On page 9 of the Rough Guide, you can see the IPCC’s change in wording between 1995 and 2007 on the certainty of human-induced global warming. Why this change? On what basis did the scientific community decide on stronger wording?
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
haduro, 
sampethick, 
brenden, and 26 others are discussing.
jenniefrench 3:50 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The IPCC’s wording is noticeably stronger in 2007 than in 2001 and 1995. I believe that as more research was done and reviewed over time it became clearer that the change in climate, the trend towards warmer temperatures, could not be explained by climate models that did not include the anthropogenic causes of climate change. As well, between 1995 and 2007 more data was collected and analyzed, leading to a clearer understanding of the climate issue.
In one of my other courses we discussed this change too. This wording comes from what I believe is called the Policy Makers Summary, or Executive Summary – this is the small, but key section in the IPCC report that is directed at Policy Makers (ie politicians etc), and attempts to summarize the key points of their 1000s of pages of report. So the wording and phrasing in this section is very conscious. I believe the phrasing changed and became stronger because the scientific research and methods became clearer and more effective, and it was necessary for the IPCC to poignantly and clearly state the current findings of climate scientists, as it could effect policy and choices made that would effect the general public.
roypat 7:14 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The IPCC’s wording shows a marked change over time I think due to the progressive sureness that the current degree of climate change was not brought on by “natural” causes. What started off as more of a precautionary note in 1991 turned into a warning by 2007 likely because some of the measures of climate change available in 1991 had been monitored over time until 2007, where climate change from human-sources became even more evident.
sophiale 10:25 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Roy that the IPCC changed their wording because of all of the research done surrounding the speculation of whether or not natural causes played a significant part in climate change. Once research was done, and they found that humans played an extremely significant role in climate change, they realized that they had to make their message extremely clear in saying that humans are the main reasons why climate change is happening. I also think that their 2007 message was very urgent and I think they wanted people to realize that not only are humans the cause for this rapid climate change, but that we must do something about it NOW before it proceeds to get any more worse.
msmith92 4:19 pm on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like noted above, the IPCC began to use different terms in order to more accurately and urgently describe the climate change is occurring. Once it was determined that climate change was in fact occurring and that humans were influencing these changes, it became vital that the term used accurately reflected what was going on. Similarly, in order to grab peoples’ attention, it becomes important that the vocabulary indicates that we are at fault. That is why there is a notable switch the less specific and less intimidating, “climate change”, to the more specific but only slightly more intimidating, “global warming”. Lastly, although I don’t think this term is as widespread, “global heating” is the most intimidating as it directly links humans to climate change.
sharonshi 10:44 pm on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Jennie’s point about the research that could have sparked the change in wording. Once confirmed, the IPCC had to reword it’s statement in order to increase or maintain it’s validity. In addition, they changed it due to the fact that the human activities to which attributed global climate change was heightened. This caused a need for the IPCC to directly address the issue and ensure that the cause and effect relationship is ubiquitously known. If however, the statement was not re-worded, it would be vague enough to be overlooked or attributed to other causes. Moreover, the change of “stronger” wording can indeed induce a more significant effect. Just a quick read of the three statements show that. A simple change from “suggest” to “is” provides a different feeling. One, a feeling of dis concern and uncertainty, and the other a signal of importance.
youngblutt 11:15 am on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Following it’s 1995 report, the ICPP had most of the scientific community either gazing at it with curious eyes or shrugging with only mild interest. Moreover, it continued to be greeted by the global political community with authoritarian disdain. “The Labcoats telling the Suits what is good for the people, Hogwash!” The passive, non-accusatory language of the 1995 report was an effort to tread lightly until more irrefutable, observed evidence could be collected, supported and shared.
By 2007, the IPCC and the scientific community had garnered enough colleague support and even some political, media and civilian support to plant it’s feet firmly in the ground (looking down at state leaders whose heads were still stuck in the sand). The evidence pointed to an immediate need for reformations in the way industrialized societies “progressed”. So devastating were the predictions of climate models at this time that the scientific community elected for an intensified discourse and a change in the strength and confidence of the language in their reports.
paige 7:13 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Between 1995 and 2007 the IPCC became more certain of the factors contributing to climate change. With this increased knowledge they were able to release reports with more definitive wording about the causes for the public, more specifically highlighting the human factor. By being more serious and direct in their wording the public has to take more responsibility for climate change that affects all of as individuals and as a collective. They gathered information to back this wording through different studies. By comparing results of models with greenhouse gas causes and non-greenhouse gas causes to the actual data from our world greenhouse gases were able to be implicated. By considering the methods the natural world has for counteracting these gases, such as carbon sink rainforests, it is easy to see where the human influence has aided in global warming. Because of the increased interest in the topics and therefore further study, the IPCC was able to gather enough data to justify the stronger wording of their statements.
bgibson 8:13 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It is clear that the IPCC uses progressively stronger and definitive statements as time progresses. I think the statement becomes more definitive as further scientific study provided increased evidence of human-induced global warming. Additionally, I believe the IPCC adopted stronger language to combat the increased amount of climate change denial rhetoric that was promoted in opposition to the “green movement.” I think it is important to note that “evidence” was removed from the statement between 2001 and 2007, which prevents naysayers from declaring that the science was not yet clear, or that scientists were unsure of the root causes for climate change.
brandond 8:46 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In reading this question again, I kind of realize that it may not be as open-ended as I would like. Those that have responded to it have done a pretty thorough job detailing the different factors behind the shift in the IPCC’s language. Maybe I can throw out some additional questions for those who may be struggling to come up with something new to say about the question.
As I was browsing over the Henson readings again, I was struck by a reference to the movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” This made me wonder about what kind of impact such movies have on popular perceptions toward climate change. I remember talking to my twelve-year-old nephew about climate change awhile back and I sensed his understanding of it seemed to totally come from Day after Tomorrow. To him global warming meant that someday we may actually live out a Hollywood movie, it would be almost like meeting a real-life zombie. What do you guys think this sort of thing actually means? I’m pretty sure my nephew’s views are fairly common. Are there positive and/or negative consequences toward the influence such films have in shaping attitudes toward climate change?
emilym 10:54 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the influence of pop-culture on our society has a huge effect on how we perceive the world. Hollywood movies, whether we realize it or not, factor into how we view the actual world and therefore have substantial power, both negative and positive, to shape the public’s attitudes towards an issue. “The Day After Tomorrow” certainly provides a startling, albeit unrealistic view of what could happen if climate change suddenly accelerated. Although the film romanticizes the whole affair, it still provides a kind of wake-up call to the general public that climate change is a serious concern and brought more awareness to the issue. Although the film is clearly not the most accurate description of what is happening with our natural environment, I think it can still provide a positive influence in terms of bringing awareness to the issue of global warming. However, one can also note the fact that many people do not explore the issue beyond what they see in Hollywood movies which distorts their view on the issue.
tsung18 12:15 am on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with emily in that pop-culture has a major influence on our society, especially with the younger generations. Hollywood asserts a very unrealistic view into our minds and some tend to fall into its fantasy world. Movies does not only serve the purpose of entertaining but like emily has said, it serves as a calling to remind us what is happening in the real world. Although many will miss this point and continue indulging into the unrealistic nature of cinema, it will still have an effect on each of us. “2012” is another movie that has people talking. The world ending this year seems very real to many people and just like “The Day After Tomorrow”, our thoughts and realizations are potentially based around these movies. Movies can offer positive insight and inspiration, however, it is important to realize that life is not a Hollywood movie and if we were to think realistically about global warming, “The Day After Tomorrow” and “2012” cannot be accounted for.
lcoulthard 4:32 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the consequences from these types of environmental films are largely negative in shaping attitudes towards climate change. The first and most obvious reason is that these films often show an inaccurate portrayal of what would actually happen if such events played out in the real world. The second reason that occurred to me came from what you said about your nephew, ” To him global warming meant that someday we may actually live out a Hollywood movie”. To me this shows that these factually false films may end up serving as a survival guidebook to uneducated audiences if a major environmental disaster were to strike. Somebody could easily be put in a situation similar to something they have seen in a film and then make decisions based upon that. they could do this either consciously (knowing a popular actor did the same) or subconsciously (split-second decision, brain makes choice based upon images left behind from films). On top of that, movies are filled with special-effects and main characters that are scripted to die, which gives an unrealistic impression of the actual events of a disaster unfolding.
On the other hand, despite these films having major inaccuracies they are still raising awareness about modern environmental issues. Somebody might watch “A Day After Tomorrow” who knew absolutely nothing about the issue at hand, then they might become inspired to raise their own awareness and of the other people in their lives.
jonl 10:03 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I also believe that these films have a negative effect, similar to others who have posted here. I do understand that film makers are in a constraint to show a possible consequence, especially if it is one that is gradual. They don’t have years to show the change, so they do the dramatic extreme. Of course these film makers are also trying to create a strong emotional reaction.
Doing this may rub many people the wrong way. I think it can make someone disbelieve something even more. “That can’t happen” reaction is natural because I think that we as humans are programmed to avoid what makes us uncomfortable. So in a film like “The Day After Tomorrow”, people will choose to believe that it is not possible, not probable and say “it’s just a film.” Because of this, these films will actually have a negative affect on shaping the attitudes towards global warming.
congo96 10:28 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
On the one hand I think a film like “The Day After Tomorrow” is positive because it brings awareness to the issue of climate change. The movie shows catastrophic consequences and although they might not be real possibilities they create a strong enough emotion that most people do think that left unchecked the effects of climate change could be catastrophic.
On the other hand I agree with the aforementioned view that such dramatic Hollywood film will cause some viewers to think “that would never happen” but I still believe that for the most part those film leave a big enough impression on the lay person thus raising awareness to the issue of climate change.
katehaxt 1:58 pm on January 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This conversation reminds me of something I was listening to on the radio about how to frame the issue of global warming in a way that best generates positive public response. They were saying that the more you describe global warming as very castastrophic and inevitable (ie The Day After), the more you risk creating denial/apathy in the public as the problem seems overwhelming. But also, they explained, if you minimize global warming then everyone thinks that turning off their appliances is all they need to do to contribute to the solution. I think we definately need strong statements from our scientists so that politicians can’t weasel out of facing the issue. As for “The Day After”.. all I can say is I’d rather Hollywood was making that movie than some kind of climate change conspiracy movie.
erikaw 10:14 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There is no doubt that pop culture mis represents climate change, and also exaggerates it for entertainment purposes. The positives of this are that global warming is that the idea of global warming becomes more widespread, and reaches more groups of the population (say those that go watch movies instead of the news) or young people, like your nephew. If it wasn’t for movies your nephew may have never been introduced to the idea of climate change. The negative aspect of popular culture banking in on climate change is the over-exaggeration or dramatization of the subject. Due to this many people (including your nephew) may believe climate change is something scary and drastic (which it is!) but that the events may play out more like a natural disaster rather than a slow paced change in global temperature and environment. This train of thought about climate change may lead people to believe that they have no control over environmental change due to over consumption, transportation, poor food choices etc. when in reality they do!
hannahepperson 9:29 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Two things:
Firstly, on the subject of pop culture – which I understand to be defined as/through popular movies, music, icons, etc. Pop culture can be an incredible tool for creating poignant analogies and metaphors for relevant and contemporary processes, trends, issues. Slavoj Zizek, an incredibly well-known contemporary political theorist and philosopher, relies heavily on references to pop culture to illustrate complex theoretical ideas. It makes those kinds of conversations more accessible to a wider demographic, a demographic that occupies all that space beyond the walls of our academic institution for example. Pop culture also has a knack for producing and effectively disseminating affective and emotional imagery – think of the image of the desperate polar bear whose glacial home is disappearing rapidly beneath its feet. While images like these romanticize, dramatize and misrepresent the reality, or true extent of what is happening, they seem to hit a chord with a lot of people. I wonder what people’s thoughts are on this? Helpful or hurtful? What alternatives are there to invoking concern, interest, empathy from the masses?
Secondly, I think it should be noted that between 1995 and 2007 report, there were considerable advances made to the technologies that enabled more complex detection and attribution models to be configured. This raises the question – where does the money come from to develop these technologies? Shouldn’t the government be allotting more resources towards developing these technologies? Again, these questions point to the importance of having conversations about the interconnections between economics, politics and environmental concerns.
yitailiu 10:37 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Over the recent years, the direction of scientific research tend to focus more and more on human contribution to climate change, which is largely due to the fact that the public concern on the issue increased. An increase of certainty is reflected in IPCC’s change of wording on stating human effects on climate change, from there “suggests” a human influence to there “is” human-induced warming, it clearly shows that the scientists have had consistent findings in their research. Even more, the choice of wording reflects the change of the general public’s acceptance of the conclusion that human-induced warming is present. This is due to, as previous said, there is an increase in the awareness and concerns on climate change.
Danni 11:55 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Two aspects of scientific researches were reviewed for the significant effects on global warming by the human-induced factors. On one hand, the detection studies investigated the attribution of greenhouse gases causes comparing to the non-greenhouse gases causes. The pattern of the increased surface temperature of the Earth is consistent with the greenhouse gases studies, but less with other factors. On the other hand, the distribution studies suggested that five different factors, to a degree, contributed to the global warming. These factors included: the eruption of volcanoes, sulphate aerosol pollution, solar activity, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion.
In regard to the consequence of effect of movies like “The day after tomorrow”, my personal thought was: it will eventually happen on the Earth, although it might not occur in my life. Although the way the movie presented was a dramatically disaster, the positive consequence was that the movie itself like an alarm us to directly face the problem we had or we will have in a near future. However, some people might be overwhelming by the movie, since the public actually was not professional enough to review the relevant scientific researches themselves. The media, in this case, should play a important role in carefully delivery the message about the global warming issue.
midara 12:09 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like the responses above have addressed, IPCC changed their wording to stronger ones concerning the certainty of human-induced global warming. In my opinion, this change is mainly due to the accelerating speed (and level) of global warming that is affected by human activities. As we have all known that human is playing an extremely important role in the global warming phenomenon, the researches may have sparked and forced IPCC to alert the public about such the already known event to a possible hazard in the not-so-far future.
While greenhouse effect is a normal and natural phenomenon to help in keeping our Earth warm and comfortable for human to live in, the increasing releases of greenhouse gases and rising temperatures in the last decade are definitely the consequences of human activities. The wordings of IPCC emphasis that this is human’s fault and responsibility for such climate changing in our planet; in saying so, I have a feeling that current news such as Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol should have been more taken into notice concerning the global warming and greenhouse gases (in this case, CO2) releasing. Other than the research that makes the scientific community to decide on stronger wording, I think media (may not be pop culture like Hollywood films) should also reinforce the cause and consequences of human’s effect on worsening global warming.
phoebe 8:18 pm on January 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
On the influence of films such as Day After Tomorrow, while everyone has been noting the negative effects Hollywood has in depicting instant unrealistic situations and solutions for drama, at least its very existence in Hollywood proves that the environment has become enough of a concern for even the mainstream audience to be worried about.
Although Brandon’s nephew might not yet understand the full implications of climate change and global warming, it is nice that he already has some idea of the harsh consequences humans may accidentaly inflict upon the environment, if we are not careful. All Hollywood movies are usually overdramatic, however they present ideas in a medium that is entertaining to its audience and provides an easy place for discussion. Those that watch films such as Day After Tommorrow may become concerned and interrested enough to be drawn into more scientific and reality based research about enviromental climate change.
Olga F 10:29 pm on January 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The reason that IPCC changed the wording is because before there was an idea that climate change is real and that what we do (emission of GHG) are altering our environment, by changing temperatures. Later on, there were more scientists who believed and agreed that climate change is happening, and more proof also emerged, further proving its existence.
there were many simulations done by different scientists, who used different methods. moreover, there were simulations done showing the trends that would occur naturally, from the CO2 emission like volcanoes and forest fires. such graphs illustrated that the trends are different since the industrial revolution, when the concentration of CO2 started to become more unstable due to influx of human produced/released/ CO2 in the atmosphere.
jlin 6:26 pm on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The IPCC changed the wording regarding climate change due to human intervention because the two types of work scientists did, detection and attribution studies, increasingly showed that it was impossible to eliminate the influence GHG (and therefore, human activity) has on climate change. This change was necessary because the IPCC advises different political parties and the solutions they propose. If anything, the IPCC is like the spokesperson for climate change and so they have the responsibility to present the situation fully and seriously.
natashap 2:46 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
From the reading, it seems that IPCC used the stronger language: firstly because growing scientific evidence meant climate change could be attributed to human activities and secondly to emphasis the seriousness of climate change.
As it discusses later on in the readings, various greenhouse gas emissions have been attributed to human activities. Using computer models and looking at the effects that nature has on greenhouse gases, it’s clear that human activities have led to rising greenhouse gases in the atmospheres and that in term has led to changes in earth’s climate.
The use of strong language may also be to draw attention to the seriousness and need for changes to mitigate it. The book discusses how the public finds terms such as climate change less threatening whereas global warming sounds more threatening.
shalinb 8:13 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The IPCC changed its wording for human induced global warming between 1995 and 2007 for many reasons. The first, being the advances in technology and thus computer models became more accurate and advanced. This advancement resulted in a better understanding of what was happening to the climate of the world, and a better prediction of future projections of climate change. It also helped scientists discover that humans have a profound impact on the warming of the climate. Computer models were better able to detect greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the relationship between human activities, especially in regards to advances in technology, such as cars, and energy consuming devices have led to an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The second feature that had IPCC use stronger language in regards to climate change and human activity was due to different types of works scientists took part in: detection and attribution. Detection was used in earlier models of evaluating climate change to see if an unusual change in climate was happening. On the other hand, attribution was used to see if humans were involved in climate change. Attribution deals more with human impact and greenhouse gases. This allowed scientists to not only study human activities in regards to greenhouse gases, but to also study and isolate other factors that could change climate, such as volcanoes, and non-greenhouse gases. As a result, computer models and scientists could better pinpoint what was effecting the climate, and by how much.
A third factor for the use of a more direct correlation between the climate warming and human activity was that before the use of stronger language seemed to scare off the public. Global warming seemed to be more of a terrifying concept for the public, whereas climate change is more widely accepted by the public. However, with the increase of knowledge of the warming of the climate in recent times, stronger wording is necessary to signify the importance of the warming of the climate. Also, a lot more people are aware and accepting of the warming of the climate, thus terms relating to global warming and human induced global climate change are not as threatening but more informative.
eddietastic 7:37 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The IPCC has probably changed its wording for global warming probably because of the problems which have arose from the lack of change. As a result the IPCC needed to attract the public’s attention which results in stronger words being used. Furthermore, the differences between technology has allowed scientists to have more accurate readings which result in people knowing more about the world .
brenden 5:08 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As many others mentioned, the IPCC’s wording did indeed become notably stronger in 2007 than it was 2001 or 1995. In my opinion, this was the result more extensive research being conducted which resulted in the understanding that that the change in climate, and increased average temperatures could not be explained by models that didn’t include human made causes of climate change. In addition to this, the twelve years between 1995 and 2007 allowed for more data to collected and interpreted which gave researchers a grater understanding of the factors affecting climate change.
sampethick 5:43 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In agreement with what many of you have already said, the IPCC’s change in the wording between 1995 and 2007 on the certainty of human-induced global warming had much to do with new knowledge. Using the work of more than one thousand scientists the research on human-induced global warming was a growing body of knowledge (and still is). Also, new and more accurate technology which was being produced in order to measure the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere by humans was a factor in the new reports coming out from the IPCC which were more and more certain of their conclusions each time. More complex computer models were coming out which were supporting these scientists ideas. The newer, more complex computer models were able to incorporate more components of climate than before, helping scientists to discover the ways in which individual processes were bringing on climate change. From this they were able to verify how much humans were helping climate change, and thus making clearer human induced global warming. In turn they were able to change and intensify their wording on the certainty of human-induced global warming. The scientific community based their use of stronger wording by detection and attribution studies. These two types of studies back up scientist’s claims about human-induced global warming by establishing that an unusual change has occurred; and finding the likelihood that humans are involved. Scientists also used methods to support their claims by looking at the signature of changes and comparing them to what you would see from non-greenhouse causes. This method shows the changes that can only have been made my humans.
haduro 7:39 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Detection and attribution studies were used to study climate change. Specifically, attribution studies try to find the likelihood of human contributions to climate change. As mentioned on page 10
“As computer models have grown more complex, they’ve been able to incorporate more components of climate. This allows scientists to tease out the ways in which individual processes helped shape the course of the last century’s warm-up.”
Attribution studies and models have became more accurate and refined. This is why from 1995 to 2007, the IPCC has been able to use gradually stronger wording to state the possibility that climate change can be strongly determined and affected by human actions/contributions.