climate change myth or reality css essay

• Beginner's Guide
• Past Papers
• CSP Members
• Members List
• Social Groups
• Mark Forums Read

April 8, 2009

Is Global Warming a Myth?

How to respond to people who doubt the human impact on the climate

Dear EarthTalk: I keep meeting people who say that human-induced global warming is only theory, that just as many scientists doubt it as believe it. Can you settle the score? -- J. Proctor, London, UK

So-called “global warming skeptics” are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities.

Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change—sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank—in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.”

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Most skeptics attribute global warming—few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature—to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. “The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential,” says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.

But green leaders maintain that even if some warming is consistent with millennial cycles, something is triggering the current change. According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere.

But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies—many which take advantage of new satellite data—back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

To wit, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements—placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders.

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is “very likely” (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

CONTACTS : Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org ; Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org ; U.S. National Academy of Sciences, www.nas.edu; IPCC , www.ipcc.ch.

EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk , P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; [email protected] . Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php . EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook .

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

Dynamic earth.

Earth is a dynamic sphere and, it turns out, so is the planet's climate, otherwise known as the long-term trend of global weather conditions. It's no wonder questions and myths abound about what exactly is going on in the atmosphere, in the oceans and on land. How can we tell our orb is actually warming and whether humans are to blame? Here's a look at what scientists know and don't know about some seemingly murky statements on Earth's climate. [ 50 Amazing Facts About Earth ]

Climate has changed before

Myth: Even before SUVs and other greenhouse-gas spewing technologies, Earth's climate was changing, so humans can't be responsible for today's global warming.

Science: Climate changes in the past suggest that our climate reacts to energy input and output, such that if the planet accumulates more heat than it gives off global temperatures will rise. It's the driver of this heat imbalance that differs.

Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

(Image left: heat given off by Earth's surface and atmosphere; Right: sunlight reflected back out to space.)

... but it's cold outside!

Myth: The planet can't be warming when my front yard is covered in several feet of snow. … This winter has been one of the chilliest, how is that possible in a warming world?

Science: Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. These local ups and downs in weather and temperature can hide a slower-moving uptick in long-term climate. To get a real bead on global warming, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

For instance, a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2009, found that daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the prior decade across the continental United States.

Climate is cooling

Myth: Global warming has stopped and the Earth has begun to cool.

Science: The last decade, 2000-2009, was the hottest on record, according to Skeptical Science. Big blizzards and abnormally chilly weather often raise the question: How can global warming be occurring when it's snowing outside? Global warming is compatible with chilled weather. "For climate change, it is the long-term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming," according to Skeptical Science.

The sun is to blame

Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.

Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)

A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm . The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.

Not everyone agrees

Myth: There's no consensus on whether the planet is actually warming.

Science: About 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-made global warming is happening. "In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them," according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant

Myth: Rick Santorum, GOP presidential nominee, summed up this argument in the news when he said: "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he told the Associated Press.

Science: While it is true that plants photosynthesize, and therefore take up carbon dioxide as a way of forming energy with the help of the sun and water, this gas is both a direct pollutant (think acidification of oceans) and more importantly is linked to the greenhouse effect. When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.

Climate scientists are conspiring to push "global warming"

Myth: Thousands of emails between climate scientists leaked in November 2009 (dubbed Climategate) revealed a cover-up of data that conflicted with research showing the Earth is warming.

Science: Yes, a hacker did access and release emails and documents from the University of East Anglia server. But there was no cover-up; a number of investigations were launched, including two independent reviews set up by the university: the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) and the independent Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP). The investigations cleared the researchers involved with the e-mails of scientific misconduct, and found no evidence of a cover-up.

Don't worry, it's not that bad

Myth: Some have pointed to human history as evidence that warm periods are good for people, while the cold, unstable stints have been catastrophic.

Science: Climate scientists say any positives are far outweighed by the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, human health, the economy and the environment. For instance, according to one 2007 study, a warming planet may mean an increased growing season in Greenland; but it also means water shortages, more frequent and more intense wildfires and expanding deserts.

Antarctica is gaining ice

Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.

Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise .

Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.

Climate models are unreliable

Myth: Models are full of "fudge factors" or assumptions that make them fit with data collected in today's climate; there's no way to know if those same assumption can be made in a world with increased carbon dioxide.

Science: Models have successfully reproduced global temperatures since 1900, by land, in the air and the oceans. "Models are simply a formalization of our best understanding of the processes that govern the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, etc.," Mann said. He added that certain processes, such as how clouds will respond to changes in the atmosphere and the warming or cooling effect of clouds, are uncertain and different modeling groups make different assumptions about how to represent these processes.

Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Jeanna served as editor-in-chief of Live Science. Previously, she was an assistant editor at Scholastic's Science World magazine. Jeanna has an English degree from Salisbury University, a master's degree in biogeochemistry and environmental sciences from the University of Maryland, and a graduate science journalism degree from New York University. She has worked as a biologist in Florida, where she monitored wetlands and did field surveys for endangered species. She also received an ocean sciences journalism fellowship from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Tree rings reveal summer 2023 was the hottest in 2 millennia

Yellowstone Lake's weird resistance to climate change could be about to crack

Alien 'Dyson sphere' megastructures could surround at least 7 stars in our galaxy, new studies suggest

Most Popular

• 2 James Webb telescope measures the starlight around the universe's biggest, oldest black holes for 1st time ever
• 3 See stunning reconstruction of ancient Egyptian mummy that languished at an Australian high school for a century
• 4 China creates its largest ever quantum computing chip — and it could be key to building the nation's own 'quantum cloud'
• 5 James Webb telescope detects 1-of-a-kind atmosphere around 'Hell Planet' in distant star system
• 2 Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests
• 3 Sun launches strongest solar flare of current cycle in monster X8.7-class eruption

• GREAT ENERGY CHALLENGE

Climate Change Myths: Sorting Fact from Fiction

There’s no consensus on global warming. Climate models are inaccurate. Temperature records are unreliable. Earth’s climate has changed before. Oceans are cooling. Human CO2 emissions represent a tiny percentage of overall CO2. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

And so on, and so on. We’ve heard them all.

Climate change is one of the most contentious issues facing society today. The question of how (or whether) we respond to climate change ultimately is a matter for policymakers to decide, but politics cannot (and should not) be separated from good science.

With that in mind, Marc Airhart with the University of Texas at Austin has developed a series of reports that track research conducted by climate scientists’ at the Jackson School of Geosciences on eight of the most common myths about climate change. All told, the reports provide an informed perspective on this important public policy debate.

Myth No. 1: What global warming? Earth has actually been cooling since 1998. Some people skeptical of global warming claim that Earth’s global surface temperatures have been falling or have leveled off since 1998. They point to data now several years out of date from U.K. researchers that put 1998 as the warmest year on record. They also point to an unusually cool summer in North America in 2009 followed by an abnormally cold winter across the northern hemisphere. People who had to shovel record snows from their driveways or live without power during ferocious snowstorms in the northeastern United States began to doubt decades of scientific evidence on global warming. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 2: Increased carbon dioxide (CO2) can’t contribute to global warming: It’s already maxed out as a factor and besides, water vapor is more consequential. Some climate skeptics claim that the carbon dioxide (CO2) currently in the atmosphere is already “saturated” in its ability to absorb longwave radiation from Earth and therefore additional CO2 in the air won’t make a difference — won’t, that is, absorb more heat. They also argue that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and therefore increases in CO2 shouldn’t be a concern. These claims have been made in recent years by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskoczi and other scientists. They were repeated in the Skeptic Handbook, published in 2009 by science writer Joanne Nova. Yet the seed of the argument actually goes back more than a century. Continue reading this myth …

For Hungry Minds

Myth No. 3: You can’t trust climate models because they do a lousy job representing clouds and aerosols. Climate modelers have traditionally had a hard time incorporating clouds because clouds are very complex. On the one hand, by reflecting sunlight, they tend to cool Earth. On the other, they tend to hold in heat from the surface, which is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights. The models also divide the atmosphere up into blocks much larger than clouds, so it’s difficult to create realistically sized clouds. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 4: There have been big climate changes in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, so why can’t recent climate changes just be explained by natural variability?

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 5: Natural forces such as solar variability, cosmic rays or volcanic eruptions can explain the observed warming.

Nearly all of the heat at the surface of Earth comes from radiation from the sun. Perhaps, as one hypothesis goes, that radiation has become more intense in recent decades and is making the planet warmer. A second, more complicated hypothesis involving the sun proposes that higher solar activity tends to suppress the levels of cosmic rays, high energy particles from space, hitting our atmosphere. Cosmic rays help form water droplets and clouds. Clouds are thought to have an overall cooling effect on the planet. Still with us? So in this view, if the sun is more active, then there are fewer cosmic rays, less cloud cover, and a warmer Earth. Continue reading this myth …

Myth 6. The urban heat island effect or other land use changes can explain the observed warming.

The urban heat island effect is a well documented phenomenon caused by roads and buildings absorbing more heat than undeveloped land and vegetation. It causes cities to be warmer than surrounding countryside and can even influence rainfall patterns. Perhaps, the argument goes, ground based weather stations have been systematically measuring a rise in temperature not from a global effect but from local land use changes. Continue reading this myth …

Myth 7. Natural ocean variability can explain the observed warming.

The oceans are the largest single reservoir of heat in the climate system. And they do have internal cycles of variability, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). These cycles have impacts on the sea surface temperature in specific regions that vary from year to year and even from decade to decade. So perhaps, the argument goes, we just happen to be in a warm period that will last a few decades and the oceans will eventually switch back to a cool period. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 8: In the past, global temperatures rose first and then carbon dioxide levels rose later. Therefore, rising temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Ice cores from Dome C in Antarctica record surface temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 going back over 800,000 years. During that time, several ice ages came and went. After each ice age ended, temperatures rose first and then several centuries later, CO2 concentrations rose. This lag, some skeptics conclude, proves that CO2 increases are caused by global warming, not the other way around. Continue reading this myth …

Related Topics

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• CLIMATOLOGY
• TEMPERATURE
• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Share full article

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

Definitive answers to the big questions.

Credit... Photo Illustration by Andrea D'Aquino

Supported by

By Julia Rosen

Ms. Rosen is a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology. Her research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes.

• Published April 19, 2021 Updated Nov. 6, 2021

The science of climate change is more solid and widely agreed upon than you might think. But the scope of the topic, as well as rampant disinformation, can make it hard to separate fact from fiction. Here, we’ve done our best to present you with not only the most accurate scientific information, but also an explanation of how we know it.

How do we know climate change is really happening?

How much agreement is there among scientists about climate change, do we really only have 150 years of climate data how is that enough to tell us about centuries of change, how do we know climate change is caused by humans, since greenhouse gases occur naturally, how do we know they’re causing earth’s temperature to rise, why should we be worried that the planet has warmed 2°f since the 1800s, is climate change a part of the planet’s natural warming and cooling cycles, how do we know global warming is not because of the sun or volcanoes, how can winters and certain places be getting colder if the planet is warming, wildfires and bad weather have always happened. how do we know there’s a connection to climate change, how bad are the effects of climate change going to be, what will it cost to do something about climate change, versus doing nothing.

Climate change is often cast as a prediction made by complicated computer models. But the scientific basis for climate change is much broader, and models are actually only one part of it (and, for what it’s worth, they’re surprisingly accurate ).

For more than a century , scientists have understood the basic physics behind why greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming. These gases make up just a small fraction of the atmosphere but exert outsized control on Earth’s climate by trapping some of the planet’s heat before it escapes into space. This greenhouse effect is important: It’s why a planet so far from the sun has liquid water and life!

However, during the Industrial Revolution, people started burning coal and other fossil fuels to power factories, smelters and steam engines, which added more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Ever since, human activities have been heating the planet.

We know this is true thanks to an overwhelming body of evidence that begins with temperature measurements taken at weather stations and on ships starting in the mid-1800s. Later, scientists began tracking surface temperatures with satellites and looking for clues about climate change in geologic records. Together, these data all tell the same story: Earth is getting hotter.

Average global temperatures have increased by 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.2 degrees Celsius, since 1880, with the greatest changes happening in the late 20th century. Land areas have warmed more than the sea surface and the Arctic has warmed the most — by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit just since the 1960s. Temperature extremes have also shifted. In the United States, daily record highs now outnumber record lows two-to-one.

Where it was cooler or warmer in 2020 compared with the middle of the 20th century

This warming is unprecedented in recent geologic history. A famous illustration, first published in 1998 and often called the hockey-stick graph, shows how temperatures remained fairly flat for centuries (the shaft of the stick) before turning sharply upward (the blade). It’s based on data from tree rings, ice cores and other natural indicators. And the basic picture , which has withstood decades of scrutiny from climate scientists and contrarians alike, shows that Earth is hotter today than it’s been in at least 1,000 years, and probably much longer.

In fact, surface temperatures actually mask the true scale of climate change, because the ocean has absorbed 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases . Measurements collected over the last six decades by oceanographic expeditions and networks of floating instruments show that every layer of the ocean is warming up. According to one study , the ocean has absorbed as much heat between 1997 and 2015 as it did in the previous 130 years.

We also know that climate change is happening because we see the effects everywhere. Ice sheets and glaciers are shrinking while sea levels are rising. Arctic sea ice is disappearing. In the spring, snow melts sooner and plants flower earlier. Animals are moving to higher elevations and latitudes to find cooler conditions. And droughts, floods and wildfires have all gotten more extreme. Models predicted many of these changes, but observations show they are now coming to pass.

Back to top .

There’s no denying that scientists love a good, old-fashioned argument. But when it comes to climate change, there is virtually no debate: Numerous studies have found that more than 90 percent of scientists who study Earth’s climate agree that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause. Most major scientific bodies, from NASA to the World Meteorological Organization , endorse this view. That’s an astounding level of consensus given the contrarian, competitive nature of the scientific enterprise, where questions like what killed the dinosaurs remain bitterly contested .

Scientific agreement about climate change started to emerge in the late 1980s, when the influence of human-caused warming began to rise above natural climate variability. By 1991, two-thirds of earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed for an early consensus study said that they accepted the idea of anthropogenic global warming. And by 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a famously conservative body that periodically takes stock of the state of scientific knowledge, concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Currently, more than 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree on the existence and cause of climate change (as does nearly 60 percent of the general population of the United States).

So where did we get the idea that there’s still debate about climate change? A lot of it came from coordinated messaging campaigns by companies and politicians that opposed climate action. Many pushed the narrative that scientists still hadn’t made up their minds about climate change, even though that was misleading. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, explained the rationale in an infamous 2002 memo to conservative lawmakers: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly,” he wrote. Questioning consensus remains a common talking point today, and the 97 percent figure has become something of a lightning rod .

To bolster the falsehood of lingering scientific doubt, some people have pointed to things like the Global Warming Petition Project, which urged the United States government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, an early international climate agreement. The petition proclaimed that climate change wasn’t happening, and even if it were, it wouldn’t be bad for humanity. Since 1998, more than 30,000 people with science degrees have signed it. However, nearly 90 percent of them studied something other than Earth, atmospheric or environmental science, and the signatories included just 39 climatologists. Most were engineers, doctors, and others whose training had little to do with the physics of the climate system.

A few well-known researchers remain opposed to the scientific consensus. Some, like Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, have ties to the fossil fuel industry . Others do not, but their assertions have not held up under the weight of evidence. At least one prominent skeptic, the physicist Richard Muller, changed his mind after reassessing historical temperature data as part of the Berkeley Earth project. His team’s findings essentially confirmed the results he had set out to investigate, and he came away firmly convinced that human activities were warming the planet. “Call me a converted skeptic,” he wrote in an Op-Ed for the Times in 2012.

Mr. Luntz, the Republican pollster, has also reversed his position on climate change and now advises politicians on how to motivate climate action.

A final note on uncertainty: Denialists often use it as evidence that climate science isn’t settled. However, in science, uncertainty doesn’t imply a lack of knowledge. Rather, it’s a measure of how well something is known. In the case of climate change, scientists have found a range of possible future changes in temperature, precipitation and other important variables — which will depend largely on how quickly we reduce emissions. But uncertainty does not undermine their confidence that climate change is real and that people are causing it.

Earth’s climate is inherently variable. Some years are hot and others are cold, some decades bring more hurricanes than others, some ancient droughts spanned the better part of centuries. Glacial cycles operate over many millenniums. So how can scientists look at data collected over a relatively short period of time and conclude that humans are warming the planet? The answer is that the instrumental temperature data that we have tells us a lot, but it’s not all we have to go on.

Historical records stretch back to the 1880s (and often before), when people began to regularly measure temperatures at weather stations and on ships as they traversed the world’s oceans. These data show a clear warming trend during the 20th century.

Global average temperature compared with the middle of the 20th century

+0.75°C

–0.25°

Some have questioned whether these records could be skewed, for instance, by the fact that a disproportionate number of weather stations are near cities, which tend to be hotter than surrounding areas as a result of the so-called urban heat island effect. However, researchers regularly correct for these potential biases when reconstructing global temperatures. In addition, warming is corroborated by independent data like satellite observations, which cover the whole planet, and other ways of measuring temperature changes.

Much has also been made of the small dips and pauses that punctuate the rising temperature trend of the last 150 years. But these are just the result of natural climate variability or other human activities that temporarily counteract greenhouse warming. For instance, in the mid-1900s, internal climate dynamics and light-blocking pollution from coal-fired power plants halted global warming for a few decades. (Eventually, rising greenhouse gases and pollution-control laws caused the planet to start heating up again.) Likewise, the so-called warming hiatus of the 2000s was partly a result of natural climate variability that allowed more heat to enter the ocean rather than warm the atmosphere. The years since have been the hottest on record .

Still, could the entire 20th century just be one big natural climate wiggle? To address that question, we can look at other kinds of data that give a longer perspective. Researchers have used geologic records like tree rings, ice cores, corals and sediments that preserve information about prehistoric climates to extend the climate record. The resulting picture of global temperature change is basically flat for centuries, then turns sharply upward over the last 150 years. It has been a target of climate denialists for decades. However, study after study has confirmed the results , which show that the planet hasn’t been this hot in at least 1,000 years, and probably longer.

Scientists have studied past climate changes to understand the factors that can cause the planet to warm or cool. The big ones are changes in solar energy, ocean circulation, volcanic activity and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And they have each played a role at times.

For example, 300 years ago, a combination of reduced solar output and increased volcanic activity cooled parts of the planet enough that Londoners regularly ice skated on the Thames . About 12,000 years ago, major changes in Atlantic circulation plunged the Northern Hemisphere into a frigid state. And 56 million years ago, a giant burst of greenhouse gases, from volcanic activity or vast deposits of methane (or both), abruptly warmed the planet by at least 9 degrees Fahrenheit, scrambling the climate, choking the oceans and triggering mass extinctions.

In trying to determine the cause of current climate changes, scientists have looked at all of these factors . The first three have varied a bit over the last few centuries and they have quite likely had modest effects on climate , particularly before 1950. But they cannot account for the planet’s rapidly rising temperature, especially in the second half of the 20th century, when solar output actually declined and volcanic eruptions exerted a cooling effect.

That warming is best explained by rising greenhouse gas concentrations . Greenhouse gases have a powerful effect on climate (see the next question for why). And since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been adding more of them to the atmosphere, primarily by extracting and burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, which releases carbon dioxide.

Bubbles of ancient air trapped in ice show that, before about 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was roughly 280 parts per million. It began to rise slowly and crossed the 300 p.p.m. threshold around 1900. CO2 levels then accelerated as cars and electricity became big parts of modern life, recently topping 420 p.p.m . The concentration of methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, has more than doubled. We’re now emitting carbon much faster than it was released 56 million years ago .

30 billion metric tons

Carbon dioxide emitted worldwide 1850-2017

Rest of world

Other developed

European Union

Developed economies

Other countries

United States

E.U. and U.K.

These rapid increases in greenhouse gases have caused the climate to warm abruptly. In fact, climate models suggest that greenhouse warming can explain virtually all of the temperature change since 1950. According to the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assesses published scientific literature, natural drivers and internal climate variability can only explain a small fraction of late-20th century warming.

Another study put it this way: The odds of current warming occurring without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are less than 1 in 100,000 .

But greenhouse gases aren’t the only climate-altering compounds people put into the air. Burning fossil fuels also produces particulate pollution that reflects sunlight and cools the planet. Scientists estimate that this pollution has masked up to half of the greenhouse warming we would have otherwise experienced.

Greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide serve an important role in the climate. Without them, Earth would be far too cold to maintain liquid water and humans would not exist!

Here’s how it works: the planet’s temperature is basically a function of the energy the Earth absorbs from the sun (which heats it up) and the energy Earth emits to space as infrared radiation (which cools it down). Because of their molecular structure, greenhouse gases temporarily absorb some of that outgoing infrared radiation and then re-emit it in all directions, sending some of that energy back toward the surface and heating the planet . Scientists have understood this process since the 1850s .

Greenhouse gas concentrations have varied naturally in the past. Over millions of years, atmospheric CO2 levels have changed depending on how much of the gas volcanoes belched into the air and how much got removed through geologic processes. On time scales of hundreds to thousands of years, concentrations have changed as carbon has cycled between the ocean, soil and air.

Today, however, we are the ones causing CO2 levels to increase at an unprecedented pace by taking ancient carbon from geologic deposits of fossil fuels and putting it into the atmosphere when we burn them. Since 1750, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by almost 50 percent. Methane and nitrous oxide, other important anthropogenic greenhouse gases that are released mainly by agricultural activities, have also spiked over the last 250 years.

We know based on the physics described above that this should cause the climate to warm. We also see certain telltale “fingerprints” of greenhouse warming. For example, nights are warming even faster than days because greenhouse gases don’t go away when the sun sets. And upper layers of the atmosphere have actually cooled, because more energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere.

We also know that we are the cause of rising greenhouse gas concentrations — and not just because we can measure the CO2 coming out of tailpipes and smokestacks. We can see it in the chemical signature of the carbon in CO2.

Carbon comes in three different masses: 12, 13 and 14. Things made of organic matter (including fossil fuels) tend to have relatively less carbon-13. Volcanoes tend to produce CO2 with relatively more carbon-13. And over the last century, the carbon in atmospheric CO2 has gotten lighter, pointing to an organic source.

We can tell it’s old organic matter by looking for carbon-14, which is radioactive and decays over time. Fossil fuels are too ancient to have any carbon-14 left in them, so if they were behind rising CO2 levels, you would expect the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere to drop, which is exactly what the data show .

It’s important to note that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, it does not cause warming; instead it responds to it . That’s because warmer air holds more moisture, which creates a snowball effect in which human-caused warming allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor and further amplifies climate change. This so-called feedback cycle has doubled the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

A common source of confusion when it comes to climate change is the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the constantly changing set of meteorological conditions that we experience when we step outside, whereas climate is the long-term average of those conditions, usually calculated over a 30-year period. Or, as some say: Weather is your mood and climate is your personality.

So while 2 degrees Fahrenheit doesn’t represent a big change in the weather, it’s a huge change in climate. As we’ve already seen, it’s enough to melt ice and raise sea levels, to shift rainfall patterns around the world and to reorganize ecosystems, sending animals scurrying toward cooler habitats and killing trees by the millions.

It’s also important to remember that two degrees represents the global average, and many parts of the world have already warmed by more than that. For example, land areas have warmed about twice as much as the sea surface. And the Arctic has warmed by about 5 degrees. That’s because the loss of snow and ice at high latitudes allows the ground to absorb more energy, causing additional heating on top of greenhouse warming.

Relatively small long-term changes in climate averages also shift extremes in significant ways. For instance, heat waves have always happened, but they have shattered records in recent years. In June of 2020, a town in Siberia registered temperatures of 100 degrees . And in Australia, meteorologists have added a new color to their weather maps to show areas where temperatures exceed 125 degrees. Rising sea levels have also increased the risk of flooding because of storm surges and high tides. These are the foreshocks of climate change.

And we are in for more changes in the future — up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit of average global warming by the end of the century, in the worst-case scenario . For reference, the difference in global average temperatures between now and the peak of the last ice age, when ice sheets covered large parts of North America and Europe, is about 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

Under the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Biden recently rejoined, countries have agreed to try to limit total warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, since preindustrial times. And even this narrow range has huge implications . According to scientific studies, the difference between 2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will very likely mean the difference between coral reefs hanging on or going extinct, and between summer sea ice persisting in the Arctic or disappearing completely. It will also determine how many millions of people suffer from water scarcity and crop failures, and how many are driven from their homes by rising seas. In other words, one degree Fahrenheit makes a world of difference.

Earth’s climate has always changed. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the entire planet froze . Fifty million years ago, alligators lived in what we now call the Arctic . And for the last 2.6 million years, the planet has cycled between ice ages when the planet was up to 11 degrees cooler and ice sheets covered much of North America and Europe, and milder interglacial periods like the one we’re in now.

Climate denialists often point to these natural climate changes as a way to cast doubt on the idea that humans are causing climate to change today. However, that argument rests on a logical fallacy. It’s like “seeing a murdered body and concluding that people have died of natural causes in the past, so the murder victim must also have died of natural causes,” a team of social scientists wrote in The Debunking Handbook , which explains the misinformation strategies behind many climate myths.

Indeed, we know that different mechanisms caused the climate to change in the past. Glacial cycles, for example, were triggered by periodic variations in Earth’s orbit , which take place over tens of thousands of years and change how solar energy gets distributed around the globe and across the seasons.

These orbital variations don’t affect the planet’s temperature much on their own. But they set off a cascade of other changes in the climate system; for instance, growing or melting vast Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and altering ocean circulation. These changes, in turn, affect climate by altering the amount of snow and ice, which reflect sunlight, and by changing greenhouse gas concentrations. This is actually part of how we know that greenhouse gases have the ability to significantly affect Earth’s temperature.

For at least the last 800,000 years , atmospheric CO2 concentrations oscillated between about 180 parts per million during ice ages and about 280 p.p.m. during warmer periods, as carbon moved between oceans, forests, soils and the atmosphere. These changes occurred in lock step with global temperatures, and are a major reason the entire planet warmed and cooled during glacial cycles, not just the frozen poles.

Today, however, CO2 levels have soared to 420 p.p.m. — the highest they’ve been in at least three million years . The concentration of CO2 is also increasing about 100 times faster than it did at the end of the last ice age. This suggests something else is going on, and we know what it is: Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases that are heating the planet now (see Question 5 for more details on how we know this, and Questions 4 and 8 for how we know that other natural forces aren’t to blame).

Over the next century or two, societies and ecosystems will experience the consequences of this climate change. But our emissions will have even more lasting geologic impacts: According to some studies, greenhouse gas levels may have already warmed the planet enough to delay the onset of the next glacial cycle for at least an additional 50,000 years.

The sun is the ultimate source of energy in Earth’s climate system, so it’s a natural candidate for causing climate change. And solar activity has certainly changed over time. We know from satellite measurements and other astronomical observations that the sun’s output changes on 11-year cycles. Geologic records and sunspot numbers, which astronomers have tracked for centuries, also show long-term variations in the sun’s activity, including some exceptionally quiet periods in the late 1600s and early 1800s.

We know that, from 1900 until the 1950s, solar irradiance increased. And studies suggest that this had a modest effect on early 20th century climate, explaining up to 10 percent of the warming that’s occurred since the late 1800s. However, in the second half of the century, when the most warming occurred, solar activity actually declined . This disparity is one of the main reasons we know that the sun is not the driving force behind climate change.

Another reason we know that solar activity hasn’t caused recent warming is that, if it had, all the layers of the atmosphere should be heating up. Instead, data show that the upper atmosphere has actually cooled in recent decades — a hallmark of greenhouse warming .

So how about volcanoes? Eruptions cool the planet by injecting ash and aerosol particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. We’ve observed this effect in the years following large eruptions. There are also some notable historical examples, like when Iceland’s Laki volcano erupted in 1783, causing widespread crop failures in Europe and beyond, and the “ year without a summer ,” which followed the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia.

Since volcanoes mainly act as climate coolers, they can’t really explain recent warming. However, scientists say that they may also have contributed slightly to rising temperatures in the early 20th century. That’s because there were several large eruptions in the late 1800s that cooled the planet, followed by a few decades with no major volcanic events when warming caught up. During the second half of the 20th century, though, several big eruptions occurred as the planet was heating up fast. If anything, they temporarily masked some amount of human-caused warming.

The second way volcanoes can impact climate is by emitting carbon dioxide. This is important on time scales of millions of years — it’s what keeps the planet habitable (see Question 5 for more on the greenhouse effect). But by comparison to modern anthropogenic emissions, even big eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount St. Helens are just a drop in the bucket. After all, they last only a few hours or days, while we burn fossil fuels 24-7. Studies suggest that, today, volcanoes account for 1 to 2 percent of total CO2 emissions.

When a big snowstorm hits the United States, climate denialists can try to cite it as proof that climate change isn’t happening. In 2015, Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, famously lobbed a snowball in the Senate as he denounced climate science. But these events don’t actually disprove climate change.

While there have been some memorable storms in recent years, winters are actually warming across the world. In the United States, average temperatures in December, January and February have increased by about 2.5 degrees this century.

On the flip side, record cold days are becoming less common than record warm days. In the United States, record highs now outnumber record lows two-to-one . And ever-smaller areas of the country experience extremely cold winter temperatures . (The same trends are happening globally.)

So what’s with the blizzards? Weather always varies, so it’s no surprise that we still have severe winter storms even as average temperatures rise. However, some studies suggest that climate change may be to blame. One possibility is that rapid Arctic warming has affected atmospheric circulation, including the fast-flowing, high-altitude air that usually swirls over the North Pole (a.k.a. the Polar Vortex ). Some studies suggest that these changes are bringing more frigid temperatures to lower latitudes and causing weather systems to stall , allowing storms to produce more snowfall. This may explain what we’ve experienced in the U.S. over the past few decades, as well as a wintertime cooling trend in Siberia , although exactly how the Arctic affects global weather remains a topic of ongoing scientific debate .

Climate change may also explain the apparent paradox behind some of the other places on Earth that haven’t warmed much. For instance, a splotch of water in the North Atlantic has cooled in recent years, and scientists say they suspect that may be because ocean circulation is slowing as a result of freshwater streaming off a melting Greenland . If this circulation grinds almost to a halt, as it’s done in the geologic past, it would alter weather patterns around the world.

Not all cold weather stems from some counterintuitive consequence of climate change. But it’s a good reminder that Earth’s climate system is complex and chaotic, so the effects of human-caused changes will play out differently in different places. That’s why “global warming” is a bit of an oversimplification. Instead, some scientists have suggested that the phenomenon of human-caused climate change would more aptly be called “ global weirding .”

Extreme weather and natural disasters are part of life on Earth — just ask the dinosaurs. But there is good evidence that climate change has increased the frequency and severity of certain phenomena like heat waves, droughts and floods. Recent research has also allowed scientists to identify the influence of climate change on specific events.

Let’s start with heat waves . Studies show that stretches of abnormally high temperatures now happen about five times more often than they would without climate change, and they last longer, too. Climate models project that, by the 2040s, heat waves will be about 12 times more frequent. And that’s concerning since extreme heat often causes increased hospitalizations and deaths, particularly among older people and those with underlying health conditions. In the summer of 2003, for example, a heat wave caused an estimated 70,000 excess deaths across Europe. (Human-caused warming amplified the death toll .)

Climate change has also exacerbated droughts , primarily by increasing evaporation. Droughts occur naturally because of random climate variability and factors like whether El Niño or La Niña conditions prevail in the tropical Pacific. But some researchers have found evidence that greenhouse warming has been affecting droughts since even before the Dust Bowl . And it continues to do so today. According to one analysis , the drought that afflicted the American Southwest from 2000 to 2018 was almost 50 percent more severe because of climate change. It was the worst drought the region had experienced in more than 1,000 years.

Rising temperatures have also increased the intensity of heavy precipitation events and the flooding that often follows. For example, studies have found that, because warmer air holds more moisture, Hurricane Harvey, which struck Houston in 2017, dropped between 15 and 40 percent more rainfall than it would have without climate change.

It’s still unclear whether climate change is changing the overall frequency of hurricanes, but it is making them stronger . And warming appears to favor certain kinds of weather patterns, like the “ Midwest Water Hose ” events that caused devastating flooding across the Midwest in 2019 .

It’s important to remember that in most natural disasters, there are multiple factors at play. For instance, the 2019 Midwest floods occurred after a recent cold snap had frozen the ground solid, preventing the soil from absorbing rainwater and increasing runoff into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. These waterways have also been reshaped by levees and other forms of river engineering, some of which failed in the floods.

Wildfires are another phenomenon with multiple causes. In many places, fire risk has increased because humans have aggressively fought natural fires and prevented Indigenous peoples from carrying out traditional burning practices. This has allowed fuel to accumulate that makes current fires worse .

However, climate change still plays a major role by heating and drying forests, turning them into tinderboxes. Studies show that warming is the driving factor behind the recent increases in wildfires; one analysis found that climate change is responsible for doubling the area burned across the American West between 1984 and 2015. And researchers say that warming will only make fires bigger and more dangerous in the future.

It depends on how aggressively we act to address climate change. If we continue with business as usual, by the end of the century, it will be too hot to go outside during heat waves in the Middle East and South Asia . Droughts will grip Central America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa. And many island nations and low-lying areas, from Texas to Bangladesh, will be overtaken by rising seas. Conversely, climate change could bring welcome warming and extended growing seasons to the upper Midwest , Canada, the Nordic countries and Russia . Farther north, however, the loss of snow, ice and permafrost will upend the traditions of Indigenous peoples and threaten infrastructure.

It’s complicated, but the underlying message is simple: unchecked climate change will likely exacerbate existing inequalities . At a national level, poorer countries will be hit hardest, even though they have historically emitted only a fraction of the greenhouse gases that cause warming. That’s because many less developed countries tend to be in tropical regions where additional warming will make the climate increasingly intolerable for humans and crops. These nations also often have greater vulnerabilities, like large coastal populations and people living in improvised housing that is easily damaged in storms. And they have fewer resources to adapt, which will require expensive measures like redesigning cities, engineering coastlines and changing how people grow food.

Already, between 1961 and 2000, climate change appears to have harmed the economies of the poorest countries while boosting the fortunes of the wealthiest nations that have done the most to cause the problem, making the global wealth gap 25 percent bigger than it would otherwise have been. Similarly, the Global Climate Risk Index found that lower income countries — like Myanmar, Haiti and Nepal — rank high on the list of nations most affected by extreme weather between 1999 and 2018. Climate change has also contributed to increased human migration, which is expected to increase significantly .

Even within wealthy countries, the poor and marginalized will suffer the most. People with more resources have greater buffers, like air-conditioners to keep their houses cool during dangerous heat waves, and the means to pay the resulting energy bills. They also have an easier time evacuating their homes before disasters, and recovering afterward. Lower income people have fewer of these advantages, and they are also more likely to live in hotter neighborhoods and work outdoors, where they face the brunt of climate change.

These inequalities will play out on an individual, community, and regional level. A 2017 analysis of the U.S. found that, under business as usual, the poorest one-third of counties, which are concentrated in the South, will experience damages totaling as much as 20 percent of gross domestic product, while others, mostly in the northern part of the country, will see modest economic gains. Solomon Hsiang, an economist at University of California, Berkeley, and the lead author of the study, has said that climate change “may result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history.”

Even the climate “winners” will not be immune from all climate impacts, though. Desirable locations will face an influx of migrants. And as the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated, disasters in one place quickly ripple across our globalized economy. For instance, scientists expect climate change to increase the odds of multiple crop failures occurring at the same time in different places, throwing the world into a food crisis .

On top of that, warmer weather is aiding the spread of infectious diseases and the vectors that transmit them, like ticks and mosquitoes . Research has also identified troubling correlations between rising temperatures and increased interpersonal violence , and climate change is widely recognized as a “threat multiplier” that increases the odds of larger conflicts within and between countries. In other words, climate change will bring many changes that no amount of money can stop. What could help is taking action to limit warming.

One of the most common arguments against taking aggressive action to combat climate change is that doing so will kill jobs and cripple the economy. But this implies that there’s an alternative in which we pay nothing for climate change. And unfortunately, there isn’t. In reality, not tackling climate change will cost a lot , and cause enormous human suffering and ecological damage, while transitioning to a greener economy would benefit many people and ecosystems around the world.

Let’s start with how much it will cost to address climate change. To keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, society will have to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century. That will require significant investments in things like renewable energy, electric cars and charging infrastructure, not to mention efforts to adapt to hotter temperatures, rising sea-levels and other unavoidable effects of current climate changes. And we’ll have to make changes fast.

Estimates of the cost vary widely. One recent study found that keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius would require a total investment of between $4 trillion and $60 trillion, with a median estimate of $16 trillion, while keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could cost between $10 trillion and $100 trillion, with a median estimate of $30 trillion. (For reference, the entire world economy was about $88 trillion in 2019.) Other studies have found that reaching net zero will require annual investments ranging from less than 1.5 percent of global gross domestic product to as much as 4 percent . That’s a lot, but within the range of historical energy investments in countries like the U.S.

Now, let’s consider the costs of unchecked climate change, which will fall hardest on the most vulnerable. These include damage to property and infrastructure from sea-level rise and extreme weather, death and sickness linked to natural disasters, pollution and infectious disease, reduced agricultural yields and lost labor productivity because of rising temperatures, decreased water availability and increased energy costs, and species extinction and habitat destruction. Dr. Hsiang, the U.C. Berkeley economist, describes it as “death by a thousand cuts.”

As a result, climate damages are hard to quantify. Moody’s Analytics estimates that even 2 degrees Celsius of warming will cost the world $69 trillion by 2100, and economists expect the toll to keep rising with the temperature. In a recent survey , economists estimated the cost would equal 5 percent of global G.D.P. at 3 degrees Celsius of warming (our trajectory under current policies) and 10 percent for 5 degrees Celsius. Other research indicates that, if current warming trends continue, global G.D.P. per capita will decrease between 7 percent and 23 percent by the end of the century — an economic blow equivalent to multiple coronavirus pandemics every year. And some fear these are vast underestimates .

Already, studies suggest that climate change has slashed incomes in the poorest countries by as much as 30 percent and reduced global agricultural productivity by 21 percent since 1961. Extreme weather events have also racked up a large bill. In 2020, in the United States alone, climate-related disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires caused nearly $100 billion in damages to businesses, property and infrastructure, compared to an average of $18 billion per year in the 1980s.

Given the steep price of inaction, many economists say that addressing climate change is a better deal . It’s like that old saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, limiting warming will greatly reduce future damage and inequality caused by climate change. It will also produce so-called co-benefits, like saving one million lives every year by reducing air pollution, and millions more from eating healthier, climate-friendly diets. Some studies even find that meeting the Paris Agreement goals could create jobs and increase global G.D.P . And, of course, reining in climate change will spare many species and ecosystems upon which humans depend — and which many people believe to have their own innate value.

The challenge is that we need to reduce emissions now to avoid damages later, which requires big investments over the next few decades. And the longer we delay, the more we will pay to meet the Paris goals. One recent analysis found that reaching net-zero by 2050 would cost the U.S. almost twice as much if we waited until 2030 instead of acting now. But even if we miss the Paris target, the economics still make a strong case for climate action, because every additional degree of warming will cost us more — in dollars, and in lives.

Veronica Penney contributed reporting.

Illustration photographs by Esther Horvath, Max Whittaker, David Maurice Smith and Talia Herman for The New York Times; Esther Horvath/Alfred-Wegener-Institut

An earlier version of this article misidentified the authors of The Debunking Handbook. It was written by social scientists who study climate communication, not a team of climate scientists.

How we handle corrections

What’s Up in Space and Astronomy

Keep track of things going on in our solar system and all around the universe..

Never miss an eclipse, a meteor shower, a rocket launch or any other 2024 event  that’s out of this world with  our space and astronomy calendar .

A dramatic blast from the sun  set off the highest-level geomagnetic storm in Earth’s atmosphere, making the northern lights visible around the world .

With the help of Google Cloud, scientists who hunt killer asteroids churned through hundreds of thousands of images of the night sky to reveal 27,500 overlooked space rocks in the solar system .

A celestial image, an Impressionistic swirl of color in the center of the Milky Way, represents a first step toward understanding the role of magnetic fields  in the cycle of stellar death and rebirth.

Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of dark energy, a mysterious cosmic force . That could be good news for the fate of the universe.

Is Pluto a planet? And what is a planet, anyway? Test your knowledge here .

Advertisement

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Climate-Change Myths

By Jay Katsir

Myth: There is nothing you can personally do to stop climate change.

Fact: There is something you can personally do, but you didn’t do it.

Myth: Our children will wander tornado-swept wastes strewn with the shards of a great civilization.

Fact: Typhoon-swept wastes will be more common.

Myth: Earth’s climate has changed naturally in the past, so modern climate change must also be a natural process.

Fact: Modern climate change is caused by human activity. For evidence, look at all that footage of smokestacks spewing methane, which then cuts to a time-lapse of a big traffic jam and over to a lush tree in a field rapidly desiccating as a lonesome elk walks by, and then a polar bear tumbles off a melting ice floe and is surrounded by plastic piranhas from a kids’ game that ended up in a landfill, and the child who owned it is sitting bereft in a sandbox, and the angle widens to show that the sand is actually a desert where an old-growth forest once stood, and we zoom in on a determined ant struggling across sun-baked rocks, and what’s he carrying? A scrap of paper that says “Al Gore.”

Myth: It’s a beautiful day today.

Fact: We’re all gonna die.

Myth: Between heat waves, hurricanes, fires, and floods, every summer will be a deadly reminder of our failed stewardship and darkening future.

Fact: Maybe so, but you can still relax and groove to the Song of the Summer, “(muffled screams).”

Myth: The younger generation will prioritize taking the action necessary to avert climate catastrophe.

Fact: The younger generation’s only priority is getting a bottle of Strawberry Watermelon Prime.

Myth: Wildfire smoke contains natural compounds found in evergreen roots which, when inhaled, can improve the body’s oxygen absorption.

Fact: What? Where did you hear that?

Myth: Online. Maybe Instagram Reels?

Fact: There’s no way that’s true.

Myth: Yeah, it didn’t sound right. Let me see if I can find it again. Hmm . . . no. But look—awww, it’s the Macaw Dad who has six parrot babies that snuggle in his bed.

Fact: I love that guy. But can parrots really be comfortable sleeping like that?

Myth: Sure. Look how cuddly they are.

Myth: As the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere increases, temperatures rise at an even rate across the planet.

Fact: Temperatures rise at different rates in different places. Land has warmed at about twice the rate of the ocean surface, Arctic temperatures are climbing faster than those in equatorial regions, and Ryan Gosling has never been hotter.

Myth: What about carbon capture?

Fact: You mean carbonara. It’s delicious.

Myth: Persephone, daughter of Zeus and Demeter, was gathering flowers when Hades burst from the underworld in his black chariot and abducted her. Demeter, distraught, forbade the trees to bear fruit. Zeus commanded Hades to release Persephone, and he obeyed, but only after tricking her into eating pomegranate seeds, which condemned her to spending half of every year in the underworld. It is Persephone’s annual return, and not anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, that causes global warming.

Fact: Global warming is caused by the lewd, un-Christian practices of witches and conjurers.

Myth: Humanity’s tragic flaw is that it cannot overcome its narrow provincialism to act collectively and save itself.

Fact: Humanity’s only flaw is the weird pinkie toe with the stubby nail.

Myth: Climate change will lead to human extinction.

Fact: A.I. will get us first.

Myth: After decades of resistance, it will soon be simple to transition to an all-electric transportation system.

Fact: No, because each clean-energy breakthrough will be produced by a crypto-fascist billionaire. If you want an emissionless fusion engine, you’ll have to buy it from a company owned by a land-mine heir named Gheaf Trince, who purchased the Houston Texans so he could “re-masculate the N.F.L.”

Myth: The energy it took to publish this article could have been used to plant a thousand trees.

Fact: C’mon, be cool.

Myth: There is no technological solution that can be implemented in time to reverse the effects of climate change.

Fact: We don’t know if this is true, but it can’t hurt to fly a bunch of jets to Gstaad to discuss it over Negronis. ♦

More Humor and Cartoons

If you ever hurt my daughter, I swear I will let her navigate her own emotional growth .

I’m not an asshole. I’m an introvert .

Ayn Rand reviews children’s movies .

I went to Hogwarts and did not learn math or spelling, and now I can’t get a job .

Fashionable outfits for working from home .

Now is the time to cherish the little things, by Jeff Bezos .

Enter the Cartoon Caption Contest for a chance to appear in the magazine.

Follow @newyorkercartoons on Instagram and sign up for the Daily Humor newsletter for more funny stuff.

Daily Humor

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Elizabeth Kolbert

By Cressida Leyshon

By Bill McKibben

By Kelefa Sanneh

Responding to the Climate Threat: Essays on Humanity’s Greatest Challenge

A new book co-authored by MIT Joint Program Founding Co-Director Emeritus Henry Jacoby

From the Back Cover

This book demonstrates how robust and evolving science can be relevant to public discourse about climate policy. Fighting climate change is the ultimate societal challenge, and the difficulty is not just in the wrenching adjustments required to cut greenhouse emissions and to respond to change already under way. A second and equally important difficulty is ensuring widespread public understanding of the natural and social science. This understanding is essential for an effective risk management strategy at a planetary scale. The scientific, economic, and policy aspects of climate change are already a challenge to communicate, without factoring in the distractions and deflections from organized programs of misinformation and denial. 

Here, four scholars, each with decades of research on the climate threat, take on the task of explaining our current understanding of the climate threat and what can be done about it, in lay language―importantly, without losing critical  aspects of the natural and social science. In a series of essays, published during the 2020 presidential election, the COVID pandemic, and through the fall of 2021, they explain the essential components of the challenge, countering the forces of distrust of the science and opposition to a vigorous national response.  

Each of the essays provides an opportunity to learn about a particular aspect of climate science and policy within the complex context of current events. The overall volume is more than the sum of its individual articles. Proceeding each essay is an explanation of the context in which it was written, followed by observation of what has happened since its first publication. In addition to its discussion of topical issues in modern climate science, the book also explores science communication to a broad audience. Its authors are not only scientists – they are also teachers, using current events to teach when people are listening. For preserving Earth’s planetary life support system, science and teaching are essential. Advancing both is an unending task.

About the Authors

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was vice-chair of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus, in the MIT Sloan School of Management and former co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural and social sciences and policy analysis in application to the threat of global climate change.

Richard Richels directed climate change research at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). He served as lead author for multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Ben Santer is a climate scientist and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow. He contributed to all six IPCC reports. He was the lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report which concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. He is currently a Visiting Researcher at UCLA’s Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

Access the Book

View the book on the publisher's website  here .

Order the book from Amazon  here . 

Related Posts

E7: an introduction to carbon capture (re-air).

E6: How clean is green hydrogen?

Study: heavy snowfall and rain may contribute to some earthquakes.

William Green named director of MIT Energy Initiative

MIT Climate News in Your Inbox

Watch CBS News

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

By Jeff Berardelli

February 27, 2020 / 7:00 AM EST / CBS News

If you've ever engaged in a discussion about climate change , in person or online, you've probably encountered some arguments about what the science says. Some of those claims may sound logical but are actually misleading or inaccurate. 

In fact, misconceptions and outright misinformation have gotten so out of hand, just days ago NASA felt the need to publicly address one of the most popular myths: that a decrease in the the sun's output will soon trigger cooling and a mini ice age. 

This and other topics have been studied thoroughly and debunked over and over again by climate scientists. Nevertheless these myths persist, often as a result of an organized disinformation campaign waged by special interests whose goal is to raise doubts among the public and delay action on human-caused climate change.

Here is a look at 10 of the most common myths about climate change that persist in the public sphere and what science has to say about them.

Myth #1: It's the sun.

While it is true that varying intensity of energy from the sun has driven long-term climate changes like ice ages in the distant past, the sun can not explain the recent spike in warming.

Over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth's tilt and orbit around the sun varies in predictable cycles. The way these cycles interact with each other cause gradual increases or decreases in the energy from the sun reaching the Earth. That change in energy can gradually — over thousands of years — ease the Earth into and out of ice age cycles. Over about the past 800,000 years, these ice/melt cycles have occurred about every 100,000 years .

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

In fact, according to NASA , in late 2020 the current solar cycle is headed for its lowest level since 1750, meaning the lowest energy output from the sun in 270 years. Still, that change in output is minor, having varied by only  0.1% since 1750.

Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.

It's true, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, less than a tenth of a percent. But because of CO2's powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference. Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth's temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown in the below animation, if CO2 abruptly dropped to zero, Earth's average temperature would also drop far below freezing, eradicating most life as we know it.

It should be noted: the drop in CO2 doesn’t directly cause the whole drop in temperature. Other feedbacks occur when CO2 is eliminated. Water vapor condenses out as temps fall thus tanking its greenhouse effect & Albedo (reflected sun) increases bec. of ice growth = more cooling. — Jeff Berardelli (@WeatherProf) November 20, 2019

To be clear, a drop in CO2 wouldn't directly cause the whole drop in temperature. The biggest impact comes from the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which condenses out due to the fact that colder air holds less water vapor; this is what tanks the greenhouse effect in the simulation. Positive feedbacks like the growth of ice cover would further precipitate the temperature plunge. But it's CO2 which drives all this change. 

Because small concentrations of carbon dioxide have an outsized impact, scientists are very concerned about the recent unprecedented rate of increase. For the vast majority of the past million years, CO2 levels have been below 280 parts per million. Since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, levels have jumped to 415 parts per million — an astounding 48% increase in 150 years. 

As the below graph shows, that dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels coincides with the rapid warming.

Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists do not disagree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. Various analyses over many years have shown that between 90% and 100% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of our warming climate. Many studies have evaluated the scientific consensus , but the most famous, which as of this summer has been downloaded 1 million times, is this 2013 paper quantifying that agreement at over 97%.

According to NASA, "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

For perspective, NASA Goddard Institute climate scientist Kate Marvel put this consensus into relatable terms, "We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer."

Despite this scientific consensus, only 1 in 5 Americans understand that almost all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That is called the " Consensus Gap ."

Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.

No scientist will disagree that the climate changes naturally. It always has and it always will. What makes the recent changes stand out is the unprecedented pace of change. 

Because "the present anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years ," as scientists concluded in a 2016 study in Nature Geoscience , the rate of temperature rise is 10 times faster than that of the last mass extinction about 56 million years ago. 

Science has a firm handle on the various reasons why the climate changes naturally. Two examples are long-term fluctuations in sunlight due to changes in Earth's orbit, which modulate ice ages, and shorter-term release of sun-dimming ash from large volcanoes, like Mount Pinatubo , which cooled Earth's surface by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 2001.

None of these natural changes can explain the spike in heating since the 1800s. In contrast, physics calculates that most of the recent warming stems from heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels. According to climate scientist and data analyst Dr. Zeke Hausfather, "Our best estimate is that 100% of the warming the world has experienced is due to human activities. Natural factors — changes in solar output and volcanoes — would have led to slight cooling over the past 50 years."

Here's a brief video showing the different natural and human-caused factors which factor into temperature changes.

Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?

It should be obvious that Earth as a whole can warm up and at the same time certain parts of the Earth can feel cold. Yet cold weather is common cited as evidence against climate change — both sincerely and, by some, disingenuously. Famously, in 2015, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma held up a snowball on the Senate floor on a cold winter day to deny the existence of climate change. 

At issue here is the difference between weather and climate. When scientists use the term global warming, or climate change , it refers to a broad temperature shift across the entire Earth's surface over the course of years and decades. The term weather, on the other hand, is the short-term, sometimes abrupt day-to-day variation in any given location. A good way to think about it is: Weather is your mood; Climate is your personality. Global warming does not prohibit cold, it just makes extreme cold less intense and less likely. Winter is still winter, it's just not as wintery overall.

This is illustrated below. In recent decades, the ratio of record highs compared to record lows in the United States (and globally) is increasing, averaging approximately two record highs to every one record low. The duration of winter cold snaps is also decreasing, but of course cold air still exists.

Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?

If you were of age in the 1970s you might remember a number alarming newspaper headlines warning of an ice age on the way. But a deeper dive reveals those articles were based on a small number of papers very much in the scientific minority.

In the mid 20th century, climate science was very much in its infancy — scientists were just learning to decipher the influence of competing forces regulating climate. In the 1960s and 1970s, the science began to mature as researchers unearthed the most prominent factors such as the cooling influence of aerosols and the warming influence of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — concepts which have stood up to decades of rigorous testing.

Yet even at that early stage, a scientific consensus was emerging on warming, not cooling, in the near future. This was made clear by a 2008 study called "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," which conducted a survey of the peer-reviewed literature from 1965 to 1979. The research team found that of the 71 related research papers, 44 indicated warming while only 7 indicated cooling (20 did not make projections either way). "Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus," the authors write.

So why then was there such an outsized influence in the social consciousness from these few cooling papers?  For one thing, the paper suggests, ice ages make for very compelling and memorable headlines. But those stories often included contradictory evidence as well, and other news coverage at the time did focus on warming theories.

Selecting and highlighting past inaccuracies in science, even if they are the exception and not the rule, is an expedient way for politicians and opponents of climate action to sow doubt about the credibility of climate science.  

In short, while a handful of scientists did predict cooling a half a century ago, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers since then which substantiate that humans are heating the climate.

Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable.

A common talking point among climate change skeptics is either "the temperature record is unreliable" or "the temperature record is rigged." That might be a plausible argument if all of science relied on just one or two records; however, there are many independent temperature records produced by various independent bodies worldwide, and their data are remarkably consistent with each other.

These organizations include NASA, NOAA, the UK Meteorological Service, the Japanese Meteorological Service and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, just to name a few. 

One of the variables they have to account for is a phenomenon called the Urban Heat Island effect. Simply put, large cities — which are expanding — heat up the local atmosphere due to the concentration of dark surfaces, buildings and industries releasing heat. The concern is this extra heat may "contaminate" surface temperature trends. Scientists have studied this phenomena thoroughly and the surprising conclusion is that the warming trend in the temperature record of urban sites, in general, is similar to rural sites. So the urban heat island effect is real but not very substantial.

The temperature records are carefully fine-tuned by data experts to account for factors including the urban heat island effect, instrument sites being relocated, and instrument type changes. While each organization has its own unique methods for data gathering and analysis, the resulting temperature records are largely in sync.

  Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Considering how complex modeling the climate is, most model projections of future temperature, even the rather primitive climate computer models of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, were impressively accurate. This lends extra credibility to the much more advanced climate models of today in predicting future changes.

A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017. The researchers found 14 of the 17 model projections were consistent with observed real-world surface temperatures, when they factored in the actual rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Here's the assessment of the lead scientist on the study, Dr. Zeke Hausfather: "Climate models have by and large gotten things right."

• Climate models have been impressively accurate for decades, study finds

Dr. Gavin Schmitt, the head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, posted an even more recent assessment of the state-of-the-art collection of climate models run in the early 2000s called CMIP3. He concluded, "The CMIP3 simulations continue to be spot on (remarkably), with the trend in the multi-model ensemble mean effectively indistinguishable from the trends in the observations."

In the graph below, the model projection is the black line and the colored lines are the actual temperature datasets from various agencies. As you can see, the magnitude and pace of temperature change consistently match.

To be sure, evaluating global temperature projections are not the only gauge of a model's accuracy. Models can be expected to be accurate on general trends, such as whether global temperatures will warm, overall rainfall increase or hurricanes get stronger. However, when it comes to predicting regional changes and other specific types of events, the climate models are far from perfect. Future projections like whether rainfall will increase or decrease in San Francisco, or whether more or fewer hurricanes will hit Florida, are still uncertain and on the edge of climate models' current ability.

Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.

Many scientists speculate that we are now entering the beginning of a Grand Solar Minimum — a period with decreased solar energy which could last a few decades. There is a general acknowledgement that this speculation may be true, but there is a lack of scientific consensus because of limited understanding of longer-term solar cycles.

If this happens it certainly would not be the first time. The most famous Grand Solar Minimum, called the Maunder Minimum, spanned from 1645 to 1715. The period indeed corresponds with a decrease in temperature, but was embedded in a much longer-term cooling period called the Little Ice Age (from about  the 1300s through the mid 1800s ). While it seems logical to assume the cooling during the Little Ice Age may have been due to a decrease in solar activity, leading theories actually point more so to volcanic activity . 

With that said, a scientific collaboration to reconstruct past temperatures, called PAGES2K , indicates that global average temperatures decreased by no more than a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius during the Maunder Minimum. During that time the solar irradiance decreased by one-quarter of one percent.

Several studies have been conducted on the potential impact of a Grand Solar Minimum in the coming decades. The consensus of these studies finds that global average temperatures would decrease by no more than around half a degree Fahrenheit, but likely less. In contrast, human-caused climate change has already warmed the planet by 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s, and climate scientists forecast we could see about 4 degrees Fahrenheit of additional warming by 2100.

So, while a Grand Solar Minimum is possible, our best science tells us it would do nothing more than make a small dent in the overall warming trend. According to NASA, that amount of cooling would be balanced by just three years of greenhouse gas emissions and the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than a possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum. And any impact of cooling would be short-lived, with temperatures bouncing right back after the minimum ends. 

It's also worth mentioning that during the Maunder Minimum certain regions, like Europe, cooled more than others. If this reoccurs during the next minimum, regional cooling may be slightly more impactful on those given regions, but it would still pale in comparison to the amplitude of warming from human-caused climate change.

Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

Climate scientists are often accused of making alarming assertions about climate change, like "the impacts will be catastrophic by 2030" or "we only have a decade left to save the planet." First and foremost, scientists are not predicting this. However, some politicians and media headlines have used select bits of scientific data to fuel the impression of impending Armageddon.  

This specific myth comes directly from a quote in the 2018 Special Report produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Here's what the quote actually says:

"The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require 'rapid and far-reaching' transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050."

To simplify, the report concludes that if the global community wants to avoid breaching the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, then we need to abruptly cut emissions by rapidly reducing the use of fossil fuels by the end of the decade. At this point the globe has already warmed by slightly more than 1 degree Celsius; the vast majority of scientists agree there is little to no chance that warming will be held below 1.5 degrees. 

Staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is a goal often cited as the limit needed to prevent the most severe consequences from climate change. But 1.5 degrees is not a magical cut-off point. There is no bright line separating "normal" from "catastrophic." Rather, the impacts of global warming get progressively worse as temperatures incrementally rise. Some have already started. 

One lead author of the IPCC report, Hans-Otto Pörtner, said, "Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems."

For people who live near sea level, like on low-lying Pacific islands, 1.5 degrees of warming will in fact be catastrophic, because it can mean the difference between an inhabitable and uninhabitable homeland due to sea-level rise. For others who are less vulnerable or have more resources, 1.5 degrees won't have quite as drastic an impact.

The IPCC report lays out many other examples of the escalating damage produced by warming above 1.5 degrees.  For instance, at that level of warming, it's estimated that coral reefs will decline another 70% to 90%. If we hit 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the  death toll for coral reefs jumps to 99%. This would not only be devastating to the aquatic species which rely directly on reefs, but also to millions of people worldwide who depend on the ecosystem for sustenance and business, as well as the web of life as a whole.

So, no, the world will not end in 10 years due to climate change. But the longer action is delayed, the more dire the consequences will be and the more likely it is that the changes will be irreversible.

The Skeptical Science website has compiled an exhaustive list of common myths and misconceptions about human-caused climate change, each complemented by peer-reviewed scientific research to illuminate the topics.

Jeff Berardelli is a meteorologist and climate specialist for CBS News.

More from CBS News

Summer 2023 was the hottest in 2,000 years, study finds

Asia's deadly heat wave was made 45 times more likely for this reason

Why does Canada have so many wildfires?

Climate change is destroying the wonders many U.S. parks are named for

Climate Conflicts: Myth or Reality?

• Post author By Hayley Stevenson
• Post date 21/03/2018
• No Comments on Climate Conflicts: Myth or Reality?

This article was originally published by IPI Global Observatory on 5 March 2018.

The specter of water wars has long loomed large in political and popular imaginations. With the end of the Cold War, fresh concerns emerged that future wars would be fought not over ideology but over natural resources. The alliteratively appealing phrase of “water wars” began rolling off the tongue as United Nations leaders and politicians made bold claims about the inevitable carnage that resource scarcity would bring. Climate change heightens these concerns as the gap widens between what science tells us is necessary and what politics tells us is feasible.

Climate change poses multiple risks with the potential to trigger tensions within and across nation-states. In some places flooding and the rise of sea levels will threaten homes and essential infrastructure; shrinking access to water for irrigation and consumption will undermine rural livelihoods, especially in semi-arid areas; and warming, drought, flooding, and changes in rain patterns will disrupt food systems and exacerbate food insecurity. The severity of these risks rises with higher global temperatures. In other words, risks are directly related to the present scale of mitigation action. So what can we expect in the years ahead? Are climate wars on the horizon, or do they largely lie in the realm of cli-fi fantasy?

History can be a guide to the future, so what do past experiences tell us about the relationship between environmental change and conflict? In the case of water, we see a mismatch between assumptions and evidence. Common wisdom holds that states—and perhaps individuals—will resort to conflict to secure their own access to scarce resources, like freshwater. Research by environmental scientist Peter Gleick in the early 1990s was the first to back up this assumption with historical analysis. He predicted that growth in population and demand, combined with uncertain supply, would increase the likelihood of international military action to secure supplies.

The Middle East, as the world’s most water scarce region, provides numerous cases—both historic and contemporary—to support the hypothesis. Fourteen centuries ago, the King of Assyria reportedly seized water wells to weaken Arabia and gain strategic advantage. More recently, the Jordan River basin has been a hot spot. Animosities in the region have run high since Israel was formed in 1948. But it was the Arab countries’ attempt to divert headwaters of the Jordan River away from Israel in the 1960s that pushed them towards violent conflict. In 1967, shortly before war broke out, the Israeli Prime Minister warned that water is essential for the country’s survival and they would use “all means necessary” to secure water flows. Over six days, Israel then bombed a Jordanian dam on an important tributary to the Jordan River and seized large swathes of upstream territory; and in the process expanded its access to freshwater.

But some scholars remained skeptical that examples from the Middle East reflected a more general connection between resource scarcity and war. Studies out of Norway showed that most of the conflicts Gleick identified were only verbal conflicts, threats of violence, or water-related violence in already-occurring wars. In other words, they were not cases of water scarcity triggering armed conflict. Furthermore, in most cases, water was only an instrument of war or a strategic target, not the objective of fighting in the first place.

Further research at the University of Oregon categorized 2,000 international interactions over war and found that cooperative actions were far more prominent than conflictual ones. Cooperative water bodies have even survived conflict and war between water-sharing countries in various parts of Asia (such as during the Vietnam War). It turns out that violent conflict specifically over water is a fairly rare and isolated phenomenon. Democratic regimes, international trade relations, and membership of cooperative international institutions all reduce the likelihood of conflict. This “democratic peace thesis” should not prompt a Pollyanna vision of the future, but it should tame fears about the likelihood of climate change driving conflict.

Of course, we cannot know that the future will reflect the past: irrespective of whether scarcity was a driver of historical conflicts it may well be a driver of future ones. Water is non-substitutable in agriculture, human wellbeing, and some manufacturing and electricity generation. The world population is estimated to increase by 83 million people per year until 2100, when it will peak at roughly 11 billion. So as long as demands increase, water will become ever scarcer and create conditions we haven’t seen in the past. We also cannot rule out the potential for sub-national conflict, especially in areas where ethnic and regional tensions are already high (such as along the Nile and Indus rivers), and where local populations compete with multinational companies for dwindling resources. Mining companies are profligate water users in arid and semi-arid countries, and this is likely to provoke further tensions in the years ahead.

In Peru , melting glaciers and warming temperatures are reducing the water available for agriculture in the Andean highlands. This provokes clashes with mining companies, which have privileged access to water and a reputation for contaminating common water supplies. This problem is not unique to Peru. As climate change threatens water supply and quality, we will likely see more intense debates about how to use this resource, which in turn places greater pressure on states’ capacity to peacefully and fairly manage competing demands. At the international level, multilateral institutions can promote cooperation and stifle tensions, but these institutions are designed to manage relations among states, not among sub-national groups, or among communities and firms.

Events in Syria have ignited fears about climate change driving civil war. In 2015, Time magazine presented the “surge of migrants” crossing into Europe as foretelling a future crisis of climate refugees. With everyone from Barack Obama to Prince Charles repeating the claim that unprecedented severe drought in Syria triggered civil tension and ultimately civil war, it quickly became accepted wisdom. But here too we should avoid hasty assumptions, as researchers from the United Kingdom and Germany concluded that the “drought migration-civil war thesis” rests on weak evidence.

Of course, whether or not migration is fueled by conflict or other climate-related destitution, human displacement is now inevitable in the years ahead. The scale of displacement will depend on the mitigation and adaptation actions put in place now. The attention of the international policy community should be directed to this question of “human security,” irrespective of the risk of climate conflicts in the years ahead.

About the Author

Hayley Stevenson is Associate Professor of International Relations at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina). This article draws on Chapter 5 of her latest book, Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy and Practice .

For more information on issues and events that shape our world, please visit the CSS website .

• Tags Conflict , Environment , Climate change

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

Introduction, works cited.

The Free Online Dictionary defines a problem as “a situation, matter, or person that presents perplexity or difficulty”. A problem is thus a state or situation associated with difficulty and which needs a solution. When a problem does not receive an immediate solution, it creeps into a dilemma; an instance when possible solutions compete for possible consideration. In this essay, the writer identifies the problem of “global warming”.

Its causes, effects and occurrence are discussed as a build up to suggesting its possible solutions. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes global warming as “an average increase in the Earth’s temperature, which in turn causes changes in climate”. This implies an unfavorable gradual change in the threshold atmospheric temperature as a result of imposed activities with detrimental effects on the climate of a place, a region and by extension of the globe. Global warming can thus be described as a progressive increase in the earth’s temperature as a result of a trap to greenhouse gases within its atmosphere.

These gases trap the sun’s reflected long wave radiation with a resulting increase on the atmospheric temperature. Causes of global warming are varied but can be grouped into two main categories: natural occurrences and anthropogenic (man-made) activities. Most instances of rise in temperatures across the earth are due to increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

These gases exist in minor proportions within the atmosphere and are responsible for reduction of heat loss into space. They include water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and mixtures of the above. These gases contribute to global temperatures in a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect and are responsible for maintaining the temperature of the earth (Thomas et al, 2003). In excess, however, the gases raise the temperature of the earth to undesirable levels. Natural and human activities combine to produce these gases.

Sources of greenhouse gases in natural circumstances include volcanic activities and spatial variation in solar radiation. These were attributed to little warming effect during pre-industrial era up till around 1950 and a small cooling effect thereafter (Spencer, 2003). The industrial era has seen a tremendous increase in greenhouse effect due to emissions and activities in the industries. Current levels of CO2, for example, are approximately 100 parts per million by volume.

This is much higher than recorded concentrations just before the industrial revolution (Kiehl par 3). Specific effects on global warming by the gases are varied but their combined action is known to cause climate change in magnitudes that are worrying to the sustainability of the earth. Known and foreseeable effects of global warming on the environment and for humans are registered in climate change and also in secondary spatial and temporal regional environmental changes. Climate variations can be characterized by raising sea levels, Arctic shrinkages, glacial retreat and alterations in agricultural patterns.

Global warming is known to cause significant rise in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century. The effect of global warming on oceans and seas has been registered in rising levels. Sea-level rise is through two main processes: thermal expansion of sea water and widespread melting of land ice. Gradual heating up of the sea by the trapped long wave radiation causes the sea water to expand leading to a rise in sea level or ecstatic changes across the globe (Thomas, vol. 302).

The worldwide and rapid retreat of glaciers has been attributed to effects of global warming. This retreat affects the availability of fresh water for domestic, irrigation and recreational activities in mountainous areas. In the longer term, it affects the level of the oceans. Glaciologists have been able to ascertain the relationship between the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat and measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This points to the anthropogenic greenhouse effects on glacial retreat and its effects therein.

Except for few positive effects of global warming in agricultural practices such as enhanced rate of phototropism favorable to plants such as barley, its effects are largely negative. Scientists say that climate change poses threats to food supply. Global yields will be negatively affected since rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades. This has been proved by large experiments on food production all over the world (The Independent, April 27, 2005). Africa is worst affected both because of its geography and the fact that its population (seventy per cent) rely on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihoods (Leroux 87).

In Africa, the combination of drought, overpopulation and desertification has been known to cause conflicts. Secondary and regional effects of global warming include extreme weather events, outbreak of tropical diseases, changes in seasons and ecosystem patterns as well as drastic economic impacts. The US agency in charge of environmental protection (EPA) relates augmented extreme weather events such as tsunamis, El Nino, La Nina and hurricanes to global warming. Studies by Thomas et al. (23) show that the increase in hurricanes is linked to increased temperatures as a direct result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical diseases have been on the rise thanks to changes in climatic conditions of tropical climates. Global warming extends the favorable zones for vectors conveying tropical disease such as malaria.

This has had great toll in poor countries where such diseases spread unabated due to lack of capacity to control them. In developed countries, the consequences of containing the spread of these diseases through vaccination and other vector control measures are always felt in the health budget. It is reported that in April 2008 that as a result of increased temperatures, malaria is appearing in the highland areas of Papua New Guinea, where the weathers have been too cold enough to check the spread of the disease by mosquitoes (www.irinnews.org).

Associated drastic economic impacts of global warming results from changes in known economic production processes, agriculture and ecological balance being most affected. Water scarcity as a result of drying lakes and rivers has been reported across the globe. This has a potential of shrinking economic production as a result of lack of water for irrigation, industrial use and even hydroelectric power generation. The consequences are so great to contemplate and this causes worries across countries dependent on agricultural production as their economic backbones.

High concentrations of carbon dioxide reduce photorespiration with no compensatory increase in growth after a certain threshold level. This becomes a threat to ecological productivity since plants as primary producers reduce in number. The overall effect of this is an ecological imbalance that is not commensurate to earth’s productivity.

A warmer earth leads to variations in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a range of impacts on plant life, wildlife, and humans. It is important to note that when scientists talk about climate change, their concern is about global warming caused by human activities. That humans cause global warming is in no doubt. The question of what to do about it remains quite controversial. In addressing this problem all disciplines; economics, sociology, and politics are all important factors in planning for the future and stability of the earth. A stop in emission of greenhouse gases today is not an assurance to a less warm earth tomorrow.

However, what happens from today is a means into solving what will happen from tomorrow and will create a big difference in moving towards a better, more productive globe tomorrow. The world leaders and environmental stakeholders are in agreement that stabilizing the greenhouse gases emission at around 450-550 ppm and reducing emission of industrial gases by about twice the current concentration of 380 ppm would prepare a tactical retreat towards a safer earth. Going by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s suggestions, greenhouse gas emissions would have to reduce by 50% to 80% of what they are today to be safely on track by the next century (IPCC, 2007).

Some suggestions towards this end are given below. Using vegetable oil for fuel can greatly reduce the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light industries. The generation of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and methane has usually been associated with the use of fossil fuels and non regulated disposals of solid waste resulting in air pollutions. The use of bio-fuels will thus ensure that production of these gases is kept at its minimal.

The idea of green homes has been muted in global environmental cycles and carries a potential environmental transformation towards lesser greenhouse gas emissions. The correct implementations are essential for the green homes to use none harmful and renewable energy solutions. Clean renewable and affordable energy confines the homeowner to use only renewable energies such as wind, wave and solar power among others. This ensures that no uncontrollable amounts of greenhouse gases get their way into the atmosphere. Individual choices also have an impact on global climate change.

Modern conveniences should not be forgotten when reducing heat trapping emissions; and only makes it smart through using energy-efficient products. This may require an additional investment before hand but often pays up in energy conservation after a very short period of time. This is the time to act or else time may come when mankind will miss all the earthly benefits and nowhere to turn to. Green revolution is also essential in transforming the pattern of climatic changes.

Through planting of indigenous trees and farming on indigenous crops, the original state of climate is sure to return with minimal climatic adjustments thereafter. Overall, the best approach in containing global warming is to return the earth to its original green form. The steps are already laid down; the general ecosystem diversity must be maintained at all costs. The greens of the earth must remain green and efforts put in place to make it even greener. Fossil fuels must be used, if unavoidable, least while environmental policies around the globe should be geared towards cleaner, greener sustainable technologies.

Kiehl, J. T. “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”. American Meteorological Society. 1997.

Leroux, Marcel. Global Warming: Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology. New York: Springer, 2005.

Spencer R. W. The Discovery of Global Warming. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Thomas, R. K. Modern Global Climate Change Science. 2003: Vol 302. No 5651.

UNOCHA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Climate Change Challenge to Combat Malaria: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007 Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability. Contribution of Workgroup II on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, October 21). Global Warming: Myth or Reality? https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/

"Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" StudyCorgi , 21 Oct. 2021, studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Global Warming: Myth or Reality'. 21 October.

1. StudyCorgi . "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

This paper, “Global Warming: Myth or Reality?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 22, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

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.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 10 May 2024

Views on climate change and health

• Wenjia Cai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4436-512X 1 ,
• Jessica Fanzo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6760-1359 2 ,
• Jason Glaser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0642-3616 3 ,
• Rachel Lowe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-7343 4 ,
• Adelaide M. Lusambili   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8174-7963 5 &
• Elizabeth Marks   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-0670 6  

Nature Climate Change volume  14 ,  pages 419–423 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

460 Accesses

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate change
• Climate-change impacts
• Developing world
• Environmental social sciences
• Public health

Climate change is a health emergency, impacting multiple facets of human well-being via direct and indirect pathways. Nature Climate Change asked experts from different health fields to share their thoughts on the urgent issues and possible paths forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

The Columbia Climate School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Jessica Fanzo

La Isla Network, Washington DC, USA

Jason Glaser

Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) and Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain

Rachel Lowe

Environmental Health And Governance (EHAG) Centre, Africa International University, Nairobi, Kenya

Adelaide M. Lusambili

University of Bath, Bath, UK

Elizabeth Marks

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wenjia Cai , Jessica Fanzo , Jason Glaser , Rachel Lowe , Adelaide M. Lusambili or Elizabeth Marks .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cai, W., Fanzo, J., Glaser, J. et al. Views on climate change and health. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14 , 419–423 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01998-0

Download citation

Published : 10 May 2024

Issue Date : May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01998-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

TrendyDigests

Challenging Climate Change Myths: Facts Versus Fiction

Posted: May 17, 2024 | Last updated: May 17, 2024

Climate change is an ever-present topic in our modern discourse, sparking heated debates and carving deep divisions in public opinion. It's an issue that weaves itself through various sectors, from the profound implications for military operations and strategies due to changing global conditions, to the political arena where policy and legislation become battlegrounds for climate action.

For enthusiasts of science, technology, and the natural world, separating fact from fiction is not just a matter of curiosity—it's a necessity for informed discourse.

In recent years, a surge in misinformation has led to the propagation of several myths about climate change. Misconceptions, often backed by vested interests, strive to sow doubt about the well-established science behind human-caused climate change. Let's address some of these pervasive myths, backed by solid scientific evidence from reputable sources, including studies and observational data.

One myth we often hear is that "climate change is natural, and what we are seeing is nothing new." While it is true that the Earth's climate has always experienced fluctuations, the current pace of climate change is at least 10 times faster than any natural rate we've seen in the past.

This acceleration is largely attributed to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and changing land use. The assertion that "cold winters debunk global warming" is equally misleading; despite occasional cold snaps, the overarching trend is a consistent rise in global temperatures.

A persistent myth is that "there's no consensus among scientists about climate change." This couldn't be farther from the truth. Studies over the past decade have shown near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists that climate change is real and primarily caused by humans. A recent Cornell study found this consensus to be at 99.9%.

Another point of contention involves climate models, with skeptics questioning their reliability. However, these models have been incredibly accurate in predicting the average rise in global temperatures.

For instance, Exxon's models from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, as well as climate scientist James Hansen's model from 1988, were remarkably precise in their predictions. These models underscore the fact that climate change is not a future problem; it is happening now, with evident signs such as melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels.

Many believe that extreme weather events like hurricanes and wildfires are natural and unconnected to climate change. Yet, evidence indicates that climate change is making these events more destructive. For instance, the link between climate change and hurricanes is increasingly clear; warmer ocean temperatures fuel more intense storms.

The myth that "plants need carbon dioxide, so increased levels are beneficial" ignores the fact that there's a limit to how much CO2 ecosystems can absorb. In reality, human-induced CO2 levels are rising at a pace not seen in over 3 million years, exceeding the absorptive capacity of plants and oceans.

Another myth to debunk is the notion that "animals will simply adapt to climate change." While some species may adapt, the rapid rate of environmental changes makes it impossible for many to keep pace. Polar bear populations, for example, are predicted to decline by 30% by the middle of this century due to shrinking Arctic ice.

Finally, the cost of renewable energy is often cited as a barrier to its widespread adoption. This myth has been shattered by the fact that renewable energy sources like solar and wind are now among the cheapest forms of electricity generation, contrary to beliefs that they are more expensive than fossil fuels.

The overwhelming weight of evidence cannot be ignored. From studies by organizations like NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to data from ice cores and modern instruments, the signs of human-caused climate change are unequivocal.

This is not a distant problem reserved for future generations—it is a reality we face now, demanding immediate and decisive action. As enthusiasts of technology and history, we understand the power of informed change.

Climate change, in its vast complexity, is not just an environmental issue; it's a matter of strategic importance, influencing everything from geopolitical stability to the design and implementation of military hardware. Recognizing the facts and dispelling the myths is a crucial step in navigating this multifaceted challenge.

Relevant articles: - Debunking common climate change myths , WFLA - Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says , Skeptical Science - Here are 10 myths about climate change , wwf.org.uk - NASA Science , nasa.gov

More for You

‘That’s a lie’: Trump attorney screams at Michael Cohen over critical phone call on Stormy Daniels payment

Here’s the Median Household Income Of Americans Over the Last 40 Years

5 places you should not use your debit card

Ukraine appears to have launched its biggest drone attack ever, with reports of explosions at two major Russian ports

Housing Price Drop Likely In these 20 Cities

Tom Brady admits officials made wrong call in 2017 AFC Championship Game

These Are the Tallest Mountains in America

14 Best New Aldi Products That Are Worth Every Penny

It’s time to bring back the world’s greatest fighter jet – from the 1990s

Netflix just added a disturbing AI movie that feels exactly like ‘Black Mirror’ — and it's 88% on Rotten Tomatoes

Here is the true value of having a fully paid-off home in America — especially when you're heading into retirement

12 Everyday Things You Didn’t Know Were Illegal

25 hidden gems in the US you should visit at least once

Kevin O'Leary warns latest CPI increase is a 'nasty report'

Crockett slams Greene as ‘racist’ following contentious House committee meeting

An entire town in California has been put on the market for $6.6 million

LPGA: Rose Zhang not alone; multiple players withdraw from Liberty National event

7 Ways People Destroy the Value of Their Homes, According to a Real Estate Agent

8 Things to Know About Cameron Brink After Her WNBA Debut

‘They’re not having kids’: NYU professor Scott Galloway says young Americans are struggling and ‘have every reason to be enraged.’ Do you agree?