Global Warming or Climate Change? Post 2 of 12
Post No. 2 in this 12 part series on climate change will discuss the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change, and what these terms mean to our future. I’ll also provide recommendations on some of the best sources to learn more about these topics.
Previous and upcoming posts are listed below for reference. Previous post titles will link to back to the original post.
1: Why I Write: How I became interested in the climate issue
2: “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”? What do these mean, and what’s the diff?
3: A Brief Guide to the Climate Debate: a look at the “Climate War” and who is saying what
4: The Arguments: The most common arguments and responses
5: On Our Watch: Science tells us that climate change is happening now
6: Yep, We Did It: Science tells us that this climate change is from OUR activities
7: What It Means to Missouri: How climate change will likely impact our region
8: Save Money, Save the Climate!: Simple ideas that save money while reducing CO2 emissions
9: Our Choice: What we can do to limit further harm while adapting to the changes to come
10: Lead!: Climate Change is happening. The United States can lead, or get left behind
11: If We Don’t? Geo-engineering the climate. What is it and why we don’t want to go there
12: Final Thoughts. Ethical considerations
Global Warming? Or Climate Change?
Who cares? Aren’t they the same thing?
No, they are very different terms that describe very different principles.
It’s important to know the definitions and differences between "global warming" and "climate change" because it will help us understand why the threat caused by continued warming of the planet is so serious.
OK, so, what is the diff?
“Cause and Effect”
Global Warming is the cause and climate change is the effect.
Or, put into human terms, “Global Warming” is like a fever and “Climate Change” is like the “chills” you get when you have a fever.
Global warming (and global cooling), causes climate change, like a fever causes the chills (as well as body aches and other nasty effects).
OK, got it. Global warming causes climate change. What then, is causing global warming?
We’ll get into that topic in post No. 6, but first, let’s continue to get our heads around what global warming and climate change are and what they mean.
Another big difference is that “Global Warming” is just that—global, while climate change is local. Here are simple definitions from Climate Central for both:
Global Warming: An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface.
Climate Change: Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.
The bottom line is that while “global warming” is not a wrong term, “climate change” is more meaningful and accurate description of what is happening to us.
We don’t notice if the globe is warming, however, we do notice winters that aren’t like real winters, summer time temperatures in March and May weather that is more like July than May. We also notice increasing droughts, floods, heat waves, storms and forest fires.
Here is another way to look at the term “Global Warming," this time from Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren, quoted in Thomas Friedman, Hot, Flat and Crowded, p. 134.
"The popular term 'global warming' is a misnomer. It implies something uniform, gradual, mainly about temperature, and quite possibly benign. What is happening to global climate is none of those.
It is uneven geographically. It is rapid compared to ordinary historic rates of climatic change, as well as rapid compared to the adjustment times of ecosystems and human society.
It is affecting a wide array of critically important climatic phenomena besides temperature, including precipitation, humidity, soil moisture, atmospheric circulation patterns, storms, snow and ice cover, and ocean currents and upwellings.And its effects on human well-being are and undoubtedly will remain far more negative than positive.
A more accurate, albeit more cumbersome, label than 'global warming' is 'global climatic disruption.'"
GLOBAL CLIMATIC DISRUPTION?
Wow, that’s an alarming description, isn’t it? Too alarming perhaps? Perhaps it is just fear-mongering and scare tactics employed by the “environmentalists” to create yet more government intrusion into our lives and to limit our “freedoms”?
Or, perhaps it is a realistic assessment, endorsed by the very best scientific institutions across the world, of what happens to the climate when atmospheric CO2 levels reach the highest levels in 15 million years?
Perhaps “Global Climate Disruption” is the most accurate term to describe what is really happening and will continue to happen?
If the scientific assessment is right, and science has a pretty good record there, then we have a rather large problem ahead of us, and a problem that we HAVE to solve.
This brings us to the primary point of this particular post—WE need to get ourselves up to speed on this topic, and NOT from un-informed loudmouths on the radio.
While understanding the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” is important, our far more important societal responsibility is to EDUCATE ourselves on this issue using the very best and most authoritative sources available. We cannot make informed decisions unless we have a basic understanding of what the issue is as well as the short and long term implications of acting—or NOT acting.
I’m pretty sure the talking heads on the radio, TV or YouTube are not the most qualified sources for informed knowledge on these complex topics.
My recommendation is to go to reputable science sources for reliable information. This could be websites or books. Here are a few of my favorite sources from both mediums:
Websites (most also have videos)
- NCAR and UCAR (Atmospheric Research Organizations): Quick answers and deeper background on global warming
- National Academies of Science: America’s Climate Choices (also great videos)
- NASA-Climate: Global Climate Change and Vital Signs for the Planet
- NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Geographic: The Planet is Heating Up - Fast!
- National Science Foundation
- Realclimate.org: A website run by practicing climate scientists, including many from NASA
- Union of Concerned Scientists: What is global warming? Think of a blanket, covering the Earth
- Skeptical Science: A site run by climate scientists to debunk myths and misinformation
- Discover: Global Warming, What you need to Know
- Global Warming Fact of the Day: A Facebook Page run by a friend of mine, Professor Scott Mandia
A Few Books about Climate Change:
- Earth, The Operators Manual by Richard Alley (Also a movie on PBS and DVD)
- Climate Change, Picturing the Science by Gavin Schmidt of NASA
- A Climate for Change Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions by Katherine Hayhoe
- The Climate Crisis, and Introductory Guide by David Archer and Stefan Rahmstorf
Note: There are many more websites and books on climate change than this, including many that take the opposite perspective of the sources listed above. While you are certainly free to see what those sources have to say, you should understand that those sources are far outside of the scientific understanding of our very best scientific institutions, such as NOAA, NASA and the NAS.
The next post in this series (No. 3) will take a look at some of those “alternate sources” with opposing views and what they have to say in the "Climate Wars." I hope to see you there.
Author's Note to commenters:
This is sure to be a controversial topic and I’m OK with that. I only ask that you keep your comments civil, respectful, informed and related to the particular subject matter discussed. As you can see from the topic list at the beginning of this post, there are plenty to topics to be talked about over the summer.
If your comment doesn't meet these reasonable standards for civility, or is off topic, don't expect a response. I’ll also flag the comment as inappropriate.
I also ask that if you dispute a claim, that you provide a link to a reputable source supporting your claim.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist, nor do I claim to have scientific expertise in this subject. Scientific claims made in these posts will be sourced only from highly respected and accredited scientific organizations.
Julie Brown Patton
7:54 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
New information related to this topic and expectation of increased frequency of wildfires: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/climate-change-wildfires_n_1588741.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Larry Lazar
10:38 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Increasing droughts, higher temperatures and increasing investation from Pink Bark Beetles (which are thriving due to warmer winters) are driving the increases in forest fires. This is certainly likely to increase forest fires as the climate continues to deteriorate over the next few decades.
Anna-Maria Mueller
12:52 pm on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Great blog, Larry! Keep it up!
Re. “global warming” vs. “climate change”, being a stickler, I would add this: I don’t think the term “climate change” per se implies regional, as opposed to global characteristics. One can talk about global climate and local climate. Regardless, I too think that “climate change” is the better term to use for the problem we are facing, as it implies a more complex issue, not “just” warming but also changes in rainfall patterns, storm intensity, sea level, etc. ...
Although, strictly speaking, even the term climate change does not cover all the implications of rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations. Another nasty side effect is ocean acidification and its ability to cause major disruptions of marine ecosystems. For those who would like to read up on this aspect of the CO2 story I can recommend this link to an excellent list of FAQs answered by top scientists in the field: http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/FAQs/
Living in Missouri, you may think , well, marine, that won’t affect me. But as with all other climate change effects, even if the physical effect does not hit you personally, what are the implications in this day and age of a globally linked economy and food supply?
Anyway, great blog! Looking forward to your next post!
Anna-Maria Mueller
Jeff Stephens
10:41 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
Larry, I was looking forward to a reply on my previous post...to no avail.
You had a fairly unbiased post going...until the John Holdren quote. Holdren is truly a scary individual. How about this quote from his book, "Ecoscience":
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Wow. That is scary.
Or, how about when John Holdren said during a 2006 interview with the BBC that if the current pace of [climate] change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.
Then, in a 2009 testimony before Congress, Holdren said this:
"And the current best estimates of the peak sea-level rise to be expected in this century are one to two meters. That is not as high as my number from 2006. The advancing science has ruled out the high end of that range. But it makes me wrong in 2006 by about a factor of two."
Ooops. Wrong again. The scary thing is...bloggers may refer to him as a legimate, non-biased source. Make no mistake, he is extremely biased.
Reese Forbes
8:49 am on Friday, June 15, 2012
How is his honesty biased ? What your quote shows is Holdren is not biased and is constantly evaluating the data.
Yes it is all scary - the fact is that if population is allowed to grow the current rate we will have food shortages, increased communicable disease rates, continued wars, and more pollution problems than we even have now. Proper sex education, availability of contraceptives, and abortion by choice is very important or you will eventually have mandatory abortion. This earth is overpopulated already and that is the main cause of the worldwide environmental and social problems.
Larry Lazar
1:41 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
Hi Jeff and thanks again for your comment.
The intent of this post was to provide links to reputable sources on climate change.
While the Holdren comment is well within current scientific findings, the main point of this post was to provide resources (links) so people could conduct their own research.
"This brings us to the primary point of this particular post—WE need to get ourselves up to speed on this topic, and NOT from un-informed loudmouths on the radio."
Jeff Stephens
7:09 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Reese - My quote does not show John Holdren's desire to re-evaluate his data...it shows that US Congress questioned him on his erroneous conclusions. He was confronted, and admitted to making a mistake.
His bias is simply reflected in his ideology regarding population control to reduce the impact on the Earth. He wrote of his beliefs on man in the 1970's...and adapting to the current AGW hypothesis was easy.
As for your remaining content...I'm at a loss for words. First...I notice your distinct lack of abstinence...my radar goes off. But, that is a different topic. I just cannot subscribe to the theory that killing humans is necessary for environmental and social issues.
You have DEFINITELY gone down the rabbit hole...My point was simply that John Holdren is a politically motivated eco-activist and not a source of unbiased truth regarding AGW.
Jeff Stephens
10:42 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
And then, Larry, you REALLY lead readers astray with your CO2 statement. First, and foremost, that is the first mention of CO2 in the article. Are we to assume that means we have conclusive evidence that CO2 is the cause of climate change?
More importantly...you make the statement that atmosphereic CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years. In the article published in "Science" journal, autho Aradhna Tripati reports that her method of measuring boron and calcium ratios accurately reproduce the ice-core record (only 780,000 years), "suggest[ing] that the technique we are using is valid". Excellent paper, but far from conclusive evidence.
But the part that floors me...is her paper states that 15 million years ago, global temperatures were 5F to 10F higher than today. And, CO2 levels equaled those of today. How is that possible? Were the mammals of the time burning too many fossil fuels? How can we possibly conclude that man is causing the climate change of today when existing scientific evidence suggests (not proves) that the Earth's climate has experienced similar conditions without man?
Larry Lazar
1:51 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
"Are we to assume that means we have conclusive evidence that CO2 is the cause of climate change?"
according to NOAA, NASA, NCAR, UCAR and every other scientific orgazation that conducts research on atmospheric conditions, Yes.
The relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming has been known for about 150 years now and is can be easily tested by any high school science class. It is extremely well established (see sources listed in the original post for details)
The climate 15 million years ago is not the climate of today. It is today's climate, the climate in which man has evolved, that we should be concerned about maintaining.
Jeff Stephens
10:44 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
Then...you say, "If the scientific assessment is right, and science has a pretty good record". Are you referring to:
* On March 3, 2000, the Independent reported Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, saying within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event", and "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". Viner is now the lead climate change expert for the British Council.
* In Dr. Michael Oppenheimer's book, "Dead Heat", he wrote, "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Dr. Oppenheimer is a long-time contributer to the IPCC.
* The IPCC stating in 2008 that "glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world", and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”. Then, in 2010, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
Larry Lazar
1:54 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
No, I'm referring to the consensus view of every earth sciences organization in the world and 97% of practicing climatologists.|
Thanks again
Jeff Stephens
9:18 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Larry, How does a poll conducted in 2009 indicate that science has a pretty good record with respect to this debate? I have cited 5 examples related directly to your premise that were proven incorrect.
Also, I'd like more information on the 97% of practicing climatologists. I assumed you were referring to the Doran and Zimmerman poll taken in 2009. Is that correct? Are you familiar with the poll? The study group has a large database of earth scientists, and sends them an invitation to participate in their study. If they accept, then they take an online survey. The survey asks two primary questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
This poll does NOT, repeat, NOT, confirm that 97% of people who respond "yes" to question 2 believe AGW, believe CO2 is a cause, or that man is the primary factor. The poll asks respondents about "human activity", which could be farming, deforestation, or even heavy breathing. And it asks the vague impact of "significant contributing factor" rather than primary factor, sole factor, etc. One scientist may say 5% impact is significant.
Jeff Stephens
10:45 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
* Even weather forecasts, according to meteorologists, are considered a success if within 3 degrees in 2 days...however the climate models are predicting global change within a single degree over decades.
There are MANY, MANY more...I'm just tired of typing. :)
Larry, it seems to me that you have traded the talking heads on radio, TV and YouTube for the climate alarmists. The web sites you provide do not provide readers with both sides of the argument. Then, attempt to discredit any site with an opposing view. But, I have provided you NOAA data that contradicts previous statements to no response. I have seen the NASA data that shows CO2 levels rising only AFTER temperature.
I had really hoped you would write an unbiased article, exploring the debate to let readers make up their own mind.
Dennis Broadbooks
5:39 am on Friday, June 15, 2012
@ Jeff Stephens: Thanks for taking the time to put forth a common sense rebuttal to this attempt at creating hysteria among the masses. Well said.
Larry Lazar
1:59 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
"The web sites you provide do not provide readers with both sides of the argument"
Again, there a no accredited scientific organizations that dissent from the consensus view. If you can provide a legitimate source that opposes the scientific consensus I'll be happy to consider it.
I'll elaborate on "the argument" as well as the movement to "create doubt" in my next post - to be published on Monday.
Larry Lazar
2:05 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
Dennis,
Jeff is responding with arguments that are common among those that reject science fo idealogically motivated reasons. I am very, very familiar with these tactics.
They are not "common sense rebuttals", they are wrong. Very wrong as you shall soon see.
I will elaborate more on the highly successful movement to reject the reality of man caused climate change in the upcoming posts. I hope you will follow along.
Regards, Larry
Dennis Broadbooks
2:11 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
@ Larry Lazar: I'll be watching with great interest.
Jeff Stephens
10:33 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Larry - I do look forward to your upcoming articles. This particular response from you was aggressive and itself ideological. I have repeated many times that the science based in fact...temperature readings, CO2 levels, 20 year solar irradiation, etc...are all as accurate as current measurement techniques allow. I have in no response "reject[ed] science". I have only used references to your sources, never a link to a non-peer reviewed, biased site (see skepticalscience.com and realclimate.org). Numbers, facts, and, well...critical thinking.
And while I can guess at your ideology...based on editorial statements...it is irrelevant. Only truth is relevant. And I have called out numerous times when truth gives way to ideology during this discussion.
And so far...the only thing you have shown to be wrong about my argument is...that is doesn't agree with yours. :) You have dismissed my statements...and now even associate me with "the highly successful movement". I remember your original post saying TV was not giving you the narrative you support. I challenge you to name a TV program that does NOT support AGW, save Fox News. Every mainstream media outlet supports AGW. NBC has Green Week. Prime time series talk of AGW as though it were fact, not a debated hypothesis. You will be extremely dishonest in your characterization of this debate if you gloss over the green movement, and the vast sums of money supporting your premise.
Larry Lazar
2:30 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012
I'll be happy to address any questions you might have Dennis. Thanks for following along.
Jill
11:16 am on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Thanks for sorting out the semantics of "global warming" and "climate change". Given that more than 7,700 temperature records across the U.S. were smashed to smithereens in the month of March, citizens across the country have reason to be concerned about changes to their local climate. I'm looking forward to your next postings!
Larry Lazar
8:36 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Indeed Jill, it's been a hot year already and will likely only get hotter. Thanks for following along.
Larry Lazar
9:52 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
Hi Jeff,
In regards to your questions about the consensus of "97% of climate scientists", yes, I am aware of the survey and the difficulties in using an online survey to make any claims about the "state of the debate".
I'll refer to your earlier NASA post that suggest we should only consider the positions of leading scientific organizations.
Here are a few:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
In additional to these, all of the 32 National Academies of Science also agree.
Jeff Stephens
10:36 pm on Sunday, June 17, 2012
One last comment before I sleep...If you are aware of the difficulties referencing a questionable, online survey...then why has that been your response in multiple posts? Just curious. I would love for you to reference specific information related to a scientific organization supporting your premise.
Charles Zeller
5:02 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Jeff, Although there are climate science uncertainties, the physics is very well understood. The atmosphere is relatively transparent to incoming high frequency radiation from the sun compared to outgoing IR from a much cooler Earth. Space is a vacuum. Radiation is the only mechanism that energy flows into and out of the planet. The incremental downward forcing resulting from a doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels is about 1.9 x 10^15 watts. That does not include other GHG’s, most notably the additional H2O as warmer air contains more water vapor. There are also probable serious amplifying emission feedbacks from melting tundra and methane clathrates. The energy flow imbalance from the extra atmospheric “insulation” heats the planet. Most of the addition thermal energy accumulates in the ocean. Nature likes equilibrium. The surface will get warmer. When the surface temperature is hot enough to increase upward radiative forcing enough to balance the added downward forcing the planet will stop warming.
The chemistry of ocean acidification is also extremely well understood.
Jeff Stephens
10:08 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Charles...I'm going to be completely honest. I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your comment. High frequency radiation...assuming you mean radio waves below the infrared spectrum...do pass through the atmosphere in the "radio window".
Yes.
Space is a vacuum.
Yes.
Radiation does transfer energy to and from the Earth.
OK.
And for the life of me, I cannot figure out how you came up with the power output of CO2. And what unit of time does the power transfer?
I believe everyone in the educated world agrees that greenhouse gases insulate the Earth. Without those gases, we would not be here.
The remainder of your post seems clear enough...basic thermodynamic equilibrium.
But, I'm not clear on how any of these statements support AGW,
And...yes, the chemistry of ocean acidification is clear. CO2 and water mix. And, pH units have dropped 0.1 units since the industrial revolution. Yes. Everything beyond that is based on models...the same models in question.
Help me understand your message.
Larry Lazar
8:11 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
That's a great comment Charles, very informative. Indeed, from my reseach into this subject, I have come to understand that the physics is very clear, and has been for a long time,
Thank you for contributing to the blog.
Charles Zeller
8:02 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Looking forward to your future segments. The future of a civilization that lazily chooses to make decisions based upon belief or ideology rather than knowledge is grim. An organized approach to present the facts, such as yours, is vital.
Charles Zeller
5:40 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Jeff, A late reply is better than never. 1) High frequency is above the IR spectrum. 2) "Forcing" is a change in energy flow - in the case energy is flowing downward which would otherwise be flowing upward if GHG concentration were unchanged - 3) which is the root cause of AGW. 4) CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy which is not quite the same as "outputting" energy. 5) I came up with the number by multiplying 2.9W/m^2 by the Earth's surface area. 6) A watt is a unit of power - which is energy per unit of time (joule per second).