1 / 54

Corpus Analysis of Climate Change Debate Online

Explore the dynamics of communication and social change in the online debate around climate change through a systematic study of user comments.

rrachael
Download Presentation

Corpus Analysis of Climate Change Debate Online

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A corpus-based analysis of the debate around climate change in online user commentsDr Luke CollinsFrom Greenhouse Effect to Climategate: A systematic study of climate change as a complex social issue. The Institute for Science and Society

  2. Project Summary: • Climate change isa fascinating case for research into: • the relation between science and society • the dynamics of communication • the emergence and development of protest movements • a systematic, comparative study of the dynamics of social change and human responses to social change. • What is the role of language (and especially of metaphor)?  • What are the social representations surrounding climate change and how are they formed?  • What role do social and technological networks play in this process? The Institute for Science and Society

  3. Views on anthropogenic climate change: lukewarmists contrarians warmists skeptics alarmists denialists catastrophists

  4. Online journalism and democracy • The “enhancement of communal spirits and values” or the “facilitation of rational discourse in the public sphere” (Dahlberg, 2001: 158). • The shift from journalism as a ‘lecture’ to a ‘conversation’ (Gillmor, 2003). • However: • some scholars suggest that the freedom and openness associated with online discourse has actually led to a fragmentation of public space (Sunstein, 2001). • It is suggested that the space for freedom of expression has led to polarized and extreme views. • Painter (2011: 5) observes that “climate change has become (to different degrees) more of a politicised issue, which politically polarised print media pick up on and reflect”.

  5. Deliberation • “a political process through which a group of people carefully examines a problem and arrives at a well-reasoned solution after a period of inclusive, respectful consideration of diverse points of view” • Manosevitch and Walker (2009: 8). • Interactivity • Multiple-to-one asynchronous interaction • Hypertextuality: hyperlinks and multimedia content (text, videos, images) • Online newspapers can be modified in response to user comments.

  6. ‘Climate change’ articles from The Guardian:

  7. Corpus Linguistics:

  8. Corpus Linguistics:

  9. Corpus Linguistics:

  10. Semantic Tagging: 453 sub categories

  11. Semantic Tagging: • ‘excited’ • X Psychological states and processes • X5 Attention • X5.2 Excited/Energetic • X5.2+ ‘excited’ • X5.2- ‘apathetic’ • ‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’ • S Social actions, states and processes • S1.1.3 Participation • S1.1.3+ ‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’ • S1.1.3- ‘bunk_off’

  12. Broad semantic comparisons: • ‘Climate change’ articles from The Guardian and The Daily Mail • 3 discussion threads with the highest number of comments • Top 10 semantic categories for each discussion thread • Recurring topics within discussion threads prompted by articles on climate change (The Guardian vs. The Daily Mail) Event Name and Venue

  13. Top Semantic categories: The Daily Mail The Guardian

  14. Top Semantic categories: The Daily Mail The Guardian

  15. Top Semantic categories: The Daily Mail The Guardian

  16. Top Semantic categories: The Daily Mail The Guardian

  17. W4 Weather Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]… O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]… Y1 Science and technology in general Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]… A5.2+ Evaluation: True Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]… Z3 Other proper names AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]… O4.6- Temperature: Cold Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]… A3+ Existing Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]… A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]… O4.6 Temperature Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]… Z6 Negative Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…

  18. W4 Weather Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]… O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]… Y1 Science and technology in general Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]… A5.2+ Evaluation: True Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]… Z3 Other proper names AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]… O4.6- Temperature: Cold Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]… A3+ Existing Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]… A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]… O4.6 Temperature Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]… Z6 Negative Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…

  19. W4 Weather Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]… O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]… Y1 Science and technology in general Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]… A5.2+ Evaluation: True Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]… Z3 Other proper names AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]… O4.6- Temperature: Cold Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]… A3+ Existing Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]… A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]… O4.6 Temperature Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]… Z6 Negative Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…

  20. W4 Weather Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]… O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]… Y1 Science and technology in general Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]… A5.2+ Evaluation: True Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]… Z3 Other proper names AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]… O4.6- Temperature: Cold Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]… A3+ Existing Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]… A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]… O4.6 Temperature Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]… Z6 Negative Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…

  21. W4 Weather Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]… O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]… Y1 Science and technology in general Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]… A5.2+ Evaluation: True Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]… Z3 Other proper names AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]… O4.6- Temperature: Cold Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]… A3+ Existing Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]… A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]… O4.6 Temperature Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]… Z6 Negative Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…

  22. Key themes in context: the process of ‘cluster tagging’

  23. W4 Weather O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Y1 Science and technology in general A5.2+ Evaluation: True Z3 Other proper names O4.6- Temperature: Cold A3+ Existing A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection O4.6 Temperature Z6 Negative

  24. W4 Weather O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire Y1 Science and technology in general A5.2+ Evaluation: True Z3 Other proper names O4.6- Temperature: Cold A3+ Existing A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection O4.6 Temperature Z6 Negative

  25. Sampling: Comments Words Original discussion thread: 1679 163 180 10 key categories: 17 (1.01%) 5 264 (3.23%) 9 of 10 key categories: 64(3.81%) 16 451 (10.08%) 8 of 10 key categories: 159 (9.47%) 36 103 (22.12%)

  26. ‘Heteroglossic engagement’: describes utterances which engage with dialogic alternatives. • White’s (2003) taxonomy of intersubjective stance • ‘Dialogically contractive’ • Disclaim: • to Deny: “New or tougher legislation is not going to solve the problem” • to Counter: “But we already possess laws against threatening behaviour” • Proclaim: • toEndorse: “As Hastie so compellingly argued..”. • to Concur: “The Premier, of course, wants us to think..” • to Pronounce: “I would contend that this enviable level of tolerance..”

  27. ‘Heteroglossic engagement’: describes utterances which engage with dialogic alternatives. • White’s (2003) taxonomy of intersubjective stance • ‘Dialogically expansive’ • Entertain: • “If we are really witnessing an increase in racial intolerance, perhaps it is time..” • Attribute: • to Acknowledge: “the Premier has stated that tougher anti-racial hatred laws..” • to Distance: “the Commissioner and her comrades claim that..”. • ‘Justification’ (‘modal consequentiality’): • looking to validate or explain a stance position.

  28. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  29. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  30. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  31. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  32. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  33. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

  34. Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8 It’s not illogical. As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it would usually be. As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen. A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero. If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather. Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it just takes longer to get out = warming).

More Related