever happens - blame it on climate change.

People, this is an industry first and foremost. It is a money making machine. Any changing within the climate is a happy co-incidence to the climate change industry.

I'm not saying by the way, that the climate hasn't changed in the last 20 years or so, or that it has now stopped changing.

But I think you need to step back and not swallow every doomsday scenario, or implausible possible future scenario that the climate change industry and taxation machine throws at you.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm quite happy with AGW as a title.

I do believe ,and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, that 'climate change' was deemed more easily understood as a name for the phenomena we are currently unleashing on our world as some dullards could not get to grips with the variability within a 'globally warming' world ("it's supposed to be warming but it's cold" type of thing ) so they chose to remove the word 'warming' in the hope that it removed this problem.

The planet is a moody cow and flows between warm and cold be it over the millenia that Milankovich postulated, decades as in the PDO or annually as with the seasons. Global warming, if left unchecked, will eventually iron out such variability ('runaway warming') but at the moment the signal is only strong enough to augment warm events (El-Nino) or moderate the cold ones (the current 'cold' PDO).

The contrarians seem to posses a multiplicity of reasons as to why we are measuring the current changes to the climate system, the adherents to climate change can see but one cause for the changes (though accept the many 'feedback loops'/tipping points that we are causing/breaching)

[paul tall]

You are right of course. Removing "warming" does indeed remove the "problem". The main "problem" being "how can we continue to milk this, if we get some cold spells?"

A good spot there, Gray Wolf.

Climate change is ingrained into the minds of the populace now, and any weather event of any type can now be pinned on that and nobody will bat an eyelid.

Its perfect.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I do believe ,and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, that 'climate change' was deemed more easily understood as a name for the phenomena we are currently unleashing on our world as some dullards could not get to grips with the variability within a 'globally warming' world ("it's supposed to be warming but it's cold" type of thing wink.gif ) so they chose to remove the word 'warming' in the hope that it removed this problem.

That's pretty much my line of thinking on it as well.

The problem lies in the determination of the anthropogenic contribution. Too many media sources do indeed imply that if we have global warming, or climate change, it must be caused by humans. And too many media sources try to blame every unusual weather event on human activity. In reality climate change, whether caused by humans or not, can only be held responsible for increases in frequency of events above a given magnitude- not individual events.

The fact of the matter is, the stalling of the warming over the last 10 years, for various reasons, does not disprove the notion that human activity is warming the climate, although it does plant some seeds of doubt and suggests that the anthropogenic component has not increased significantly since the 1980s. This is because, contrary to popular belief, anthropogenic warming does not cause natural variability to cease to exist- just as the increased solar heating between February and April doesn't stop it from being 16C in February or snowing in April.

[osmposm]

.....I mean if you're in the global warming industry and the world shows signs of stopping warming, you're going to need a new angle to keep the money rolling in........People, this is an industry first and foremost. It is a money making machine. Any changing within the climate is a happy co-incidence to the climate change industry...........But I think you need to step back and not swallow every doomsday scenario, or implausible possible future scenario that the climate change industry and taxation machine throws at you.

It must be so depressing to believe that all human beings are corrupt, self-interested, venal and dishonest all the time. Perhaps you are judging them by your own standards, I don't know.

The odd thing is that in a fairly long life I have found that most people, most of the time, actually get on with doing their jobs as best they can and pretty honestly and straightforwardly. There are some who are only interested in power or making money, and some who detest the merest hint of either. Most of us lie somewhere in between, and just want to keep our heads down, earn a reasonable living, and not be shouted at too much. Scientists & Civil Servants (and even most Politicians!) are little different. The ones that I know in the main try to do and say what they think is right.

But to believe what you believe, you have to accept that there are hundreds of thousands of clever and influential people out there who are conspiring together to manipulate the truth on a matter of huge importance for the people of the world simply because they can make more money by doing so. Either that or inexplicably their normal intelligence and analytical powers have deserted them, and they are allowing themselves to be led up a deeply dangerous garden path by a tiny group of utterly corrupt individuals. Which is it, Paul?

Is it so hard to conceive that maybe....just maybe....most of them genuinely search for real facts? That they analyze them and report them as honestly as they can? That when they express their deep worries about the future they do so precisely because they are deeply worried? And that when they make suggestions about what should be done they do so because they genuinely think something must be done?

It is always possible that all these people are wrong. But why do they all have to be liars? Would you distrust them as much if they were saying something you wanted to hear?

Ossie

Edited December 2, 2008 by osmposm

[Essan]

Basically Global Warming is one aspect of Climate Change and the bit that the media and politicians hit on. However, human activity also causes changes, for example, in rainfall distribution and even regional cooling. So climate change is more accurate.

Also, a lot of people (some of them being deliberately obtuse) still think 'global warming' means everywhere on the planet gets warmer every year. It doesn't, it means the average temp across the planet over a climatically significant period (ie 30 years or more) shows a warming trend. Within this trend there can be globally cold years and even some regions that may see overall cooling. The deniers hit on such things to try and 'prove' that because the South Sandwich Islands are not getting warmer, or it was colder this year in West Kazakhstan than for the past 12 years, then global warming is not happening.

I think global warming will continue to be the main term we here for a few more years yet, but hopefully climate change (or ACC - Anthropogenic Climate Change) will in time take over. After all, if human activity is not affecting temps at all, but is causing floods and droughts, is that not still an issue? And that's what ACC means .....

Edited December 2, 2008 by Essan

[paul tall]

It must be so depressing to believe that all human beings are corrupt, self-interested, venal and dishonest all the time. Perhaps you are judging them by your own standards, I don't know.

The odd thing is that in a fairly long life I have found that most people, most of the time, actually get on with doing their jobs as best they can and pretty honestly and straightforwardly. There are some who are only interested in power or making money, and some who detest the merest hint of either. Most of us lie somewhere in between, and just want to keep our heads down, earn a reasonable living, and not be shouted at too much. Scientists & Civil Servants (and even most Politicians!) are little different. The ones that I know in the main try to do and say what they think is right.

But to believe what you believe, you have to accept that there are hundreds of thousands of clever and influential people out there who are conspiring together to manipulate the truth on a matter of huge importance for the people of the world simply because they can make more money by doing so. Either that or inexplicably their normal intelligence and analytical powers have deserted them, and they are allowing themselves to be led up a deeply dangerous garden path by a tiny group of utterly corrupt individuals. Which is it, Paul?

Is it so hard to conceive that maybe....just maybe....most of them genuinely search for real facts? That they analyze them and report them as honestly as they can? That when they express their deep worries about the future they do so precisely because they are deeply worried? And that when they make suggestions about what should be done they do so because they genuinely think something must be done?

It is always possible that all these people are wrong. But why do they all have to be liars? Would you distrust them as much if they were saying something you wanted to hear?

Ossie

I'm sure there are many hard working and honest people in the climate change industry reporting findings to superiors etc. Doesn't mean we are being fed the whole truth, as is, though. Everything in this world is corrupt, you'd better believe it. Governments, politicians, big businesses.....in an ideal world everybody would be trustworthy, but not so......If the climate change industry wants you to believe that we are on the edge of doom, then the climate change industry will present the facts that suit that purpose. Anything that goes against what the climate change industry wants you to believe, well just don't include it! Not hard!

Profit. Tax. Climate Change........in order of their importance.

[Hiya]

It isn't a good term to use to imply AGW, since the climate changes constantly and on occassion it has happened naturally.

[paul tall]

Basically Global Warming is one aspect of Climate Change and the bit that the media and politicians hit on. However, human activity also causes changes, for example, in rainfall distribution and even regional cooling. So climate change is more accurate.

Also, a lot of people (some of them being deliberately obtuse) still think 'global warming' means everywhere on the planet gets warmer every year. It doesn't, it means the average temp across the planet over a climatically significant period (ie 30 years or more) shows a warming trend. Within this trend there can be globally cold years and even some regions that may see overall cooling. The deniers hit on such things to try and 'prove' that because the South Sandwich Islands are not getting warmer, or it was colder this year in West Kazakhstan than for the past 12 years, then global warming is not happening.

I think global warming will continue to be the main term we here for a few more years yet, but hopefully climate change (or ACC - Anthropogenic Climate Change) will in time take over. After all, if human activity is not affecting temps at all, but is causing floods and droughts, is that not still an issue? And that's what ACC means .....

I don't think too many people are denying that the world has warmed. It is irrefutably proven. What happens now and next though is up in the air.

Whatever the facts regarding Climate Change in the now and in the future, the whole climate change industry strikes me as nothing more than a political, tax levying, guilt tripping tool used against us.

[Essan]

I don't think too many people are denying that the world has warmed. It is irrefutably proven. What happens now and next though is up in the air.

In terms of climate, what happens over even the next 5 years is hardly relevant. It's long term trends that are looked at - like the 150 years of warming since the mid 19th century.

Whatever the facts regarding Climate Change in the now and in the future, the whole climate change industry strikes me as nothing more than a political, tax levying, guilt tripping tool used against us.

Well pre-supposes they used a time machine to go back to the 19th century to start the theory, or that it;s a conspiracy going back generations :o Politicians have very belatedly discovered the bandwagon and have made the most of it, but that doesn't mean its a conspiracy anymore than more than the idea alcohol was invented as a means of taxing the poor

[osmposm]

Everything in this world is corrupt, you'd better believe it. Governments, politicians, big businesses.....

Paul, if that is what you think, I don't know how you face the world every morning.

My father, grandfather and uncle were all senior Civil Servants: I knew them well, I know what made them tick. My father and uncle probably had the most highly-developed sense of right and wrong of any men I've ever known - men of far greater probity than me. And I met through them many of the senior figures in Industry, Science and Government they knew and worked with. Some were bad 'uns, some were good 'uns - but mostly they were just 'uns who made plenty of mistakes like all of us, but tried to get it right. And my father, although educated in Classics, particularly sought out and enjoyed the company of scientists and engineers precisely because they didn't give a toss about correct form or background, and operated in an even clearer world of fact and truth and doing things because they needed to be done, or could be done, and they were driven to discover how and why.

How many of these people that you insult with every sentence you write have you ever met and talked to? Why do you believe they are all corrupt - because you aren't one of them? Well, neither am I, mate (and I earn very little money), but that doesn't make them all villains. If you are under 25, I completely understand. If you are over 45, I think you need to expand your factual reading beyond Private Eye and the Guardian.

Edited December 2, 2008 by osmposm

[osmposm]

Sorry, Paul, I apologize for the unnecessarily aggressive tone of some of that post.

Ossie

[Iceberg]

I do disagree with this as far as I can remember it has always been refered to as climate change. IPCC is a good example, then if you go back to RIO etc. So certainly for nearly 20 years it's been refered to generally as climate change.

AGW is one aspect of climate change, that didn't really come into wide spread use until the late 90's. Global warming it self is an 80's term. Based upon the pure and simple prediction of rising temperatures. We know now that it's not just rising temperatures but changes in water distribution, rising sea levels, removal of sub tropical glaciers, loss of habitat etc so the term climate change was used in the late 80's early 90's.

It you want pretend that the name change is recent and all to do with lots of dirty pigs keeping there noses in troughs (the second time you've made that accusation paul) then continue but there is no evidence for this. As most people in the climate change industry(if there is one ! ) actual get paid less with less security than they could easily earn else where.

[paul tall]

Sorry, Paul, I apologize for the unnecessarily aggressive tone of some of that post.

Ossie

Don't worry about it, I wasn't offended.

Scientists may well be straight as a die, honest hard working and all that, but I'm not talking about the worker bee's I'm talking about the hive. Queen Bee says what goes.

For the record osmposm, I'm 36.

And i face the world quite well every morning.

[noggin]

IF (that is a big "if") GW means that temperatures will go up and down, with an underlying trend of "upness", then why has this not been made clear to the man in the street? What is an ordinary person supposed to think, when the word "warming" is used? We are currently shivering here in the UK and in lots of other places around the world......of course people are going to say "pah" (or similar) when GW is mentioned. We were also force-fed a diet of alarmist scenarios such as the desertification of parts of Europe, of our climate in the UK becoming Mediterranian (sp?). All sorts of terrible things have been blamed on GW, many terrible things have been predicted to happen because of it. Substituting the words "Climate Change" for the words "Global Warming" smacks to me of a change of tune and a change of tune does not induce confidence in those who are supposedly "in the know".

It could be argued that those "in the know" have made this change based on observations of stuff that hasn't quite turned out as originally expected. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but if this IS the case, then why not come out and just say so? To not do so smacks of arrogance.

I am not a scientist, being more of a creative type of person, so my view is definitely that of a "man in the street " (well, woman, acually, but hey ho).

I had wanted to finish with a literary quotation about using the language of the common man if you want to reach all men, but I can't find it.

[Iceberg]

Or it could be argued that those in the know know that there has been no such change of name and it's a just a useful thought up tool for the sceptics to argue with. Oh hum..

[Android]

I saw it best summed up elsewhere by someone who pointed out that the last two words of the acronym IPCC is "Climate Change". They didn't 15 odd years ago or however long it was call it IPGW.

Climate Change is broader than Global Warming. For example Climate Change covers ocean acidification wheras the title "Global Warming" seems to only refer to temperatures.

[osmposm]

"....the last two words of the acronym IPCC is "Climate Change". They didn't 15 odd years ago or however long it was call it IPGW."

Thank you for pointing that out, A.....and in fact it was founded exactly 20 years ago. Sometimes you can't see what is staring you in the face!

End of conspiracy theory, I would have thought.

Edited December 3, 2008 by osmposm

[Thundery wintry showers]

Re. Noggin's post, as has been stated many times, the problem is that what the climate scientists say, and what the public hear after the climate scientists' message has got through the governments and the media, are usually two different things. The media exaggerates, it makes up scaremongering headlines in order to sell newspapers.

There is also a popular view that to bring about change, we will need to make out to the general public that things are worse than they probably are in order to frighten them into making changes, which in practice backfires as it makes them sceptical as they sense things are being exaggerated.

There are very few genuine conspiracies out there, and most people are not obsessed with self-gain at the expense of everyone else. What I will say, though, is that in practice it is often the most egotistical and self-centred people who get the most power (this includes political power as well as speaking power).

In addition, logical thought is often held back by people accepting certain premises without question, and failing to look at the whole picture. Whether it's because they're deemed "non-essential" or because they don't affect a given individual directly, various factors are often flat-out ignored when performing an analysis of what is best and what isn't, which in turn biases the decision making processes. For instance, if an activity poses a marginal threat to health and safety if abused by the odd one or two, but has huge social value, if a politician performs a "cost-benefit" analysis that only considers health, safety and the economy, said politician is likely to conclude that the activity should be banned.

There are problems with the political system where in many cases you have to think a certain way to be a politician and "play the party line", conforming to doctrines like "free market capitalism", or at the other extreme "Marxism", or whatever, which helps to hinder creative thought as well.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I am quite surprised at the different analogies of Climate Change.

I thought it was very simple. The term in which climate change is being used, is the result of the effect of Global Warming.

In other words, the world warms (Effect) and the climate changes (result) to more extreme weathers. As these extreme weathers also include extreme cold and snowfall (related to, obviously, the increased rainfall), I believe they are seperate terms. They are just linked in a chain.

[Optimus Prime]

But severe cold and warmth has been around for a long time...why should we be taking climate change seriously?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

The point is that the extremes of temps/rainfall/hurricaines etc are greater and increasing in number since GW. This is, from what I believe, the point of cimlate change is in relation to GW.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But severe cold and warmth has been around for a long time...why should we be taking climate change seriously?

Because, if we get significant rises in global temperature over a short space of time (2-4C in 100 years, say),

1. Sea levels may rise significantly due to the melting of glaciers and the land-based Greenland ice sheet, plus thermal expansion of the oceans.

2. If the temperature configurations and ice sheet balance of the Earth changes it is almost certain that atmospheric circulation patterns will be affected as a result. Changes in atmospheric circulation associated with large changes in global temperature could lead to more severe flooding/wind/heat-related events, warmer air holds more moisture etc.

3. And of course for snow lovers it will be a disaster, plus winter sports organisations risk being brought out of business, e.g. Aviemore skiing centre.

The problem is not change, it is rate of change, and the issue that if we reduce the extent to which we are pumping gases into the atmosphere, it might reduce the rate of change (before people jump on me, note "might", acknowledging that it isn't a given). The slower the rate of change, the easier it is for humans to adapt to the change.

Extreme events have always occurred and always will, but again, it's the increase in intensity extreme events, and increase in frequency above a particular threshold, that is a problem.

[rob48]

Looks like some of the "believers" are starting to worry.

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

Wise of them to get their excuses in early before that state-funding takes a hit in the recession.

[Devonian]

Looks like some of the "believers" are starting to worry.

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

Wise of them to get their excuses in early before that state-funding takes a hit in the recession.

More like you're doing some over interpretation of your own