Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's because people are getting their science information from media who at best are so ignorant that they can't properly represent things and at worst are ideologically involved so present things in line with ideology rather than what it actually is.
Until media improves in this (which I will say looks like never), it's far better to actually look at the science, do that and the message is quite clear and consistent.
(And record lows don't mean warming isn't still happening, warming is an average, just like a hockey team can have a winning season while still having a losing streak or setting a record for the worst loss in a game).
|
I was going to say the same thing. The science is still the same from when it was "global warming". Nothing has changed in that regard. The switch from "warming" to "change" was strictly media driven because people were having trouble understanding it and separating the issues in a pretty complex subject. Global warming refers to the planetary average, and climate change talks about the localized changes in climate.... two different aspects of the same issue.
No one ever claimed that every year would be warmer from the next, and that every location on the planet would experience temperature increases. For example, as climate changes, so do air and ocean currents, and precipitation. Those changes are bound to affect the localized climates in some areas of the world and the could experience a cooling effect even when the overall average is going up..
Like you said, it's based on a trend, and just like the value of a stock, the year to year changes aren't as important as the big picture.
Having said that, there are numerous factors that can affect climate change and not all are human induced. I think there is a legitimate debate on how much of a role humans play, but not on whether or not we play a role. The science is solid on that.