That I knew, but the phrasing seems sarcastic towards climate change, that’s mainly what i wanted clarity on.
Building on your answer, if the Gulf Stream were to break, Europe’s temperatures would drop, and at the moment there is still no understanding of how close we are to the Gulf Stream collapsing.
To answer your question, it was indeed a sarcastic comment on the BS surrounding CC being somehow more politically acceptable than the truth of GW. I’ve never been a proud American (in part because of the truth in “pride goeth before a fall,” even though I’m not religious), but I’ve never been less proud than I’ve been forced to become over the past couple of decades.
As the other commenter said, Global Warming fell out of favor because it underlines only one part of the full problem. The weather in most places is getting warmer, but other things are also happening connected to it: extreme events are becoming more and more common, such as drought, flooding and forest fires, that might not seem included in the wording global warming but is clearly described by climate change.
While that’s true, in America at least the fact that average global temperatures are rising in large part due to human activities has been a significant point of contention with conservatives who seemingly instinctively deny responsibility for anything negative that they and/or their preferred policies are contributing to. They fought against “Global Warming” tooth and nail despite the documented facts. They more begrudgingly accepted “Climate Change” because it could at least be spun more easily into outcomes that didn’t make them look so bad.
I see… thanks for explaining where you were coming from! I honestly only vaguely remember the times when Global Warming was the naming, and here countries are mostly springing in action when talking about the ramifications of Climate Change. Even if we hardly tackle the root cause… :/
The science is still very unclear, both from a modeling perspective (what are the pieces of the puzzle and how to connect them), a simplified perspective (what pieces are most important) and a theoretical perspective (what typical behavior should we detect close to the collapse).
Unfortunately, the latter one’s answer seems to be that close to bifurcations in statistical differential equations the variance of a system increases. Decrypting the math: close to a sudden change, we should experience a wider variety of events that usual, in particular more extreme events. This seems to be happening to the AMOC, but support for the claim is still weak and unclear (because the modeling is unclear, so we don’t know what pieces should be included in the problem).
That I knew, but the phrasing seems sarcastic towards climate change, that’s mainly what i wanted clarity on.
Building on your answer, if the Gulf Stream were to break, Europe’s temperatures would drop, and at the moment there is still no understanding of how close we are to the Gulf Stream collapsing.
To answer your question, it was indeed a sarcastic comment on the BS surrounding CC being somehow more politically acceptable than the truth of GW. I’ve never been a proud American (in part because of the truth in “pride goeth before a fall,” even though I’m not religious), but I’ve never been less proud than I’ve been forced to become over the past couple of decades.
As the other commenter said, Global Warming fell out of favor because it underlines only one part of the full problem. The weather in most places is getting warmer, but other things are also happening connected to it: extreme events are becoming more and more common, such as drought, flooding and forest fires, that might not seem included in the wording global warming but is clearly described by climate change.
While that’s true, in America at least the fact that average global temperatures are rising in large part due to human activities has been a significant point of contention with conservatives who seemingly instinctively deny responsibility for anything negative that they and/or their preferred policies are contributing to. They fought against “Global Warming” tooth and nail despite the documented facts. They more begrudgingly accepted “Climate Change” because it could at least be spun more easily into outcomes that didn’t make them look so bad.
I see… thanks for explaining where you were coming from! I honestly only vaguely remember the times when Global Warming was the naming, and here countries are mostly springing in action when talking about the ramifications of Climate Change. Even if we hardly tackle the root cause… :/
Let’s not forget this very real threat
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/rivers-oceans/collapse-of-key-atlantic-currents-may-be-held-off-by-newly-discovered-back-up-system-study-finds
The science is still very unclear, both from a modeling perspective (what are the pieces of the puzzle and how to connect them), a simplified perspective (what pieces are most important) and a theoretical perspective (what typical behavior should we detect close to the collapse).
Unfortunately, the latter one’s answer seems to be that close to bifurcations in statistical differential equations the variance of a system increases. Decrypting the math: close to a sudden change, we should experience a wider variety of events that usual, in particular more extreme events. This seems to be happening to the AMOC, but support for the claim is still weak and unclear (because the modeling is unclear, so we don’t know what pieces should be included in the problem).