<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Climate and Weather: Does your TV weather reporter get it?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:17:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jim Thomerson		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486126</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Thomerson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486126</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Is your meteorologist a certified meteorologist?  If so there will be a little blue rectangle, with indecipherable letters, somewhere on the screen from time to time.

Climate is the average over the last 30 years.  Climate change happens as the new year is added, and the now 31st year dropped off.   Thus the drought of the 1950&#039;s no longer has any effect on the climate of Texas.   This is the usual climate change, and not what is discussed here.  Here we are talking climate change as an effect of continued, fairly rapid, global warming.  The question about a particular weather event is how was it affected by increased global temperature.  It is generally a matter of rate and frequency change, which is difficult for many folks to understand.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is your meteorologist a certified meteorologist?  If so there will be a little blue rectangle, with indecipherable letters, somewhere on the screen from time to time.</p>
<p>Climate is the average over the last 30 years.  Climate change happens as the new year is added, and the now 31st year dropped off.   Thus the drought of the 1950&#8217;s no longer has any effect on the climate of Texas.   This is the usual climate change, and not what is discussed here.  Here we are talking climate change as an effect of continued, fairly rapid, global warming.  The question about a particular weather event is how was it affected by increased global temperature.  It is generally a matter of rate and frequency change, which is difficult for many folks to understand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Joe B.		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486125</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe B.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486125</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the early 2000&#039;s Frank Luntz  suggested to the Bush administration that they shift from &quot;global warming&quot; to &quot;climate change&quot; as a communications strategy to neutralize the environmentalists.    
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the early 2000&#8217;s Frank Luntz  suggested to the Bush administration that they shift from &#8220;global warming&#8221; to &#8220;climate change&#8221; as a communications strategy to neutralize the environmentalists.<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486124</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486124</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think this larger phenomenon may have played out differently (somewhat) among different subgroups of people.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this larger phenomenon may have played out differently (somewhat) among different subgroups of people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve Bloom		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486123</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Bloom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486123</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[OK, wrong. :)

I did see the chart, thanks.

Re right-wingers, what I observed (first-hand, extensively), but starting only maybe in the middle of the last decade, was a pretense that &quot;alarmists&quot; were shifting to use CC because GW had been discredited.  Is that what you were referring to?  Subsequent to that, I think there has been a tendency to shift more toward use of CC, not because of right-wing carping but because of a growing awareness of non-temperature-related effects that CC seems to encompass better, albeit far from ideally.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, wrong. 🙂</p>
<p>I did see the chart, thanks.</p>
<p>Re right-wingers, what I observed (first-hand, extensively), but starting only maybe in the middle of the last decade, was a pretense that &#8220;alarmists&#8221; were shifting to use CC because GW had been discredited.  Is that what you were referring to?  Subsequent to that, I think there has been a tendency to shift more toward use of CC, not because of right-wing carping but because of a growing awareness of non-temperature-related effects that CC seems to encompass better, albeit far from ideally.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486122</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486122</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Steve, I&#039;m not sure if &quot;ahistorical&quot; is the word you are looking for here, and I have no idea how that would apply to me. Perhaps you mean &quot;wrong.&quot;

Anyway, Wally did coin the term Global Warming, in 1975, but yes, &quot;climate change&quot; was a right wing attempt at dogwhistling, but correct, they did not invent it.  

Did you see this,  I put it up yesterday: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, I&#8217;m not sure if &#8220;ahistorical&#8221; is the word you are looking for here, and I have no idea how that would apply to me. Perhaps you mean &#8220;wrong.&#8221;</p>
<p>Anyway, Wally did coin the term Global Warming, in 1975, but yes, &#8220;climate change&#8221; was a right wing attempt at dogwhistling, but correct, they did not invent it.  </p>
<p>Did you see this,  I put it up yesterday: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Formanek		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486121</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Formanek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486121</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[oh, yeah, acidification. OK.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh, yeah, acidification. OK.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve Bloom		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486120</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Bloom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486120</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Human-caused global climate disruption&quot; is perhaps best, but probably hard to get adopted.

Also, Greg, you may be a little ahistorical in terms of the evolution of the use of the terms.  GW had the early start thanks to Wally Broecker&#039;s original coinage, and CC got a leg up ~1990 with the IPCC/UNFCCC, but  AFAIK was never a term especially favored by the right wing.  Environmentalists used GW predominantly until fairly recently.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Human-caused global climate disruption&#8221; is perhaps best, but probably hard to get adopted.</p>
<p>Also, Greg, you may be a little ahistorical in terms of the evolution of the use of the terms.  GW had the early start thanks to Wally Broecker&#8217;s original coinage, and CC got a leg up ~1990 with the IPCC/UNFCCC, but  AFAIK was never a term especially favored by the right wing.  Environmentalists used GW predominantly until fairly recently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486119</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486119</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In consideration of David&#039;s comment, I posted this for fun: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In consideration of David&#8217;s comment, I posted this for fun: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/20/climate-change-vs-global-warming/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486118</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486118</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[David, actually the term &quot;climate change&quot; was initially a right wing pushoff, but it was then systematically grabbed and used by the climate hawks (a little like &quot;obamcare&quot;) because we don&#039;t want to ignore other very important outcomes of the release of copious fossil carbon into the atmosphere.  Large storms and  ocean acidification are results that don&#039;t match the label &quot;global warming&quot; and the latter is not about warming at all. At a more immediate level, big changes in the distribution of both hot and cold air masses and changes in ocean currents, etc. are related to warming but themselves are not necessarily warming.

So now you&#039;ll hear &quot;climate change&quot; as the term used by all of the pro-environment activists.  Or at least, they should be.  

Gleick&#039;s writeup is insightful and interesting and worth a read. But, our understanding of climate now compared to then is hugely more advanced. It also can lead people to think that we can&#039;t understand climate, what with all those butterflies interfering with the process. At the time Gleick wrote that, there were huge unknowns in how climate worked and how it related to local weather.  Glieck&#039;s book came out in 1987.  The idea of ENSO emerged during the 1980s and the understanding that it was actually one of the butterflies did not become clear until after 1990, for example.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, actually the term &#8220;climate change&#8221; was initially a right wing pushoff, but it was then systematically grabbed and used by the climate hawks (a little like &#8220;obamcare&#8221;) because we don&#8217;t want to ignore other very important outcomes of the release of copious fossil carbon into the atmosphere.  Large storms and  ocean acidification are results that don&#8217;t match the label &#8220;global warming&#8221; and the latter is not about warming at all. At a more immediate level, big changes in the distribution of both hot and cold air masses and changes in ocean currents, etc. are related to warming but themselves are not necessarily warming.</p>
<p>So now you&#8217;ll hear &#8220;climate change&#8221; as the term used by all of the pro-environment activists.  Or at least, they should be.  </p>
<p>Gleick&#8217;s writeup is insightful and interesting and worth a read. But, our understanding of climate now compared to then is hugely more advanced. It also can lead people to think that we can&#8217;t understand climate, what with all those butterflies interfering with the process. At the time Gleick wrote that, there were huge unknowns in how climate worked and how it related to local weather.  Glieck&#8217;s book came out in 1987.  The idea of ENSO emerged during the 1980s and the understanding that it was actually one of the butterflies did not become clear until after 1990, for example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Formanek		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/02/20/climate-and-weather-does-your-tv-weather-reporter-get-it/#comment-486117</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Formanek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=15926#comment-486117</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The term &quot;climate change&quot; is a Republican denialist propaganda victory. Global warming is what is happening; the climate change  we are experiencing is not a normal passive occurrence, but a result of it.
For a relationship between climate and weather, see (it&#039;s not  easy to read and follow) James Gleick&#039;s _Chaos,_ in which MIT meteorologists conclude that there is no climate, it is only the summation of weathers.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The term &#8220;climate change&#8221; is a Republican denialist propaganda victory. Global warming is what is happening; the climate change  we are experiencing is not a normal passive occurrence, but a result of it.<br />
For a relationship between climate and weather, see (it&#8217;s not  easy to read and follow) James Gleick&#8217;s _Chaos,_ in which MIT meteorologists conclude that there is no climate, it is only the summation of weathers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
