"Climate change" or "global warming" - is one more correct? Is one more useful?

I suddenly got busier and haven't had a chance to finish the series of posts I was preparing, commenting on the 2019 textbook Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Policy.

Meanwhile, a friend on Facebook innocently asked about the best way to refer to what's happening to our planet: "climate change" or "global warming." It occurred to me that my reply to her might be useful or at least entertaining to others.

~
My friend's question, paraphrased:

I was speaking with a friend the other night about the terms, "global warming" and "climate change." I prefer global climate change, she prefers global warming. Is one of us correct, or are both terms equally useful?

~
My answer:

This is debated all the time among people in the climate change communication field. The academic term is global change or global environmental change (which is what is used for the government office that puts together the national climate assessment - the U.S. Global Change Research Program). I thought that was a bit oblique, but it's really the most correct term if you want to include (drumroll please) ocean acidification (cymbal crash). Because that's a process happening parallel to climate change--it isn't climate change, but it is caused by elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Now, the argument for "global warming" is that it does accurately describe the most consequential atmospheric process that is happening, while the argument against is that it is misleading, because the consequences of global warming include the wandering of the polar vortex, bringing Arctic weather to the Great Lakes, for example-- counterintuitive if you are focusing your language on "warming."

"Climate change" is currently the most popular phrase, and it's accurate, but on the down side it doesn't really convey the fact that this is going to end life on Earth as we know it. "Change" is just - weak tea, really.

"Climate chaos" has the virtue of being accurate and conveying the fact that this is highly consequential. The downside of that is that it can trigger people's sense of helplessness - if it's all chaos then there's nothing to be done, we should just enjoy life while we can and not change anything we're doing.

Perhaps a good medium-panicky term is "climate disruption" - giving the listener a nice, Latinate, sober-sounding term that doesn't inspire helplessness as much as Greek, drama-queeny "chaos."

I don't know that there is a term that is always best in all situations - you have to read your audience and choose accordingly. Does the person seem plucky and ready to F SH*T UP - "climate chaos" might be a good term to engage them. Does the person seem shell-shocked already from all the terrible news about climate and can't take One More Thing? "Climate change" or "climate disruption" might work best. Are you talking to an elder who stopped following the news in 1992? "Global warming" might make the most sense.