What's in a Name?

11 Sep 2010 – Alicia Ayars

In a previous blog I raised the issue of how fundamental language is in the framing of our conversations and arguments. Unfortunately, I am going to beat a dead horse here and continue on with that theme, identifying the seemingly interchangeable usage of “global warming” and “climate change”. Funnily enough, I am not the only one to be contemplating these issues at the moment. When I ponder the term “global warming” I think about the fact that most UK residents would enjoy those extra few degrees. Wouldn’t we all gladly greet a slightly warmer summer? In a very simple way, the term global warming is what it says on the label. “Climate change”, however, is ambiguous and, according to sceptics, a generic term used to encompass all potential weather patterns. So what are the differences?

Luckily for you and me, the brilliant minds at NASA spell these differences out with clear definitions:

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.

If everything is so straightforward, why can’t we pick a term? Do we need to?

When “global warming” first entered the public realm (roughly 1975, when Wally Broecker published “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”), there was limited consensus as to how the trapping of anthropogenic greenhouse gases would change the earth’s atmosphere. As noted above, “global warming” was coined to signify the general increases in the earth’s temperature. It was used in tandem with “climate change” not as a standalone.

Part of the problem, I realise is the media’s reference to anthropogenic global warming. The press can’t make up their minds and dependant upon geography, journalists seem to favour terms (US = global warming / UK = climate change). This doesn’t include expert opinions, such as James Lovelock, who prefers the term “global heating”.

As for my expert opinion, I believe we do need a descriptive term. I don’t for a second believe that “global warming” is nuanced enough to describe the dynamic differences each region is likely to face, as we march towards 400ppm and 2°. So what should it be instead?

Guardian readers got creative and came up with: climate variation, climate breakdown, climate chaos, anthropogenic climate change, climate deregulation, climate warming (an oh so offensive mash-up of the two terms!), and my personal favourite: anthrocarbonic extinction.

Can anyone help add to the list above?