Arguments
Global warming vs climate change
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
The terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ have been used interchangeably for several decades. |
|||||
Climate Myth...
They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
They changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” after the term global warming just wasn’t working (it was too cold)! (Donald J. Trump)
At a glance
Have you heard this one? The quote above may be from Trump (a March 2013 tweet) but it's a really common talking-point. It's also utterly meaningless. Firstly, we have the arm-wavy word, "they". Who are 'they'? The United Nations? Greenpeace? The Democrats? Who are 'they'? Let's take a look: depending on your politics you might be surprised.
In the past, global warming and climate change were both in regular use. For example, the landmark 1956 paper that summed up all the accumulated knowledge of the past 100 years was called, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". So both terms have been around for ages. In fact, they mean slightly different things. 'Warming' means a rising temperature whilst 'climate' encompasses a lot more issues, such as how wet or dry it is. But who are 'they'?
Step forward Republican advisor and strategist Frank Luntz. Here's the background. In 2002, prior to the midterms, the G.W. Bush administration - not exactly famous for its environmental track-record - sought advice on policy communication. Regarding the climate, Luntz commented thus:
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
Uh-oh. Look out, reality ahead. Evasive action required! Luntz went on to advise:
"The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation".
The briefing went on to justify the suggested changes:
"“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."
So there you have it. The only recorded political move to emphasise the term, 'climate change', over 'global warming' was to try and make the latter feel a bit cuddly to prospective Republican voters in 2002. Who are 'they'? 'They' were the Republicans.
But next time you run into someone trying to suggest this 'change' happened much more recently, you have now got the name of the 1956 paper to mention. If that's not enough, you can also ask them what "CC" stands for in IPCC. It stands for climate change and the IPCC was founded in 1988, fully 35 years ago at the time of writing. Like all climate science denial talking-points, a little scrutiny is all that is needed and they fall down flat. In this case, even less scrutiny than usual!
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Further details
Both of the terms in question, 'global warming' and 'climate change', are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see in fig.1:
Fig. 1: some temperature datasets. All are heading the same way. That's global warming. Graphic: Realclimate.
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in rainfall patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather. Projections of future global temperature and precipitation changes (fig. 2) are an example of climate change:
Fig. 2: Patterns of temperature (left) and percent precipitation change (right), averaged across CMIP6 models and all Tier 1 plus SSP1-1.9 scenarios). Climate change deals with a bigger picture relative to global warming. From Tebaldi et al. 2021.
Thus, while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not quite the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which is in turn causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.
Both Terms Have Long Been Used
The argument, "they changed the name", suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is new. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (fig. 3). Plass estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to be 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C. Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
Fig. 3: a screengrab of the landmark Plass paper, published in 1956 - or 67 years ago at the time of writing!
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms - in books published in the United States - has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years(fig.4):
Fig. 4: historical usage of the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' in books published in the USA.
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature (fig.5):
Fig. 5: historical Google Scholar searches for global warming and climate change. Again, both are searched for but this time, climate change is ahead, going back decades.
No Reason to Change the Term
Those who perpetuate the, "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (a) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (b) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong and somewhat dated. As fig.1 clearly shows, the planet continues to accumulate heat.
The second premise is also wrong, hilariously so, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual ever to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. That was none other than Republican political strategist, Frank Luntz, in a now controversial memo (PDF), advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment. He wrote:
"It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation."“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."
Summary
So to sum up, the term 'climate change' has been in frequent use in the scientific literature for many decades and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. So there is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change". Case dismissed.
To explore this topic further, the chapter, 'Polluted Discourse: Communication and Myths in a Climate of Denial' (Jacobs et al. 2016) is a deep drill-down into the evolution of this, among other, climate myths. If it becomes freely available we'll update this rebuttal.
Last updated on 22 October 2023 by John Mason. View Archives
Getting a 404 on the link to the Frank Lutz memo,
[DB] A copy can be found here.
Maybe typo "'climate change' is now". I want "...refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature" to be "...increasing global heat content" (I mean everywhere, not this article), would it cause a foofaraw if I get it changed ?
Great article, as usual. I love your site. It is incredibly useful.
I just wrote a short and simple blog about this very topic, focusing on what "big data" (via Google Books Ngram Viewer) can tell us about this question. There are some interesting differences in the results between "American English" and "British English".
If you follow climate change/global warming, you will likely encounter people who insist that the term “global warming” was changed to “climate change” for various reasons (e.g., “global warming stopped, so they changed the name”, etc.).
One way to test this hypothesis is to tap into “big data”, in this case Google’s database of English books. Google has a cool tool called the “Ngram Viewer”, which allows you to determine the frequency of words and phrases in their database of books. What does Google’s Ngram Viewer tell us about this hypothesis?
Read more here: http://ow.ly/uy2fv
I believe that some people also use "climate change" because they feel that "global warming" invites the misconception that warming would occur uniformly and univerversally around the world. I've also heard "global weirding" and "climate chaos," neither of which is entirely accurate either (since even unusual or catastrophic effects have their causes). I suppose any term can be open to misinterpretations, and we've just got to do our best to avoid or correct those.
=( NASA just came out and disproved your definition of Global Warming/Climate Change.
"Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth."
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change
[TD] A) "Disproved" is inaccurate/wrong/odd.
B) Please read that page you linked to, then actually read this Skeptical Science post. Really, read them. Both. Carefully.
C) Feel free to comment again, correcting yourself.
I like to use the phrase "global warming induced climate change" in my rebutles.
What of this?
https://w3.newsmax.com/NMWOS/media/Images/CTI/no_global_warning-bw.jpg
https://w3.newsmax.com/NMWOS/media/Images/CTI/nasa-satellite300-s.jpg
[RH] Sorry. No link only posts. Please review commenting rules.
And — What of this , Conventionalske @9 ??
Is there a point you wish to make, or a point you wish to discuss ?
The misnamed* Conventionalskepticist @9 asks, "What of this?"
In doing so he provides two links without explanation or argument, in contradiction of the fifth requirement specified in the comments policy, ie:
The links themselves are to a graph, and two pictures which are themselves off topic on this thread, and hence in violation of the first point of the comments policy:
These two violations make me suspect "Conventionalskepticist" is angling to have her/his comment deleted for violation of the comments policy so they can complain about "being censored at SkS" at their favourite fake "skeptic" hangout. They will, of course, not have been censored, but will be demonstrating that they are a precious petal who thinks the rules do not apply to them because they are so special.
For what it is worth, the first link is to a version of the Remote Sensing Systems TMT temperature series, commencing in January of 1998 to ensure we cannot draw a proper trend on the record, and terminating in what looks like March of 2014 due to, at best laziness, but more likely a desire to exclude the 2015 and 2016 records from the chart. If you do not lie by concealing data, what you actually see is this:
In which the curren EL Nino, likely weaker than that of 1998, has recorded three successive monthly temperatures warmer than the warmest month in 1998, with February of 1998 being 0.23 C, (0.41 F) warmer than the warmest month in 1998.
* Misnamed because he shows her/himself to be incredibly unsceptical of denier crap, and/or intellectually dishonest, neither of which are features of skepticism as conventionally understood.
I have not read everything here so i apologize if my questions duplicate others. So, it seems to me that these changes have been tracked over an incredibly short time, geologically speaking. How do scientists (NOT just scientists who support Global Warming or Global Climate Change) position their theories in light of a very short time we have tracked this. In terms of geologic times we have seen evidence of major climate changes (not just warming). Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects. Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so! Next, you say that the terms, Global Warming and Global Climate Change are "loosely" related after you make the case that this is not a loose relationship at all. Finally, you say that the charge that "they have changed the name...." and that the terms have always been used and that the term Global Climate Change has been used for many years is therefore evidence that there has been no "change of name." This is patently untrue. The American press NEVER uses the term Global Warming anymore and the same is true of our government and in the media. Period. There was a change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. This is undeniable. This also stokes skepticism on two levels; first, suspicion as to the reluctance to commit to "Global Warming." If they are both legitimate according to your text, then why do proponents refuse to say the name?); second, it leaves many of us to charge that this is or at a minimum, has become a political, not a scientific issue. Liberals have clearly used this as a political issue to demean those who express skepticism. Your arguments are not conclusive. There IS science that puts this into question in terms of GEOLOGIC time and the nature cycles of global climate change. Plus, why the desire to use a term that does not enlighten and leaves itself open to skepticism? One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception. It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE. So why use a term that does not enlighten? Global Climate Change? Might as well make it even more generic and meaningless by calling it simply, "Change."
[TD] You wrote "Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects. Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so!" But you have repeated a myth--a false statement. For the facts, read the post "What Were Climate Scientists Predicting in the '70s?" After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one. If you want to discuss that myth further, please do so on that thread, not this one.
You wrote "One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception. It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE." In fact, the change in global temperature from at least the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century was due partly and increasingly to human activities. The temperature change since the mid-20th Century has been due dominantly to human activities, and since the mid-1970s more than 100% due to human activities (because human emissions of reflective aerosols have caused cooling that offset some of the warming influence of greenhouse gases). See the posts "The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming," being sure to read not just the Basic tabbed pane, but then the Intermediate one and, crucially, the Advanced one. If you want to comment on that topic, do so on that thread, not this one.
Rex @12:
A google search for "global warming" limited to news finds articles using the term by USA Today, Voice of America, the New York Times and the New York Post, just on the first page, and all on the first page of the search results. Your doubly emphasized 'fact' is clearly a fiction. I generally find that when people have to invent 'facts' that just ain't so to strengthen their argument, their argument doesn't hold water.
Rex @12 : like you, I first thought that "Climate Change" was just a recently-coined euphemism for the harsher more-threatening sounding "Global Warming".
However, on learning more of the history of it, I found I had been wrong - the term is quite some decades old and has been contemporary over many decades with "Global Warming". Sure, "Warming" is more accurately depicting the mechanism and process and general effect of the Greenhouse Gas effect which has become so strong [geologically].
Nevertheless, "Change" is a term having its own virtue, in that both hotter and colder events [as you may have seen with the N.E. of USA having a previous very cold winter from the so-called Polar Vortex] can occur on top of the overall warming. So, "Climate Change" is not evasive or dishonest.
Rex, you are also wrong about the many other points you raise.
The very recent, very rapid global warming of the past century or two is a real, simple fact - and is nothing caused by "politics". It simply exists, and is getting worse - as a consequence of simple physics: the Greenhouse Gas effect, almost entirely triggered and driven by the geologically-sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 caused by [you guessed it!!] the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuel. The evidence is plain. Physical evidence - entirely free of politics.
In geological terms, the climate has been stable and unchanging for 8,000 years. The very slight wiggles (during that time) in planetary surface temperature have been tiny and insignificant - until the major change of the past 100 years or so.
To say that the climate is always changing, is a misleading/dishonest statement in terms of the context of our current modern problem of rapid Global Warming. Remember please, that the planet was a super-hot molten blob about 5,000 million years ago - but that is a dishonest statement if I mean it to imply it doesn't matter if you (or anyone else) dies in a modern wildfire which is "relatively cool" compared with conditions 5,000 million years ago.
Did the change in nomenclature occur when ice core samples were more closely looked at (50 years of scientific endevour hardly says mastery to me http://www.clim-past.net/9/2525/2013/cp-9-2525-2013.pdf)? Why did climategate get swept under the rug? The real reason you have skeptics is due to those emails regardless of how they were dismissed- which I'm sure is part of another topic and I'll be chastised for bringing it up here- scoff- guffaw- also there is the interesting bit about where the temperatures are being read from- as we all know, concrete creates and stores heat so placing a reading site in the city where thirty years ago temp readings were done atop grassy plains will skew the data-https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.amp.html?client=safari - just a skeptic of all things derived by humans- especially when the "solve" is taxation and doesn't focus on the real elephant in the room- toxic waste. Nuclear wastE. medical waste. We don't dare touch those as the united corps of greed would report less profit that quarter. And don't get me started on DU chemical weapons and the MIC- I digress. Appogies for any errs as I typed this on my phone
[JH] Sloganeering.
[PS]
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Besides sloganeering, you also went for gish-gallop and offtopic. Use the search function or arguments buttons at the top to find appropriate places to comment but read the article first. Repeating long-debunked slogans because you havent got better informed is welcome at say WUWT but not here.
U.S. Koppen-Geiger climate classification (2000 - 2100)
http://www.vividmaps.com/2016/11/us-koppen-geiger-climate-classification.html
Am I to understand, from the first chart pictured above, that the earth's average global temperature has only increased by 0.9° - 1.0° C since 1890?
Quite right, Thomasleeclark @17 , it is big rise in geological terms!
Look at the even more rapid rise in temperature since around 1970.
Spectacular. Especially if you compare the huge change in the world, that occurred as a very slow 3 degree rise swept away the recent Glacial Age. And think about the major changes to the physical world, yet to come from the already-locked-in further rise of another 1 degreeC. Maybe another 1 or 2 degrees on top of that, if the leading politicians can't get their act together!!
thomasleeclark @17:
If you use 1880-1920 as a base period (average in that period set to 0), the temp anomalies in 2016 were 1.24°C and 1.34°C in the records from NASA and Berkeley Earth, respectively.
2016 was boosted by a strong El Niño, so comparing that year to the base period will obviously exaggerate the warming. A better method is to plot the linear trend from 1975 to 2016 and use the endpoint of that trend as a measure of the warming since 1880-1920. That gives a warming of 1.06°C and 1.14°C in the two data records, respectively, so it’s reasonable to claim that the global surface temp has warmed about 1.1°C since the base period 1880-1920. It’s also worth noting that about half of that warming has happened after the mid 1980s!
I feel like you may be letting your skepticism get in the way of providing a useful answer here.
If you assume "they" refers to news media, it's hard to miss the fact that they switched around 2014 from the term "global warming" to "climate change" to mean roughly the same thing. I couldn't find any direct evidence of this, but you can see the effect in people's Google searches over the last five years:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=global%20warming,climate%20change
I think this is an interesting phenomenon and would like to understand why the news media swtiched to "climate change".
Doradus @20,
You have hit on a very interesting piece of evidence by considering the frequency of google searches. But I fail to see why you consider this points to a switch in 2014 in the media? Firstly, the myth is far older than 2014. Note that this SkS OP dates from January 2011. And secondly, if you extend your google search data back to the start of the data (2004), the evidence shows the term "Global Warming" was by far the more popular term used in searches but began to slowly decline from that dominant position from 2007, while the term "Climate Change" has been the subject of increasing use in google searches from the start of the data in 2004. Note the two terms when used in the search "What is ..." still gives "Global Warming" the edge in popularity.
To follow up on MA Rodger's sage point, the impacts of the burning of fossil fuels, including the usage of the phrase climate change, were discussed in a report to the President of the US as far back as...
...(drumroll please)...
...1965 (page 113).
NO, no, no. "CLIMATE CHANGE" is a result. It is not a driver, it is a descriptive word. "GLOBAL WARMING" is the active agent, the driver!
It's muddled language like that, which simply mimics the dog-chasing-tail talking points contrarians are dedicated to injecting into this discussion. It's help created today's hideous and totally unnecessary public confusion.
>>> Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, slow heat's escape to space, warming Earth's complex climate engine, which in turn drives cascading consequences we call Climate Change. <<<
[JH] All-caps snipped. The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. To emphaize a word or words, please use bold font.
Yes I know that's what the article was trying to explain, sorry I got caught up in some of the comments and an ongoing argument that drove me to this post in the first place.
Daniel ;-)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/
citizenschallenge: Generally speaking, we ought to stick with the IPPC/WMO's official definitions of global warming and climate change as embedded in this site's Glossary of Terms.