2011-01-05 09:26:51'They changed the name from global warming to climate change' Rebuttal
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
In response to a denier blog and subsequent argument in its comments by The Ville (discussed in General Chat), I put together a quick rebuttal to "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".  As always, feedback is appreciated.
2011-01-05 10:19:17Very clear and nice use of graphics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.58.57
Nice idea to plot those first two graphics. Clear, concise, great stuff and well done whipping it up so quick. Thumbs up from me.
2011-01-05 14:09:09
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.52.199
"almost identially over the past 40 years" => "almost identically over the past 40 years"; or maybe "in the same way."
2011-01-05 15:47:01thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.111
Thanks John, and good catch neal.  Any other comments?
2011-01-05 16:25:12Quibbles
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.150

I think you should move the Luntz memo to the top to emphasise it more. It means the people who make the argument that “they” changed the name are either historically ignorant or hypocritical.

Also, I could be wrong, but I understand the term “climate change” slightly differently to how you define it. I think it can refer to change in temperature as well as precipitation etc, meaning “global warming” events are a subset of “climate change” events. And “global warming” can refer to any period of, um, the world getting hotter. I’d describe the two phrases as “two related but distinct concepts”.

2011-01-05 16:42:48others?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.111

Hmm how do others understand the terms?  Is global warming a subset of climate change, as James describes?  I could be wrong, but I consider global warming to be the cause of climate change.  But I can see what James is saying too, that warming is a type of climate change.

I hear your point about putting Luntz first, but I like the way the rebuttal flows as it is.  And with the current organization it's the concluding point, which also draws a lot of attention.

2011-01-05 17:24:47Like it as is (no offense, James)
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
130.36.62.222

Just needs a catchy sub-title, like"

"And all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

2011-01-05 17:31:35forgot the thingy ('cause I put it on the chat post instead)
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
130.36.62.222
Forgot (getting old sucks)
 

2011-01-05 17:45:00I like the flow as it is
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.58.57

I like how you jumped into it with that strong graphic of global warming. The data really speaks for itself - without saying a word, you really destroy any notion of "global warming isn't happening hence they changed the title" line of thought.

Dana, I reckon feel free to launch this is a blog post whenever you like, this can be the next one. I have a few minor blog posts to publish - new graphics to add to the Climate Graphics and a basic rebuttal - but I'll wait till after this one.

2011-01-05 18:00:45
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.203

You know, it would not take long to make a graph of how these two terms are used in peer-reviewed literature using google scholar (which unfortunately also returns some hits from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books). Here are some example search results (numbers of hits):

Year, GW-value, CC-value

2010, 27200, 85300

2009, 29400, 73000

2008, 30400, 71600

2007, 27400, 74300

2006, 20900, 54900

2005, 17500, 46200

2004, 14600, 39400

2003, 13700, 35300

2002, 12800, 31200

2001, 10900, 27500

2000, 8890, 22300

2011-01-05 19:12:54
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.203

I made more google scholar searches and I made couple of graphs from 1940 to 2010. It seems that we can show that the term "climate change" got partly changed to "global warming" at late 1980's/early 1990's. Since then the terms have been used at a similar fraction. One can argue that during 2009 some of the usage of the term global warming was indeed changed to usage of term climate change but the change there is only minor and of course during only one data-point. Here is first the graph of total number of hits each year:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/cc_vs_gw.GIF

Note that there's interesting jump in number of hits for "climate change" from 1630 in 1970 to 6140 in 1971. Did something happen in 1970 or couple of years before that to cause this huge jump in number of studies on climate change? Here's the graph of percentage of total hits (which shows how the two terms have been used in relation to each other):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/cc_vs_gw_p.GIF

So, it seems that the situation is actually opposite of the claimed situation.

2011-01-05 23:58:391971
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.150

I think Steve Schneider’s paper predicting aerosol-caused cooling was published in 1971. That could have something to do with it.

2011-01-06 00:52:02
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Gosh, things move quickly here and this post looks great.

Actually I am sure a 1950s educational video about weather that I have mentioned before, refers to climate change??

I'll check it again.

 

2011-01-06 00:53:02
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Forgot a green thumb.

 

2011-01-06 01:23:14
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Found it (again). The McGrawhill film 'The Inconstant Air', refers to changing climate due to CO2 and other causes. It doesn't refer to global warming.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/igy_nas/flash_videos/theInconstantAir.html

I'm not sure of the date, but it must be at least the 1960s, or maybe 1950s.

Would have been used in schools.

Just found the home page which dates the series of films between 1957 and 1958.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/igy_nas/

2011-01-06 01:58:21
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Ari I would be careful with 'hits', that can mean a lot of things.

Were the hits due to people searching for a term, or via links to a page etc ?

How much are people influenced by the media when it comes to searches??

eg. if the media use the term global warming more than climate change, then one would expect people to search more for global warming and hence pages referring to global warming go up in the hit count, even though there maybe fewer pages that refer to global warming.

In fact if only one page/site referred to global warming and the popular media use the term global warming, then that page/site would get a huge number of hits.

 

2011-01-06 04:26:591971
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Yes James is correct about the Rasool and Schneider paper being in 1971, I believe.  I'm currently reading Scheider's book "Science as a Contact Sport" (very interesting read, by the way), and he discusses that right around 1971 is when climate science research started to kick into gear.  That's when guys like Schneider and Hansen were just starting their careers in the field, and there was a lot of research into whether aerosol cooling or GHG warming would dominate.

I'll add Ari's first graph because it's useful to show that CC has always been the more used term in scientific literature, and was in use before GW (I'll explain the term 'hits' in the text).  The Ville - hope you don't mind if I don't include your example.  There are just so many to choose from, I can't include them all in the rebuttal, and I've already got an earlier example in the '50s.

2011-01-06 06:18:05
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.99.160

I don't think one 1971 paper is enough to explain the huge jump in the usage of the term. Were there any large international climate conferences or some political things going on back then that caused lot of researchers to start studying climate?

The Ville: Google Scholar returns the number of the scientific documents containing the search term.

2011-01-06 07:57:39yes
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
No international conferences, but like I said, that's just when climate science research started to ramp up.  A number of scientific organizations like NASA GISS started to focus on the subject during this timeframe.  Check out Schneider's book.  I guess if you want specific events, maybe you could attribute some of the increase to the first Earth Day (spring 1970).
2011-01-06 12:09:41SMIC
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.150
There was the meeting on the Study of Man's Impact on Climate, also discussed in Schneider's book.
2011-01-06 15:45:40true
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.111
That's true, I forgot about that meeting.  But I was under the impression it wasn't terribly large.