LogFAQs > #882282472

ParanoidObsessive posted...

They changed from "global warming" to "climate change" because there was a very real need to distinguish the fact that a major climate shift didn't necessarily mean an increase in temperature (especially when there is evidence to suggest melting ice-caps and a subsequently deeper ocean may actually turn overall temperatures colder), and that there are climate factors other than temperature that need to be considered (like desertification of areas, or even more complex factors like conflicting day/night temperature cycles).

I don't think this is really the case, I've certainly never read it as described that way. It is common for climate scientists or papers to refer to global warming. The direct result of carbon dioxide concentrations is an increase in global temperatures, therefore the terminology is accurate. Other issues stem from that, and there are certainly other factors that come into play like releases of natural methane that can exacerbate human contributions, but it's in no way inaccurate to discuss it in terms of global warming. The IPCC still uses a two degree temperature increase as their threshold for what we should avoid, and average global temperatures are still the primary means of measuring the impact of climate change. The term itself is not flawed, though it does not imply the full extent of climate changes unless you are already familiar with the effects of global temperatures.

The existing term to refer to man made climate change is anthropogenic climate change or global warming. It's in wide use within the scientific community.

In terms of numbers about how much of the warming is man made, that's difficult to specify, because again, human influence affects natural processes. If you look at a chart of projected warming, there's always a high degree of uncertainty. But the 2013 IPCC report gave a 95%+ chance that more than half of all warming was caused by human activity.
---

http://i.imgur.com/LMlbYI7.gif