opinion on global warming essay

Essay on Global Warming – Causes and Solutions

500+ words essay on global warming.

Global Warming is a term almost everyone is familiar with. But, its meaning is still not clear to most of us. So, Global warming refers to the gradual rise in the overall temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth. There are various activities taking place which have been increasing the temperature gradually. Global warming is melting our ice glaciers rapidly. This is extremely harmful to the earth as well as humans. It is quite challenging to control global warming; however, it is not unmanageable. The first step in solving any problem is identifying the cause of the problem. Therefore, we need to first understand the causes of global warming that will help us proceed further in solving it. In this essay on Global Warming, we will see the causes and solutions of Global Warming.

Causes of Global Warming

Global warming has become a grave problem which needs undivided attention. It is not happening because of a single cause but several causes. These causes are both natural as well as manmade. The natural causes include the release of greenhouses gases which are not able to escape from earth, causing the temperature to increase.

Get English Important Questions here

Further, volcanic eruptions are also responsible for global warming. That is to say, these eruptions release tons of carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming. Similarly, methane is also one big issue responsible for global warming.

So, when one of the biggest sources of absorption of carbon dioxide will only disappear, there will be nothing left to regulate the gas. Thus, it will result in global warming. Steps must be taken immediately to stop global warming and make the earth better again.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Global Warming Solutions

As stated earlier, it might be challenging but it is not entirely impossible. Global warming can be stopped when combined efforts are put in. For that, individuals and governments, both have to take steps towards achieving it. We must begin with the reduction of greenhouse gas.

Furthermore, they need to monitor the consumption of gasoline. Switch to a hybrid car and reduce the release of carbon dioxide. Moreover, citizens can choose public transport or carpool together. Subsequently, recycling must also be encouraged.

Read Global Warming Speech here

For instance, when you go shopping, carry your own cloth bag. Another step you can take is to limit the use of electricity which will prevent the release of carbon dioxide. On the government’s part, they must regulate industrial waste and ban them from emitting harmful gases in the air. Deforestation must be stopped immediately and planting of trees must be encouraged.

In short, all of us must realize the fact that our earth is not well. It needs to treatment and we can help it heal. The present generation must take up the responsibility of stopping global warming in order to prevent the suffering of future generations. Therefore, every little step, no matter how small carries a lot of weight and is quite significant in stopping global warming.

हिंदी में ग्लोबल वार्मिंग पर निबंध यहाँ पढ़ें

FAQs on Global Warming

Q.1 List the causes of Global Warming.

A.1 There are various causes of global warming both natural and manmade. The natural one includes a greenhouse gas, volcanic eruption, methane gas and more. Next up, manmade causes are deforestation, mining, cattle rearing, fossil fuel burning and more.

Q.2 How can one stop Global Warming?

A.2 Global warming can be stopped by a joint effort by the individuals and the government. Deforestation must be banned and trees should be planted more. The use of automobiles must be limited and recycling must be encouraged.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

The authoritative guide to ensuring science and technology make life on Earth better, not worse.

Facts and opinions about climate change

By Richard C. J. Somerville | December 7, 2020

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a public lecture for the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif. [1]

When the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded, climate change science was in its infancy. There were no global climate models, no supercomputers, and no satellite remote-sensing data. Only a few visionaries understood that man-made increases in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) might cause large global climate changes. The definitive summary of atmospheric science in the decade after World War II was the Compendium of Meteorology , a large multi-authored volume published in 1951 by the American Meteorological Society. Its article on climate change, written by the distinguished British climatologist C. E. P. Brooks, reflects the prevailing expert opinion of that time.

The article began with this statement:

“In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO 2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callendar (1939) sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature. But during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”

It is important to distinguish between facts and opinions. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan , who said that, was a wise and accomplished American politician, sociologist, and diplomat. Like everybody, I know some facts, and I have some opinions. I will first summarize the facts that we have learned from the science of climate change. Then I will give some opinions about what people and governments should do.

I think any rational response to climate change involves first knowing what the facts and evidence are. That is the province of science. There are many indicators measured globally over many decades that show that the Earth’s climate is warming. All the indicators expected to increase in a warming world are increasing, and all those expected to decrease in a warming world are decreasing. It’s definitely warming. It’s not a hoax. We observe it and measure it. The atmosphere is warming. So is the ocean. Sea level is rising. Ice sheets and glaciers and snow cover are shrinking. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. Climate change is real and serious. It’s not a remote threat for the distant future. It’s here and now.

It’s us. We’ve done the detective work. Just as wildfire experts can say whether a fire was caused by lightning, or by a campfire accidentally left burning, or by arson, we can show what is now causing the world to warm. Yes, some past climate change was natural, like ice ages coming and going, but the warming we have observed in recent decades is clearly caused by human activities. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

We now know what paces the beginnings and ends of ice ages. It is slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, that alter how sunlight is distributed over the surface of the Earth. We understand these changes in the orbit, and they take thousands of years to have an effect. They cannot possibly produce the climate changes that we observe occurring in just a few decades. Similarly, we can rule out other natural processes, such as changes in the energy in sunlight. They are quantitatively too small. Human activities, such as burning coal and oil and natural gas, are the dominant cause of the rapid climate change we now observe.

It hasn’t stopped. The warming is still continuing. We have good estimates of the global average temperature of the Earth’s surface from 1880 until the present; 1880 is about the time when we first had enough good thermometers located in enough places around the Earth to enable us to calculate a meaningful global average. The modern data is the most accurate. During about the last 50 years, from the 1970s until now, we know there has been a warming of about 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. All the warmest years on record are recent years.

The heat is mainly in the sea. Over 90 percent of the heat added to the climate system is in the oceans. How do we measure the heat stored in the ocean? That’s a good question, and it has a fascinating answer.

We now measure this increase in ocean heat content from an array of about 4,000 autonomous floats deployed throughout the world ocean under an international program called Argo . They have no engines and no propellers, but they move with the ocean currents at a depth of 1,000 meters, which is about 10 football fields. That’s where they are usually parked, and they are programmed to periodically sink another 1,000 meters lower and then rise to the surface while measuring quantities such as water temperature and salinity. They rise and sink by changing their volume. This is accomplished by pumping fluid into or out of a bladder on the float.

The floats store the measurements, and then, when they are on the surface, they locate by GPS and transmit the stored data via satellites to scientists. The change in float locations between one transmission and the next provides information on the currents at the depth where the floats were parked. As their batteries fail, the floats end their useful lives and must be replaced by new floats. The Argo floats have revolutionized our ability to observe the oceans. Argo data are available to everyone for free in near real time. New floats, allowing sampling to much greater depths, are now being developed.

Sea level is rising globally. We measure it from altimeters on satellites. There has been a rise of about 100 millimeters, which is about 4 inches, over the last 30 years or so. The rate of sea level rise is increasing too. Future sea level rise will be much greater than past sea level rise. The sea level rise is different at different locations on the Earth. Local sea level is affected by whether the land at that location is rising or sinking, and also by ocean currents, tides and other factors.

Ice is shrinking. Ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and almost every glacier worldwide are all shrinking. We know this from satellite missions called GRACE (the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment ). These satellites determine the mass of the ice accurately by measuring the effect of the ice sheet on the Earth’s gravity. The technology of the GRACE missions involves two satellites in the same orbit which have a means of measuring the distance between the two satellites extremely accurately. This distance changes when gravity varies, which occurs when passing over ice sheets, and measuring the tiny change in the inter-satellite distance allows scientists to determine the mass of the ice.

Carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean makes it more nearly acidic. That can affect the marine ecosystem and the food chain. The ocean absorbs some of the CO 2 that we emit into the atmosphere. Measurements show that the acidity parameter called pH is decreasing. Seawater is slightly basic (its pH is greater than 7), and we observe a shift towards neutral conditions (pH = 7), rather than to truly acidic conditions (pH less than 7).

Carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere, because of human activities, are now about 45 percent higher than they were in the early 1800s. We have good measurements of atmospheric CO 2 amounts over the last 800,000 years. These data come from analyzing fossil air trapped in ice in Greenland and Antarctica. They reveal large variations in CO 2 amounts, associated with ice ages starting and ending. Orbital variations pace the ice ages, causing the CO 2 amounts to change, and initiating a feedback that increases the magnitude of the temperature change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now is the highest it has been in millions of years. The atmospheric CO 2 amounts in the even more distant geological past, many million years ago, sometimes have been even higher than at present, but the world was a very different place then, which was long before any human beings existed.

Cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide set the amount of warming. The warming caused by CO 2 in recent decades is, to a good approximation, just linearly proportional to the total cumulative amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. We do not know exactly how much added CO2 will produce how much warming—that is, the climate sensitivity question—but we can estimate a range of possible answers to this question, constrained by different kinds of observations. For the middle of the range, 1 trillion metric tons of carbon emitted produces a warming of about 2 degrees Celsius above the temperatures of the early 1800s. We have already emitted about half of this amount. At present, the warming we observe is caused by CO 2 plus several other heat-trapping substances that human activities have also added to the atmosphere. The amounts in the atmosphere of these other substances will decrease rapidly when and if their sources are eliminated, but some of the carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Because of the difference in the amount of time that different heat-trapping substances stay in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is truly the key “control knob” for climate.

Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances will limit the warming. We can estimate the cumulative amount of carbon emitted that would give us a good chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (that’s 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial temperatures of the early 1800s. This is the warming target endorsed by the Paris Agreement of 2015. If emissions had peaked and began to decline several decades ago, then emissions reductions could be gradual, and by 2050 emissions would not yet need to have entirely stopped. Because emissions are still increasing, drastic emissions reductions need to occur quickly and reach zero by 2040.

“Negative emissions,” meaning removing some carbon dioxide from the air, are likely to be necessary. This fact illustrates the urgency of acting. Finding a way of removing some of the carbon dioxide is one approach to geoengineering. Here by “geoengineering” we mean the intentional modification of the climate system with the goal of reducing or mitigating climate change. However, nobody has yet demonstrated a way of economically removing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The longer we wait before acting, the more drastic the action has to be. The result of failing to act is to increase the likelihood of dangerous climate change.

Because it takes so long for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to decrease, climate change will last for centuries. After emissions completely stop, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases only slowly for several centuries, and about 25 percent of it remains in the atmosphere for the next 10,000 years or so. The science relevant to this topic is not simple. Several complex processes for carbon removal are involved. The key take-away message is that the climate change caused by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can have very long-lasting effects.

The conclusions I have just recounted are facts. They are fundamental findings from extensive scientific research. They are all well-supported by abundant evidence.

The science is never complete. There is always more to learn. But the science that we have now is already good enough to help us make wise decisions. The many unknowns in the science, such as exactly how fast the Antarctic ice sheet will shrink or exactly how El Niño might be affected, are not the biggest unknowns about future climate. The biggest unknown about future climate is human behavior. Everything depends on what people and their governments do.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Climate change is already happening, here and now. About 97 percent of climate experts—the scientists who are most active in carrying out and publishing research on climate change—agree that the observed recent warming is real and serious and overwhelmingly human-caused, and that it will become even more serious unless we make big changes in how we generate energy. Nevertheless, some people remain unconvinced. They continue to repeat climate myths and falsehoods.

People often ask me, “I’m only one person. What can I do about climate change?” Here is my answer. We need to persuade more people that this problem is serious. Governments tend to respond when enough people become concerned, and when they vote their concerns. I urge everyone to engage with people you may know—family, friends, colleagues—who don’t accept the fundamental findings of climate science. Explain to them the facts you have learned about our changing climate. Listen to them respectfully and carefully. Be alert to the common climate myths and falsehoods that they may think are true. If you see something, say something. Have a civil conversation. Have many conversations. In their hearts, almost all of us would surely agree that everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. And it is science that supplies the facts about climate change.

We humans have become the dominant actors in causing the rapid climate change we now observe. Human actions now overwhelm all the natural processes. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s true. You and I, and all the people who are alive today, now have our hands on the thermostat that controls the climate of our children and grandchildren. Metaphors can be superb communication tools. The thermostat is a powerful metaphor.

Think about medical metaphors. Here are a few: We climate scientists are planetary physicians. Climate science and medical science will both always be imperfect and incomplete, but both are already very useful.

When your doctor tells you to stop smoking and lose weight and exercise more, you don’t argue with her. You don’t call her a radical alarmist. You don’t ask her to name the date when you will have a heart attack.

Physicians have advanced academic credentials and many years of training and experience. We climate scientists have the same. We’re not conspiring to fool people. Do you really think your doctor is a crook? She’s not. Neither are we.

A fever of only a few degrees can indicate a serious disease. Global warming is just a symptom of planetary ill health, like a fever.

Prevention is better than cure. Quitting smoking, like quitting using fossil fuels, is not easy to do. And the main benefits of quitting come in the long-term future.

Choosing to have major surgery involves cost and risk. People know that choosing to do nothing also has costs and risks.

The laws of climate science and medical science are all immune from political tampering. You can’t fool Mother Nature. Mother Nature always bats last.

Here’s an effective metaphor. Imagine you are watching a major-league baseball game. The slugger who is thought to be on performance-enhancing drugs hits a home run. The person next to you asks, did the steroids cause it? That’s really the wrong question. You can’t be sure they caused it, because he was already a big-league slugger when he was clean. And even with the drugs, he can still strike out now and then. But at the end of the season, you see in his statistics that he hit more homers than he used to. The steroids increase the odds of home runs. Climate is the statistics of weather, and carbon dioxide is the steroids of climate. [2] It changes the odds. The odds are higher now for all sorts of extreme weather, because climate change has altered the environment in which all weather occurs.

This metaphor works for other sports too. For example, baseball isn’t popular in France, but bicycle racing is very popular there, and French people know that a bike racer on drugs won’t win every race, but the drugs do change the odds and increase his probability of winning.

The main barriers to action on climate change are a lack of widespread political will and a lack of wise and inspiring leadership. Science can help to inform policy, but only concerned people and responsive, capable governments can first decide what policies are best, and then implement them. Today, despite a strong scientific consensus, climate change is controversial politically.

We do not have to accept a future with devastating climate damage and disruption. If we continue to use more and more fossil fuels to generate the world’s energy, we will be sentencing our children and grandchildren to many centuries with a severely damaged climate and great suffering. In your conversations, try to help people understand that this bleak future is entirely preventable.

Faced with these threats, almost all the nations of the world agreed in Paris in late 2015 to limit the warming to a specific maximum amount. That amount is 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the average global temperature in the early 1800s, before human activities began to have a large effect

After Paris, is the glass half-empty or half-full? I am guardedly optimistic, for these reasons:

• World leaders are now engaged; at least almost all of them are.
• Emissions of heat-trapping gases have begun to decline in some places.
• Solar and wind energy are getting cheaper every year.
• Renewable energy use is increasing rapidly.
• Many corporations are now acting to reduce emissions.
• State and local governments in the United States are acting too, despite federal inaction.
• Many other countries are showing rapid progress.

Recent polling shows that in the United States, many more people accept the science and are very concerned about global warming or climate change than was the case only a few years ago. However, the issue has become extremely partisan. Recent polls show that the substantial increase in the number of Americans calling climate change a top priority has been limited to the Democratic side of the political spectrum. However, about 80 percent of Republicans, including virtually the entire leadership of the Republican party, have not changed their minds and still reject the science. We have a long way to go. I think we should keep climate change science separated from climate change policy.

There is no silver bullet that solves all the challenges of climate change, but there is a lot of silver buckshot, including increased energy efficiency and energy conservation, and much more use of sun, wind and water to provide the energy the world needs. These renewable resources are widely available now and already cost-competitive with fossil fuels. We have the technology, and it is improving. In the United States, even without energetic action by the federal government, I am guardedly optimistic.

Market forces now favor carbon-free energy. Coal companies are going bankrupt. Solar and wind energy without subsidies are in many cases already cheaper than fossil fuels. Electric vehicles are happening fast. Much energy policy in the US is set at state and local levels, not in Washington.

Always remember why we want to have conversations about climate change science. We want to inform people. We want to motivate them. We want them to act.

Research suggests that messages that may invoke fear or dismay are better received if they also include hope. We should include positive messages about our ability to solve the problem. We can explain that future climate is in our hands.

Politics and priorities and values do have a role to play in deciding which actions are best, but any rational policy begins by accepting the science. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

This article is being written in 2020 during the global coronavirus pandemic, and I have a few gentle words to say about some climate change lessons that we might learn from the pandemic now gripping the entire world.

One obvious point is that climate change science, like coronavirus epidemiology, is incomplete, still developing but already extremely useful. In both domains, we have learned we can trust scientists more than politicians or pundits or anybody else who is not really an expert on the science of the subject, whether the subject is climate change or infectious diseases. We have also learned that the challenges in both climate change and the pandemic are global. The entire world is affected. The solutions have to be global too.

The pandemic also illustrates the wisdom of the statement that, “Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.” The facts about climate change, and about COVID-19, are objective truth, and they should be the same for everybody, regardless of people’s ideology or politics. When it comes to making policy, sound science can inform wise policy. However, policy can also depend on many other factors, such as people’s priorities, their convictions about economics, what they regard as the proper role of governments, their risk tolerance, and, of course, public opinion. That’s true for meeting the challenge of climate change, just as for meeting the challenge of COVID-19.

The pandemic reminds us how valuable science and scientists are. The recent discussions in the news—such as about how clinical trials of drugs and vaccines work—are very educational. The medical scientists who develop new medicines do their best to make sure they are safe and effective, and they won’t release them for widespread use to the public until they are absolutely convinced of that. They are real experts and are very careful.

So are climate scientists.

Tony Fauci, who has often been on television recently in the United States, is a good example of a person who is a real expert on pandemics. He says simply, “I’m a physician and a scientist.” People get that. When Fauci speaks to the public, he is not trying to be popular or make people happy or brag about himself or make money. He is just telling people the facts that scientists have discovered, and he describes these facts in a way that is honest and transparent and understandable. He has spent his entire career accumulating expertise and experience and wisdom about infectious diseases and pandemics. People should trust him, and polls show that the great majority of people do trust him. Science is absolutely essential. That’s true for pandemics.

It’s also true for climate change.

Like many interested people, I watched Warren Buffett’s 2020 Berkshire Hathaway stockholders meeting online. Warren Buffett, the brilliant investor and one of the richest people in the world, agrees with me. Here’s what he said:

“I think, personally I feel extraordinarily good about being able to listen to Dr. Fauci, who I had never heard of a year ago. But I think we’re very, very fortunate as a country to have somebody at 79 years of age who appears to be able to work 24 hours a day and keep a good humor about him and communicate in a very, very straightforward matter about fairly complex subjects and tell you when he knows something and when he doesn’t know something. So, I’m not going to talk about any political figures at all or our politics generally this afternoon, but I do feel that I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Fauci for educating and informing me, actually along with my friend Bill Gates, too, as to what’s going on. I know I get it from a straight shooter when I get it from either one of those. So, thank you Dr. Fauci.”

[1] See https://youtu.be/DmUWPn6GCEg

[2] See https://youtu.be/MW3b8jSX7ec

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important . In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Keywords: Aquarium of the Pacific , GRACE , Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment , climate change facts , climate change metaphors Topics: Climate Change , Multimedia

• Copy link Linked copied

I have difficulty putting much stock in the opinion of a scientist who only points to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels as the cause of climate change and fails to mention deforestation and shrinking of mangroves around the world.

Richard C. J. Somerville

Richard C. J. Somerville is an internationally recognized climate scientist. He has been a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at... Read More

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

1961: The neutron bomb

By Freeman Dyson

1952: Ten years after

By Eugene Rabinowitch

1956: Science and our times

By J. Robert Oppenheimer

Interview: Nobel chemistry laureate Jennifer Doudna on the promise and peril of the genetic editing revolution

By John Mecklin

2005: The bioterrorist cookbook

By Malcolm Dando

Contending with climate change: the next 25 years

By Robert Socolow

RELATED POSTS

“H is For Hope” sounded a bit better than “D is For Despair”: Interview with Elizabeth Kolbert about climate change

By Dan Drollette Jr

4,000 years of conflict over water: a timeline

By Morgan Shimabuku

Introduction: Praying for the ice (and snow, and water) as the climate changes

How we know Antarctica is rapidly losing more ice

By Martin Siegert

When glaciers calve: Huge underwater tsunamis found at edge of Antarctica, likely affecting ice melt

By Michael Meredith

Peak water in an era of climate change

By Peter Gleick

Bulletin Daily

Nuclear power: future energy solution or potential war target?

By Ray Hughes

Biden focused on strategic stability. His successor should embrace arms control

By Stephen J. Cimbala , Lawrence J. Korb

Preventing the next pandemic should start with protecting farm workers

By Amy K. Liebman , Claire Hutkins Seda

Apathy and hyperbole cloud the real risks of AI bioweapons

By Filippa Lentzos , Jez Littlewood , Hailey Wingo , Alberto Muti

Permitting reform is back from the dead. Will lawmakers sacrifice America’s public lands to the fossil fuel industry?

By Dustin Mulvaney

What the Mountain Valley Pipeline debacle says about energy permitting reform and ‘just transitions’

By Jamie Shinn , Laura Kuhl

More tornadoes are hitting the Northeast. The changing climate may be to blame

By Kiley Bense

US states aren’t even close to taking full advantage of IRA tax credits for climate action

By Syris Valentine

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions
• Climatic variation since the last glaciation
• The greenhouse effect
• Radiative forcing
• Water vapour
• Carbon dioxide
• Surface-level ozone and other compounds
• Nitrous oxides and fluorinated gases
• Land-use change
• Stratospheric ozone depletion
• Volcanic aerosols
• Variations in solar output
• Variations in Earth’s orbit
• Water vapour feedback
• Cloud feedbacks
• Ice albedo feedback
• Carbon cycle feedbacks
• Modern observations
• Prehistorical climate records
• Theoretical climate models
• Patterns of warming
• Precipitation patterns
• Regional predictions
• Ice melt and sea level rise
• Ocean circulation changes
• Tropical cyclones
• Environmental consequences of global warming
• Socioeconomic consequences of global warming

How does global warming work?

Where does global warming occur in the atmosphere, why is global warming a social problem, where does global warming affect polar bears.

global warming

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U.S. Department of Transportation - Global Warming: A Science Overview
• NOAA Climate.gov - Climate Change: Global Temperature
• Natural Resources Defense Council - Global Warming 101
• American Institute of Physics - The discovery of global warming
• LiveScience - Causes of Global Warming
• global warming - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• global warming - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Human activity affects global surface temperatures by changing Earth ’s radiative balance—the “give and take” between what comes in during the day and what Earth emits at night. Increases in greenhouse gases —i.e., trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that absorb heat energy emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiate it back—generated by industry and transportation cause the atmosphere to retain more heat, which increases temperatures and alters precipitation patterns.

Global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near Earth’s surface over the past one to two centuries, happens mostly in the troposphere , the lowest level of the atmosphere, which extends from Earth’s surface up to a height of 6–11 miles. This layer contains most of Earth’s clouds and is where living things and their habitats and weather primarily occur.

Continued global warming is expected to impact everything from energy use to water availability to crop productivity throughout the world. Poor countries and communities with limited abilities to adapt to these changes are expected to suffer disproportionately. Global warming is already being associated with increases in the incidence of severe and extreme weather, heavy flooding , and wildfires —phenomena that threaten homes, dams, transportation networks, and other facets of human infrastructure. Learn more about how the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, released in 2021, describes the social impacts of global warming.

Polar bears live in the Arctic , where they use the region’s ice floes as they hunt seals and other marine mammals . Temperature increases related to global warming have been the most pronounced at the poles, where they often make the difference between frozen and melted ice. Polar bears rely on small gaps in the ice to hunt their prey. As these gaps widen because of continued melting, prey capture has become more challenging for these animals.

Recent News

global warming , the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. Climate scientists have since the mid-20th century gathered detailed observations of various weather phenomena (such as temperatures, precipitation , and storms) and of related influences on climate (such as ocean currents and the atmosphere’s chemical composition). These data indicate that Earth’s climate has changed over almost every conceivable timescale since the beginning of geologic time and that human activities since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have a growing influence over the pace and extent of present-day climate change .

Giving voice to a growing conviction of most of the scientific community , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in 2021, noted that the best estimate of the increase in global average surface temperature between 1850 and 2019 was 1.07 °C (1.9 °F). An IPCC special report produced in 2018 noted that human beings and their activities have been responsible for a worldwide average temperature increase between 0.8 and 1.2 °C (1.4 and 2.2 °F) since preindustrial times, and most of the warming over the second half of the 20th century could be attributed to human activities.

AR6 produced a series of global climate predictions based on modeling five greenhouse gas emission scenarios that accounted for future emissions, mitigation (severity reduction) measures, and uncertainties in the model projections. Some of the main uncertainties include the precise role of feedback processes and the impacts of industrial pollutants known as aerosols , which may offset some warming. The lowest-emissions scenario, which assumed steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beginning in 2015, predicted that the global mean surface temperature would increase between 1.0 and 1.8 °C (1.8 and 3.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1850–1900 average. This range stood in stark contrast to the highest-emissions scenario, which predicted that the mean surface temperature would rise between 3.3 and 5.7 °C (5.9 and 10.2 °F) by 2100 based on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions would continue to increase throughout the 21st century. The intermediate-emissions scenario, which assumed that emissions would stabilize by 2050 before declining gradually, projected an increase of between 2.1 and 3.5 °C (3.8 and 6.3 °F) by 2100.

Many climate scientists agree that significant societal, economic, and ecological damage would result if the global average temperature rose by more than 2 °C (3.6 °F) in such a short time. Such damage would include increased extinction of many plant and animal species, shifts in patterns of agriculture , and rising sea levels. By 2015 all but a few national governments had begun the process of instituting carbon reduction plans as part of the Paris Agreement , a treaty designed to help countries keep global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above preindustrial levels in order to avoid the worst of the predicted effects. Whereas authors of the 2018 special report noted that should carbon emissions continue at their present rate, the increase in average near-surface air temperature would reach 1.5 °C sometime between 2030 and 2052, authors of the AR6 report suggested that this threshold would be reached by 2041 at the latest.

The AR6 report also noted that the global average sea level had risen by some 20 cm (7.9 inches) between 1901 and 2018 and that sea level rose faster in the second half of the 20th century than in the first half. It also predicted, again depending on a wide range of scenarios, that the global average sea level would rise by different amounts by 2100 relative to the 1995–2014 average. Under the report’s lowest-emission scenario, sea level would rise by 28–55 cm (11–21.7 inches), whereas, under the intermediate emissions scenario, sea level would rise by 44–76 cm (17.3–29.9 inches). The highest-emissions scenario suggested that sea level would rise by 63–101 cm (24.8–39.8 inches) by 2100.

The scenarios referred to above depend mainly on future concentrations of certain trace gases, called greenhouse gases , that have been injected into the lower atmosphere in increasing amounts through the burning of fossil fuels for industry, transportation , and residential uses. Modern global warming is the result of an increase in magnitude of the so-called greenhouse effect , a warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere caused by the presence of water vapour , carbon dioxide , methane , nitrous oxides , and other greenhouse gases. In 2014 the IPCC first reported that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides in the atmosphere surpassed those found in ice cores dating back 800,000 years.

Of all these gases, carbon dioxide is the most important, both for its role in the greenhouse effect and for its role in the human economy. It has been estimated that, at the beginning of the industrial age in the mid-18th century, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). By the end of 2022 they had risen to 419 ppm, and, if fossil fuels continue to be burned at current rates, they are projected to reach 550 ppm by the mid-21st century—essentially, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in 300 years.

A vigorous debate is in progress over the extent and seriousness of rising surface temperatures, the effects of past and future warming on human life, and the need for action to reduce future warming and deal with its consequences. This article provides an overview of the scientific background related to the subject of global warming. It considers the causes of rising near-surface air temperatures, the influencing factors, the process of climate research and forecasting, and the possible ecological and social impacts of rising temperatures. For an overview of the public policy developments related to global warming occurring since the mid-20th century, see global warming policy . For a detailed description of Earth’s climate, its processes, and the responses of living things to its changing nature, see climate . For additional background on how Earth’s climate has changed throughout geologic time , see climatic variation and change . For a full description of Earth’s gaseous envelope, within which climate change and global warming occur, see atmosphere .

Editorial: Climate change is already here. 2020 could be your last chance to stop an apocalypse

• Copy Link URL Copied!

The world is drifting steadily toward a climate catastrophe. For many of us, that’s been clear for a few years or maybe a decade or even a few decades.

But others have known that a reckoning was coming for much longer . A Swedish scientist first calculated in 1896 that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to warmer global temperatures. By the 1930s, scientists were measuring the increase , and in the late 1960s, they had documented the impact of melting ice in Antarctica . By 1977, Exxon-Mobil had recognized its own role in the warming of the ocean, the polar ice melt and the rising sea level.

For obvious reasons, Exxon-Mobil launched a massive public disinformation campaign to muddy the science and downplay the danger. But in retrospect, it needn’t have bothered. Because even after the facts became incontestably clear, the world did shockingly little to protect itself. In the first 17 years after the Kyoto protocol committed its signatories to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global emissions continued to rise. Decades of studied ignorance, political cowardice, cynical denialism and irresponsible dithering have allowed the problem to grow deeper and immeasurably harder to solve.

A three-part series on climate change

Part 2: Wealthy countries are responsible for climate change, but it’s the poor who will suffer most Part 3: Surviving climate change means an end to burning fossil fuels. Prepare yourself for sacrifices

But today, we are at an important turning point. The changing climate is no longer an abstract threat lurking in our distant future — it is upon us. We feel it. We see it. In our longer and deeper droughts and our more brutal hurricanes and raging, hyper-destructive wildfires. And with that comes a new urgency, and a new opportunity, to act.

Climate change is now simply impossible to ignore. The temperature reached a record-breaking 90 degrees in Anchorage this summer and an unprecedented 108 degrees in Paris. We can watch glaciers melting and collapsing on the web; ice losses in Antarctica have tripled since 2012 so that sea levels are rising faster today than at any time in the last quarter-century. Human migration patterns are already changing in Africa and Latin America as extreme weather events disrupt crop patterns, harm harvests and force farmers off their land, sending climate refugees to Europe and the United States.

It’s often difficult to attribute specific events to climate change but, clearly, strange things are happening. In India, entire cities are running out of water, thanks, scientists say, to a dangerous combination of mismanagement and climate change. In Syria, the civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced more than 11 million is believed by many scientists to have been sparked at least in part by climate-related drought and warming. Closer to home, two invasive, non-native mosquito species that have the potential to transmit viruses, including dengue, Zika and yellow fever have recently been found in several California cities.

According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 2000. The last five years have been the hottest since record-keeping began in 1880. July set an all-time record .

Here’s another reason we’re at a turning point (at least in the United States): An election is coming.

For three years, Americans have been living under the willfully blind, anti-scientific, business-coddling rule of President Trump, who has stubbornly chosen climate denial over rationality. We now have an opportunity to resoundingly reject his policies by voting him out of office, along with congressional Republicans who enable him. There are plenty of reasons to fight for Trump’s defeat in November 2020, but his deeply irresponsible climate policies — including moving to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, roll back Barack Obama’s emission limits on coal-fired plants, rescind rules governing methane emissions and relax national fuel emission standards — are among the strongest.

It is late — terribly late — for action, but with some luck, perhaps it is not too late to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change. In nations across the world, people finally recognize climate change as a top or very serious threat, according to the Pew Research Center. In the U.S., even Republican voters — and especially younger ones — are waking up to the realities and dangers of a warming planet.

Fewer and fewer people today doubt the overwhelming scientific evidence: By burning fossil fuels for energy, humans have added so much carbon (and other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere that we are changing nature itself, imperiling the delicate interdependence among species and putting our own survival at risk. Scientists say with certainty that we must radically transform how we make and use energy within a decade if we are to have any chance of mitigating the damage.

There are plenty of reasons to fight for Trump’s defeat in November 2020, but his deeply irresponsible climate policies ... are among the strongest.

But figuring out what must be done at this late stage is complicated. There are a wide range of emissions sources and many ways to approach them, ranging from the microsteps that can be taken by individuals — Do you have to take that car trip? That airline flight? — to the much more important macro-policies that must be adopted by nations.

Globally, 25% of greenhouse gas emissions today comes from burning fossil fuels to create heat and electricity, mostly for residential and commercial buildings; another 23% is the result of burning fuel for industrial uses. And 14% comes from transportation.

All that burning of carbon fuels needs to end; yet unless policies and politics change dramatically, it won’t end. Even in this time of heightened clarity, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles bought in the U.S. last year were gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. Those SUVs will be on the road an average of eight years, and the pickups for more than 13 years, as the time to address the climate problem slips away. Blame for this falls not just on consumers, but also on the manufacturers and the government, which has done too little to disincentivize the driving of gas-powered cars.

In the years since Kyoto, the world has undertaken significant efforts to ratchet down energy consumption, curtail coal burning (the dirtiest of the fossil fuels) and turn to renewable energy sources, yet overall emissions have increased. Today there are 7.7 billion people on the planet — twice as many as 50 years ago — and more people means more demand for power, especially in fast-growing countries such as India and China. Last year saw a global acceleration of emissions, as total carbon levels in the atmosphere reached 414.8 parts per million in May, the highest recorded in 3 million years. The richer human society becomes, it seems, the more we poison the world.

Editorial: Why we wrote our series on climate change

The Los Angeles Times editorial board has written about climate change for years. Here’s why we thought this was the right moment for a bigger, broader series of editorials on the subject.

At this point, the mission is no longer to avert or reverse climate change, but to mitigate its worst effects (by continuing to reduce emissions and slow warming) and to adapt to others. Adaptation might mean retreating from coastal developments as the seas rise or elevating roads and installing flooding pumps (as the city of Miami is already doing), or creating carbon sinks to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, all while continuing to try to curtail further emissions.

None of this is cheap or easy, but neither is the alternative. 2017 ranks as the costliest year for severe weather events and climate disasters worldwide; in the U.S. there was more than $300 billion in cumulative damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Obviously, the cost of dealing with inundated coastal areas — home to as many as 650 million people , or 8% of the world’s population — will be extraordinarily high . And that’s only one of the dangers on the horizon. We can expect people to be displaced by drought, river flooding, hurricanes and typhoons. Parts of the world can expect more food shortages, which some experts believe will lead in turn to political instability, civil unrest and mass migration. The U.S. military rightly refers to climate change as a “threat multiplier.”

Fighting the rise in temperature and sea levels will be tough. Our democracy doesn’t encourage politicians to take bold stances; our economic system doesn’t encourage companies to sacrifice profits for the common good. And we humans are understandably disinclined to live differently or to make sacrifices. But we must stop dawdling and forge ahead if we are to protect ourselves and our planet.

This is Part 1 of a three-part series on climate change.

Part 2: Wealthy countries are responsible for climate change, but it’s the poor who will suffer most

Part 3: Surviving climate change means an end to burning fossil fuels. Prepare yourself for sacrifices

More to read.

Feeling climate anxiety? These books offer glimmers of hope — and much-needed wisdom

Sept. 11, 2024

To fix climate anxiety (and also climate change), we first have to fix individualism

Our climate change challenge

Sept. 9, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the positions of The Times as an institution. It operates separately from the newsroom. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at About The Times Editorial Board .

More From the Los Angeles Times

Endorsement: Heather Hutt for Los Angeles City Council District 10

Sept. 16, 2024

Endorsement: Ysabel Jurado for Los Angeles City Council District 14

Sept. 15, 2024

Endorsement: These five candidates will make great Los Angeles County Superior Court judges

Sept. 13, 2024

Commentary: A terrible decision sparked a wildfire, and the public will pay the price

Sept. 12, 2024

Most Read in Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor: Dear Donald Trump: You’re right about us migrants. We’ll cut back on rapes and murders

Granderson: Soul singer Frankie Beverly’s legacy of healing

Letters to the Editor: This satirical letter on the Harris-Trump debate was one for the ages

Goldberg: The rhetoric of Harris and Biden isn’t what’s sparking political violence. Here’s why

A problem built into our relationship with energy itself. Photo by Ferdinando Scianna/Magnum

Deep warming

Even if we ‘solve’ global warming, we face an older, slower problem. waste heat could radically alter earth’s future.

by Mark Buchanan   + BIO

The world will be transformed. By 2050, we will be driving electric cars and flying in aircraft running on synthetic fuels produced through solar and wind energy. New energy-efficient technologies, most likely harnessing artificial intelligence, will dominate nearly all human activities from farming to heavy industry. The fossil fuel industry will be in the final stages of a terminal decline. Nuclear fusion and other new energy sources may have become widespread. Perhaps our planet will even be orbited by massive solar arrays capturing cosmic energy from sunlight and generating seemingly endless energy for all our needs.

That is one possible future for humanity. It’s an optimistic view of how radical changes to energy production might help us slow or avoid the worst outcomes of global warming. In a report from 1965, scientists from the US government warned that our ongoing use of fossil fuels would cause global warming with potentially disastrous consequences for Earth’s climate. The report, one of the first government-produced documents to predict a major crisis caused by humanity’s large-scale activities, noted that the likely consequences would include higher global temperatures, the melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels. ‘Through his worldwide industrial civilisation,’ the report concluded, ‘Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment’ – an experiment with a highly uncertain outcome, but clear and important risks for life on Earth.

Since then, we’ve dithered and doubted and argued about what to do, but still have not managed to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to rise. Governments around the planet have promised to phase out emissions in the coming decades and transition to ‘green energy’. But global temperatures may be rising faster than we expected: some climate scientists worry that rapid rises could create new problems and positive feedback loops that may accelerate climate destabilisation and make parts of the world uninhabitable long before a hoped-for transition is possible.

Despite this bleak vision of the future, there are reasons for optimists to hope due to progress on cleaner sources of renewable energy, especially solar power. Around 2010, solar energy generation accounted for less than 1 per cent of the electricity generated by humanity. But experts believe that, by 2027, due to falling costs, better technology and exponential growth in new installations, solar power will become the largest global energy source for producing electricity. If progress on renewables continues, we might find a way to resolve the warming problem linked to greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, large-scale societal and ecological changes might have helped us avoid the worst consequences of our extensive use of fossil fuels.

It’s a momentous challenge. And it won’t be easy. But this story of transformation only hints at the true depth of the future problems humanity will confront in managing our energy use and its influence over our climate.

As scientists are gradually learning, even if we solve the immediate warming problem linked to the greenhouse effect, there’s another warming problem steadily growing beneath it. Let’s call it the ‘deep warming’ problem. This deeper problem also raises Earth’s surface temperature but, unlike global warming, it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and our use of fossil fuels. It stems directly from our use of energy in all forms and our tendency to use more energy over time – a problem created by the inevitable waste heat that is generated whenever we use energy to do something. Yes, the world may well be transformed by 2050. Carbon dioxide levels may stabilise or fall thanks to advanced AI-assisted technologies that run on energy harvested from the sun and wind. And the fossil fuel industry may be taking its last breaths. But we will still face a deeper problem. That’s because ‘deep warming’ is not created by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It’s a problem built into our relationship with energy itself.

F inding new ways to harness more energy has been a constant theme of human development. The evolution of humanity – from early modes of hunter-gathering to farming and industry – has involved large systematic increases in our per-capita energy use. The British historian and archaeologist Ian Morris estimates, in his book Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve (2015), that early human hunter-gatherers, living more than 10,000 years ago, ‘captured’ around 5,000 kcal per person per day by consuming food, burning fuel, making clothing, building shelter, or through other activities. Later, after we turned to farming and enlisted the energies of domesticated animals, we were able to harness as much as 30,000 kcal per day. In the late 17th century , the exploitation of coal and steam power marked another leap: by 1970, the use of fossil fuels allowed humans to consume some 230,000 kcal per person per day. (When we think about humanity writ large as ‘humans’, it’s important to acknowledge that the average person in the wealthiest nations consumes up to 100 times more energy than the average person in the poorest nations.) As the global population has risen and people have invented new energy-dependent technologies, our global energy use has continued to climb.

In many respects, this is great. We can now do more with less effort and achieve things that were unimaginable to the 17th-century inventors of steam engines, let alone to our hominin ancestors. We’ve made powerful mining machines, superfast trains, lasers for use in telecommunications and brain-imaging equipment. But these creations, while helping us, are also subtly heating the planet.

All the energy we humans use – to heat our homes, run our factories, propel our automobiles and aircraft, or to run our electronics – eventually ends up as heat in the environment. In the shorter term, most of the energy we use flows directly into the environment. It gets there through hot exhaust gases, friction between tires and roads, the noises generated by powerful engines, which spread out, dissipate, and eventually end up as heat. However, a small portion of the energy we use gets stored in physical changes, such as in new steel, plastic or concrete. It’s stored in our cities and technologies. In the longer term, as these materials break down, the energy stored inside also finds its way into the environment as heat. This is a direct consequence of the well-tested principles of thermodynamics.

Waste heat will pose a problem that is every bit as serious as global warming from greenhouse gases

In the early decades of the 21st century , this heat created by simply using energy, known as ‘waste heat’, is not so serious. It’s equivalent to roughly 2 per cent of the planetary heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases – for now. But, with the passing of time, the problem is likely to get much more serious. That’s because humans have a historical tendency to consistently discover and produce things, creating entirely new technologies and industries in the process: domesticated animals for farming; railways and automobiles; global air travel and shipping; personal computers, the internet and mobile phones. The result of such activities is that we end up using more and more energy, despite improved energy efficiency in nearly every area of technology.

During the past two centuries at least (and likely for much longer), our yearly energy use has doubled roughly every 30 to 50 years . Our energy use seems to be growing exponentially, a trend that shows every sign of continuing. We keep finding new things to do and almost everything we invent requires more and more energy: consider the enormous energy demands of cryptocurrency mining or the accelerating energy requirements of AI.

If this historical trend continues, scientists estimate waste heat will pose a problem in roughly 150-200 years that is every bit as serious as the current problem of global warming from greenhouse gases. However, deep heating will be more pernicious as we won’t be able to avoid it by merely shifting from one kind energy to another. A profound problem will loom before us: can we set strict limits on all the energy we use? Can we reign in the seemingly inexorable expansion of our activities to avoid destroying our own environment?

Deep warming is a problem hiding beneath global warming, but one that will become prominent if and when we manage to solve the more pressing issue of greenhouse gases. It remains just out of sight, which might explain why scientists only became concerned about the ‘waste heat’ problem around 15 years ago.

O ne of the first people to describe the problem is the Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, who discussed the issue of waste heat in a paper titled ‘Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage’ (2008). He concluded that our technological society may be facing a fundamental limit to growth due to ‘unavoidable global heating … dictated solely by the second law of thermodynamics, a biogeophysical effect often ignored when estimating future planetary warming scenarios’. When I emailed Chaisson to learn more, he told me the history of his thinking on the problem:

It was on a night flight, Paris-Boston [circa] 2006, after a UNESCO meeting on the environment when it dawned on me that the IPCC were overlooking something. While others on the plane slept, I crunched some numbers literally on the back of an envelope … and then hoped I was wrong, that is, hoped that I was incorrect in thinking that the very act of using energy heats the air, however slightly now.

The transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics

Chaisson drafted the idea up as a paper and sent it to an academic journal. Two anonymous reviewers were eager for it to be published. ‘A third tried his damnedest to kill it,’ Chaisson said, the reviewer claiming the findings were ‘irrelevant and distracting’. After it was finally published, the paper got some traction when it was covered by a journalist and ran as a feature story on the front page of The Boston Globe . The numbers Chaisson crunched, predictions of our mounting waste heat, were even run on a supercomputer at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, by Mark Flanner, a professor of earth system science. Flanner, Chaisson suspected at the time, was likely ‘out to prove it wrong’. But, ‘after his machine crunched for many hours’, he saw the same results that Chaisson had written on the back of an envelope that night in the plane.

Around the same time, also in 2008, two engineers, Nick Cowern and Chihak Ahn, wrote a research paper entirely independent of Chaisson’s work, but with similar conclusions. This was how I first came across the problem. Cowern and Ahn’s study estimated the total amount of waste heat we’re currently releasing to the environment, and found that it is, right now, quite small. But, like Chaisson, they acknowledged that the problem would eventually become serious unless steps were taken to avoid it.

That’s some of the early history of thinking in this area. But these two papers, and a few other analyses since, point to the same unsettling conclusion: what I am calling ‘deep warming’ will be a big problem for humanity at some point in the not-too-distant future. The precise date is far from certain. It might be 150 years , or 400, or 800, but it’s in the relatively near future, not the distant future of, say, thousands or millions of years. This is our future.

T he transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics. As cars drive down roads, trains roar along railways, planes cross the skies and industrial plants turn raw materials into refined products, energy gets turned into heat, which is the scientific word for energy stored in the disorganised motions of molecules at the microscopic level. As a plane flies from Paris to Boston, it burns fuel and thrusts hot gases into the air, generates lots of sound and stirs up contrails. These swirls of air give rise to swirls on smaller scales which in turn make smaller ones until the energy ultimately ends up lost in heat – the air is a little warmer than before, the molecules making it up moving about a little more vigorously. A similar process takes place when energy is used by the tiny electrical currents inside the microchips of computers, silently carrying out computations. Energy used always ends up as heat. Decades ago, research by the IBM physicist Rolf Landauer showed that a computation involving even a single computing bit will release a certain minimum amount of heat to the environment.

How this happens is described by the laws of thermodynamics, which were described in the mid-19th century by scientists including Sadi Carnot in France and Rudolf Clausius in Germany. Two key ‘laws’ summarise its main principles.

The first law of thermodynamics simply states that the total quantity of energy never changes but is conserved. Energy, in other words, never disappears, but only changes form. The energy initially stored in an aircraft’s fuel, for example, can be changed into the energetic motion of the plane. Turn on an electric heater, and energy initially held in electric currents gets turned into heat, which spreads into the air, walls and fabric of your house. The total energy remains the same, but it markedly changes form.

We’re generating waste heat all the time with everything we do

The second law of thermodynamics, equally important, is more subtle and states that, in natural processes, the transformation of energy always moves from more organised and useful forms to less organised and less useful forms. For an aircraft, the energy initially concentrated in jet fuel ends up dissipated in stirred-up winds, sounds and heat spread over vast areas of the atmosphere in a largely invisible way. It’s the same with the electric heater: the organised useful energy in the electric currents gets dissipated and spread into the low-grade warmth of the walls, then leaks into the outside air. Although the amount of energy remains the same, it gradually turns into less organised, less usable forms. The end point of the energy process produces waste heat. And we’re generating it all the time with everything we do.

Data on world energy consumption shows that, collectively, all humans on Earth are currently using about 170,000 terawatt-hours (TWh), which is a lot of energy in absolute terms – a terawatt-hour is the total energy consumed in one hour by any process using energy at a rate of 1 trillion watts. This huge number isn’t surprising, as it represents all the energy being used every day by the billions of cars and homes around the world, as well as by industry, farming, construction, air traffic and so on. But, in the early 21st century , the warming from this energy is still much less than the planetary heating due to greenhouse gases.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO 2 and methane are quite small, and only make a fractional difference to how much of the Sun’s energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, rather than making it back out to space. Even so, this fractional difference has a huge effect because the stream of energy arriving from the Sun to Earth is so large. Current estimates of this greenhouse energy imbalance come to around 0.87 W per square meter, which translates into a total energy figure about 50 times larger than our waste heat. That’s reassuring. But as Cowern and Ahn wrote in their 2008 paper, things aren’t likely to stay this way over time because our energy usage keeps rising. Unless, that is, we can find some radical way to break the trend of using ever more energy.

O ne common objection to the idea of the deep warming is to claim that the problem won’t really arise. ‘Don’t worry,’ someone might say, ‘with efficient technology, we’re going to find ways to stop using more energy; though we’ll end up doing more things in the future, we’ll use less energy.’ This may sound plausible at first, because we are indeed getting more efficient at using energy in most areas of technology. Our cars, appliances and laptops are all doing more with less energy. If efficiency keeps improving, perhaps we can learn to run these things with almost no energy at all? Not likely, because there are limits to energy efficiency.

Over the past few decades, the efficiency of heating in homes – including oil and gas furnaces, and boilers used to heat water – has increased from less than 50 per cent to well above 90 per cent of what is theoretically possible. That’s good news, but there’s not much more efficiency to be realised in basic heating. The efficiency of lighting has also vastly improved, with modern LED lighting turning something like 70 per cent of the applied electrical energy into light. We will gain some efficiencies as older lighting gets completely replaced by LEDs, but there’s not a lot of room left for future efficiency improvements. Similar efficiency limits arise in the growing or cooking of food; in the manufacturing of cars, bikes and electronic devices; in transportation, as we’re taken from place to place; in the running of search engines, translation software, GPT-4 or other large-language models.

Even if we made significant improvements in the efficiencies of these technologies, we will only have bought a little time. These changes won’t delay by much the date when deep warming becomes a problem we must reckon with.

Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future

As a thought experiment, suppose we could immediately improve the energy efficiency of everything we do by a factor of 10 – a fantastically optimistic proposal. That is, imagine the energy output of humans on Earth has been reduced 10 times , from 170,000 TWh to 17,000 TWh . If our energy use keeps expanding, doubling every 30-50 years or so (as it has for centuries), then a 10-fold increase in waste heat will happen in just over three doubling times, which is about 130 years : 17,000 TWh doubles to 34,000 TWh , which doubles to 68,000 TWh , which doubles to 136,000 TWh , and so on. All those improvements in energy efficiency would quickly evaporate. The date when deep warming hits would recede by 130 years or so, but not much more. Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future.

Improvements in energy efficiency can also have an inverse effect on our overall energy use. It’s easy to think that if we make a technology more efficient, we’ll then use less energy through the technology. But economists are deeply aware of a paradoxical effect known as ‘rebound’, whereby improved energy efficiency, by making the use of a technology cheaper, actually leads to more widespread use of that technology – and more energy use too. The classic example, as noted by the British economist William Stanley Jevons in his book The Coal Question (1865), is the invention of the steam engine. This new technology could extract energy from burning coal more efficiently, but it also made possible so many new applications that the use of coal increased. A recent study by economists suggests that, across the economy, such rebound effects might easily swallow at least 50 per cent of any efficiency gains in energy use. Something similar has already happened with LED lights, for which people have found thousands of new uses.

If gains in efficiency won’t buy us lots of time, how about other factors, such as a reduction of the global population? Scientists generally believe that the current human population of more than 8 billion people is well beyond the limits of our finite planet, especially if a large fraction of this population aspires to the resource-intensive lifestyles of wealthy nations. Some estimates suggest that a more sustainable population might be more like 2 billion , which could reduce energy use significantly, potentially by a factor of three or four. However, this isn’t a real solution: again, as with the example of improved energy efficiency, a one-time reduction of our energy consumption by a factor of three will quickly be swallowed up by an inexorable rise in energy use. If Earth’s population were suddenly reduced to 2 billion – about a quarter of the current population – our energy gains would initially be enormous. But those gains would be erased in two doubling times, or roughly 60-100 years , as our energy demands would grow fourfold.

S o, why aren’t more people talking about this? The deep warming problem is starting to get more attention. It was recently mentioned on Twitter by the German climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who cautioned that nuclear fusion, despite excitement over recent advances, won’t arrive in time to save us from our waste heat, and might make the problem worse. By providing another cheap source of energy, fusion energy could accelerate both the growth of our energy use and the reckoning of deep warming. A student of Rahmstorf’s, Peter Steiglechner, wrote his master’s thesis on the problem in 2018. Recognition of deep warming and its long-term implications for humanity is spreading. But what can we do about the problem?

Avoiding or delaying deep warming will involve slowing the rise of our waste heat, which means restricting the amount of energy we use and also choosing energy sources that exacerbate the problem as little as possible. Unlike the energy from fossil fuels or nuclear power, which add to our waste energy burden, renewable energy sources intercept energy that is already on its way to Earth, rather than producing additional waste heat. In this sense, the deep warming problem is another reason to pursue renewable energy sources such as solar or wind rather than alternatives such as nuclear fusion, fission or even geothermal power. If we derive energy from any of these sources, we’re unleashing new flows of energy into the Earth system without making a compensating reduction. As a result, all such sources will add to the waste heat problem. However, if renewable sources of energy are deployed correctly, they need not add to our deposition of waste heat in the environment. By using this energy, we produce no more waste heat than would have been created by sunlight in the first place.

Take the example of wind energy. Sunlight first stirs winds into motion by heating parts of the planet unequally, causing vast cells of convection. As wind churns through the atmosphere, blows through trees and over mountains and waves, most of its energy gets turned into heat, ending up in the microscopic motions of molecules. If we harvest some of this wind energy through turbines, it will also be turned into heat in the form of stored energy. But, crucially, no more heat is generated than if there had been no turbines to capture the wind.

The same can hold true for solar energy. In an array of solar cells, if each cell only collects the sunlight falling on it – which would ordinarily have been absorbed by Earth’s surface – then the cells don’t alter how much waste heat gets produced as they generate energy. The light that would have warmed Earth’s surface instead goes into the solar cells, gets used by people for some purpose, and then later ends up as heat. In this way we reduce the amount of heat being absorbed by Earth by precisely the same amount as the energy we are extracting for human use. We are not adding to overall planetary heating. This keeps the waste energy burden unchanged, at least in the relatively near future, even if we go on extracting and using ever larger amounts of energy.

Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor

Chaisson summarised the problem quite clearly in 2008:

I’m now of the opinion … that any energy that’s dug up on Earth – including all fossil fuels of course, but also nuclear and ground-sourced geothermal – will inevitably produce waste heat as a byproduct of humankind’s use of energy. The only exception to that is energy arriving from beyond Earth, this is energy here and now and not dug up, namely the many solar energies (plural) caused by the Sun’s rays landing here daily … The need to avoid waste heat is indeed the single, strongest, scientific argument to embrace solar energies of all types.

But not just any method of gathering solar energy will avoid the deep warming problem. Doing so requires careful engineering. For example, covering deserts with solar panels would add to planetary heating because deserts reflect a lot of incident light back out to space, so it is never absorbed by Earth (and therefore doesn’t produce waste heat). Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor and would heat the planet further.

We’ll also face serious problems in the long run if our energy appetite keeps increasing. Futurists dream of technologies deployed in space where huge panels would absorb sunlight that would otherwise have passed by Earth and never entered our atmosphere. Ultimately, they believe, this energy could be beamed down to Earth. Like nuclear energy, such technologies would add an additional energy source to the planet without any compensating removal of heating from the sunlight currently striking our planet’s surface. Any effort to produce more energy than is normally available from sunlight at Earth’s surface will only make our heating problems worse.

D eep warming is simply a consequence of the laws of physics and our inquisitive nature. It seems to be in our nature to constantly learn and develop new things, changing our environment in the process. For thousands of years, we have harvested and exploited ever greater quantities of energy in this pursuit, and we appear poised to continue along this path with the rapidly expanding use of renewable energy sources – and perhaps even more novel sources such as nuclear fusion. But this path cannot proceed indefinitely without consequences.

The logic that more energy equals more warming sets up a profound dilemma for our future. The laws of physics and the habits ingrained in us from our long evolutionary history are steering us toward trouble. We may have a technological fix for greenhouse gas warming – just shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources – but there is no technical trick to get us out of the deep warming problem. That won’t stop some scientists from trying.

Perhaps, believing that humanity is incapable of reducing its energy usage, we’ll adopt a fantastic scheme to cool the planet, such as planetary-scale refrigeration or using artificially engineered tornadoes to transport heat from Earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated away to space. As far-fetched as such approaches sound, scientists have given some serious thought to these and other equally bizarre ideas, which seem wholly in the realm of science fiction. They’re schemes that will likely make the problem worse not better.

We will need to transform the human story. It must become a story of doing less, not more

I see several possibilities for how we might ultimately respond. As with greenhouse gas warming, there will probably be an initial period of disbelief, denial and inaction, as we continue with unconstrained technological advance and growing energy use. Our planet will continue warming. Sooner or later, however, such warming will lead to serious disruptions of the Earth environment and its ecosystems. We won’t be able to ignore this for long, and it may provide a natural counterbalance to our energy use, as our technical and social capacity to generate and use ever more energy will be eroded. We may eventually come to some uncomfortable balance in which we just scrabble out a life on a hot, compromised planet because we lack the moral and organisational ability to restrict our energy use enough to maintain a sound environment.

An alternative would require a radical break with our past: using less energy. Finding a way to use less energy would represent a truly fundamental rupture with all of human history, something entirely novel. A rupture of this magnitude won’t come easily. However, if we could learn to view restrictions on our energy use as a non-negotiable element of life on Earth, we may still be able to do many of the things that make us essentially human: learning, discovering, inventing, creating. In this scenario, any helpful new technology that comes into use and begins using lots of energy would require a balancing reduction in energy use elsewhere. In such a way, we might go on with the future being perpetually new, and possibly better.

None of this is easily achieved and will likely mirror our current struggles to come to agreements on greenhouse gas heating. There will be vicious squabbles, arguments and profound polarisation, quite possibly major wars. Humanity will never have faced a challenge of this magnitude, and we won’t face up to it quickly or easily, I expect. But we must. Planetary heating is in our future – the very near future and further out as well. Many people will find this conclusion surprisingly hard to swallow, perhaps because it implies fundamental restrictions on our future here on Earth: we can’t go on forever using more and more energy, and, at the same time, expecting the planet’s climate to remain stable.

The world will likely be transformed by 2050. And, sometime after that, we will need to transform the human story. The narrative arc of humanity must become a tale of continuing innovation and learning, but also one of careful management. It must become a story, in energy terms, of doing less, not more. There’s no technology for entirely escaping waste heat, only techniques.

This is important to remember as we face up to the extremely urgent challenge of heating linked to fossil-fuel use and greenhouse gases. Global warming is just the beginning of our problems. It’s a testing ground to see if we can manage an intelligent and coordinated response. If we can handle this challenge, we might be better prepared, more capable and resilient as a species to tackle an even harder one.

Film and visual culture

The risk of beauty

W Eugene Smith’s photos of the Minamata disaster are both exquisite and horrifying. How might we now look at them?

Joanna Pocock

History of ideas

Philosophy of the people

How two amateur schools pulled a generation of thinkers from the workers and teachers of the 19th-century American Midwest

Joseph M Keegin

Nature and landscape

Laughing shores

Sailors, exiles, merchants and philosophers: how the ancient Greeks played with language to express a seaborne imagination

Giordano Lipari

Metaphysics

Desperate remedies

In order to make headway on knotty metaphysical problems, philosophers should look to the methods used by scientists

Political philosophy

Citizens and spinning wheels

For Indians to be truly free, Gandhi argued they must take up traditional crafts. Was it a quixotic hope or inspired solution?

Benjamin Studebaker

Psychiatry and psychotherapy

For those who hear voices, the ‘broken brain’ explanation is harmful. Psychiatry must embrace new meaning-making frameworks

Justin Garson

Explore Greyhound Nation

• Loyola Today

Our Future Is Now - A Climate Change Essay by Francesca Minicozzi, '21

Francesca Minicozzi (class of 2021) is a Writing/Biology major who plans to study medicine after graduation. She wrote this essay on climate change for WR 355/Travel Writing, which she took while studying abroad in Newcastle in spring 2020. Although the coronavirus pandemic curtailed Francesca’s time abroad, her months in Newcastle prompted her to learn more about climate change. Terre Ryan Associate Professor, Writing Department

Our Future Is Now

By Francesca Minicozzi, '21 Writing and Biology Major

 “If you don’t mind me asking, how is the United States preparing for climate change?” my flat mate, Zac, asked me back in March, when we were both still in Newcastle. He and I were accustomed to asking each other about the differences between our home countries; he came from Cambridge, while I originated in Long Island, New York. This was one of our numerous conversations about issues that impact our generation, which we usually discussed while cooking dinner in our communal kitchen. In the moment of our conversation, I did not have as strong an answer for him as I would have liked. Instead, I informed him of the few changes I had witnessed within my home state of New York.

Zac’s response was consistent with his normal, diplomatic self. “I have been following the BBC news in terms of the climate crisis for the past few years. The U.K. has been working hard to transition to renewable energy sources. Similar to the United States, here in the United Kingdom we have converted over to solar panels too. My home does not have solar panels, but a lot of our neighbors have switched to solar energy in the past few years.”

“Our two countries are similar, yet so different,” I thought. Our conversation continued as we prepared our meals, with topics ranging from climate change to the upcoming presidential election to Britain’s exit from the European Union. However, I could not shake the fact that I knew so little about a topic so crucial to my generation.

After I abruptly returned home from the United Kingdom because of the global pandemic, my conversation with my flat mate lingered in my mind. Before the coronavirus surpassed climate change headlines, I had seen the number of internet postings regarding protests to protect the planet dramatically increase. Yet the idea of our planet becoming barren and unlivable in a not-so-distant future had previously upset me to the point where a part of me refused to deal with it. After I returned from studying abroad, I decided to educate myself on the climate crisis.

My quest for climate change knowledge required a thorough understanding of the difference between “climate change” and “global warming.” Climate change is defined as “a pattern of change affecting global or regional climate,” based on “average temperature and rainfall measurements” as well as the frequency of extreme weather events. 1   These varied temperature and weather events link back to both natural incidents and human activity. 2   Likewise, the term global warming was coined “to describe climate change caused by humans.” 3   Not only that, but global warming is most recently attributed to an increase in “global average temperature,” mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans. 4

I next questioned why the term “climate change” seemed to take over the term “global warming” in the United States. According to Frank Luntz, a leading Republican consultant, the term “global warming” functions as a rather intimidating phrase. During George W. Bush’s first presidential term, Luntz argued in favor of using the less daunting phrase “climate change” in an attempt to overcome the environmental battle amongst Democrats and Republicans. 5   Since President Bush’s term, Luntz remains just one political consultant out of many politicians who has recognized the need to address climate change. In an article from 2019, Luntz proclaimed that political parties aside, the climate crisis affects everyone. Luntz argued that politicians should steer clear of trying to communicate “the complicated science of climate change,” and instead engage voters by explaining how climate change personally impacts citizens with natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. 6   He even suggested that a shift away from words like “sustainability” would gear Americans towards what they really want: a “cleaner, safer, healthier” environment. 7

The idea of a cleaner and heathier environment remains easier said than done. The Paris Climate Agreement, introduced in 2015, began the United Nations’ “effort to combat global climate change.” 8   This agreement marked a global initiative to “limit global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels,” while simultaneously “pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.” 9    Every country on earth has joined together in this agreement for the common purpose of saving our planet. 10   So, what could go wrong here? As much as this sounds like a compelling step in the right direction for climate change, President Donald Trump thought otherwise. In June 2017, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement with his proclamation of climate change as a “’hoax’ perpetrated by China.” 11   President Trump continued to question the scientific facts behind climate change, remaining an advocate for the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production. 12   He reversed environmental policies implemented by former President Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel use. 13

Trump’s actions against the Paris Agreement, however, fail to represent the beliefs of Americans as a whole. The majority of American citizens feel passionate about the fight against climate change. To demonstrate their support, some have gone as far as creating initiatives including America’s Pledge and We Are Still In. 14   Although the United States officially exited the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020, this withdrawal may not survive permanently. 15   According to experts, our new president “could rejoin in as short as a month’s time.” 16   This offers a glimmer of hope.

The Paris Agreement declares that the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emission levels by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025. 17   As a leader in greenhouse gas emissions, the United States needs to accept the climate crisis for the serious challenge that it presents and work together with other nations. The concept of working coherently with all nations remains rather tricky; however, I remain optimistic. I think we can learn from how other countries have adapted to the increased heating of our planet. During my recent study abroad experience in the United Kingdom, I was struck by Great Britain’s commitment to combating climate change.

Since the United Kingdom joined the Paris Agreement, the country targets a “net-zero” greenhouse gas emission for 2050. 18   This substantial alteration would mark an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases from 1990, if “clear, stable, and well-designed policies are implemented without interruption.” 19   In order to stay on top of reducing emissions, the United Kingdom tracks electricity and car emissions, “size of onshore and offshore wind farms,” amount of homes and “walls insulated, and boilers upgraded,” as well as the development of government policies, including grants for electric vehicles. 20   A strong grip on this data allows the United Kingdom to target necessary modifications that keep the country on track for 2050. In my brief semester in Newcastle, I took note of these significant changes. The city of Newcastle is small enough that many students and faculty are able to walk or bike to campus and nearby essential shops. However, when driving is unavoidable, the majority of the vehicles used are electric, and many British citizens place a strong emphasis on carpooling to further reduce emissions. The United Kingdom’s determination to severely reduce greenhouse emissions is ambitious and particularly admirable, especially as the United States struggles to shy away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

So how can we, as Americans, stand together to combat global climate change? Here are five adjustments Americans can make to their homes and daily routines that can dramatically make a difference:

• Stay cautious of food waste. Studies demonstrate that “Americans throw away up to 40 percent of the food they buy.” 21   By being more mindful of the foods we purchase, opting for leftovers, composting wastes, and donating surplus food to those in need, we can make an individual difference that impacts the greater good. 22   
• Insulate your home. Insulation functions as a “cost-effective and accessible” method to combat climate change. 23   Homes with modern insulation reduce energy required to heat them, leading to a reduction of emissions and an overall savings; in comparison, older homes can “lose up to 35 percent of heat through their walls.” 24   
• Switch to LED Lighting. LED stands for “light-emitting diodes,” which use “90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and half as much as compact fluorescents.” 25   LED lights create light without producing heat, and therefore do not waste energy. Additionally, these lights have a longer duration than other bulbs, which means they offer a continuing savings. 26  
• Choose transportation wisely. Choose to walk or bike whenever the option presents itself. If walking or biking is not an option, use an electric or hybrid vehicle which emits less harmful gases. Furthermore, reduce the number of car trips taken, and carpool with others when applicable. 
• Finally, make your voice heard. The future of our planet remains in our hands, so we might as well use our voices to our advantage. Social media serves as a great platform for this. Moreover, using social media to share helpful hints to combat climate change within your community or to promote an upcoming protest proves beneficial in the long run. If we collectively put our voices to good use, together we can advocate for change.

As many of us are stuck at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these suggestions are slightly easier to put into place. With numerous “stay-at-home” orders in effect, Americans have the opportunity to make significant achievements for climate change. Personally, I have taken more precautions towards the amount of food consumed within my household during this pandemic. I have been more aware of food waste, opting for leftovers when too much food remains. Additionally, I have realized how powerful my voice is as a young college student. Now is the opportunity for Americans to share how they feel about climate change. During this unprecedented time, our voice is needed now more than ever in order to make a difference.

However, on a much larger scale, the coronavirus outbreak has shed light on reducing global energy consumption. Reductions in travel, both on the roads and in the air, have triggered a drop in emission rates. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts a 6 percent decrease in energy consumption around the globe for this year alone. 27   This drop is “equivalent to losing the entire energy demand of India.” 28   Complete lockdowns have lowered the global demand for electricity and slashed CO2 emissions. However, in New York City, the shutdown has only decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent. 29   This proves that a shift in personal behavior is simply not enough to “fix the carbon emission problem.” 30   Climate policies aimed to reduce fossil fuel production and promote clean technology will be crucial steppingstones to ameliorating climate change effects. Our current reduction of greenhouse gas emissions serves as “the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050.” 31   From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, politicians came together for the common good of protecting humanity; this demonstrates that when necessary, global leaders are capable of putting humankind above the economy. 32

After researching statistics comparing the coronavirus to climate change, I thought back to the moment the virus reached pandemic status. I knew that a greater reason underlay all of this global turmoil. Our globe is in dire need of help, and the coronavirus reminds the world of what it means to work together. This pandemic marks a turning point in global efforts to slow down climate change. The methods we enact towards not only stopping the spread of the virus, but slowing down climate change, will ultimately depict how humanity will arise once this pandemic is suppressed. The future of our home planet lies in how we treat it right now. 

• “Climate Change: What Do All the Terms Mean?,” BBC News (BBC, May 1, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48057733 )
• Ibid. 
• Kate Yoder, “Frank Luntz, the GOP's Message Master, Calls for Climate Action,” Grist (Grist, July 26, 2019), https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action
• Melissa Denchak, “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know,” NRDC, April 29, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know)
• “Donald J. Trump's Foreign Policy Positions,” Council on Foreign Relations (Council on Foreign Relations), accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/donald-j.-trump?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi21cneTRft_doA5if60euC6QCL7sr-Jwwv76IkgWaUTuyJNx9EzZzRBoCdjsQAvD_BwE#climate and energy )
• David Doniger, “Paris Climate Agreement Explained: Does Congress Need to Sign Off?,” NRDC, December 15, 2016, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign )
• “How the UK Is Progressing,” Committee on Climate Change, March 9, 2020, https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/how-the-uk-is-progressing/)
• Ibid.  
• “Top 10 Ways You Can Fight Climate Change,” Green America, accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.greenamerica.org/your-green-life/10-ways-you-can-fight-climate-change )
• Matt McGrath, “Climate Change and Coronavirus: Five Charts about the Biggest Carbon Crash,” BBC News (BBC, May 5, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-52485712 )

Research by the Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford University

Introduction   Fundamentals   Who Should Take Action   Government Policy   Economic Side Effects   Willingness to Pay   Priority   Consequences of Global Warming   Preparing for Possible Consequences   Consumer Choices   Attitude Strength   Voter Behavior   Opinions in the States   Trust in Scientists   Scientists' Beliefs   Partisan Views   Publications

Introduction

What do Americans think about global warming?  Do people believe that the Earth has been warming?  Do people believe that human activity has contributed to warming?  Do people believe that warming constitutes a threat?  Do people want government to do anything about the issue?  Do people attach any priority to the issue?  Do people’s opinions on the issue influence their voting behavior?  Are people willing to pay money to reduce future emissions?

Since 1995, Stanford’s Political Psychology Research Group ( PPRG ) has been exploring these issues through a series of high-quality national surveys of random samples of American adults.

Co-led by Jon Krosnick (a Stanford professor with expertise in public opinion, political psychology, and survey methodology) and economist Bo MacInnis, the PPRG team has partnered with many major news organizations in conducting the surveys and releasing their findings.

This website describes those findings, beginning with this page, which offers a general overview of the research effort.

The Issue of Global Warming

During the 19th century, natural scientists observed what was ultimately called the “greenhouse effect”, and in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee predicted that by the year 2000, rising carbon dioxide levels would “almost certainly cause significant changes” in temperature and stratosphere properties. In 1988, the issue burst onto the front pages of newspapers when James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Congress that the greenhouse effect was, in fact, warming the Earth ( 1 , 2 ).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created that year by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Association, has issued increasingly strong statements about global warming over the years. In 2014, the IPCC said that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and anthropogenic. And scientific academies in various nations have urged “prompt action” by governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ( 3 , 4 ).

Governments and non-governmental organizations have devoted effort to  design and implement adaptation strategies to protect people and infrastructure from possible effects of rising temperatures ( 5-7 ). And in 2015, Roman Catholic Pope Francis argued that the warming of the Earth is harming the globe’s neediest citizens and called for government policies to reduce fossil fuel use ( 8 ).  And U.S. military and national security officials have cited global warming as a national security threat for the United States and the world and have been taking steps to prepare for increased temperatures ( 17-18 ).

At the same time, skepticism about these issues has been regularly expressed by individuals and organizations in many quarters. U.S. Congress members, presidential candidates, think tanks, and others have suggested that warming may not be happening, or may be natural rather than human-caused, and that taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be counterproductive ( 9-16 ).  For example, the Cato Institute has challenged the claim that the effects of warming will be catastrophic ( 14 ). Likewise, the Heartland Institute has disputed the claim of consensus among natural scientists on global warming ( 15 ).

Thus, global warming has been the subject of public debate and controversy for decades.

Informing the Discussion with Surveys

This website is intended to inform this debate by illuminating American public opinion on the issue.

PPRG’s research is inspired partly by theories of democracy that propose that a government’s effectiveness depends partly on its leaders’ having an accurate understanding of what the populace wants them to do.  Elected officials frequently receive information from lobbying groups, direct communications from constituents (through phone calls, emails, and letters), protests and demonstrations, and meetings and hearings held in their districts.

But these forms of communication may convey the opinions of only small and select parts of the population. If done well, scientific surveys have the potential to provide governments with insight into the entire population’s views and can give voice to people who don’t otherwise share their views with government. Survey research is therefore a potentially valuable tool for helping government officials understand the general public’s opinions and wishes.

Summary of Findings

During the last 50 years of serious survey research, the American public has been about equally divided on many important and controversial issues of public policy.  But global warming is unusual – Twenty years of surveys show that strikingly large majorities of Americans have agreed about whether global warming has been happening, whether it is a threat, whether it merits government attention, what policy approaches are appealing, and what policy approaches should be avoided.

The web pages reporting these findings address the following topics and others as well:

Fundamentals Has the Earth been warming? Has warming been caused by humans? Is global warming a threat?

Should Action Be Taken Should the federal government take action? Should other governments of other nations take action? Should the U.S. Government act on global warming even if other countries do not? Should U.S. businesses take action? Should individual citizens take action?

Government Policy How should government address global warming, if at all?   How much effort should government devote to the issue?  What policies should government implement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Economic Side Effects Will emissions reduction efforts hurt the nation’s economy?

Willingness to Pay Are Americans willing to pay money in the forms of higher prices or higher taxes to reduce emissions?

Priority How much of a priority is the issue of global warming for Americans?

Consequences of Global Warming What might the consequences of global warming be?

Preparing For Possible Consequences Should government prepare now to deal with the potential consequences of global warming? What preparation measures should be implemented? Who should pay to prepare for such consequences?

Attitude Strength To what degree are Americans thoughtfully engaged in the issue of global warming? How much personal importance do people attach to the issue?

Voter Behavior Do Americans vote based on the issue of global warming?

Opinions in the States Do opinions vary significantly from state to state in the U.S.?

Trust in Scientists Do Americans trust what natural scientists say about this issue?

Natural Scientists’ Beliefs To what extent do Americans perceive consensus among natural scientists studying warming?

Partisan Views To what extent do partisans in America – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents view the issue of global warming?

Professor Krosnick summarizes many research findings in this video:

Acknowledgments 

The findings presented on this website are based on studies conducted with numerous collaborating organizations and funded by a variety of organizations.

An important collaborator over the years has been the nonpartisan think tank  Resources for the Future . Since the beginning of PPRG’s work in this area, RFF has provided insights into the policy-making process and into natural science findings on the issue.  Ray Kopp at Resources for the Future has been a valuable advisor and collaborator.  And RFF has provided funding to support the work.

Many of the surveys have been carried out in collaboration with some of the nation’s most respected news organizations, including  The New York Times, ABC News ,  Time  magazine,  The Washington Post ,  The Associated Press, U.S.A. Today, Reuters , and  New Scientist  magazine.  These organizations have provided funding to support the work.

Other funding has come from agencies of the federal government (the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), private foundations (MassINC Polling Group and the Electric Power Research Institute), and academic institutions (Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, the Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy, and The Ohio State University).

Data were collected by a variety of research firms: SSRS, Abt/SRBI, ReconMR, Ipsos Public Affairs, GfK Custom Research, TNS, and The Ohio State University’s Center for Survey Research.

The group’s findings have been disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, news articles, press conferences, and lectures around the world.

This website is the vision of Adina Abeles, who devoted tremendous effort in collaboration with Bo MacInnis to create it, with assistance from Rita Beamish.

Additional Links

• Methodologies of the Surveys Reported on this Site
• Research Reports
• Videos of Lectures by Jon Krosnick on This Research
• News Stories about This Research
• Weart, S . (2003).  The discovery of global warming . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Borenstein, S . (2015, November 4). Upcoming climate talks just the latest chapter in a long history.   Associated Press the Big Story.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Joint Science Academies’. (2005, June 07).  Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.   The National Academies.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• The National Academies. (2010, May 19). Strong Evidence on Climate Change Underscores needs for Actions to Reduce Emissions and Begin Adapting to Impacts.   News from the National Academies.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Beamish, R. (2014, December 23). States, Cities Brace for  Global  Warming Fallout.  The Pew Charitable Trusts Stateline.   Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Corporation for National and Community Service. Public – Private Partnership Launches New AmeriCorps Program to Help Communities Build Resilience [press release]. (2015, July 9). Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Council on Environmental Equality. (n.d.). State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force On Climate Preparedness and Resilience.  The White House . Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Francis, P. (2015). Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home. Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor.
• Lindzen, R. (2010, April 22). Climate Science In Denial.  The  Wall Street Journal.   Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Gillis, J. (2012, April 30). Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters.   The New York Times.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Testimony on Proposed Regulations. (2015, July 9). Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Idso, C., Carter, R., & Singer, F. (n.d.). Climate Change Reconsidered II.  The Heartland Institute .  Retrieved on Novemebr 23, 2015.
• Achenbach, J. (2006, May 28). The Tempest.  The Washington Post.   Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Jacobson , L. (2012, May 15). On Mitt Romney and whether humans are causing climate change.   Politifact.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Bast, J., & Smith, T. (2014, May 14). Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus.   The Heartland Institute.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Gillis, J. (2015, June 26). Smithsonian Will Tighten Its Guidelines on Disclosure.   The New York Times.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015.
• Davenport, C., Haner, J., Buchanan, L., & Watkins, D. (2015, October 26). Greenland Is Melting Away.  The New York Times.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015. 
• Scarborough , R. (2015, July 29). Climate change ‘urgent and growing threat’ to national security: Pentagon.   Washington Times.  Retrieved on November 23, 2015. 

• Biology Article
• Essay on Global Warming

Essay On Global Warming

Essay on global warming is an important topic for students to understand. The essay brings to light the plight of the environment and the repercussion of anthropogenic activities. Continue reading to discover tips and tricks for writing an engaging and interesting essay on global warming.

Essay On Global Warming in 300 Words

Global warming is a phenomenon where the earth’s average temperature rises due to increased amounts of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone trap the incoming radiation from the sun. This effect creates a natural “blanket”, which prevents the heat from escaping back into the atmosphere. This effect is called the greenhouse effect.

Contrary to popular belief, greenhouse gases are not inherently bad. In fact, the greenhouse effect is quite important for life on earth. Without this effect, the sun’s radiation would be reflected back into the atmosphere, freezing the surface and making life impossible. However, when greenhouse gases in excess amounts get trapped, serious repercussions begin to appear. The polar ice caps begin to melt, leading to a rise in sea levels. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is accelerated when polar ice caps and sea ice melts. This is due to the fact the ice reflects 50% to 70% of the sun’s rays back into space, but without ice, the solar radiation gets absorbed. Seawater reflects only 6% of the sun’s radiation back into space. What’s more frightening is the fact that the poles contain large amounts of carbon dioxide trapped within the ice. If this ice melts, it will significantly contribute to global warming. 

A related scenario when this phenomenon goes out of control is the runaway-greenhouse effect. This scenario is essentially similar to an apocalypse, but it is all too real. Though this has never happened in the earth’s entire history, it is speculated to have occurred on Venus. Millions of years ago, Venus was thought to have an atmosphere similar to that of the earth. But due to the runaway greenhouse effect, surface temperatures around the planet began rising. 

If this occurs on the earth, the runaway greenhouse effect will lead to many unpleasant scenarios – temperatures will rise hot enough for oceans to evaporate. Once the oceans evaporate, the rocks will start to sublimate under heat. In order to prevent such a scenario, proper measures have to be taken to stop climate change.

More to Read: Learn How Greenhouse Effect works

Tips To Writing the Perfect Essay

Consider adopting the following strategies when writing an essay. These are proven methods of securing more marks in an exam or assignment.

• Begin the essay with an introductory paragraph detailing the history or origin of the given topic.
• Try to reduce the use of jargons. Use sparingly if the topic requires it.
• Ensure that the content is presented in bulleted points wherever appropriate.
• Insert and highlight factual data, such as dates, names and places.
• Remember to break up the content into smaller paragraphs. 100-120 words per paragraph should suffice.
• Always conclude the essay with a closing paragraph.

Explore more essays on biology or other related fields at BYJU’S.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Very helpful Byju’s

this app is very useful

Sample essay on global warming

Very nice and helpful⭐️

Amazing essay

This essay is very helpful to every student Thank you Byjus! 😊😊😊

This one is so helpful and easy to understand. Thank you, Byju’s!

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Climate Change: Check Samples in 100, 250 Words

• Updated on  
• Sep 21, 2023

Writing an essay on climate change is crucial to raise awareness and advocate for action. The world is facing environmental challenges, so in a situation like this such essay topics can serve as s platform to discuss the causes, effects, and solutions to this pressing issue. They offer an opportunity to engage readers in understanding the urgency of mitigating climate change for the sake of our planet’s future.

Must Read: Essay On Environment  

Table of Contents

• 1 What Is Climate Change?
• 2 What are the Causes of Climate Change?
• 3 What are the effects of Climate Change?
• 4 How to fight climate change?
• 5 Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words
• 6 Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change is the significant variation of average weather conditions becoming, for example, warmer, wetter, or drier—over several decades or longer. It may be natural or anthropogenic. However, in recent times, it’s been in the top headlines due to escalations caused by human interference.

What are the Causes of Climate Change?

Obama at the First Session of COP21 rightly quoted “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.”.Identifying the causes of climate change is the first step to take in our fight against climate change. Below stated are some of the causes of climate change:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy and transportation.
• Deforestation: The cutting down of trees reduces the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
• Industrial Processes: Certain manufacturing activities release potent greenhouse gases.
• Agriculture: Livestock and rice cultivation emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

What are the effects of Climate Change?

Climate change poses a huge risk to almost all life forms on Earth. The effects of climate change are listed below:

• Global Warming: Increased temperatures due to trapped heat from greenhouse gases.
• Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Ice caps and glaciers melt, causing oceans to rise.
• Extreme Weather Events: More frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.
• Ocean Acidification: Oceans absorb excess CO2, leading to more acidic waters harming marine life.
• Disrupted Ecosystems: Shifting climate patterns disrupt habitats and threaten biodiversity.
• Food and Water Scarcity: Altered weather affects crop yields and strains water resources.
• Human Health Risks: Heat-related illnesses and the spread of diseases.
• Economic Impact: Damage to infrastructure and increased disaster-related costs.
• Migration and Conflict: Climate-induced displacement and resource competition.

How to fight climate change?

‘Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority,’ says Bill Gates. The below points highlight key actions to combat climate change effectively.

• Energy Efficiency: Improve energy efficiency in all sectors.
• Protect Forests: Stop deforestation and promote reforestation.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Adopt eco-friendly farming practices.
• Advocacy: Raise awareness and advocate for climate-friendly policies.
• Innovation: Invest in green technologies and research.
• Government Policies: Enforce climate-friendly regulations and targets.
• Corporate Responsibility: Encourage sustainable business practices.
• Individual Action: Reduce personal carbon footprint and inspire others.

Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words

Climate change refers to long-term alterations in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, leading to global warming. The consequences of climate change are widespread and devastating. Rising temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt, contributing to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities. Extreme weather events, like hurricanes and wildfires, become more frequent and severe, endangering lives and livelihoods. Additionally, shifts in weather patterns can disrupt agriculture, leading to food shortages. To combat climate change, global cooperation, renewable energy adoption, and sustainable practices are crucial for a more sustainable future.

Must Read: Essay On Global Warming

Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

Climate change represents a pressing global challenge that demands immediate attention and concerted efforts. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This results in a greenhouse effect, trapping heat and leading to a rise in global temperatures, commonly referred to as global warming.

The consequences of climate change are far-reaching and profound. Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities, displacing millions and endangering vital infrastructure. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires, have become more frequent and severe, causing devastating economic and human losses. Disrupted ecosystems affect biodiversity and the availability of vital resources, from clean water to agricultural yields.

Moreover, climate change has serious implications for food and water security. Changing weather patterns disrupt traditional farming practices and strain freshwater resources, potentially leading to conflicts over access to essential commodities.

Addressing climate change necessitates a multifaceted approach. First, countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through the transition to renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, and reforestation efforts. International cooperation is crucial to set emission reduction targets and hold nations accountable for meeting them.

In conclusion, climate change is a global crisis with profound and immediate consequences. Urgent action is needed to mitigate its impacts and secure a sustainable future for our planet. By reducing emissions and implementing adaptation strategies, we can protect vulnerable communities, preserve ecosystems, and ensure a livable planet for future generations. The time to act is now.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Five key causes of climate change include excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, notably burning fossil fuels and deforestation. 

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on climate change that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

Hey there! I'm a content writer who turns complex ideas into clear, engaging stories. Think of me as your translator, taking expert knowledge and making it interesting and relatable for everyone.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Global Warming Essay

Essay on Global Warming

The last few decades have been monumental when it comes to technological development. Humans have developed systems and machines that make our lives easier. Especially during the early modern period from the early 16th century to as far as the late 18the century, also commonly referred to as “The Scientific Revolution” or “The Enlightenment”, modern technology leapt ahead in development in such a short time frame compared to all of history.

However, with the development of society, there has been a severe detriment to the quality of Earth’s environment. One of the most massive threats to the condition of the planet is climate change. Inadequate research and reckless misuse of natural resources are some of the core reasons for the deteriorating condition of the planet.

To understand the concept of Global Warming and its causes and effects, we need to take an in-depth look into many factors that affect the temperature of the planet and what that means for the future of the world. Here is an objective look at the topic of Global Warming and other important related topics.

What is Climate Change?

Ever since the industrial and scientific revolution, Earth is slowly being used up for its resources. Moreover, the onset of the exponential increase in the world’s population is also very taxing on the environment. 

Simply put, as the need for consumption of the population increases, both the utilisation of natural resources and the waste generated from the use of said resources have also increased massively. 

One of the main results of this over the many years has become climate change. Climate change is not just the rise or fall of temperature of different areas of the world; it is also a change in the rain cycles, wind patterns, cyclone frequencies, sea levels, etc. It affects all major life groups on the planet in some way or the other.  

What is Global Warming?

Global Warming is often considered an effect of Climate change. Global Warming is the rapid increase in the temperature of the Earth’s environment that is causing many life-threatening issues to arise.

Global Warming is a dangerous effect on our environment that we are facing these days. Rapid industrialization, increase in the population growth and pollution are causing a rise in Global Warming. Global Warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface during the last century. One of the reasons why Global Warming is dangerous is because it disturbs the overall ecology of the planet. This results in floods, famine, cyclones and other issues. There are many causes and results of this warming and is a danger for the existence of life on earth.

The sign of Global Warming is already visible with many natural phenomena happening around globally, affecting each living species.

Here is some data that can help to give a more precise understanding of the reality of Global Warming in the last few years:

On average, the world’s temperature is about 1.5°C higher than during the start of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s. That may not seem a lot to you, but that is an average estimate. This number is only increasing. Many parts of the world face far more severe changes in temperature that affect the planet’s overall health.

In 1950, the world’s CO 2 emissions were at 6 billion tonnes which had quadrupled in volume until 1990, just 40 years later to 22 billion tonnes. Not only that, unchecked CO 2 emissions today have reached a whopping 35 billion tonnes.

The most evident causes of Global Warming are industrialization, urbanization, deforestation, and sophisticated human activities. These human activities have led to an increase in the emission of Greenhouse Gases, including CO₂, Nitrous Oxide, Methane, and others.

Causes of Global Warming

A variety of reasons causes Global Warming. Some of which can be controlled personally by individuals but others are only expected to be solved by communities and the world leaders and activists at the global level.

Many scientists believe the main four reasons for Global Warming, according to recent studies, are:

Greenhouse gases

Deforestation

Per capita carbon emissions

Global Warming is certainly an alarming situation, which is causing a significant impact on life existence. Extreme Global Warming is resulting in natural calamities, which is quite evident happening around. One of the reasons behind Global Warming is the extreme release of greenhouse gases stuck on the earth surface, resulting in the temperature increase.

Similarly, volcanoes are also leading to Global Warming because they spew too much CO₂ in the air. One of the significant causes behind Global Warming is the increase in the population. This increase in the population also results in air pollution. Automobiles release a lot of CO₂, which remains stuck in the earth.

This increase in the population is also leading to deforestation, which further results in Global Warming. More and more trees are being cut, increasing the concentration of CO₂.

The greenhouse is the natural process where the sunlight passes through the area, thus warming the earth's surface. The earth surface releases energy in the form of heat in the atmosphere maintaining the balance with the incoming energy. Global Warming depletes the ozone layer leading to the doom's day.

There is a clear indication that the increase in Global Warming will lead to the complete extinction of life from the earth surface.

Solution for Global Warming

Global Warming can not be blamed on individuals; however, it can be tackled and maintained from worsening starting at the individual level. Of course, industries and multinational conglomerates have higher carbon emissions levels than an average citizen. Still, activism and community effort are the only feasible ways to control the worsening state of Global Warming.

Additionally, at the state or government level, world leaders need to create concrete plans and step programmes to ensure that no further harm is being caused to the environment in general. 

Although we are almost late in slowing down the Global Warming rate, it is crucial to find the right solution. From individuals to governments, everyone has to work upon a solution for Global Warming. Controlling pollution, population and use of natural resources are some of the factors to consider. Switching over to the electric and hybrid car is the best way to bring down the carbon dioxide.

As a citizen, it is best to switch over to the hybrid car and to use public transport. This will reduce pollution and congestion. Another significant contribution you can make is to minimize the use of plastic. Plastic is the primary cause of Global Warming taking years to recycle.

Deforestation is another thing to consider that will help in controlling Global Warming. Planting of more trees should be encouraged to make the environment go green.

Industrialization should be under certain norms. The building of industries should be banned in green zones affecting plants and species. Hefty penalties should be levied on such sectors contributing towards Global Warming.

Effects of Global Warming

Global Warming is a real problem that many want to prove as a hoax for their political benefit. However, as aware citizens of the world, we must make sure only the truth is presented in the media.

Various parts of the environment, both flora and fauna, are directly adversely affected by the damages caused by Global Warming. Wildlife being in danger is ultimately a serious threat to the survival of humanity as we know it and its future.

The effect of Global Warming is widely seen in this decade. Glacier retreat and arctic shrinkage are the two common phenomena seen. Glaciers are melting in a fast way. These are pure examples of climate change.

Rise in sea level is another significant effect of Global Warming. This sea-level rise is leading to floods in low-lying areas. Extreme weather conditions are witnessed in many countries. Unseasonal rainfall, extreme heat and cold, wildfires and others are common every year. The number of these cases is increasing. This will indeed imbalance the ecosystem bringing the result of the extinction of species.

Similarly, marine life is also widely getting affected due to the increase in Global Warming. This is resulting in the death of marine species and other issues. Moreover, changes are expected in coral reefs, which are going to face the end in coming years.

These effects will take a steep rise in coming years, bringing the expansion of species to a halt. Moreover, humans too will witness the negative impact of Global Warming in the end.

FAQs on Global Warming Essay

1. What Global Warming will Cause?

Global warming will have a massive impact on our earth in the end. Flood, extreme weather conditions, famine, wildfire and many more will be the result. There will be hotter days, which will also increase the wildfire and famine. In the past years, many meteorological bureaus have added purple and magenta to the forecast.

Another impact of global warming will be rising sea levels. Increased ocean temperatures will lead to the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Increase in the sea level will lead to floods in many low-lying areas.

The overall ecosystem of nature will be an imbalance. This will affect nature in the long-term.

2. Why Does Global Warming Happen?

There are many reasons for the cause of global warming. There are certain gases in the atmosphere called greenhouse gases. The energy then radiates from the surface; the greenhouse gases trap longwave radiation. We humans have added to the atmospheric blanket of greenhouse affecting the living species. Warming of air, oceans, and land is how global warming happens.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?

We know the world is warming because people have been recording daily high and low temperatures at thousands of weather stations worldwide, over land and ocean, for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different teams of climate scientists in different agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.’s Hadley Centre) average these data together, they all find essentially the same result: Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1880. 

( bar chart ) Yearly temperature compared to the twentieth-century average from 1850–2023. Red bars mean warmer-than-average years; blue bars mean colder-than-average years. (line graph) Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts: 1850-1958 from IAC , 1959-2023 from NOAA Global Monitoring Lab . NOAA Climate.gov graph, adapted from original by Dr. Howard Diamond (NOAA ARL).

In addition to our surface station data, we have many different lines of evidence that Earth is warming ( learn more ). Birds are migrating earlier, and their migration patterns are changing.  Lobsters  and  other marine species  are moving north. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting worldwide, and snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere (Learn more  here  and  here ). Greenland’s ice sheet—which holds about 8 percent of Earth’s fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate ( learn more ). Mean global sea level is rising ( learn more ). Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent ( learn more ).

The Greenland Ice Sheet lost mass again in 2020, but not as much as it did 2019. Adapted from the 2020 Arctic Report Card, this graph tracks Greenland mass loss measured by NASA's GRACE satellite missions since 2002. The background photo shows a glacier calving front in western Greenland, captured from an airplane during a NASA Operation IceBridge field campaign. Full story.

We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Unless it is offset by some equally large cooling influence, more atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to warmer surface temperatures. Since 1800, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere  has increased  from about 280 parts per million to 410 ppm in 2019. We know from both its rapid increase and its isotopic “fingerprint” that the source of this new carbon dioxide is fossil fuels, and not natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes, or outgassing from the ocean.

Philip James de Loutherbourg's 1801 painting, Coalbrookdale by Night , came to symbolize the start of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began to harness the power of fossil fuels—and to contribute significantly to Earth's atmospheric greenhouse gas composition. Image from Wikipedia .

Finally, no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend. Taken together, these and other lines of evidence point squarely to human activities as the cause of recent global warming.

USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1 [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi:  10.7930/J0J964J6 .

National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership (2012):  National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy . Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. DOI: 10.3996/082012-FWSReport-1

IPCC (2019). Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In press.

NASA JPL: "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree."  Global Climate Change . A website at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). (Accessed July 2013.)

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

Related Content

News & features, 2017 state of the climate: mountain glaciers, warming waters shift fish communities northward in the arctic, climate & fish sticks, maps & data, past climate, future climate, ocean - oceanic climate variables, teaching climate, toolbox for teaching climate & energy, student climate & conservation congress (sc3), climate youth engagement, climate resilience toolkit, arctic oceans, sea ice, and coasts, alaska and the arctic, food safety and nutrition.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

‘Could I really cut it?’

For this ring, I thee sue 

Speech is never totally free

Illustration by Gary Waters

What scares you most about climate change?

Harvard Staff Writer

Experts tease out the scientific, legal, economic, political, and philosophical costs and benefits of the problem — and the solutions

To mark Earth Day’s 50th anniversary, amid the coronavirus pandemic, the Gazette contacted experts on climate change, the environment, and sustainability to ask them about their global-warming fears. Here are their answers.

Thomas P. Gloria

Program Director, Sustainability, Harvard Extension School

This question presupposes that I am scared about climate change. How dare you ask such a question to a career sustainability professional? Being scared is being afraid, terrified, and at worst, emotional to the point of being catatonic. I demand, no, I respectfully deserve a better question, a positive, uplifting question, especially on the 50th anniversary of Earth Day …

I am scared, deeply. We are in a climate crisis.

My Rachel Carson moment of being present to the enormity of the challenges that come with global climate disruption happened when I was a doctoral student at Tufts just starting my background literature search. It was 1994, and Nature just published a journal article by [James E.] Lovelock and [Lee R.] Kump (1994). When disruption occurs, it comes with accelerating forces due to failures of climate regulation, unleashing reinforcing feedbacks that further amplify increases in global temperatures.

My fear is, despite the science and the early warning signals that we bear witness to — record temperatures, 1,000-year storms, glacial retreat, coral reefs dying on a continental scale — global society may finally wake up, but it may be too late. Our current global political economy solves problems through business as usual growth, wasting precious time to effectively reduce emissions to prevent human suffering and ecological system collapse at an unimaginable scale.

I may not live long enough to experience the severe effects of climate change. However, when I look around the Harvard community, a truly global community, I see a growing younger generation of people who will experience severe impacts. They get it. They don’t need to be told (again) how bad it’s going to get. They know.

So I respectfully pivot to the question posed and answer this question: “What about climate change brings me hope?”

Sustainable development is most frequently defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This tried and true quote from the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, a.k.a. the Brundtland Report of 1987, is truncated. In Section 3, subparagraph 27, the definition begins with “Humanity has the ability to make development …”

Humanity, the human collective, has the ability to take control of the physical world it disrupts with an alacrity just like the natural world’s reinforcing feedbacks loops, but in a good way. With courage, leadership, and a moral compass to make the world a better place, together, the Harvard community has the ability to make a difference on a global scale that will inspire others to also make a positive difference. And this gives me hope.

Aaron Bernstein

Interim Director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (Harvard C-CHANGE)

Climate change doesn’t scare me, and it need not scare anyone. To combat fear that grows from inaction and inadequate leadership, we must remind ourselves time and again that we have solutions to the climate crisis and that these solutions improve health today, especially for the poor and vulnerable, and that they provide for a more just and livable world for our children.

While much, much more needs to be done to put us on the right path to avert the worst effects of climate change, the growth of renewable energy around the world, the rise of electric vehicles, and the growing appreciation for plant-based diets all give reason for hope over fear.

When it comes to climate actions, it’s all too easy to believe that what we do as individuals doesn’t matter. How could one person’s deeds make even a tiny dent in the scope of global greenhouse gas emissions? For anyone who doubts our individual actions matter, look no further than what is happening in communities across this country right now. By keeping our distance from others, we have saved tens of thousands of lives, especially among the poor, older people, and those whose health is compromised. With COVID-19, of course, we have been asked (and in some cases commanded) to change our ways by our leaders. But a prevailing sense of responsibility to and pressure from our families and communities has led to more people doing what’s needed.

Our individual climate actions can have the same effect. As individuals act, we can create a path that many more will walk on. The good news about climate actions is that as they make the planet healthier, they also make us healthier, helping to solve problems like obesity and mental health disorders, which have exacted a huge toll on so many people.

Fifty years ago, a small group of people organized many more to protect the world we live on. Their motivation came from a recognition that a polluted world was unviable not just for all the other life forms we share the planet with, but for ourselves. Their example and motivation matter today more than ever. We must act to protect the earth, its climate, and all the life we share it with because our lives, and the lives of generations to come, depend on it.

John P. Holdren

Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government; professor of environmental science and policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences; affiliated professor, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

The disruption of Earth’s climate by human activities scares me for many reasons. Here are three. First, climate is the envelope within which all other environmental conditions and processes important to human well-being must function. Those conditions and processes include those that govern the quality of air, the quality and quantity of fresh water, the fertility of soil, the productivity of the ocean, and natural controls on pests and pathogens. As our activities increasingly alter the climate — with direct impacts including hotter heat waves, stronger storms, bigger floods, larger wildfires, and inexorably rising sea level — we imperil all the essential environmental conditions and processes that function within the climatic envelope.

Second, the human activities driving the disruption of global climate are so deeply embedded in the economies of developed and developing countries alike that it is impossible to change the drivers rapidly. The biggest driver is the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas — the fossil fuels — using technologies that discharge all of the resulting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In 2020, about 80 percent of the energy used by civilization worldwide still comes from these fossil fuels. It will take decades to free ourselves from them. The next biggest driver is land use and land-use change, including deforestation and many agricultural practices. These, too, in turn, are on such a large scale and driven by such fundamental forces in the world’s economies that they are very difficult to change quickly.

Third, impacts of global climate change are already causing serious damage to human health and safety, property, infrastructure, and terrestrial and marine ecosystems, even though the increase in the annually and globally averaged surface temperature has been “only” about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. At this point, because of the intractable nature of the drivers described above, it seems almost impossible to avoid an increase twice as large, which will result in a much more than proportional increase in the damages now being experienced.

The only good news is that public awareness of the ongoing harm and increasing danger is growing to the point that countries may finally undertake the remedial actions needed to avoid even bigger changes in our future climate, along with adaptation measures that can reduce the harm from the changes we cannot avoid.

Tyler Giannini

Clinical professor of law, co-director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, and founder of EarthRights International, an NGO that works to protect human rights and the environment

Giannini wrote his essay with his daughters Amaya Giannini (14 years old) and Rayna Giannini (10).

This is an intergenerational question, so the three of us sat around our dining room table and each made individual lists of how climate change scared us. Together, we represent one Generation Xer (aged 49) and two Generation Zs (aged 14 and 10) — also known as Zoomers. While our generations think differently on a lot of issues, what stood out most is that we have similar fears about climate change. We worry about the loss of ecosystems and about biodiversity. We worry about the future of humanity and our families, and we worry about how the world will react to the impending crisis. Will we come together or lose our empathy for one another? As the three of us started talking about our fears, though, we kept coming back to solutions — to listen to science, of course, but just as importantly to come together because tackling climate change requires seeing the connections between us rather than what divides us.

On all our lists, we hit on how we were scared of losing animals and hurting the planet itself. Climate change affects our ecosystems, and this will impact the lives of many animals. Some may even become extinct. But we also thought about how we are connected to our environment: Animals are a big part of our food chain, for example, and bees are critical pollinators, and if we lose them, it will affect our food supplies.

The theme of connection also played out as we talked about how climate change will deeply affect humanity. We fear for the unprecedented millions who will be displaced — the impending flow of climate refugees. We worry about our families, our kids, but we talked about how every displaced person is connected to a family. And we also know that it is much more likely that these families will be disproportionately poor and people of color, especially in the Global South.

We also worry about the emotional toll that climate change will take as we absorb a constant barrage of bad news — and how people will react once the impacts become even more serious than they already are. You can see how in the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, many thought it was far away and would not reach them. But there was a tipping point, and then it started to directly affect so many more people. This is where we are headed with climate change. Once we start treating climate change like the crisis it is, we hope many people will launch into action.

As we stay at home these days, we keep returning to parallels between climate change and the current pandemic. The curves look eerily similar. And there is a lingering question of whether we will hit the steep part of the curve or flatten the curve. For climate change, we fear hitting the tipping point and want to get ahead of it while we have time. In the end though, the three of us are most scared about what it will take to find solutions. It will take government action, individual action, and community action. Like the pandemic, we know it will take scientific knowledge and empathy and hope. We see the pandemic pulling us in two directions — increasing isolation and fears, but also creating innumerable acts of coming together and working to overcome the challenges. Solving the problem of climate change will not be successful if we allow our fears to overcome us. Solving the problem will require the strength, commitment, and creativity of our global community.

Robert N. Stavins

A.J. Meyer Professor of Energy and Economic Development, Harvard Kennedy School of Government

What concerns me most about climate change is the combination of a pair of its characteristics — one spatial and one temporal — that together make this an exceptionally difficult political challenge. Each of these characteristics takes us from the science of climate change to its economic realities and then to its very difficult politics.

More like this

Harvard endowment to go greenhouse gas-neutral by 2050

How Earth Day gave birth to environmental movement

New committee to advise Bacow on sustainability goals

First, greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, so the location of emissions has no effect on impacts — in economic terms, climate change is a global commons problem. It does not matter whether a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions emanate from Cambridge, Mass., or Cairo, Egypt. They have the same impacts, and those impacts are spread globally.

However, any jurisdiction taking action incurs the costs of its actions (typically the costs of moving from reliance on fossil fuels to greater use of renewable energy resources, as well as increased energy efficiency), but the climate benefits of its actions are distributed globally. Thus, for virtually any jurisdiction, the climate benefits it reaps from its actions will be less than the costs it incurs (despite the fact that the global benefits may be greater — possibly much greater — than the global costs). This presents a classic free-rider problem, wherein it is in the interests of each country to do little and instead seek to rely on the actions of other countries. And this is why it cannot be left to individual countries to develop policies completely independently. Rather, international, if not global, cooperation is essential.

There is also a temporal dimension that takes us from science to economics to politics and policy. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) accumulate in the atmosphere (CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere exceeding 100 years), and the damages are a function of the stock, not the flow of GHGs. Hence, the most severe consequences of climate change will be in the long term. But climate-change policies and the attendant costs of mitigation will be up front. This combination of up-front costs and delayed benefits presents a tremendous political challenge, since political incentives in democracies are typically for elected officials to convey benefits to current voters today, and place costs on future generations. The climate problem asks politicians to do precisely the opposite!

Together, the global commons nature of the problem plus this intertemporal asymmetry make climate change an exceptionally tough political challenge (and suggest why economics can help with the design of better public policies).

Share this article

You might like.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discusses new memoir, ‘unlikely path’ from South Florida to Harvard to nation’s highest court

Unhappy suitor wants $70,000 engagement gift back. Now court must decide whether 1950s legal standard has outlived relevance.

Cass Sunstein suggests universities look to First Amendment as they struggle to craft rules in wake of disruptive protests

Harvard releases race data for Class of 2028

Cohort is first to be impacted by Supreme Court’s admissions ruling

Parkinson’s may take a ‘gut-first’ path

Damage to upper GI lining linked to future risk of Parkinson’s disease, says new study

High doses of Adderall may increase psychosis risk

Among those who take prescription amphetamines, 81% of cases of psychosis or mania could have been eliminated if they were not on the high dose, findings suggest

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Global warming.

The causes, effects, and complexities of global warming are important to understand so that we can fight for the health of our planet.

Earth Science, Climatology

Tennessee Power Plant

Ash spews from a coal-fueled power plant in New Johnsonville, Tennessee, United States.

Photograph by Emory Kristof/ National Geographic

Learning materials

Upcoming event.

• Explorer Classroom: Photographing the Frozen Frontier with Esther Horvath | December 5

Global warming is the long-term warming of the planet’s overall temperature. Though this warming trend has been going on for a long time, its pace has significantly increased in the last hundred years due to the burning of fossil fuels . As the human population has increased, so has the volume of fossil fuels burned. Fossil fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas, and burning them causes what is known as the “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is when the sun’s rays penetrate the atmosphere, but when that heat is reflected off the surface cannot escape back into space. Gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels prevent the heat from leaving the atmosphere. These greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide , chlorofluorocarbons, water vapor , methane , and nitrous oxide . The excess heat in the atmosphere has caused the average global temperature to rise overtime, otherwise known as global warming.

Global warming has presented another issue called climate change. Sometimes these phrases are used interchangeably, however, they are different. Climate change refers to changes in weather patterns and growing seasons around the world. It also refers to sea level rise caused by the expansion of warmer seas and melting ice sheets and glaciers . Global warming causes climate change, which poses a serious threat to life on Earth in the forms of widespread flooding and extreme weather. Scientists continue to study global warming and its impact on Earth.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

August 29, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Best to Save the Planet

Readers debate whether solar geoengineering, advocated in a guest essay, is a good way to address global warming.

To the Editor:

Re “ Should We Mess With the Atmosphere? ,” by David Keith (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Oct. 3):

Dr. Keith makes the case for solar geoengineering, whereby a fleet of airplanes dumps vast quantities of reflective chemicals into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight. What could possibly go wrong ?

While bold, creative thinking has its place in addressing the climate crisis, this is not the time to play fast and loose with the only planet we know that can support life. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that we can still avert a dangerous planetary warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) if we enact deep, sustained emissions reductions this decade, as the Biden administration has pledged to do by embracing a rapid transition toward clean energy.

That’s where our collective focus must be going into the crucial international climate summit next month. By taking swift, decisive action to reduce emissions this decade, we reserve the right to begin cooling the planet midcentury, the safe way.

Kim M. Cobb Michael E. Mann Dr. Cobb is a professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

We are addicted to fossil fuels, deforestation and overpopulation. Addressing global warming via technology is like asking a bartender to help with alcoholism.

The best solution is not to double down on more technology, but rather to reduce human activity and re-establish forests. We have exhausted the planet’s carrying capacity for machine-wielding humans. It is not engineers who can show us the way; it is ethicists. Our great challenge is to determine a morally sound way to persuade one another to reverse course.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Worried about the economy, health care, immigration? Climate change impacts all of that.

Climate change doesn’t top the list of voter concerns, but it’s tied to much of what people care about. voters, and politicians, should take note..

The Bridge Fire flares up in Big Pines hills near Wrightwood, California, Sept. 12. Climate change “has been a key driver in increasing the risk and extent of wildfires” in the west, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says.

Etienne Laurent/Getty

Politicians pay attention to polls, especially those that claim to reveal voters’ priorities. This is one of the reasons political candidates often pay little attention to climate change. Polling services report that “the economy” — often bundled with “jobs” or “inflation,” depending on which one is the crisis du jour — always tops the list of voters’ biggest concerns.

On the other hand, “climate change” generally appears far down the list. In a May 2024 Pew Research poll , 62% of respondents named inflation as a very big problem, while only 36% said that about climate change. There are many reasons for this. Climate change, to many, still feels distant in both space and time, not relevant to their day-to-day concerns. And some politicians dismiss global warming as an economy-stifling obsession of radical tree-huggers.

This is a mistake. In the aptly titled, “ The Climate Is the Economy ,” recently published in Slate, the author points to weather disasters that are already depleting the Federal Emergency Management Agency budget.

According to the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, 2024 is on pace to beat 2023 for the most billion-dollar weather disasters. Insurance premiums are climbing in storm- and flood-prone states like Florida and Texas and also in wildfire-plagued states like California and Colorado . Some insurers are even abandoning those states entirely , leaving taxpayers to cover the costs of relief and rebuilding.

The annual U.S. financial burden of home insurance losses is $97 billion .

It’s not only insurance. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that extreme heat would cause long-term damage to the economy by affecting worker productivity , especially in construction. Even Consumer Reports is weighing in on this, with an analysis showing that an American child born today could face lifetime climate-driven costs of $500,000 up to $1 million.

The ripple effect

So let’s concede that climate change costs money, and it’s going to get worse unless we take stronger action. But what about those other top-line public concerns? That Pew poll found that 57% of Americans identified “the affordability of health care” as a very big problem. What does that have to do with our changing climate?

A lot. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that extreme weather would threaten public health in ways that can be directly translated into costs. If we don’t get serious about cutting emissions, health costs in North America could exceed $1 trillion in the next 25 years, mostly due to floods, storms, wildfires and extreme heat. That’s how climate change bleeds over into our health costs.

What about “illegal immigration,” which has dominated the news cycle for years now and was flagged as a top concern by 51% of Pew respondents, still far ahead of climate change? Isn’t that a separate issue?

Nope. Climate change is one of several factors convincing people to pick up and leave their homes simply to survive. Zurich Insurance predicts that there could be 1.2 billion “climate refugees” by 2050.

In November 2020, a pair of Category-4 hurricanes hit Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, fueling torrential rains and landslides that destroyed homes, livelihoods and access to clean water. Desperate people poured into Mexico and then toward the U.S. But when storms are not raging, that same region — labeled the “dry corridor” by the United Nations — is uniquely susceptible to heat-driven drought that makes it impossible to grow crops for 11 million people.

I could go on with other issues that voters worry about. National Security? NATO calls climate change a “threat multiplier.” Federal deficits? The Congressional Budget Office says climate change deepens deficits by reducing revenues and increasing mandatory spending.

The lesson here is that pollsters and pundits do a disservice to the public by ignoring the deep connections between climate change, the economy, health care, immigration and other important concerns. As long as voters see climate change as something that only matters to environmentalists and science nerds, political leaders will not elevate it to its appropriate place in the hierarchy of national issues.

Like it or not, the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, while it has brought great prosperity, has now reached a point where its costs are excessive.

Fortunately, we have the technologies we need to solve this. All that’s missing is the political will to challenge the status quo. I urge everyone to set aside partisan preconceptions and let your elected officials know that you want prompt, rational action on climate change to protect our economy. You could be the one who tips the scale.

Rick Knight is a chemical engineer and research coordinator at the nonprofit Citizens’ Climate Education Corp .

The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines .

Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.