Agreed. I've always thought "climate change" was weak. Easy to say "Climate has always been changing," as per the wonderful new speaker of the US House of "Representatives."
I liked greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect better. Since I live in a still modestly agricultural area, I like to say we are triple-glazing the planetary greenhouse with methane and CO2. "Heat trapping" as per Mr. Knott. Folks seem to get that. Also that the "heat trapping" was figured out 150 years ago, and the "climate models" just try to calculate in detail when and where the effects of that heat trapping are manifest.
You are so right - language is vital. As a UK climate action charity (Carboncopy.eco), we have recently reviewed all of the language we use, and have adopted the following: 'climate breakdown' instead of 'climate change'; 'methane' gas instead of 'natural gas'; 'heat-trapping pollution' instead of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, etc. We now also avoid using 'carbon footprint', which was a term devised by BP's advertising agency twenty years ago, once they finally gave up denying human-caused global heating, to try and persuade us that our behaviour is the problem - not theirs.
Thank you for the updated language to use for describing these wild hurricane intensifications caused by heat trapping pollution. Back in August hurricane Idalia went from a tropical storm to a Cat 4 Hurricane in 24 hours. That was a record for the Atlantic. As per Wikipedia; By 09:00 UTC on August 29, after passing near the western tip of Cuba, Idalia had developed an inner core and almost complete eyewall and the NHC upgraded the storm to a Category 1 hurricane.[9] Later that day, Idalia began to rapidly intensify, reaching Category 2 strength[10] as it benefited from exceptional conditions, with sea-surface temperatures of 88 °F (31 °C), generally low wind shear, and high relative humidity levels.[11] Idalia continued to rapidly intensify as it accelerated northward off the Florida Suncoast and approached the Big Bend region, reaching its peak intensity of Category 4 strength on the morning of August 30, a few hours prior to landfall, with maximum sustained winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 940 mbar (27.76 inHg).[12] This marked a wind increase of 55 mph (89 km/h) during the 24 hour period ending at 09:00 UTC on August 30, making it one of fastest rates of tropical cyclone intensification ever observed in the Atlantic basin 24 hours before landfall.
Now the Pacific Ocean at Mexico has one that intensified to Cat 5 Hurricane status in 12 hours. As per Wikipedia; Hurricane Otis was a small but very powerful tropical cyclone which made landfall near Acapulco as a Category 5 hurricane. Otis was the first Pacific hurricane to make landfall at Category 5 intensity and surpassed Hurricane Patricia as the strongest landfalling Pacific hurricane on record. The fifteenth tropical storm, tenth hurricane, eighth major hurricane,[nb 1] and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2023 Pacific hurricane season, Otis originated from a disturbance several hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec. Initially forecast to only be a weak tropical storm at peak intensity, Otis instead underwent explosive intensification to reach peak winds of 165 mph (270 km/h) and made landfall at peak intensity.
Industrial agriculture, particularly industrial animal agriculture, is a third rail that politicians and the media won't touch.
So many societies have traditionally been herders or pastoralists, we feel it's in our DNA, and maybe it is. It's questionable whether it's ever been sustainable, or whether it's always driven territorial expansion and conflict as new forests are cut down to make way for animals that have over-grazed their welcome.
On a trip to Dartmoor, England, this summer, I learned that the bronze age stone circles were from huts that been abandoned once the inhabitants' sheep and cattle had turned the last of the forest into the moorland it is today. And now we're cutting down the Amazon.
My understanding of the origins of the term "climate change" is that it was a term promoted by conservatives specifically because it's more ambiguous than "global warming." We should indeed be talking about the climate crisis in more direct terms.
Fossil fuel emissions have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere in exactly the same way that steroids change the blood chemistry of a sports player who juices themselves to perform better.
We stop players from juicing themselves because of the negative consequences to their health and to the sports that they play. We need to stop fossil fuel emissions from being injected into the atmosphere (and oceans) because of the negative consequences to the planet's web of life and to humans who live on it.
Keep pounding in that message: it's starting to actually be heard. Steroids may provide a short time boost to the lives of the players who use it, in the same way that fossil fuels have provided a boost to the human race, but by comparing it to steroid use, it flips fossil fuels from a net positive to a net negative that folks can relate to.
Agree with everything in this article, just wish I was learning about this intensification phenomenon under better circumstances. I feel bad because I am constantly learning so much from HEATED and elsewhere but it is within the context of climate catastrophe.
I did think from the headline it was going to be a call for scientists and others to officially change the wording from "climate change" to "climate crisis" or something similar.
Don't mean anything negative by that at all and the information in this article and the request for other reporters is better than mine imo. Just that I have been thinking about a better way to convey what climate change actually is and the urgency of it, mainly because of your push to change natural gas to methane gas.
Unified reporting that informs people what is causing the climate crisis is ultimately what needs to happen to solve this problem, so don't be embarrassed at all for arguing for better journalism.
Climate change denial is like telling a three year old who builds a stack of blocks and then pushes it down to knock it over that they didn't have anything to do with making it tumble.
Nigel, as you refuse to stop calling me names, I'm afraid I'm going to have to suspend you again. As I've said before, your comments repeatedly show you are not engaging in good faith with anything I'm saying or any of the facts I provide, nor are you engaging in good faith with any of my readers. Your comments repeatedly show you are here primarily to use the platform I built to spread your own views and your own content, with no regard for what I say. And I want to be clear: You are welcome to have a platform to spread your views and the content you create! But if that's what you want, you should create your own. Because it is frankly inappropriate to use the community I created specifically to be able to foster community around wanting to solve climate change, and use it for the express purpose of promoting your own work and disparaging me and my readers.
I don't get the "illogic" of the climate change deniers. Don't they live on the same planet as the rest of us??????
P.S. Feniq is adorable and should be given many treats, immediately if not sooner!
Agreed. I've always thought "climate change" was weak. Easy to say "Climate has always been changing," as per the wonderful new speaker of the US House of "Representatives."
I liked greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect better. Since I live in a still modestly agricultural area, I like to say we are triple-glazing the planetary greenhouse with methane and CO2. "Heat trapping" as per Mr. Knott. Folks seem to get that. Also that the "heat trapping" was figured out 150 years ago, and the "climate models" just try to calculate in detail when and where the effects of that heat trapping are manifest.
You are so right - language is vital. As a UK climate action charity (Carboncopy.eco), we have recently reviewed all of the language we use, and have adopted the following: 'climate breakdown' instead of 'climate change'; 'methane' gas instead of 'natural gas'; 'heat-trapping pollution' instead of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, etc. We now also avoid using 'carbon footprint', which was a term devised by BP's advertising agency twenty years ago, once they finally gave up denying human-caused global heating, to try and persuade us that our behaviour is the problem - not theirs.
Thank you for the updated language to use for describing these wild hurricane intensifications caused by heat trapping pollution. Back in August hurricane Idalia went from a tropical storm to a Cat 4 Hurricane in 24 hours. That was a record for the Atlantic. As per Wikipedia; By 09:00 UTC on August 29, after passing near the western tip of Cuba, Idalia had developed an inner core and almost complete eyewall and the NHC upgraded the storm to a Category 1 hurricane.[9] Later that day, Idalia began to rapidly intensify, reaching Category 2 strength[10] as it benefited from exceptional conditions, with sea-surface temperatures of 88 °F (31 °C), generally low wind shear, and high relative humidity levels.[11] Idalia continued to rapidly intensify as it accelerated northward off the Florida Suncoast and approached the Big Bend region, reaching its peak intensity of Category 4 strength on the morning of August 30, a few hours prior to landfall, with maximum sustained winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 940 mbar (27.76 inHg).[12] This marked a wind increase of 55 mph (89 km/h) during the 24 hour period ending at 09:00 UTC on August 30, making it one of fastest rates of tropical cyclone intensification ever observed in the Atlantic basin 24 hours before landfall.
Now the Pacific Ocean at Mexico has one that intensified to Cat 5 Hurricane status in 12 hours. As per Wikipedia; Hurricane Otis was a small but very powerful tropical cyclone which made landfall near Acapulco as a Category 5 hurricane. Otis was the first Pacific hurricane to make landfall at Category 5 intensity and surpassed Hurricane Patricia as the strongest landfalling Pacific hurricane on record. The fifteenth tropical storm, tenth hurricane, eighth major hurricane,[nb 1] and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2023 Pacific hurricane season, Otis originated from a disturbance several hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec. Initially forecast to only be a weak tropical storm at peak intensity, Otis instead underwent explosive intensification to reach peak winds of 165 mph (270 km/h) and made landfall at peak intensity.
Yes, heat-trapping pollution is a thing.
Industrial agriculture, particularly industrial animal agriculture, is a third rail that politicians and the media won't touch.
So many societies have traditionally been herders or pastoralists, we feel it's in our DNA, and maybe it is. It's questionable whether it's ever been sustainable, or whether it's always driven territorial expansion and conflict as new forests are cut down to make way for animals that have over-grazed their welcome.
On a trip to Dartmoor, England, this summer, I learned that the bronze age stone circles were from huts that been abandoned once the inhabitants' sheep and cattle had turned the last of the forest into the moorland it is today. And now we're cutting down the Amazon.
My understanding of the origins of the term "climate change" is that it was a term promoted by conservatives specifically because it's more ambiguous than "global warming." We should indeed be talking about the climate crisis in more direct terms.
The Cost.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/24/the-climate-crisis-has-a-price-and-its-391-million-a-day.html
Fossil fuel emissions have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere in exactly the same way that steroids change the blood chemistry of a sports player who juices themselves to perform better.
We stop players from juicing themselves because of the negative consequences to their health and to the sports that they play. We need to stop fossil fuel emissions from being injected into the atmosphere (and oceans) because of the negative consequences to the planet's web of life and to humans who live on it.
Keep pounding in that message: it's starting to actually be heard. Steroids may provide a short time boost to the lives of the players who use it, in the same way that fossil fuels have provided a boost to the human race, but by comparing it to steroid use, it flips fossil fuels from a net positive to a net negative that folks can relate to.
Agree with everything in this article, just wish I was learning about this intensification phenomenon under better circumstances. I feel bad because I am constantly learning so much from HEATED and elsewhere but it is within the context of climate catastrophe.
I did think from the headline it was going to be a call for scientists and others to officially change the wording from "climate change" to "climate crisis" or something similar.
Don't mean anything negative by that at all and the information in this article and the request for other reporters is better than mine imo. Just that I have been thinking about a better way to convey what climate change actually is and the urgency of it, mainly because of your push to change natural gas to methane gas.
Unified reporting that informs people what is causing the climate crisis is ultimately what needs to happen to solve this problem, so don't be embarrassed at all for arguing for better journalism.
Climate change denial is like telling a three year old who builds a stack of blocks and then pushes it down to knock it over that they didn't have anything to do with making it tumble.
Nigel, as you refuse to stop calling me names, I'm afraid I'm going to have to suspend you again. As I've said before, your comments repeatedly show you are not engaging in good faith with anything I'm saying or any of the facts I provide, nor are you engaging in good faith with any of my readers. Your comments repeatedly show you are here primarily to use the platform I built to spread your own views and your own content, with no regard for what I say. And I want to be clear: You are welcome to have a platform to spread your views and the content you create! But if that's what you want, you should create your own. Because it is frankly inappropriate to use the community I created specifically to be able to foster community around wanting to solve climate change, and use it for the express purpose of promoting your own work and disparaging me and my readers.