Four degrees of warming 'likely'

[Lorenzo]

Why use the term global when we know certain regions of earth are currently cooling?

This is in fact why most scientists prefer the term "climate change" to global warming. The term "global warming" refers to an increase in the global average temperature, which the models predict will occur unevenly around the world, with some areas cooling or not warming at all, and other areas warming dramatically (like Alaska). Cooling in some regions is totally consistent with "global warming" but intuitively it doesn't make sense so the term is going out of favor. Also "climate change" communicates the fact that we're not just talking about changes in temperature but also precipitation, storm patterns, and sea level.

That makes a lot of sense.

[s1m0n]

The term Global Warming has been a massive PR disaster, and likely a strong piece of indirect evidence that the science was not interested in manipulating the public.

[SteveShaw]

Nonetheless it is a convenient term to characterise what's going on.
Brad's description of the 9-15°F temperature difference between the last glacial period and the current period is widely accepted.

[s1m0n]

The connotations of "warm" are all benign. There's no shortage words in any human language for an increase in heat, and pretty much all of them would have been a better option. Here, at least, I've noticed that when climate change pros are writing or being interviewed, they tend to use "global climate change", (or GCC if they wanna flaunt insider status).

[Lorenzo]

(This article kind of clears it up)

David R. Easterling, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
Michael F. Wehner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Is the climate warming or cooling?
Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.

[entire article]

[SteveShaw]

I note you didn't quote the next bit, Lorenzo, which you perhaps found rather unsuitable. The bit where he left out 1998...

[Lorenzo]

Well...one of us has to show a little balance!

[Pammy]

Now without reading 17 pages of this topic (and I am not going to ).....

as I understand it, Margaret Thatcher wanted to bring in nuclear power in the UK and many people were against it, so, to get it past all these people she had to make up a reason why it was the best way forward, so hey presto the term 'global warming' was bandied about by the government to say how bad the alternatives were at producing gasses that caused global warming. Voila.

[Denny]

thank you dear....we's all better now that we's been edified!

[Pammy]

Good, glad you appreciate my input old man:

[Denny]

I wanted ta tease ya about pickin' on Maggie.....

but I didn't want Steve to have a coronary

[hans]

Now without reading 17 pages of this topic (and I am not going to ).....

as I understand it, Margaret Thatcher wanted to bring in nuclear power in the UK and many people were against it, so, to get it past all these people she had to make up a reason why it was the best way forward, so hey presto the term 'global warming' was bandied about by the government to say how bad the alternatives were at producing gasses that caused global warming. Voila.

Since you don't want to read the thread (and you are missing the best), let me just tell you that this is not a political thread (even though there have been attempts to make it political, maximise controversy, and have it shut down).

It is all about the science about global climate change, what the evidence is for or against it, not about the politics of it, what, if any, actions may be needed, and by whom etc.

We are not allowed to discuss politics in this forum. Please respect the wishes of the board host!

[SteveShaw]

Now without reading 17 pages of this topic (and I am not going to ).....

as I understand it, Margaret Thatcher wanted to bring in nuclear power in the UK and many people were against it, so, to get it past all these people she had to make up a reason why it was the best way forward, so hey presto the term 'global warming' was bandied about by the government to say how bad the alternatives were at producing gasses that caused global warming. Voila.

Sigh. We had nuclear power a long time before Thatcher reared her very ugly head. In fact we had one of the most notorious nuclear accidents, at Windscale in 1957, 22 long years before she gained power. So you understand it wrong. Viola. And I think you'll find that the far-right ilk of Thatcher is far more peppered with global warming sceptics than almost any other section of our beloved political corps. She certainly destroyed our coal industry (along with most of our other industries), but that was nothing to do with nuclear and everything to do with spite and hatred for the working classes and trade unions of this country. And that's all the party politics you're getting from me in this esteemed thread. Which you could do worse than to read.

[Pammy]

We are not allowed to discuss politics in this forum. Please respect the wishes of the board host![/b]

I wasn't discussing politics. I was saying all I think I know. There is evidence for and against it all and I don't know who to believe. So I just do my little bit of whatever I can reasonably do to try not to damage the earth which is, after all, only on loan to us.

[mutepointe]