Another thing Holdren said answered a question I'd been wondering about for a while -- why have the cool kids stopped using the term "global warming." Holdren said this phrase wrongly implies to people a uniform change and that, in turn, makes talk of a single-digit change in temperatures sound like no big deal. After all, lots of places experience a seven degree temperature swing in a single day. The point that needs to be gotten across is that the temperature change will produce all kinds of large, but somewhat localized changes as climate patterns shift about. He likes the phrase "global climactic disruption" though I think we'll probably have to stick with "climate change."
« Optimism/Pessimism | Main | Feedback »
Wither "Global Warming"?
01 Jul 2008 11:24 am
Comments (22)
Another way to think of it is that more energy is going to be in the atmosphere and oceans, and this energy will slosh around and be capable of causing more trouble dynamically, as well as statically just being warmer and melting things.
Not a very catch phrase, though.
Some suggestions for disturbing people into action:
-Global Moistening
-Hot Wet World
-Planetary Mugginess
-Climate Stickyickeyickeyickening
It's also the case that using the term "global warming" enabled the nay-sayers to attack the whole idea of climate change based on cool days, unusual amounts of snow etc. Climate change is a better term for numerous reasons, but primarily because it captures the spectrum of changes, rather than suggesting that the change involved is simple and essentially one-dimensional.
What's the point of doing anything at all? Even those driving the climatic apocalyptic theories admit that we could lower the predicted global warmth in 2050 by a mere fraction of a degree if we stopped emitting the plant food CO2 tomorrow.
That admission just makes it all the more obvious that the whole issue is merely a means for a renewed Big Government power grab.
Temperature Adjustment?
Does MarkG's comment make any sense at all?
"global climactic disruption"
Whoa... once people's climaxes start getting disrupted, we'll see some action on the problem pronto.
I am holding out hope that geothermal engineering will work if we need it to.
Other than that I am in a position where I probably won't die from famine, flood, food riots or disease. I will be 65 by 2050 but at that date for my income bracket 65 will probably be the new 30. Once enough people die off I will live in a secure zone somewhere near food supplies. As long as we make sure the roving cannibal hoards* don't gain access to the local munitions plant we should be able to kill them all off and start anew.
I stole roving cannibal hoards from the book "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy
I think 'Climate disruption' more strongly implies that the change in climate is due to interference with the natural climate system by human beings.
Argh, that's the third time in a week (twice on Matt's blog, once on Ambinder's) that the Atlantic's bloggers have used 'wither' instead of 'whither'! Hooked on phonics doesn't work for me. :(
lots of places experience a seven degree temperature swing in a single day
Wow! Seven whole degrees in a 24-hour period! Remarkable--I don't think that I've ever experienced such dramatic climatic shifts!
I suspect that Mr. Holdren actually said sevenTY (70), which rather changes the point made.
There is also the point that not all areas will be warmer as anthrogenic climate change plays out.
If, for instance, the arctic melt disrupts the Gulf Stream, northern Europe will be a good deal cooler.
"Climate crisis" is often used.
"Climate Change" started as a right wing talking point to increase the vagueness of the problem.
Liberals have stuck with it presumably because it sounds more nuanced and serious and it was the only way to find some small rhetorical defeat in an issue they're otherwise quite strong on.
P.S.
"Climate Disruption" sounds accurate enough
I kind of like "You can have my SUV when the angry ocean rises up and washes it away."
I thought that since MY was suggesting that the phrase "Global Warming" was less and less frequently being used, "wither" was an intentional pun.
How about 'Global Planetary Big Time Hottening With Badder Weather and Such'?
If it weren't for reports of severe water spotting by some California BMW owners, I'd call "global warming" the biggest scam of the 21st Century. What's this talk about sustainability? I haven't heard environmentalists utter the word, horse, even once. These four legged composters held sway for millennium. Horses are sustainable. Say, has it dawned on anyone else that the price of gasoline may be linked to the fact that there's about 20 to 30 million more people vying for the the North American gas pump. Supply and demand? Call me xenophobic – another BS label used to stigmatize, like global warming – but illegal immigration may also be a causative factor in the skyrocketing price at the pump: http://theseedsof9-11.com
That last comment had to be some spambot. I hope.
"Global climate disruption" is a meaningless phrase.
"Climate shift" is probably more correct. And by definition, that doesn't mean anything either. What matters is WHAT kind of "shift", WHO gets affected and HOW, and WHAT are the technological options to deal with it.
If you can't make those points, it's buzzwords and means nothing.
I don't deal in random alarmism by buzzword.
Thirty five years ago we had "The Population Bomb" - which turned out to be a dud.
Instead of using shopworn phrases like "global warming", couldn't we just insert a little coded html of an animated chicken that runs around the page shouting "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" It seems like something a programmer with some time on his hands and a concern for the environment might do for us all.
Thirty five years ago we had "The Population Bomb" - which turned out to be a dud.
No, it went off as planned - indeed, we experienced even more dramatic population growth than he predicted, in precisely the exact regions it was supposed to happen in. What he didn't predict was Norman Borlaug being able to feed all those extra people with a new kind of wheat.
Like the people that call the Y2K bug a "dud" (it was a very real problem that was only averted by many many thousands of man-hours of reprogramming before 2000), you've mistaken a dodged bullet for a gun that never fired.
Comments closed July 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
climatic, not climactic
Posted by tinisoli | July 1, 2008 11:38 AM