'Global warming' or 'climate change'?

[googabee]

I understand a memo went out a while back, 'global warming' is now to be called 'climate change', yes?

But carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, correct? So the more we make, the warmer our planet should become. Isn't it just that simple?

Am I wrong, or is the name change just the alarmists' way of hedging their bets, in case the predicted warming does not occur?

Are yous guys just calling it 'climate change' now because your warming models have proven unreliable? Because of the cooling trend, perhaps?

The way I understand it, more co2 = more warming. So what's going on?

[linlyons]

first, it's not cooling. really.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png <== sunspots compared to CO2 and temperature.

second, i never saw or heard of any such memo, other than deniers putting up straw-man arguments.

third, the reason for the climate change name is that there is far more going on than just temperature increase.
perhaps the worst part is the change in precipitation.
that makes farming more difficult.
that's what caused the problem in Darfur.

last, more CO2 does cause more warming, as shown in the chart above.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf <== here's the science.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller <== This is an hour long, but is very good.

[ross]

global warmign is not caused by us, but we are helpign it somewhat.
every couple 1000 years we change to cold and warm

[Conservative]

The carefully selected tree ring data were wrong.

[Baccheus]

The IPCC has always called it Climate Change. The memo you refer to is the Luntz memo in 2003. He's a communication consultant and in a memo to the White House, he recommended the Republicans use "Climate Change" because
"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ...While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

There is nothing sinister about Luntz' message. He was just doing his job, though it should be noted that he openly expresses his certainty that global warming is real. What is weird is that some spin doctors have made this into a change among liberals, while it was the conservative Bush administration that purposely pushed away from "global warming" for political reasons, and the scientific community always used climate change.

Climate change is probably be the better term, because overall warming does not mean warming everywhere. In fact, Woods Hole Oceanic Institute has theorized the possibility that increased fresh water melt into the Atlantic could cause the current to stop, thereby stopping the conveyer that moves heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic and cause the NE United States to freeze. It's just a theory, just as it's just a theory that's what's known as the Little Ice Age was merely the stopping of the current and a resulting freezing only in the North Atlantic. WHOI is not reporting any trend, they were noting less salinity in the Atlantic a year ago but not now, it's just a theoretical possibility and an example of how global warming may cause regional cooling in some places and regional super-warming in others -- it is multiple changes.

[Dawei]

If by a while back you mean 1988, which was when the IPCC was formed (never known as the IPGW), then perhaps.
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

Climate change does not mean that it may cool. Find me a single example of a scientist who has ever said that "climate change" means "it may warm or cool." You cannot, because this is not what it means.

When the climate warms other changes happen. These include changes in ocean currents, wind patterns, precipitation patterns, etc. All of these are factors that determine the climate. See the bottom of page 2:
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

"The phrase “climate change� is growing in preferred use to “global warming� because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."

Here is the definition of the word "climate":
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate

Another paper from 1975:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460

It's really not that hard to understand. The entire "climate" is expected to "change" in response to the temperature rise. If scientists are really "hedging their bets" then you should be able to find at least one example of a pro AGW scientist stating that the name 'climate change' implies that the planet may warm or cool as a result of CO2 emissions. Good luck with that.

[Baccheus]

The IPCC has always called it Climate Change. The memo you refer to is the Luntz memo in 2003. He's a communication consultant and in a memo to the White House, he recommended the Republicans use "Climate Change" because
"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ...While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

There is nothing sinister about Luntz' message. He was just doing his job, though it should be noted that he openly expresses his certainty that global warming is real. What is weird is that some spin doctors have made this into a change among liberals, while it was the conservative Bush administration that purposely pushed away from "global warming" for political reasons, and the scientific community always used climate change.

Climate change is probably be the better term, because overall warming does not mean warming everywhere. In fact, Woods Hole Oceanic Institute has theorized the possibility that increased fresh water melt into the Atlantic could cause the current to stop, thereby stopping the conveyer that moves heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic and cause the NE United States to freeze. It's just a theory, just as it's just a theory that's what's known as the Little Ice Age was merely the stopping of the current and a resulting freezing only in the North Atlantic. WHOI is not reporting any trend, they were noting less salinity in the Atlantic a year ago but not now, it's just a theoretical possibility and an example of how global warming may cause regional cooling in some places and regional super-warming in others -- it is multiple changes.

[Dawei]

If by a while back you mean 1988, which was when the IPCC was formed (never known as the IPGW), then perhaps.
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

Climate change does not mean that it may cool. Find me a single example of a scientist who has ever said that "climate change" means "it may warm or cool." You cannot, because this is not what it means.

When the climate warms other changes happen. These include changes in ocean currents, wind patterns, precipitation patterns, etc. All of these are factors that determine the climate. See the bottom of page 2:
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

"The phrase “climate change� is growing in preferred use to “global warming� because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."

Here is the definition of the word "climate":
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate

Another paper from 1975:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460

It's really not that hard to understand. The entire "climate" is expected to "change" in response to the temperature rise. If scientists are really "hedging their bets" then you should be able to find at least one example of a pro AGW scientist stating that the name 'climate change' implies that the planet may warm or cool as a result of CO2 emissions. Good luck with that.

[Baccheus]

The IPCC has always called it Climate Change. The memo you refer to is the Luntz memo in 2003. He's a communication consultant and in a memo to the White House, he recommended the Republicans use "Climate Change" because
"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ...While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

There is nothing sinister about Luntz' message. He was just doing his job, though it should be noted that he openly expresses his certainty that global warming is real. What is weird is that some spin doctors have made this into a change among liberals, while it was the conservative Bush administration that purposely pushed away from "global warming" for political reasons, and the scientific community always used climate change.

Climate change is probably be the better term, because overall warming does not mean warming everywhere. In fact, Woods Hole Oceanic Institute has theorized the possibility that increased fresh water melt into the Atlantic could cause the current to stop, thereby stopping the conveyer that moves heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic and cause the NE United States to freeze. It's just a theory, just as it's just a theory that's what's known as the Little Ice Age was merely the stopping of the current and a resulting freezing only in the North Atlantic. WHOI is not reporting any trend, they were noting less salinity in the Atlantic a year ago but not now, it's just a theoretical possibility and an example of how global warming may cause regional cooling in some places and regional super-warming in others -- it is multiple changes.

[Andy]

The biggest reason for the name change to climate change is that even with increased CO2 and other minor green house gases the Earth doesn't warm or cool equally. You are also correct that so far all of the doom and gloom coming from the Man is destroying the Earth crowd hasn't come to pass.

Considering that I remember when it was another ice age coming then there was the ozone hole that would burn all living things. I am not too worried about climate scientists being correct about anything.