climate change language

it seems that the terms 'climate' and 'weather' in the popular lexicon are alternately synonymous or non-synonymous in an incorrect way, according to survey-based research completed by ann bostrom at georgia tech.

what are the implications for the phrases that we use to discuss the increase in the mean temperature of the surface of the earth?

weather happens in a place, at a particular time and refers to the meteorological conditions of temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, wind speed, and clarity.

climate refers to long-term trends in the patters of weather in a particular place. it may be measured in terms of absolute extremes, means, and frequencies in the previously mentioned weather properties.

if this difference is not understood, it becomes possible for the phrase "climate change" to indicate changes in day-to-day weather patterns. "sure, the climate is changing all the time: there are four seasons, aren't there? what's the problem?"

"global warming" is not much better. with this choice, a very cold winter day becomes evidence against a veritable consensus of scientific certainty on the issue. it's why stories like this get attention, and why this dumbass can wake up and think that he’s a genius because he knows that it’s all a vast, left-wing conspiracy. it’s because this term does not capture the gamut of possible changes to the climate that can result from an increase in average mean temperature (if the term is understood properly). "sea-level rise, coral bleaching, species extinction? just because of a temperature change? can't we grow more food?" people are not good at thinking about non-linearity, nor are they good at thinking about temporally- or spatially-separated causation.

then we want to propose solutions..."you want me to drive less? LOL"

i've recently been using the first term exclusively because of its inclusivity, but the issue of weather has thrown me for a loop. there’s also the issue of some enviros claiming that “climate change” has been usurped by big business and that we should continue using “global warming.” but then we arrive back at some of the previous issues.

it seems that neither of the titles is very good? cold winter days are seen as anti-evidence, while summer heat waves and hurricanes are evidence but for the wrong reasons.

is a new term needed? what is it? maybe if we were able to access some of the pre-existing mental models using innovative communication strategies, by communicating scientific results more effectively by making them more relevant to the daily lives of individuals, by lowering barriers to action and motivating that action. by making people care! how do we do that?

emergence

the author says:

fuck this

the author says:

making a blog

the author says:

http://academicpolemic.blogspot.com/

old man. says:

nice

old man. says:

im digging it...

old man. says:

ill frequent it...and make comments on my realm of knowledge

the author says:

sick

the author says:

i'll try to post from what i'm working on...but bring in other insights

old man. says:

pure science?

old man. says:

im not sure what that is... whats wrong with polemics?

old man. says:

i guess polemics are speculative

old man. says:

?

the author says:

pure science, just like, experiments

the author says:

musing on science for the sake of science

the author says:

when i think polemics, i think, firery

the author says:

highly critical

the author says:

combative

old man. says:

yes same here

old man. says:

but what is wrong with that?

the author says:

it's just hardly ever done in academics!

old man. says:

i guess so...

the author says:

haha

the author says:

you're totally deflating me

the author says:

i'm thinkinng about it as anti-science, but also informed by science

the author says:

like, if we take (climate) science to it's logical conclusion, we have to be polemical

the author says:

we need to be critical of pretty much everything going on

the author says:

and bring that into our academic work

the author says:

it can't just float around on top of everything else

old man. says:

no sorry...my prof just sent me an email...telling me what i needed for a deadline...where upon they decide whether they will let you finish or not...and im shitting myself cuz im not close to any of the requirements

the author says:

oh shit

the author says:

OK, git 'er done

the author says:

i'm posting this conversation on the blog

old man. says:

but no i just gotta forget about it...we can have this discussion

the author says:

haha

old man. says:

so you're saying that polemical works are normally disregarded?

the author says:

not necessarily

the author says:

just that they're rare

the author says:

most people that operate within science don't try to connect it to anything in their lives

the author says:

i mean, it's hard, in a lot of disciplines, but that's a problem with Science in general

the author says:

within my discipline(s) i _can_ connect it, and if i do, i see the need to be iconoclastic, everywhere

the author says:

with respect to growth, consumption, capitalism, politics

the author says:

etc

the author says:

and the fact is that not a lot of people (although some, for sure) are getting into it enough, connecting the things that they're doing with what's actually happening

the author says:

taking it to its logical endpoint, and writing things that are highly critical and questioning

the author says:

so i just realized that this morning

the author says:

when looking at this other blog

the author says:

and how immersed in science it was

old man. says:

and how it sorta misses on other points -- and has no connection with other aspects of society?

the author says:

right.

the author says:

but ostensibly some of the smartest people in the world are working on sciencey things

the author says:

and wouldn't it be great if we could get them thinking about these issues?

the author says:

or things that could actually improve lives.

old man. says:

well i think there are multiple think tanks which contain a large cross-section of different disciplines -- but ya... i think you're right in academia it is rare

the author says:

i don't think there's anything wrong with monodisciplinary pursuits

the author says:

except when they're totally for their own sake

old man. says:

well ya... so how do you plan on approaching the next step in your blog?

old man. says:

will you be raising certain issues to be discussed?

the author says:

i think that i'll try to discuss specific things that i'm working on

the author says:

and how they relate to the other issues that i'd like to discuss

the author says:

but sure, raising specific issues for discussion unrelated to my work

the author says:

but related to Science or Academics would also work

the author says:

i think i should start out trying to post like twice a week

the author says:

and go from there

the author says:

that's a good amount of writing

old man. says:

ya ya for sure...

old man. says:

i mean do all arguments have to be well formulated?

the author says:

no , of course not

the author says:

but everything should be iconoclastic in some way

the author says:

questioning, incisive

old man. says:

oh ok...iconoclasm as a concept

old man. says:

im thinking about a different iconoclasm

the author says:

how do you understand it?

old man. says:

iconoclasm...as i understood occured within fine art where medieval art communicated bliblical stories and ideas with symbols (objects) within the scenery

old man. says:

then the iconoclast ruptured the meaning from object...

old man. says:

so its basically the same thing

the author says:

right

the author says:

i understand it as basically tearing down icons

old man. says:

ya but i thought u were refering to particular icons of science...which...i dont know of

the author says:

where 'icons' are pervasive cultural mental models

the author says:

about markets, eating, science, consumption, etc

the author says:

etc

the author says:

anything

the author says:

everything.

old man. says:

dude im totally down with that

the author says:

sick.

old man. says:

against method... totally pwns

old man. says:

you should read it

the author says:

yeah, i had it signed out last year

the author says:

but never did

the author says:

i will make another effort this quarter

old man. says:

i love it...i dont understand the sciencey stuff...but that arguments humilitating logic with...logic is awesome. and gives a lot of fragility to deduction and science ingeneral

questions

what else could i write if not for academic polemics? Science? Policy? why not bring both of these things together--using the former to inform the latter, while maintaining an iconoclasm that is largely lacking in the mainstream academic literature?

has these been attempted before? surely. within my unique nexus of civil engineering/(transportation, climate) policy/modeling? perhaps not.