According to climate skeptics, cold and snowy temperatures are proof that global warming is not real. The skeptics are wrong.
The theory is like this: the fact that some areas are exploding with cold history indicates that the climate change caused by the man is not real.
US President Donald Trump has tweetized on numerous occasions, saying that the record of cold and snow are a sign that climate change is a deception.
Trump wanted to achieve global warming recently last week, as extreme snowstorms rise to Northwestern North America, forcing thousands of flights and coverage of up to 70 centimeters in snow to be canceled.
In fact, once tweeted that the term was altered to climate change, its inference was that climate alarmists had invented a new term to adapt to their argument.
Leaving aside the irony of claiming "record low temperatures" as an argument against Existence of climate change: do you have a point?
Experts say no, on two fronts.
MAKE MORE: Climate change directly responsible for some extreme weather events: study
MAKE MORE: "Extraordinary" climate change causing stress in the efforts to fight fire
First of all, warming up is occurring Despite the remarkable cold conditions in the US in recent winters, temperatures around the world they are increasing on average.
"Global warming describes an increase in the average Earth temperature over time. Climate change describes how climate patterns will be affected worldwide," the Carolina weather office said of the North.
"Global warming is just one aspect of climate change," said the US geological survey.
Scientists first identified the effect that carbon dioxide caught heat in the atmosphere as far back as the end of the 19th century, with the term "global warming" coined and entering into common use .
However, during the 1990s, the term "climate change" was deliberately adopted by climate skeptics to take the word "warming" of the equation and deliberately plant the audience on the source of this warming – to make it look like it was caused by natural cycles of the type that the planet has always had.
The terms have become more or less interchangeable, but as the experts point out, there are some important differences.
MAKE MORE: Climate change is destroying our planet and our mental health, we find the global study
"In the scientific world, both terms are used. There is a place for global warming and a place for climate change," said Professor Janet Bornman, climate change expert and program director of Future Vegetable Research of the University of Murdoch.
"When you are in the general public, global warming is probably more appropriate. People note that the weather is very variable."
Scientists strive to explain the difference between weather and climate, to help people understand how a cold day does not mean that the world is generally unhealthy.
A drawn parallel is that "the weather is your dress today, while the weather is your dressing room": the weather is short-term, but you should value the climate with a broader and longer view wide.
"Climate change and global warming are used interchangeably, but they have different meanings," said the Global Climate Change program of the NASA program, which explained how "global warming" is related With long-term planetary warming and climate change in changes such as sea level rise, sea ice and extreme weather.
Bornman said the two terms coexist, rather than being synonyms.
"Global warming can be confusing for people: the ground is heated, but only in certain areas, the atmosphere changes and the water currents, and that's what It's cold when it does not have to be cold. Warming is really doing this, "he said at 10 a day.
"What was hot is cold, and the currents become cold due to the winds and the expansion of the ocean, which is due to the heating. This is not an easy message to pass on to the people ".
MAKE MORE: TIts drought is about climate change. It is time for the government to redeem the facts
Professor Martina Doblin, an oceanography expert at the University of Technology in Sydney, said that global warming is an easier concept for understanding common people.
"It's not intentionally simplifying what's happening, but that's the first thing that coral reefs will experience," he said on a daily basis.
"There will be massive changes of heat in the ocean, so it prioritizes the changes that will be more shocking in the first place."
Doblin claimed that climate skeptics sparked scorn to science, mocked global warming, damaged efforts to inform and mobilize people to take action, but also admitted that scientists had the I have to explain science in a clearer way to help you understand ordinary people.
"Our work as scientists, if we are honest, is to say "despite the complexity, there is overwhelming evidence that the climate changes at unprecedented rates," he said.
"It is reasonable to ask a scientist to explain, I think everyday citizens They need the means to understand this. We can explain it properly, and not simply simplify it but make it understand by people who are not scientists. "
Bornman was in agreement.
"You must make a large amount. Scientists tend not to communicate, they do not have to be understood by anyone, "he said.
"There are some excellent scientists who publish popular publications, but they are few and far away. Because scientists quit their terminology and simply explain, they take some thoughts and are not doing. Scientists have to take it, Make yourself self to make sure the audience understands it. "