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

Settings


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.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Comments 701 to 750:

  1. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    ab @33,

    Trenberth would have little difficulty answering. The answer is simply physics.

    The 121°C temperature derives from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which defines how much energy a hot surface will radiate. To be in balance with continuous sunlight (1,366Wm^-2), a surface normal to the sunlight incidence with emissivity=1 and zero-reflection would be in equilibrium with a temperature equal to 121°C.

    The Earth, of course is only illuminated by the sun during the day and that is normal (directly overhead) only at noon. The result is an average  level of sunlight reaching the Earth being 25% the constant normal solar level. That would result in an equilibrium temperature of about +5°C, except about a third of sunlight is reflected back into space so the global solar warming averages one sixth the constant normal level requiring an equilibrium temperature of -18°C. But the surface is warmed not just by the sun but also by the atmosphere. The average surface temperature therefore will be hotter than that value. With the Earth's GHGs the surface temperature is +14°C. And being hotter, it will on average radiate more than a surface warmed solely by the sun, even without any reflection.

    I think that answers both your questions. The answer is 'physics'.

  2. Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels

    ubrew12@2

    To emphasize your point, a big reason we bought an EV is that apparently most of the Minnesota gasoline comes from the Canada, which I assume means  tar sands oil. So it's not just the at-the-pump savings, but everything before that as well.

  3. Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels

    Jonathan Lesser: "electric vehicle proponents... fail to consider just how... efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle... mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car."  Did Lesser forget to mention that half the CO2 produced by a gas car was produced before the gasoline ever got into its gas tank?  Funny how these fossil-fueled wonks keep leaving that little detail out of their analysis.  By force of omission, they let the public keep the fantasy that the gasoline you put in your tank just came out of the ground that way, right there at the station...

  4. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    How does Trentbergh explain that it is hotter on the International Space Station (ISS) (121°C facing the sun) than on the Earth's surface (14°C average), while his energy budget claims that the Earth's surface emits more energy as infrared (396 W.m-2) than the total incoming solar irradiance (340 W.m-2) ?

  5. Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels

    We drive an EV in Minnesota, and Connexus power company has a program for off-peak charging that uses 100% wind power. Obviously not every electron coming over the grid came from a wind turbine, but Connexus explains it this way.

    Energy comes from all kinds of sources: wind, natural gas, coal, and more. Once it hits the power grid, there’s no way of telling where it came from. However, when renewable energy is added to the mix, a renewable energy credit (REC) is created that embodies all the environmental benefits of that energy. When you enroll in the Time-of-Day Program, we’ll dedicate wind energy RECs on your behalf, completely offsetting that energy used to power your electric vehicle.

    Enrolling in such a program moves us closer to cleaner transportation and sends a clear signal to the power company that one more person is encouraging them to put up more wind turbines.

  6. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming

    Radiative balance is on the title, yet, nothing about it in the post. This is where IPCC is blatantly wrong: on Earth, there has to be radiative imbalance, because there is life.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.  When making assertions running counter to accepted science, it is incumbent upon the user (you) to furnish citations to credible sources that support your contentions.

    Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  7. Measuring Earth's energy imbalance

    The very first sentence of the post is wrong: "When the Earth is in energy imbalance, with more energy coming in than radiating back out into space, we experience global warming."

    Earth is not the moon. On Earth, life transforms incoming solar energy into biochemical energy. So there has to be a radiative imbalance in order for life to develop and sustain itself.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.  When making assertions running counter to accepted science, it is incumbent upon the user (you) to furnish citations to credible sources that support your contentions.

    Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  8. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20

    Mean global warming could exceed 1.5°C above preindustrial temperature with a decade and it is becoming increasingly likely that it will exceed 2°C by 2100. As implied by the article, this is likely to pose serious problems for ability of the human population to produce the food needed to sustain itself.

    This will be the outcome if temperature increase adversely effects the ability of insect pollinators to survive. Without them it will be impossible to maintain the present, let alone an increased quantity of agricultural production needed to feed a growing global human population.

    However, the prospect of mass starvation seems unlikely to result in more rapid efforts at decarbonising the economy – unless widespread financial gain is to be had from doing so.

  9. michael sweet at 09:02 AM on 21 May 2018
    Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    John ONeil,

    Actual generation is shown in the second graph of the OP.  Last year renewables (excluding hydro) generated 12.1% of global electricity.  Renewables generated only 6.1% in 2010 so the amount of renewables has doubled in the past 7 years. 

    Renewables have only been cheaper than fossil fuels for less than 7 years so one would expect renewables to obtain market share faster in the future since they are the cheapest energy today.

  10. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #20

    Regarding water resources: NASA Satellites Reveal Major Shifts in Global Freshwater

  11. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    Actual generation is a better metric than capacity or investment, since coal and gas usually have higher capacity factors than wind and solar, and lower installation costs.

  12. CO2 is just a trace gas

    The discussions on this page are disappointing - childish word games. The only question that matters is:  "does throttling a trace gas CO2 result in human control of the climate and weather." - a global thermostat.  The answer is “no”, so the entire global warming fraud and everything about it is irrelevant – including solar /wind power and electric cars and all the green marketing. None of it is relevant.  Unfortunately this post was too late to save the 100,000 US coal minors who lost thier jobs.

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] Provide a peer reviewed reference for your unsourced assertion that 100,000 coal miners were illegally underage.

    [PS] This post is nothing but sloganeering. This is a science-based site. You must provide supporting evidence preferably from peer reviewed literature to back your comment. Opinions based on your preference or political leaning have no place here. You may find rants like this more welcome on sites like WUWT.

  13. Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Thanks for taking the time to respond and to give me advice everyone. I definitely have a more detailed lesson plan and more graphs for students to analyze. 

  14. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20

    A little more detail  on the decline in insect numbers according to research discussed here.

    "The number of flying insects had plunged by three-quarters in the past 25 years in Germany and very likely elsewhere." “We know that many insects are in rapid decline due to factors such as habitat loss and intensive farming methods,” ......in the future, these declines would be hugely accelerated by the impacts of climate change, under realistic climate projections."

    A decline of three quarters is more than I was expecting, and is quite astonishing. This must impact the entire ecosystem,  and pollination of plants and the number of birds. Sure enough it does in this article . The scale of change is pretty astonishing.

  15. Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Hmm. The extremely tricky bit is how are 7th graders going to evaluate the reliability of source information? With so much misinformation, misrepresentation of science, and downright false information out there from motivated reasoners, it is a minefield to navigate. Even limiting to "peer reviewed" research is complicated by predatory journals. This website delivers good guidelines but 7th graders just dont have those skills. For that matter, many gradutes dont have/use those skills. Everyone of us is prone to motivated reasoning.

    To my mind, what 7th graders need to know is what the scientific consensus is.

  16. Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Teacher @23 , 

    a further small point which might be of interest to American students :-

    the once-marvellous Glacier National Park is nowadays sadly depleted compared with its former condition.  By the end of the century, the Park will need to change its name to something entirely different, it seems.

  17. Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Teacher @23 ,

    it is important, indeed essential, for students to see the OHC [Ocean Heat Content] graph showing the accumulating heating of the planetary ocean.  The ongoing warming of the ocean (which absorbs over 90% of the accumulating heating caused by the higher levels of greenhouse gasses) is a matter which demonstrates the falsity of the various "Con" arguments listed at the ProCon website.  Add to that, the melting of permafrost and the rapid decline of the planet's glaciers, the loss of Greenland land-ice, etcetera etcetera.

    I appreciate that the ProCon website is obliged to present a list of "Con" arguments — but really, all those Con arguments are not-at-all science-type arguments but are almost entirely lawyer-style arguments (presenting deliberately misleading & cherry-picked points — and many of them self-contradictory and lacking in probity.   Many are also ludicrous : e.g. note the comment: <the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a new 'cool period in the 2030's. '> 

    Presumably such nonsenses serve as discussion points for teachers to present for students' consideration . . . but I would have thought that the teaching curriculum would be so crowded, as to preclude much time being allotted to the study of scientifically-fake statements.  To me, it seems unfair that teachers should have to develop a considerable depth of climate-science understanding, in order to be able to rebut all the nonsense.   "ProCon" ought to present only valid Pro arguments and only valid Con arguments.  Which would leave a greatly-reduced Con list indeed!!   All the first 12 Con points would disappear, and just Argument #13 would remain — and #13 is exceedingly weak, because Global Warming is merely in the early stage so far.

  18. New research, May 7-13, 2018

    It occures to me after perusing several weeks of research roundups that the "uncertaintity" around climate science is predominantly on the side of uncertain about how and/or why things are getting worse in almost every area of study.

    I understand that this is normal wrt the scientific principal but it is consistantly used as a reason for doubt.

  19. michael sweet at 10:44 AM on 19 May 2018
    Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Teacher:

    I am not impressed with procon.org.  They treat conclusions made by tens of thousands of scientists as equal to the opinion of a single person who is paid to speak by the fossil fuel industry.  The data shows that over 95% of scientists who study climate are convinced humans cause climate change.  If you present equal amounts of scientific arguments with con arguments that are fake you will convince your students that a debate exists when there is none.  The students will not be able to identify the fake con arguments.

    In 1965 President Johnson asked the National Academy of Science, the top science organization in the USA, if Golbal Warming was really a potential problem.  They replied that it would be a big problem in the near future.  That future is now.  The conclusion had been made already in 1965.  Pro/con is confusing the public, your students, by acting like there is a debate when none exists.  That is the entire point of deniers: to act like there is no scientific conclusion.

    Check the sources of all the con arguments.  15 scientists here (how many were really climate scientists, or were they computer scientists?), a single article published in an obscure Chinese journal there, a retired physicist who has never studied climate is quoted as if he was an expert.  This is posted as equal to the IPCC report that thousands of experts wrote and every government in the world, including the USA, agreed was the actual state of the science.

    Pro/con needs to screen their arguments.  They are claiming that 10=15,000.  They give equal weight to the IPCC, which has thousands of experts from the entire world, and the Heartland institute, which is a fossil fuel funded organization with less than 10 climate scientists.

    In my class I found that graphs of data were best accepted by students.  They tended to disbelieve any written material regardless of the source.  Be careful to get your graphs from reliable sources.

  20. michael sweet at 10:06 AM on 19 May 2018
    Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Teacher:

    As far as evidence of human influence, see the graph Sir Charles posted here.  How can you look at the wheelchair graph, which clearly shows the natural influence for the past 5,000 years was cooling, and not see clear human influence?  The natural change has been cooling for thousands of years, all heating is due to human influence.

    The Skeptical Science Graphics page here has a lot of good graphs (no copy of the wheelchair).  The obvious changes in many happening around 1880 demonstrate clear human influence.

  21. michael sweet at 09:52 AM on 19 May 2018
    Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    Teacher:

    The National Climate Data Center has an excellent web page.  I used it in class (10th grade).  I read the selection and then wrote questions on the things I thought most important for the students to read.  The 2017 Global annual report is here.  7th graders could read the list of hot years and other graphs.  Have students click on the Temperature Anomolies Time series annual at the very top to see the red graph (deniers complained so the graph was removed from the main report).  Ask if the graph shows temperatures increasing or decreasing (no statistics needed).

    The report for the USA only is here.  I like to look at the seasonal graphs (at the bottom of the page) and ask the students if they see more red/orange or more blue (red is hot and blue is cold).  A statistical analysis is not needed to determine there is much more red.  You can just look at your state if you wish.  The regional summaries are also good to read but may be hard for your students.

    The National Snow and Ice Data Center has a good web page.  The yearly summary is at the end of the January 2018 page here.  Read the page first (it is too long for 7th graders) and then assign what you like (I really like the graphs).  The October report here has good discussion of the minimum sea ice level and some interesting graphs.  The sea ice maximum is generally in March but is not usually as interesting.

    Good luck.  Post again if those are too hard to read or not what you want.

  22. Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

    I am a teacher and one of my objectives is to

    • engage in scientific arguement based on current evidence to determine whether climate change happens naturally or is being accelerated by the influyence of man.
    • read and evaluate scientific or technical information assessing the evidence and bias of each source to explain the causes and effects of climate change.

    I need some help on what type of information to provide 7th graders to read and come to a conclusion on their own. I have printed some information from procon.org. Are there any other websites or information(7th grade reading ability) which I can share with them. I am staying away from indoctrination and trying to let them read and conclude through graphs and facts. Any advice?

  23. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    As long as FF total consumption is still climbing (as 1st chart shows), and hasn't dropped into 'negative' territory, then it is hard to get excited (hopeful) at all. ... In addition, this article is only about electricity; I would guess that, if looking at total energy consumption, that % of net gain of renewables compared to FF is less than given here; and that the increase of FF consumption is proportionally more so compared to electricity only energy.
    Until macro-based economic policies get installed (the most effective being 100% rev-neutral CFD w/ a steep tax rate), the chances of avoiding an ever continuous climb in temperatures is hopeless, affirmed w/ news like this showing FF consumption only continuing to increase.

  24. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    R Murphy, it appears you may be mistaking the package for a home instillation which would need a lot of capital. I said its specifically to replace old coal fired power stations due for replacement, as did the article. So obviously it doesnt require more capital than for a new coal fired power station.

  25. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    R murphy, the costs in the article I posted for renewable enery plus storage are claimed to be more affordable than  coal. Therefore the upfront capital is less than required for coal.

    Where is your fact based, verifiable evidence that the claims are false? So far you haven't provided anything apart from stupid comments.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Keep it clean

  26. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    Nige if you have discovered the holy grail of cheap energy why don't you avail yourself of it and give us a post about all the money you are saving? What? you don't have the heavy upfront capital to get in the cheap energy game....how then is that affordable? Somebody is telling tales here.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Intimations of impropriety are proscribed by the Comments Policy here.

  27. Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice Age

    According to little ice age on wikipedia, scientists are not entirely sure what caused the little ice age, and it has been linked to the solar cycle, an unusually extended period of volcanic activity and ocean processes. Maybe its some combination. However the point is making predictions of even a slight cooling influence is absurd.

  28. Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report

    This related article is interesting: "Plunging costs make solar, wind and battery storage cheaper than coal"

    Briefly the article is about solar, wind and battery storage provided as a package to replace single aging coal fired power stations in Colorado State America. The total package costs are cheaper than coal and the package solves the intermittency problems by using storage.

    It would seem to be a viable system that has affordable storage, so I'm mystified why people claim such things aren't possible yet. I'm not sure how the economics stand up if its scaled up or if theres some "fishook" in the scheme, but none are obvious in the text.

  29. Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice Age

    Some "imminent ice age" indeed...

    https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/Reconstructed%20Temperature%20vs%202016.jpg

    https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/Global%20temperature%2020000%20years%202-2016.jpg

  30. Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice Age

    Thanks for posting this. After years of claiming that the Sun is responsible for global warming, now the climate denial industry are claiming the opposite. This isn't moving the goal posts so much as reversing their location.

  31. How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?

    How can you claim that deforestation contributes more to global warming than animal agriculture when cattle ranching alone is the main cause of deforestation???? Am I crazy for thinking that that's a blindlingly embarrassing flaw to this post???

    https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation

  32. Daniel Bailey at 08:48 AM on 17 May 2018
    California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Windows 10 and Chrome here.  Works fine.

  33. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Not working Win XP and latest Firefox.

    Only shows part of this article summary after the first on the home page.

    California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
    Posted on 14 May 2018 by dana1981

  34. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Works on WIn7 too. Odd.

  35. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Scaddenp, it's the home page not working for me, as it only displays one article and half of next article, in chrome and firefox windows 10. Individual articles work fine. Other websites are fine.

    However the home page works ok on chrome and firefox on windows 8.1 (my old computer) and the android phone.

    It looks like a compatability issue that's developed between windows 10 and chrome / firefox,  and this website,  but I'm useless with tech  and I'm  just guessing. 

  36. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Hmm. Working for me in FF and Chrome. Got a "Click here to read the rest" in green box at bottom of article. Do you not see green box, or is the link not working?

  37. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    I'm having the same problem as ianw01, google chrome and also firefox on windows 10. 

  38. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19

    #1
    Well considering the scene is from Titanic?
    I guess they weren't worrying either.

  39. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    "In what way?" It only shows the "tease" for one article, without even a link at the end to the whole post.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Working normally for me, in Chrome

  40. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19

    In their 2011 Paper, Schuur and Abbott concluded that no more than 2.7% of greenhouse gasses emitted by melting of permafrost would be in the form of CH4, with 93.3% of CH4 being oxidised and emitted as CO2. This widely accepted view ignored the fact that when the top 2-3 metres of permafrost degrades, much of the land is covered in water due to poor drainage. This inhibits oxidation of CH4 since methanotrophic bacteria responsible for this process cannot function in anoxic conditions normally found in waterlogged land.

    It should be expected that CH4 emissions from permafrost degredation, both onshore and from the submerged continental shelf bordering the Arctic Ocean, will therefore be very much higher and its oxidation in the atmosphere very much slower due to depletion of hydroxil (H1O) radicals essential for this process. Hydroxil radicals are derived from ozone and their depletion is due in part to anthropogenic effects on the zone layer and on CH4 emissions exceeding the rate of hydroxil formation.

    The likely outcome is that global warming will produce significantly increasing CH4 emissions beyond human control (unlike farming and industrial emissions) and well beyond the capacity of hyroxils to oxidise. The result will be that the lifespan of CH4 in the atmosphere, now 10-12 years, will increase – as will its contribution to global warming, further degrading permafrost and releasing even greater quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. CH4 emissions from permafrost will become an increasingly serious problem.

  41. California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it

    Your home page isn't working properly.

    It's interesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican and has promoted an effective cap and trade scheme, and top marks to him. Must have taken some courage. However it suggests a supportive and enlightened business sector.

    If only people elsewhere could put their vested interests, short term concerns and ideologies aside and look at the data for California. Really look, and understand it and how positive it all is.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Your home page isn't working properly"

    In what way?

  42. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19

    Not sure about "We don't have to worry about icebergs...." If the melting Greenland icecap lubricates the undersides of the various glaciers we could yet see an outbreak of more than usual numbers of icebergs. Just in time for the increased numbers of oil tankers taking advantage of the ice-free Arctic Ocean..... ;^(

  43. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19

    Related research. Scientists struggle to explain a worrying rise in atmospheric methane

  44. New research, April 30 - May 6, 2018

    Thank you SkS for putting together these studies in one place.

  45. michael sweet at 20:36 PM on 12 May 2018
    Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    Nigelj@9:

    I agree with your point.  Unfortunately, the carbon dioxide being released today has a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere than you think.  From the Guardian:

    "The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years." my emphasis.

    The next ice age has been delayed by at least tens of thousands of years by the carbon already in the atmosphere.

  46. Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    nigelj@11

    Good points. We have a lot in common. I think that what sets humans apart from other animals is altuism.

    Clearly we need more of it.

  47. Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    Evan @10, I feel much the same way, and ask myself similar questions. In fact its very difficult for an individual to find answers to such difficult questions, so dont stress too much.

    I think we have three key problems of climate change, environmental pressures generally, and growing danger of resource scarcity, and they strongly interrelate, but knowing the appropriate individual response is hard, and not even the experts can say with any certainty. However we do definitely know we need to obviously adopt renewable energy and consume a lot less resources per capita. In other words own less stuff. Of course its easy to pontificate on the right thing and harder to do, but that doesn't make it any less the right thing.

    The issue is that humans are by nature status seeking and this is expressed through our materialism, the very thing we are now being expected to consciously scale back on. Its a huge "conflict of interest" so quite challenging, particularly as individuals are reluctant to make sacrifices unless everyone does.

    However I think there's also a growing sense that materialism has a strict law of steeply diminishing returns in terms of happiness. I'm not an advocate for simple hair shirt lifestyles, however there's possibly a sweet spot of consumerism in the middle somewhere that is sustainable long term. 

    And perhaps rather than trying to formulate precise plans in terms of personal consumption or make radical immediate changes, its better to just get things pointing in the right general direction. Taking the first step is the hardest.

    Humans are also selfish in varying degrees, but this is made complicated by the fact that some level of selfishness is not an inherently a bad thing because without it we would not surivive long. However we are clearly not entirely selfish. We are genetically wired with strong altruistic instincts as well. Many of us seem to be conscious that altruism is important, helping others is important, and acceptance of others is important, and its not just instinctive because there are obvious practical benefits from this. I tend to think right now humanity needs to concentrate on altruism, and international cooperation, and any nationalism needs to be restrained and strictly evidence based.

    We are also genetically primed for loyalty to our immediate group and distrustful of other groups according to research. So expecting people to consider future distant generations of people not in our group is hard work. Yet again its clear from history that humans have risen above narrow and self defeating fears of other people.

  48. Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    nigelj@9

    Agree. But knowledge does not equate to action. Yes, with smoking it is more insidious because there is a chemical dependency.

    The insidious problem for us, is that even as I write this, and even as I present myself as a person interested in changing my behavior, I have normalized such excess in my life as an American, that it is difficult for me to even determine what a proper lifestyle is that is consistent with how we need to be responding. I am serious about changing, but wonder if I have the courage to act on my convictions ... assuming I knew in the first place what constituted an appropriate response.

  49. Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    A news article a couple of nights ago discussed research finding children of smokers had nicotene levels in their bodies that in many cases were the same as their parents, through passive smoking. So it appears to me these children are probably already partly addicted, and are going to be highly predisposed to want to try smoking cigarettes. So smoking has more significant effects on others than we realised.

    However climate change is expected to keep atmospheric CO2 levels significantly elevated for about 1000 years I recall according to the IPCC, so this is effecting what, about  300 generations or so.

  50. Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?

    OPOF@7

    I agree with what you are saying. Completely agree. But if people don't stop behavior that harms themselves, they are less likely to stop  behavior that harms others. It is the nature of the selfish people we are. We usually will not make a decision that will make us feel less comfortable. This is why Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" is a brilliant title. If global warming and climate change are natural, then we can continue to pray for the poor, helpless people suffering overseas. But if we accept that it is our emissions causing the problems, then we are faced with the inconvenient truth that we must change our lifestyles.

    National polls often cite that 50% or so of people accept that GW and CC are real and that fossil-fuel emissions are the problem. But what percentage of the people you know are changing their lifestyle to account for that reality? I can count the number of people I know changing their lives on one hand or maybe two. We should care about others, but considering that half of American voted for a nationalistic president, to me it seems the message is clear that in the end we will take care of ourselves and, at best, pray for the others. I don't mean to criticize Christians. I am a Christian. But I don't see a very Christian response to this problem, because sacrificing for the sake of others is a tough thing to do.

    People will barely sacrifice for their own good, much less the good of others.

Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us