Global warming vs. climate change

John over at "Kona - a pedestrian view" writes about his confusion on global warming, and I agree with him, it's a confused press release that probably reports the research inaccurately and leaves several details out. The article he comments on claims that the Earth had a warm atmosphere with freezing temperatures. That's nonsense of course, and I suspect it's down to lazy reporting.

Although I'm no expert on atmospheric science, I do know what effect CO2 has in the atmosphere as it affects infrared astronomy. It is a particularly efficient absorber of infrared radiation which is why it's such an important molecule in climate research - it lets sunlight reach the Earth's surface, but the infrared radiation that's then re-emitted from the surface is absorbed by CO2 and hence the atmosphere is warmed. Not such a bad thing really because without "greenhouse" gases such as CO2 the planet would be uninhabitable. Of course, too much of a good thing can be bad.

This is one of the main reasons I despise the term "global warming". Although it may be correct in a global term - the more greenhouse gases we have in the the atmosphere the more likely it is to become warmer - there are enough studies to show that some areas will become colder, some will become dryer, some wetter and some may not notice a thing at all. On the whole though, the Earth's temperature will rise, unless of course we get more clouds which reflect sunlight and etc. etc. - you get the message.

"Climate change" is a much better and more accurate term and I wish it had been used earlier. I have noticed that the term is becoming used a little more often than it used to and hopefully that's because people are becoming a little more educated about the environment. I'm fed up , for instance, listening to the more loony talk shows that have everyone calling in saying it's the coldest day in 30 years here, so what's all this nonsense about global warming?

As for my own experience with science press releases, well, I rarely believe much that's written in them and always prefer to go to the source if possible. I have actually been (un)fortunate enough to be named in the odd press release, one or two on the BBC website as well would you believe, but I'll never forget the first one.

The initial release said that our group had rediscovered a star that had been been lost for sixty years. Well, the truth was that the group had made a chemistry/physics discovery that shed light on a problem about something called the "diffuse interstellar bands" (DIBs) - astronomical spectroscopic features that today are still not definitely identified, so we don't know what molecules in space are causing them. The first DIBs were discovered about 60 years before the press release was written...

Although it would have been a great discovery, unfortunately we never did find a lost star.

By the way, happy new year everyone. The last one sucked and this one surely can't be worse.