13/04/2020

The Difference Between Global Warming And Climate Change

FairPlanetAma Lorenz

ELLESMERE ISLAND, CANADA: A section of a glacier is seen from NASA's Operation IceBridge research aircraft on March 29, 2017 above Ellesmere Island, Canada. The ice fields of Ellesmere Island are retreating due to warming temperatures. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are terms that we’ve become accustomed to hearing in recent years. In fact, a simple Google search returns over one billion combined results, proving that phrases that 30 years ago were virtually unknown have now become ingrained into the English language.

However, global warming and climate change are phrases that are often confused, misunderstood or even used interchangeably.
A simple Google search returns over one billion combined results, proving that phrases that, 30 years ago, were virtually unknown have now become ingrained into the English language.
In summary, global warming describes the increase in the surface temperature across the planet, predominantly the result of high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is only one aspect of climate change, which is the long-term changes in regional or global climate, especially rainfall, wind and temperature.

Since the two processes are linked, and one is even the result of the other, it’s unsurprising that people often fail to understand the difference between climate change and global warming.

Global warming

The term global warming first became prominent in the media in the 1980s, although it was coined a decade or more earlier, mainly in response to growing scientific awareness of the damage pollutants — particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used in aerosols and refrigerants — were having on the Earth’s ozone layer.

The Earth’s surface heats during the daytime as it is struck by rays from the sun. At night, the energy from the sun is radiated back into space, theoretically allowing the surface of the planet to cool and the temperature to be maintained at an optimum level.

However, the presence of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons, causes the heat radiated from the surface of the Earth to be radiated back, in effect creating a gaseous shield around the Earth that prevents the sun’s heat from being able to escape.

LODWAR, KENYA: A young boy from the remote Turkana tribe in Northern Kenya stands on a dried up river bed on November 9, 2009 near Lodwar, Kenya. Over 23 million people across East Africa are facing a critical shortage of water and food, a situation made worse by climate change. Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The increase over decades of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, combined with factors such as the orbit of the Earth and changes in the energy output of the sun, has contributed significantly to heat retention at the surface level of the planet, causing the temperature of Earth to rise.
The term global warming first became prominent in the media in the 1980s, although it was coined a decade or more earlier.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, since 1880 the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by approximately 0.95 degrees Celsius (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit). While such a small rise in the temperature may seem inconsequential, the effects of such a tiny shift can be dramatic, particularly on the planet’s climate.

Climate change

The differences between climate change and global warming are, in part, commonly misunderstood because the increased temperature leads directly to a changing climate (often seen in extremes of weather). Whereas the weather is the particular conditions in the atmosphere at a specific point of time (for example, to describe a Monday morning as ‘cloudy with a little light rain’), the climate describes the conditions in the atmosphere for an extended period of time, such as over 30 years.

Weather changes very quickly, sometimes within hours, whereas climate patterns tend to last for decades. Consequently, the climate changes more slowly and long-term trends must be considered to produce an accurate understanding of them.

Climates can also be regional or global. For climate change to be established, at least one of the climatic variables — rainfall, wind or temperature — would need to fluctuate over an extended period in the same place, whether this is in a region of the Earth or across the planet as a whole.

For example, a sustained increase in rainfall in a previously arid region of Australasia for several decades would be classified as climate change, even if the climate in other parts of the world remained stable.

CAMARILLO, CA: A man on a rooftop looks at approaching flames as the Springs fire continues to grow on May 3, 2013 near Camarillo, California. The wildfire has spread to more than 18,000 acres on day two and is 20 percent contained. Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

Climate change sceptics often argue that the climate is constantly changing and, historically, the Earth has experienced extremes of weather many times before. In part, this is accurate: climate change occurs for several reasons, some of which are entirely natural and unpredictable such as the shifting of tectonic plates or volcanic activity.

Global warming causes many side effects in terms of our fluctuating climate. Melting glaciers at the poles, more frequent and violent tropical storms, above average temperatures during summer days in Europe and extended periods of drought in developing countries can all be attributed to the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.
The differences between climate change and global warming are, in part, commonly misunderstood because the increased temperature leads directly to a changing climate.
While natural causes can sometimes be blamed for climate change, scientists have recently concluded that human activity is almost entirely responsible for global warming during the last 170 years.

To summarise the difference between climate change and global warming, global warming (the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface due to the presence of gases in the atmosphere) is a significant cause of climate change. And if global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect, the long-term fluctuation in weather patterns over decades, on a regional or a global scale.

The problem of global warming should not be underestimated as it is driving a potentially catastrophic change in the world’s climates, putting the livelihoods and long-term existence of communities throughout across the planet in jeopardy.

Links

(US) No News Or Bad News? Many People Choose Ignorance Over Staying Informed, Study Finds

Grist - 

Grist / George Marks / CSA Printstock / Getty Images

Would you rather hear bad news that could help you in the long run, or remain blissfully ignorant?

That’s the question that researchers recently posed to thousands of people in over a dozen variations — including asking whether they’d want to know how badly climate change could impact their zip code. Other topics included personal health, finances, and how others perceive you. The researchers found that for every subject, there was a substantial chunk of people who preferred to not learn unpleasant information, even when they knew the information could help them over time.

It may not be a rational response, but it’s hardly shocking that we tend to avoid asking questions to which we might not like the answers: Who among us has not dodged the nutrition label on a favorite guilty pleasure food or “forgotten” to check a bank statement after a month of heavy spending? But a significant portion of respondents (20 to 75 percent, depending on the topic) chose to avoid learning helpful yet unpleasant information — a trend that held true regardless of gender, income, political leanings, and education. (Though an inclination for gambling did seem to correlate with wanting the dirty details on topics the rest of us might eschew).

To a degree, “trading off the potential pain from receiving bad news against the uncertain and delayed benefits from making more informed decisions is something we all seem to do,” said David Hagmann, one of the study’s coauthors and a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, in a press release.

The study is the latest in a long line of research exposing idiosyncrasies in how we tend to handle unwelcome information. Confirmation bias, in which people readily accept information that fits their existing worldview but reject information that challenges it, is one of the best-documented examples. It’s a major reason fake news can proliferate so freely among like-minded connections on social media. Most people, including policymakers and communicators, still struggle to understand that the mental gymnastics we perform to protect ourselves from things we just don’t want to know are not faulty tics, but deeply embedded features in the hardwiring of our minds.
“One of the reasons that nothing is being done about climate change is that it’s too painful to think about.”Study author George Loewenstein
For climate change, an issue that people understandably associate with bad news, this phenomenon presents a significant barrier to taking action. Even people who accept the science might be reluctant to learn new (and potentially helpful) information about the topic if it means having to confront the growing scope of the problem. “One of the reasons that nothing is being done about climate change is that it’s too painful to think about,” suggests study author George Loewenstein, who admits to being an information-avoider himself. Since people avoid information they even suspect could be unpleasant, even benign climate information runs the risk of being passed over.

Putting off learning about serious topics like climate change means the problems associated with those issues will likely be much worse down the line. “Making good decisions is often contingent on obtaining information, even when that information is uncertain and has the potential to produce unhappiness,” wrote the study authors. And unfortunately, they added, “people are often ready to make worse decisions.”

To get information-avoiders on board with facing the music, Hagmann proposes making problems appear more actionable in the moment, or reframing the information so that it feels, in some way, good. “That doesn’t mean downplaying the risk, but maybe [giving] information about what you can do to adapt,” he suggested. “That’s hopefully less painful to look at.”

Links

Facing The Climate Change Crisis, Three Books Offer Some Ambitious Proposals

New York Times - Kendra Pierre-Louis

John Gall
THE FUTURE WE CHOOSE
Surviving the Crisis
By Christina Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac

The first question to ask when reading “The Future We Choose” is, Who exactly is the “we” of the title? Figueres, who helped facilitate the passage of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and Rivett-Carnac, a lobbyist for the United Nations, position their book as presenting options for what “governments, corporations and each of us can do” about climate change. But those are three distinct groups with different motivations and pressures. That the book lumps them all together regardless of their contribution to the problem — your average person in Guatemala has contributed far less to climate change than a person in New York City, and each has contributed less than an oil company — illustrates the book’s unevenness.

Further, in pursuit of their optimistic messaging, the authors are loose with certain facts. For example, their emphasis on tree planting and reforestation (laudable goals, to be sure) relies partly on a flawed study in the journal Science that overestimated how many trees can actually be planted, because of ecosystem constraints — we don’t grow trees in the desert — and how much carbon they can pull out of the atmosphere. Similarly, they write that biofuels will replace fossil fuels in airplanes, but what those fuels will be made of, and how we might balance the required agriculture with the prescription for more forestland, is not made clear.

Perhaps most unsatisfying, the book is presented as an action guide but offers few actions the average reader can actually take. Many of the pages focus on how one can cultivate the right mind-set, an especially puzzling section because it comes after the authors have chastised us for being too individualistic. (Yet of the 10 actions they highlight, only one mentions cultivating community.) It’s not that the action statements are bad — nobody would argue with engaging with politics, or nurturing a shared positive vision for the future — but the book falls short on telling us how.
210 pp. Knopf. $US23.



THE STORY OF MORE
How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go From Here
By Hope Jahren

Reading “The Story of More,” you might become aware of a curious omission: Until about three-quarters of the way into the book, there is no direct mention of climate change. Instead, after introducing the problem of global warming in the first chapter, Jahren takes a step back.

She leads us on a journey across time and space, outlining thoughts and beliefs from Mesopotamia to her tiny Minnesota hometown. Along the way she discusses the impact of everything from population growth to Norwegian fishing to nuclear power. She takes this approach in order to present climate change as a result of broader dysfunctions having to do with consumption habits that, she says, don’t even make us happy. The only way to solve one problem, she suggests, is to solve both.
It’s an argument that contrasts with the recent spate of climate books, which opt to pummel readers with facts and guilt.Jahren, who first came to prominence with the best-selling memoir “Lab Girl,” instead writes delicately, like the whispery scrape of a skate tracing a figure on the ice.

“We wake in the morning and leave our homes and we work, work, work, to keep the great global chain of procurement in place,” she writes in a section focused on food waste. “Then we throw 40 percent of everything we just accomplished into the garbage. We can never get those hours back. Our children grow up, our bodies wane, and death comes to claim some of those we love. All the while, we spend our days making things for the purpose of discarding them.”
208 pp. Vintage. Paper, $US15.



THE 100% SOLUTION
A Plan for Solving Climate Change
By Solomon Goldstein-Rose

At 22 Goldstein-Rose became one of the youngest people to serve in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Now 26 and a climate activist, he argues that only in combination can the many climate strategies — including renewable energy, energy efficiency and sequestration — reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels enough by 2050 to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

His message is a necessary one. Climate action is often distilled into individualistic actions that on their own aren’t sufficient. But Goldstein-Rose doesn’t provide the comprehensive plan for solving climate change that he sets out to.

While he offers five pillars of emissions reduction, he doesn’t quantify how much we can reasonably expect to bring down the level of carbon. This is probably because his solutions depend in part on highly efficient technologies that he admits don’t exist yet. To create them, he calls for a national effort on climate change akin to the one that sent humans to the moon.

Similarly, some details raise doubts as to how much Goldstein-Rose knows about existing efforts. In a section discussing the need to reduce agriculture emissions he proposes using Peace Corps volunteers to bring sustainable agricultural practices to low-income countries, as though this were a novel idea. But in some countries, they are already doing just that. Meanwhile his discussions on energy ignore the tremendous subsidies that fossil fuels receive compared with other energy sources. When discussing the risks of nuclear energy, he focuses on power plant designs that have not yet been properly piloted, and focuses on the risk with no mention of the horrors experienced by some communities, such as the Navajo Nation, that come from extracting a plant’s fuel. As a broad idea the book works, but as a road map to climate action, it skips too many details.
294 pp. Melville House. Paper, $US19.99.

Links - Books