When 'Global Warming' Became 'Climate Change'

Bloomberg Business - Emily Chasan | Jennifer Rossa

When exactly did one become the other, and why?

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

First there was "global warming." Then came "climate change." Turns out, use of the latter became more prevalent in 2008 and that dominance became irreversible in 2009. Here's how use of the terms compare in stories on the Bloomberg Professional service.

The term "global warming," which describes an increase in the Earth's average temperature surface due to greenhouse gas emissions, is widely believed to have been coined in 1975 by Columbia University geochemist Wallace Broecker, according to NASA. Meanwhile, "climate change," which describes a long-term change in the Earth's climate, appeared a few years later in a 1979 National Academy of Science study on carbon dioxide.
A May 2014 Yale University study found that while "climate change" appears to be preferred by scientists, "global warming" can evoke stronger emotions and issue engagement for some groups of people.
While those mentions in the professional media tracked by Bloomberg show a clear trend, the general public is pretty evenly split. Here's how people have searched for the two terms in Google over the past several years. The spike in searches coincides with the Academy Award in 2007 given to Al Gore's film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Source: Google

While the language may be divided, the science over climate change is not.


A Brief History of Global Warming

Links

• Our Broken Environment Kills a Quarter of Us
• Up to 13 Million Americans Are at Risk of Being Washed Away
• Ancient Ice Could Help Explain Why Earth's Climate Is Warming

Why Malcolm Turnbull Should Reverse The Destructive, Clumsy And Dumb CSIRO Cuts

The Guardian - Mark Dreyfus

The gutting of climate science expertise in one of the world’s premier research organisations is not clever, innovative, or agile. It is destructive, clumsy and dumb

‘Mr Turnbull seeks to position himself as a friend of science and a true believer in climate change ... but he is leading a party which still, in 2016, is debating whether climate change is real.’ Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Historically, there have been two groups that have really been the heart and soul of climate science on the planet. This is one of them.

Those words about CSIRO, spoken by the chief adviser on carbon cycle science at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab on the day the CSIRO 350 job cuts were announced, have since been echoed across the global scientific community.
The New York Times has not just written about the CSIRO cuts but also editorialised against them, attributing them to “a deplorable misunderstanding of the importance of basic research into what is arguably the greatest challenge facing the planet.”
A series of senate committee hearings last week heard over and over again about the devastating impact of these cuts on CSIRO’s ability to do its job properly.
Part of CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Division is in Aspendale in my electorate of Isaacs. Together with the Australian Antarctic Division, it is expected to bear the brunt of the Abbott-Turnbull Government’s latest attack on Australia’s world class science and research. The job cuts that have been announced will effectively gut CSIRO’s Aspendale centre.
Established more than 50 years ago, it has produced some of the most important climate change research on the globe. Its scientists have contributed to the International Panel on Climate Change reports which are considered the benchmark of climate change science. It collects and monitors some of the cleanest air in the world from Cape Grim in Tasmania for the World Meteorological Association.
Every year this part of CSIRO produces state of the climate reports with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to measure the increasing effects of climate change on our country.
I’ll be hosting a community forum on the importance of CSIRO’s Aspendale Centre on 22 March, and it was not hard to convince the former chief scientist of Australia Ian Chubb and climate change expert Will Steffen to come along, such is the depth of respect for its work in the scientific community.
But CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall, brought in from Silicon Valley by Tony Abbott, believes all these projects should be de-prioritised in favour of climate change mitigation projects and CSIRO should turn its attention to work areas likely to be more commercially viable.
CSIRO is not a glorified consultancy. It is not a start-up looking only to maximise profit opportunities. It is one of the most important scientific institutions in the world with an obligation to do research that is in the long-term public interest, not just the short-term interests of the private sector.
But this is not about Mr Marshall. These decisions would not have been made without the $110 million cut forced on CSIRO in the 2014 federal budget (the one Mr Abbott describes as his “badge of honour”).
Prime Minister Turnbull can reverse these cuts.
The destruction of climate science expertise in Australia’s premier research organisation is not clever, innovative, or agile. It is destructive, clumsy and dumb.
CSIRO cannot and should not exist as a purely commercially-driven organisation. A research rather than a profit focus has still enabled CSIRO scientists to produce some of the most successful scientific patents in Australian history, including Wi-Fi technology, one of the greatest inventions of the digital age. There’s also extended soft-wear contact lenses, Aerogard insect repellent and polymer banknotes.
Commercially driven research and more general research for the “public good” are not incompatible areas of activity for CSIRO. In fact, the former can often flow from the latter. The nature of science is that we sometimes must fund projects that are exploratory without clear and precise objectives to see what they come up with – and sometimes they come up with Wi-Fi.
It is only the Abbott-Turnbull government cuts that have turned this into an either-or situation. Restore the funding, and the balance can be restored.
Mr Turnbull seeks to position himself as a friend of science and a true believer in climate change. But he is leading a party which still, in 2016, is debating whether climate change is real – just look at the NSW Liberal resolution last week to hold a series of debates questioning whether the “science is settled”.
If Mr Turnbull was a bold and decisive leader, he would reverse the cuts to CSIRO now and save Australia’s climate research capacity and reputation for quality science.
Or is he too frightened of the right-wing, climate-sceptic opponents in his own party to do anything?
He needs to make a decision now – not dither until the axe falls.

Links
Analysis CSIRO climate cuts attack a national treasure when we need it most
Climate change has not been answered for farmers: we need more information, not lessRecord-breaking temperatures 'have robbed the Arctic of its winter'

Joe Hockey On CSIRO Cuts: Former Treasurer's Letter To The New York Times Dissected

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Australia's ambassador to the US defends criticism of his country's climate stance in an editorial – but how do the points he makes stack up?

Former treasurer Joe Hockey, who is now Australia's ambassador to the US, wrote a letter to the New York Times in response to an editorial the newspaper ran titled 'Australia turns its back on climate science'. Photograph: Lukas Coch/EPA

Australia's former treasurer Joe Hockey has weighed into the debate about cuts to climate research at CSIRO, by writing a letter to the New York Times.
In February, CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall announced the agency would halve its commitment to climate change modelling and measurement.
In his new role as Australia's ambassador to the US, Hockey took umbrage at an editorial the newspaper published, titled "Australia turns its back on climate science".
But in defending Australia's role, he appears to shine a light on budget cuts he made while treasurer, which are now considered partly to blame for the cuts CSIRO's chief executive has made.
His first line of defence in the letter is to point out that there continues to be funding for climate science under the National Environmental Science Program, commonly referred to as Nesp.
Hockey created Nesp in his now notorious 2014-2015 budget. But rather than boosting climate science, it was a budget-saving measure. Nesp was created by amalgamating two other programs and cutting $21.7m in the process.
This fact was raised in a recent Senate inquiry, which examined the cuts.
World-leading CSIRO climate scientist John Church told the Senate in most research programs CSIRO is required to match the funding they receive with revenue from external "clients". But often that client is the government, with money coming from funding programs.
Church said that since CSIRO relied on external funding streams, and the government had shrunk those streams for climate science, it was predictable that CSIRO would move away from conducting climate science research.
"Effectively, at this time we were in a weak position in terms of external earnings," he said.
In his letter, Hockey also said the Australian Antarctic Division and the Bureau of Meteorology would continue to conduct the sort of work that was being cut at CSIRO.
Let's look at the Australian Antarctic Division first. The chief scientist of the Australian Antarctic Division, Gwen Fenton, told a Senate inquiry that about a quarter of their programs rely on the CSIRO in some capacity, and that if CSIRO programs were cut, that would affect their research.
Fenton couldn't quantify the effect, since no details of the cuts have yet been announced. "It is hard to know exactly," she said. "It is hard to conclude that reducing the number of people overall would not reduce the total capability. It is the capability we need in the program."
Then Hockey mentioned the Bureau of Meteorology. That's the bureau that was not told about the cuts more than 24 hours before they were publicly announced. In that hearing, head of the BoM, Rob Vertessy, said there were several joint programs between the two programs and it wasn't clear yet which would be affected. "I am drawing attention to several areas where we are working together, where we are dependent on CSIRO collaboration, and which could be impacted. There are many areas, and it will depend on which of those areas are actually changed."
Hockey's next line was to point out that Australia is "renowned in international climate change forums for contributing a uniquely southern hemisphere perspective". It is the loss of that very reputation – and indeed capability – that has troubled climate scientists in Australia and abroad.
The CSIRO has revealed it is trying to strike a deal with the UK's Met Office to move its unique and highly regarded climate model there, where it is unlikely to get the continued focus on southern hemisphere climate science.
In terms of international reputation, Church told the Senate inquiry it was "already trashed".
Finally, Hockey says "Australia will continue to meet its international climate change obligations and commitments, including those made in the Paris agreement". Indeed, Australia's Climate Council – the reincarnation of the formerly government-run Climate Commission, which Hockey and his government axed – declared in a report that the cuts to climate research at the CSIRO were already in breach of that agreement.

Links

• CSIRO climate cuts 'a catastrophic failure of public policy', Senate told
• CSIRO climate cuts will breach Paris agreement and cost economy – report
• CSIRO chief says row over climate science cuts 'more like religion than science'
• Australia's chief scientist says he was not warned about CSIRO climate cuts
• CSIRO climate cuts attack a national treasure when we need it most
• CSIRO climate cuts will cost Australia dear, world scientists warn government
• Senior CSIRO scientist derides chief executive's claim climate change is 'answered'
• After climate cuts at CSIRO, who should we ask about global warming impacts on Australia? Netflix?