Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

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

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Joint Statements on Climate Change from National Academies of Science Around the World

Posted on 27 January 2017 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

National academies of sciences from around the world have published formal statements and declarations acknowledging the state of climate science, the fact that climate is changing, the compelling evidence that humans are responsible, and the need to debate and implement strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Not a single national science academy disputes or denies the scientific consensus around human-caused climate change. A few examples of joint academy statements since 2000 on climate are listed here. Many national academies have, in addition, published their own reports and studies on climate issues. These are not included here.

climate change is a reality science tells us

The Science of Climate Change (Statement of 17 National Science Academies, 2001)

Following the release of the third in the ongoing series of international reviews of climate science conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang (IPCC), seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled “The Science of Climate Change,” acknowledging the IPCC study to be the scientific consensus on climate change science.

The seventeen signatories were:

  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • French Academy of Sciences
  • German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • Turkish Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (UK)

Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (Statement of 11 National Science Academies, 2005)

Eleven national science academies, including all the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, signed a statement that the scientific understanding of climate change was sufficiently strong to justify prompt action. The statement explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus and stated:

“…there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.”

The eleven signatories were: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies’ statement on Growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection (Statement of 13 National Science Academies, 2007)

In 2007, thirteen national academies issued a joint declaration reconfirming previous statements and strengthening language based on new research from the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, including the following:

“In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

A joint statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change (Statement of 13 individual National Science Academies and the African Academy of Sciences, 2007)

In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change:”

“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reached this conclusion with ’90 percent certainty’ in its Fourth Assessment issued earlier this year. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.

Zmian klimatu, globalnego ocieplenia i ich alarmuj?cych skutkow: “Climate change, global warming and its alarming consequences” (Statement of the Polish Academy of Sciences, December 2007)

In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating (in translation):

The problem of global warming, climate change and their negative impact on the human life and the functioning of the whole society is one of the most dramatic of contemporary challenges. The most recent studies indicate that the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased in the last century by about 25%. If you add to that a similar increase in the presence in the atmosphere of other harmful gases generated by human activity, overall, the effective increase in the amount of these gases in the period under consideration is about 40% and the specific acceleration gained over the past decades. This makes that the situation extremely worrisome…

It is the duty of science and Polish state authorities to develop thoughtful, organized and active efforts in the implementation of these ideas. Priority should be given to vast and diversified areas of research, including physical and biochemical mechanisms of climate change and their mathematical modeling. It should also develop appropriate technical measures and rules for their implementation, and legal and economic regulations limiting the emission of so-called greenhouse gases in all areas of economic activity of the state.

It is also necessary to take measures aimed to understand society-scale threats and response measures. The General Assembly of the Academy calls on national scientific communities and the state authorities to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.

We believe that the right step to counteract the effects of global warming require, under the auspices of the Polish Academy of Sciences, a Special Program to counteract climate threats and their consequences…

Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society (Statement of 13 National Academies of Sciences, June 2008)

In 2008, the thirteen signers of the 2007 joint academies declaration issued a statement reiterating previous statements and reaffirming

“that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”

Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to

“(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future (Statement of 13 National Academies of Sciences, May 2009)

In May 2009, thirteen national academies issued a joint statement that said among other things:

“The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change science concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels. However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Health Effects of Climate Change (Statement of the Inter Academy Medical Panel/42 National Academies of Sciences, 2010)

Statement on the health co-benefits of policies to tackle climate change

It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth’s climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations. The emission and accumulation of greenhouse gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels, along with other activities, such as land use change, are the principal causes of climate change…

Climate change poses a significant threat to human health in many direct and indirect ways…

Although there are some uncertainties about the magnitude of climate change and its impacts, there is widespread consensus that to mitigate climate change and reduce its impact on health, near term deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are needed. Actions should be greatest in those high-income countries that have benefited most from burning fossil fuels. The longer we delay, the more severe the impacts on health, the environment and the economy; and the greater the future cost of mitigation. Since some degree of climate change is now inevitable, countries will have to adapt to the associated health risks…


  • Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires
  • Academy of Medical Sciences of Armenia
  • Austrian Academy of Sciences
  • Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  • Academia Boliviana de Medicina
  • Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Engineering
  • Academia Nacional de Medicina de Colombia
  • Croatian Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  • Académie Nationale de Médecine, France
  • The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  • Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Leopoldina
  • Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
  • Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
  • TWAS, academy of sciences for the developing world
  • Islamic World Academy of Sciences
  • Science Council of Japan
  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • The National Academy of Sciences, Rep. of Korea
  • Akademi Sains Malaysia
  • National Academy of Medicine of Mexico
  • Nigerian Academy of Science
  • National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines
  • Polish Academy of Sciences
  • The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Russian Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • The Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Thai Academy of Science and Technology
  • Turkish Academy of Sciences
  • Uganda National Academy Sciences
  • Academy of Medical Sciences, UK
  • Institute of Medicine, US NAS

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (Joint Statement of the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, February 2014)

The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Science jointly published the document “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes.” Given their similar missions to “promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates,” the Academies “offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate-change science.”

Position de l’Académie sur les Changements Climatiques (Statement of the Académie Royale des Science, des Lettres & des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, November 12, 2014)

“La teneur de l’atmosphère en GES a fortement et régulièrement augmenté dans les dernières décennies. Une analyse approfondie de ces GES, notamment de leur composition isotopique, montre sans équivoque que cette modification de la composition de l’atmosphère est, directement ou indirectement, liée à l’activité humaine (origine anthropique)…

La rapidité du changement climatique global annoncé est vraisemblablement sans précédent…

Dans ces conditions, la communauté internationale doit s’engager résolument, et globalement, dans une démarche volontariste et ambitieuse de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

  1. a) Cette réduction doit être concertée, globale et équilibrée ; elle doit se faire dans le cadre d’accords internationaux. Le caractère global et de très long terme des effets, et donc des politiques à mettre en oeuvre, demande qu’elles soient coordonnées par des organismes supranationaux qui impliqueront, à côté des États, les entreprises et les citoyens qui ont chacun des rôles cruciaux et complémentaires à jouer.”

U.K. Science Communiqué on Climate Change (Joint Statement of the Royal Society and member organizations, July 2015)

In July 2015, the Royal Society and member organizations issued a joint “U.K. Science Communiqué on Climate Change.” In part, that statement reads:

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.

Governments will meet in Paris in November and December this year to negotiate a legally binding and universal agreement on tackling climate change.

Any international policy response to climate change must be rooted in the latest scientific evidence. This indicates that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this century to 2°C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon world by early in the second half of the century.

To achieve this transition, governments should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses, embracing appropriate policy and technological responses, and seizing the opportunities of low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.”


  • The Academy of Medical Sciences (UK)
  • The Academy of Social Sciences (UK)
  • The British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences
  • The British Ecological Society
  • The Geological Society (UK)
  • The Challenger Society for Marine Sciences
  • The Institution of Civil Engineers (UK)
  • The Institution of Chemical Engineers
  • The Institution of Environmental Sciences
  • The Institute of Physics
  • The Learned Society of Wales
  • London Mathematical Society
  • Royal Astronomical Society
  • Royal Economic Society
  • Royal Geographic Society
  • Royal Meteorological Society
  • Royal Society
  • Royal Society of Biology
  • Royal Society of Chemistry
  • Royal Society of Edinburgh
  • Society for General Microbiology
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Zoological Society of London

Facing critical decisions on climate change (Joint Statement of the European Academies Science Advisory Council and its 29 members, 2015)

Facing critical decisions on climate change in 2015

The science of climate change reported by the IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007) and Fifth Assessment (2014) have been thoroughly evaluated by numerous national academies (e.g. Royal Society/National Academy of Sciences, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) and by international bodies. Advances in science and technology have increased our knowledge of how to mitigate climate change, uncertainties in the scientific analysis continue to be addressed, co-benefits of mitigation to health have been revealed, and new business opportunities have been found. EASAC remains concerned, however, that progress in turning this substantial evidence base into an international policy response has so far failed to match the full magnitude and urgency of the problem

Even if emissions of GHG stopped altogether, existing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere would continue to exert a warming effect for a long time. Whatever measures are put in place to reduce the intensity of global human-induced climate forcing, building resilience through adaptation will be necessary to provide more resilience to the risks already emerging as a result of climate change…

Signatories/Members of the European Academies Science Advisory Council

  • Academia Europaea
  • All European Academies (ALLEA)
  • The Austrian Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
  • The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  • The Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • The Czech Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  • The Estonian Academy of Sciences
  • The Council of Finnish Academies
  • The German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
  • The Academy of Athens
  • The Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Irish Academy
  • The Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
  • The Latvian Academy of Sciences
  • The Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
  • The Polish Academy of Sciences
  • The Academy of Sciences of Lisbon
  • The Romanian Academy
  • The Slovak Academy of Sciences
  • The Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • The Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences
  • The Royal Society
  • The Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM) (Observer)


[This list is not a complete summary of the many individual or joint statements of national academies of sciences. Please send additions and corrections to

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 12:

  1. Um, the blue poster at the top should say "Science tells us so".

    0 0
  2. Science has done all it can to communicate on this issue. If the public does not want to listen, they will not, and shouting will only make them angry. If nothing changes, expensive, unpleasant adjustments such as moving coastal structures inland will have to be made ... in 75 years. 

    A project to record who said what denying or obfuscating the issue will have some historical value, it can be referred to when dealing with further such issues.  Most people rather dislike science, although they're happy to use the end products, which they assume are obvious. Nobody (as a % of the population) thinks about how electricity was discovered, less than nobody uses their phone and thanks Maxwell's equations.  

    Quite recently, an airplane hit terrain, killing all on board. To prevent another crash, the airline slaughtered a goat. Not a joke:

    0 0
  3. Durn, posted before completing the first paragraph... the next sentence was to the effect that the public will notice when they are forced to do something, but will still believe what they want to believe.  

    Rising seas will be considered caused by CO2 driven warming by some, by the Evil Americans to others, by 'natural cycles' to consumers of internet wisdom, by 'depravity and Somomites' to a few, and by "the Infidel angering Allah" by a larger group.  

    0 0
  4. More typos... An edit function would be much appreciated! 

    0 0
  5. Some observations:

    1. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2100 by from 1.1 to 5.4 deg C. (Is this accurate?)

    2. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere most of it stays there for a very long time (perhaps centuries), and presumably continues to contribute to rising temperatures while it is there.

    3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?

    4. Are my statements/assumptions accurate?

    5. Has anyone run the simulation I describe in (3)?

    0 0
  6. Richard, try this post which discussed Hare and Meinshausen 2006.

    0 0
  7. Richard @5, with regard to point 1, the IPCC AR4 stated:

    "An assessment based on AOGCM projections, probabilistic methods, EMICs, a simple model tuned to the AOGCM responses, as well as coupled climate carbon cycle models, suggests that for non-mitigation scenarios, the future increase in global mean SAT is likely to fall within –40 to +60% of the multi-model AOGCM mean warming simulated for a given scenario. The greater uncertainty at higher values results in part from uncertainties in the carbon cycle feedbacks. The multi-model mean SAT warming and associated uncertainty ranges for 2090 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999 are B1: +1.8°C (1.1°C to 2.9°C), B2: +2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A1B: +2.8°C (1.7°C to 4.4°C), A1T: 2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A2: +3.4°C (2.0°C to 5.4°C) and A1FI: +4.0°C (2.4°C to 6.4°C). It is not appropriate to compare the lowest and highest values across these ranges against the single range given in the TAR, because the TAR range resulted only from projections using an SCM and covered all SRES scenarios, whereas here a number of different and independent modelling approaches are combined to estimate ranges for the six illustrative scenarios separately. Additionally, in contrast to the TAR, carbon cycle uncertainties are now included in these ranges. These uncertainty ranges include only anthropogenically forced changes."

    Since then the IPCC AR5 has stated:

    "Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st
    century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated.
    Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely1 be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081– 2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5,
    RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), are likely to exceed 2°C above 1850-1900 for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence) and are more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence). Temperature change above 2°C under RCP2.6 is unlikely (medium confidence).  Warming above 4°C by 2081–2100 is unlikely in all RCPs (high confidence) except for RCP8.5, where it is about as likely as not (medium confidence)."

    So, the 1.1 C has support as the lower end of the range of the low emission scenario in both reports, but the AR4 assessement has a higher upper end projection for at least one scenario, while the AR5 upper end projection for its highest emmission scenario is only 4.8 C.

    With regard to 2, the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to CO2 emissions falls to about 25% of total emissions over a couple of centuries, and then very slowly declines to zero over hundreds of thousands of years.  Given that the atmospheric component currently represents about 45% of emitted CO2 (including from Land Use Change), that means we could expect a further 55% reduction from the current atmospheric increase (ie, from 400 to 330 ppmv) over the next couple of hundred years if we ceased all emissions now.  The 25% figure is a rough estimate, and varies depending on the total CO2 emissions, with a greater increase with greater total emissions.  If we were to continue to emit at BAU rates for a century or too, it would climb towards 40%.


    With regard to point 3, Matthews and Caldiera (2008), Matthews and Solomon (2013) have shown that on the cessation of all emissions, Global Mean Surface Temperature remains approximately constant over time.  This is shown in a graph from Steve Easterbrook's blog (which appears to come from a talk by Matthews, but Easterbrook is not specific):

    As can be seen, to have a reasonable chance at keeping temperatures below a 1.5C limit, we need to reduce emissions sufficiently fast to keep a constant concentration.  We would need almost as fast a reduction to keep it below 2C.  But whenever we achieve zero emissions, temperatures thereafter will remain near constant for centuries as the draw down in emissions approximately cancels the slow increase to equilibrium temperatures.

    As a side note, while global means surface temperatures will remain approximately constant, global mean land temperatures will cool slightly while ocean surface temperatures will increase.

    I take the above to also answer your other two points.

    0 0
  8. DrivingBy @2, "the public" is not a set with constant composition.  Specifically, overtime the number of people born before any specific year tends to decrease, while the number born after that year tend to increase.  And for those born after 1990, typically their minds are not made up (and they accept global warming science in a far higher proportion than more elderly demographics).  Further, not all those who are older have opinions set in stone.  Particular events significantly effect opinions on the matter, and consequently the willingness to take action.  I expect future temperature increases, and key events such as the first year with zero ice at the North Pole (for instance) to result in significant changes in acceptance of the science.  Within 20 to 30 years, due to the change of generations, and increasing warming, AGW denial will become as popular as flat earthism.  The only problem is that may be 5 to 25 years too late.

    Regardless, it is definitely worthwhile to continue making the case for AGW because:

    1)  We need to have the case out their for those just coming into adulthood to have a chance to learn;

    2)  The better we present the case, the more rapidly trigger events will shift the range of opinions; and (perhaps most importantly)

    3) If we stop presenting the case for AGW science, that will not stop the deniers from presenting the case for AGW pseudoscience.  As a result, if we stop, we can expect acceptance of the science to decline over time, not increase.

    0 0
  9. According to Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, a likely warming of four degrees by the end of the century under business as usual will result in a planet incompatible with an "organized" society.  He didn't use the term "civilized" because he didn't think we currently have a civilized global society!

    He also reckons that, taking carbon budgets into account, we'd have to shrink the global economy by 10% a year to avoid more than two degrees of warming.  The economists, on the other hand, say that 4% is the most that can be contemplated, else global civilzation will collapse.

    I conclude from the foregoing argument that we either collapse global civilzation now in exchange for a habitable planet or we do nothing and collapse civilization later when the planet becomes barely habitable.  If the argument is valid, civilization collapses in both cases.

    0 0
  10. Driving By,

    We do not need to wait 75 years to start movng cities.  Already parts of New York and New Orleans have not been rebuilt.  Those people moved inalnd.  Miami Beach is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a futile effort to hold back the sea.  They will eventually have to give up and move.  In Tampa Bay, where I live, $175 billion dollars of real estate is at risk from the next hurricane. 

    If the next major hurricane strikes Galveston (or any other major city at risk) the Federal Government will likely stop subsidizing insurance.  When that happens homes in the low areas will no longer be worth anything.   People will start to move.  Recently the New York Times claimed houses threatened by sea level rise have not increased as much in value as safer houses.  

    This Zillow report claims 1.9 million homes in the USA will be flooded by 6 feet of sea level rise.   On the East Coast a substantial number of those would be flooded in a big storm now.  When investors realize the risks they are taking what will happen to the coastal housing market?  A hurricane does not have to strike me, if Fort Lauderdale gets hit (39,000 homes at risk from 6 feet of flooding, a big hurricane can have over ten feet of storm tide) our insurance will go up.

    I am 58 but I expect to see coastal property values tank in my lifetime.

    0 0
  11. Further to my comment @9, I note that Kevin Anderson has been giving variations and updates of the same lecture for some years now.  The relevant quotation for my comment is as follows:

    "There is a widespread view that 4oC is incompatible with an organized global community, is beyond adaptation, is devastating to eco-systems, and is unlikely to be stable."  Such warming is therefore to be avoided "at all costs".

    0 0
  12. An additional thought on Kevin Anderson's lectures is that the shrinkage of 10% per year is in emissions.  I have assumed that this equates to a similar shrinkage in economic activity — of the traditional type.  My assumption might not be correct.

    On the other hand, there really is a conflict between the 10% and 4% reductions.  We need 10% to avoid 2o of warming, but the economists say we can't do more than 4%.  Unfortunately 4% is not good enough — my understanding is that it is likely to lead to the dreaded 4o of warming.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us