Yeah, global warming was kind of a bad name for it. Because yes, it will get warmer globally on average, but also colder, drier and wetter at certain places. Northern Europe might get a lot colder when the Gulf Stream is gone for example.
The term “global warming” first appeared in print in a scientific journal article authored by an American geochemist in 1975. I think the mistake isn’t the naming, as it’s an accurate name that succinctly describes the issue. I think the mistake was not realizing how profoundly science illiterate the American public was at the time and still continues to be.
I’m not questioning the sad state of scientific literacy, then or now, but it really wouldn’t have been all that difficult for the news media to properly explain the issue.
I graduated high school the year before that article was published.
While in high school, I wrote reports on the “greenhouse effect”. I later found myself helping my parents and others grasp the actual effects of “global warming.” Poles heating faster than the tropics. Shifting weather patterns that would cause some regions to at least temporarily see a period of cooling, etc.
If I could do it, getting it right was certainly within the capabilities of university trained journalists.
When I first heard about it in school in the 90s, the preferred term seemed to be “global greenhouse effect”, which still implies warming but better describes the underlying physical principle.
But now we should really call it “global climate catastrophe” or “global climate extinction event” to communicate how dire the situation is.
Yeah, global warming was kind of a bad name for it. Because yes, it will get warmer globally on average, but also colder, drier and wetter at certain places. Northern Europe might get a lot colder when the Gulf Stream is gone for example.
The term “global warming” first appeared in print in a scientific journal article authored by an American geochemist in 1975. I think the mistake isn’t the naming, as it’s an accurate name that succinctly describes the issue. I think the mistake was not realizing how profoundly science illiterate the American public was at the time and still continues to be.
I’m not questioning the sad state of scientific literacy, then or now, but it really wouldn’t have been all that difficult for the news media to properly explain the issue.
I graduated high school the year before that article was published.
While in high school, I wrote reports on the “greenhouse effect”. I later found myself helping my parents and others grasp the actual effects of “global warming.” Poles heating faster than the tropics. Shifting weather patterns that would cause some regions to at least temporarily see a period of cooling, etc.
If I could do it, getting it right was certainly within the capabilities of university trained journalists.
When I first heard about it in school in the 90s, the preferred term seemed to be “global greenhouse effect”, which still implies warming but better describes the underlying physical principle.
But now we should really call it “global climate catastrophe” or “global climate extinction event” to communicate how dire the situation is.