Re: Climate language

[Bela Liptak]

 

In a message dated 11/8/2021 7:10:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, solar...@aol.com writes:

 

 

Kedves tanár úr,

 

A diákok kicsit össze vannak zavarodva a Klimával kapcsolatos sokféle szóhasználattal kapcsolatban. Van tanár úr új könyvében világos definició arra, hogy mi mit is jelent?

 

Tisztelettel, Zoltán

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

igazad van Zoltán.nem csodálom diákjaidat, mert a különböző érdekcsoportok meg politikusok (itt is és otthon is) az ilyen szavakkal megpróbálják félrevezetni az embereket, akiket eleve jobban érdekelnek a hónap-végi számlák, mint a századvégi gondok.

 

Ezért is szenteltem az alábbi paragráfust új könyvemben ennek a témának. Elküldöm e levelem másolatát a Magyar Lobbi résztvevőinek is, hátha érdekli őket, vagy ismerőseiket.

 

Üdvözöl, Béla bátyád

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Some readers consider the  scientific data on global warming as inaccurate or debatabe, because they see or hear different or sometimes contradictory numbers. It would increase both education and the respect for scientific data, if the media used more consistent and accurate language inconnectionwith climate change. Some examples:

 

Global warming today: When the reader sees number ranging from 0.9°C to 1.2 °C as the rise in global temperature during the industrial age, they believe that science is unreliable, because it can not accurately measure global warming. This is not so, it can and NASA does! The reason for this variation is that the Paris treaty did not define the time when the "industrial age" started and what the rise should be compared against? Terefore people are using different baselines and come up with different numbers. If the media used a common baseline, say the average temperature during the 20th century as the definition of zero warming, public confidence would rise.

 

Emission: When reading that emission will be cut by 50%, the reader believes that half of the emission will be cut, when in fact this cut is often only 25%. If the media consistently used the terms: CO₂ emission (for 76% of total), greenhouse emission (for100% of the total), "net" emission (for the "extra" emission, the 45% remaining after 55% of the emission is absorbed by plants and oceans), long term emission (the portion of the "net" emission that stays in the air for centuries, which is 20%), CO₂ equivalent emission (the percentage of the total greenhouse impact, which is caused by a particular gas, in case of methane it is 16%). I know that all these definitions are too complicated for the readers to follow, but the media should consistently insert the adverbs of greenhouse, net, long term, CO₂ equivalent etc.to more accurately inform the readers.

 

Large numbers: When referring to very large numbers, it would help to periodically mention their meanings in familiar terms. For example when writing about $trillions one could add that the GDP of the USA is 22 $trillions, when referring to our yearly emissions as 40 gigatons, preiodically it could be mentioned that this quantity is the same as emitting 5 Empire State Buildings every hour (1,100 tons/second). Similarly, when ddescribing the size of  the extra heat received by the planet as 1.6 watts per square meter radiative forcing it would mean more to the reader, if this extra energy received by Earth equals the energy released by 5 Hiroshima bombs every second.