Because this is what is done with science. Change the names. Remember all those times that the Theory of Gravity was changed to make it more palatable for the masses?
Forget Global Warming And Climate Change, Call It ‘Climate Disruption’
People have been learned to cope with change by thinking it’s not all bad, but climate change is all bad, according to a climate scientist at Argonne National Laboratory who says it’s time to replace the term climate change, itself a replacement for global warming, with a new term: climate disruption.
“Positive mental attitude is a really wonderful way to deal with change,†research meteorologist Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night. “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good. So maybe it’s wrong to portray climate change with a positive mental attitude.
“Maybe we should start talking about climate disruption, because the things I’m talking about would seem to be highly disruptive. And so maybe the better way to characterize what’s happening with these extreme weather events is to think of it as climate disruption. Maybe it more accurately represents the journey we are about to be embarking upon.â€
Sisterson is not the first to propose adopting the term climate disruption. John Holdren, the senior advisor to President Obama on science and technology issues, proposed the term global climate disruption in 2007, in 2010 and again last year.
Changing the name is all about continuing to keep the scareathon and Blamestorming going strong. Most people aren’t scared anymore, as they aren’t seeing Doomworthy weather or any of the other doomy prognostication occurring. Well, other than very cold and snowy winters.
“We’ve been talking about global warming, but as you can see on a global scale increased greenhouse gases lead to a warmer planet on average, but it really doesn’t tell the whole picture. Because it’s complicated. In fact, temperature itself is probably not the biggest thing that we’re going to have to worry about about global warming,†he said.
So, doom. Scare people.
“We expect to see changes in precipitation patterns and sea-level rise that will have much greater impact to humans and our animal friends and biodiversity than the temperature alone. As a matter of fact, we’re pretty sure that we’re going to see increased weather extremes. Perhaps you’re noticing some of them as well.â€
In other words, snow and cold is being blamed on greenhouse gases. Cult.
Noted climate truther Gov FL has issued a ban on state workers using the words “climate change”
These are now for official use the words that can not be spoken
Perhaps next we wll get a proclamation on the existence of unicorns from the anti science fringe
Teach it sure must be puzzling to you its all so complicated!
It is snow and cold on the East Coast of the USA
But
Arctic sea ice looks like it may break an all time low record for winter maximum
How can that be? How can the Arctic be really warm but the East coast really cold AT THE SAME TIME!!!
Global warming is disrupting the climate.
Repubicun Frank Luntz popularized the term climate change in the early 2000s, convincing the Bush administration to adopt a softer, gentler phrase. Of course, that was before the Repubicuns went completely off the rails in 2008, deciding that an anti-science approach would gin up their base.
” How can the Archic be really warm but the East coast cold at the same time?” The real question for the hoaxers is, how could it not be? Because, uh, it’s happened many times before. We’ll breathlessly wait for your answer.
“Arctic”
j,
Why is the Arctic warming?
Why did it warm in the past, much warmer than it is now? In other words, natural variation. Now, my first question is still out there. How could it not warm, or for that matter, cool, as climate is never static?
j,
You are mistaken and do not understand the concept of natural variation. You use the term as a get out of jail free card.
Variation is not magic. It can occur in at least two different ways. One is, of course, variation in the measure itself. Let’s say you base the global temperature on a single thermometer in Nixa, Missouri. In that case, the apparent global temperature will vary greatly from day to day and even within the same day. Implicit in that measure is assuming the instrument itself is accurate! If you place ten thermometers at the same site you can obtain a range of values (hopefully very similar!). Now let’s say you place several thousand thermometers around the Earth. So-called skeptics have attacked this for decades, arguing that the physical measure itself is fatally flawed, but study after study demonstrate that the thermometers, while not perfect, are measuring what the scientists think they measure – differences in temperature over time.
The second type of variability is that that occurs in the phenomenon being measured itself. I think this is what you mean when you talk about natural variation. There are multiple physical inputs that comprise the mean global surface temperature, including greenhouse gases, clouds, humidity, aerosols, ocean currents, albedo, Milankovich cycles, PDO, ENSO, solar “brightness” etc. We’ve been able to measure in real time the impacts of a strong El Nino (transfer of heat from the Pacific to the atmosphere). In 1998 the El Nino caused a significant “warming” that lasted for a year or two. The amount of heat energy accumulating in the oceans is significant and will eventually equilibrate with the atmosphere. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a measureable cooling for a couple of years.
For the magnitude of change we are seeing now, 1C in a century, it’s obvious that El Ninos, La Ninas, sporadic volcanoes, and slightly dimming and brightening of the Sun, are not powerful enough inputs (or “forcings”). It’s been calculated that forcings from Milankovich cycles, these cyclic changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit and the “tilt” of the Earth ARE large enough to cause changes of a several degrees (e.g., moving in and out of glacial-interglacial periods) – but those orbit changes are not occurring now. The only other forcing capable of causing the changes we are now seeing is either the greenhouse gas effect or something we don’t know.
Monday morning links
Manhattan Studios Set Rent Record as Tenants Go Small A big fat surprise for dietary dogma Backyard burger and wiener roasts targeted by EPA Wyoming: "The free market is suddenly hip on the farm again." England suffers wettest drought i