The most distinctive climate article in the eyes of the media of Carbon Brief:2017
Every day, many scientific journals publish new climate change research simultaneously around the world through the Internet. These journal articles become headlines on news articles and blog pages, and appear on Twitter and Facebook. But which articles will make the most impression, and which articles will be shared and reported most widely?
On January 24, 2018, the carbon Bulletin website (Carbon Brief) published a report entitled "Analysis: the most distinctive Climate articles in the Media in 2017" (Analysis: The Climate Papers Most Featured in the Media in 2017), which compiled an annual list of the 25 most talked about climate change-related papers in 2017 based on data collected by Altmetric and tracking and scoring journal articles based on the number of online news articles and social media platforms mentioned.
The most widely reported climate article
In 2017, the most widely reported article related to climate change was a policy forum review entitled "irreversible Clean Energy momentum" (The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy) published by Science magazine in mid-January. The article was reprinted 232 times by news reports and tweeted more than 9000 times, with a total Altmetric score of 7872, making it the highest ranking of all articles published in 2017. This is not surprising considering that the author was then US President Barack Obama, but since it was a commentary, it was not included in the Carbon Brief list of research papers.
one
Global Warming and Recurrent Mass Bleaching of Corals
Top of the list was an article published in March in Nature magazine entitled "Global warming and Coral bleaching" (Global Warming and Recurrent Mass Bleaching of Corals), with an Altmetric score of 3166. The study, led by Professor Terry Hughes of the Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Research (ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies) of the Australian Research Council, assessed the impact of coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 and noted that "immediate global action to curb future warming" is essential if the reef is to survive.
The article was mentioned in 395 stories in 245 news media, including the Guardian, Washington Post, MailOnline and New York Times, and in 1806 tweets, 47 blog posts and 27 Facebook public pages.
two
Biological Annihilation via the Ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction Signaled by Vertebrate Population Losses and Declines
In second place was an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) entitled "Biological Extinction through the 6th Mass Extinction marked by the loss and decline of Vertebrate populations" (Biological Annihilation via the Ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction Signaled by Vertebrate Population Losses and Declines), with an Altmetric score of 2845. The study, led by Dr. Gerardo Ceballos of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (National Autonomous University of Mexico), analyzed nearly half of the known vertebrate species on Earth and found that "habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive organisms, pollution, poisoning and recent climate anomalies" led to a "catastrophic decline in the number and size of common and rare vertebrate populations." the Earth's "sixth species extinction" is under way. And "go a step further than most people think".
The article was pushed 1583 times on Tweet, covering 269 news stories, including the Atlantic, Sun, Guardian, USA Today, etc., and posted 96 times on the Facebook page, with the highest score on Facebook of the 25 articles.
three
??? Global Risk of Deadly Heat???
In third place was an article published in Natural Climate change (Nature Climate Change) entitled "the Global risk of fatal High temperatures" (Global Risk of Deadly Heat), led by Dr. Camilo Mora from the University of Hawaii, with an Altmetric score of 2613. The study shows that as many as 3x4 of the world's population will be at risk of extreme high temperatures by the end of the century if global greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed.
The study made headlines in 191 news media, including Le Monde, Independent, Der Spiegel and Huffington Post, with an editorial in Nature magazine. The article was pushed 1220 times on Tweet and 49 times on the Facebook page.
four
Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change in the United States
five
Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
The fourth and fifth places are "assessing the Economic loss of Climate change in the United States" (Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change in the United States) published on Science by Dr. Solomon Hsiang of the University of California, Berkeley as the first author, and Dr. Matt Amesbury of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom led by "Pan Biological response to Rapid warming of the Antarctic Peninsula" (Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula) published in current Biology (Current Biology). The Altmetric scores were 2398 and 2181 respectively.
The fourth article appeared 395 times in news reports, the same number of times as the first article appeared in news reports, but only 147times in Tweet, ranking third out of 25 articles.
six
Assessing Recent Warming Using Instrumentally Homogeneous Sea Surface Temperature Records
In sixth place was an article published in Scientific Progress (Science Advances) entitled "assessing recent warming using Ocean Surface temperature Records measured by similar instruments" (Assessing Recent Warming Using Instrumentally Homogeneous Sea Surface Temperature Records). The lead author is Carbon Brief US analyst Zeke Hausfather, who used the latest ocean surface temperature data (SST) to see which of the global temperature data best reflects the rate of global warming in recent decades. The study found that the latest data set from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) best matches Hausather's records, while other data sets underestimate recent warming.
Although the study generated a lot of news coverage when it was published, the Mail on Sunday published a so-called "whistleblower" article accusing NOAA of manipulating climate data in recent years to show more warming in recent years. As Hausfather explained in Carbon Brief's guest article, NOAA's data have been independently confirmed by its research, while the Mail on Sunday article "does not change our understanding of modern warming, or our best estimate of the rate of warming in the near future."
seven
Assessing Exxon Mobil's Climate Change Communications (1977 Murray 2014)
Ranking No. 7 is "assessing ExxonMobil's Climate change Newsletter" (Assessing Exxon Mobil's Climate Change Communications (1977 / 2014), published by Dr. Geoffrey Supran and Professor Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University in Environmental Research KuaiBao (Environmental Research Letters). The study found that ExxonMobil promoted the development of climate science through its scientific publications. But it has also fuelled climate skepticism with paid, editorial-style advertising in the New York Times. Many major news media have reported ExxonMobil's conclusion that it "misled the public" on climate change.
ten
Less than 2 ℃ Warming by 2100 Unlikely
Ranked 10th is a Nature Climate Change article published by Professor Adrian E Raftery of the University of Washington entitled "it is unlikely to warm below 2 degrees Celsius before 2100" (Less than 2 ℃ Warming by 2100 Unlikely). The study uses statistical forecasts to show that before this century, the probability of keeping global warming 2 degrees Celsius lower than pre-industrial levels was 5 percent, while the chance of staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius was only 1 percent. This clear conclusion was mentioned in 185 news reports.
According to the journal sources of 25 articles, Nature ranked first with 4 articles, followed by Nature Climate Change and Science with 3 articles. The first 25 articles in 2017 came from 15 journals, while in 2016, there were 11 journals. The top 25 articles in 2017 were more evenly distributed, with 6 articles from Nature Climate Change and Science compared to the first 25 articles in 2016.
Welcome to the official account for more information.
?
Global change Research Information Center
CICGCS
About the Creator
China Cracks Down on Ships Using Starlink
A New Front in China’s Technology Control China has intensified its crackdown on ships using Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, signaling a sharp escalation in Beijing’s efforts to control information flows and foreign technology. Authorities have warned commercial vessels, fishing boats, and private operators against using unapproved satellite communication systems, citing national security and data sovereignty concerns.
By Aarif Lashari4 days ago in Earth
Elon Musk Says Retirement Savings “Won’t Matter” in 20 Years—Here’s What Experts Think
Recently, Elon Musk sparked a heated debate on social media with a bold claim: in 20 years, traditional retirement savings “won’t matter.” The Tesla and SpaceX CEO suggested that the way people think about money and retirement today might be completely obsolete in a couple of decades. As usual, Musk’s statements are equal parts provocative and visionary, leaving many wondering whether they should rethink their financial plans entirely. To get clarity, we reached out to seven personal finance and AI experts to hear their thoughts on Musk’s prediction. Their insights provide a mix of caution, optimism, and futuristic thinking. 1. The Case for Obsolescence: AI and Automation AI strategist Dr. Karen Liu believes Musk isn’t exaggerating when he talks about the diminishing importance of retirement savings. “If AI and automation continue at the current pace, many traditional jobs could disappear,” she explains. “By 2046, people might earn income from AI-driven ventures, digital assets, or royalties rather than a 9-to-5 paycheck. In that case, the way we save for retirement could indeed look very different.” She emphasizes that new financial models might emerge, such as universal basic income (UBI) or AI-managed wealth portfolios, making conventional retirement accounts less critical. “People might no longer need 401(k)s or IRAs in the same way we do now,” she adds. 2. The Human Factor: Some Things Don’t Change Personal finance advisor Marcus Bell takes a more conservative view. “Even if the economy changes drastically, money management skills won’t be irrelevant,” he says. “Musk may be right that retirement savings as we know them may evolve, but having a financial cushion will always matter. Emergencies, healthcare costs, and life changes won’t disappear.” Bell suggests a hybrid approach: continue contributing to traditional retirement accounts while exploring alternative investments like digital currencies, AI-managed funds, or entrepreneurial ventures. 3. Cryptocurrency and the Digital Asset Revolution Crypto expert Priya Desai sees Musk’s comment as a nod toward the rise of digital assets. “By 2046, much of personal wealth may reside in cryptocurrencies, tokenized real estate, and NFTs rather than bank accounts or pensions,” she says. Desai believes that blockchain technology could redefine ownership and wealth accumulation, making traditional retirement savings less central. However, she cautions: “Digital assets are highly volatile. While they may replace some retirement vehicles, they aren’t a guaranteed substitute. Diversification will remain crucial.” 4. AI-Powered Wealth Management AI entrepreneur Rohan Kapoor points out that AI itself could make traditional retirement planning almost obsolete. “Imagine AI systems that continuously optimize your investments, taxes, and spending in real-time,” he says. “If AI handles wealth accumulation more efficiently than humans, you may not need to manually save and plan decades in advance.” Kapoor predicts that by 2046, AI advisors could create personalized financial lifelines that automatically adjust for inflation, market changes, and lifestyle goals. In this scenario, traditional 401(k)s might feel outdated. 5. The Social Safety Net Factor Economist Dr. Elise Morgan reminds us that social and political structures will also play a role. “Even if technology changes how wealth is accumulated, government programs like Social Security, healthcare, or UBI will shape retirement,” she explains. “Musk’s statement assumes a high-tech, highly automated economy, which is just one possible scenario.” Morgan urges caution: relying solely on futuristic predictions could be risky. Traditional savings may still act as a fallback if economic or technological disruptions fail to deliver as Musk anticipates. 6. Mindset and Wealth Beyond Money Financial psychologist Sandra Liu emphasizes that wealth isn’t only monetary. “Even if retirement accounts lose their traditional meaning, financial literacy, resourcefulness, and the ability to leverage technology will remain critical skills,” she says. “Musk’s prediction is more about mindset than accounts. People who can adapt, innovate, and use technology to generate income will thrive regardless of conventional savings.” 7. Preparing for the Future, Not Panicking Finally, futurist Jared Thompson encourages a pragmatic approach: “Don’t panic or abandon your retirement plan just because Elon Musk said so. Think of it as a signal to diversify—invest in tech, learn AI skills, and explore new income streams.” Thompson suggests a “layered strategy”: keep some traditional retirement savings while experimenting with AI-driven investment platforms, cryptocurrencies, and entrepreneurial projects. What Does This Mean for You? Musk’s prediction may sound extreme, but the expert opinions reveal a spectrum of possibilities. Here’s a practical takeaway: Keep saving, but diversify: Don’t abandon retirement accounts, but explore AI-driven investments, crypto, or digital assets. Invest in skills: AI, coding, and tech literacy may be as valuable as cash reserves in 20 years. Embrace flexibility: Financial plans should be adaptable to rapid technological and societal changes. Mind the basics: Emergency funds, debt management, and smart spending remain essential regardless of tech trends. In short, Musk’s warning isn’t necessarily a call to abandon traditional retirement planning—it’s a reminder that the future of money is changing rapidly. Those who combine conventional strategies with an eye on emerging technologies may be the ones who truly thrive in 2046. Conclusion: Elon Musk’s claim that retirement savings “won’t matter” in 20 years is provocative, but it opens an important conversation about the intersection of finance, technology, and the future of work. While some experts see it as a harbinger of radical change, others stress prudence and flexibility. Either way, the message is clear: the next two decades will demand both financial savvy and tech literacy. The question isn’t whether retirement savings will disappear—it’s whether you’ll adapt to the evolving financial landscape.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.