Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 6601 to 6650:

JoeZ at 21:21 PM on 6 October 2020

What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West

"Overpeck agrees, saying forested areas could benefit from more controlled fires, but “the job is gigantic” and resources to do it inadequate."

It takes a lot of resources to fight the fires too. A thriving forestry industry in CA would be profitable. Some of those profits would go to controlled burns. We don't hear of huge wild fires in the American southeast, where forestry is a huge industry and controlled burns are routine.

One Planet Only Forever at 08:06 AM on 6 October 2020

Critical Thinking about Climate - a video series by John Cook

I would suggest that discussions arguing that fossil fuels help the poor, like at the end of Part 1, should include the following points:

the real cost of fossil fuel use needs to include all of the externalized costs.
the poorest should be helped, which means only the poorest should get any benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels, and that benefit should be helping them transition to sustainable better ways of living.
rapidly reducing fossil fuel use will reduce the harm done to poorer people in the future generations, which will reduce the help they need ni the future.
fossil fuel use is unsustainable, it is non-renewable, so any perception that continued fossil fuel use helps reduce poverty is unsustainable. Fossil fuel help for the poor can only provide temporary assistance.

One Planet Only Forever at 07:16 AM on 6 October 2020

Critical Thinking about Climate - a video series by John Cook

I have only started to watch the series. But I have a couple of comments about the Arctic Sea Ice graph at 3:45 into Part 1:

The chart appears to be presented 0.5 million sq km lower than it should be. Based on NASA presentation of average September extent (consistent with NSIDC presnetation of daily extents):

the minimum in 1979 should be about 7 million not about 6.5
in 2012 the minimum should be about 3.5 million not less than 3

If possible, the Arctic Sea Ice extent chart should be extended to include 2019 and 2020.

But the presentation

MA Rodger at 03:51 AM on 6 October 2020

The Big Picture (2010 version)

Not worth responding on a more-appropriate thread for a very simple response.

The paper In Schulze-Makuch et al (2020) 'Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World' is about finding life so they are considering the ideal world for life, not human life. They consider Earth to be a bit too young, too small (so gravity would be best 50% stronger), too cool and too nitrogen-cloaked and also with a moon too small, all this relative to a planet idea for life.

CowboyMC at 01:57 AM on 6 October 2020

The Big Picture (2010 version)

According to this recent article, "A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life.". So it looks like we need to be warmer. See article here: https://scitechdaily.com/some-planets-may-be-better-for-life-than-earth-researchers-identify-24-superhabitable-exoplanets/

Moderator Response:

[DB] "So it looks like we need to be warmer"

Your comment more properly belongs on the "It's not bad" thread (spoiler: there you will find that negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives; please read the post and the multiple versions of it, plus the comments on it before placing any additional comments there).

Participants, any responses to this should be placed there, with a redirect stub placed here.

nigelj at 17:38 PM on 5 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

MAR @13, I've now read 152 onwards, and yes I'm not entirely happy signing up to Slartys maths, because the loss of carbon from deforestation and degraded soil sinks could go to several places, its not proven which, although I think its likely some would end up in the atmosphere.

Fwiw, I do think a low meat diet makes sense. RB is probably right that you can get grazing land soils to sequester more carbon, but that will take time to scale up globally, so eating less meat is a practical thing that is immediately possible.

MA Rodger at 15:31 PM on 5 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

nigelj @10,

While Slarty Bartfast has not fully set out what he is saying, he is apparently still signed up to the description he set out on the 'breathing contribution' thread @152 & 155. On the strength of your comment @10, Slarty Bartfast @11 tries to also sign you up to it, saying your comment @10 is "exactly what I am arguing."

If you examine what is set out on that other thread, Slarty Bartfash appears to be saying that the CO2 emissions from a reservoir of carbon within the carbon cycle will be fixed by the nature of that reservoir. The reservoirs are listed as Soils, Plants, Animals, Atmosphere, Ocean and from the Soils a reservoir of 1,500Gt(C) is emitted 60Gt(C) of CO2 annually, 4% of its volume. From Animals the ratio of emissions-to-reservoir had been calculated as 800% (calculated @152 in that thread). As the reservoir of Animal carbon has increased with burgeoning human population and livestock herds, the Animal reservoir is considered increased, with its increased emissions balanced by an identical reduction in the Soils emissions. To achieve this Soils emissions reduction, which is fixed at 4% of reservoir, the Soils reservoir must shrink by 63Gt(C) while the increase in the Animal reservoir with its emissions 800% of reservoir will only increase by 0.3Gt(C).

"There is only one other place that most of the remaining 62.7 GtC can go: the atmosphere." This then is the origin of Slarty Bartfast's 30ppm atmospheric CO2 increase. I would hazard a guess that is not something you would feel entirely happy signing up to.

Bob Loblaw at 00:32 AM on 5 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

nigelj:

Where Slarty gets things wrong is in assuming that there is some "steady state" or "equilibrium" that has been remaining constant prior to recent human activity.

For example, in comment #7, he states "In effect they divert carbon directly into the atmosphere that would otherwise have first entered the soil and then decomposed." Decomposition also releases carbon to the atmosphere. In some ecosystems this decomposition is extremely rapid; in others somewhat slower. Many different parts of the carbon cycle act at different rates, and those rates all vary over time - so carbon stores vary over time.

I am most faimliar with the carbon budget of the boreal forest. Boreal forests have cycles of growth, cycles of fire, cycles of decomposition, cycles of changes in fluxes and stores. This happens naturally. Dynamics are affected by human activities such as harvesting and forest management - but this is not some alteration from a mythical "steady state" where "nothing changes".

All carbon stores and fluxes are dynamic. Slarty's post #7 also contains the phrase "Their reasoning was based on the carbon cycle: what goes in must come out. So nothing can change, except that it does."

His position that our understanding of the carbon cycle implies "nothing can change" is a strawman. He clearly does not understand the carbon cycle - how it works in reality, how it is modelled.

CD at 08:27 AM on 4 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

@10 nigelj

You are correct. That is exactly what I am arguing. But I am also arguing that the actual percentage change in the carbon sinks due to "the big explosion in numbers of cattle and humans since 1900" is still relatively small when compared to the impact of fossil fuels.

I am also arguing that the two contributions are fundamentally different. If future carbon emissions from cattle and humans were to remain constant over time, then there will be no change in the carbon sinks. That means no future increase in atmospheric CO2 or methane levels. However, if fossil fuel emissions remain constant at current levels, then there will still be a continual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over time.

That is why I say you cannot equate the two.

nigelj at 06:37 AM on 4 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

I think slarty is saying that normally breathing and cattle releasing methane are carbon neutral, but the big explosion in numbers of cattle and humans since 1900 has thrown things out of equilibrium, with the ultimate result of high plant and meat consumption leading to degraded carbon sinks leading to more CO2 released from those sinks into the atmosphere. This looks correct to me. Where is the flaw in his reasoning?

Bob Loblaw at 00:08 AM on 4 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Slarty Bartfast @ 7: "As I pointed out in comment @152 in response to the first article, and also on my own blog (see Post 36), the carbon cycle only applies to the steady state. "

And as was pointed out to you on that thread, you are horribly, completely, absolutely wrong is saying that it only applies to the steady state.

Since you begin with a false assertion, nothing else you say about carbon cycles bears much resemblance to reality.

[Note that Slarty's reference to comment numbers above are on a different thread; Slarty has included links in his comment.]

MA Rodger at 22:03 PM on 3 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Slarty Bartfast @7,

The main error you make is that 'breathing' concerns "the act or process of taking air into your lungs and releasing it." And it results in carbon being added to the 'release' in the form of CO2. (Of course, pedantically plants and 'lower' animals also breathe but without lungs.) The carbon in this cycle was originally sourced from the atmosphere as CO2. So any concern would be if the pools of carbon stored outside the atmosphere in this carbon cycle CO2_[atmosphere] > C_[biosphere] > CO2_[atmosphere] were to alter, as happens for instance when large forests are chopped down.

Unlike the breathing of us billions of humans, the "breathing" you are considering has a different composition and isn't considered to be 'breathing' as it does not concern the lungs (or the equivalent in plants & 'lower' animals) and often comes out of a different orifice. The situation is certainly not the same, as you may or may not argue (it is difficult to tell what you argue), as the carbon cycle being considered is fundamentally different. CO2_[atmosphere] > C_[biosphere] > CH4_[atmosphere] > CO2_[atmosphere].

CD at 09:50 AM on 3 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

About 10 years ago SkepticalScience posted an article entitled “Does breathing [by humans] contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?”
(see here ) Their answer to the question was "no". Their reasoning was based on the carbon cycle: what goes in must come out. So nothing can change, except that it does.

Now we have another article on the same site that effectively argues the opposite: that breathing from farm animals contributes to global warming. The problem is that both these articles are wrong, at least in part, because they both fail to distinguish between the steady state and systems that are evolving over time.

As I pointed out in comment @152 in response to the first article, and also on my own blog (see Post 36), the carbon cycle only applies to the steady state. By definition climate change implies evolution over time. If the number of cows increases then they will change the distribution of carbon between the different reservoirs (air, plants, soil) until a new equilibrium distribution of carbon is achieved. In effect they divert carbon directly into the atmosphere that would otherwise have first entered the soil and then decomposed. I have estimated that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1900 due to the increase in human and livestock populations over the same time period to be (much) less than 30 ppm. That increase in CO2 is not going to end life on Earth. In fact it is less than the current increases we are seeing from fossil fuels every 15 years. Vegan lifestyles are not going to save the planet.

So when examining climate change it is the change in the number of animals and humans that is is crucial, not their actual number. And, since 1900, livestock numbers have increased dramatically, while over the same time period the human population has nearly quadrupled. That is the elephant in the room that no-one will discuss, and no amount of vegan virtue signalling will compensate for that.

The problem with this article, and others like it, is that it seeks to equate emissions from cows with emissions from fossil fuels. That is bad science. Even if animals and cars produce the same amount of CO2 and/or methane, they will not cause the same increase in atmospheric CO2 levels because they are acquiring their carbon input from entirely different sources. One is largely self-sustaining, returning the CO2 from whence it came (the atmosphere), with only slight changes to the balance of carbon in the different reservoirs of the carbon cycle due to its own rate of change; the other continuously adds more new carbon to the carbon cycle, starting with the atmosphere, and so dramatically changes the balance of carbon in the different reservoirs. Eating less meat is no substitute for consuming less fossil fuels.

BaerbelW at 19:25 PM on 2 October 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Please note, that we added an important update to this blog post today. We hope that it clarifies what we are looking for in case somebody would like to write an article about nuclear energy.

BarbNoon1 at 10:56 AM on 2 October 2020

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

Veganic farming should be promoted instead of using animals. It's a simple solution, really. Use a lot of the successful techniques of regenerative farming, but leave out the animals.

https://goveganic.net/article129.html

Keithy at 10:39 AM on 2 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Soil can't save us, nor can sequestration of the coal power plants themselves.

I hate nuclear but it is the only solution for big cities.

Solar and wind are here but the profit motive still needs to be engineered... Electric cars depend on all of this!

Moderator Response:

[PS] Assertions with no supporting evidence are simply sloganeering. Put up evidence to back you what claim.

RedBaron at 23:57 PM on 1 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

I have said it before here. The idea we can mitigate global warming with a diet shift alone, and not a change in production methods, is absolutely wrong and most likely impossible with current technology.

The whole idea hatched from the supposed benefit of using grain for ethanol production instead of meat production, then using the ethanol along with as yet undeveloped CCS technology and putting those CO2 emissions far underground in old wells etc. This would give a supposed negative carbon footprint.

There are even a few pilot CCS power plants that managed to put some carbon emissions in the ground this way. But at a huge cost and loss of efficiency as great or greater than any benefit derived.

Solar and wind are far more cost effective and efficient ways to generate energy. And soil sequestration is a far more cost effective and efficient way to sequester carbon.

Once you realise this, then you can easily see that it is not the tomato nor the beef on your plate that determines the carbon footprint of your diet, but rather how that food was produced. Methods that improve soil carbon whether producing vegetable or animal foods will lower your carbon footprint. For this reason it is entirely possible to have a tomato with a significantly larger carbon footprint than a 8 oz steak.... if the tomato was produced on land with degrading soil then shipped 100's of miles and the beef was produced on local land with regenerating soil.

Alan Russell at 10:48 AM on 1 October 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

I'm disappointed to see such misinformation here, I expect better. Imo, anyone using 100-year carbon dioxide equivalent emission factors for methane should probably be ignored, or at least not be published.

Here are some better atricles on a similar subject:

- LINK1;

- LINK2;

- LINK3.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Shortened and activated URL's breaking page formatting.

RedBaron at 07:47 AM on 1 October 2020

Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil

Thanks everyone! And yes Doug I did send a note from your contact form. Still waiting a reply. And Eclectic, I really don't have any idea why you are having difficulties.

John Hartz at 00:58 AM on 1 October 2020

How Climate Change is Worsening California's Fires

Recommended supplemental reading:

Climate change "increases the risk of wildfires", World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) News, Sep 28, 2020

Bob Loblaw at 06:58 AM on 29 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

ray_climate:

It would be helpful if you provided a link to the diagrams you are pondering about, but...

...to provide a diagram of net flows between land and ocean would require that these values be calculated. I suggested a method that allows an approximation of the latent heat (water vapour) flux. No such simple method applies for thermal fluxes, and those fluxes are not rotuinely measured.

Weather and climate models would have such horizontal flux numbers imbedded in their calculations, but to sum them up in a land<-->ocean manner would require a lot of work - starting with outlining all the boundaries between land and ocean in a manner that would allow tracking of fluxes over time.

ray_climate at 04:35 AM on 29 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

Bob Loblaw @4. I appreciate that helpful and thorough explanation. Regarding the ocean/land analogue of the Trenberth diagram, I appreciate the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional world with 3-dimensional processes. However the same comment applies to the [land+ocean] Trenberth et al diagram, bu it is nonetheless very useful as attested to by the numerous times climate scientists reproduce it. So I would still like to see two side by side energy flow diagrams I referred to.

BaerbelW at 21:21 PM on 26 September 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

JWRebel @1

Thanks for the heads-up! The issue should be fixed now and the printable version of the blog post shows up again.

wayne19608 at 06:57 AM on 26 September 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Quite frankly these numbers are useless for a large number of people that aren't sourcing their food that way(which is sort of acknowledged). I just don't see how the numbers can hold up. beef cattle vs dairy really? or sheep or chicken or pork? I've raised them all and can tell you that the energy inputs for beef cattle can consistently be way less than above. Sheep and goats might be slightly more efficient grazers but they make up for it in size comparisons and surface area to volume ratios

JWRebel at 06:47 AM on 26 September 2020

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

The printable version is the wrong reference, produces empty page for interactive feature. This comment intended only as signal before being deleted.

Bob Loblaw at 01:41 AM on 25 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

ray_climate @ 2:

The most obvious horizontal transfers of energy between oceans and land masses is related to the hydrological cycle.

Preciptiation over land greatly exceeds evaporation from land.
Evaporation from oceans greatly exceeds preciptiation over oceans
The size of the difference can be measured by total runoff from rivers into oceans.
Every bit of liquid water that runs off land into oceans need to be replaced by water vapour transported from oceans to land (and falls as precipitation over land).
Evaporating water from oceans requires energy input.
Condensation of water vapour to form clouds releases that energy.
The end result is a transfer of energy from oceans to land areas (or the overlying atmosphere).

Thermal energy is also transported horizontally by atmospheric circulation.

All this happens in a three-dimensional world. One-dimensional or two-dimensional images can be limiting.

michael sweet at 10:28 AM on 24 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

Darinscoop,

CO2 gas is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. The molecules do not form clusters but are evenly mixed. Heat is evenly absorbed according to the concentration of the greenhouse gasses. As you increase in height from the surface the pressure decreases and the concentration decreases. If you read a description of a layer of CO2 it was probably a simplification to make the idea of energy absorbtion easier to understand.

I am not sure what your question about boiling water is asking. It is possible to boil water by heating the sides or top of a container. The energy flow in the atmosphere is: Sun- surface- atmosphere- outer space.

ray_climate at 07:12 AM on 24 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

An excellent post! But the differential cannot go on increasing indefintely. Basic thermodynamics suggests a net transfer of flux from land to ocean.Is this via atmospheric circulation? what is its characterisitic? What is the approximate current value of this net flux?

We are all familiar with the wonderful Trenberth et al pictorial of the global energy budget. A variation showing two such diagrams, one for ocean, one for land, with the aforementioned flox indicated would be a great adjunct to this post. Does such exist? Any climate scientist willing to provide such?

Darinscoop at 05:28 AM on 24 September 2020

Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?

As far as CO gasses creating a shielded heat layer between the the surface and the earths atmospherer, it's difficult to think of molecular clustes chaining together unless the gasses lie on a 2-dimensional plain. Wouldn't heat tend to escape through any means of CO gasses if clusters exists at differing elevations? Also, have you ever try to boil water from a heat source that either came from the top or the sides of the container? I'm still trying to understand this logic.

michael sweet at 01:52 AM on 24 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

This Guardian news article describes a poll where 70% of voters were in favor of climate action. The article claims that this result indicates that in the upcoming election politicians who are climate deniers will suffer from voters who want climate action.

I hope that is true. Even if it is not true this election, this is a much stronger result than polls in the past about climate action. More politicians are discussing renewable energy and other climate actions. Hopefully we will start to see real action with the next presiident.

Vote Climate!

MA Rodger at 22:52 PM on 22 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Keithy @10,

Luckily there are many folk who consider it useful to provide an answer for such a basic question. And if you were to search the wonderous world-wide internet you would quickly encounter the results of their considerations.

Keithy at 15:20 PM on 22 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

So, what is net zero emissions?

Keithy at 15:29 PM on 21 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Nigelj, are you the only person in the universe who doesn't respond well to having other people's words put in your mouth?

Moderator Response:

[BL] Off-topic snipped.

You have been warned several times. Stick to a topic. avoid throw-away snipes, and at least try to engage in some constructive dialog.

Once again: Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 21 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

nigelj: I respectfully choose not to answer a hypothetical question. :)

nigelj at 06:36 AM on 21 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

John Hartz ha ha yes perhaps. However M Sweet started the bickering. I am normally a very easy going person and very forgiving, but I dont respond well when people deliberately put words in my mouth or repeatedly accuse me of doing or saying things Im not doing or saying. How about you John?

John Hartz at 04:13 AM on 21 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Michael Sweet & nigelj: Your recent exchanges remind me of the old-time radio show of my youth, The Bickersons.

Per Wikipedia:

The Bickersons was a radio comedy sketch series that began September 8, 1946, on NBC, moving the following year to CBS where it continued until August 28, 1951. The show's married protagonists, portrayed by Don Ameche (later by Lew Parker) and Frances Langford, spent nearly all their time together in relentless verbal war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bickersons

nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

michael sweet @4

"In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system."

I did. Its obvious because $ 1 trillion dollars sounds a lot to the average person. It needed to be put in context that it is only 1.5% of gdp, and right at the top of the article. However those people who read the whole article would see that it isn't such a large sum, so your comments are not really connected to the point I was making.

"You do not consider what fossil energy would cost....."

Where do I not consider that? I know perfectly well what a fossil fuel system would cost, a great deal as you correctly point out.

Please stop telling me things I already know. Please stop implying Im not aware these things, or that I disagree with these things.

It might help if you had said "people should consider...." Is that what you meant?

"In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. "

I have read the report. I said its "a good report". So obviously I agree with the report.

I mean with all due respect, what the hell are you going on about?

michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 20 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Nigelj:

In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system. You do not consider what fossil energy would cost. If fossil energy costs 3 trillion dollars per year and renewable energy costs 2 trillion dollars per year than the renewable energy is a bargain. In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. In addition, the reduction in pollution from using renewable energy will save trillions of dollars in costs, especially health costs and climate costs.

You cannot look at just the cost of renewable energy. You have to compare the cost of renewable energy to the cost of fossil energy. This is a common mistake people make when looking at energy systems.

nigelj at 09:04 AM on 20 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Michael Sweet @2, what possible relationship does that have to anything I wrote? Where did I imply continuing fossil fuel use is free?

michael sweet at 08:34 AM on 20 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Nigelj:

Keep in mind that even if we continmued using fossil fuels energy would not be free. It would cost about the same to keep using fossil fuels except there would be all the health and environmental damage from fossil fuels. In addition, fossil fuels are starting to run short and prices would increase by 2050.

Keithy at 08:26 AM on 20 September 2020

Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training

John, are you just deleting posts now? ????

Moderator Response:

[DB] Moderation complaints snipped. Your previous comment was removed for sloganeering, a violation of this site's Comments Policy. Not reading it is unacceptable, as is not constructing comments to comply with it. Had you have read it, as you were counseled several times previously, you'd have known that.

nigelj at 07:29 AM on 20 September 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

The editors choice article is really good but one nit pick. It starts out by saying "The world must get to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century, and can make it happen for a cost that is relatively small in global terms, $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year, a new report has concluded."

Most people will go WTF $1 trillion is not small. And we know many people only read the title and first couple of paragraphs in articles.
It would have been better to include the text from further into the article that this is only 1.5% - 2% of gdp. Get this right at the top of the article.
Think of your audience!

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments