Can “climate upheaval” be a more informative term than “climate change”?

Abstract

Terminology frames reality and affects how people perceive and respond to it. What makes the global climate situation concerning is not simply a change in climate, but the anthropogenic change, in addition to natural climate variations, occurring at a rapid rate relative to the pre-industrial era. However, in general language, “climate change” does not differentiate itself from natural climate variations nor reflect the rate of change. Based on theoretical reasoning, this paper argues that “climate upheaval” frames and communicates the global climate situation more informatively. This is because “climate upheaval” highlights the additional change at a rapid rate, which is crucial for (1) describing and informing the current climate status, (2) understanding the impacts of climate on natural, socioeconomic, and cultural aspects, and (3) taking climate actions. This argument can serve as a hypothesis for future exploration. Specific questions for empirical tests may include: How do people interpret “climate upheaval” and “climate change”? Do people prefer “climate upheaval”, and why? Is the intended message of “climate upheaval” different from people’s perceptions? As certain terms may offer more utility and information than others, it is important to weigh the advantages and drawbacks of different terms. Strategies aimed at reducing potential confusion and misunderstanding associated with "climate upheaval" may include providing scientific clarification, establishing communication channels, and conducting public education on this term. Terminology does not solely represent scientific labels but also carries significant social and cultural implications, encompassing public perceptions, social mobilization, policymaking, governance, negotiations, and international initiatives.