Global warming

[iNow]

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period.

I think it's been made clear by now, but you thought wrong.

 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

 

A common argument from those who don't believe in man-made climate change goes like this: A few years ago, everyone was calling it "global warming." Now they're calling it "climate change." What gives?

 

Some doubters smell conspiracy lurking in this semantic shift. Asserting that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and are now falling – an assertion that is completely bogus, but whatever – they claim that environmentalists have sensed that the jig is up. Unable to continue calling it "global warming" in the face of pesky facts, the argument goes, the greenies started calling it "climate change" and hoped nobody would notice.

 

Is that how it really went down? If the enviros aren't trying to pull a fast one, then why did they suddenly start using a different term to describe the same phenomena?

 

They didn't. "Climate change" predates "global warming" by many years. "Global warming" came into vogue beginning in the 1980s, temporarily eclipsing the older term. But people have been using the phrase "climate change" all along. <continue reading>

...to describe 'climate change' as a recent coinage is simply false. Much like claims that all the scientists were working about 'global cooling' in the 1970s (they weren't), such a description seeks to paint the dire warnings of climate scientists as nothing more than a fad.

 

It isn't.

 

 

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change-predates-global-warming-by-decades-semantic-shift-wasnt-until-1980s.html

 

In case you're one of those people who think that the semantic shift from everyone saying 'global warming' a few years ago to 'climate change' today is some vast conspiracy led by tented-fingered Al Gore to somehow grift you, you neighbors and put a stop to your way of life Bright Green Blog will set you straight. The phenomena now called climate change was so-named for decades before 'global warming' really came into vogue in the 1980s:Looking at Google archives of past stories, the first reference they found to human-induced climate change dates back to the 1937 and an article in the Los Angeles Times.

 

Some references to 'climate change' continue through the 1950s and 1970s -- which a solitary reference to 'global warming' in 1969 in a UPI story. The real shift happened in the 1980s, and in particular post-1988 when James Hansen gave testimony to Congress on rising global temperatures. From that time until 2000, references to 'global warming' were nearly twice as popular as 'climate change'.

 

 

And, from way back in 1958:

 

 

---

 

...because it is then easier for them to argue to the poorly science educated that any cold days any where in the world are evidence disproving climate change.

 

But those with reasonable science and maths education know very well that some cold days prove nothing about climate change either way.

Strange as it may sound to some, it's also rather possible that the warming could lead to another ice age, such as when the contact point between glaciers and the land beneath them begins to melt... leading to a reduction in friction at the contact point... resulting in glaciers floating on a thin layer of liquid water and beginning to move more rapidly.

 

Add that to any changes in the gulf stream or other warm ocean currents and the warming itself could ultimately lead to extreme cold in many parts of the world.

[Santalum]

I think it's been made clear by now, but you thought wrong.

 

 

http://www.csmonitor...mate-change-now

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.treehugge...ntil-1980s.html

 

 

 

 

And, from way back in 1958:

 

 

---

 

 

Strange as it may sound to some, it's also rather possible that the warming could lead to another ice age, such as when the contact point between glaciers and the land beneath them begins to melt... leading to a reduction in friction at the contact point... resulting in glaciers floating on a thin layer of liquid water and beginning to move more rapidly.

 

Add that to any changes in the gulf stream or other warm ocean currents and the warming itself could ultimately lead to extreme cold in many parts of the world.

 

Yes I am aware of that hypothesis. The ultimate paradox - a brief period of global warming triggers another ice age. If it happened ot would be far more deadly for much of human civilisation in the higher latitudes.

[JohnB]

I see Winston Smith is alive and well.

 

The term "Climate Change" is indeed older then "Global Warming", the bit that is being left out is that in the early usage of term it referred to natural climate change. This term was replaced by "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and now with the switch back even the "Anthropogenic" gets dropped. This is because all climate change is obviously anthropogenic in nature and therefore the word is no longer needed.

 

However to claim that the generally accepted meaning of the term "Climate change" is the same now as it was then is misleading and dishonest. Unless the further claim is being made that "Climate Change" has always been viewed as anthropogenic in nature?

 

As much as some would like it to, Climate Change != Anthropogenic Climate Change.

 

PS. Loved the 1958 vid. If temperatures rise a couple of degrees the ice caps will melt and flood the planet. A novel concept considering that the average temp in Antarctica is considerably below zero. I'm sure the ice at Vostok is going to melt when the temp rises to a balmy average of -53 degrees C.

Edited January 25, 2012 by JohnB

[iNow]

The term "Climate Change" is indeed older then "Global Warming", the bit that is being left out is that in the early usage of term it referred to natural climate change. <snip> However to claim that the generally accepted meaning of the term "Climate change" is the same now as it was then is misleading and dishonest.

Uhmm... No. Nice try, though. From my first link:

 

The earliest stories about human-caused climate change that use the term start to show up in Google's archives in the 1930s. Here's one from 1937, by the Los Angeles' Times's William S. Barton, headlined "Is the Earth Changing its Face."

[JohnB]

The statement that isn't behind the paywall says;

SCIENTISTS are wondering in all seriousness if they can discover how to control the earth's climate before the next scheduled Ice Age grinds civilization to bits beneath ten-mile-high glaciers!

 

Note the use of the word "if". This article doesn't appear to be about human induced climate change, but about whether humans will be able to effect the climate before the next ice age arrives. (In about 20,000 years.) Your link does not support your assertion, or that of the blogger.

 

But I love watching double standards unwind. An article from 1937 that mentions scientists "wondering if they can discover a means to control the climate" means that human induced climate change was an accepted part of science back then but a series, starting with Newsweek and spreading across the globe in the 70s only shows a media beatup about global "cooling" and says nothing about the prevailing opinion.

 

But by all means keep trying to rewrite history.

[iNow]

But I love watching double standards unwind. An article from 1937 that mentions scientists "wondering if they can discover a means to control the climate" means that human induced climate change was an accepted part of science back then but a series, starting with Newsweek and spreading across the globe in the 70s only shows a media beatup about global "cooling" and says nothing about the prevailing opinion.

I made no such claim. I made the claim that the term climate change was in use prior to global warming. You then shifted the goal posts.

[JohnB]

Um, no. To quote your own quote;

 

The earliest stories about human-caused climate change that use the term start to show up in Google's archives in the 1930s.

 

If you weren't claiming "human caused" climate change, why quote a sentence that contains the phrase? The question is not whether the term was used, but whether it was used with the same meaning. If the meaning has changed, then the fact it was used is moot.

 

And again, the article was about whether it was possible, not whether it was happening.

[iNow]

Because I was supporting the contention that the term "climate change" was in use prior to the term "global warming." Cause of change is tangential to what I was supporting.

[JohnB]

To a great degree semantics. Another thing to discuss while holding onto the floor.