Life is easy. Why do we make it so hard? | Jon Jandai | TEDxDoiSuthep

There is one phrase that I have always wanted to say to everyone in my life. That phrase is "Life is easy." It's so easy and fun. I never thought like that before. When I was in Bangkok, I felt like life is very hard, very complicated. I was born in a poor village on the Northeastern of Thailand And when I was a kid, everything was fun and easy, but when the TV came, many people came to the village, they said, "You are poor, you need to chase success in your life. You need to go to Bangkok to pursue success in your life." So I felt bad, I felt poor. So I needed to go to Bangkok. When I went to Bangkok, it was not very fun. You need to learn, study a lot and work very hard, and then you can get success. I worked very hard, eight hours per day at least, but all I could eat was just a bowl of noodles per meal, or some Tama dish of fried rice or something like that. And where I stayed was very bad, a small room where a lot of people slept.

It was very hot. I started to question a lot. When I work hard, why is my life so hard? It must be something wrong, because I produce a lot of things, but I cannot get enough. And I tried to learn, I tried to study. I tried to study in the university. It's very hard to learn in university, because it's very boring. (Laughter) And when I looked at subjects in the university, in every faculty, most of them had destructive knowledge. There's no productive knowledge in university for me. If you learn to be an architect or engineer, that means you ruin more. The more these people work, the mountain will be destroyed more. And a good land in Chao Praya Basin will be covered with concrete more and more. We destroy more. If we go to agriculture faculty or something like that, that means we learn how to poison, to poison the land, the water, and learn to destroy everything. I feel like everything we do is so complicated, so hard.

We just make everything hard. Life was so hard and I felt disappointed. I started to think about, why did I have to be in Bangkok? I thought about when I was a kid, nobody worked eight hours per day, everybody worked two hours, two months a year, planting rice one month and harvesting the rice another month. The rest is free time, ten months of free time. That's why people have so many festivals in Thailand, every month they have festival. (Laughter) Because they have so much free time. And then in the daytime, everyone even takes a nap. Even now in Laos, go to Laos if you can, people take a nap after lunch. And after they wake up, they just gossip, how's your son-in-law, how's your wife, daughter-in-law. People have a lot of time, but because they have a lot of time, they have time to be with themselves. And when they have time to be with themselves, they have time to understand themselves. When they understand themselves, they can see what they want in their life.

So, many people see that they want happiness, they want love, they want to enjoy their life. So, people see a lot of beauty in their life, so they express that beauty in many ways. Some people by carving the handle of their knife, very beautiful, they weave the baskets very nicely. But, now, nobody does that. Nobody can do something like that. People use plastic everywhere. So, I feel like it's something wrong in there, I cannot live this way I'm living. So, I decided to quit University, and went back home. When I went back home, I started to live like I remember, like when I was a kid. I started to work two months a year. I got four tons of rice. And the whole family, six people, we eat less than half a ton per year. So we can sell some rice. I took two ponds, two fish ponds. We have fish to eat all year round. And I started a small garden.

Less than half an acre. And I spend 15 minutes per day to take care of the garden. I have more than 30 varieties of vegetables in the garden. So, six people cannot eat all of it. We have a surplus to sell in the market. We can make some income, too. So, I feel like, it's easy, why did I have to be in Bangkok for seven years, working hard and then not have enough to eat, but here, only two months a year and 15 minutes per day I can feed six people. That's easy. And before I thought that stupid people like me who never got a good grade at school, cannot have a house. Because people who are cleverer than me, who are number one in the class every year, they get a good job, but they need to work more than 30 years to have a house. But me, who cannot finish university, how could I have a house? Hopeless for people who have low education, like me.

But, then I started to do earthly building, it's so easy. I spend two hours per day, from 5 o'clock in the morning, until 7 o'clock in the morning, two hours per day. And in three months, I got a house. And another friend who's the most clever in the class, he spent three months to build his house, too. But, he had to be in debt. He had to pay for his debt for 30 years. So, compared to him, I have 29 years and 10 months of free time. (Laughter) So, I feel that life is so easy. I never thought I could build a house as easy as that. And I keep building a house every year, at least one house every year. Now, I have no money, but I have many houses. (Laughter) My problem is in which house I will sleep tonight. (Laughter) So, a house is not a problem, anybody can build a house.

The kids, 13 years old, at the school, they make bricks together, they make a house. After one month, they have a library. The kids can make a house, a very old nun can build a hut for herself. Many people can build a house. So, it's easy. If you don't believe me, try it. If somebody wants to have a house. And then, the next thing is clothing. I felt like I'm poor, like I'm not handsome. I tried to dress like somebody else, like a movie star. To make myself look good, look better. I spent one month to save money to buy a pair of jeans. When I wore them, I turned left, I turned right, looked in the mirror. Every time I look, I am the same person. The most expensive pants cannot change my life. I felt like I'm so crazy, why did I have to buy them? Spend one month to have a pair of pants. It doesn't change me. I started to think more about that. Why do we need to follow fashion? Because, when we follow fashion, we never catch up with it, because we follow it.

So, don't follow it, just stay here. (Laughter) Use what you have. So, after that, until now, 20 years, I have never bought any clothes. All the clothes I have are leftovers from people. When people come to visit me, and when they leave, they leave a lot of clothes there. So, I have tons of clothes now. (Laughter) And when people see me wear very old clothes, they give me more clothes. (Laughter) So, my problem is, I need to give clothes to people very often. (Laughter) So, it's so easy. And when I stopped buying clothes, I felt like, it's not only clothes, it's about something else in my life, What I learned is that when I buy something, and I think about, I buy it because I like it, or I buy it because I need it. So, if I buy it because I like it, that means I'm wrong. So, I feel more free when I think like this. And the last thing is, when I get sick, what will I do? I really worried in the beginning, because then I had no money.

But, I started to contemplate more. Normally, sickness is a normal thing, it's not a bad thing. Sickness is something to remind us that we did something wrong in our lives, that's why we got sick. So, when I get sick, I need to stop and come back to myself. And think about it, what I did was wrong. So, I learned how to use water to heal myself, how to use earth to heal myself, I learned how to use basic knowledge to heal myself. So, now that I rely on myself in these four things, I feel like life is very easy, I feel something like freedom, I feel free. I feel like I don't worry about anything much, I have less fear, I can do whatever I want in my life. Before, I had a lot of fear, I could not do anything. But, now I feel very free, like I'm a unique person on this Earth, nobody like me, I don't need to make myself like anybody else. I'm the number one.

So, things like this make it easy, very light. And, after that, I started to think about that when I was in Bangkok, I felt very dark in my life. I started to think that many people maybe thought like me at the time. So, we started a place called "Pun Pun" in Chiang Mai. The main aim is just saving seed. To collect seed, because seed is food, food is life. If there is no seed, no life. No seed, no freedom. No seed, no happiness. Because your life depends on somebody else. Because you have no food. So, it's very important to save seed. That's why we focus on saving seed. That's the main thing in Pun Pun. And the second thing is it is the learning center. We want to have a center for ourselves to learn, learn how to make life easy. Because we were taught to make life complicated and hard all the time. How can we make it easy? It's easy, but we don't know how to make it easy anymore. Because we always make it complicated and now, we start to learn, and learn to be together.

Because, we were taught to disconnect ourselves from everything else, to be independent, so we can rely on the money only. We don't need to rely on each other. But now, to be happy, we need to come back, to connect to ourselves again, to connect to other people, to connect our mind and body together again. So, we can be happy. Life is easy. And from beginning until now, what I learned is the four basic needs: food, house, clothes and medicine must be cheap and easy for everybody, that's the civilization. But, if you make these four things hard and very hard for many people to get, that's uncivilized. So, now when we look at everywhere around us, everything is so hard to get. I feel like now is the most uncivilized era of humans on this Earth. We have so many people who finish university, have so many universities on the Earth, have so many clever people on this Earth. But, life is harder and harder. We make it hard for whom? We work hard for whom right now? I feel like it's wrong, it's not normal.

So, I just want to come back to normal. To be a normal person, to be equal to animals. The birds make a nest in one or two days. The rats dig a hole in one night. But, the clever humans like us spend 30 years to have a house, and many people can't believe that they can have a house in this life. So, that's wrong. Why do we destroy our spirit, why do we destroy our ability that much? So, I feel that it's enough for me, to live in the normal way, in the abnormal way. So, now I try to be normal. But, people look at me as the abnormal one. (Laughter) A crazy person. But, I don't care, because it's not my fault. It's their fault, they think like that. So, my life is easy and light now. That's enough for me. People can think whatever they want. I cannot manage anything outside myself. What I can do is change my mind, manage my mind. Now, my mind is light and easy, that's enough. If anybody wants to have a choice, you can have a choice.

The choice to be easy or to be hard, it depends on you. Thank you. (Applause).

Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change

"We are hurtling toward the day when climate change could be irreversible." "Rising sea levels already altering this nation’s coast." "China’s capital is choking in its worst pollution of the year." "5% of species will become extinct." "Sea levels rising, glaciers melting." Okay. Enough. I get it. It’s not like I don’t care about polar bears and melting ice caps. I’m a conservation scientist, so of course I care. I’ve dedicated my entire career to this. But over the years, one thing has become clear to me: We need to change the way we talk about climate change. This doom-and-gloom messaging just isn’t working; we seem to want to tune it out. And this fear, this guilt, we know from psychology is not conducive to engagement. It's rather the opposite. It makes people passive, because when I feel fearful or guilt-full, I will withdraw from the issue and try to think about something else that makes me feel better. And with a problem this overwhelming, it’s pretty easy to just turn away and kick the can down the road. Somebody else can deal with it.

So it’s no wonder that scientists and policymakers have been struggling with this issue too. So I like to say that climate change is the policy problem from hell. You almost couldn't design a worse problem as a fit with our underlying psychology or the way our institutions make decisions. Many Americans continue to think of climate change as a distant problem: distant in time, that the impacts won't be felt for a generation or more; and distant in space, that this is about polar bears or maybe some developing countries. Again, it’s not like we don’t care about these things — it’s just such a complicated problem. But the thing is, we’ve faced enormous, scary climate issues before. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? As insurmountable as that seemed in the 1970s and ’80s, we were able to wrap our heads around that and take action.

People got this very simple, easy to understand, concrete image of this protective layer around the Earth, kind of like a roof, protecting us, in this case, from ultraviolet light, which by the way has the direct health consequence of potentially giving you skin cancer. Okay, so now you've got my attention. And so then they came up with this fabulous term, the “ozone hole.” Terrible problem, great term. People also got a concrete image of how we even ended up with this problem. For decades, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were the main ingredient in a lot of products, like aerosol spray cans. Then scientists discovered that CFCs were actually destroying the atmospheric ozone. People could look at their own hairspray and say, “Do I want to destroy the planet because of my hairspray? I mean, god no.” And so what's interesting is that sales of hairspray and those kinds of products and underarm aerosols started dropping quite dramatically.

People listened to scientists and took action. Now scientists predict that the hole in the ozone layer will be healed around 2050. That’s actually pretty amazing. And while stopping the use of one product is actually pretty easy, climate change caused by greenhouse gases … that’s much trickier. Because the sources are more complicated, and for the most part, they’re totally invisible. Right now, there is CO2 pouring out of tailpipes, there is CO2 pouring out of buildings, there is CO2 pouring out of smokestacks, but you can't see it. The fundamental cause of this problem is largely invisible to most of us. I mean, if CO2 was black, we would have dealt with this issue a long time ago. So CO2 touches every part of our lives — our cars, the places we work, the food we eat.

For now, let’s just focus on one thing: our energy use. How do we make that visible? That was the initial goal of UCLA’s Engage project, one of the nation’s largest behavioral experiments in energy conservation. What we're trying to do is to figure out how to frame information about electricity usage so that people save energy and conserve electricity. The idea is that electricity is relatively invisible to people. The research team outfitted part of a student housing complex with meters that tracked real-time usage of appliances and then sent them weekly reports. So you can see how much energy the stove used versus the dishwasher or the fridge. We realized, because of this project, the fridge was like the monster. So lucky for them, their landlord upgraded their fridge to an energy-efficient one. They also learned other energy-saving tips, like unplugging their dishwasher when not in use and air-drying their clothes during the summer months. And researchers, in turn, discovered where people were willing to cut back. The Engage project wanted to know what types of messaging could motivate people to change their behavior. We wanted to see over time over a year and with repeated messages, how do people, behave? How does that impact the consumer behavior? And what we found is that it's very different.

Some households were sent personalized emails with their energy bill about how they could save money; others learned how their energy usage impacted the environment and children’s health. Those who received messages about saving money did nothing. It was totally ineffective because electricity is relatively cheap. But emails sent that linked the amount of pollutants produced to rates of childhood asthma and cancer — well, those led to an 8% drop in energy use, and 19% in households with kids. Now, in a separate study, researchers brought social competition into the mix. First, they hung posters around a dorm building to publicly showcase how students were really doing: red dots for energy wasters, green for those doing a good job, and a shiny gold star for those going above and beyond. This social pressure approach led to a 20% reduction in energy use. This strategy was also used at Paulina’s complex, and it definitely brought out her competitive streak. For me, the competition was what motivated me, because seeing your apartment number and telling you that you are doing at the average, but you are not the best, was like, Why? I’m doing everything you are telling me to do.

I always wanted the gold star, because it was like, “Oh, my god, I want to be like the less consumption of energy in the whole building.” And psychology studies have proved this. We are social creatures, and as individualistic as we can be, turns out we do care about how we compare to others. And yes, we do like to be the best. Some people don’t want to say, Oh, I'm like the average. No, my usage is different and I want to be able to act on it. And people can act on it because with these meters, they can now see their exact impact. A company called Opower is playing with this idea of social competition. They work with over 100 utility companies to provide personalized energy reports to millions of customers around the world. Now consumers can not only see their energy use but how it compares to their neighbors’. Like the UCLA study found, this subtle social pressure encourages consumers to save energy.

It’s been so effective that in 2016, Opower was able to generate the equivalent of two terawatt-hours of electricity savings. That’s enough to power every home in Miami for more than a year. And they’re not alone. Even large companies are tapping into behavioral science to move the dial. Virgin Atlantic Airways gave a select group of pilots feedback on their fuel use. Over the course of a year, they collectively saved over 6,800 tons of fuel by making some simple changes: Adjusting their altitudes, routes, and speed reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by over 21,000 tons. These behavioral “nudges” do seem to be advancing how we as a society deal with some pretty complicated climate change issues, but it turns out we’re just getting started. There is no “quick fix.” We need people changing their companies, changing their business models, changing the products and services they provide. This is about broader-scale change. And part of this change includes embracing what makes us human.

That it can’t just be a guilt trip about dying polar bears or driving around in gas guzzlers. We need to talk about our wins, as well — like how we’re making progress, really being aware of our energy use, and taking advantage of that competitive spirit we all have in order to really move us from a state of apathy to action. Global warming is by far the biggest issue of our time. Climate Lab is a new series from Vox and the University of California, and we’ll be exploring some surprising ways we can tackle this problem. If you want to learn more, head to climate.universityofcalifornia.edu..

UQx DENIAL101x 3.4.3.1 Daily and yearly cycle

Scientists predict that human-caused global warming should result in certain specific patterns of warming. Because these patterns are consistent with what we expect to happen as a result of the increased greenhouse effect, they’re considered “fingerprints” of the human influence on the Earth’s climate. As far back as 1865, physicist John Tyndall predicted that warming caused by the increased greenhouse effect should cause nights to warm faster than days, and winters to warm faster than summers. He was able to make this prediction by knowing that at night and during the winter, the Earth’s surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing that nighttime and winter cooling. The sun doesn’t shine all the time, the greenhouse effect is at work 24/7. Additionally the moon gives us a good counter-example because it doesn’t have an atmosphere. During the day, there’s nothing between the Sun and the Moon’s surface to block incoming sunlight.

At night, there are no greenhouse gases to trap the outgoing heat from the Moon. As a result, the difference between day and night temperatures is extreme. Daytime temperatures on the moon reach 120˚ Celsius, or 250˚ Fahrenheit. Nighttime temperatures fall below minus 200˚ Celsius, or minus 330˚ Fahrenheit. At the other extreme, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect, much bigger than the greenhouse effect on Earth. Its temperature is an intense 460˚ Celsius, or 730˚ Fahrenheit. It’s like this day and night, all year long. Venus doesn’t even have seasons because its greenhouse effect is so strong. As these two examples illustrate, the bigger the greenhouse effect, the smaller the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. We know humans are increasing the greenhouse effect on Earth by burning more and more fossil fuels. If the greenhouse effect is increasing, then the difference between nighttime and daytime temperatures, and between winter and summer temperatures, should be shrinking. There’s a common myth that global warming is caused by the Sun rather than humans.

That myth fails to account for the available evidence. If the Sun were responsible, we would see an entirely different pattern of global warming. In that scenario, we would expect to see the Earth warming most when sunlight is bombarding the surface the most – during the daytime, and during the summer season. That means that if the Sun were responsible, we would see days warming faster than nights, and summers warming faster than winters. These expected patterns of global warming give scientists a clear test to determine whether the evidence matches the fingerprints of human or solar-caused warming. It took over 130 years before John Tyndall’s prediction was confirmed, but over the last few decades, surface measurements have found nights warming faster than days, and winters warming faster than summers. The difference between nighttime and daytime temperatures, and winter and summer temperatures, is shrinking, just as Tyndall anticipated would happen due to the increased greenhouse effect.

Fingerprints in the Earth’s climate change, like these changes in global warming patterns, clearly point to humans, and not the Sun, as the culprit responsible for global warming over the past century..

How Your Friends Can Affect Your Opinions

You probably have strong opinions about all kinds of things: like whether Coke is better than Pepsi, which football team deserves to win the Super Bowl, or which Chris is the dreamiest movie star—Pratt, Pine, Hemsworth, or Evans. Why are there so many Chrises? But are all those opinions really yours? Humans are social creatures. And when we talk about anything from TV shows to politics, lots of psychological phenomena come into play. Sometimes, this can lead to bad judgments and biased opinions. But by knowing how your thoughts can be swayed, you can recognize it when it’s happening— and maybe stop it. One kind of bias can come from the company you keep. It’s normal to be friends with people who have similar opinions and values.

But many studies have shown that when you talk with people who feel similarly about things, you can end up with even more extreme opinions. In other words, you get polarized. For example, some experiments have asked people to decide on a risky business proposition together, and found that groups of risk-takers get even more risky, while risk-avoiders get less risky. But it’s hard to escape polarization: it can also happen when you have strong opinions that are challenged by others. One study in 2011 had people with diverse views on a social issue respectfully discuss their opinions. Those who already had more extreme beliefs, both for and against the issue, showed even more polarization afterwards. This is called a boomerang effect, where a counter-argument makes someone believe even more strongly in their original judgment.

Researchers think this is partly due to your social identity: the fact that your beliefs and the groups you belong to are part of who you are, so you defend them. So if you and your friends are die-hard peanut M&M fans, hearing a case for crispy M&Ms could just make you extra defensive of your peanut-loving identity. I know it does that to me. Another way your opinions can be swayed in a debate has to do with what you think of first— because that can act as an anchor, basically a starting point, for the rest of your thoughts. One study in 2000 involved taking an old car to 60 car experts, including mechanics and car dealers. The pretend-customer told the expert what they thought the car was worth, either higher or lower than it actually was, then asked for the expert’s judgment.

And the initial suggestion affected the experts’ estimates, making them similarly higher or lower. Psychologists think this is partially due to selective accessibility, where an anchor makes some information more available in your mind, which affects your opinions. For example, a small study in 2010 even found that when it was warmer outside, or people were simply asked to think about hot things, their responses to survey questions showed that they believed more strongly in global warming. So if you stumble upon a flame war online, for example, the first thing you read in the comments could cause selective accessibility and shape your thoughts— although there hasn’t really been research into that kind of anchoring. Your opinions can also be influenced when you’re trying to make a decision with a group because of something called groupthink, which can make you blind to bad reasoning.

Let’s say you’re a Doctor Who fan and enter a heated debate after someone influential claims that, hands-down, Matt Smith’s Eleventh Doctor is the best one. A discussion begins with that anchor, filled with a bunch of pro-Matt Smith arguments. Maybe you’re more of a Tom Baker fan and you think that bow ties just aren't that cool, but you keep your mouth shut in self-censorship, figuring that other people won’t want to hear your opinion. You might notice that any arguments that other Doctors might be better are rationalized by the group, meaning that they are dismissed as bad arguments. Or people might stereotype David Tennant’s fans, saying they only liked him because of his looks, and ignoring their opinions. After lots of keysmashing back and forth, it seems like everyone agrees that Eleven is the best, but that’s not necessarily true— it’s what psychologists call an illusion of unanimity. And when people think everyone agrees, they’re more likely to adjust their opinion.

When deciding on anything, from government policy to a group project at school, all of these and other characteristics of groupthink can influence decisions and shut down critical debate. So … it might seem like your opinions aren’t ever really yours. But there are ways to fight against the influence of polarization, anchoring, and groupthink. Essentially, it all comes down to critical thinking, and considering why your opinion might be wrong or too extreme, not just why it might be right. Some studies have found that having someone play the Devil’s Advocate can help, genuinely arguing against the preferred decision and asking thoughtful questions. But an extreme counter-argument can also backfire and cause the boomerang effect. Other research has shown it can help to talk with others outside of your group, and listen to diverse opinions.

You might discover that what you thought was normal actually was an extreme stance, or that the issue is more complex than you thought. Also, you can learn about something or start a group discussion before forming a strong opinion— like, reading a bunch of news articles for yourself before reading the comments or tweetstorms about them. We’re all naturally influenced by the people around us— it’s unavoidable, and it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But by being aware of bias and potentially bad choices, you can take back some control and know that it’s okay to speak up, disagree, and change your mind. After all, we’re all learning here. But peanut M&Ms are the best. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych, brought to you by our patrons on Patreon! If you would like to support us, you can go to patreon.

com/scishow. And if you just want to keep learning about brain things, you can go to youtube.com/scishowpsych and subscribe..

Attack on science

Hayhoe: These days, to get attacked, all we have to do is step foot off campus and tell anybody, even a local Kiwanis club, or a local church, or even a group of elementary school kids, that climate change is real, and then the angry letters start to flood in. Mann: Typically the attacks are not really about the science. The attack on the science is a proxy for what is really an effort to discredit science that may prove inconvenient for certain special interests. Oreskes: That’s when I started getting attacked. And that was when life sort of changed, it was a bit going through the looking glass. I started getting hate e-mail. What happened then was I mentioned to a couple of colleagues what was going on, and one of my colleagues at Scripps, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said to me, “You should talk to Ben Santer.

Something sort of similar happened to him.” Santer: I remember sitting in a bar in Madrid with Stephen Schneider, the late Stephen Schneider, immediately after the final sentence had been agreed on in the 1995 report, a sentence that’s forever engraved on my memory. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. Here we are at this bar, and Steve says to me, “This changes everything, you know. Your life is going to be changed forever.” I had no idea what he was talking about. I really didn’t. Hayhoe: There is definitely a pattern of what happens: nasty e-mails, complaints to your university, requests for your e-mails, and a lot of attacks online. Mann: Often it takes the form of an attack on individual scientists. It’s part of the strategy of ad hominem attack.

Santer: Go after the scientist. Go after their integrity. Go after their funding. Make life miserable for them. Mann: I have received letters in the mail that in one case contained a while powder that I had to actually report to the FBI. They had to come to my office and investigate this and send this off to a lab to make sure that it wasn’t anthrax or some very dangerous substance that my entire department would have been subject to because of this. Santer: Then there’s the power of the Internet, which really was not available back in 1995, to harness your supporters to go after individual scientists, send them threatening e-mails or worse, and let them know, “We’re watching you. We don’t like you. We don’t like what you do.

” Mann: One of the tactics that you see in climate change denialism is an effort to spin and misrepresent peer reviewed scientific studies. So often studies that say one thing, for example, show that some aspect of climate change is even worse than we thought, will somehow be spun by climate change deniers as if it doesn’t provide evidence for concern. Oreskes: Clearly misrepresenting scientific information, cherry picking scientific data, one egregious example that we talk about in the book is an early work by Jim Hansen that Bill Nierenberg, Bob Jastrow and Fred Seitz take out of context and use it to argue that climate change is caused by the sun when, in fact, if you go back to the original paper, Hansen is arguing exactly the opposite. Santer: I think an additional weapon in the arsenal is Freedom of Information Act requests, which are being used not really to advance understanding or, again, shed light on complex scientific issues but as a tactic to threaten, to intimidate, to throw a spanner in the works to take up your time.

Mann: They will bully editors to try to get them to retract articles that are a threat to their case, their case being that climate change isn’t real, it’s not something to worry Oreskes: The weirdest day of my whole life practically was the day I got a phone call from a reporter in Tulsa, Oklahoma ,who said to me, “Are you aware of the fact that Senator James Imhofe is attacking you?” [laughter] I was like, at that time, I honestly didn’t know who Senator Imhofe was. In fact, I think I had been to Oklahoma maybe once but, I mean, and so I said, “No, I have no idea.” At first I thought he was making a mistake, this was some other, well, I have a very unusual name, so it didn’t seem plausible it was some other Naomi Oreskes. And then he had, he read to me from this speech that Imhofe was making and it was part of what we all are very familiar with now that I was a part of the “global conspiracy,” the scientific conspiracy to bring down global capitalism. And I remember thinking, “Conspiracy?!? Scientists are not that organised.” Santer: hacking e-mails, releasing them, all of these things. The technology has moved on since 1995, but it’s the same playbook: don’t really focus on the science and advancing understanding, contributing, but tear down, destroy.

Hayhoe: I think the best we can do is shield ourselves from the attacks and try not to dwell on them, unless it’s a safety issue, in which case we should take appropriate steps, and try to move on, focusing on what we want to achieve rather than what’s trying to hold us back. Mann: So if you are a prominent scientist, if you participate in the public discourse, as I’ve often said, you better develop a thick skin because you will be attacked personally. Hayhoe: My number one rule of thumb is: do not Google myself. I don’t want to see. My number two rule of thumb is to not read the comments section. I don’t want to know. Oreskes: One of the things that I think is really important us that by writing about these things and by documenting about it in a scholarly way with high standards of documentation, we can explain to our colleagues, our institutions, editors at journal, and the public and the media what this is. Because this is not a scientific debate.

I mean if I have one message that’s what my message has been all along and it still is: this is not a scientific debate; it’s a political debate. But it’s a political debate being made to look like a scientific debate. We now know why people do that. Because it’s a very very effective strategy because if you can make people think it’s a scientific debate then people will think it’s too soon to act. But if people see the truth, if they realise that this is a political debate, that it’s related to people’s ideologies to their values, structures, that gives a whole different cast. So it’s very very important for people to understand the character of what this thing is. Santer: Some things are worth fighting for. That perhaps was the most profound lesson for me back then: that a clear public understanding of the science, doing the kind of thing that you’re doing here, that was truly worth fighting for..

Carbon cycle

House: The carbon cycle is, very simply, it’s about the cycling of carbon through natural systems – through plants, through soils, through the ocean – and back out into the atmosphere. Le Quéré: In the natural carbon cycle, there’s a lot of fluxes of carbon dioxide, so the carbon goes in and out of the ocean, in and out of the terrestrial biosphere every year. House: The carbon is constantly flowing between these different systems and large amounts of carbon moves all the time. Le Quéré: I mean in the terrestrial biosphere, in the trees and the forests, it’s very easy to see. If you live in a place that has a forest area with seasons, you see in the winter the trees they have no leaves, and the spring comes and the leaves build up. This is all good carbon dioxide that goes in the leaves. And in the fall and in the autumn when the leaves fall down then their carbon is emitted back in the atmosphere.

So you have a huge signal there of CO2 going in and out of the atmosphere. House: So the ocean will take up the CO2, it dissolves in the surface of the ocean and also when the ocean will release CO2 to the atmosphere and that depends on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the concentration of CO2 in the ocean. And they form a balance with each other. There’s a continuous massive exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere on land and the atmosphere on the ocean. That is roughly in balance until we introduce human change. Osborn: The experiment that we’re inadvertently perhaps conducting with the climate system is to move huge volumes of carbon from these stores undergrounds in the form of fossil fuels and bringing them to the surface and burning them and adding this carbon to the atmosphere. Le Quéré: What we’re doing now is putting everything out of balance, so we’re adding carbon to the atmosphere. It’s new carbon. It’s not part of the natural cycle.

It’s one that we’ve dug out of the fossil reservoir where they were stored, and we’ve put them back in the atmosphere. This is new carbon, and it puts the system out of balance. House: Although the human emissions are much smaller than the natural fluxes, the natural fluxes approximately are in balance and so they’re not causing an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The human emissions, however are very rapid, and the natural systems don’t have time to respond to them. And so you get a net imbalance of raised carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Lunt: It’s unequivocal that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing and is increasing fast and is increasing faster than ever. House: Oh the rate of change now is incredibly rapid, and what’s more it’s pushed us outside the bounds of what we’ve seen in terms of atmospheric concentration throughout the Ice Ages. Thompson: We have not had levels of C02 at 400 parts per million by volume in 800,000 years of history. House: In the Earth’s past throughout in and out of the Ice Ages, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ranged between about 180 parts per million to 280 parts per mission.

And it took thousands of year for it to change between those states. The difference is now it’s gone up to 350 and even topping 400 parts per million on a single day basis. And that’s happened over a period of a couple hundred years. Friedlingstein: Every single generation is emitting more than the previous generation because emission of CO2 increased exponentially. We emit it so far, if you start from the beginning, which is like the industrial revolution in 1750 or something, when we start to burn fossil fuel, from that time up until today we emitted something like 2000 gigaton of CO2. More than half of this has been emitted over the last 50 years. Thompson: And we know where that CO2 is coming from because we do the isotopes of the carbon. We know it’s coming from fossil fuels. Le Quéré: So carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, but it doesn’t entirely stay there, so about half of the emission and maybe a bit more than half of the emission that we put in the atmosphere ends up in the natural environment. It ends up in the ocean and in the forest. Friedlingstein: For the carbon cycle today absorbed about half of the emissions we put in the atmosphere, so we emit, as I said, 40 gigaton of CO2 per year, about half of it, 20 gigaton of CO2 are taken back from the atmosphere by the land and by the ocean.

House: There’s a multitude of different processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So for example, CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves in the surface of the ocean and then that’s turned over and taken into the deep ocean. Really for that amount of CO2 to be completely removed from the atmosphere it has to be completely dissolved and go down into the deep ocean. And then we’re talking about geological timescales – so hundreds and thousands of years. Le Quéré: So what happens when we put carbon emissions into the atmosphere, new carbon from burning fossil fuel or from different station, what happens is this takes a long time for this carbon to readjust in the land and ocean. Eventually if we’re prepared to wait long enough, so that’s thousands of years, a lot of this carbon, maybe 70 percent will end up in the ocean, and the reason this takes time is that you have different adjustment times, so the CO2 goes in the surface ocean, it takes about 1 year to dissolve. But how it is transported from the ocean’s surface to the intermediate and to the deep ocean depends on the ocean circulation.

The ocean circulation takes hundreds to a thousand years to mix the entire ocean. That’s the timescale that is really relevant here is taking a molecule of CO2, we’ve put it in the atmosphere, how long is it going to take before it ends in the deep ocean? House: So about 65 to 80 percent of the carbon dioxide pulse that’s put into the atmosphere will be removed within about 2 to 200 years. The rest of it, the remaining 35 percent, will take between 2 and 20 millennia to be completely removed from the atmosphere. So roughly you have to think whatever we’re doing today, whatever CO2 is being emitted, roughly a third of it is going to stick around essentially forever really when you consider it in our lifetime. Pelto: We can’t change the atmosphere, the chemistry, with one of the main constituents carbon dioxide by 25 percent and expect nothing to happen. You change your diet by 25 percent. You decide you’re going to start consuming 25 percent more calories, and you don’t change your exercise or anything else. You can’t realistically expect nothing to happen. And that’s what you have to understand.

If we change fundamentally our atmosphere chemistry, we can’t expect climate to stay the same..

Turning down the heat on controversial topics like Climate Change | Waleed Abdalati | TEDxMileHigh

Thank you. I want to talk today about something that is very important to me, it's about communicating controversial topics. My research is related to climate change. I've served as a chief scientist at NASA, I'm the director of a large environmental research organization, and in that capacity, I tend to talk to people of all sorts about climate. What I'm going to talk to you about today is climate, but more generally speaking, communicating controversial topics. And I've talked about climate matters to the general public, to fellow scientists, to legislators, to the members of the White House, in both the Bush and the Obama administration; you can imagine those conversations were probably quite different. And I'm going to talk to you about some of the things I've learned, the things I carry forward in those conversations that I hope you'll carry forward in yours as well.

Communicating controversial topics. Sometimes this reminds me of my experiences in Washington D.C., but I'll let you to interpret that however you want. The tools of communication: words, attitude, and your clarity of purpose, and I'll get to each of those in a minute. But I want to start with a clipping from the Washington Post at the end of last year about the healthcare.gov website. When it was having problems and overcoming those problems, this article came out in the Washington Post. 800,000 visits a day, 50,000 people at one time being able to apply, but I want to call your attention to this: "Democrats optimistic, GOP skeptical." The same data interpreted very differently depending on who's doing the interpretation. What this means, what this says to me in many cases: "It is often less about the data than the narrative." We all have our perceptions of the world, how it works, and we look at the data through those perceptions, and this shapes our interpretation. This is a fundamental thing to understand as you communicate with friends, colleagues, others about controversial topics such as climate change.

I mentioned words. Words matter. Words set the tone, words convey your opinion of something, they put the audience, the person you're speaking to in a certain posture to receive your message or to resist your message. I'm going to give you just a few examples. Estate tax. A tax on the wealth you leave behind after you die, that is one way of describing it. Others choose to describe this as the death tax, the final kick in the pants by the U.S. government as you head to your grave. Words matter. Stand-your-ground law. To some this is the right to not have to retreat when you feel threatened and actually fight back with deadly force, even if you could retreat. To others, this is a license to kill. Why not retreat when you can? Why stay and kill someone? Words matter. The same situations, but cast very, very differently. Here are just a few other examples: job-killing taxes versus revenue for national needs; affordable health care, Obama care; government intervention, the common good. Different ways of describing the same phenomena, but the words say something about how you feel, and depending on which of these words you use when you talk to someone, you'll elicit a certain kind of posture, a certain kind of response.

Attitude matters. I love this. Would you want to build a sandcastle with this kid? (Laughter) Actually, I would, why not? Attitude matters, OK? People, much more than what you say, remember how you make them feel. This is what your attitude does, it sets the mood of a conversation. It will either put people in a resistive posture, if you're forth-coming, if you're strong, you're coming at them with both barrels, or, perhaps, a more receptive posture, if you're a little more open, if you're a little more receiving. The third is purpose, clarity of purpose. You need to be clear on your goals. What is the purpose of your conversation? To some people it's just about convincing, it's just about winning. When I talk to people, my interest is not so much about getting a certain outcome, I'm not a lobbyist; my interest is getting them to think differently than, perhaps, they have.

And getting myself to think differently than, perhaps, I have. It's a two-way–, it's engagement, it's not talking at someone, it's engaging someone, to move people, to move the conversation forward. So my sort of rules of engagement, I have four. The first is understand the context. I like to say your adversaries are not as dumb as you want them to be. Think about that! How many times have we all done it: "Oh, it's just so stupid! Why are you so stupid? If you could just see things the way I see them. If you knew what I knew, you'd see things my way." People feel the way they feel because of the values. It's usually not just that they're dumb, it's just that they view things differently than you do. Once you do that, you can frame your ideas in ways that resonate, in ways that connect with people, meet them where they are. Don't tell people what to think. Understand that beliefs are rooted in values, so when you tell people what to think, you're directly challenging their values.

And the third – if you take one thing away from this talk, please, let it be this – don't expect your values to change other people's beliefs. If you're going into a conversation thinking that because I value this, I can convince this person of the same thing I think, you're not going to have a constructive conversation. So understand the context, frame ideas in ways that resonate, don't tell people what to think, and don't expect your values to change other people's beliefs. When I put this into practice, when I have a conversation with a person about climate change, to get at that, I like to do two things. The first is I like to speak in simple, logical, intuitive statements. So I'll use something that we can both agree on as a starting point. In the area of climate change, it's this: "If we put heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere, it will trap heat." You don't have to be a genius to understand this statement. Most people, you know, I can get that far in the conversation. I'm not thinking about the outcomes, let's start at the beginning.

You can argue about how much heat and what's too much, what's not, – well, never not enough – but what's too much, what is tolerable. But the basic principle: heat-trapping gas will trap heat. The other is we all share some common core principles. We all want to be safe. We all value freedom. We all want opportunities to prosper. These are the common principles, whether I'm talking to a Republican congressman, a Democratic congressman, Tea Party, independent, whatever. Those are things we all value. Some of us are willing to give up more of one to gain another, others the opposite, but when we start in that place, we can have a meaningful conversation, no matter how far apart we may seem to be. This is a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial for the last 110 years, the stock market, the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It may not have much on its face to do with climate in the way you look at it, but, in fact, it does.

If you look at his curve, – it's on a logarithmic scale, so it's a bit compressed – but if you look at this curve, you see that it goes up, it goes down; in general, it goes up over the long period, over the full period of the cycle, and over the last decade or two, it has actually leveled off quite a bit. If you look at the climate curve, the temperature curve, for the last 150 years, it goes up, it goes down, on balance, goes up quite a bit, it has leveled off some over the last decade. I use this analogy because, you know, everybody wants stocks to go up, everybody can look at the graph of the stock and get a sense of what it's doing. When we do this in the context of temperature, I'll bring it back to stocks. You would never look at one stock, you'd never look at one short period of time to understand the trend.

If you took a five-year snapshot of anywhere on here, you might see rapid raises, rapid declines, you'd never say this is what is telling us what the markets are doing in the long term; no, you'll look at a longer data set. The same is true with temperature. Similarly, the leveling off at the top, the basic principles of economics and investment, the odds are the market is going to continue to go up. You can't look at that leveling and say: "The graph has stopped, the market is coming down, it's going to go back to what it was in 1902." You'd never do that. The other thing is you'd never look at one stock or a handful of stocks – they're climbing, increasing, whatever, – and say: "This is what the market is doing." You want an index, a representative index, you want SND 500, you want 500 stocks, you want to collect enough data to make meaningful contributions. Yet, people do this with temperature all the time.

People will grab a small snapshot. This last summer, Tyler, Texas, and Lubbock, Texas had a record-low high temperature in July. So it was the lowest high temperature in July, I think it was 77 degrees, and people took that and said: "Wow, it's done! There is your climate warming, it's done." You can't do that. Nor can take an extremely hot year and say: "Oh, we're cooking. This is what it's going to be like from here on now." You don't pick narrow time frames, and you don't pick one place. There are places on the Earth that are cooling, many places on the Earth that are cooling. That does not tell us what the Earth is doing as a whole, a collection of the data tell us that. One more analogy to the stock market. This is a reconstruction of temperature histories for the last 1,000 years, the famous Hockey Stick, it's called. If these were stocks, – these are different reconstructions, this is what different people find – if these were stocks, or a stock history of a company, you'd look at about 1850, 1900 and say: "Wow, something happened there.

What did they do? Did they change the management? Did they introduce a new product? Did they realize some efficiencies?" You'd want to know, you'd dig into it, but you'd say there was a change there. If this were money, you would say there was a change there, or [if this were] value of a stock. The same is true with temperature. There was a change there, something happened in the period of the Industrial Revolution. By drawing the analogy to the stock, I'm sort of taking it out of the controversial realm and saying: "Let's just look at data, forget our ideologies. What do the data say?" When looking at it in that context, you look at it differently. You look at it and ask different kinds of questions.

So these are climate model predictions for the future. What you see in gray is the past, what our models say happened before, so you get a sense of how good or bad they are by the uncertainty, the width of that gray band. In the future, we see different scenarios. One, a leveling off of temperature, that is if we drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions; the other, the red at the top, is 'business as usual' as we call it, if we don't make any changes and just continue with our activities unabated. There is a range of futures out there. This is what the basic physics tell us. Now, we can have a conversation about our differing values and how we should address this, but the basic physics, the basic principles tell us this. So I come back to the Earth. I was a chief scientist at NASA, I spent a lot of time looking at the Earth this way. A lot of you look at it up close and personally, that is great too, but I come back to the Earth. I'm not going to sit here and say: "You will experience drought. You will experience flooding. Where you live is going to go up 2 degrees, where you live is going to go up 4 degrees." I can't really say that, and I don't think that's the right conversation to have.

I think the right conversation to have is we are stressing the planet, we are putting heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere. it is trapping heat, that causes temperatures to rise, and that puts us in a different kind of risk posture for the future, a higher risk posture. How do we address that? Is the cost of not doing anything greater than the cost of doing things? That is the kind of conversation you got to have, and if I come at you with: "The world is getting warmer, it's going to be anarchy," many people will shut down. The people that won't, are those that already believe it, and I don't need to have that conversation. We're stressing the planet. And that puts our future in a very uncertain state. This doesn't have to be a story though about bad news, about repression, or suppression. If we look at the challenge of climate change, I think it can actually be a different kind of story.

A story about national security, a story about energy independence, a story about prosperity, a story about giving to our future generations. And when cast in that context, sure, these challenges are current structures, but these are the kinds of things that people value, these are the kinds of topics we can have conversations around. And I encourage you, as you talk about anything controversial, think of your narrative, think of the other person's narrative, think about how you can frame the discussion in ways that resonate with people, in ways that connect with people. Finally, I want to leave you with this last thought. One person's sunset is another person's sunrise. It's really a matter of your perspective, how you view things, where you sit when you look at the phenomena. So, as you go out and as you communicate, I encourage you all avoid the sunset and seek the sunrise. Thank you. (Applause).

Making sense of the slowdown

The Earth’s climate is controlled by the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. If more heat enters the atmosphere than leaves, then the planet warms. Adding heat trapping gases changes the balance, which in turn causes warming. Ocean heat measurements show that the planet is indeed absorbing heat. Despite this fact, it is often claimed that the global warming has stopped. This claim is inspired by evidence that warming of the atmosphere has been slower over the past one and a half decades. This slowdown is sometimes called the hiatus. However, there are other factors which affect the atmosphere over shorter periods. These can cause faster or slower warming of the atmosphere. To understand the slowdown in warming, we need to understand some of these factors.

If we look at the global surface temperature over the past 3 decades, there are big changes in temperature from year to year. We know the cause of some of these variations. One of the biggest is the El Nino cycle. El Nino is a phenomena in which heat is stored up in the western Pacific Ocean, and then released to the atmosphere in the eastern Pacific. This happens over the course of a few years. El Nino is not predictable, but we can track it in retrospect through sea surface temperature measurements. If we compare past El Nino cycles with temperature changes over the past three decades, we can see that there is a strong relationship between the two. El Nino years tend to be hot years. Recent years have been dominated by the cool phase of the cycle. This is responsible for some of the slowdown in warming. However, El Nino doesn’t explain everything. There are cooler periods in the early eighties and nineties which don’t fit the El Nino cycle.

These were caused by two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo. Dust from the volcanoes spread in the upper atmosphere, cooling the surface. Smaller eruptions happen all the time, but can also affect temperatures. There has been an increase in the number of small eruptions over the past few years, offsetting a bit of the greenhouse warming. Another factor is the solar cycle. Satellites tell us that the sun varies in brightness with the sunspot cycle. The last cycle has been particularly weak. A dim sun also offsets a little bit of warming. Yet another factor is pollution. Rapid industrialisation in Asia has led to more particulate pollution in the atmosphere, which also has a cooling effect. The final factor is in the observations themselves. Two of the major temperature data providers, the UK Met Office and NOAA, don’t include the Arctic in their global temperature calculation, because there are no weather stations there.

But the Arctic has been warming faster than anywhere else on the planet. Missing it out leads to an underestimation of the rate of warming. To recap, greenhouse gases have continued to grow over the last one and a half decades. But over the same period, volcanoes, the weak sun and pollution have had a cooling effect, and the rate of warming has been underestimated as well. Two recent studies have put all of these together. If we ignore the short term influences, climate models predict faster warming than we have observed. However, if we use global temperature estimates, and add the influence of El Nino, volcanoes, the weak sun and pollution into the models, then the agreement is good. What can we conclude from this? When we put everything we know into the models, the answers match what we observe. So the slowdown in warming makes sense in retrospect, and doesn’t give us a reason to doubt the models.

However, we couldn’t have predicted it in advance, because we can’t predict volcanoes, pollution or the sun. The slowdown in warming has created a whole family of myths with different levels of sophistication. At one extreme, it is possible to argue that the hiatus should reduce our estimates of climate sensitivity. This is a genuine scientific argument, although the analysis we have just seen suggests that no reduction is required. At the other extreme, it is sometimes claimed that the hiatus disproves the role of CO2 in global warming. They claim that CO2 has increased, but the world hasn’t warmed. This is an example of a strawman, and a complex cause fallacy. Climate science doesn’t claim that CO2 is the only factor which affects temperature. This is why the hiatus is so hard to deal with. The myths may be wrong, but they are simple and convincing. The complex cause fallacy exists because people like things to be simple, but explaining the complex drivers of climate is hard. But in the end, all the hiatus myths revolve around drawing attention away from the big picture. When we look at the big picture, the hiatus does not change our understanding of human caused global warming.

.

Human CO2 emissions trump volcanoes’

In the past 150 years, human emissions have put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air. We now measure a concentration of about 400 parts per million. This is about 40% higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years. Of all of the conclusions of modern climate science; this is one of the most reliable. But, despite all of the evidence, some people persist in claiming that the recent rise in carbon dioxide is all natural— for example, they say that instead of it being caused by humans, it all came out of volcanoes. Now, it is quite true that volcanoes emit some carbon dioxide. Over very long periods of geological time those small amounts can add up to make a really significant change to the atmosphere.

However, over a couple of hundred years, the emissions aren’t large enough to make a difference. There are two main classes of volcano: there are the ones that erupt under the ocean and the ones that erupt into the air. Both kinds are linked to the goings-on at the boundaries of the tectonic plates and to the upwelling of hot rock from the Earth’s mantle; the layer below the Earth’s crust. The undersea volcanoes are by far the more numerous, making up about 90% of the world’s volcanoes, although few of us have ever seen them. These volcanic chains are where new ocean crust is produced. But undersea volcanoes don’t produce very much carbon dioxide—only about 100 million tonnes per year—about the same amount as an average US state emits. Humans produce about 350 times as much carbon dioxide as the undersea volcanoes do. Carbon dioxide not only gets produced at the oceanic ridges, it also gets consumed there. What happens is that the newly formed basaltic rock undergoes chemical changes when it contacts seawater. This reaction absorbs carbon dioxide from the water at a rate of about 150 million tonnes per year.

The mid-ocean ridge volcanic processes as a whole, therefore, probably consume more carbon dioxide than they emit. We are much more familiar with the kind of volcanoes that erupt into the air. The biggest chain of these is the so-called “Pacific Ring of Fire”. This is a belt running all the way around the ocean from New Zealand to Japan, then to Alaska and down to the Andes. Old oceanic crust is consumed at these places and they form volcanoes that produce much more carbon dioxide than the ones under the sea. The magma in these volcanoes comes not just from the Earth’s mantle, but also from the melting of the more carbon and water-rich rocks in the crust. One reason these types of volcano tend to be more explosive is because of the larger amount of water vapour and carbon dioxide in their magma. Mount Etna in Sicily is one of the most prolific carbon-dioxide producing volcanoes in the world. It produces about 13 million tonnes per year, but this amount is still only about half as much as what Sicily’s five million people emit from burning fossil fuels.

In addition, dormant volcanoes and volcanic lakes together emit as much carbon dioxide as the actively erupting volcanoes do. Altogether, volcanoes that emit carbon dioxide into the air produce much more than undersea volcanoes: about five times as much. Volcanic rocks on the surface undergo weathering and this chemical process absorbs carbon dioxide out of the air, about 180 million tonnes per year, that’s approximately one-third of the amount put into the air by volcanoes. So if we add up all the sources of volcanic carbon dioxide, we get 640 million tonnes per year. Once we subtract the carbon dioxide that the reactions with volcanic rocks consume, we are left with a net 310 million tonnes per year. This last amount is roughly equal to the human emissions from the country of Turkey, that’s less than one percent of all human emissions. Human emissions for the planet as a whole in 2012 were 60 to 120 times bigger than volcanic emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from cement-making alone are 3 to 6 times bigger than those from volcanoes.

Not only are volcanic emissions much too small to account for the rising carbon dioxide levels in the air, but, over the past few thousand years, natural emissions and natural sinks must have been in rough balance. The carbon dioxide composition of the air started to change really quickly after the 1950s. We can readily explain this as being due to the greatly increased rate of consumption of fossil fuels after the end of the Second World War. On the other hand, if volcanoes had suddenly started to erupt many times faster in the second half of the twentieth century, we surely would have noticed. After all, volcanoes don’t just silently produce carbon dioxide, they also throw out huge quantities of ash and magma and they often cause havoc for humans living nearby. Only about 40% of the carbon dioxide emitted from any source remains in the air, the rest goes into the oceans and is taken up by plants on land.

If we add up the carbon dioxide emissions and convert them into concentrations in the air, we see that emissions from humans over the past hundred years fit the observations like a glove, but the volcanoes don’t even come close. People who incorrectly blame volcanoes for the change in the air take the fact that volcanoes do indeed produce some carbon dioxide and then they jump to the false conclusion that this amount is enough to explain the increase we have measured. And they haven’t done the basic arithmetic that shows that it isn’t nearly enough to make any real difference at all in such a short time period. We know what caused the recent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations. We did..