Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The paper itself uses the term "climate change".

> Means must be found to explore the advantages of climate change where they appear, and to minimize the adverse effects.

Did you read the paper, or the title only?



Yes I did read it.

Global warming used to be the term that was used, then we had a period of non-warming and it was changed to climate change.


That had nothing to do with it.

Terminology changed because "global warming" was too simplistic. And because it encouraged simplistic thinking.

Sure, increased greenhouse forcing from CO2, CH4, etc will lead to increasing global average temperature. But the specifics will be far more important.

For example, polar temperatures will increase more than equatorial temperatures. And generally, winter temperatures will increase more than summer temperatures.

More importantly, peak winter and summer temperatures will increase more than averages. And weather variability will increase. Mainly because there'll be lots more water in the atmosphere, and so lots more energy available to drive stuff.

Edit: There have been periods of global cooling (mid 60s to mid 70s) and ~stable global mean temperature (late 90s to late 00s). Even though atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing, the whole time, at an increasing rate.

So how can that be? The key factor, I believe, is changes in SO2 emissions. SO2 reduces greenhouse forcing through increased cloudiness (and so increased reflectivity) and stratospheric haze (and so increased absorption and IR emission at high altitude).

SO2 emissions decreased dramatically during the late 50s to early 70s. So that allowed greenhouse forcing to increase, commensurate with atmospheric CO2 etc levels.

And then, since the 80s, China has ramped up coal use, and released increasingly massive amounts of SO2. So that counteracted, somewhat, increased greenhouse forcing from CO2 etc.

The fit will seriously hit the shan as China implements emission controls on coal plants. So we'll still get their CO2, but much less SO2.


I think you have it wrong. The language was deliberately changed due to work done by Frank Lutz.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming


The term "climate change" predates "global warming", and according to google ngrams it has always been more common.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warmi...


Can you point me to data about a period of non-warming since this paper was written (1983) that coincided with a change in terminology? These data from NASA seem to show a consistent warming trend over that time period https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


I think the term "climate change" became preferred, because "global warming" over-simplifies the threat. It's not just about a warming planet. It is also about more devastating storms, longer and more dangerous fire seasons, changes in precipitation and weather patterns, etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: