Skip to main content

Climate change or global warming?

I had an interesting email from New Zealand reader Jackie Walker:

Hello Brian--
In the interests of convincing climate change deniers (though perhaps it's a lost cause), would it not be better to drop the term Global Warming completely, and use instead only Climate Change? If not Climate Change, then Weather Extremes or Extreme Weather ? (As in today's snow in Britain, 47 degree heat and fires in Australia, floods in Marshall Islands...)
The term Global Warming plays into the hands of nay-sayers who have only to point to the icy blizzards assailing them.
It's a point that's always bothered me.


I think Jackie has a point. Global warming used as a generic term is a little misleading, and can lead to the sort of easy dismissal 'Look at all the snow out there. What global warming?' However, I think it's fair to say that most people use 'climate change' and 'global warming' reasonably interchangeably without too much worry. If I'm honest, I called my book The Global Warming Survival Kit rather than The Climate Change Survival Kit because for some reason 'global warming' seems to have a more powerful feel to it.

Certainly, I'd suggest our default label ought to be climate change. The trouble with 'extreme weather' is that it doesn't, of itself, suggest any change in the overall state of the world, just weather that is extreme for wherever it's happening. If I catch myself using the term 'global warming' in the future I'll make sure it's always qualified soon after.

Comments

  1. I want people to associate change with heat. Raise a pot of water to boiling, the water changes state from liquid to gas.

    Warming the Earth will change the state of many processes.

    Climate change is a result of rapid warming.

    The easiest is when you put ice under heat it goes from solid to liquid, then to gas.

    What I find exiciting is how quickly methane can go from solid frozen state to airborne gas.

    That process if intiated in the arctic permafrost will change the weather worldwide for the next few thousand years, and large mammals haven't a prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heated water gas falls back as rain, which is why rainfall is highest in warmer years.

    Why this hasn't graced the minds of the brilliant Consensus folks boggles me...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense