A letter in the latest issue of Science [subscription] from a group of esteemed scientists and communicators calls for a concerted effort to close the information gap between scientific understanding of climate change and society’s ability to use the available knowledge. Having an accessible climate language, they say, would help stakeholders to better understand climate risks, as well as trade-offs and response options.

The authors – Tom Bowman, Edward Maibach, Michael Mann, Susi Moser and Richard Somerville – call for a convergence in the terminology used for two critical climate concepts. Scientists and science editors should strive for commonality, referring to the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that would result in a given amount of warming as “carbon dioxide equivalents”, rather than as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide alone (in terms of the resultant warming, 500 parts per million of CO2-equivalent is the same as 450 ppm of CO2 alone). Similarly, global temperatures should always be compared with a common pre-industrial baseline, rather than with any other point in time, say the authors.

Having a ‘common climate language’ for policy negotiators would seem like a worthy extension of this proposition. For a start, it could prevent documents, such as the communiqué from the 2008 G8 summit, appearing substantial when in reality leaders had failed to agree the baseline year from which to make the proposed reductions in greenhouse gases.

Does anyone know of plans to have an agreed climate change lexicon in place ahead of the Copenhagen talks?

Olive Heffernan