This month’s open thread on climate science topics.
Reader Interactions
376 Responses to "Unforced variations: July 2024"
Russell Seitzsays
Until today, the Grenadines were credited with the Caribbean’s finest sailing, as they lie far enough South of the Hurricane belt to merit a stiff discount on both home and boat insurance, I spent the day sending satellite and NOAA sea state updates to friends in Bequia, Mustique and Mayreau which face decimation ashore and catastrophic coral damage to the Tobago Keys by ten+ meter waves and 100+ knot winds in the hours to come
The insurance industry may consider the relatively small number of hurricane strikes on the Grenadines as worthy of a “stiff discount on both home and boat insurance,” but I would not agree that the Grenadines “lie … South of the Hurricane belt“. There is even a Wikithing page listing the storms that have “affected” the islands in past years, a list that now includes Hurricane Beryl 2024.
Russell Seitzsays
The last storm to do serious harm was Emily in 2005, I was down in June 2007, and while Bequia Mustique and Mayreau suffered little structural damage ,the diving industry suffered enough to trigger a coral conservation program.
The insurance discount line seems to be the thirteenth parallel , depending on the underwriters, and many , many big boats get parked for the summer in Grenada which led to an insane marine traffic jam last week as they all ran to get alee of Trinidad, where hurricanes hardly happen:
YCC’s Eye on the Storm is the best place for tropical storm updates, especially Atlantic storms. New updates in comments every few seconds (yes, it’s excessive, but these are meteo people and they know their stuff). Jamaica in the target, down to Category 4 (which is no comfort): the most recent -> Jamaica prepares for record-breaking Hurricane Beryl: The Atlantic’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record will weaken as it heads further west, but is expected to affect Jamaica as a Cat 3 and Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula as a Cat 1. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/jamaica-prepares-for-record-breaking-hurricane-beryl/
The wisdom and practices of indigenous groups provide a blueprint for sustainable living within the nature of reality. The obvious connection to the land and ecosystems offers valuable lessons in resilience, adaptation, and stewardship. Recognizing and integrating this knowledge into broader environmental and climate policies is essential for achieving sustainable and equitable futures.
The undeniable truth is that an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today. i’m sorry.
Indigenous peoples’ approaches to land management, resource use, and biodiversity conservation are often based on ages of accumulated knowledge. These practices contrast sharply with recent industrial and extractive models that have led to environmental deterioration. Recognizing and respecting indigenous knowledge is critical not only for justice but also for the development of sustainable ecological practices, including climate mitigation and adaptation.
This is far superior to the textbook stories taught by the dominant contemporary Urban university lecturers, journalists, and science fiction writers today. i’m sorry.
Not to be confused with a primitive hunter gatherer stereotype, the indigenous relationship between pastoralism and climate is particularly significant. Pastoralist knowledge of animal husbandry, coupled with intricate social structures, enables them to sustain their livelihoods in balance with their environment. This has never been and never will be achieved with soybean plantation, biocides, and Timber. Never.
The narrative that dismisses indigenous as primitive hunter-gatherer societies and inherently inferior is both misleading and harmful. It fails to appreciate the complexity, resilience, and sustainability of these lifestyles. Indigenous groups continue to demonstrate the value of traditional knowledge in fostering ecological balance all around the world. Follow the 5th generation Yak herder before your modern climate idols; i’m serious.
Embracing a more inclusive and respectful view of these diverse ways of life is essential for building a sustainable future, and rectifying the damaging injustices inadvertently perpetuated by the participants on these pages. Engaging deeply in academia often reveals the fallacy of suggesting that a PhD comprehends reality more profoundly than someone rooted in the land. This reveals the essence of phony environmentalism.
Happy Canada day.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
JCM: The wisdom and practices of indigenous groups provide a blueprint for sustainable living
BPL: Indigenous peoples wiped out the large animals in Australia, and in North America they would set forest fires to drive entire vast herds of animals over cliffs. Many recently living species were exterminated in the Americas by overhunting. Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
It’s not an either/or proposition. “Indigenous people” is not an homogeneous category, either in place or time. As paleoIndians lived within particular environments, their knowledge and skills must have deepened and broadened. That would include knowledge of what was sustainable, and what was not.
And JCM is correct that indigenous knowledge is being increasingly recognized as valuable, including in the mitigation of climate change. To repeat a citation:
“Indigenous leadership and knowledge are critical to achieving the foundational changes required to address climate change and ensure a healthy environment.”
And while the “buffalo jump” may seem wasteful, the largest one, near Ulm, MT, was used for ~1500 years, and still is only estimated to have remains of about 6,000 individual bison. The near-extinction of the buffalo, far from being a sin to lay at the doors of the Plains tribes, was a conscious act by the US government and people, aimed in considerable part at the “pacification” of the “Indians.” The latter fully recognized their own reliance on the herds, resisting the extermination as best they could–but ultimately in vain.
Piotrsays
Kevin: “ JCM is correct that indigenous knowledge is being increasingly recognized as valuable, including in the mitigation of climate change”
to some extent, yes, but JCM goes from one extreme disregarding any traditional knowledge to the other extreme:
“ an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today.”
which is a politically correct generalization of the JCM’s repeated attempts to discredit on climate science and scientists.
Maybe. Yours is a fair comment, at least. I do think JCM does pick unnecessary fights and pose false dichotomies, and I wish he’d reconsider such. Surely, as Radge’s recent comment suggests, he’d be better off training his rhetorical fire on the developers of, say, exurban amusement parks, golf courses, palm oil plantations and data centers, rather than scientists studying radiative forcing.
On the other hand, much as I admire and advocate for science and the scientific method, it doesn’t suffice for the full development of human culture. It must exist in what I call “creative tension” with other aspects of life. (And actually, most scientists I know or have known, do pretty well in that regard, participating in all kinds of other human activities and living well-rounded lives. The ‘robot in a lab coat’ stereotype we may recall from bad 1950s science fiction movies is not, in my experience, very accurate or characteristic.) Which is a long-winded way of setting up my opinion that JCM’s Bhutanese child may indeed have something to offer the rest of us. (So might that obscure stay-at-home mom sharing her work at the local poetry slam, just to cite one example that comes to mind.)
Science offers knowledge–reliable, reproducible knowledge. That’s a gift beyond price. But without a larger cultural context to place that knowledge in, it cannot offer meaning–which we need at least as much. JCM says “Follow the 5th generation Yak herder before your modern climate idols; i’m serious.”
I’d say there’s value in ‘following’ both; they have different perspectives and framings to offer. I think JCM falls into the trap of “discrediting,” as you term it, when he uses that pejorative “idol” term.
nigeljsays
BPL. Indigenous peoples were also less harmful to the environment but only because of their relatively small global population in the millions. On the positive side indigenous peoples tend to be inherently less wasteful than modern humans. We could learn from that.
Actually, the highest estimate so far appears to be that of Henry Dobyns, from 1966, which came up with a range of ~90-112 million. Current work seems to have a bit more granular approach, trying to use local or regional proxy data, from what I could tell. If successful, that could enable more reliable global estimates. But some of the work I looked at found indications that for the South American tropics at least, population was in fact limited by carrying capacity, which would argue that environmental impact was not limited by a small population. Of course, the situation is pretty cloudy still, overall.
nigeljsays
Kevin. Ok, but theres a huge difference between the precolumbian global population reckoned to be around 500 million, and todays 8 billion people. The environmental footprint of 8 billion people is going to be much greater than 500 million, even if we all lived like subsistence farmers. Think of the deforestation. Then there is the IPAT equation.
Sure, there’s good reason to think that current population levels are unsustainable under any plausible medium-term technological/social scenario. No disagreement there.
My point is just that there is also good reason to think that indigenous folk do have knowledge that is worth sharing and using. Partly, I suspect, it’s precisely because they did have to live with environmental consequences–the Maori of your homeland had to cope with the loss of biodiversity they themselves had induced. The same could be true of North America megafauna extinctions, although the jury is still out on the cause of those losses. (If, as some recent results indicate, humans were present in North America thousands of years before said extinctions, then at the very least the correlation of the two events is much looser.)
If it’s true that indigenous environmental practices arose partly from the ‘school of hard knocks’, then it’s quite possible that we are ourselves living through a similar process. Possible, that is, if we actually learn anything from the lessons of contemporary history, and apply the lessons to our cultural ways.
nigeljsays
Kevin: I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using. Their methods of fishing and farming may be enlightening. Theres an unfortunate tendency to discard old knowledge just because its old.
Some of the indigenous peoples herbal cures have been shown to work in proper scientific trials (Germany did a set of these). If they have been used for thousands of years you can see that they may have gradually figured out that they work. But science shows some have no effect.
That said, as other people point out indigenous knowledge and technolgies are often very place specific.
And then we come to the indigenous peoples economies and sustainability. Obviously hunter gatherer culture is more sustainable than modern economies. It could have gone on largely unchanged for millenia. But what if anything can we learn from them or adapt from them? They took what food they needed from nature but the impact was small and nature easily regenerated to compensate without any real change in its abundance. But I suspect this was largely because their population was small. They had few tools so none of the destructive impacts of modern humans. They didnt use coal or iron so were never going to run out. The early farmers didnt waste their food because they barely had enough to survive. So sure if we copied that we could go on for millenia, but with a population of 8 billion we just cant, especially if we want a tecnology based society at even half current levels.
We do have some good histories about how ancient societies failed and recovered. The Maori decimated half the species of native birds. White people nearly decimated the other half. The birds were large and flighless and had no fear of humans. No sustainable hunting practices going on there. It was open slaughter. I vaguely recall that the Maori then switched to more harvesting of sea foods. Maori also grew sweet potatoes.
But I don’t see much we can learn much from that process. Our ecosystems are already quite different, and we dont need their example to know that where we have messed things up, we may have to consider alternatives. Perhaps you have an example.
Mal Adaptedsays
Charles C. Mann, in 1491, expressed his frustration with the difficulty of estimating population numbers in the Americas from the scanty, low-quality data available. AFAIK, a consensus has yet to emerge. A recent, peer-reviewed paper offers an updated estimate of 60 million:
By combining all published estimates from populations throughout the Americas, we find a probable Indigenous population of 60 million in 1492. For comparison, Europe’s population at the time was 70 to 88 million spread over less than half the area.
The paper is titled “Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492”. The authors faced the same problem their predecessors did: no reliable contemporaneous population estimates, and insufficiently quantitative archaeological data. Despite the historic lack of quantitative data, however, evidence is accumulating that pre-contact Americans modified local and regional landscapes extensively: first by at least hastening the extinction of multiple keystone species, then by burning, farming, urbanizing, and exploiting resources as local economies developed. And that the catastrophic die-off of Indigenous Americans following first contact with Europeans allowed much of the modified landscape to return to apparently natural conditions, fixing carbon from the atmosphere as it did so. Meanwhile, the survivors adapted to the arrival of the global marketplace in their homelands.
The simple heuristic model “I=PAT”, i.e. (I)mpact is a function of (P)opulation, per-capita (A)ffluence, and per-capita (T)echnological wherewithal, comes in handy here. If we use 60 million as a working assumption, we can then ask, “What per-capita ability to modify their environment did pre-contact Americans have?” One assumes that ceteris paribus, more wealth means more impact. The per-capita affluence of Europeans certainly enjoyed a boost, albeit unequally distributed, as the plunder of the conquistadores returned by the shipload. How did the economies of, say, the Inca empire, and newly unified Spain compare in 1491, however? Dunno.
The next question is “What technological force multipliers could pre-contact Americans deploy when exploiting the resources in their location?” Here’s where “I=PAT” gets left behind: “Technology” covers the full range of human cultural adaptations! It could refer to the invention of tools from available materials; the extent of trade networks and the scope of markets; the size of armies; or the rise and fall of political power to coerce behavior over large areas. It entails the animals suitable for domestication, Darwinian evolution of human resistance to their diseases, and the impacts of contact with non-resistant populations. In any case, some collective achievements of various pre-contact American cultures can still be viewed on the landscape, and can hardly be called inferior to those of Renaissance Europe.
Nonetheless, it seems likely that if Indigenous Americans were less wasteful than modern humans, it was because material resources that might be wasted were more limited by the technology of exploitation, and thus more expensive per capita, for them. And of course, their per-capita affluence declined drastically after European contact, along with their population, while the survivors became technological aids to expanding their conquerors’ affluence and impact on the land, i.e. slaves. By all that’s hypothetically holy, what a freaking horror. The stuff of nightmares. I’m reminded yet again of just how lucky I am!
I don’t have definitive values for the I=PAT model, but if the take-home is that we should all minimize our private impacts and live more mindfully: well, we know how to do that, but internalizing all our socialized costs so that we can’t afford to waste anything, is not likely to be implemented collectively. We all do the best we can within our private and social constraints. As to anthropogenic global warming specifically: full decarbonization of one’s private lifestyle requires severing all connections with “the grid”, i.e. the global economy, until collective intervention decarbonizes that economy, and nobody wants to transfer fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the gigatonnes annually anymore. Please vote Democratic in November. It’s the least you can do!.
zebrasays
Mal,
“Nonetheless, it seems likely that if Indigenous Americans were less wasteful than modern humans, it was because material resources that might be wasted were more limited by the technology of exploitation, and thus more expensive per capita, for them.”
Define “wasteful”.
Jonathan Davidsays
I would think a simpler approach for calculating approximate population could be based on information recorded by first contact. If the indigenous population has a long residence time in a particular contiguous landscape (such as a forested region), one might assume a uniform population density over that length scale. On first contact, I imagine that facts such as geographic location, distance traveled by Europeans and approximate number of indigenous encountered would allow an estimate for population for a given region. Or is that too naive? It does seem that stories of first encounters found considerable indigenous population at each.
Mr. Know It Allsays
They were less wasteful because they had no choice. They did not have resources they could afford to waste. As BPL correctly implies, their knowledge and technology were so primitive that they just did not have the capability of impacting the environment the way Europeans were able to, except as BPL also correctly points out – by using fire they could be very destructive.
And they did not have firearms. All good liberals know that before firearms, all peoples around the world lived in total harmony and peace and there were no murders at all. But then, some idiot invented the GUN, and ever since that day we’ve had total chaos and mayhem 24/7/365. There’s even a documentary on it:
“They (early indigenous peoples) were less wasteful because they had no choice. They did not have resources they could afford to waste”
Good point. It took them huge effort to make tools and build settlements and grow crops. You repair or conserve these these rather than just throw them out. But this is different from making a conscious choice to be sustainable.
I was considering a counter example. Hunter gatherers did not appear to over consume food and didnt appear to have weight problems like modern humans. However I doubt it was a conscious choice to be frugal or sustainable. Its probably related to a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables leading to quick feelings of satiation and the effort required especially with hunting.
The cereal crops modern humans eat seem to be a bit addictive and we dont know when to stop eating this stuff. And it has become low cost to produce.
I’m just not persuaded that hunter gatherers were “wiser” or morally superior than modern humans or had some conscious plan to be sustainable. Instead their apparent sustainability choices reflected their physical circumstances at the time. Then along came farming and this changed eveything, and its hard for us to go backwards from this.
It doesnt change the fact that modern humans are wasteful on multiple levels. Even C02 is proving to be a troublesome form of waste from the burning of fossil fuels. IMO most of our environmental problems.have waste in some form at the core of the problem. If we dont deal with it better it will eventually bury us.
prlsays
I don’t think that the Māori used fire when they hunted the moa (and, as a consequence, Haast’s eagle) to extinction.
But what if anything can we learn from them or adapt from [indigenous people]?
The answer to that will of necessity be general, because as has already been said on this thread, indigenous cultures tend to be highly specific to place. (Which is worth remembering when we stop to consider the many instances of forced displacement imposed upon indigenous folks, especially, though not exclusively, in the US. But I digress.)
So my answer would be, what we can learn from indigenous people is two-fold: first, how the ecologies of their landscapes function in practical terms. If you are trying to, say conserve the bearded seal population in Kotzebue Sound, it’s probably a very good idea to talk to the Inupiaq folk who live there. Actually, some folks are doing just that:
Indigenous knowledge is very often the product of a prolonged, careful, and intense study of the local environment–and not only observing, but carefully considering trophic relationships. What eats what, and when? These are existential questions if you are ‘living off the land.’
There is a larger and more general lesson there, though–which is the value of such observation, and of attitudes that sustain it. The present discussion seems to turn in part on this point. Can someone such as thee and me really value the natural world as it deserves to be valued, distanced as we are from it? Or do you have to have a more intimate, quotidian relationship? If the latter, then JCM’s Bhutanese child may well be wiser than we, in at least one dimension.
Another Nigel comment to this point:
I’m just not persuaded that hunter gatherers were “wiser” or morally superior than modern humans or had some conscious plan to be sustainable. Instead their apparent sustainability choices reflected their physical circumstances at the time. Then along came farming and this changed eveything, and its hard for us to go backwards from this.
The problem here is, who is to judge, and by what standards? (I think quite highly of my own system of morality, and would be glad to propose it as standard here, but I must note that it seems not to be universally accepted.) If we take survival of cultural disruption as an operational test of “wisdom,” then it’s hard to compete with indigenous folks, who have done little else for the past several centuries than survive the most severe cultural disruptions imaginable.
Jonathan made a suggestion:
I would think a simpler approach for calculating approximate population could be based on information recorded by first contact. If the indigenous population has a long residence time in a particular contiguous landscape (such as a forested region), one might assume a uniform population density over that length scale…
Good thought, but as I understand it, the utility is limited by the fact that it seems probable that many populations were already severely depleted by disease prior to the first recorded contact. That’s discussed in “1491,” an excellent book Mal linked to above:
Alas, Mr. KIA is flatly wrong (yet again), saying:
…[indigenous] knowledge and technology were so primitive that they just did not have the capability of impacting the environment the way Europeans were able to, except as BPL also correctly points out – by using fire they could be very destructive.
See some of the “1491” blurb linked above for a partial refutation. Maya math was capable of accurate astronomical calculation, and had independently arrived at the pivotal concept of zero before Europe adopted it from the Arabs, who apparently had it from Indian scholars. And fire was used with intention and understanding by indigenous folks, in Australia and the Americas.
Similar points, but other info too, including thoughts on climate change, and from modern indigenous folk who are also managers, scholars and firefighters:
Also, and more generally, it’s a mistake to think that “primitive” people lack knowledge. It’s rather the reverse, in that we ‘modern’ people have a strong tendency to substitute technology for knowledge. Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’ has a huge practical knowledge base which they rely on for survival: what can be eaten at this time of year; where to find it; techniques for harvesting it, including techniques for creating whatever tools might be required; techniques for preparing and cooking it. Techniques for finding or creating shelter, finding potable water, lighting and nurturing fires. Technique, technique, technique. We know how to pay for stuff, which usually means holding a job. And yes, there’s a knowledge base for that. But the whole dynamic of our society is specialization, the thrust of which is to enable any given member of our society to be as ignorant as they wish of everything except whatever brings in the boodle.
Nigeljsays
Kevin McKinney says @ 9 JUL 2024 AT 1:37 PM
Yes indigenous peoples have in depth knowledge of the local environment etc,etc, but maya maths doesnt impact on the environment significantly. The point BPL and myself are making, in different ways, is that indiginous peoples technology does not degrade the environments like modern technology. A horse and plough tilling a field does not have the same impact as a tractor which makes over tilling very easy (the dust bowl problem). Cow manure as fertiliiser has different and more benign impacts to nitrate fertilisers. Using a few basic iron tools is different to our modern technology and the mining involved and pollutants the manufacture of such tools generates. There is a qualitative and quantitative difference.
It makes me wonder how much of indigenous peoples low environmental impacts was due to how they did things in fine detail, and the so called sustainability, how much is due to the basic nature of their technology. I suspect a large proportion is the later.
Indigenous people used fire wisely as per your links but also arguably used fire to push animals over cliffs and over hunt them. Both ancient farmers and modern farmers have some wise and sustainable farm practices mixed in with bad practices. Both ancient and modern peoples are sensitive to the effects of the seasons and other cycles. Its not that indigenous people had a monopoly on such things.
“Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’ has a huge practical knowledge base which they rely on for survival: what can be eaten at this time of year; where to find it; techniques for harvesting it, including techniques for creating whatever tools might be required; techniques for preparing and cooking it.”
Ok but so do modern farmers! So you dont have much of a point!
Sure there are some things we can learn from ancient peoples but ultimately our problems mostly come down to a few big specific issues: A continued tendency to over till soils and create soil erosion, the impacts of nitrate fertiliisers, the over use of pesticides decimating pollinating insects for example. Indigenous peoples didnt use those technologies. It doesnt help us solve the problem because 8 billion people are very reliant on modern farming technologies and simply stopping using them is problematic. It has to happen somehow to some extent, but indigenous culture doesnt tell us HOW to phase down their use without causing even more problems. So part of me admires indigenous culture (always has actually) but the other part says there are only a few things we can really learn from them. It doesnt do much to help us solve the big problems I listed.
Nigel, thanks for a lovely extended discussion. I hope you are enjoying it, as I am. But the “Maya math” point was not in response to anything that you said, but rather WRT KIA’s comment about indigenous knowledge generally.
So, moving on…
Nigel, you said:
The point BPL and myself are making, in different ways, is that indiginous peoples technology does not degrade the environments like modern technology.
And the point I’m making is that you can’t assume that that is due to mere incapacity. “Indigenous tech doesn’t degrade the environment, therefore indigenous folks couldn’t make tech that degrades the environment.” The argument is clearly fallacious. Of course, that doesn’t make it impossible that incapacity, in one respect or another, was a factor. For example, a number of folks have pointed out (including, I think, Jared Diamond) that the lack of good draft animals could have had a very formative effect on pre-Columbian civilizations–an ‘incapacity’ of motive power, if you will.
Nigel:
It makes me wonder how much of indigenous peoples low environmental impacts was due to how they did things in fine detail, and the so called sustainability, how much is due to the basic nature of their technology. I suspect a large proportion is the later.
I’m not sure you can meaningfully separate the two. But perhaps I’m not grasping your meaning?
KM: “Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’ has a huge practical knowledge base which they rely on for survival: what can be eaten at this time of year; where to find it; techniques for harvesting it, including techniques for creating whatever tools might be required; techniques for preparing and cooking it.”
Nigel: Ok but so do modern farmers! So you dont have much of a point!
That was another comment aimed at the discussion I was having with KIA. But that’s OK, I don’t mind responding here–so let me add a bit of emphasis to my sentence:
Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’…
So, all but a smattering of the adult population, and extending well down into the kids, by degrees. Now–what proportion of the population would you say farmers represent in the developed world today? Today’s cultural frame in developed nations is not dominated by folks practicing agriculture and having the sorts of knowledge we’re talking about.
Here, you question the utility of indigenous knowledge:
Sure there are some things we can learn from ancient peoples but ultimately our problems mostly come down to a few big specific issues: A continued tendency to over till soils and create soil erosion, the impacts of nitrate fertiliisers, the over use of pesticides decimating pollinating insects for example. Indigenous peoples didnt use those technologies. It doesnt help us solve the problem because 8 billion people are very reliant on modern farming technologies and simply stopping using them is problematic. It has to happen somehow to some extent, but indigenous culture doesnt tell us HOW to phase down their use without causing even more problems. So part of me admires indigenous culture (always has actually) but the other part says there are only a few things we can really learn from them.
I think that’s rather more an assumption than anything else. Certainly Andre Antonelli disagrees. Well, who is he, you ask? Here’s the answer:
Alexandre Antonelli is director of science at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London; professor of biodiversity at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden; and author of The Hidden Universe: Adventures in Biodiversity.
And how do I know he disagrees? Well, I’m going by the title of his article in Nature, Indigenous knowledge is key to sustainable food systems.
An extract:
Almost 500 million Indigenous people, speaking at least 4,000 languages, occupy more than 25% of the global land surface. They often have the best ecological knowledge about the region they live in, and know which species are most important for their communities. They also hold taxonomic knowledge that has been neglected by scientists from elsewhere.
For instance, Indigenous Iban and Dusun communities in southeast Asia have long recognized that two similar-looking fruits, lumok and pingan, originate from two distinct plants. Yet for nearly two centuries, Western botanists had misclassified them as coming from a single tree species.
In principle, Indigenous and local knowledge could help to create training data sets. These could enable researchers and crop developers to find food sources that contain certain nutrients, that will tolerate anticipated climate shifts or that harbour resistance to emerging pests and pathogens. Phylogenomic models and artificial intelligence could then mine these data to predict the occurrence and function of genes that underlie useful traits across the tree of life. And with genomic sequencing and gene-editing techniques becoming more accessible and affordable, more of the work to modify and cultivate species and varieties could happen at local and regional levels.
So here we have a vision of marrying living indigenous knowledge with modern science and technology for the good of all. Professor Antonelli is not naive about the difficulties involved; read the article for his comments. But it’s a specific answer to your question: here’s one way in which we could use indigenous knowledge to address the difficulties in agriculture you named.
There’s also a more general lesson, which is the potential reframing of our culture. We assume that we are above or at least aside from nature; indigenous cultures assume that they are part of nature, embedding inextricably within it. We could, in theory at least, seriously consider the validity of that alternative framing, with an eye to normalizing it or adopting it.
We could, in theory at least, consider ways in which to increase our regard for the future: much of our behavior now is driven by concern for relatively immediate goals–the next paycheck, this quarter, maybe just the end of the day, or the end of the shift. We say we love our kids, but corporately I really don’t think our behavior says that that’s true.
And we could consider deprioritizing convenience in our culture. It’s a top priority for us, because it’s the easiest thing to sell, and selling is (almost) literally and metaphorically the bottom line. But what convenience means, really, is thinking about one’s behavior as little as possible. Thinking, especially about mundane things rather than Grand And Beautiful Thoughts, is always a bit of a bother. We want to toss that packaging, toss that depleted lighter or worn sweater, toss the leftovers from last night. And we definitely don’t want to think about the fact that they don’t just disappear.
These sorts of cultural changes are, IMO, necessary. If we keep to every single one of our current cultural paradigms, how and why would, or could, we change our collective behaviors? I think Killian is absolutely right about that. (Where I differ with him is in the difficulty and speed of cultural change, Change isn’t easy or quick, in my experience. But it is possible, and often necessary.) And these sorts of changes aren’t the purview of one group or another in society, but are cross-cutting. Cultural workers–artists of all sorts, clergyfolk, entertainers and teachers, basically–obviously have a role, but so do all manner of thinkers and practical people–farmers, technicians, engineers of all stripes, and on and on. And I don’t believe anybody knows how this will, or should, shake out–which is exactly why I think talking and dreaming about the possibilities now is so potentially valuable.
One last point–or, if that’s too pretentious, one last notion. It may be unnecessary, but I’ll risk redundancy for the sake of clarity. There’s a tendency, evident throughout this thread, to place indigenous people exclusively in the past. KIA uses the past tense exclusively, I think; BPL may have, also. And you did use the term “ancient peoples” in this context. But as Prof. Antonelli points out, indigenous people amount to about 15% of the current global population. (If that seems high to you, well, it does to me, too–but for current purposes, I’m going to take his word for it. I suspect he’s more reliable on this point than my general impression would be.) Whatever the percentage, though, indigenous people aren’t just bygone communities. They’re here, pretty much wherever “here” may be, and will be for the foreseeable future.
nigeljsays
Kevin
Thanks for the info.
“And the point I’m making is that you can’t assume that that is due to mere incapacity. “Indigenous tech doesn’t degrade the environment, therefore indigenous folks couldn’t make tech that degrades the environment.” The argument is clearly fallacious.”
Your argument appears to suggest that indigenous people may have discarded inventions they felt might be environmentally damaging or chosen not to persue some ideas. Possibly, but it hasnt stopped some groups adopting damaging western technologies or the products of them. I’m sure I’ve seen hunter gatherers in the Amazon wearing industrially made cotton or polyester tea shirts!
All I’m saying is there are two sides to indigenous societies, the good and bad sides, like with modern society. We can of course pick out the good side of their cultures and learn from that, and I agree with your examples and the need to reduce our wasteful convenience culture.
The problem I have is the way Killian generalises that the indigenous peoples total system / way of life is just better than us, and I agree his timeframes for system change are too short to be remotely plausible.
Your argument appears to suggest that indigenous people may have discarded inventions they felt might be environmentally damaging or chosen not to persue some ideas.
Precisely. What you find tends to reflect to a considerable degree what you are looking for, and what you are interested in.
Possibly, but it hasnt stopped some groups adopting damaging western technologies or the products of them. I’m sure I’ve seen hunter gatherers in the Amazon wearing industrially made cotton or polyester tea shirts!
Absolutely. From quite early on, trade items were used pretty enthusiastically by indigenous people, and quite a few such items had potential for ecologically destructive effects–iron leghold traps, say. These effects were not always managed to indigenous advantage–sometimes, in fact, they did severe damage to traditional culture. (But also, sometimes not so much.)
Today, First Nations in Canada, as elsewhere, make free use of modern technology–snowmobiles, outboard motors, pick-up trucks, digital technology, everything. They adapt, and try to synthesize old and new ingredients into something that works for them today. I well remember visiting Manitoulin Island–the largest freshwater island in the world–and seeing the tribally-owned McLean’s Mountain wind farm. A pic:
All I’m saying is there are two sides to indigenous societies, the good and bad sides, like with modern society. We can of course pick out the good side of their cultures and learn from that, and I agree with your examples and the need to reduce our wasteful convenience culture.
Yes, that’s right. While I think as I said earlier that some cultural practices are preferable to others on various ground, and that there may still be things we can learn from other cultures, including indigenous ones, that’s not to say that everything indigenous is perfect, nor negate the reality that “people are people.” A case in point is the 2001 film “Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner,” which retells a traditional Inuit tale. Lots of bad behavior in that film!–as well as an authentically Inuit sensibility. (Again, AFAICT.)
(Good luck following that plot description, though!)
Killiansays
BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.
Indigenous peoples wiped out the large animals in Australia, and in North America
This is absolutely unsettled and very unlikely. We know for a fact humans were crossing the Bering Strait for thousands of years before the last mammoths died out. Certainly, they would have been hunted, sitting there all cooped up on Wrangel? Further, humans we in the Americas for at least 13k years before the megafauna went extinct, then they went extinct in the blink of an eye. In no way does that make sense if due to hunting. Etc.
they would set forest fires to drive entire vast herds of animals over cliffs.
Really? How vast? This is news to me. Herds? Sure. Parts of herds? Sure. Vast herds? No. And they made use of what they were able to obtain. There is evidence large gatherings of tribes would gather for one of these drive and potentially spend months there processing, eating, making use of the resources. There is no credible evidence they went around slaughtering just to slaughter as you imply. And in what way, shape or form is that form of hunting in some way bad as you clearly attempt to imply? It’s not like they had long rifles. Pretty damned smart to not risk getting killed for a mammoth steak.
And there were a LOT of biota compared to today. A LOT.
Many recently living species were exterminated in the Americas by overhunting.
You have no credible basis for the certitude of this statement. Again, it shows a massive degree of bias that is absolutely shameful.
Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
This is flatly racist. We not only have the corollaries of present-day pastoralists and H-Gs, but evidence that even in large settlements, like the ones now known to have existed in what is now Ukraine, which were the same combination of H-G-gardeners as today, their diets were only about 30% meat. And they had a very diverse array of meats to eat. Why would they hunt down all the big dangerous animals in a short paroxysm of flesh gorging when they could get small game and fish far more easily?
Evidence from every intact Indigenous people I am aware of indicates very careful management of their ecosystems, including knowing what to harvest and not harvest to keep the system balanced, intentionally burning to encourage new growth and prevent large fires, intentionall spreading seeds and preferential causing wanted flora to grow. Amidst such careful understanding and attention to the health of the ecosystem, they just slaughter all the large fauna?
The Kua people of Africa don’t hunt giraffes. Why? Because they are the only animals that eat the leaves of acacia trees. They spread the seeds keeping the acacia population healthy. The acacia is a nitrogen fixer and was long understood to be a “mother” species that other lives depended on. The women would go gathering seeds, etc., and as they walked would allow seeds to fall to the ground and stop to heel them into the soil. Such thinking is supposed to lead to indiscriminate slaughter? You confuse your own violent manner for theirs. Projection.
I know of not one group that shows signs of careless overhunting, over-gathering, etc. If we could build Gobekle Tepe, et al., over 10k years ago, we could probably figure out our environments effectively. We are, and perhaps this thread is some of the best evidence, less intelligent today than we were then.
Nigeljsays
Killian said: “BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.”
You are wrong. You clearly dont read carefully enough or are mixing me up with someone else. Ive been very civil, and I have NOT stated or inferred that indiginous peoples are savage or mindless or violent (as in inherently a violent people). Provide an example and I bet you can’t. Obviously I may have said somewhere that indigenous peoples sometimes engage in violent conflicts because its a simple fact.
Please note my comment to Kevin 6 July @9.28 where I said ” I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using. Their methods of fishing and farming may be enlightening. Theres an unfortunate tendency to discard old knowledge just because its old. Some of the indigenous peoples herbal cures have been shown to work in proper scientific trials…”
Regarding BPLs take on things. I dont know how accurate all his statements are but its a fact that indigenous peoples hunted some species to extinction, including several native birds species in New Zealand. I live there so I know the history. Its also a fact indigenous peoples also sometimes took care to treat the natural world wisely. My point is the record is very varied just as it is with modern humans.
Killiansays
However I doubt it was a conscious choice to be frugal or sustainable… …I’m just not persuaded that hunter gatherers were “wiser” or morally superior than modern humans or had some conscious plan to be sustainable. Instead their apparent sustainability choices reflected their physical circumstances at the time.
This is insultingly dismissive and completely ignores what you have been told on these pages and in sources linked here… and generally in the modern literature. I have previously linked the direct lived experiences of Prof. Helga Vierich on these pages, e.g. And despite their massive degree of monumental architecture spread throughout the Amazon – the first monumental building in Peru going back over 5k years – how did they manage to keep the Amazon ecosystem from collapsing? Sheer luck? It would take a very deep understanding of the environment and careful use of it to fill it with buildings, roads and people and keep it intact, but you dismiss this as unskilled luck. Balderdash. Absurdly so.
You cite the Maori. Though I use more recent societies as somewhat correlating, I take pains to clarify, when needed, that I draw the line at the period of transition to sedentary farming and monumental architecture. However, it is necessary to take that case-by-case since for Europeans it was 11k to 4k years ago, but for parts of the Americas as late as pre-Columbian times, and for Australia something like only 200 years ago.
The Maori were new immigrants to NZ, not Indigenous there, when they hunted the moa to extinction. This is simply not the same as being indigenous to a place for tens of thousands of years and suddenly supposedly gorging yourself on fauna you understood expertly. Further, they were already hierarchical and capable of monumental building – characteristics of NON-regenerative societies.
So, once again you argue via decontextualized bits you have gathered here and there with little or no systemic understanding.
Please note my comment to Kevin 6 July @9.28 where I said ” I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using.
Yeah… see the above. Did you take even a moment to calculate into your thoughts the list of sustainability principles I listed and what the implications of living by them would be? No, I am certain you did not.
As for the claim by KIA which you agreed with they had no choice but to have low consumption, in reality the abundance of most ecosystems in pre-contact and pre-modern era societies was high. How do you have a LOT more leisure time if not?
The Americas were so populated and co-created when the population crashed after contact it initiated the LIA as forests regrew. I.e., it was chock full of people NOT going hungry who so affected the lands settlers moving into then-depopulated areas were amazed at how well organized nature seemed to be, so accommodating. They just didn’t realize how many Indigenous there had been or how much they had affected the land.
They were wiser. They literally avoided destroying their environment and even enhanced it. Can we say the same? They were egalitarian. They shared. They accepted various genders. Etc. How does this not qualify as wiser?
Hierarchies, patriarchy, greed, et al., changed these things over various time frames around the world, but to say effective, non-destructive use of the environment, acceptance of differences, minimization of large-scale violence, etc., was not wiser is pure White man bias. Boggles the mind that your own ancestors lived better but you simply cannot accept it despute the evidence. Try to remember: We all were dark-skinned, attuned to nature, sharing people once.
nigeljsays
Killian. IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the regiion being a small fraction of todays numbers. Brazils population alone is over 200 million now all wanting land for farming etc. And the ancient monumental cities being a tiny fraction of the total land area.
I dont dispute ancient societies like this would have made some wise and sustainable environmental decisions along the way, but a large part of their small environmental footprint and small impacts on ecosystems is logically due to much smaller populations relative to today and less invasive technologies. Thats all Im saying.
Please also read my response on the regenerative governance issue ( 6 JUL 2024 AT 4:09 PM). Briefly I accept the ancient hunter gatherer and early farming commons worked without the need for a police force and a hierarchy etc,etc, but this may be largely because of the small population size and basic technology. The small groups self regulated well enough, their was nothing much to steal, the natural enviroment was abundant so taking too much occasionally didnt have significant consequences. With 8 billion people and at least some modern technology and posessions, I dont believe you would make a commons work without something like a police force and rule of law.
The Maori people are widely considered by academics to the the indiginous people of New Zealand. Certainly they immigrated to NZ from polynesia, but most indigenous peoples ultimately came form some other region. The time Maori were in New Zealand doesnt seem all that material, because they bought their customs from polynesia so if they were wise and sustainable in polynesia (not over fishing for example) then they should be sustainable in NZ. They do not have to re-learn everything from the beginning do they just because they are in a new place.
The native birds like the Moa were large flighless birds with no fear of humans. Nobody claimed Maori gorged themselves, but they didnt stop and think they were in danger of causing an extinction.
That said obviously modern society needs to live as sustainably as we practically can and as much as possible within planetary boundaries. And we are not doing this nearly well enough.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
K: BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue [sic] to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.
BPL: No one here mentioned such a stereotype. I merely pointed out, correctly, that indigenous people were not living in some kind of gentle, caring ecotopia. Primitive peoples wiped out many existing species. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
Killiansays
You have demonstrated it perfectly. Again.
nigel: “IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the regiion being a small fraction of todays numbers. ”
Wrong, again. Numbers were maybe 25% of now, but despite there being urban organization, there were also many hunter-gatherers – and farmers would have also hunted and gathered – and H-Gs need anywhere from 20 to 100x more space, so the load would have been equal or higher then.
“logically due to much smaller populations relative to today and less invasive technologie”
Our much higher population is directly due to the planet-killing use of chemicals in ag to create a massive overabundance of food leading to a massive over-abundance of people. Again, H-Gs need far more space than urban societies. so that is not it. Yes, tech is the problem. not population. We could have a healthy ecoystem now if all lived regeneratively. So stop blaming population size.
“Please also read my response on the regenerative governance issue ( 6 JUL 2024 AT 4:09 PM). ”
You have no qualifications to speak on the issue. Moot.
Re Maori: You completely lost the plot. My point was they WERE NOT INDIGENOUS there and certainly did not have long generations of knowledge of that ecosystem yet, so we can be certain they would have made some mistakes. It’s not analogous to my comments about TEK.
“obviously modern society needs to live as sustainably as we practically can and as much as possible within planetary boundaries”
As much as we can? That sentence is self-contradictory. I wish you’d stop speaking on issues you have no expertise in.
nigeljsays
Killian
The Amazon region meaning the Amazon basin (mostly rainforest) had a population of around 500,000 – 10 million in pre columbian times. Lets assume the upper end of 10 million. You are probably right that the modern population in the basin itself is indeed probably four times that.
But by Amazon region I meant the ‘wider’ region of modern Brazil. As per my comments I said: “IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the ‘region’ being a small fraction of todays numbers. BRAZILS population alone is over 200 million now all wanting land for farming etc.” I should have been a bit clearer.
Although the people of Brazil do not all live in the Amazon basin they are taking from it in various ways. This is why its collapsing today. I contend the reason it didnt collapse in pre columbian times was mainly the much smaller population both living in and ‘reliant’ on the Amazon basin compared to todays Brazil as a whole, and other countries encompassing the Amazon basin.
Yes sure the pre columbian lifestyle would also be a factor in minimal impacts on the ecosystem. Its a very basic lifestyle, so of course its more sustainable than ours.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
BPL: Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
K: This is flatly racist.
BPL: I think you need to look up what “racist” means.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
[BPL: Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.]
K: This is flatly racist.
BPL: Wow, I say that indigenous people are the same kind of people as modern people, but with less technology. And Killian finds this “horribly racist.”
You need to read this, Killian:
“rac·ism /ˈrāˌsiz(ə)m/ noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. “a program to combat racism”
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”
I’ve been talking about this on these pages for seventeen years. #RegenerativeGovernance is exactly what you talk about. The following are all incorporated in Regen Gov.
Characteristics and Principles of Regenerative Societies:
* Living within ecosystem limits
* Needs-based decision-making
* No time-limited decision-making (obvious exception: emergencies)
* Nested Commons
* Egalitarian
* Equality: Gender, racial, economic, etc.
* Bioregional
* Networks of small communities
* Highly cooperative, yet…
* Absolute individual autonomy
* Work is freely chosen; no “jobs”
* “Work” is a social event
Mr. Know It Allsays
For each of those bullet points, how does current US Society differ from those characteristics and principles?
Also, why is it “flatly racist” for BPL to point out THE KNOWN FACT that “Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.”?
Is that similar to the nonsense we hear Democrats say such as: “Math is racist”?
Barton Paul Levensonsays
KIA: Is that similar to the nonsense we hear Democrats say such as: “Math is racist”?
BPL: I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.
zebrasays
BPL, the educational system operates in a way that disadvantages certain populations. The problem, as is so often the case with many issues, is how “math” (or any topic) is defined.
For people like KIA, performance on tests which measure memorization of High School problem sets, and performance of mindless algorithms, is considered the pinnacle of mathematical achievement. And to those people, that defines “math”. The problem is that when this criterion is used to “evaluate” the student and place them in a hierarchy, it does exhibit a bias.
Taking the typical standardized test, if you live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, with your own quiet room in which to practice, and get a good night’s sleep, and wake to a nutritious breakfast, and have multiple human and internet resources for explanation and reinforcement……….. is really different from if you are living in a war zone. And that’s what many inner city neighborhoods are like.
I never taught HS; but I was set on the path to exploring and understanding the connection by a student who was as White as you could get…. but was a returning veteran with PTSD. A very aha moment for a young me, who had never thought about such things, to see him break down from “just a math quiz.” Nothing to do with actual mathematics; nothing to do with how one might perform in the real world.
So here I am, Dem certified, saying that “math”, as KIA (and perhaps the majority) defines it, is… de facto… racist, given the zip code distribution of the populations in question.
Mr. Know It Allsays
BPL says: “I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.”
Your favorite Climate Science source says they do:
It’s not a “known fact,” either with or without all caps; it’s just a common notion that KIA happens to agree with.
And it actually flies in the face of many of the statements made on this very thread. If, as alleged by some, North American paleo-Indians were responsible for the extinction of the megafauna here, well, that’s a pretty ‘efficient’ ruination. And if they did, then why did they not drive the buffalo to extinction, too?
Frequently on this thread we’ve seen a presumption that indigenous folks weren’t “wiser” or more “morally superior” than we. It’s an analog, I suppose, of the cosmological principle: as every sufficiently large chunk of the universe should look and act much like any other sufficiently large one, we assume that, well, “people are people.” And I don’t disagree; there’s little evidence to suggest any sufficiently large and representative group of people has markedly different potential than any other sufficiently large and representative one.
But surely some cultures adaptations are preferable to others, as assessed by some set of rational criteria? It’s correct, I’m sure, to try to set aside our own allegiances for a moment, should we be making cultural comparisons–however imperfectly that attempt may succeed. But we don’t have to assert a sort of cultural pan-equivalency. There are better and worse cars, boats, clothes, recipes, musical compositions, and, heck, RC posts. Does it seem improbable that some cultural adaptations will be more functional than others? Or that not every group will evolve the optimum response to a particular challenge every time?
(I note that the Norse Greenlanders didn’t, whereas the Thule proto-Inuit moving in at roughly the same time did–or at least, they came up with a response that allowed them to survive in Greenland right up to the present day. By contrast, the Norse left behind ruins, artifacts, some written records, and a marginal genetic legacy in the Greenlandic gene pool.)
So, “people are people”, but can’t there be particular wisdoms existing as part of a cultural matrix? I would think the answer is “yes”–there can be and there are.
And I think too, that posing “wisdom” as resident purely in individual, conscious choice somewhat misframes the matter. The late great Robert Heinlein made a great point about that, with respect to our convention of paying attention to traffic lights. It’s a social norm that virtually everybody obeys with enormous consistency, but without thinking about, all the time. Sure, one might override the default sometimes–say, at 3 in the morning on a country road with nary a soul in sight for miles; or perhaps under the spur of a medical emergency or the like. And sure, some of us are bigger ‘rule-followers’ than others. But basically, if the light is red you stop, because it generally functions well for everybody in the culture if you do. It just makes sense, and you know it makes sense, so you don’t fight it unless you have a good reason.
“Honoring the land”, it seems to me, could work just that way, too. And so, I see no reason to doubt the word of folks who say that that is precisely how their culture operates.
Chuck Hughessays
I hate to but in like this, but I have a queasy feeling that America is on the verge of losing it’s Democracy.
You’re not really butting in Chuck–it’s a open conversation! Yes, it’s very disturbing that Trump continues to lead in the polls, albeit very narrowly. It’s perhaps even more disturbing to observe the RNC, in that they have so far had three nightly themes, and every one of the three has been founded on falsehoods. (Briefly, 1) America isn’t poor–had the GOP said “make America equitable again” they might have had a point; 2) America isn’t suffering a crime spree driven by immigrants–though had the GOP wanted to address the saturation of society with semi-auto and quasi-auto weapons they might have had a point; and 3) America is much better respected under Biden than under Trump–interestingly, no mention of Ukraine in the foreign policy points. Anyway, carry on, all.)
But don’t give up hope. There are a hell of a lot of good people working hard to turn this around.
patrick o twentysevensays
Climate science does not tell us how to live, how to organize and run a sustainable society. It does not say anything about gender roles or lack thereof. It doesn’t help us identify which plants are edible and which are poisonous. It does not tell us how to harvest crops. It does not tell us whether we should have kings or elected leaders.
What it does tell us is what we may expect to happen if we do certain things such as dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, deforest large areas, irrigate, emit SO2, or if a volcano erupts or when the Sun gets brigher over 100s of millions of years. That kind of thing. And I’m not sure how much of that was worked out by indigenous societies – or anyone else – pre-1700s/1800s/etc. Of course, we didn’t *need* to know about the effects of CO2 until recently.
Indigenous societies of course have developed bodies of knowledge and perspectives which should be respected and which may be helpful to people more generally. But if we want to live sustainably and with some modern pleasures (toys, knowledge, food, A/C) and securities (medicine, food), we’ll probably need something more.
Also, there is much variety of Indigenous cultures. There’re/ve been the Aztec and Incan empires, vs. Tlaxcala, Teotihuacan, Wendat, Pacific Northwest vs. Californian tribes (big differences), … Mayans … – and that’s just the Americas. And I may admire some things and abhor others – that I find in the same culture.
PS (re BPL) I have been under the impression that after some period of time, a sustainable equilibrium was often or generally reached. Eg. the inhabitants of Yosemite (who were removed by John Muir) – Yes/No? Although I saw something on PBS once about the Nazca lines …
PS (JCM) – you have at least once before referred to ~ (rural?) people living close to the land without specifying their having indigenous cultures or sustainable practices. Some may have thought you were referring to modern-style farmers and ranchers. …
JCMsays
Refrain from conceptualizing indigenous wisdom as ancient living standards. Idealizing ancient times obviously overlooks extreme hardships.
Traditional teachings are adapted to various modern cultural contexts over time. Particularly, the importance of fostering a strong sense of community and maintaining a respectful relationship with local landscapes.
This knowledge is essential and timeless. Foundational is that landscape is not merely a physical space but a cornerstone of human identity, community, livelihood, and spirit. That is natural and undeniably real.
In a Western urban context, this knowledge appears often mystifying and uncomfortable, inconvenient, and foreign. Whereas in other cultures, the understanding is an innate part of life from childhood.
Bhutan, for example, enshrines these teachings in its modern state constitution. However, under academic scholarship and Western nation building this realization has somehow gone missing. There is an obvious lack of awareness that landscape process deterioration is associated directly with community decline and environmental hazards. How could that possibly be so?
Maybe it’s because human landscape interactions still defy computation, even while it has already been known since forever that respect is inviolable (and already beyond criticism).
Remarkably, the epistemologies that underpin STEM appear inadequate to fully grasp these concepts. Nonetheless, mechanistic puzzle-solving is a valuable addition to accumulated wisdom.
Importantly, it is an artificial fixation which restricts realclimate science to astrophysical radiative transfer and Gray/spectral code with convective parameters. If guiding public science leaders have the audacity to propose that their discipline assimilates ecology, hydrology, and geography in to one thing called “climate science” then there does become a burden of responsibility to legitimately and genuinely respect the interactions at all scales, and to avoid imposing bias and half-baked narratives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwiYWDgLRk at 50:40
Cultural practices deeply rooted in respecting landscapes & community connections are foundational for successful environmental stewardship. While these timeless teachings can be traced back to the distant past, they are anything but archaic must never be displaced.
Radge Haverssays
JCM,
etc, etc…. fine, but none of which demonstrates that the science is wrong about GHGs. BTW, before there were people, there was an earth with drastic shifts in climate from CO2.
Your rhetoric has more to do with a broad rejection of the evils of colonialism than with the efficacy of modern science (not that modern science isn’t far from perfect). Hearing what you said is like being transported back to the 70’s in a rhetorical time capsule whose contents have been replaced through repetition by dogma.
I don’t see you complaining where belief in traditional medicine threatens species, and by extension, ecosystems– for instance by the poaching of rhinos for their horns…
Gavin put it well: “It is probably inevitable that, as dealing with climate change becomes an established concern, those who make a habit of reflexively being anti-establishment will start to deny there is a problem at all.” (From an article about Alexander Cockburn)
JCM, in one breath you say that you see what I will call for brevity and convenience “atmospheric” and “terrestrial” perspectives as “complementary;” in another you say the former is a mere “artificial frame.”
I am not able to reconcile these two statements–something you may wish to address in your explanations going forward.
…it is an artificial fixation which restricts realclimate science to astrophysical radiative transfer and Gray/spectral code with convective parameters.
Just as artificial as a Straw Man, I’d say. While there is certainly an emphasis on radiative effects, and understandably so, since that aspect of our environmental crisis is clearly very significant, there has also been a lot of work on land use incorporated into ARs, and particularly WG 2 & 3 do a lot of work at ‘ground level.’ From my perspective–admittedly a lay one–I don’t see such a restriction.
If guiding public science leaders have the audacity to propose that their discipline assimilates ecology, hydrology, and geography in to one thing called “climate science”…
I’m really not sure how to parse that clause in the context of the preceding statement I just quoted. How are these “guiding public science leaders” managing to simultaneously ignore and co-opt (or annex) “ecology, hydrology, and geography?” Seems like quite the paralogical feat.
Luckily, I don’t think you need that prior conditional to agree on the existence of a “burden of responsibility to legitimately and genuinely respect the interactions at all scales, and to avoid imposing bias and half-baked narratives.” Although avoiding the imposition of (usually implicit) bias and the consequent fallacious narratives is no easy matter, in science or out of it–as the current culture wars amply attest.
JCMsays
Thank you for the diverse perspectives. I’ll engage with McKinney’s point regarding how guiding public science leaders can simultaneously ignore and co-opt ecology, hydrology, and geography, which seems paralogical.
Under UNFCCC Article 2, the goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent dangerous climate interference. Article 4 promotes the development and transfer of technologies to reduce emission.
UNEP co-founded IPCC along with WMO to help nation-states build their capacity to mitigate unnatural environmental change with the goal of conserving realclimates. This includes administrative involvement in scholarly and democratic institutions to direct appropriate resources for the cause, including the mission statement of authoritative national laboratories.
This treatment tightly frames ecological and hydrological trends as passive subjects of radiative forcing; i.e. those changes driven by unnatural accumulation of major and minor trace GHG in atmosphere. Professionals recognize this false framing, but some are overweening. For observers it’s advisable to avoid restricting yourself to the teachings of WG1, 2, or 3 as this may risk adopting a narrow and superficial environmentalism. You may even feel attacked when it’s pointed out the interactions go both ways, and subsequently project accusations of false dichotomy. Nevertheless, biological and hydrological systems are active agents in the climate system.
While the UNFCC framing is useful (somewhat), it is also artificially restrictive and does not adequately capture realclimate phenomena. I don’t think anyone really denies that, not even UNEP itself, but the unintended consequence is that educational syllabi and communications developed under this framework are promoting a biased and limited perspective, even hate. This now transcends environmental discourse in scholarship, media, and politics fostering polarizing and harmful beliefs. These range from denying human influence on Earth systems, to promoting technological climate “mastery” paradigms, to an artificially narrow focus on major and minor trace gas emission.
Under bizarre reference terms, it is overlooked that by altering flows of energy, mass and nutrients, directly obliterating 5 billion hectares of functional ecology causes dangerous anthropogenic interference with realclimates across scales, in addition to trace GHG. The nature of geophysical fluid change can be described by ΔT=λ⋅ΔRF whereupon regulation and scholarly pursuit is to focus exclusively on persuasion campaigns to minimize ΔRF. UNFCCC prescriptions also result in dynamic modules which incorporate stomatal conductance and LAI response to CO2, in addition to environmental accounting by tabulating the number of carbon sticks.
Nevermind direct active extreme ecological annihilation ongoing… that’s out of scope even while it is admitted that passive dynamic feedbacks are necessary to calibrate climate stability. Furthermore, no consistent protocols exist to interpret landscape hydrological change and ESMs have practically unconstrained freedom. #paralogical
Recently World Food Programme gave the analogy of 4 footbal fields per second landscape demolition ongoing. In particular, this includes the 10x biota below grade disappeared compared to that visible using eyeballs. Previously it was discussed that impeding terrestrial ET through landscape deterioration increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks, an unnatural accumulation of the solar beam, and associated temperature increase. From a local perspective (which is practically everyplace), the impacts of landscape deterioration are far more acute (nevermind GMST). For globally uniform prescriptionist techno-ideologues, that looks more like delta λ which is missing from the scope of the framework convention.
I am convinced the scholarly virtues of rigorous empirical argument, best available data (BAD), and an imposed incomplete problem definition creates an artificial fixation on half-baked nonsense. This misleading approach now trickles down even to regional community council who appear inclined to overlook local circumstance. By directly causing extended periods of water scarcity and direct catchment deterioration, communities appear somewhat oblivious to their own unique environmental connections and responsibilities. For example: arbitrary, phony, and damaging frames suggest that draining and sealing the wetland can be offset by installing carbon sticks overseas. Consumers are convinced replacing the gas stove with induction will save the local waterfowl by affecting ΔRF. #nonsense.
Arbitrary generalized conclusions result in shocking and frankly frightening ignorance.
It is advisable to address the imposed artificial disconnect from reality immediately, and influential leaders must avoid inadvertently compounding stupidity. Misleading teaching lumps ecologies and environmental change as a sub-discipline under a half-baked conceptual framework. In many ways, this approach is obviously backwards and harmful. It’s not about dichotomy or authority, but about the reality outside.
I’ve read the response with some care; it’s not always easy to parse.
I hear about folks ignoring salient aspects of their situation–local councils, etc.–but that doesn’t appear to me to be down to science of any particular description; to me it sounds like politicians trying to get by without appreciable thought by checking boxes instead. (A problem in applied sociology, perhaps?)
It may be true that some folks are struggling under the misapprehension that the only environmental problem is the climate crisis. It’s certainly true that the UNFCC was founded specifically to deal with said crisis. However, neither of those things in any way implies that there isn’t a climate crisis, or that it isn’t worth dealing with.
Do we need a more holistic view? Sure. We can’t forget environmental stressors that are not driven by radiative forcings. We need to preserve wetlands, and forests, and alpine meadows, and coral reefs, and relatively pristine desertscapes of various sorts, and so on. We need to stop toxifying our environment with ever more species of synthetical chemicals and materials. We can’t keep acidifying the oceans. And we have to figure out how to control our unfortunate proclivity of introducing exotic species to novel environments. Really–and this is where I am probably most in agreement with JCM–we need to find ways to operationalize/socialize/normalize the reality that lands, waters, and their ecosystems aren’t just so many commodities.
But should we do all that ever so well and completely, it will still be necessary to stop raising the RF.
JCMsays
Thank you very much for this input McKinney,
for clarity, UNFCCC and its offshoots deal specifically with GHG emission and adoption of technologies to abate such emission. Comparatively, UNEP underscores climates as the patterns of temperature, humidity, precipitation in a given area over long periods.
I advocate for values and experiences that align more closely with a UNEP approach to climates rather than focusing solely on UNFCCC framing, while recognizing that both perspectives are complementary.
If you wish to examine one aspect in the disparity of how ESMs deal with the passive aspects ecological change and temperature extremes (i.e. those related ΔRF), refer to Denissen and co. 2024 “Intensified future heat extremes linked with increasing ecosystem water limitation”.
Whether knowingly or unwittingly steered by checking boxes, the authors remark that: “identifying regions where [ecosystem limitation index] trends and related evaporative cooling are important for future heat extremes can inform long-term adaptation strategies.”
Using artificial frames, the remark de-emphasises how significant human interference is directly and actively associated with their ecological index, not merely as passive feedback to trace gas. By overlooking aspects of their own analysis, the concluding remarks obscure how the findings inform mitigation strateges in addition to adaptation. Once the regional ecology is radically altered it is unavoidable that patterns of temperature, humidity, and precipitation will be different.
Terrestrial properties are essential to realclimates, yet hypothesis development remains artificially fixated on UNFCCC frames and the associated CO2 experiments, treating environmental change as a passive feedback.
Soil moisture is a key variable in the climate system and plays a major role in climate-change projections. Killian rightly highlights soil organic matter (SOM) – it’s the link between biosystems, moisture, and climates. It is artificial to view climate or atmosphere as external perturbations on ecologies, because patterns of temperature, humidity, and precipitation are encompassed within the ecology. This reality is instinctively understood by those rooted in local communities, without the imposed, derivative perspective from a document signed in 1992 (ironically, at the “Earth Summit”).
For example, the recent unprecedented shift from a prevailing global soil genesis regime to one of erosion is directly attributable to contemporary landscape treatment. This conversion of soil to rockflour has led to persistent unnatural moisture-limited regimes over larger areas and longer durations. That is simple to understand, and you can literally feel it outside right now in most communities. The soil resembles more like concrete than something selected by nature; a recent phenomenon.
From an astrophysics perspective the striking disparities among labs as it pertains to moisture feedback suggests significant compensating errors in developing TOA energy budgets. Why might that be? Additionally, the LW & SW TOA all-sky trends in observation tend to not overlap the change found in models that use protocols such as A MIP…
This is not new nor is it controversial – the calls for international cooperation in improved environmental monitoring are ongoing.
“…the availability of ground observations continues to be critical in limiting progress and should therefore strongly be fostered at the international level. Exchanges across disciplines will also be essential for bridging current knowledge gaps in this field. This is of key importance given the manifold impacts of soil moisture on climate, and their relevance for climate-change projections. A better understanding and quantification of the relevant processes would significantly help to reduce uncertainties in future-climate scenarios, in particular with regard to changes in climate variability and extreme events, as well as ecosystem and agricultural impacts.”
For a Canadian context, which may be of interest to you, do you think it’s appropriate for leading climate communicators trained in astrophysics and maths, acting a lead scientist for The Nature Conservancy? We observe daily how these current frameworks lead to catastrophic biases, impaired cognitive processes, and deeply prejudiced human categorization methods. Personally I find it dissonant to engage actively in community stewardship, primary research, and monitoring while facing hostility on these pages in response to highlighting climate connections such as temperature and hydrological extremes. Admittedly, I sometimes prod detractors for amusement, but I believe their negativity and cynicism may stem from a sense of helplessness and depression which is serious health hazard. I recommend to engage back in your communities in a productive and positive way to restore mental wellness. Sean B Caroll offers what I think is a positive message https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOfH54GjCVc “do we want to sit on our armchairs and forecast doom or do we want to get up off our asses and do something?”. This is in addition to advocating for your preferred federal candidate.
These changes load the dice for unnatural disasters. Under the guidance of Covering Climate Now, communications obscure the perception of reality right outside the front door.
Do you think it is appropriate to frame Natural Climate Solutions as land management actions that minimize atmospheric CO2 concentration and thus continue funding landscape stewardship, monitoring, and research at 5% of the levels related to UNFCCC problem definitions? Personally I prefer to embrace a frame based in reality, and I do not see any reason to enforce artificial fixation on the CO2 problem. Realclimates and ecologies are intertwined, inseparable entities. While the essence of wilderness may evade the precision of measurement akin to radiometry, it is no less real or tangible in terms of realclimate observables.
“atmospheric” and “terrestrial” perspectives as “complementary” – former is a mere “artificial frame.”
Thanks McKinney.
This is not, however, an appropriate conceptual framework and misrepresents the point of view that I offer (at no cost to anyone I might add!).
Try to avoid falling into the trap of active distortion or persistent miscommunication. The intent is not to introduce a false dilemma. I do understand the temptation to reject biases different from your own, and that social identity can result in an ingroup-outgroup exclusion, but ultimately I prefer and Earth Systems framework which recognizes the coupling of disciplines. Previously I tried to argue how we are all allies in our obsession with climate stabilization but to this day constructive partnership continues to be rejected by some participants.
The flows of mass, energy, nutrients, and momentum between the surface and atmosphere create a tightly coupled system. What’s artificial is an international framework that fixates on major and minor trace gases and technological interventions, leading to subsequent administrative meddling.
A useful review that places systems in the context of climates is Kleidon’s work, including “Working at the Limit…” (https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/861/2023/esd-14-861-2023-discussion.html). This work introduces Earth System processes in the frame of thermodynamics, along with the hypothesis of maximum energy conversions toward higher entropy states (cooler temps). The same principle has been applied to thermodynamics in life and the inevitability of biodiversification.
Underlying the argument is the notion of physical limits (or inversely freedom). One such example is “equilibrium evaporation” in which the bounding limit for surface with unlimited moisture is the available energy. Restricting moisture availability in space or duration will render an evaporation rate less than that associated with the equilibrium partitioning of turbulent flux, whereupon such a condition results in a moisture limited state. To borrow (loosely) the analogy from Tomas, landscapes exist in different ‘shades’ of moisture limitation, and moisture limitation is directly associated with ecological function through SOM.
Ghausi links terrestrial moisture limitation along with radiative controls through clouds in atmosphere based on Kleidon’s foundation. There can be no ecological distinction between landscapes, atmosphere, clouds, and climates as they are encompassed within the same system bounded by radiative flows at TOA. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2220400120
In related streams, thermodynamic constraints are applied broadly, particularly in ecological literature and even in the framework of so-called artificial life, whereupon limits are applied to an organism’s metabolic rate. What are the limiting factors from first principles? https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-74913-4_13
The argument (from the perspective of globally averaged climates) is that functional ecologies naturally introduce additional (thermodynamic) degrees of freedom to Earth System processes, especially through the cycling of moisture and nutrients. Conversely, human interventions that destroy functional ecologies consequently reduce the rate of energy conversions. This leads to an increasingly impaired state with unnatural restriction in passing the solar beam onwards to space (and ultimately unprecedent energy accumulation with ΔT).
Piotrsays
JCM: “The undeniable truth is that an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today.”
But where do they publish? While obviously their insight into local ecology is detailed and deep, to provide the “blueprint” for dealing with climate change – it would have to be communicated and TRANSFERABLE to the rest world. Until it is, I wouldn’t haul the Western science to the dustbin of history just yet.
And no – calling your opinion The undeniable truth does not make it so.
Mal Adaptedsays
JCM, with all due respect, the burden is on you to show that an average Bhutanese child possesses a “deeper wisdom about the nature of reality” than the average urban Western academic. What some call “deep wisdom about the nature of reality”, others may call myth and superstition. Indigenous people’s knowledge about their own homelands and histories should be given credence to the extent that it is backed up by documented observations, whether by contemporaneous written records, or if transmitted orally, then by archaeology and other historical sciences. Just as “Western” knowledge should be!
Every literate culture is founded on the oral histories of its pre-literate ancestors; one thread of Western culture began with the Abrahamic scriptures, which were the oral traditions of neolithic pastoralists in the Fertile Crescent, written down after writing became widespread. Those ancient stories still evoke emotions in many Westerners today, but most of us don’t believe that Noah’s Ark actually came to rest high on the slopes of Mt. Ararat, partly because no evidence of an immense flood reaching from sea level to that elevation has been found, and partly because the Book of Genesis wasn’t written down until the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE. We do have abundant, dated evidence of recurring, regional-scale river floods in lowland Mesopotamia, and evidence as well of the relatively rapid sea-level rise following the melting of the continental ice sheets, with the gradual, permanent flooding of the upper Persian Gulf. Piecing together a verifiable narrative of Western history from there is a full-time occupation for an industry of modern scholars, far beyond the resources of the pre-literate Hebrews, and will always carry an irreducible margin of error. Without science, though, we have no way to know whether we’re fooling ourselves or not!
I’m in favor of acknowledging the injustices committed on subjugated cultures during the expansion of Western society around the world. That includes repatriating human remains and sacred objects held in museums and private collections, although I’d hope some of them could be made available to vetted scholars. I’m not in favor of giving Indigenous oral traditions a pass on investigation by trained, disciplined empirical observation, with intersubjective verification by equally trained and mutually disciplined peers. Science is international, and membership in the peer community is open to everyone regardless of origin, the more so as scientific culture evolves; all that’s required of aspirants is to put the effort in. Of course cultural antecedents of science can be seen around the world throughout history, even in pre-literate cultures, and certainly long before Gutenberg’s printing press made wide dissemination and verification of empirical observations practical. At that historical juncture, the rulers of Renaissance Europe were eager for the military advantages science could offer, and patronized schools and individual scientists, giving the growth of the profession a boost. And science subsequently went everywhere Western conquerors did, to the benefit of both science and conquest. Science serves all humanity equally, not just rulers, thankfully. Science’s success at accumulating verifiable, self-correcting, useful knowledge, on durable media widely accessible to scientists across time and distance, was arguably Western culture’s edge over the rest of the world in the past five centuries. Without the international scientific culture’s traditions of intensive training in empirical methods, and unsparing scrutiny of everyone’s work by skeptical peers who are committed to not allowing their peers to fool themselves, there would have been no such accumulation. I, for one, will honor that worthy tradition above all, while behaving respectfully toward Indigenous persons who are familiar with their people’s oral traditions. Who am I to contradict them?
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote: “Who am I to contradict them?”
You just did: “Those ancient stories still evoke emotions in many Westerners today, but most of us don’t believe that Noah’s Ark actually came to rest high on the slopes of Mt. Ararat, partly because no evidence of an immense flood reaching from sea level to that elevation has been found, and partly because the Book of Genesis wasn’t written down until the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE. “
Mal Adaptedsays
Heh. I’m actually quite willing to contradict both Ancient Mesopotamian and Ancestral Puebloan stories about their respective origins, but not in person or under my real name. Of course, there’s an art to engaging in dialogue with anyone about their cherished beliefs. I’m generally as respectful to an elder of a historic tribe of Indigenous Americans talking about his people’s oral traditions, as I am to an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints talking about the golden plates. I may privately scoff, but I’m not trying to start a fight with them in public!
Mr. Know It Allsays
Yes, being civil, and not starting fights in public over such things is wise.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Trick question: What year is it?
Mal Adaptedsays
Trick question: What year is it?
It’s 2024, CE (“Common Era“). With all civility: can it be you don’t actually know it all?
Barton Paul Levensonsays
KIA: Trick question: What year is it?
BPL: What dating system are you using?
Jonathan Davidsays
The term “indigenous” is probably poorly chosen based on what JCM appears to want to convey. A better dichotomy would be pastoral vs urban cultures. There are plenty of examples in history of advanced, urbanized, indigenous societies that have collapsed through believed overpopulation, and over-resource utilization such as the Maya, the Anasazi, Mohenjaro-Daro, etc..
The problem with traditionalist wisdom is not just that it’s geographically local i.e. the traditional wisdom of the Inuit bears little relevance to that of the Yanomami and vice versa. But that traditional knowledge is based on accumulated experience within a certain specific environment over a certain specific time period. If that environment changes in fundamental ways, such as through climate change, traditional knowledge no longer applies as is happening with the Inuit.
Scientific knowledge is based on universal principals, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized. Traditional wisdom may be useful in providing philosophical perspective on ecological matters and important understanding of local phenomena but provide a very limited view of reality beyond the environment in which it develops.
zebrasays
Jonathan, your observation is quite correct. But let’s expand on this:
“Scientific knowledge is based on universal principles, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized.”
As I point out from time to time, there seems to be a reluctance here to work with scientific knowledge about human behavior to better understand the various adaptations we observe… whether in “primitive” cultures or the modern world.
We can certainly conclude that humans have a constrained range of behaviors, and we have lots of data on how these manifest in societal organization, as well as the “environmental’ conditions under which those manifestations may occur. It’s not physics, but it isn’t astrology either.
Why is everyone afraid to discuss these issues? Does it make people so uncomfortable to view their own “identity” in that context?
Mal Adaptedsays
Why is everyone afraid to discuss these issues? Does it make people so uncomfortable to view their own “identity” in that context?
The parsimonious answer to your first question, z, is “because people with expertise in those disciplines don’t frequent RC, and few regular commenters here [with some exceptions] wish to argue from ignorance .” And your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters. I personally would like to see more discussion of peer-reviewed results from the behavioral sciences, even including “political science”. I’m uneasy about interpreting them, however, not least because I lack metaliteracy in those disciplines; but also because of unconscious biases I might be fooled by, as you suggest. Anyone want to take a stab at, for example, Historical ecology, human niche construction and landscape in pre-Columbian Amazonia: A case study of the geoglyph builders of Acre, Brazil in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology? It was linked to that New World reforestation article at the side, under “Recommended Articles”.
Interesting! In view of some previous comments, note this:
Among our key discoveries, reached through comparing palaeoecological phytolith assemblages with those from different modern vegetation formations (Watling et al., 2017a, Watling et al., 2016), were: (1) the geoglyph region, unlike neighbouring Bolivia at the same time (Carson et al. 2014), was dominated by bamboo forest before the geoglyphs were built; (2) the continued dominance of closed-canopy vegetation and low charcoal counts throughout the profile sequences suggested that large-scale deforestation, such as that practiced today, was not commonplace in the past; and (3) both the JS and FC geoglyphs, and potentially many more, were constructed within palm-abundant forests formed by previous human activities over millennia.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
Mal: your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters.
BPL: Very few otters can type.
zebrasays
Mal, people “argue from ignorance” all the time here. Your opinion (or mine) about a peer-reviewed paper on climate doesn’t really count as a peer review, now does it. And what exactly are your “metaliteracy” credentials, other than personal opinion, if I might ask?
What I am talking about is what we do when we discuss various ideas… including the silly denialist ones… based on underlying principles that are not in question. As John said:
““Scientific knowledge is based on universal principles, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized.”
So the discussion serves to perhaps educate the visitor/lurker on the scientific reasoning process, and point out gross errors like the denial of conservation of energy which often crop up.
And the most basic principle in scientific reasoning is that we all agree on the definitions. But any discussion that isn’t physics (and even then sometimes) devolves into handwavy rhetoric.
Question: Is it “wasteful” to kill woodpeckers to create decorative headwear with their scalps?
Richard Creager says
26 Jun 2024 at 7:16 AM
Killian: “Regenerative Governance. There is no other way.”
That is plainly true, …into positions of authority.
I was a bit confused by this bc you say the premise is true, but then say, “into positions of authority.” Problem is, there are no positions of authority in Regenerative Governance, so you clearly are taking Regenerative Governance, capitalized, as regenerative governance, general concept of a society that is sustainable.
Regen Gov is a specific model. The term “regenerative governance”, capitalized or lowercase, was coined by me ten years or more ago. Others have started using the term, but their work does not reflect the Regen Sys model in any way, and all uses thus far have been well short of regenerative.
but how do you justify even a shred of optimism.
Obviously, as time slips away and action crawls like a disinterested toddler, our situation worsens exponentially, so optimism is at a very low ebb. I have always known the chances of us pulling our collective head out was slim. Just look at the decade of immature taunts and gaslighting from the most active users of this site. (Recent example: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-june-2024/#comment-822711) No matter how prescient or accurate one’s observations are, if they don’t stay within the bounds allowed by the egos of those who have been prescient about nothing and offered zero unique, yet accurate, analysis, they are ridiculed by the omnicidal bullies on this site.
If not here, then where? If people who are self-professedly active in the climate science and/or mitigation/adaptation realms can do no better than that linked above, what should we expect of less-educated, less-interested people? No, we get Trumpesque responses from those that decry Trump. It’s absurd.
No, I am not optimistic, but I am knowledgeable and have spent my time learning about regenerative systems and creating solutions, not dragging down those who do. Is it still possible to reverse things? Yes. Regardless how improbable, it is still possible. The caveat, which is blatantly obvious, is the passing of irreversible bifurcations. We are, in all likelihood, in the midst of a major bifurcation now that began to be measurable around 2016 (based on multiple studies noting an uptick at the time of the 2016 El Nino), not 2023.
The trajectory of the world we live in bears significant inertia. Regenerative Governance that is not a veneer requires organizations with cultures that consistently draw enlightened individuals of capacity, with selfless orientation,… Where do you see that?
That inertia is irrelevant in the sense that every large social change faces the same inertia and the changes cannot and will not come from within the system nor necessarily in fighting the system. I believe it will only be successful if there is the quiet creation of a parallel system that fills in the needs the current system does not, cannot, and does not want, to meet and, increasingly, those it cannot meet as the system fails.
The very creation of a parallel system necessarily requires increasing numbers to opt out of the old and into the new, thus accelerating yet ameliorating the collapse of the old, thereby being in place before the collapse of the old occurs.
That is, of course, the ideal, but it is already forming unconsciously.
How could those cultures be created, sustained and reinforced? Serious question, if you have resources/links. And promulgated on a society-wide basis on a timeline relevant to the incipient climate-based disaster? More hopefully, the ideas you envision may grow from the rubble of the remains as humans find a better way.
Ecovillages, the Global Ecovillage Network, intentional communities, Transition Towns, La Via Campesina, Ecosystem Restoration Communities, the bio-region movement, Indigenous organizations, et al., are all working toward some version of “sustainable” future. All that is needed is to stitch these entities, and all communities, together. Regenerative Governance is the means to that end. It’s really quite a simple shift. As I have posted here many times already, there are already simpler examples of Regen Gov in place…. and there always have been. It’s the default of most of humanity prior to the dawn of hierarchical, patriarchal societies. Regen Gov, of necessity, is more complex in that it must have more scales. Indigenous societies exist on two scales: The local community and the wider society. The Kua of Africa, e.g., assigned each “band” or “tribe” or, as Helga Vierich termed them, IIRC, camping parties an area of their territory to live in and take care of each year. They would gather once a year in a whole-society meet-n-greet where such decisions were made. The rest of the year, fully autonomous. I am not suggesting we become GGH’s (Gatherer, Gardener, Hunters) because there is not the space to do so, I present only the issue of scales. Modern society needs up to five: Walkable communities, areas/cities, regions, bio-regions, and inter-bio-regions.
Regenerative communities, as I have determined from my own experiences, research, conversations with anthropologists and conversations with Indigenous persons have the following characteristics and more:
* Egalitarian
* Commons-based
* Scale-based decision-making
* Networks of small communities
* Intimate knowledge of their environment
* Needs-based decision-making.
Etc.
Walk out your door, start with one other person, do stuff. You’re now a regenerative community. Draw others in, encourage other communities around you to do the same, form networks and an area/city/regional council. Form regional networks (if a large bio-region), form a bio-region-level council.
There you go.
The simplcity of this confuses people.
zebrasays
So much simplicity. So many words.
Susan Andersonsays
chortle!
nigeljsays
Killian said: “That inertia is irrelevant in the sense that every large social change faces the same inertia and the changes cannot and will not come from within the system nor necessarily in fighting the system. I believe it will only be successful if there is the quiet creation of a parallel system that fills in the needs the current system does not, cannot, and does not want, to meet and, increasingly, those it cannot meet as the system fails.”
Some good points, but major change comes from within sometimes. For example in the 1980s the New Zealands government made massive changes that transformed the socio-economic landscape of the country and the changes endured. But I acknowldedge such change needs specific circumstances, and dont happen easily or often.
Some countries like the USA seem are very unsettled right now which suggest we might be near a tipping point of major socio economic changes from within the system or as a reaction against the system, but whether it goes in a good direction is very uncertain.
Creating a parallel socio-economic system sounds plausible. in principle By analogy Tesla cars lead the way with electric cars. It didnt come from within the established automobile companies. But there would still be an inertia problem. People have a strong dependence / addiction to the current socio-economic system, and enticing them away to form new communities with a totally new system, could therefore be a slow process and time is not our friend with climate change.
“intentional communities” (sometimes called alternative communities)
Intentional communities are well intended (IMO and I have had friends in such communities)) and often practice egalitarian governance, community ownership, etc,etc. Apparently most intentional communites fail after a few years. It seems to me most people are just not good enough to make such things work. Im on Richard Creagers side because I dont see how we can change this especially on time frames sufficient to help keep under 2 degrees.
“Regenerative communities….are commons based”
Nobody owns a commons. Killian said somewhere that regenerative governance means nobody owns anything apart from a few basic personal possessions. IMHO there is a real risk people will take more than their fair share of products and services from the stockpiles. You would need a means to stop this that has teeth like a police force. But you then have an authority, a hierarchy which conflcits with the idea of regenerative governance.
In traditional hunter gatherer tribes everyone polices the behaviour of everyone so you do not have a hieararchy as such. This works fine in very small groups with simple cultures and who just gather food, but we have 8 billion people and inevitably larger groups, and groups in close contact with other groups, and a vast array of products (even if we were to simplify this a bit), so a huge temptation to over indulge, so I just need to see a convincing explanation of how you would stop people taking more than their fair share and being lazy. Because make no mistake this is likely to be a huge problem. And its precisely why human society eventually developed ideas of the police, criminal law and property rights and private ownership.
“Draw others in, encourage other communities around you to do the same, form networks and an area/city/regional council. Form regional networks (if a large bio-region), form a bio-region-level council.”
In modern society councils normally manage and administer aspects of local communities. They are sometimes called local authorties in New Zealand. They are hierarchical groups because they are a group of people with a certain role, exerting authority over other groups of people. This would seem to conflict with Killians statements that regenerative governance has “no authorities” and no hierarchies. So what exactly do regenerative councils do?
And still, the childishness continues after a decade and in the face of our own extinction. And we wonder why we are failing.
Don Williams says
2 Jul 2024 at 8:03 PM
1) The problem is 8+ billion mouths to feed and wars to grab vital resources. Plus voters that react harshly to politicians that don’t raise living standards. Look at Macron, the Greens and the recent election results in the EU.
We can easily feed up to 12 billion (for now) ;we currently feed, mostly, over 8 billion and waste 1/3 on top of that. As for wars, ye, it became clear long ago any wars would make it exponentially harder to turn things around. As for conservatism, it was to be expected; societies strongly tend toward conservatism/fascism/totalitarianism in times of crisis – which is another reason we could not afford to wait so long to take serious action.
nigelj
For example in the 1980s the New Zealands government made massive changes that transformed the socio-economic landscape of the country and the changes endured
They made changes. They did not make massive changes. We are talking about systemic changes to the very core functioning and organization of society.
Creating a parallel socio-economic system sounds plausible. in principle… to form new communities with a totally new system, could therefore be a slow process and time is not our friend with climate change.
Why are you repeating what I said?
Apparently most intentional communites fail after a few years. It seems to me most people are just not good enough to make such things work.”
It has nothing to do with goodness. The characteristics I listed above are not fully assimilated by such communities at this time. This is a significant aspect of why they fail. They also are attempting this in isolation, which is a huge part of why they fail. Another is they are embedded in the current utterly destructive paradigm which makes it virtually impossible to be regenerative. This is why most will continue to fail until they realize they must exist within networks, not in isolation.
IMHO there is a real risk people will take more than their fair share of products and services from the stockpiles.
Tragedy of the commons… wah. wah. wah… so scary! Boring. Interesting: Why and how Commons do work.
See if you can figure out under what conditions this DOES NOT happen (hint: listed previously) and why there are still societies hundreds, if not thousands, of years old proving you wrong. Your opinion does not matter here; scholarship does.
You would need a means to stop this that has teeth like a police force. … I just need to see a convincing explanation of how you would stop people taking more than their fair share and being lazy.
No, you would. And people like you. Most people. But people like you have to learn to think and act very differently before you can be part of a Commons. If you need a police force, you’re not operating as a Commons. The greater context of having waited far too long and now only having one pathway to a survivable future… needs repeating? Do you not understand the use of context?
As I already laid out above, you simply have to do it. We start from what is. A functioning Commons is the endpoint. The transition will be difficult and imperfect.
Tell me, why would one be inclined to be lazy in a society where you work far less than we do today? Boredom would be the far greater challenge. This is an important reason why UBI (which is a weird hybrid pseudo-Commons) works.
You need to educate yourself on why people choose the Commons (though I have laid it out above so not sure why you missed it) – and why humanity largely did for the vast majority of 300k years.
In modern society councils normally manage and administer aspects of local communities. They are sometimes called local authorties in New Zealand. They are hierarchical groups
We are not talking about modern society. This is obvious. The characteristics of regenerative societies are laid out above. Put two and two together: Who would be part of the council in a Commons? And there’s no such thing as a “regenerative council.”
Please stop repeating the same shallow “can’t be done” tropes you’ve spouted every single time since 2016. Be of use rather than just taking up space in the thread. Do the research.
Nigeljsays
Killain, I accept that the hunter gatherer / early indigenous peoples commons works, and people mostly dont take more than their fair share, and they didnt have or need a police force. But I would argue this was because of physical issues. They had very few posessions so there was nothing much to steal. The natural world was abundant relative to their small populations, so it was never under much pressure if people took too much. Small kinship groups self regulate ok. Groups were relatively small and isolated so conflicts between groups were limited. There are research studies backing this up I have previously posted.
Your model appears to be a hybrid model for modern society that tries to emulate the socio-economic values system of hunter gatherer peoples but with keeping some limited modern industrial technology and with 8 billion people and a farming culture. In this system group size will tend to be larger and less likely to self regulate. Groups of whatever size will also be in close proximity to other groups so considerable possibilities for conflict. There will be far more items to steal and far more pressure on the natural world. Without a police force ( a hierarchy) and decision makers at bioregional level ( a hierarchy) to avoid inter regional conflcits, I suspect it would all be a train wreck. You wont make such a hybrid system work without some compromises.
You said people need to learn to think and act differently before they join a commons. How on earth are you going to achieve this? Because if you dont have a practical plan the entire regenerative governance idea wont work. And what you are suggesting would require massive levels of change in how people think and act.
I lean towards public ownership of important vital assets like the water supply and basic education. Im a bit suspicious of the neoliberal agenda and its obsession with privatising everything. But I equally see the problems society has encountred historically where the total means of production is put in public ownerhip. Your idea of “nobody owns anything” takes public ownerhip to a whole new level, and its very hard to see why it would work any better than other similar experiments no matter how you adjust the formula.
You havent answered my question about what the councils would do and why they wouldn’t by definition be hierarchical.
I find your ideas on simplification slightly more practical. (But only slightly) Human society could simplfy up to a point, and reduce energy use and still have a decent life, and this is sort of self evident. It will possibly be forced to eventually due to resource depeltion. But I suspect we have evolved too far away from hunter gatherer values and their physical situation to make your version of regenerative governance work, unless you accept some practical compromises to it.
Don Williamssays
1) The problem is 8+ billion mouths to feed and wars to grab vital resources. Plus voters that react harshly to politicians that don’t raise living standards. Look at Macron, the Greens and the recent election results in the EU.
Yup, and that doesn’t even include maps of all the cars, trains, trucks, fossil fuel power plants, farm machinery, mines, data centers, oil rigs, pump stations, pulp and paper mills, factories, and on and on and on. :)
Mr. Know It Allsays
Are you sure those are the characteristics of regenerative communities? I’m a little confused because in a previous post you said this:
“Characteristics and Principles of Regenerative Societies:
* Living within ecosystem limits
* Needs-based decision-making
* No time-limited decision-making (obvious exception: emergencies)
* Nested Commons
* Egalitarian
* Equality: Gender, racial, economic, etc.
* Bioregional
* Networks of small communities
* Highly cooperative, yet…
* Absolute individual autonomy
* Work is freely chosen; no “jobs”
* “Work” is a social event”
Richard Creagersays
Killian-
Appreciate your response to my comment and your appeal for civility. I’ll add a pipe-dream for self-restraint from the stream-monopolizers with initials and animal names and larp handles, to allow visibility for any insight comments.
Is the next breakthrough in natural climate variability here? What happens if the current heat spike is a part of natural variability? Just as there are extreme earthquakes, super-giant oil reservoirs, etc, why can’t there be a collective ordering of forced events leading to an extreme temperature spike?
zebrasays
From a NYT article:
“Often owned partly or entirely by local or provincial governments, factories need exports to keep their workers busy. And despite weak domestic sales, they are hesitant to lay off workers.
A housing market crash has left millions of Chinese families wary of big-ticket purchases. Yet the state-controlled banking system, acting under direction from Beijing, is lending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to build and expand more factories.”
So the question is simple. Is what drives consumption the Greedy Capitalists, or is it the need to find something for a surplus population to do? China has built/started all these apartment buildings, but they seem to just sit empty and deteriorate. Lots of CO2 produced to create the concrete and glass, environmental destruction, blah blah blah, but the population isn’t buying any of this stuff, even with government incentives. Kind of like how women are having fewer children despite government incentives.
It seems to me that people with scientific backgrounds, used to using mathematics and underlying principles to characterize complex systems, should be interested in applying those skills to this question… without all the flowery and emotive language.
But so far, it seems that long, hand-wavy, undefined rhetoric is the favorite activity.
nigeljsays
Zebra said “China has built/started all these apartment buildings, but they seem to just sit empty and deteriorate. Lots of CO2 produced to create the concrete and glass, environmental destruction, blah blah blah, but the population isn’t buying any of this stuff, even with government incentives. ”
The reason apartments sit empty is apparently partly because of hokou rules that effectively discourage rural people from immigrating to cities. Quite bizarre that the government encourages cities yet makes it difficult for people to live in them! But change is apparently on the way.
Yes. “Hukou” seems arbitrary from our point of view, but apparently has pretty deep roots in Chinese culture, long predating the CCP.
The system descends in part from ancient Chinese household registration systems. The hukou system also influenced similar systems within the public administration structures of neighboring East Asian countries, such as Japan (koseki) and Korea (hoju), as well as the Southeast Asian country Vietnam (hộ khẩu). In South Korea, the hoju system was abolished in January 2008. While unrelated in origin, propiska in the Soviet Union and resident registration in Russia had a similar purpose and served as a model for modern China’s hukou system.
It has certainly created a deep rural/urban division, and would seem to be in urgent need of reform or even abolition.
zebrasays
“deep rural/urban division”
So what’s the translation of that word into French and English, Kevin?
Barry E Finchsays
HouseDaddy 27 JUN 2024 AT 7:30 AM “Eau de Musk @magpiewdc Jun 25 If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols, then the world has warmed considerably more than 1.3C” is, obviously, claptrap. It’s the lazy drivel I’ve read in GoogleTubey comments for year. If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s then guess what? The world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s. What is it with all this endless, lazy posturing and Meme stupidity all over the place? Has “Build That Wall! Build That Wall! Axe The Tax!! Axe The Tax!! Lock Her Up!! Lock Her Up!! Four More Years!! Four More Years!!” turned amost all brains into worthless lazy mush? Or is it just that Social Media that got going a couple decades ago puts the mush on display? .
nigeljsays
Barry E Finch. I believe we have a serious warming problem but I agree with you that the claim the world has warmed by more than 1.3 degrees is clap trap.
The people who make the claim are probably genuinely worried about climate chnage, but they may not be very scientifically literate, and they seem to think hyping everything to make things look as bad as possible, even to the extent of making imaginative but bizarre and innacurate claims will somehow inspire more action when it will more probably inspire cynicism and suspicion.
There is no reason to hype things. The IPCC projections on warming, SLR. heatwaves should be enough to scare people unless they are asleep. And the real world warming trend is broadly consistent with the projections.
Now obviously if new science is produced or the consensus swings in behind something like high climate senstivity this should be communicated to the public.
The reason for lack of sufficient action reducing emissions is likely due to the denialist campaign wearing people down, the perception that climate change is away in the future and not a priority, the daunting scale of change needed, and worries about the costs of mitigation on households. For those reasons we face a challenge fixing the problem.
Solutions clearly need to be low pain solutions with wide benefits. Renewable energy is now cost effective so one good thing.
UAH has reported for June with a TLT anomaly of +0.80ºC, the lowest monthly UAH TLT anomaly since Sept 2023, with Sept23-May24 sitting in the range +0.83ºC to +1.05ºC, these nine months Sept23-May24 with June 2024 become the top-10 monthly anomalies on the UAH TLT record. Prior to Sept23, the highest anomaly was the +0.71ºC of Feb16, the peak of the 2015/16 El Niño.
So June 2024 becomes the hottest TLT month on the UAH record, this by quite some margin, the previous hottest Junes running 1998 (+0.44ºC), 2023 (+0.38ºC), 2019 (+0.35ºC), 2020 (+0.31ºC) & 2016 (+0.21ºC).
The SAT re-analyses are showing a different situation down at the surface although as expected June 2024 still comes in as the warmest June on record.. The June SAT anomaly is reported higher than May in <a href="https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/" while the daily numbers for ERA5 at ClimatePulse put June SAT roughly +0.675ºC, higher than both April (+0.67ºC) and May (+0.65ºC). June 2023, the previous hottest June in ERA5, measured +0.53ºC.
So, no, the claim that we have warmed 1.3 C is absolutely NOT “claptrap.”
One can, I suppose, quibble about the status of a record-warm year in determining truly “how much we have warmed.” But I’d cheerfully bet every dollar in assets I have–even every dollar my wife and I have, which would be taking my life in my hands!–that the average anomaly from 2024 through 2038 will be significantly higher than that of 2023. Which would, I think, be pretty definitive that we’d exceeded 1.3 C.
I note that the OLS trend since 1995 in the WFT temp index has been 0.18 C/decade, which projected forward would mean 0.27 C more warming for 2038. Simplistically, 1.35 + 0.27 = 1.62. Now, this is admittedly mixing indices–the WFT index is an in-house thing, and the NOAA number is, well, the NOAA number. Sadly, WFT does not include NOAA data, though it does have GISTEMP and HADCruT, as well as remote-sensed datasets.
But it’s still a pretty good BOTE indicator that things actually are worse than you are saying. No need to hype–but still less need to minimize.
nigeljsays
Kevin. I accept your comments. .However my comment ” I agree with you that the claim the world has warmed by more than 1.3 degrees is clap trap” was if read in context obviously an abbreviation of BEFs statement ” If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols, then the world has warmed considerably more than 1.3C” is, obviously, claptrap”. (And it is). But I admit it was a bad abbreviation!.
Well, that makes more sense, nigel! Yes, it was a bad abbreviation, completely misleading me as to what you meant to say.
However, there is also some basis for the other half of the statement Barry took issue with–that is, the “but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols.” For example, from 2009, NASA has this:
Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. Without the presence of these aerosols in the air, our models suggest that the planet would be about 1 °C (1.8 °F) hotter.
It appears that the 1 C estimate has been lowered to 0.7 C by more recent work:
If not for aerosol pollution, Earth would be even warmer than it already is. Aerosol air pollution has made the planet about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) cooler than it otherwise would be, according to the 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But as I read Barry, my best guess is that what he’s really taking exception to isn’t the numbers, but rather the poorly stated formulation. He says:
If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s then guess what? The world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s.
Thus, the “masked warming” would be an additional term–there would be (is) an RF forcing not fully realized as a result upon temperature. But that doesn’t change the main point of the original post, which is that as we eliminate FF, we also ‘unmask’ that forcing, causing yet more warming.
Of course, we’ve discussed that issue here more than once, so it’s not exactly news. But the OP does serve to highlight the risk of breaching the 2 C ‘guardrail,’ not just 1.5 C–which, IIRC, Zeke Hausfather recently characterized as “probably toast.”
Barry E Finchsays
Killian 1 JUL 2024 AT 6:31 AM “noting an uptick at the time of the 2016 El Nino), not 2023”. Quote: “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says”.
Barry said: “The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.”
Does no one see the problem here? The high pressure is caused by the warming or cooling of the ocean due to changes in the thermocline, So instead the suitable analogy is more of a playground roundabout getting an extra push by the children blowing air out of their mouths while riding it. What’s already on the merry-go-round can’t push it but some truly external event can. Certainly some momentum feedback but nothing on the scale required to initiate the behavior. Wind isn’t a perpetual motion machine, at best it is an additional factor in finely balancing conservation of angular momentum in a combined ocean/atmosphere/solar/lunar system. The angular momentum is conserved considering the entire system.
As Hurricane Beryl churns itself westward towards an eventual ocean-exit somewhere near the US-Mexican border, the Accumulative Cyclone Energy (ACE) for the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season ramps up ever higher. Already the total ACE for 2024 has racked up ACE=22, exceeding the ACE=18 achieved in 2003 by end-July, 2003 being the 3rd-highest end-July ACE value (since 2000).
Big ACE totals all come down to powerful hurricanes and July isn’t when such storms usually start appearing.
The 2nd-placed year for end-Jul ACE is 2008 achieving ACE=37 due mostly to the ACE=28 of 2008 Hurricane Bertha which was Cat3 but long lasting in its trek up the central Atlantic.
The prize for highest end-July ACE is 2005 which saw Cat4 Hurricane Dennis contribute ACE=19 and Cat5 Hurricane Emily (running on a track not far from that of Beryl today) contributing ACE=33, the total end-July ACE for 2005 being a whopping ACE=63.
JCMsays
Please consider providing input on a recent Opinion piece
“””Land use has significantly changed over the past two centuries, particularly since World War II. Many soils have been sealed by pavement or roofing; in addition, agricultural soils have been compacted, and drainage systems have been introduced. Sealing, compaction, and drainage also lead to rapid water runoff, flooding, and, as less water enters the soil (Fig. 3, right panel) – this decreases evapotranspiration and increases temperature””””
“””The importance of these processes is generally poorly addressed in modeling because hydrological models rarely reflect lateral fluxes in the atmosphere, on the soil surface, and in the soil. Land use is only considered in coarse categories, and neighborhood effects and feedback mechanisms are neglected. However, even if models fail and if we cannot create landscape experiments, there is sufficient evidence that land use is an important part of the problem and of the solution to mitigate floods, droughts, and heatwaves. Addressing land-use changes is imperative as they persist even with zero net CO2 emissions, making the world more vulnerable.”””
“””Reports of severe storms, catastrophic floods like the Simbach event (Brandhuber et al., 2017; Mayr et al., 2020), and tragic events such as the Ahrtal floods, which caused over 150 casualties (Mohr et al., 2023), are increasingly common. These occurrences, alongside water shortages, droughts, and heatwaves (Ciais et al., 2005; Miralles et al., 2019), suggest a significant imbalance in landscape hydrology, often attributed to CO2-driven climate change.
In public discourse, explanations for these climate-driven changes often revolve around statements such as “The soil dries out because of the heat” or ” … because air humidity is so low,” as seen in the German Drought Monitor (https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=37937, Boing et al., 2022). While these statements correlate with observations, they offer only circular reasoning, lacking a causal explanation. This can easily be recognized because the logic of the sentences can be reversed and still holds: “It is so hot because the soil is dry”. Even the plausible sentence “the soil is dry because it hasn’t rained for a long time” is at least partly circular reasoning since terrestrial evapotranspiration globally contributes 40 % to terrestrial precipitation, with 57 % of the terrestrial evapotranspiration being recycled (van der Ent et al., 2010)”””
“””In addition to the general trends of rising temperature and increasing precipitation, many studies suggest that the unusually persistent and amplified disturbances in the jet stream are associated with persistent extreme weather events like floods or drought. These persistent events have been related to high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves resulting from quasi-resonant amplification. However, there is considerable variation among climate models regarding this effect. Some predict a near-tripling of quasi-resonant amplification events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease (Mann et al., 2018).”””
“””The most significant challenge may rest on hydrological science, where we largely neglect lateral interactions happening in the atmosphere, on soil surfaces, and in soils. We poorly address lateral phenomena like advection in the atmosphere, run-on infiltration, or subsurface flows. Physical experiments designed to analyze the influence of lateral interactions on the landscape scale are almost impossible to conduct, as extensive areas would have to be included, manipulated, and replicated to fulfill statistical requirements. Hence, we rely on modeling. However, our models often disregard these lateral effects. Field size and neighborhood hardly play a role in many model calculations like evaporation. Land use is typically considered in broad categories like forestland, grassland, cropland, and urban land. We use parameter values derived decades ago, which hardly reflect the unprecedented changes within each land-use category during the last decades”””
“””Comprehensively considering all effects in modeling is hindered by data limitations, computational time constraints, and the unfavorable behavior of models that consider feedback mechanisms. Consequently, it is crucial to acknowledge our limited understanding of land-use effects. Any conclusions regarding the impact of land use based on modeling must be drawn cautiously, regardless of the apparent certainty of modeling results. In turn, considering meteorological changes only in the light of greenhouse gasses is biased by the same limitations.””””
“””Undoubtedly, measures against climate change by reducing CO2 emissions are essential and have become a global policy target. However, exclusively focusing on this goal ignores other important mitigation measures that urgently need to be realized. As illustrated here, restoring hydrologically functional landscapes and soils is at least equally important to mitigate climate change, especially concerning extremes such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves”””
Radge Haverssays
JCM,
My first blush, off-the-cuff reaction:
If what they’re saying is that climate change caused by green house gasses doesn’t account for, I don’t know, say a feedback caused by poor land management, and that they’re not saying that poor land management causes global warming instead of GHGs, then I don’t necessarily have a problem with it.
My admittedly amateur opinion runs more along the lines that, for instance, desertification exacerbated by humans is a local or regional problem in addition to GHG induced global warming.
As an aside, I don’t see the need to bash atmospheric scientists for doing atmospheric science, while at the same time ignoring all the money and effort that goes into, not just government sponsored conservation, but myriad environmental conservancies, funds, and and other non-profits large and small world-wide. Or should I presume that you spend a lot of time going to sites run by people trying to thwart those activities and register vigorous complaints there? Give those coal-rollers what for!
Thanks for that, Radge. I think JCM–or rather, his source–poses a bit of a false dichotomy.
Killiansays
You two are seeing what you want to see for some strange reason. Bashing? Seriously? Are you two snowflaking here?
I can’t speak to the accuracy of the work cited, but the argument is sound: To really understand the changing climate, we have to get much better at quantifying land use changes. As is stated and/or inferred, likely a very significant amount of flooding is due to how we have changed, decarbonized and paved over the ground. Dry soils are, absolutely, significantly hotter than high-carbon hydrated soils.
Maybe this work will enlighten why sensitivity might be as high as 7C (recent paper)…?
Just because you don’t like the suggested conclusions, don’t attack the work with Ad Hom insults.
Radge Haverssays
K,
You two are seeing what…
You apparently haven’t been following the conversation closely over the past several months.
…we have to get much better at quantifying land use changes. As is stated and/or inferred, likely a very significant amount of flooding is due to how we have changed, decarbonized and paved over the ground. Dry soils are, absolutely, significantly hotter than high-carbon hydrated soils….
Which I completely agree with. You’d know that if you’d bothered to read carefully, you’re apparently seeing what you want to see for some strange reason.
What I’d like JCM to clarify (and apparently to falsify) is how CO2 accounts for AGW, you do realize that he’s been downplaying the role of “trace gasses” in global warming, right?
…don’t attack the work with Ad Hom insults.
Whatever. That’s rich coming from you since a good portion of your rhetoric consists of belligerence.
Piotrsays
Killian: “ decarbonized the ground”
You realize that the author you defend here, JCM, dismissed concerns over carbon:
JCM June 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates
And you are lecturing others that it is them who: are seeing what you want to see for some strange reason. Bashing? Seriously? Are you snowflaking here?
And the language you use (“snowflakes”) is a language of climate deniers and MAGA-people toward concerned about environment and climate change. By the language they adopted you shall know them?
Mr. Know It Allsays
This is in reply to Piotr who said: “And the language you use (“snowflakes”) is a language of climate deniers and MAGA-people toward concerned about environment and climate change.”
As a “MAGA-people” the first time I remember hearing the term snowflakes was when watching the videos of Democrats crying like babies when Hillary lost the election in 2016. I guess it could be used generally for any folks who have to run off to a safe space when they hear an opinion they disagree with. That COULD include those “..concerned about environment and climate change”, but is not limited to those people. FYI, I just looked it up and Wikipedia seems to agree:
KIA: “ [The contemptuous label “snowflakes” assigned by QAnon and MAGA to their opponents] COULD include those “..concerned about environment and climate change”, but is not limited to those people.
Nobody said that it is limited, Genius, so you are discussing with yourself.
The point of the post to which you “reply” – was the irony of Killian toward his critics resorting to the SAME contemptuous language as QAnon and MAGA. That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …
Killiansays
Radge, gaslighting is not OK. The Peanut Gallery going after me and any others who spoke of simplicity/regenerative solutions, etc., beginning 2015 is completely documented. Self-defense is not attack. Stick to the issues or STH up.
I don’t care what JCM *has been doing;* I was responding to the content of this thread and this thread only and any other threads are irrelevant since this thread has nothing at all to do with trace gases. This paper was actually about why we are seeing so much flooding and drought and makes the argument poor design choices, i.e. land use changes, are bigger issues in that regard than temps are… at this time. This is very likely true. At the very least, its impact is very likely underestimated. The paper is not blaming climate change on land use changes – though they do contribute.
No, Kevin, it is not a false dichotomy. You didn’t understand the paper.
This is a very germane and appropriate topic. It was you two who didn’t understand it, not JCM.
Piotrsays
Killian 16 JUL “ The Peanut Gallery going after me and any others who spoke of simplicity/regenerative solutions, etc., beginning 2015 is completely documented.
As honorable member of the said Gallery, let me help you – we don’t go after you for
your “simplicity/regenerative solutions”. We go after you for you dismissing other ways of stabilizing climate, your doctrinal dismissal of the difficulties of converting the entire Earth population and socio-economic system toward your only correct solution, your incessant tooting your horn of unappreciated prophet. and your allergy to any criticism (allergic to Peanut Gallery?)
And example of the real approach to you is my post from Piotr Jul. 15
where I used your own heavily promoted source (K: “ Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design“) – to show that according to its results – even if we converted ALL croplands into permaculture – the resulting GHG mitigation would take care of substantially less than … 10 % of the current emissions.
With all the best wishes from the Peanut Gallery
Piotr
So, Killian, in what respect did I misunderstand the paper JCM quoted?
Re-reading, this bit in particular still seems to me like a false dichotomy, or perhaps more aptly yet, a straw man:
Undoubtedly, measures against climate change by reducing CO2 emissions are essential and have become a global policy target. However, exclusively focusing on this goal ignores other important mitigation measures that urgently need to be realized. As illustrated here, restoring hydrologically functional landscapes and soils is at least equally important to mitigate climate change, especially concerning extremes such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves.
Who, after all, is suggesting an “exclusive focus?” I’ve never heard anyone advocate for it.
Radge Haverssays
Word nerd alert. Re: Peanut Gallery
I admit I’m old enough to remember Howdy Doody and that the term “peanut gallery’ has long been a fond part of my lexicon. Turns out it can also be a sore spot for some, so just thought I’d pipe up with this:
…the first time I remember hearing the term snowflakes was when watching the videos of Democrats crying like babies when Hillary lost the election in 2016…
Given that Trump’s administration nearly wrecked our alliances (and thereby did severely damage our national credibility); that it divided our nation more than we’ve see since the Civil War; that it divided families forever; that it waged war on the environment not only nationally but internationally; and that it ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans unnecessarily by a bungled Covid response, their tears seem pretty prescient in retrospect.
And regardless, infinitely preferable to breaking into and vandalizing Congress in an attempt to overturn the democratic will of the people.
Mr. Know It Allsays
It is true that Trump divided the nation. He divided common sense (conservatives) from stupidity and evil (leftists). He EXPOSED the true nature of leftists, and leftists hate him for it.
Trump strengthened our alliances, particularly with NATO by threatening to withdraw IF THEY DID NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. They did it. Under Trump we had NO NEW WARS. Under Biden, we have several hot spots which could go nuclear at any moment.
He stopped the border invasion by threatening Mexico with tariffs and other sanctions, so they stopped them at THEIR southern border, not ours.
It is DEMOCRATS, not Trump or the GOP, who are trying to keep BOTH Biden and Trump off the ballot EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR BOTH OF THEM to be their nominees. So much for the party of “muh sacred democracy”.
Hope this helps.
Radge Haverssays
KIA,
Are you for real?
And just out of curiosity, what does any of that have to do with climate?
Piotrsays
JCM: “As illustrated here, restoring hydrologically functional landscapes and soils is at least equally important to mitigate climate change“.
“ at least equally important” is a quantitative statement ( X >= Y) thus require numbers supporting it. Your OPINION piece offers hardly any, and those it has – do not show that restoring hydrology has comparable or larger effect to climate change than GHG mitigation.
Contrast this with a research paper by Lague et al 2023, the paper you brought up here and recommended yourself – based on which patrick has shown the opposite – that altering hydrology by humans had negligible effect of global temperature: reforesting of ALL agricultural land would have lowered AGW by a fraction of 0.3 K). Hardly, “ at least equally important to mitigate climate change“, as reductions in GHG emissions.
Nor does your OPINION piece substantiates your earlier attack on climate science:
JCM, Jun. 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates [desertification and “massive degradation of land resources”] due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates“
I think that your conclusion (that Lague 2023 can be construed the way that human interferences with land hydrology have negligible effect on global climate) may be too bold.
On one hand, global temperature change 0.3 K caused by desertification of ca five millions square km of wetland seems to be small. On the other hand, are you sure, on the basis of a first work that attempted to deal with this topics, that we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?
Just as a reminder, there are authors like Makarieva et al who object that due to convective parametrization, present climate models do not treat latent heat flux properly and underestimate its role in climate regulation.
“…we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?”
I didn’t see anybody claim that we shouldn’t worry about it.
What I did see, is a pretty good argument that it’s not a primary driver of global warming. Remember, whether or not climate models “treat latent heat flux properly” or not, they *can* account for the observations we have pretty darn well. Which means that the latent heat issue is at best something of a solution in search of a problem, at this point.
Similarly, I do not claim that we should not worry about rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
Different from majority herein, and similarly to JCM, I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change). And I am also afraid that climate is not only temperature and that climate change is not just warming.
I asked if anyone knows climate sensitivities of the two opposite extremes of Lague’s Earth, because I guess that the “swamp land” may be significantly more robust towards changes in greenhouse gas concentration than the “desert land”. In other words, I can imagine that already the stepwise slow anthropogenic changes in land hydrology that occurred during the preindustrial era might have prepared the stage for anthropogenic global warming. Who knows?
And if so, what if the “primary cause” thereof?
I also think that e.g. the debates about aerosols illustrate the distorted “astrophysical” perspective of Earth’s climate and obsession with temperature as the sole climate feature quite well. Despite there are strong hints that proposed “mitigation” of the greenhouse effect by aerosols would have been on the expenses of a decrease in global water cycle intensity, (almost) nobody cares.
To be honest, I am more afraid of “drying” than of “warming”, because I have a strong feeling that precipitation is equally important for human civilization as temperature, however, 99% of public attention still seems to be directed just to “warming”.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kaliszsays
a correction and amendment to my post of 9 Jul 2024 at 6:11 PM,
still suffer from bigger uncertainties and lower accuracy than available global temperature reanalyses.
2) It appears that the references you kindly provided with respect to model testing by hindcasting in fact pertain to weather forecasting models, not to climate models.
3) If the “greenhouse” forcing was during the industrial era broadly “masked” (in terms of its effect on global surface temperature) by the opposite aerosol forcing, the models should be able to correctly quantify the corresponding decrease in global water cycle intensity during the industrial era, as it follows from thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, my repeated question (Do state-of-art climate models confirm the prediction of thermodynamics that the supposed broad “compensation” of greenhouse effect by aerosol pollution during industrial era in fact must have occurred on expenses of decreasing water cycle intensity?) still remains unanswered.
For all these three reasons, I still tend to believe that JCM’s objection (that present climate models treat precipitation / latent heat flux rather as a kind of freely adjustable parameters that are used for achieving the desired more-less good fit of temperature modelling with reality) may be correct.
Should it be so, then it would be, however, really advisable that conclusions and recommendations made on the basis of projections and predictions coming from these models are taken with caution.
The same might apply also for estimations in which aspects is the present climate already perturbed by anthropogenic “forcings”.
Greetings
Tomáš
Barton Paul Levensonsays
TK: I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).
BPL: Have you heard of “analysis of variance?”
nigeljsays
Thomas Kalisz.
“To be honest, I am more afraid of “drying” than of “warming”, because I have a strong feeling that precipitation is equally important for human civilization as temperature, however, 99% of public attention still seems to be directed just to “warming”.”
You should consider this study: “Climate Change Is Drying Out Earth’s Soils.”
Different from majority herein, and similarly to JCM, I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).
Yes, I think we’ve all got that point by now. But if you’re going to reiterate it, let me re-iterate mine: climate models can (and do) reproduce past climate trends pretty well. That ability gives a good evidentiary basis for thinking that we do in fact have the ability to differentiate quantitatively the strengths of various climate drivers. (And also, as an aside here, as long as we agree that there are more than one climate drivers, how could there not be some that are relatively primary and others that are relatively secondary? Sure, logically they could all have precisely the same weight, but I think that’s clearly a very remote possibility indeed.)
And I am also afraid that climate is not only temperature and that climate change is not just warming.
Welcome to mainstream climate science! (Yes, I’m being facetious here, but ‘climate science’ has long recognized that there is much more to climate change than just warming.) As an easily scanned instance, I’d point toward this:
You’ll note many topics going beyond “just warming,” including “change in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, land, and biosphere”; “Large scale patterns of climate change”; “Feedbacks between climate and biogeochemical cycles”; and most of the matter in chapters 8, 9, and 11.
To be honest, I am more afraid of “drying” than of “warming”, because I have a strong feeling that precipitation is equally important for human civilization as temperature, however, 99% of public attention still seems to be directed just to “warming”.
I think the public is a bit more aware of other dimensions than you are giving credit for. Quite a few are aware, for instance, that the observed increase in extreme precipitation events is a predicted consequence of anthropogenic climate change, as are the regional droughts bedeviling certain regions (including the North American southwest.)
Piotrsays
TK:” “Different from majority herein, and similarly to JCM, I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).”
You mean that all possible drivers have the COMPARABLE importance???
So much for your assurances how you have never tried to minimize the importance of GHGs reductions.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 10 JUL 2024 AT 4:59 PM,
TK: I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).
BPL: Have you heard of “analysis of variance?”
Dear Barton Paul,
I have to honestly admit that I had no idea about this statistical tool before I read your question. I looked into Wikipedia to gain a first information about it, but still feel quite uncertain how the method can be applied for distinguishing between supposed primary and secondary climate drivers.
More specifically – how was this method applied for showing that GHG concentration change is more important climate driver than e.g. land hydrology change?
Is a such evaluation really possible, even though it (at least from the previous discussion about global precipitation records) appears that nobody knows how the land hydrology changed not only during holocene but even during the industrial era?
I am still not sure that I explained my doubts about single and/or “primary” climate change driver clearly enough. Let me therefore try once again.
Let us assume that Lague 2023 is correct and the difference in global mean surface temperature that can be caused by opposite extremes in water availability for evaporation from the land is about 8 K.
Then it would have been clear that water availability for evaporation from land does represent a further possible climate change driver besides greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.
A first question that follows is: In which extent might have humanity changed water availability for evaporation from the land during holocene? A further question might read: Has mankind caused a significant change in water availability for evaporation from the land during industrial era?
And, last but not least, even in case that the change in water availability for evaporation might have looked significant but its direct effect on the average equilibrium global temperature might be only a tiny fraction of the above mentioned 8 K, I would like to repeat my third question: Do we know that the change in water availability for evaporation from land has no effect on Earth climate sensitivity to other forcings, such as the greenhouse gases concentration?
Should present climate change resulted from a synergy between greenhouse effect of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic land hydrology perturbations that made Earth climate more vulnerable thereto, was the “primary driver” the carbon dioxide, the hydrology perturbation, or might be perhaps better to not insist that any complex effect must have a simple / single or “main” cause?
Greetings
Tomáš
Barton Paul Levensonsays
TK: More specifically – how was this method applied for showing that GHG concentration change is more important climate driver than e.g. land hydrology change?
BPL: Do a multiple regression of temperature anomalies on both CO2 and some measure of land hydrology changes. Then do regressions with one at a time removed. Which accounts for more variance?
Tomáš Kaliszsays
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 13 JUL 2024 AT 8:28 AM,
I think that you largely overestimate my abilities – I definitely think it is rather a task for professional climate scientists having both the training in application of these statistical methods as well as the access to the respective data.
I only somewhat wonder that if the task is so straightforward as you present it, why nobody herein has already cited a bunch of publications describing the results of such works.
If I understood you correctly, this would have been indeed a direct, hardly disputable support for the assertion that changes in the atmospheric concentration of non- condensing greenhouse gases are the major cause of the observed climate change and that other forcings are indeed secondary and/or of minor importance.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “ I think that your conclusion may be too bold
Too bad that so far you have been impotent to prove it.
TK On one hand, global temperature change 0.3 K caused by desertification of ca five millions square km of wetland seems to be small
Nobody was talking about your hare-brained scheme to increase global desalination 1000-fold, and spread this water over 5 mln km2, and maintain this scheme for 100s of years in the hope of achieving up to 0.3K of cooling – which by that time would have benn long eclipsed by the warming caused by the cumulated GHG emissions from running your scheme over 100s of years.
Instead, I was talking about patrick calculations (hence the name “patrick” and not “Kalisz” in the post to which you reply). Patrick calculated that abandoning of all agriculture would cool the Earth by mere 0.3K, and even that not accounting for the warming by the abandonment of irrigation of croplands, which without crops would have no justification. This effect would have reduced the 0.3K cooling, or even reverse it into an additional … warming.
TK: “ are you sure, on the basis of a first work that attempted to deal with this topics”
Buyers remorse? Shouldn’t you told this your JCM who brought “this work” up and described it in painful detail over many pages. Instead, you embraced it as a support of your and JCM narrative (minimize the importance of GHG reductions in response to AGW in favour of human intervention in the global water cycle). Interesting how both of you have started to question the reliability of JCM’s own source – ONLY AFTER we showed that it proves the opposite to what you had claimed it does.
TK: “ that we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?
Don’t change the subject. Mr. Kalisz – we re talking here about your crazy schemes of increasing global evaporation as an ALTERNATIVE to reduction of GHGs. Nobody has been proposing to “ not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology,etc“.
That you would imply that tells me that either you are incapable to understand what is being patiently explained to you again and again, or you and JCM are trolls who unable to defend your denying the importance of GHGs as a driver of AGW – try to portray the criticism of your denialism as … callous indifference toward non-AGW effects of humans impacts on ecosystems:
e.g. JCM’s: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.”
The Occam’s razor suggest that you and JCM are either dense, or dishonest. Neither characteristic particularly useful in a discussion.
I think that the main reason for JCM’s efforts may be his concern – which I share with him – that every kind of greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
If you agree to the importance of soil, terrestrial vegetation and land hydrology in climate regulation, then I do not think that there is a substantial difference between yours and JCM’s perspective, I do not think that he has ever proposed dealing with soil conservation and land hydrology INSTEAD of GHG reduction.
I choose the example with wetland desertification, because I believe it is simpler than Patrick’s example with forest to cropland conversion. Please be aware that Patrick had to introduce a few further assumptions that may be quite uncertain and thus significantly complicate the picture. And also please note that my desertification example does not comprise the technical issues with desalination etc. that might have obscured the opposite example with desert irrigation.
As a layman, I can no way assess validity of Lague 2023. I am really happy that this publication occurred, and hope that much more attention will be paid to the influence of land hydrology for global climate in the future.
Greetings
Tomáš
Barton Paul Levensonsays
TK: I think that the main reason for JCM’s efforts may be his concern – which I share with him – that every kind of greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
BPL: Absolutely no one here is against preventing soil degradation or water cycle deteriorating (whatever that is).
Radge Haverssays
TK,
I do not think that he has ever proposed dealing with soil conservation and land hydrology INSTEAD of GHG reduction.
No, pretty sure he’s attributing an outsized cause of AGW to lack of soil conservation, instead of GHGs.
Outsized.
In terms of adaptation and maybe local mitigation, yeah damn well better protect soils, also build sea walls, cool down urban heat islands, and so on.
So what is impacting what? No doubt there’s feed back from the state of soils and the biomes that depend on them, but the significance of that is still an open question, and appealing to principles of of culture just won’t answer. Those principles may turn out to be explanatory of why something has gone awry in the modeling after it’s been conclusively shown to be, in this case, massively in error.
Big picture, the modeling seems to concord remarkably well with observation– hindcasting, forecasting, and all that good stuff. Do you really think climate scientists are so far gone that they wouldn’t have noticed if it were otherwise?
That’s my take, anyway.
Piotrsays
TK: greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
Unfortunately for this claim – patricks calculations using JCM own source have shown that human-driven changes in evaporation are just too small to have a significant effect on AGW.
Ergo we have to address the AGW by mitigating GHG emissions, and NOT by diverting the resources from GHG reductions to hare-brained schemes of yours of artificially increasing global evaporation.
And this has been obvious not only from analysis of JCM’s source (Lague et al 2023), but also from elementary scale analysis:
– humans CAN significantly change the balance of GHG fluxes, and GHG conc. in atmosphere
– humans CAN’T significantly change the water cycle – because the incomparable larger volume of natural water fluxes, limited amount of water we have not yet tapped, and the very short residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere – 2-10 days, compared to at least DECADES of GHGs.
That you, Shurly and JCM refuse to acknowledge it – just proves your intentions – you inflate the importance of human effects on water cycle to AGW, in order to reduce the importance of GHG emissions.
The only outstanding question is why – are you paid trolls of the fossil fuel lobby and/or Russia, or more likely just their useful idiots – who jumped into Russia’s bed for an ego gratification, something along the lines:
“if hardly anybody recognizes the crucial importance of water cycle to AGW mitigation, but I do, then I must be really really smart!“
First of all, I would like to mention that as much as I know, JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management by provision of additional water supply for evaporation using technical means. He strongly focuses rather on soil quality, organic matter content therein, and lanscape ecological functionality.
As regards further objections raised by you, let me now focus only on one point, namely your assertion that “humans CAN’T significantly change the water cycle”.
I think you in fact meant something like “based on Lague2023,
even a quite significant change of five millions square kilometers of wetland into desert or oppositely, representing about 3% change in global latent heat flux, would have resulted in global mean surface temperature change as small as about 0.3 K only”.
I do not think, however, that humanity is not capable to cause latent heat flux changes of this order of magnitude – although the exact global cumulative excess of the already caused changes (that could be evaluated from similar points of view as in the article
I would like to turn your attention to the circumstance that from a practical perspective, desertification of five millions square km wetland, or any analogous change in terrestrial hydrology, may have dramatical consequences that are not on the first look obvious from the seemingly small average global temperature change which would have accompanied this water cycle change.
What is important and JCM strives to emphasize: These hydrology changes very likely occur (and, possibly, accumulate) much longer than only during the industrial era. They accelerated, however, very likely during the last decades significanty. They might have represented a threat for humanity even in case that there was no issue with anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions and global warming caused therewith.
It is my opinion that neglecting this threat is risky, and even more risky may be neglecting possible negative synergy between both anthropogenic climate change drivers.
I think that JCM speaks rather about “climate change” than just about “AGW”, and then, if we will speak about drivers of climate change rather than about drivers of the observed global warming, I tend to agree with him that nobody knows yet the quantitative contribution of various drivers to the observed changes.
I think that it applies especially if someone focuses on other aspects of the climate change than just changes in the mean global surface temperature. I think that for example the previous discussion on this website about historical record of global precipitation provided a hint that other aspects of the climate change still remain very unclear. It is my feeling that scientific efforts to quantify contributions of various drivers to such aspects of the climate change as the changes in terrestrial hydrology still remain in an embryonal development stage.
I think that I understand why JCM is reluctant to acknowledge that relatively mature understanding to mechanisms of global waming can be easily extrapolated to climate change in its entirety. I have a feeling that describing anthropogenic climate change just as “global Earth warming” may be like painting a landscape using one colour only. Or, possibly, as recording a a social event solely as a motion picture, without sound. In some cases, e.g. if the recorded event will be a TV discussion, there may be very weak link between the information that is comprised in the visual record, and the one comprised in the acoustic record. Accordingly, an evaluation of the recorded event that will focus on one of these aspects only may result in a severe bias.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz July 16: “I would like to mention that as much as I know, JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management”
That’s because he is a more clever denier than you. The clever denier never makes specific proposals – since that can be verified with numbers and their absurdity. be shown.
That’s while appreciating you being on his side, JCM keeps distance from your SPECIFIC proposals, which absurdity I have shown repeatedly in these threads (tha latest one in the post to which you “reply”)
For the same reason, when Lague et al 2023 , promoted on RC by JCM source – was used by patrick and showed how SMALL effect to global temp, human changes in evaporation produce – JCM turned on his own source , dismissing the analysis of the numbers from Lague et al 2023, and therefore by extension – the credibility of modelling by Lague et al., – by disparaging modelling: “ imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be” according to their authors, and as such – offer no insight into the real world.
I have a feeling that describing anthropogenic climate change just as “global Earth warming” may be like painting a landscape using one colour only.
Nice image, but as I’ve previously written, there is ample consideration of many other aspects of anthropogenic climate given in any and all of the ARs from the last 20 years. This includes land use, atmospheric circulation, carbon cycle, hydrological cycle, and more. That’s not to say that the ARs are infallible or perfect–though I think they are remarkable scholarly projects indeed!–but they certainly aren’t ‘painting monochromes.’
I cannot speak for JCM, however, I think that when he mentioned the “imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be”, it is well possible that he addressed rather the way how you and Patrick treated the message brought by Lague 2023 than this article specifically or modelling generally.
I think that very cautiously formulated conclusions, as provided by the authors of the article, may be a hint that they were well aware of many unavoidable limitations they met and could, with the available resources, hardly resolve better. In this respect, I do not wonder that JCM disagrees with bold claims (like “human interferences with water cycle cannot significantly influence global climate”) construed from the same article by you.
To be more specific, I will try to show on one detail why I, on one hand, appreciate the exercise made by Lague et al, but on the other hand, am reluctant to take quantitative estimations from their article as a proven truth.
Please look on Figure 4 reporting the computed differences in precipitation between the two “swamp land” and “desert land” extreme model cases. You wil see that on land, the studied model afforded a difference in annual precipitation between these two extremes in a quite humble size, namely 88 mm.
Personally, I somewhat doubt that converting the entire land on Earth from a swamp to a perfectly sealed and drained parking lot would have caused a such relatively tiny difference. I rather suspect that the entire land would have step-by step changed in a real desert with annual sum of precipitation corresponding to such climates on the recent Earth. In other words, I can imagine that in a real case, the difference in land precipitation between the swamp land and the desert land might have been counted rather in hundreds of mm annually than in higher tens of mm as computed by Lague et al.
I am aware that IPCC deals with various aspects of climate change, including changes in cryosphere, hydrosphere, etc.
Yet it is my feeling that JCM is correct that the prevailing perspective is treating all these aspects as mere “feedbacks” to the changing greenhouse effect which is caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and somewhat mitigated by anthropogenic aerosol emissions acting oppositely. It was my feeling that the “LULUCF” chapter deals mostly with surface albedo, carbon dioxide sequestration in plants, and with agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases.
It is further my feeling that this approach, prevailing already on the basic level of individual scientific publications, is strongly amplified when a message in form of a summary for “policy makers” is extracted therefrom, and then even further amplified by media and various activists and educators.
I do not know curricula taught in climate science courses, nevertheless, I am aware of some hints that the narrow perspective of climate change as a “global warming caused by anthropogenic perturbations to radiative equilibrium” is widespread also among people who work as professional meteorologists and/or climatologists and inform the public in the Czech Republic where I am from.
I already mentioned the official report of the Czech Academy of Sciences “Avex 4/2020” and a public exchange between authors of this report and two biologists who criticized the absence of any mention of anthropogenic degradation of soils and hydrology therein. The authors of the report assigned their opponents as pseudo scientists and in parallel asserted that terrestrial evapotranspiration cannot play any role in global climate because it would have been in conflict with the law of energy conservation.
Analogously herein on the RC discussion forum, JCM became suspect of being a paid agent of Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, striving to support their fossil fuel business by diverting resources from life-saving mitigation of greenhouse gases towards unnecessary soil conservation.
Greetings
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Tomas Kalisz says: “Analogously herein on the RC discussion forum, JCM became suspect of being a paid agent of Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, striving to support their fossil fuel business by diverting resources from life-saving mitigation of greenhouse gases towards unnecessary soil conservation.”
Wrong. Dont just make things up Tomas. The facts are some people have suggested JCM might be a climate denialist / paid agent of fossil fules companies because of 1) rhetoric suggesting greenhouse gases are not the main component of global warming, (without being able to provide any proof) and 2) his support of crazy irrigation schemes to cool the planet. Nothing about soil conservation and how much funding it should get.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz Jul 19: “ I cannot speak for JCM
and yet you are doing it all the time – the latest example 3 days before:
Tomas Kalisz Jul 16: “ JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management by provision of additional water supply for evaporation using technical means.”
You can’t eat a cake, and then try to score points for not eating cakes.
TK JUl. 19: “ when JCM” mentioned the “imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be”, it is well possible that he addressed rather the way how you and Patrick treated the message brought by Lague 2023”
In science we discuss the results of models, not the “messages” that JCM and you have read into those results, particularly that both of you have a record of either not understanding what is being written, or have confirmation bias – cherry-picking only these parts than can be construed as a support of your beliefs, while ignoring the rest.
And when JCM unable to show SPECIFIC problems with Patrick’s or my calculations, goes into the generalities and talks about
“ imaginary process mechanisms ” and about choosing “ rules about how things ought to be”
– then he does not apply it to our calculations. since we have done neither, but only to the credibility of the RESULTS of Lague et al that we had used. So he attacked the credibility of Lague et al, and climate modelling in general. Which fits well with JCM open contempt toward climate models, at least those that counter his beliefs at the importance of human changes in evaporation over dealing with GHGs, e.g.:
JCM’: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates . ”
This case is amusing because JCM started thinking that Lague et al support him – so he brought it up on RC and typed many pages of paper’s results minutia. But when Patrick and I used the main result of this paper in calculations showing how insignificant are human-changes in water cycle to addressing AGW – JCM threw Lague et al. under the bus (see above).
So Mr. Kalisz, don’t talk about things you have very little understanding of, and, perhaps, start doing what you say (TK: “ I cannot speak for JCM“).
Piotr has constructed a bizarre strawman and he stubbornly clings to it for months. Either he is upset or confused because the communication was already clarified long ago. Despite this, he projects accusations of dishonesty, as if everyone operates like him. It’s both sad and ridiculous
Regarding your additional comments, The essential premise in Lague’s process-based model is that suppressing terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by limiting cloud and raising temperature.
“””The anomalous surface energy fluxes driven by atmospheric cloud, water vapor, and temperature feedbacks are larger than the initial change in latent heat flux driven directly by suppressed terrestrial evaporation”””
The precipitation depends on the residence time of atmospheric water vapor, where residence time as a ratio τ ≡ precipitable water / global mean precipitation.
τ increases from 6.7 days in SwampLand to 10.2 days in Desertland.
I reckon the residence time is very uncertain, and no change in precipitation is foreseeable if τ is placed at 8 or 9 days. Conversely, significant precipitation declines if τ doubles, or an increase if τ remains constant under ET suppression.
Comparatively, Ghausi finds the same principle of coupling ET and cloud using their analytical thermodynamic boundary constraints framework, independently from Lague’s complex process model.
Ghausi:
“””We show that the mean temperature variation across dry and humid regions is mainly controlled by clouds that reduce surface heating by solar radiation.”””
“””Our results imply that the role of evaporation on continental land surface temperatures is not determined by evaporative cooling at the surface but by the ability of evaporation to affect the local cloud cover.”””
“””The main effect of hydrologic cycling on surface temperatures is modulated mostly by clouds that alter the mean radiative environment…”
“””Although arid regions also have a higher surface albedo, we show that changes in absorbed solar radiation with aridity are largely due to decrease in cloud cover.”””
“””This approach works very well in predicting observed climatological variations in surface temperatures, showing that arid regions are typically warmer due to the stronger solar heating in the absence of clouds.”””
The difference is Ghausi is limited to constraints in local profiles, while Lague uses a GCM which brings in the ocean influence under higher temperature.
“””while a reduction in land evaporation is expected to produce a transient reduction in local atmospheric water vapor, changes in the precipitating atmospheric circulation dominate to allow more water to accumulate in the atmosphere and then be maintained at that higher level.”””
Comparatively, in terms of global energy budgets, IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers makes no mention of the direct link between desertification and decreased cloud.
IPCC SRCCL:
A.4.1
“””Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small (medium confidence).”””
A.4.4
“””Desertification amplifies global warming through the release of CO2 linked with the decrease in vegetation cover (high confidence). This decrease in vegetation cover tends to increase local albedo, leading to surface cooling (high confidence).”””
The report implies that the impact on the mean radiative environment through landscape destruction can only be related to the warming influence of GHG and surface albedo change. In this view, the principle of interest is out of scope – cloud change is implicitly deemed a feedback to temperature and effective radiative forcing, not linked to ET suppression.
Qualitative predictions for profound desertification outside the scope of the IPCC include the following impacts: decreased SW outgoing radiation, increased all-sky LW outgoing radiation, reduced precipitation area (frequency), more precipitable water, decreased relative humidity, and increased hydrological and temperature extremes. Annual precipitation change is probably relatively small.
Cheers Tomas, and thanks for your ongoing good-spirited input.
Piotrsays
JCM Piotr has constructed a bizarre strawman and he stubbornly clings to it for months. Either he is upset or confused because the communication was already clarified long ago
Why should _I_ be upset at _you_ showing everybody what YOUR intellect and personal integrity are worth?
But yes – both “have been clarified long ago”:
1. patrick used the results of your own source (Lague et al. 2023) and show how little human alterations of the water cycle matter to Global T. – he calculated that the reduction in evaporation from converting natural land cover with to the current area of croplands, Such massive, civilization-wide alteration, amounted to warming by 0.3K.
2. I pointed out that even this is an overestimate – e.g. it does not take into account the growing crops invited cropland irrigation, which increases evaporation from the croplands – thus COUNTERING the reduction of evaporation from p.1,, and therefore offsetting at least a part of that 0.3K warming.
3. Unable to falsify any specific part of patrick’s calculations, nor my comment about crop irrigation – JCM responded with vague accusations of:
JCM: imaginary process mechanisms that [apply arbitrary] rules about how things ought to be ” according to their authors, and as such – offer no insight into the real world.
Since I have not introduced any “imaginary process mechanisms” nor “rules about how things ought to be” (irrigation of the field is not “imaginary” nor follows my rules) – hence the only way to read it – is an attack on the credibility of the RESULTS of the model by Lague at al, that both patrick and me have used.
And since JCM didn’t show specifically WHICH processes Lague modelled were “imaginary”
and which of the rules they used in their model were dishonest (designed to produce the a priori hoped for results) – then the accusation of “ imaginary process mechanisms” and “rules about how things ought to be” are general in nature – thus apply to the results of ANY climate modelling.
Which is consistent with JCM other attacks on the climate science, like the one in which he blamed global deforestation and massive destruction of environment on … climate scientists and their models:
“ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.” (c) JCM
As for the underlying motives of JCM – Occam’s razor suggests a Killian syndrome – if the best in the field, climate scientists publishing in best scientific journals, CAN’T see what I,
a layperson can, then I, JCM, must be …. really, really, smart, a “fiercely-independent” mind.
JCMsays
In response to Piotr,
I have no particular desire to revisit the issue, but I want to remind you, not an imagined audience, that in my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth System.
In that vein, it is worth placing the issue within context. Personally I find it fascinating to witness the ongoing cognitive dissonance on display among detractors and cynics. I do recognize this website is specifically catered to debunking, not for productive discourse, but there is a risk of becoming mired in negativity and prejudice, leading to destructive outcomes. The prevailing negative undertones in the climate space are obvious to interested stakeholders and, frankly, it’s repulsive. This benefits no one.
I am not one of the run-of-the mill idiots you might face on other platforms, and I repeat that I strongly encourage you and your buddies to get a grip.
I do recognize that environmental conservation as it is known originated from conservative politics a century ago, such as in McKinney’s Ontario with conservation authorities built on the model of local governance boards based on regional watershed extent. However, those roots are now long gone. Today, conservative politics generally endorses a centrally manifest ignorance of environmental issues — a complete 180. The regulatory governance space in Ontario appears to be totally undermined by phony logics, when until recently it was a global leader: https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-conservation-authorities-changes/
People like me find ourselves in a nebulous space between trace gas techno-ideologues and contemporary denialists, both of whom exhibit almost total ignorance of the reality outside. This seems to result from urbanization bias in decision-making across the political spectrum, media landscape, and educational curricula. I recommend repeatedly to go outside and touch the soil for spiritual renewal. You will not find this through a screen. Recently on Dan Miller’s “Climate Chat” reputable physicist/climate scientist David Keith responded that ecologies have practically no connections at all to realclimates, but that “protecting intact ecosystems” is important to him so his great grandchildren can have nature viewing opportunities. WTF
According to the IPCC SRCCL, human activities directly affect more than 70% (likely 69–76%) of the global, ice-free land surface (high confidence). That is an insanely huge area of (direct) influence. IMO it’s essentially impossible to truly grasp the scale. Intact ecologies are gone. oops. no viewing opportunities.
This translates to about 10 to 15 billion hectares. In my estimate (and experience), around half of this land has become effectively ecologically dysfunctional. This could be sampled in any community today. This includes rendering soil to rockflour, immense catchment drainage, and replacing natural forests with plantation (and so-on). The destruction continues at a rate equivalent to 4 football fields per second. From Pennsylvania to Philippines, and everywhere in between, this is ongoing. Perhaps 35% of the global, ice-free land surface totally impaired, and the other 35% on the downslide. This 69-76% direct influence then impacts indirectly the remaining lands through downstream connection.
In contrast, Patrick o’s rough estimate of 0.3K and your subsequent fixation was limited to about 1.5 billion hectares (10-15% of the global, ice-free land surface). This was based on a static concept of landuse change to foodcrop (or something).
As a gesture of good faith, I suggested that Patrick O’s estimate might be a reasonable guesstimate, even if the conceptual framework was flawed A 0.3K guess could represent (0.3K/1.5K) 20% of human-caused global warming to date. A significant figure. Adding in a 5% loss of soil organics and the missing atmospheric carbon sink increases the ecological destruction to roughly 25% of global warming by including major trace gas effects. Additionally, converting soil to rockflour requires additional life support systems, such as huge artificial chemical fertilizer manufacture and input, and extra passes with compaction and associated major and minor trace gas influence. In USA timber is administered under the USDA (Ag). Carving drainage channels through woodland and converting distributed catchment process to downstream reservoir is a profound disruption. Additionally, use of biocides and converting natural forests to timber significantly impact biological condensation nuclei and nutrient cycling.
Now there is almost nowhere you can insert a soil probe without pounding it, whereas historically it would go-in with ease. Try camping at the local plantation recreation parcel – do you have to pound the tent pegs? That is not normal or natural.
These are complex issues, nobody disputes that, and applying arbitrary corrections to Patrick’s 0.3K estimate is likely misleading. In fact, it’s audacious and misconceived to believe this would be convincingly sorted using a process akin to scribbles on a napkin, particularly when the conceptual framework was restricted to a small fractional area of human influence. This is know for certain. I don’t think anyone claims to have definitive statements other than you.
In general, however, I am pleased to see your recent change of perspective, Piotr. Initially, you argued profusely (and with contempt) that improved terrestrial moisture availability in space and duration was directly related to a warming influence. Now, it’s clear that you understand how moisture availability represents a stabilizing influence on realclimates, in addition to the rich co-benefits across a range of interests. This is a wonderful outcome, and I couldn’t have asked for more. This insight, already known by professionals, has somehow become missing in basic teaching and even denied by political fanatics.
cheers
Supplementary:
Global surface energy budget closure remains elusive to no better than 20 watts per meter square; the wide range of protocols for LSM modules in coupled ESMs display conditions ranging from increasing to net decreasing ET; ERA5L displays a significant decreasing trend in ET, FluxCOM displays a non significant decreasing trend; CMIP6 displays a significant increasing trend, along with the known biases in spaceborne remote sensing retrievals. On the flipside, global annually averaged precipitation volumes appear to remain rather stable during global warming, as opposed to 2-3% per K in CMIP. This suggests important constraints on the hydrological regime that should be improved with a coordinated refocus on the subject. I have not yet heard any objective rationale why this should be resisted, other than perhaps the comfort of holding onto a simplified conceptual framework for communication, and perhaps the freedom in compensating errors to calibrate regional and global climate parameters.
JCMsays
clarification: the 5% soil organics remark was in reference to the relative contribution to atmospheric trace greenhouse gas concentration. Soil organic net loss continues at a rate 1-20 tons per acre per year. The only sustainable rate is zero net loss. For each gram organics retains 8x its mass in moisture, reduces bulk density, and enables biogeochemical cycling process. The loss of soil organic matter is synonymous with desertification.
Radge Haverssays
JCM,
I guess this is a good enough place to ask what ‘realclimates’ are. Other than the name of a blog (this one) the closest thing I’m finding is ‘reacclimate’.
I do recognize that environmental conservation as it is known originated from conservative politics a century ago, such as in McKinney’s Ontario with conservation authorities built on the model of local governance boards based on regional watershed extent. However, those roots are now long gone. Today, conservative politics generally endorses a centrally manifest ignorance of environmental issues — a complete 180. The regulatory governance space in Ontario appears to be totally undermined by phony logics, when until recently it was a global leader: https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-conservation-authorities-changes/
This is starting to sound like a manifesto, and it draws overly broad conclusions from a peculiar reading of a local situation. It certainly doesn’t concord with what I’ve seen elsewhere.
I have to ask where you’ve demonstrated that Big Climate (or whatever) is generally hurting conservation efforts at a significant scale? Trying to poke a few holes here and there isn’t convincing. Not to me anyway.
I recommend repeatedly to go outside and touch the soil for spiritual renewal.
It’s big assumptions like the one buried in that sentence that undermine your credibility. Condescension much?
FWIW, I doubt anyone here thinks you’re an idiot. However ‘steadfastly eccentric’ does come to mind…
Let us assume that Lague 2023 is correct and the difference in global mean surface temperature that can be caused by opposite extremes in water availability for evaporation from the land is about 8 K.
Then it would have been clear that water availability for evaporation from land does represent a further possible climate change driver besides greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.
No, because IIRC 1) the “opposite extremes,” or anything like them, have not been shown to be a realistic possible scenario, and 2) the “opposite extremes,” or anything like them, certainly have not been realized in the real world. Hence, they cannot be driving the observed changes in temperature, hydrology, circulation patterns and so on. And, to reiterate, the actual change in RF *can*.
Many thanks for your comment, although I have a feeling that our thoughts still resemble two extraneous lines that do not intersect anywhere.
I think that studying extreme cases may be useful even though they cannot be realized in the real world. It is my understanding that by computing the difference in global average temperature between the two extreme states, Lague 2023 provided a quite strong hint that water availability for evaporation from land can indeed play a role in global climate. I appreciate this work because there was a significant scepticism if such an effect can exist, and the doubts in this direction were expressed very clearly in some posts herein on RC.
I think that the hint provided by Lague 2023 justifies further questions I have recently asked:
1) In which extent might we (mankind) have changed water availability for evaporation from the land during holocene?
2) Has mankind caused a significant change in water availability for evaporation from the land during industrial era?
3) Are we sure that a change in water availability for evaporation from land has no effect on Earth climate sensitivity to other forcings, such as the greenhouse gases concentration?
I hoped that someone with a profound climate science knowledge can either cite some publications providing at least partial answers, or confirm that there is still a knowledge gap in this direction.
Many thanks for your comment, although I have a feeling that our thoughts still resemble two extraneous lines that do not intersect anywhere.
\
Oh, they are intersecting, all right–precisely at the point of considering whether “water availability for evaporation from land” is a possible “climate change driver” or not. I’m saying it is not. You persist in saying, well, it seems like it could be, because there is a hint in Lague et al.
Why I think not:
1) As I’ve emphasized, RF forcings have been shown to a pretty high degree of confidence to account for observed warming, and other observed changes, too. One cause is satisfying, if both necessary and sufficient. Two is an embarrassment–and your possible cause is by your own account manifested as “a hint.”
2) Precipitation has increased, as has absolute humidity. This implies that evapotranspiration must also have increased. Now, maybe the oceans are taking up the slack for decreased evaporation on land. But even so, how would a shift to a larger marine share of evaporation vs. terrestrial cause the entire system to warm?
As a layman, I do not see any trend therein, perhaps except that interannual oscillations in the time span 1901-1940 seem to have smaller amplitude than oscillations between 1940 and 2021.
I assume that if there was an analogous global precipitation reanalysis, someone would already cited the respective reference herein. I therefore rather suspect that no such thing does exist yet.
I therefore suppose that the fit of models with reality, which can be taken into account as an evidence for emissions of greenhouse gases as the sole cause of the observed climate change, pertains solely to the fit of the modelled surface temperatures with available reanalyses of the global surface temperature. Am I right, or do you anyway know a comparison with both the temperature as well as precipitation global record?
As regards your question: “How would a shift to a larger marine share of evaporation vs. terrestrial cause the entire system to warm?” I think that it is just Lague 2023 who provides some hints that lower evaporation from the land can cause global warming. It was my understanding that this effect results from the circumstance that in such a situation, global water cycle intensity in fact decreases – in other words, a slight increase in the latent heat flux from ocean does not compensate the latent heat flux decrease from the land. According to Lague 2023, this effect is further amplified by cloud feedback and by the greenhouse effect caused by higher global absolute humidity.
I do not know if Lague 2023 is indeed correct. I already mentioned my doubts about some quantitative estimations provided therein, in my reply to Piotr of 19 Jul 2024 at 8:41 AM ,
That is why I speak about a “hint”. On the other hand, I also do not see any clear evidence yet, undoubtedly showing that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial water cycle have NOT contributed to the observed climate change.
As I tried to suggest by my questions that I repeatedly asked (last time on 18 Jul 2024 at 8:24 AM), I can imagine that human interferences with land hydrology may perhaps indeed have a low direct influence on global mean surface temperature. We should, however, take into account also other aspects of climate such as precipitation. Moreover, the possibility of an indirect influence, such as changes in climate sensitivity towards other “forcings”, should be in my opinion considered as well.
Greetings
Tomáš
Barry E Finchsays
At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7CLnU2EVQ at 13:50 is seen a linear Delta-GSAT rate of +0.32 degrees/decade from 2010-2024 (14 years) and also is seen a linear Delta-GSAT rate of +0.31 degrees/decade from 1934-1946 (12 years). Does this mean that global warming accelerated mid 1930s to mid 1940s or does it mean that a record of 14 years length is required to dampen the noise of natural fluctuations enough for high-quality assessment and 12 years is woefully inadequate?
You are correct that a 14-year OLR thro’ GISTEMP between mid-1930s and mid-1940s yields rates of warming roughly +0.3ºC/decade, a rate that held for about 5 years. The rate prior to that was running less than +0.1ºC/decade for a couple of decades, and after the +0.3ºC/decade period it quickly dropped into negative territory.
The use of 14-year-long OLRs does need a better analysis than that given by Hansen et al. The rate seen prior to the period 2002-15 had been very roughly +0.2ºC/decade for more than three decades and after than it rapidly rose to roughly +0.3ºC/decade.
I posted a graphic HERE of the recent 168-month (=14 yr) rolling OLR, with early 20th century values also shown.
The Hansen thesis is that the acceleration from +0.2ºC/decade to +0.3ºC/decade, now being fueled by the “bananas” temperatures of late 2023, cannot be attributed to El Niño because the 2023-24 El Niño was not strong enough to be responsible for the “bananas”. I don’t agree – not the least, why was the impact of the 2015-16 El Niño so much greater than the 1997-98 El Niño?
And with Hansen et al giving no attribution to El Niño, they insist:-
Thus, we ascribe the post-2010 acceleration of warming and the deceptive appearance of a supergiant El Nino to reduction of human-made tropospheric aerosols, mainly reduction of sulphates from power plants and other sources (especially in China) and regulations on sulphates in ship fuels.
Myself, I would point to that three-decade period where the rate of warming was stuck at roughly +0.2ºC/decade and ask why it persisted until the 2015-16 El Nino began to appear in the data. The climate models were suggesting we should have been seeing warming rates at roughly +0.27ºC/decade by then, not stuck at +0.2ºC/decade, and the recent increase in warming rate post-2015/16 shown in these 14-year OLRs isn’t greatly different from such a rate. Indeed, if different lengths of OLR and alternative methods are used, the +0.27ºC/decade looks like a pretty good estimate.
I haven’t been able to find the reference for a while, but there was a paper about 10 years back that said based on Monte Carlo simulations that the minimum span required to reliably detect a warming trend in the observational record was 18 years. That could presumably, and in principle, change. But it would suggest that yes, 12 years was grossly inadequate, and probably 14, too.
There was a sort of empirical trial of this, in that the execrable “Lord” Monckton ran a series of so-called analyses for several years that showed that “warming had stopped” just about 18 years ago. I wrote about it here:
Monckton apparently even tried to restart this notion in 2022, after a years-long ‘hiatus’ caused by a period of more rapid warming that imploded his thesis.
Needless to say, warming did not stop. You’d think these guys would have the grace to be at least a little embarrassed after decades of failed claims. And maybe some are–and have just silently slunk off to attack trans kids, or immigrants, or wind turbines instead. Or maybe we’ll be hearing from them again, soon, if as seems likely 2025 fails to continue the record warm streak we are currently living in.
Sydney Bridgessays
When I first attended Cambridge in 1969, I took no interest in the student politics. But I did hear from others who were more on the left, of this clown who turned up at the meetings in a gown and mortar board, proclaiming “I’m a fascist!” That was the first time that I heard the name “Christopher Monckton.” So he can tell the truth on occasion.
John Masheysays
See 3-post thread: https://mstdn.social/@JohnMashey/112743920526541935
I updated an old spreadsheet that graphs the regression slopes for N-year intervals, plotted at *end* of interval, with controls to interactively raise/lower the interval size. This elimnates challenge of eyeballing graphs and estimating rates of change in noisy diagonal lines.
Kevin: “Lord” Monckton [claimed] “warming had stopped” just about 18 years ago”
I have seen many, including a professor of plant biology from Sweden who claimed that it stopped earlier – their “years and months since the end of the so-called global warming” they counted from the warmest month of the 1997/1998 El Nino…
And of those you quote – I like the one illustrating a recent subject of the deniers confusion about time-scales:
“ Only a fool or a paid lackey with vested interests in keeping the AGW charade going still believe in catastrophic Global Warming. All evidence points to a coming Ice Age, which is due anytime soon“.
I.e. explaining the supposed trend over a dozen of years by the glaciation trends that happened over 10,000s years, and which were driven by very different factors that do not change in any appreciable way over 100s, or 1000s of years.
And then came the obligatory anti-science proclamations:
“ a coming Ice Age, which is due anytime soon, and that is backed up by solid 100% real world historical data, not some BS computer models with programmers in the pay of the environmental movement.”
I.e. a rustic (N. Ontario?) version of our JCM, who also tried to discredit climate science and climate modelling:
JCM Jun 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences
[desertification and “massive degradation of land resources”] due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates”
Well, I’m from Northern Ontario, too, so I don’t grudge ‘Mr. NO’ has origins. Nor does it make you a rustic, necessarily–though we certainly had, and have, ‘rustics’ in Northern Ontario. (But we also have higher education and industry.)
Piotrsays
Kevin: “ we also have higher education
I didn’t imply that you don’t – the point was that when one calls themselves: “NorthernOnt”, then rather not to invoke your higher education/research into climate change.
And the quality and the tone of the argument by the said “NorthernOnt”. is … not a strong indication of having been exposed to the higher education … Rather a QAnon-North, or MNOGA (Make Northern Ontario Great Again).
Susan Andersonsays
fwiw, we participated in a massive ‘experiment’ which is an early warning of the effects of human interference. We caused the dust bowl when we ploughed up the prairies in a massive giveaway to settlers.
That period is not an exception but another data point on our long road to excess.
Spoken like a true disciple of Julian Simon (‘we can feed up to 70 billion people’ and ‘if we’re worried about species extinctions why not just put them in a few zoos’) because he doesn’t think anything other than human beings count.
Monoculture anyone?
Why not rather stop making so many rabbits while we are ahead? And 12? Then it’ll be 14. Then 18. Then 20. Then ….
Secular Animistsays
FYI:
A March 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that:
“If U.S. farmers took all the land currently devoted to raising cattle, pigs and chickens and used it to grow plants instead, they could sustain more than twice as many people as they do now … If beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all were replaced by a nutritionally equivalent combination of potatoes, peanuts, soybeans and other plants, the total amount of food available to be eaten would increase by 120%, the researchers calculated.”
I don’t think that “sustain” is the right verb for this scenario. You would still be practicing unsustainable high intensity agriculture on row crops, with high intensity inputs of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, and irrigation. You could feed a lot more people for a while with this system, if you could somehow convince them to give up meat.
Boksays
If U.S. farmers took all the land currently devoted to raising cattle, pigs and chickens and used it to grow plants instead, they could sustain more than twice as many people as they do now
Hmm, question is do we need more than twice as many people as we do now? Do we need any more at all? What’s the point? Where’s the limit? This also doesn’t answer my monoculture point.
Boksays
Besides, I’m not disputing that there’s still land left we can use to grow if we tweak this or that. What I’m saying is WHY the heck grow any more? What’s the point???To grow for the sake of growing? See how many people we can fit on this small rock? We should go backward imo, and soon before it’s too late.
Haven’t we caused enough trouble as it is?
Mal Adaptedsays
” What’s the point???” It sounds like Bok has reached the Repugnant Conclusion, central to debates about population ethics. The ethical point encompasses Western values of prosperity and humanity’s relationship with the biosphere, but is less central to climate change specifically, on account of I=PAT. For one thing, a small but affluent society powered by transferring fossil carbon to the atmosphere while socializing the climate change costs, can cause more climate change than a larger but poorer society that uses only carbon-neutral energy.
That said: as my ‘nym indicates, I’ve taken his objection to heart, and will leave no offspring. I mean, it’s not like the world actually needs more bourgeois White people.
nigeljsays
Bok. I would suggest we don’t need more than twice as many people as now. We don’t need any more people than now. Exponential population growth has transformed the biosphere and is causing huge problems. Just one example. Vast areas of natural habitat have been converted to farmland. Biodiversity is thus now under huge threat. This is in rich and poor countries with different methods of farming, so essentially its sheer numbers of people doing the transforming. Although industrialisation has made the situation worse. The IPAT equation first proposed by Paul Erlich describes the situation quite well.
Studies suggest the ideal global population that minimises environmental problems but achieves adequate economies of scale is from 2 – 5 billion people depending on the study. Before I googled those my instincts were that 2 billion is ideal. As a civilisation we should work towards a smaller population and encourage it by making contraception is easily accessible as possible, improving womens rights, education, etc, etc.
Some countries populations are already shrinking as a natural outcome of the demographic transition. However it will be a difficult path. Lower fertility rates and thus a shrinking population creates a short to medium term problem where a large number of elderly people have to be supprted by decreasing numbers of young people. This will require a lot of policies and changes to make the transition workable. But we probably have no choice. Government programmes to encourage larger families have proven to be costly and futile.
Well, if demographic projections are to be trusted, it’s moot, as we’ll hit Peak People well before either 2x current population, or the end of the century.
Piotrsays
Kevin: Well, if demographic projections are to be trusted,
These projection are based on the demographic transition theory – in simplification – if society is affluent enough, it would reduce its population growth. It worked in Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China.
It is not clear that we can extrapolate on the rest of the world – many poor places – squeezed by wars and climate change – may not rich the level of enough affluence and social security to reduce their birth rate. Other countries see the “economical” forces are subjugated to cultural – where culture/religion measures the value of a man by how many children he sires and limits the rights of women – see the high fertility rates among the ultraorthodox Jews and in Saudi Arabia. And they project their influence – for instance among the UN’s 8 Millennium Sustainability Goals – no population control – any notion of it was expunged, as a result of the intense pressure of the Holy Alliance – Vatican and radical Islamic clerics, who for that – overcame their differences …
To sum up – the idea that we should not worry about population growth because demographic projections will make it soon moot (i.e., that without doing anything we will level off soon at 10-11 bln people and then begin to shrink) – may be not as certain as many think it is.
Nigeljsays
Piotr. I agree that we can’t assume that the demographic transition will inevitably cause global population growth to stop. However I would suggest the general trend is pointing in that direction.
For example dspite the desire of religious leaders in the muslim world to promote large families, and the annoying influence of Saudi Arabia and Jewish Clerics on global population policy, consider this from Pew Research:”. The average Total Fertility Rate for all 49 Muslim-majority countries has fallen from 4.3 children per woman in 1990-95 to an estimated 2.9 children in 2010-15. Over the next 20 years, fertility rates in these Muslim-majority countries as a whole are expected to continue to decline, though not quite as steeply, dropping to 2.6 children per woman in 2020-25 and 2.3 children in 2030-35 – approaching and possibly reaching replacement levels.”
It appears to me that once people want small families its very hard for the authorities to stop them, with the exception of some very hardline countries like Saudi Arabia. But they are in a minority.
The fertility rebound effect. You found a good study there. Here is some related discussion on the genetic component.
But note the discussion of the other factors that could influence things and reduce the level of the rebound effect:
“Just as important in determining a country’s fertility rate are economic conditions and norms within the broader culture — whether a baby boom in which women without deeply maternal desires feel pressure to have children or, in current conditions, when women are outsiders, and possibly even shamed, for having an above average number of children. ”
And the fertility rebound effect appears to relate to good rates of economic growth:
We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely due to 1) resource scarcity and 2) The global warming problem 3) demograpic changes.
The experts seem to think that that global population will peak at about 9 – 10 billion people sometimes this century.
Mal Adaptedsays
Piotr:
These projection are based on the demographic transition theory – in simplification – if society is affluent enough, it would reduce its population growth. It worked in Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China.
It is not clear that we can extrapolate on the rest of the world – many poor places – squeezed by wars and climate change – may not rich the level of enough affluence and social security to reduce their birth rate.
Except that virtually every country tracked by the World Bank shows a decline in national TFR between the global population boom of the 1960s and today. That includes your examples, but also (2022 numbers) India with TFR 2.0, and Brazil at TFR 1.6, Even Mexico, TFR 1,8 – don’t know why you’d exclude it. Another treatment of the same data by Our World in Data, attributes the global fertility decline thusly:
There are three major reasons for the rapid decline in the global fertility rate:
the empowerment of women — increased access to education and increased labor market participation
declining rates of child mortality
rising costs of bringing up children, with the decline of child labor
The original links each of the three items to pages documenting the claim. The article goes on to confidently state:<blockquote“The big global demographic transition that the world entered more than two centuries ago is then coming to an end: This new equilibrium is different from the one in the past when it was the very high mortality that kept population growth in check. In the new balance, it will be low fertility that keeps population changes small.”
I, for one, acknowledge your caveats, but the still-declining global TFR is real. Evidently, so are the general improvements in per-capita GDP, access to healthcare, and female empowerment; of course, there’s still wide variation within those. We live in interesting times.
Piotrsays
Nigel: ” the fertility rebound effect appears to relate to good rates of economic growth: We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely”
But the problem is that we are gaining a penny while losing a (100? ) pound(s) – the economic downturn will not not ONLY slow the fertility rebound of the very rich (who make up a small part of the global population), but more consequentially – will slow demographic transition from high to low fertility among the poor,
The demographic transition is predicated on good rates of economic growth, since high fertility correlates with being poor: The top five countries in terms of Total Fertility Rate (TFR = avg. number of children in a lifetime per woman) are:
1 Niger 6.6
2 Chad 6.0
3 DR Congo 6.0
4 Somalia 6.0
5 Central African Republic 5.7
Not pnly there are civil wras in most (all?) of them, 4 of these 5 are also among the 6 POOREST countries in the world (“4 out of 5” because Somalia …. is not listed in my <a href=" https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/" source :
Per capita Parity Purchasing Power (PPP) as % of global average PPP:
171 Chad 8%
172 Niger 7%
173 Mozambique 7%
174 DR Congo 6%
175 Central African Republic 5%
176 Burundi 4%
Somalia – not listed (no reliable data?), while two new arrivals Mozambique and Burundi – although not in the top 5 of fertility – are pretty close – 14-th and 9-th, respectively.
In fact, all the assumptions underlying the projections of stabilization of the population in the next few decades – are based on the assumption of economic growth in poor countries being much faster than their population growth. The reality seems to be going in the opposite direction – the income gap between the rich and poor, both between countries, and within countries – increases, and we can’t assume the [global] economic growth to continue indefinitely.
Therefore, a reduction in the economic growth – while possibly reducing the SMALL fertility rebound among the very rich, would be DWARFED by the increase in fertility in the poor countries , because there is MUCH more poor than very rich (of the last billion of people added to Earth – 99% were added in poor countries)
So as long as the poor have enough food not to die of starvation, but not enough opportunities to lift themselves to our level of consumption, and as long as their social systems are fragile – they will have continue 4, 5 or 6 children per women, regardless of the “demographic projections” that require them to achieving affluence and having a stable social system.
That’s why I am skeptical about the Earth populations smoothly levelling off, rather we will continue to increase, until the climate and degradation of soils prevents us from producing enough food for the increasing population – at which point people will start dying, in massive numbers of starvation, diseases and conflict, Which would be the nature’s way to do what we refused to – to cut the Earth population to a sustainable size.
What this size it will be – it depends – the longer we stay over the Earth’s carrying capacity (currently perhaps 40% over?), the more Earth resources will be irreversibly used up, and the lower the future Earth carrying capacity, which based on the still unused resources, will be.
Piotrsays
MalAdapted: “ Except that virtually every country tracked by the World Bank shows a decline in national TFR between the global population boom of the 1960s and today. That includes your examples, ”
Really? Since the TFR in my examples was 5.7 to 6.6 (.today:) what according to you were these numbers 1960 where the global population growth rate was about 2.5 times today’s rate? Average 15 children per woman?
Mal: “ but also (2022 numbers) India with TFR 2.0, and Brazil at TFR 1.6, Even Mexico, TFR 1,8 – don’t know why you’d exclude it.
Wasn’t it obvious? The projections of the demographic transition RELY on achieving relative affluence, and social stability. Your India, Brazil and Mexico have achieved those, hence their lower TFR.
But it does not mean that the same will happen to dozens of the still poor and/or ravaged by conflicts countries, countries where most of the global population growth today happens, particularly when we discuss Nigel’s statement
“ We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely”
So if the economic growth stalls and/or civil strife intensifies – the poor will remain poor and therefore will continue to have many children, thus negating the demographic projections based on continued economic growth and increasing affluence.
And to illustrate THAT – I have chosen the five countries to show what happens to TFR, if you DON’T reach affluence and/or social/political peace:
country TFR: % of global avg. per capita internal conflicts/civil wars
purchasing power:(PPP)
1 Niger 6.6 7% yes
2 Chad 6.0 8% yes
3 DR Congo 6.0 6% yes
4 Somalia 6.0 N/A yes
5 Central African Republic 5.7 5% ?
So why to illustrate what happens to TFR if growth fails, and the POVERTY and CONFLICT rein – would I NOT use the examples of ….poverty and conflict, and instead use YOUR examples of … relative affluence and stability^* ????
——
^* Mal:: I don’t know why you’d exclude [India, Brazil and Mexico] .)
Nigeljsays
Piotr. Excellent points. As you correctly say the demographic transition towards low fertility involves escaping from poverty and slowing economic growth reduces the escape from poverty (Paraphasing). But doesn’t it depend on how quickly economic growth slows down over this century and next? If Africa gets wealthy enough before economic growth slows too much they could lock in low fertility.
And how much poverty do you need to escape? Because one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children.. This indicates that contraception may be the main factor in lowering fertility. You dont need to be a rich country for people to be able to afford to buy contraception. You just need moderate levels of income, easy availability, and basic awareness. I tried to find the study but I just can’t, but I have a clear recollection of its findings.
And even if Africa doesnt get to replacement levels its remaining population growth might be cancelled by shrinking populations in other countries.
I know there are dozens of caveats, fish hooks, and counter arguments…
Zebra will be crying in his cornflakes if he read your post.
Piotrsays
NIgel: “ one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children..”
Exactly, Nigel – this points to the need of a concerted action to reduce TFR – not flinging your legs on the table and implying that such an action ^* is “moot” since the demographic transition would do it for us anyway.
Particularly, that your example has shown that direct action – can succeed MUCH FASTER without waiting for increasing affluence and stable social support system in the old age (the lack of which drives the TFR up, since it is your sons and their spouses who are expected to support you financially in your old age).
—-
^* By direct action I mean: free access to contraceptives, contraceptive education, as well as girls education ,and increasing women’s economical opportunity and rights – so they are no longer are seen primarily as machines to churning up, preferably, sons, so their husbands can be respected for their fertility.
Without the latter – making contraceptives free or very affordable won’t affect TFR among the ultraorthodox Jews or in Saudi Arabia, since the women there don’t have much say about their bodies, and therefore about use of contraceptives, and don’t have much social opportunities in their lives other than producing and raising children.
Mal Adaptedsays
Piotr, we may have gotten afoul of the limits on reply nesting here. You started out with:
if society is affluent enough, it would reduce its population growth. It worked in Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China. It is not clear that we can extrapolate on the rest of the world – many poor places – squeezed by wars and climate change – may not rich the level of enough affluence and social security to reduce their birth rate
In my first response, I was referring to your examples of “Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China.”. My argument is that while not every “third-world” nation has been through the classic demographic transition of rising per-capita income and lower TFR since the peak of global TFR in 1963, the TFR data show that practically every country has reduced its internal TFR since then, in some cases after a later peak than the global one. Your later examples, with their current and peak TFRs:
1 Niger 6.6: down from 7.9 in 1985
2 Chad 6.0: down from 7.3 in 1993
3 DR Congo 6.0: down from 6.7 in 1987
4 Somalia 6.0: down from 7.7 in 1997
5 Central African Republic 5.7; down from 6.1 in 1981
Of those five nations, only the DR Congo and Central African Republic have experienced little or no decline of TFR. Their total populations add up to about 100 million. They are swamped by the globe’s 8 billion. Otherwise, global TFR wouldn’t be trending downward.
Your observations about nations whose GDP hasn’t kept up with population growth are cogent, and warrant a level of concern. My point is that the global trend of TFR is still down, and already close to global replacement rate; and the countries with the largest current populations are all at or below internal replacement rate. Both high TFR and low per-capita GDP will cause social and political unrest in your five nations, but those five contribute little to global population growth, which is still on track to end this century. What we are likely to see, however, is more emigration from high-TFR countries. What the direct impact on the biosphere of more migration is, independent of global population growth, I won’t attempt to estimate.
Piotrsays
Mal Jul.18: “ those five contribute little to global population growth
Those five were just extreme examples – but well above the replacement TFR there were MANY DOZENS of countries. In Africa alone:
See IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion.
That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone
Your India still has 0.8% growth rate and in 2023 added 11.5 mln. Then you have Indonesia + 2.6mln , Pakistan +4.7mln, Bangladesh + 1.7 mln, – that’s despite already having 1330 people per km2!
So:
1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.
2. You have countries where cultural/religious norms overpower the economic factors demographic transition. I recall an interview with well a surgeon in Palestine. Given his professional/affluence status – he should have 1 or 2 kids. He had 7.
3. On top of that, the affluent countries experience the TFR rebound – by a combination of genetic self selections (those who can and want to have more children – over time increase % of their genes in the population) and immigration from poor countries that typically bring with them the cultural preference for having more children.
To sum up – I am not sure that I share Kevin’s optimism:
“ if demographic projections are to be trusted, it’s moot“
Mal Adaptedsays
Piotr:
To sum up – I am not sure that I share Kevin’s optimism:
“ if demographic projections are to be trusted, it’s moot“
Fair enough. Somewhat to my surprise, I find I do share Kevin’s optimism, having witnessed the population bomb going off in the 1960s and 70s, but then reach a limit and start to fade away. To be sure, there was a time when I felt alarmed by exponential population growth, but the data have relieved me of that. I’m now getting used to the idea that subsequent changes in our sheer numbers will matter less to the pace of the Sixth Great Extinction, than changes in our aggregate economic and technological wherewithal. As to that: US voters, please vote Democratic in November, no matter who the party’s POTUS candidate is!
nigeljsays
Piotr says @ 18 JUL 2024 AT 8:07 AM
NIgel: “ one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children..”
Piotr; “Exactly, Nigel – this points to the need of a concerted action to reduce TFR – not flinging your legs on the table and implying that such an action ^* is “moot” since the demographic transition would do it for us anyway.”
Nigel: Agreed to the extent that If we want population growth to stop ASAP and to be as certain as possible it will stop, its going to need something a bit more than just waiting for people to be wealthy and wise enough. Its going to need a push from governments with programmes to increase availability and reduce costs of contraception, etcetera.
But that was not my point. The conventional explanation of the demographic transition is its driven by rising incomes, high quality healthcare and education, improved womens rights, and social security. These are undoubtably all factors ( and all desirable for multiple reasons) but the experiment in niger with free contraceptives lead to a huge drop in the fertility rate even although modern health care and education is very basic and women dont have many rights as in western culture, all suggesting cheap or free contraception is pivotal meaning Africa probably doesnt need first world living standards to have low fertility / zero population growth.
Piotr respsonse to MA: “See IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion. That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone”
Nigel: Ok but maybe its possible that enough other countries will have shrinking populations to offset growing populations in Africa. Of course populations will not shrink forever but Africa wont have a perpetually growing population either because it will hit the hard limits of its geography, and it should be noted other countries are becoming resistant to immigration from Africa.So it wont cancel their shrinking populations.
Using Mal Adapteds numbers for the poorest countries with the slowest decline in fertility and extrapolating the trend their population growth will stop early to middle of next century. Others will likely stop well before then.
Piotr to MA: “1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.”
Nigel: Im not sure about this. Lets take Japan a relatively wealthy country already with a shrinking population. Its had rather dismal levels of economic growth in recent decades, but lets say that economic growth stopped completely. Then why would fertility rate reverse and go up? I cant see a reason because all the requirements are there for low fertility: Good incomes, education and healthcare. It would have reached a threshold locking in low fertility yes?
Now if economic growth went NEGATIVE for a long period (maybe you meant this?) then I reckon you would be right fertility rate would start to increase as income dropped, social security degrades, contraceptive costs become significant. Although I think it would have to be substantially negative economic growth, because as per the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions.
But it does suggest one thing: The HUGE degrowth promoted By Killian could lead to a surge in high fertility. Oops! This is the problem with these degrowth and simplification plans. The unintended consequences could be huge.
nigeljsays
Correction to my previous comment to Piotr @19 JUL 2024 AT 4:36 PM
“These are undoubtably all factors ( and all desirable for multiple reasons) but the experiment in niger with free contraceptives lead to a huge drop in the fertility rate even although modern health care and education is very basic and women dont have many rights as in western culture, all suggesting (words cheap and free deleted) CONTRACEPTION is pivotal meaning Africa probably doesnt need first world living standards to have low fertility / zero population growth”
However it would certainly help if governmnets also made contraception more easily available and lower cost or free. In fact declining fertility in some countries especially Asia, has already been driven by government programmes promoting family planning. So it wasnt just caused by the rising prosperity of the DT.
Piotrsays
Piotr 18 JUL “IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion. That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone”
Nigel: 19 JUL Ok but maybe its possible that enough other countries will have shrinking populations to offset growing populations in Africa.
That’s …. unlikely
1. exponential growth is not symmetric: – in absolute numbers – grows much faster on the up side than shrinks on the down side:- in our IMF example above
– Africa today has 1.4bln, in 2050 will gain have 1100 mln. That requires avg. growth rate of + 2.2% /yr.
– Coincidentally, China today has also about 1.4 bln. So let’s see if the identical but opposite in sign, growth rate, – 2.2% /yr, would cancel out the Africa’s growth:
1.4 bln, over 27 years and growth rate -2.2% would shrink by 630 mln
So even at the same growth rate, just different sign, Africa would gain almost twice as much as China would lose.
2. But China won’t have anywhere close to the -2.2%/yr – even countries that have been for many decades in the postindustrial stage – don’t shrink anywhere near this rate : – Japan -0.2%, or actually keep growing: Germany +0.5%, Sweden +1%.
Probably as result of the demographic rebound and as a result of immigration – which brings in people from high TFR-cultures. And by the same reason as demographic rebound – their population in the general population will increase even if you close the border for the new arrivals.
Nigel: Using Mal Adapteds numbers for the poorest countries with the slowest decline in fertility and extrapolating the trend their population growth will stop early to middle of next century.
The whole point is that the extrapolation may not be justified – what held true at the time of economic growth , may not continue to apply in the growth, under pressure of population and climate change, stops or becomes negative.
– Piotr to MA: “1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.”
– Nigel: Im not sure about this. Lets take Japan a relatively wealthy country already with a shrinking population. Its had rather dismal levels of economic growth
They are still heads and shoulders above the GDP/capita level in the developing countries with high TFR,
NIgel: “ why would fertility rate reverse and go up? ” for the same reason they dropped – if have to count of your children to support you in the old age – you will need more kids. If the industries and city life collapses and you move back to the country – you will need more kids to help you grow crops, look after livestock, or babysit your siblings when parents do that.
If your professional career prospects collapse – stay at home mother becomes the only alternative. If travel, leisure pursuits, social life dry up – sex becomes the main entertainment in town.
Nigel: the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions
which is my another point – cheap and available contraception is in example of a direct action, i.e. the very opposite of doing nothing counting on demographic transition (based
on a linear extrapolation of the past into possibly a very different future) to do it for us.
Mal Adaptedsays
I’m not ready to give up on simple HTML yet! Piotr:
On top of that, the affluent countries experience the TFR rebound – by a combination of genetic self selections (those who can and want to have more children – over time increase % of their genes in the population) and immigration from poor countries that typically bring with them the cultural preference for having more children.
Speaking as a once-wannabe evolutionary biologist, I was skeptical that selection for family size could affect future global TFR in a meaningful timeframe. Certainly, the current falling global TFR suggests that exponential population growth 60 years ago wasn’t much driven by the heritability of fertility, or TFR wouldn’t have immediately begun to fall, as cultural factors became conducive to voluntarily fertility limitation in country after country. IOW, the global scope of the classic demographic transition is more consistent with low heritability of fertility.
We demonstrate that any forecast without an evolutionary underpinning may underestimate future fertility and population growth, and we provide a sense of the scale of that underestimation. However, this alternative perspective of future fertility and population is not a definitive declaration of its future path. This forecast, like that of the United Nations, could be influenced by future cultural or environmental changes, meaning that the increase in the fertility rate may ultimately occur more or less rapidly than described in this paper.
.
Well, there you go. It appears your concern has some expert support, although the above authors hedge their language nicely. I’m not inspired to get deep into how expert it is, possibly because I’ve voluntarily limited myself out of the gene pool altogether. I leave debate over the role of selection for human fertility in the near term to otters.
nigeljsays
Piotr,
“exponential growth is not symmetric: – in absolute numbers – grows much faster on the up side than shrinks on the down side:-”
Thanks. I admit didnt realise this. I asked the microsoft AI chat bot for the details and got a great explanation. So yes you are right shrinking populations wont cancel growing populations. Although I would suggest the shrinking populations will help reduce the effects of growing population and Africa cant grow indefinitely.
“And by the same reason as demographic rebound – their (Africans) population in the general population will increase even if you close the border for the new arrivals.”
If the Africans are in another society with higher incomes, better social security etc wouldnt their fertility rate match local communities. Or are you arguing immigrants end up in the low paying jobs. But only some of them end up in low paying jobs and its still likely higher pay than in Africa. So the problem may not be all that significant.
“why would fertility rate reverse and go up (if economic growth stops) ? ” for the same reason they dropped – if have to count of your children to support you in the old age – you will need more kids. If the industries and city life collapses and you move back to the country – you will need more kids to help you grow crops, look after livestock, or babysit your siblings when parents do that.
I already acknowledged that process would happen if economic growth stoppped AND economices then started to shrink. Its not clear why it would happen if economies hit zero economic growth but didnt then shrink, a likely outcome medium term. I assume you must be thinking its inevitable economies will shrink considerably very long term, which does seem possible to me .
“the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions…which is my another point – cheap and available contraception is in example of a direct action, i.e. the very opposite of doing nothing counting on demographic transition (based on a linear extrapolation of the past into possibly a very different future) to do it for us.”
Fair point. However my point in my corrected response above thread was that the Niger gave away free contraceptives and fertility plumetted despite lack of much health care or social security, therefore contraception (free or otherwise) is the key factor in the demograpic transition) not high levels of wealth or advanced health systems. But clearly making contraception free is helpful and would speed up the demographic transition.
Piotrsays
Nigel “If the Africans are in another society with higher incomes, better social security etc wouldnt their fertility rate match local communities.
Only if they fully integrate – both economically and ESPECIALLY – culturally. There are few indications of that happening – if anything the opposite trend is seen – the closing of the borders to the new immigrants you have mentioned is caused precisely by the failure of this integration. So if you are living in the impoverished ghetto and identify with the culture and religion of your ancestors – then you TFR is more similar to that of your ancestors than the country you living in, but which is rejecting you.
Nigel: “ But only some of them end up in low paying jobs and its still likely higher pay than in Africa”
But the costs of living are much higher too – so for the sense of social fairness it matters only how well off you are compared to your neighbours (from the dominant culture). And if you feel that the system is unfair to you – you won’t integrate, and instead you stick to the culture and religion of your group.
Nigel: “ Its not clear why it would happen if economies hit zero economic growth but didnt then shrink ”
“zero economic growth” – by modern societies based on perpetual growth means “stagnation”, and “stagnation” -> less financial “security” -> TFR may go up .
If that didn’t happen yet in your Japan example, it means that Japan’s previous affluence was so high, that even with a stagnation – they don’t see themselves as a Third World country.
NIgel “ clearly making contraception free is helpful and would speed up the demographic transition”
My point is the these two are DIFFERENT things – so Kevin and Mal’s relaxed attitude that
direct actions are “moot” because demographic transition would do it for us anyway – is unjustified for two reasons:
1. because there are questions whether the demographic transition will indeed continue in case of the climate change and uncertain economic growth
2. and even if it does – not waiting for it, but lowering the population growth with direct actions (like family planning) – would level off the Earth population MUCH quicker – meaning at the lower overall level, and reduce the damage to the life-supporting systems by staying over the “optimal” carrying capacity of Earth for humans: the bigger the overshoot, and the longer it lasts, the bigger the damage to others species, and the lower the future Earth carrying capacity for humans.
Piotrsays
Mal A.: “ I leave debate over the role of selection for human fertility in the near term to otters. [link to Judith Curry site] ”
I’ve met a sealion (named Kalisz), but what type of denial do otters do?
==
^* Sealioning: “ a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate” ),
Mal Adaptedsays
Piotr: “I’ve met a sealion (named Kalisz), but what type of denial do otters do?”
Some otters play ClimateBall (https://climateball.wordpress.com). A handful of RC regulars also frequent the And Then There’s Physics blog (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com). If you don’t, you may not be acquainted with its moderator, Canadian philosopher “Willard”, a soi-disant “ninja” whose whimsical sense amuses me. He’s got a long history of skewering denialist rhetoric on the Internet, and occasionally leaves comments here. His comment at Curry’s place 10 years ago is probably not his first coinage of “otters” in this context, but it’s the earliest I could find with a quick search! Maybe he’ll see this and correct me.
Nigeljsays
Piotr
“Only if they (immigrants) fully integrate – both economically and ESPECIALLY – culturally. There are few indications of that happening – if anything the opposite trend is seen – the closing of the borders to the new immigrants you have mentioned is caused precisely by the failure of this integration. So if you are living in the impoverished ghetto and identify with the culture and religion of your ancestors – then you TFR is more similar to that of your ancestors than the country you living in, but which is rejecting you.”
It seems like you are essentially right. I had a quick look at the published studies on fertility rates of immigrants, particularly in developed countries where the host countries are poor like Africa. The immigrant communities do generally have considerably higher fertility rates than the native born people, although the descendants of immigrants generally have lower fertility rates gradually converging over time on the host countries rates. But this can be a lengthy process.
It all makes me wonder why the experts mostly think global population growth will stop later this century. Because your counter arguments are pretty good. I haven’t had time to look in depth but they must believe that the growth in Africas population in the next few decades, and of poor getto communities in wealthy countries, will be swamped longer term (end of century) by the declines in the rest of the world / population.
But it comes back to the main point that if economic growth were to slow down significantly in coming decades the demographic transition could stall (that we both agree on) and would require additional forced measures like government programmes, free contraceptives, etc,etc.
Several governments in SE Asian countries had family planning programmes in the 1970s and 1980s ( I think) and these definitely accelerated the emerging natural decline in fertility due to the DT process. But Africa seems a bit more reluctant to have such programmes. So we are very reliant on those governmnets waking up and putting their biases and cultural values of having large families aside. I admit I’m a bit sceptical about this, because Africas governments are amongst the most hopelessly incompetent around..
Secular Animistsays
Bok wrote: “What’s the point?”
The point is that if we can feed twice as many people from the same amount of land, then we can feed the current population from half as much land, thereby returning half of current farmland to nature.
zebrasays
But the interesting question… if we want to do real science… is how much land would be required to feed …
.9 Current Population
.8 CP
.7 CP
.6 CP
.5 CP
.4 CP
.3 CP
.2 CP
.1 CP
…?
But this question seems to be too much of a challenge for all the folks who think they are good at that math stuff. They only seem comfortable with straight lines.
Boksays
I’m for that of course. But we don’t need to increase our population to do that do we? I mean what’s the point in increasing human population growth? Growth for the sake of growth? Cause as of now that’s what’s going on. It’s a runaway freight train. There’s even less attention being thought out about it at the highest levels than Climate Change.
Julian Simon suggested that the more people there are the more likely that there will be another Beethoven or Einstein or some genius. So he was willing to sacrifice the earth and billions of years of evolution for that possibility. Doesn’t sound too well thought out to me.
Barry E Finchsays
MAR 4 JUL 2024 AT 6:30 AM “three-decade period where the rate of warming was stuck at roughly +0.2ºC/decade and ask why it persisted until the 2015-16” I randomly came across tropical Pacific wind speed plot in 2013 when I started taking a look at global warming. It was unchanging for decades (ups&downs) but
started a big trend up in 1995. By 2012 the wind on that plot was 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. I’d already plotted in early 2013 GAST on paper 1960-2012 and trended La Nina & ENSO-neutral points by eye with a pretty-solid +0.165/decade each but the messy El Ninos were clearly trending higher (but big uncertainty on how much) with 2 lines a much better fit than one. The lines had intersected at 1995 CE (I see John Mashey above has 1995 for something changed) so of course that 1995 CE match interested me. Then just 6 mopnths or so later I came across 14 February 2014 “Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus” Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
—–
“We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales” “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
—–
“When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures”. Perhaps that uncommon Atlantic Ocean wind-coupling *change* effect on tropical Pacific came to an end in 2015.
Copernicus ERA5 has reported for June with the hottest June on record It is the 11th highest monthly global anomaly, the the top nine anomalies being July 2023 – March 2024 with the peak of the 2015/16 El Niño Feb 2016 in 10th place. April-May 2024 sit 12th & 13th in this ranking.
Despite a general cooling trend globally, the June 2024’s anomaly sits above April & May’s, this due to there being a bit of a warm wobble in the northern hemisphere thro’ July. (See graphics HERE – FIRST POSTED 15th December 2023 showing Global, NH & SH ERA5 5-day-rolling averages.)
June 2024 is the 13th “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-a-row. (It will presumably be the final “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-this-row as anomalies are generally falling by the month and, after a cooler start to July 2024, to top July 2023 (+0.72ºC) the coming 25 days would require a significant upward wobble for the rest of July averaging above +0.77ºC.)
Previous nine hottest Junes comprise Junes 2015-23, with the hottest of those (so now 2nd placed) 2023 being head-&-shoulders above previous years, and below them, the El Niño year 1998 now dropped down to 11th hottest. They run:-
2023 +0.53ºC, 2019 +0.37ºC, 2020 +0.36ºC, 2022 +0.31ºC, 2016 +0.26ºC, 2018 +0.23ºC, 2021 +0.21ºC, 2017 +0.20ºC, 2015 +0.19ºC & 1998 +0.18ºC.
And GISTEMP has reported for June with an anomaly of +1.21ºC the hottest June on record, this a rise on the May anomaly (+1.16ºC) within a generally dropping sequence of anomalies since the start of the year. (Prior to June, the average Jan-May is +1.31ºC.)
June 2024 is the 13th highest all-month global anomaly, the twelve higher monthly anomalies including from before the “bananas of 2023, Feb & Mar 2016 and Feb 2020.
June 2024 is also the 13th “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-a-row and it will require a lower anomaly (which appears likely) for July for us not to be the 14th in-a-row as the July 2023 anomaly was +1.19ºC.
The previous hottest GISTEMP (now 2nd-placed June 2023, +1.08ºC) sat well above previous hot Junes, 2022 +0.94ºC, 2020 +0.91ºC, 2019 +0.90ºC, 2021 +0.84ºC.
With half the year now gone, with all six months the warmest-of-each-month on record, the rest of 2024 would have to average below +1.06ºC for the full calendar year not to gain hottest-on-record from 2023.
#Permaculture
#Climate
#Solutions
#CarbonSequestration
#Biodiversity
#EcosystemRestoration
Et al.
Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate, etc. The results several times the outcomes of conventional farming systems across a broad range of effects while maintaining equal production. a few notes:
1. The study does not actually study permaculture at all sites (and possibly none) as the requirement to be included in the study only required the inclusion of 2 of a set of criteria. Their results must logically be understood to be the low end of potential improved outcomes yet are very significant.
2. No loss in output is incorrect. The paper does not account for nutrient density. Conventional farms produce nutrient-deficient food. Regenerative systems produce nutrient-dense foods. The actual output in terms of nutrient density will be 40%- to 60% higher, not equal, as demonstrated by past research. This richness has positive outcomes for reducing obesity, improving health, and reducing the area of land needed to feed a given population.
On permaculture sites soil organic carbon content (3.4 ± 0.3 g 100 g−1) was 71% higher compared to control fields of this study (2.0 ± 0.3 g 100 g−1) as well as 94% higher than on average German arable fields (1.8 ± 0.2 g 100 g−1) and by trend 18% higher than on average German grasslands (2.9 ± 0.2 g 100 g−1; Fig. 1a) according to the first comprehensive soil inventory 36.
Carbon stocks within the first 30 cm were 27% higher on permaculture sites (87 ± 9 t ha−1) compared to control fields (68 ± 8 t ha−1) and 37% higher than on average German arable fields (62 ± 3 t ha−1; Fig. 1c)36.
There was no significant difference between permaculture sites and average German grasslands (90 ± 4 t ha−1), indicating that permaculture is able to store similar levels of carbon as grassland while still producing a share of arable crops such as vegetables and grains.
The proportion of permanent grassland among all permaculture sites was 67% (Table 2). In addition, humic topsoil was 59% deeper on permaculture sites (45 ± 4 cm) compared to control fields (28 ± 2 cm; Fig. 1b), suggesting an even higher difference in organic carbon stock.
As has been stated on these pages for well over a decade, #Permaculture/#TEK are not just nice little additions to our set of tools, they are central to achieving a regenerative society.
Hmm. Just quoting you. You said, ”We can easily feed up to 12 billion (for now)” in dispute of Don Williams mention of feeding 8 billion mouths the problem, I took that to mean that you have no problem with that. Yes we can feed lots more people, of course, but only if we continue to take space from all the other forms of life out there. Continue with the 6th extinction.
Unless you meant we can through vertical farming in skyscrapers? Perhaps hydroponically? But then remember that food is not our only use of limited earthly materials. People = problems. Period. MORE people = more problems.
This subject reminds me, btw, of a movie I one watched called Silent Running. Depressing. Anyway, sorry if I misunderstood you.
I look at each comment or statement as a the person’s current stand alone position. Don’t want to, or have the time to, research what each person might have said in the past.
zebrasays
Bok, the problem is that people have a hard time with change, and with imagining a different paradigm, and with letting go of what they consider their “wisdom” and “righteousness”. As somebody said, doing science (and even engineering, which is what this topic really is) requires recognizing the risk of fooling yourself.
Although I didn’t remember the film, and had to look it up, I think your seeing a connection is reasonable.
Here’s my sci-fi scenario:
A benevolent and all-powerful inter-dimensional species finds 10 uninhabited planets ecologically identical to Earth prior to the expansion of humanity. They offer to split up the human species completely randomly, 800M to each planet, and provide whatever technological basis each group would choose (current tech only, e.g. fossil fuels or renewables or nuclear and so on).
The only condition is that there will be a mechanism that (again randomly) limits fertility so that the population doesn’t increase.
This would make many people terribly unhappy… including those here who ramble on endlessly about the highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached.
For them, it doesn’t count if we have a sustainable ecosystem and egalitarian socioeconomic paradigm that occurs because it is the best choice in terms of individual self-interest. Which would be the case in this scenario.
It just doesn’t count.
Boksays
Don’t quite understand you mean here but The Selfish Gene does work when we have a large and diverse ecosystem that balances out all the accounts in the end to ensure the continuation of life on earth, as evolution has so laboriously provided us, giving us that sustainable ecosystem.
It doesn’t much when we have a monoculture because all opponents either don’t exist or have been removed like the rabbit explosion in Australia – or the human population of earth.
What a sad day that will be if we get to the point of just putting all the endangered animals in zoos, as Simon proposed (the writing’s on the wall for them – seems a terrible waste of evolution doesn’t it?). What a sad day that will be too when the only green nature that exists is a perfectly manicured, human engineered construct devoid of any hint of the wild.
Hmm. Maybe we should think this through while we can….
zebrasays
Bok, sorry if I mixed in too many concepts, but here’s the simplified version:
1. If there are 8 billion humans, than it is rational to fight over control of resources and exploit/extract them as much as possible, which leads to the “monoculture” type of situation you describe. It’s a matter of individual self-interest to do that.
2. If there are 800 million humans, and the population is not increasing, then (1) doesn’t make any sense as a matter of individual self-interest.
This is about numbers, which science is supposed to honor. Divide the US population by 10, and you get 35 million people. That’s less than the current population of California… the entire population could live on the west coast, or the east coast. [In a comment last month, I used the number 1.6 billion, so you could have equal numbers on the two coasts.]
Not only would there be vast amounts of territory for all the other parts of nature, but the human culture… technology, socioeconomic/political structure, and so on… would be completely different.
The problem I was bringing up was that people don’t want to think about this as scientists… they are attached to concepts grounded in the 8 billion situation, or applicable to cultures without our modern science and technology. They want to moralize about how they think people should organize their lives, rather than accepting that rational self-interest, given the appropriate environment, will solve all the problems they wish to solve.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
z: 1. If there are 8 billion humans, than it is rational to fight over control of resources and exploit/extract them as much as possible, which leads to the “monoculture” type of situation you describe. It’s a matter of individual self-interest to do that.
2. If there are 800 million humans, and the population is not increasing, then (1) doesn’t make any sense as a matter of individual self-interest.
BPL: I can’t see any way to get from 8 billion to 800 million without either a horrible collapse of civilization or reducing the birth rate to slightly below the death rate and waiting about a thousand years.
zebrasays
BPL,
First, wasn’t there just a discussion about the “collapse of civilization” here? In which I had to point out that a population decline would be a likely consequence?
Second, you are one of the people who is supposed to be thinking like a scientist, but instead you ignore the point of the exercise in favor of facile rhetoric.
What we do in physics (and other sciences) is look at extreme values in order to understand the underlying fundamental principles. Einstein didn’t really think people could ride bicycles at close to the speed of light, right?
So the point is to let go of the preconceptions that have developed because we live in the 8B paradigm. Some things would obviously be very different at .8B; the question is what would likely be the same.
And the point of that question is to then work out the variation with population over the range in question… do the math, looking for the factors that might be “tipping points” and so on, just like we do with the analogously complex, non-linear, climate system.
Maybe it’s just too hard to let go, even if being a scientist is supposedly all about objectivity and not fooling oneself. Too bad.
Yes, that’s the problem with the ‘population solution.’ We don’t have a huge amount of control over that variable, especially on relatively short time frames, unless we want to accept genocide on a scale that would beggar the Holocaust. We can and should do all the things we’ve previously discussed as helpful on this forum, but there is no ‘quick fix.’
Barton Paul Levensonsays
z: Maybe it’s just too hard to let go, even if being a scientist is supposedly all about objectivity and not fooling oneself. Too bad.
BPL: Maybe you can sit on it and rotate. Yes, I think that’s more likely.
Mal Adaptedsays
Kevin:
We don’t have a huge amount of control over that variable, especially on relatively short time frames, unless we want to accept genocide on a scale that would beggar the Holocaust.
Well, no. “We” are just a bunch of virtual IDs on the Internet. OTOH if “we” refers to everyone alive, what would acceptance of genocide look like? A global, universal plebiscite on the question “should 90% of everyone now living be killed?” Should not everyone be allowed to vote? Who, then, is “we”? Let’s not even go there, please.
No. The only plausible collective intervention in global human population dynamics is by, as BPL says:
reducing the birth rate to slightly below the death rate and waiting about a thousand years.
As we’ve seen, collective intervention to reduce birth rates need not be direct. China’s one-child policy was effective, but unless China takes over the world (not implausible, but not likely IMHO), collectively supported “family planning” assistance may have less impact on TFR than internal and international programs to improve family health, eliminate child labor, and generally empower females. We might not have to wait that long, either. Right now, even after the 1-child policy was eased to a 2-child maximum in 2015, China’s TFR is only 1.2, and its population growth rate is already negative. A number of developed nations including Spain, Italy and Japan, are equally infertile, and already shrinking. South Korea’s current TFR is 0.8! Those countries will shrink by large fractions in each succeeding generation, unless immigration from still-growing nations keeps pace. And the migrants fleeing economic, social and political turmoil in their still-growing countries may even find a qualified welcome in shrinking countries that want more workers. There will still be plenty of collective resistance to immigration, however, for all the reasons there always has been. It won’t be pretty!
The upshot: IMHO, it’s hard to imagine any global “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” driving a more rapid global population decline than is already occurring without it. This really is a unique moment in history.
Mal, accepting genocide would look much like contemporary Ukraine, except with nuclear and biological weapons, and everybody “playing” with them who had them. Which is, tragically, something humanity just conceivably might “accept” in effect if not by intention.
If it wasn’t already clear, let me say that that would be a terrible, terrible scenario.
Step one in avoiding it: vote Democratic this fall, if you are a US voter.
Mal Adaptedsays
Kevin: <blockquoteif it wasn’t already clear, let me say that that would be a terrible, terrible scenario.
It was clear. I know you weren’t taking a mass-death solution to the population problem seriously. Sorry if my comment sounded like I was criticizing you for that.
Killiansays
No, Bok. Completely wrong. You are new here. Listen first, speak second, don’t assume, eh? I’ve been talking about regenerative systems here for 15 years. Avoid assumptions in the future.
We CAN feed 12B does not = I ADVOCATE for feeding 12B. In fact, demographics strongly indicate we never will. Thus… the context was clear: I was correcting a false assertion about population and food supply. FOR NOW, food supply is not the problem. FOR NOW, all the very unsustainable methods you mention are not necessary and are solutions looking for a problem AND are a huge opportunity cost as billions go into nonsense tech ag instead of improving our soils – which would solve food supply issues AND climate change.
Clear?
Piotrsays
Killian says: Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate,
Let’s see:
– your study gives the carbon sequestration on permaculture sites of 0.8t ha−1 yr−1
– global area of croplands ~= 1.25 10^9 ha.
So if (and that’s a big IF ) – we somehow managed to export the practices from hobby farms from Germany (“mean area of 2.8 ha”) to ALL croplands – i.e. to all size of farms, in different climates. with different crop-growing traditions – all over the worlds – the resulting sequestration would be:
= 0.8t ha−1 yr−1 * 1.25 10^9 ha = 1 Gton C per year. Current emissions are about … 10 Gt
If only half of the world croplands were converted to that – then it this becomes 5 % of global C emissions. Furthermore – the authors write: The carbon input [of soil] is increased by the application of organic matter in the form of compost, livestock manure, organic mulch, or terra preta. It should be noted that overall carbon sequestration may be lower if part of this organic matter originates from outside the permaculture site and would otherwise have been stored in soils elsewhere.
Which means – even less GHG mitigation/ha.
Furthermore, the C sequestration is only 27% higher than on the control sites without permaculture. therefore, So for the NET sequestration from switch the crop practices – whatever we have left after the series of downward corrections above – it would have to be further divided 4.
And that’s only with C-sequestion effect on the climate. then we have to account for the effect on evaporation: no tilling, probably no rice fields covered with water – means less evaporation => less clouds => more warming, which would further offset at least a part of the cooling from the C-sequestration.
All these TAKEN TOGETHER mean that while the permaculture practices may be positive to a wide range of ecosystem issues – for the subject of THIS forum – mitigation of AGW, they are rather …. of limited effectiveness, to put it mildly.
But thank you, Killian, for finally finding a study that allowed us to test with NUMBERS the bold qualitative claims you have been making for years ^*
——
^* “ I have posted on these boards since 2007” (c) Killian]
Killiansays
Piotr: You are a liar and a troll. You points are, frankly, intentionally stupid distortions. I said, e.g., the farms used were almost certainly not even close to being regenerative. The criterion used did not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing. Bio-char alone can get us back to < 300ppm if scaled.
Shush You are not now and never will be part of the solution; you enjoy trolling far too much.
nigel (up-thread): "The HUGE degrowth promoted By Killian could lead to a surge in high fertility. Oops! This is the problem with these degrowth and simplification plans. The unintended consequences could be huge."
Jesus wept at the utter ignorance: Regenerative societies are, by definition, deeply knowledgeable about their ecosystems. Why do you think they currently maintain 80% of remaining bio-diversity without destroyng it with massive populations? Will you never use your damned head?
There are ZERO ecosystem-destroying unintendedconsequences of degrowth.
Shush.
Kevin (up thread):
It's not at all a false dichotomy. The money going into CO2 dwarfs funding for actual solutions by orders of magnitude. If we had a chart of what is funded and what is not, I doubt you could make a chart large enough for actual solutions to be visible.
nigel (upthread): "But by Amazon region I meant the ‘wider’ region of modern Brazil."
Bull. This is a sleight of hand you try whenever you say something ridiculous.
" Its a very basic lifestyle, so of course its more sustainable than ours."
It was in no way "basic." It required an incredibly detailed knowledge of the space, all kept within their heads, and despite a lower population, the population pressure overall would have been very similar, as already demonstrated.
As I have said since 2016, you simply do not belong in these conversations and should edit yourself out of them. You should be the student, not pretending to be the teacher.
BPl (upthread): No, you need to read it.
Piotrsays
Killian 21 JUL : You are a liar and a troll. You points are, frankly, intentionally stupid distortions
Let the reader decide. Here are your words in question:
Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate.”
Then Killian praises the study by saying that it proved that Permaculture Design has “several times the outcomes of conventional farming systems across a broad range of effects while maintaining equal production” , quotes several paragraphs on the detailed results of #CarbonSequestration and concludes with:
“K: As has been stated on these pages for well over a decade, #Permaculture/#TEK are not just nice little additions to our set of tools, they are central to achieving a regenerative society.
Powerful words. The only problem are … the numbers – I used the so-recommended by you comprehensive study to show with their own numbers that Permaculture Design EVEN IF expanded to ALL croplands in the world – would remove at most 2.5% of annual carbon emissions. Thus having entirely NEGLIGIBLE “ effect on climate”
Now you had a choice:
a) admit a case of confirmation bias – that you read into that study what you wanted to see, not what was actually there
OR
b) throw what you previously praised as: “Finally! A comprehensive study” and “Permaculture Design”, under the bus, to protect your ego
And protecting the ego it is:
Killian Jul 21 the farms used [by that previously called “comprehensive” study] were almost certainly not even close to being regenerative. The criterion used did not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing
So you mean that one “ not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing” and yet still be … “ central to achieving a regenerative society???? And you have been “ stating [it] on these pages for well over a decade” ???
But please, feel free to call OTHERS: “ liars, trolls and distorters .
Nigeljsays
Killian @21 JUL 2024 AT 10:12 AM
Killians claims tghat Piotr is lying, trolling and making stupid distortions seems unjustified to me, Piotr chose to address the permaculture study. He doesnt have to acknowledge Killians unproven, wild claims permaculture would actually sequester far more carbon.
Killian says “There are ZERO ecosystem-destroying unintended consequences of degrowth . (Like it causing high fertility and this damaging the environment). Killian then makes the argument again that the large regenerative society (like the precolumbian population of the Amazon basin, mostly rainforest) did not cause the ecosystem to collapse, because they were wise stewards of the land. He argues in his various posts the population of modern farmers living in the area is not much greater but they have wrecked it.
I responded eslewhere that in pre columbian times the population was about 10 million, and this is not huge, given the vast land area. It would be easy for such a small low density population with such basic lifestyle, to have minimal impacts on the environment.
Killian says Its wrong to say they had a basic lifestyle. It should be OBVIOUS they have a basic lifestyle compared to industrial society which was the context of discussion. They are sophisticated in their own way and were wise stewards of the land to some extent but population size is a huge factor.
The modern population living in the Amazon basin is only about twice this, including modern and traditional societies, but Brazils population alone of 200 million is dependent on the Amazon basin . Killian says sleight of hand but its what really matters. This is a large part of why you have massive areas of deforestation and farms and thus ecosytem destruction.
Earlier related posts by Killian at 8 JUL 2024 AT 5:31 AM, 16 JUL 2024 AT 4:21 AM 18, and by me at JUL 2024 AT 1:17 AM and elsewhere.
Killian telling me Im pretending to be a teacher. This is amusing given I havent engaged in teaching sessions or tutorials. I comment to debate and discuss and point out flaws in peoples statments, share information, and to promote viable climate solutions. Killian is projecting.. .
This fake “personal responsibility” propaganda doesn’t help systemic changes. That’s why we have nations that should oversee private companies, not the other way around where private companies run the governments and the COP meetings.
Our personal choices including voting will not impact global warming as much as fair and targeted rational legislation and regulation within a Socialist market economy such as operates in China and Russia where the People come first and not the wealthy corporations and mega rich.
What is needed is a global people’s revolution but all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms of Despotism to which they are accustomed.
I grew up in former Czechoslovakia and likely have more personal experience that you with socialism.
There was no market economy in former socialist states, and there is no socialism in China and/or Russia.
Quite oppositely, in these two countries, you can find an almost perfect merge of unrestricted corporate capitalism with the state. There is a single constraint for the enterprises – their absolute subjugation to unvoted criminal gangs ruling these countries. A perfect Maffia society, I would say.
If you would like to implement this model to the rest of the world, I recommend to move into Russia or China and collect a personal experience by living therein first. Maybe you can consider also Iran or some of countries like South Africa, Brasilia or India that play with ideas like building alliances with them. I wish you good luck.
There certainly is a significant influence of big business on public policies in countries like USA, European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of China (Taiwan) or United Kingdom, but there is still some public control over it. Personally, I strongly prefer dealing with complexities and malfunctions of our societies and their political systems within the existing framework that was not easy to build, instead destroying this framework by revolutions.
Best wishes
Tomáš
Mal Adaptedsays
Be careful what you wish for! Even when evils become insufferable, the probability of replacing them with something both sufferable and sustainable is always low. Revolutions tend to eat their children. Experience, and history, hath shewn that there are many more wrong ways of trying to abolish the forms of despotism than right ways, and that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The arguable benefits of modern popular sovereignty come with hidden and deferred costs that threaten its sustainability, and are forever at risk from demagoguery and cynical self-serving. But what other non-despotic forms are within reach of our collective will? Because forms not supported by popular will, however benighted the people may be, can only be despotic in their turn.
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half-alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
…
Yeah
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
-P. Townshend
Piotrsays
Sabine: fair and targeted rational legislation and regulation within a Socialist market economy such as operates in China and Russia where the People come first and not the wealthy corporations and mega rich.
Having lived under the Communist rule, I was always perplexed by the ability of the Western intellectuals to look past the mass graves and seeing in the totalitarian systems only the realization of their dreams of justice and equality. “Useful idiots of Russia“, as Lenin derisively called them.
Nigeljsays
Sabine. I agree with your first paragraph but russia and china are dominated by wealthy oligarchs. Russia is in denial about climate change and has done nothing. Thomas kalisz is correct.
Countries like Sweden and Norway that combine a bit of capitalism and socialism are better societies by virtually any measure.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Kevin’s July 9 reply to the question: what we can learn from indigenous cultures:
“…..The answer to that will of necessity be general, because as has already been said on this thread, indigenous cultures tend to be highly specific to place. (Which is worth remembering when we stop to consider the many instances of forced displacement imposed upon indigenous folks, especially, though not exclusively, in the US. But I digress.)….”
Mr. KIA says: ALL cultures are highly specific to place, not just indigenous cultures. Southern US culture is different from New England culture or Midwest culture. Italian culture is different from Swiss culture, or English culture. Exactly as it is with indigenous folks.
The forced displacement of indigenous cultures in the US was no different than that of any other culture. Fact is that they were fighting and displacing each other constantly before Europeans arrived. They were not living here in total peace and harmony:
Europeans were doing the exact same thing as the indigenous folks in the Americas: They were killing each other like a bunch of savages 24/7/365. Those who won the fights, displaced, by force, the losers, and it was no less traumatic for Europeans than for the indigenous folks in the US. It’s what humans have always done, and always will do as long as there are humans. We are a violent species. One difference is that in Europe they had organized armies, and they recorded their wars in writing. Here’s a video showing “battles” over the past 1,000 years. This would not include minor unrecorded skirmishes, or battles among indigenous folks because they weren’t recorded.
These unchanging, brutal facts of human life are just part of the reason that our founding fathers made sure that the Constitution prohibited the government from infringing on THE PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms.
And then Kevin said this:
“”Alas, Mr. KIA is flatly wrong (yet again), saying:
{…[indigenous] knowledge and technology were so primitive that they just did not have the capability of impacting the environment the way Europeans were able to, except as BPL also correctly points out – by using fire they could be very destructive.}
See some of the “1491” blurb linked above for a partial refutation. Maya math was capable of accurate astronomical calculation, and had independently arrived at the pivotal concept of zero before Europe…..” “”
MKIA says: So, they could do math. Did they invent machines to push down forests and move mountains? Chainsaws? Airliners and airports? Freeways full of cars? Steam trains? Electricity? Looks like most of the indigenous folks, including the Maya, barely even used the wheel, if at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel#History
So, BPL, Nigel, and myself are correct. Other than fire which we all noted, their technology was too primitive to do much damage to Mother Earth. Why is that so? Is there something to learn from this? Perhaps a history of inventions and achievement by the various peoples of the world give a clue:
What did the various peoples of the world invent and achieve in the past?
Europeans and their descendants in America, Australia, etc: invented A LOT, built major cities with magnificent architecture, classical music, outstanding art, complex societies, scientific discoveries, world exploration, factories, sophisticated weapons, and on and on.
Most of the rest of the world: some contributions to math and science, fireworks, built simple homes or huts, some stone temples crude by European standards, some big pyramidical piles of rock is Egypt, simple weapons, a big racist wall in China,
:) :)
That’s a tad oversimplified, but SOMETHING is going on there in that picture. What is it? What can we learn from the YUGE disparity in achievement among the various peoples of the world?
Mal Adaptedsays
That’s a tad oversimplified
LOL! A faint glimmer of self-awareness from the hitherto anosognosic typist! What’s next – cats and dogs living together?!
Mr. KIA says: ALL cultures are highly specific to place, not just indigenous cultures. Southern US culture is different from New England culture or Midwest culture. Italian culture is different from Swiss culture, or English culture. Exactly as it is with indigenous folks.
No. Southern culture, or midwest culture, or Italian culture, are exportable in ways that indigenous cultures per se are not, because language, history and lore aren’t so anchored to places, and because the foods and other cultural items are widely available. For indigenous cultures, culture and religion are typically tied to specific places, as are foodways. This “place-centeredness’ of indigneous cultures WRT European cultures is not an absolute distinction, but a quantitative one. Nevertheless, it’s quite appreciable–or so I understand it, at least.
(Not sure why KIA makes a point of indigenous conflict as if I’d argued against it. But moving on.)
So, they could do math.
Kinda goes to the “knowledge” piece, don’t you think?
Did they invent machines to push down forests and move mountains? Chainsaws? Airliners and airports? Freeways full of cars? Steam trains? Electricity? Looks like most of the indigenous folks, including the Maya, barely even used the wheel, if at all…
It’s well-known that pre-Columbian America didn’t make appreciable use of the wheel (except maybe rollers in moving stone?) Elsewhere, I pointed out in this connection that the wheel is much less useful without draft animals capable of pulling carts, which for most of America’s paleohistory were absent.
But KIA is mixing time periods here. Europeans–heck, let’s address the elephant in the room!–white people didn’t invent any of those things before the Columbian contact, either, (the wheel excepted.) However, indigenous people did invent or develop, among other things, corn–and see 1491 for what *that* took!–rubber, kayaks and canoes, snow goggles, cable suspension bridges, raised bed agriculture, baby bottles, syringes, and hammocks. So, clearly, they weren’t short of ingenuity.
Again, as I pointed out to Nigel, that they didn’t create technology suitable for all the destructive feats named, is no kind of evidence for the proposition that the reason is incapacity. It can equally well be a product of choice.
KIA:
Most of the [non-white] world: some contributions to math and science, fireworks, built simple homes or huts, some stone temples crude by European standards, some big pyramidical piles of rock is Egypt, simple weapons, a big racist wall in China,
Let’s take those in order:
1) “Some contributions to math and science…” No. You don’t get much more pivotal contributions to math than the concept of zero, which was invented independently in a couple of places, including Mesoamerica, but never by anybody classifiable as “European.” Europe did of course adopt it enthusiastically when it came to their notice, centuries later. Other non-European contributions include silk, paper, writing itself, as well as important knowledge in astronomy, medecine, and engineering.
2) “Simple homes or huts.” No. Non-western residences spanned the gamut over time and space, of course, but are certainly not limited to the “simple.” Some Mesoamerican residences are stone, and display high degrees of precision, for example. Or take the “windcatcher”–a traditional architectural device with numerous regional and local variants across northern Africa and the middle East. Its use goes back millennia in Egypt and Iran. Only now are Western architects beginning to take it up. Obviously, such structures were not going to be useful for nomadic groups. But the elegance of some of their habitations renders them more than “simple.” I’m thinking particularly of the igloo–all an Innuit person needed was their snow knife, and the technique to use it correctly. (But that latter was a big deal!)
3) “Some stone temples crude by European standards.” Like Karnak? Or Angkor Wat? Or, for that matter, many Mayan structures?
4) “Simple weapons.” Try making a good bow, or for that matter, a good arrow. Then let me know how “simple” it is. Or a war club edged with obsidian. Or a blow gun, complete with the appropriate poisoned dart. They may not be firearms, but they are, or were, all highly effective and quite refined. And although it’s a tool for hunting, not a weapon of war, I’ll include the toggle harpoon–another Inuit invention that eventually Europeans and Americans ‘unbent’–hah!–enough to adopt from their racial ‘inferiors’:
Despite Basque, English and Dutch whalers operating in and near the Arctic and interacting with the Inuit for centuries, they had continued to use simple, non-toggling harpoon heads that they had desperately tried and failed to improve. It wasn’t until the approach of the 19th century when Inuit and Native American harpoons were looked at in closer detail and potentially inspired versions in steel such as the one-flued harpoon (intended to bend inside the whale), the grommet iron and, later in 1848, the toggle iron developed by Lewis Temple.
5) “a big racist wall in China…” Odd that that adjective would be used after a peroration about the “unchanging, brutal facts of human life,” but whatever. I guess Hadrian’s Wall must have been “racist,” and the Newark Earthworks, too. One does wonder why anyone would expect the Trump Wall to work any better than its predecessors did, though.
zebrasays
Gosh, Kevin, weren’t you one of the people who didn’t consider metallurgy and ceramics, which developed in many “indigenous” locations, including Sub-Saharan Africa, to be evidence of the application of the scientific method?
Apparently you have forgotten to read for comprehension. The discussion above isn’t about “the scientific method;” it’s about intellectual and practical achievements of all sorts. Try again.
zebrasays
Kevin, you are clearly not KIA, but consider the language you use:
“But KIA is mixing time periods here. Europeans–heck, let’s address the elephant in the room!–white people didn’t invent any of those things before the Columbian contact, either, (the wheel excepted.) However, indigenous people did invent or develop, among other things, corn–and see 1491 for what *that* took!–rubber, kayaks and canoes, snow goggles, cable suspension bridges, raised bed agriculture, baby bottles, syringes, and hammocks. So, clearly, they weren’t short of ingenuity.”
“Ingenuity”.
But in all that comment, you never mentioned the two very complex enterprises, metallurgy and ceramics, which were developed in sub-Saharan Africa. So, your indigenous peoples are “clever” and “ingenious” and “inventive”, but not up to the standards of Europeans in how they achieved their results, correct?
And BTW, the various spear-throwers (not used in Africa, I think) would require a more sophisticated application of physics than bows and arrows, although bows and arrows are indeed clever.
But in all that comment, you never mentioned the two very complex enterprises, metallurgy and ceramics, which were developed in sub-Saharan Africa. So, your indigenous peoples are “clever” and “ingenious” and “inventive”, but not up to the standards of Europeans in how they achieved their results, correct?
Absolutely *IN*correct. The list was merely a short, semi-random collections of counterexamples, with no attempt at a comprehensive listing of non-European (not necessarily “indigenous”–see KIA’s post for the context–achievements. Such a list would be excessively lengthy (for our purposes) both to compile and to read.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
KIA: These unchanging, brutal facts of human life are just part of the reason that our founding fathers made sure that the Constitution prohibited the government from infringing on THE PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms.
And speaking of geography, some quotes from Jack Dangermond (pretty much boosting ESRI as you might expect, but still…) and Vine Deloria– for the amusement of JCM (or whoever):
“GIS is waking up the world to the power of geography, this science of integration, and has the framework for creating a better future.”
“GIS is the only technology that actually integrates many different subjects using geography as its common framework.”
“GIS, in its digital manifestation of geography, goes beyond just the science. It provides us a framework and a process for applying geography. It brings together observational science and measurement and integrates it with modeling and prediction, analysis, and interpretation so that we can understand things.”
— Jack Dangermond
“New Swedens, New Frances, and New Englands flourished, and one glance at the map of New England will indicate how thoroughly the new settlers wished to relive their former lives in familiar places. No comprehensive theory of human existence, no profound religious insights, and no universal political ideas came to these shores initially. Rather the ideas that came with the first settlers were the perverted ideas that had failed in Europe; the psychological walking wounded brought with them an irrational fear of the unknown that was slightly less emotional than the fear of extinction that they had known in Europe.”
― Vine Deloria Jr.
Regarding the warring instability of Europe in colonial times, I wonder in particular about the effects of physical geography on say Balkanization in modern times.
Boksays
Hmm, I don’t know a lot about racial equality but I would point out that Arab societies were centers of learning about various aspects of the sciences in the Middle Ages and contributed unique insights that the Europeans hadn’t thought of. I looked it up and these names are highlighted:
Al-Khwarizmi
Avicenna
Ibn Al-Haytham
Al-Bīrūnī
Muhammad al-Idrisi
They made significant advances in math and astronomy, medicine and biology, navigation and cartography and music etc.
Course that was before the full blown fundamentalism of later societies. Similar creativeness could be found in other, non white cultures.
People like to think, as another example, that naturally people are “smarter” than non human animals. But that’s not actually how evolution works. Each species evolves in a way to best utilize their particular environment so as to ensure their continuance. I wonder if you survive in an environment that, say, a chimpanzee would find easy? How about a polar bear (they recycle their urea so that they can hibernate for up to 9 months!). Or a cat, etc. There are about 10,000,000 other species on this planet. That’s 10,000,000 other ways of living that suits their biology to ensure their survival.
On the other hand it was white peoples that ruined this land called America that the native Americans lived in for something like 40,000 years without over populating. Without completely destroying their environment. Look what we whites have done to this land in less than a mere 600 years by contrast.
You could argue that the native Americans were savages, fought in wars, killed off their large animals. I agree, that’s pretty awful. But we’ve also done the same thing. As a rule though they learned from their mistakes. S as a rule they’ve treated the land with respect. We have not.
Another thing to consider about our supposed superiority, which race was mainly involved in inventing the bomb? That has made generations of people, billions of them, sick with worry about the ever present possibility of destroying the entire planet with nuclear weapons?
There’s many different kinds of intelligence on this planet. I understand what you’re saying but it’s not a fair or accurate representation. It’s not the complete picture. It’s one promulgated by the same kinds of people who say that Columbus “discovered” America, even though native Americans were here long before they set foot here.
A book by paleontologist Stephan J Gould called The Mismeasure Of Man discussed your idea further.
Boksays
“But that’s not actually how evolution works” that sounds arrogant. Caveat: I’m not a biologist. Just giving my empirical opinion.
Another example of what I’m talking about. Take the Yanomami of the Amazon. True, they are primitive by western standards. But compare them to the west for that ultimate measure of a society’s success, happiness, and you would be hard pressed to put most whites in that group I think. We are a very depressed people in the west and over medicated because of it.
Too, they might be primitive by western standards, but do you think you could live off the land as easily as they do?
Another example of mostly western contribution to global welfare. Climate Change through our burning of fossil fuels and refusal to stop. Is that intelligent? So, yeah, different way to measure intelligence.
(And we can add “Anti-zero-ism” to the laundry list of sins of “vaporized” (and perhaps partially ‘ionized’) Christianity (context: 1, 2 (near end)). (don’t forget about anti-potato-ism, … and some more serious offenses))
While the invention of paper boosted Chinese and Islamic societies, the simple fact that the Latin alphabet could be printed using a small number of discrete, repetitive symbols helped popularize moveable type, handing Europe a crucial advantage at the beginning of the Renaissance. The printing press itself kicked off the scientific revolution that fast-tracked us to the current digital age. (Premiered September 30, 2020)
from “TRANSCRIPT”:
…
NARRATOR: Paper was key to another Chinese invention: woodblock printing. Each page of text was glued onto a wooden block, and then the characters were carved out by a skilled craftsman. This step was laborious and expensive, but once the wood block was produced, it was quick and cheap to print from, thanks to paper that was absorbent, flexible and inexpensive.
And because Chinese paper didn’t tear easily, it was a simple matter to stitch the pages together into a book. Indeed, paper was so plentiful, that even a thousand years ago, Chinese people could buy blank notebooks. Such an aid to thought would have been inconceivable in medieval Europe, where every single blank page was an expensive and scarce resource. In a world of parchment, many thoughts must have gone unrecorded.
…
NARRATOR: And that intellectual life was rich indeed. The five centuries that followed the beginning of papermaking in Samarkand came to be known as the Islamic Golden Age. The arts and sciences flourished. Islamic scholars made discoveries in geology, biology, medicine and especially mathematics. They gave us the words algebra and algorithm, and we still count using Arabic numerals. Samarkand was, itself, a great center of scholarship. In Registan Square, three great Islamic Universities face each other. They are covered in monumental Arabic calligraphy, praising God and extolling the virtues of learning. The oldest of the three Universities was founded by Ulugh Beg, ruler of Samarkand in the 15th century. But today Ulugh Beg is famous, not as a prince, but as an astronomer.
…
AHMAD AL-JALLAD: You see, the Arabic script is much more than simply a cursive script that connects letters together. In fact, it’s words that stack and are interwoven across the line. There it is not simply a sequence of words, but some words might be higher and lower, the ends of words might weave into the beginnings of others, and all of that is incredibly difficult to reproduce with moveable type.
…
NARRATOR: It was difficult for movable type to reproduce the look of an Arabic manuscript, and that made it hard to compete with the well-established local book trade. So, although Ottoman printers were soon printing Hebrew and Armenian alphabets, it was more than two centuries before the first Arabic print shop was established, in Istanbul, in 1727.
——
…”It’s one promulgated by the same kinds of people who say that Columbus “discovered” America, even though native Americans were here long before they set foot here.” – Well, the Europeans didn’t know about the Americas (and the Native Americans didn’t know about Europe … (setting aside Vikings?) … so the Voyage helped them discover each other’s lands. Columbus himself thought he went to India so I’m not sure he himself discovered the Americas at all (also, he killed a bunch of people and thought the Earth was smaller than it was; Eratosthenes – well, there’s some question about unit conversions, but he may have calculated a fairly accurate size of the Earth long before; Ancient Greeks (Ptolemy) already figured out the Earth was round).
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/12/journey-of-humanity-by-oded-galor-review-inequality-explained
*What I remember:
When a society industrializes, this may economically suppress industrialization of its trading partners – ie. suppliers of agricultural goods.
The slave trade sowed the seeds of distrust in parts(?) of Africa; trust is important for the economy to work well.
Other things – some interesting, some… well see the review’s criticisms. Idk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Freedom
*What I remember:
Europe’s geography impeded the unification of the continent, so different societies were competing with each other; the Church and the kingdoms each kept each other from becoming more powerful.
Carl Sagan: “Cosmos” (book) – *What I remember: a hierarchy in which few or none do both manual labor and thinking labor will tend to inhibit the development of science. (Well, everyone thinks – but people may be too tired from doing manual labor all day to really get deep about stuff?) Also, I believe there was a mention of the steam engine being invented in Greco-Roman antiquity, but … was it only used for theatrics? Because they had slaves?
The updated/sequel series with Neil deGrasse Tyson describes some intellectual achievements in other parts of the world outside the Mediterranean/Europe.
More: (** = I only saw part of it or I haven’t seen it yet)
“How Did Pleistocene Megafauna Go Extinct? GEO GIRL” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWaOoTI1Bec
(Overhunting is not the only way for humans to cause an extinction.
PS It occurs to me that sustainability is not the same thing as preservation; a sustainable way of life could displace another ecosystem.)
The Nazca engineered an extensive network of aqueducts, which tapped into subterranean water coming from the mountains, allowing them to bring it to the surface to store and distribute.
…
(crowd shouting) NARRATOR: Elsa believes the Nazca may have appealed to their deities in a way similar to an ancient and violent ritual still practiced today.
(crowd shouting) TOMASTO-CAGIGAO (translated): Today, in the Cusco region, in Canas, a ritual war is waged among communities that are not enemies, and who, on a given date, in a given space, come together in confrontation.
It’s a real confrontation.
People die and are injured, and the blood that is spilled from these clashes is seen as an offering to the Mother Earth relating to fertility.
(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors had slaves or conducted human sacrifice or ritual torture, not only don’t do those things today but have no desire to. The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500 (perhaps in part due to influence/inspiration from indigenous cultures), and I know many are quite happy about that – although maybe not all (MAGA?).)
…
BERESFORD-JONES: One of the reasons Wari were on the south coast was because they wanted to extract cotton, which they couldn’t grow in the highlands.
NARRATOR: The Nazca valleys, kept fertile by the aqueducts, were perfectly places to grow cotton and other crops.
Coming under the influence of a more powerful civilization, the Nazca cut down their forest to make space for agriculture.
WHALEY: The Nazca were pushed by the Wari to overextend their agriculture, eating into the last relics of, of forest.
Were the Inca no longer indigenous once they started conquering other people?
The authors describe ancient and modern communities that self-consciously abandoned agricultural living, employed seasonal political regimes (switching back and forth between authoritarian and communal systems), and constructed urban infrastructure with egalitarian social programs. The authors then present extensive evidence for the diversity and complexity of political life among non-agricultural societies on different continents, from Japan to the Americas, including cases of monumental architecture, slavery, and the self-conscious rejection of slavery through a process of cultural schismogenesis. They then examine archaeological evidence for processes that eventually led to the adoption and spread of agriculture, concluding that there was no Agricultural Revolution, but a process of slow change, taking thousands of years to unfold on each of the world’s continents, and sometimes ending in demographic collapse (e.g. in prehistoric Europe). They conclude that ecological flexibility and sustained biodiversity were key to the successful establishment and spread of early agriculture.
The authors then go on to explore the issue of scale in human history, with archaeological case studies from early China, Mesoamerica, Europe (Ukraine), the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa (Egypt). They conclude that contrary to standard accounts, the concentration of people in urban settlements did not lead mechanistically to the loss of social freedoms or the rise of ruling elites. While acknowledging that in some cases, social stratification was a defining feature of urban life from the beginning, they also document cases of early cities that present little or no evidence of social hierarchies, lacking such elements as temples, palaces, central storage facilities, or written administration, as well as examples of cities like Teotihuacan, that began as hierarchical settlements, but reversed course to follow more egalitarian trajectories, providing high quality housing for the majority of citizens. They also discuss at some length the case of Tlaxcala as an example of Indigenous urban democracy in the Americas, before the arrival of Europeans, and the existence of democratic institutions such as municipal councils and popular assemblies in ancient Mesopotamia.
…
Returning to North America, the authors then bring the story of the Indigenous critique and Kondiaronk full circle, showing how the values of freedom and democracy encountered by Europeans among the Wendat and neighbouring peoples had historical roots in the rejection of an earlier system of hierarchy, with its focus at the urban center of Cahokia on the Mississippi.
…
patrick o twentysevensays
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors had slaves or conducted human sacrifice or ritual torture, not only don’t do those things today but have no desire to. The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500 (perhaps in part due to influence/inspiration from indigenous cultures”[democracy, equality?, freedom – including freedom of thought, perhaps]“), and I know many are quite happy about that – although maybe not all (MAGA?).)”
– I suppose this sounds odd without the context of how many white settlers/colonists mistreated indigenous people. Sorry, I just hadn’t planned to go into that.
I will note – It seems to me that indigenous societies/cultures were not (generally) simply static for the 5000+ years before 1000 CE or 1500 CE. It makes sense: people try new things, things happen (natural changes (climate), changes caused by other peoples, etc.) So my guess is that societies would sometimes cease to be sustainable and have to adapt.
Radge Haverssays
“I suppose this sounds odd without the context of how many white settlers/colonists mistreated indigenous people.”
A gross understatement given official and coordinated campaigns of genocide. Repercussions of that and abuses go on to this day.
(and cultural genocide, …)
If the incompleteness and imprecision of my tangent gave any aid and comfort to history deniers, I do apologize.
Radge Haverssays
Patrick o twentyseven,
My apologies for being pedantic and ot. It was inappropriate. I blame it on a caffeine deficit.
patrick o twentysevensays
No need to apologize, and you were no more OT than I was; I was concerned that my original wording could have implied a fictitious level of symmetry.
patrick o twentysevensays
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors ” …
I hope no one took that to mean all indigeneous societies did all those things, etc. (I’d like to say most did none of that sort of thing, at least not regularly, but I don’t know. I do know there were differences among the societies.)
I would also remove “also” from “The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500”…
patrick o twentysevensays
(replaces prior comment, if I posted something similar yesterday)
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors ” …
I hope no one took that to mean all indigeneous societies did all those things, etc. (I don’t know how common or rare these behaviors were; I do know there were differences among the societies.)
I would also remove “also” from “The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500”…, as it may imply more symmetry than there was.
patrick o twentysevensays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
“Seven generation stewardship is a concept that urges the current generation of humans to live and work for the benefit of the seventh generation into the future. It is believed to have originated with the Great Law of the Iroquois – which holds appropriate to think seven generations ahead and decide whether the decisions they make today would benefit their descendants.”
————— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahwahnechee#Plant_use
“ The Ahwahneechee burned undergrowth in the Valley to protect the oak trees. Acorns were a central staple of their diet, Black oak acorns providing almost 60% of it.[13]” – It makes sense to me that people who manage the land/water to maintain or boost its productivity of resources for themselves (including but not limited to farming crops) would probably be sustainable conscientiously or deliberately, if they are sustainable.
Yes. If your livelihood depends on the workings of the natural world around you–including your own interventions–and if it requires close observation of said workings, you aren’t so likely to throw random metaphorical sabots into the system. You won’t necessarily be infallible, nor immune to cultural seductions, or personal or familial desperation, or whatever may come along to challenge you, distract you, or overpower you. But if you’re reflexively paying attention to the environment, you’re going to make a lot fewer ecological ‘unforced errors.’
Mr. Know It Allsays
FYI, forecast low temperature for July 11 in Vostok, Antarctica is -101 F. Brrrrrr……
Yes, it’s the southern hemisphere winter, 1300km from the south pole and at an altitude of 3500m. The average July minimum is -65ºC (-85ºF).
However, the only -74ºC (-101ºC) forecast for the 14 days 13-27 Jul is the “feels like” temperature on the 15 Jul. The actual temperature forecast for that day is a balmy -57ºC (-71ºF), 8ºC above the July average. Only 4 days in the coming 14 have temperatures below the July average. The coldest day in the 14 day forecast is 21 Jul, -70ºC (-86ºF).
But sure, it’s cold.at Vostok in winter. Did you expect otherwise?
Mr. Know It Allsays
Zebra, 10 July 4:51 AM said: “….performance on tests which measure memorization of High School problem sets, and performance of mindless algorithms, is considered the pinnacle of mathematical achievement. And to those people, that defines “math”. ”
MKIA says: Where did you go to school? I do not remember memorizing any “HS problem sets”. What is that? What are you talking about?
What is “performance of mindless algorithms”? Again, with lots of HS math 3 semesters of Calculus, one of Differential Equations, and a quarter of Linear Algebra, I do not remember any “mindless algorithms”? OK, maybe LA is a little bit like that. Got any examples? In what math subjects did you experience these “mindless algorithms”? You’re not confusing algorithms with world renowned climate scientist Al Gore are you? :)
Piotr July 14 6:19 PM said: “That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …”
MKIA says: Nothing went over my head, I just pointed out that YOUR definition was not the generally accepted meaning of the word “snowflake”. It is not directed specifically at scientists or environmentalists. It doesn’t have anything to do with actual snow. :)
BPL 9 July 11:42 AM said: “BPL: I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.”
MKIA says: I wish you were correct, but sadly, it appears that they say it all the time, as Zebra did above. The reasons for this nonsense are sinister and is off-topic here, but the end result does not bode well for science in the future:
prl 12 Jul 2024 8:19 PM said: “However, the only -74ºC (-101ºC) forecast for the 14 days 13-27 Jul is the “feels like” temperature on the 15 Jul. The actual temperature forecast for that day is a balmy -57ºC (-71ºF), 8ºC above the July average.”
MKIA says: No, the FORECAST Low was -101 F, but I see how you could be confused. If you click on the left side of the graph you can go back in time to the actuals. The actual was -99 F on 11 Jul. On that day the “feels like” was about -122 F. The lows for July 8 thru July 12 were -90F or lower every day. And yes, it is expected to be cold down there when the sun does not rise above the horizon for months at a time. Tough being a climate scientist down there! I’ll bet there is a huge celebration when the sun pops up over the horizon as spring approaches.
zebrasays
KIA, can you give an example of solving a problem on a typical e.g. calculus test that does not involve performing an algorithm? Do you even know what an algorithm is?
Perhaps you think that since software has been able to solve those kinds of problems for decades and decades, we’ve had “Artificial Intelligence” all along?
No, it’s simply a process of pattern recognition… “if you see this, do that”. You can do well on the standardized tests if you practice a lot, and can handle the stress of the testing environment. It’s recitation, not thinking,
And I’ve yet to hear anyone explain why we apply this form of testing to the general population, given that even scientists and engineers and such don’t sit in isolation from external resources, with pencil and paper, and an artificial time limit, when doing their jobs.
nigeljsays
Zebras right that maths, at least at secondary school level, is basically learning and applying ‘algorithms’. Definition of algorithm Oxford Dictionary: “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.”
I wouldn’t call it recitation as such because you arent just regurgitating facts. Its more of using a process rather than thinking deeply.
Memorising and knowing how to use algorithms has value of course. I’m no maths expert, but I had to use basic equations of algebra, trig., and occasionally calculus, in my job, but I agree just learning them and how to use them doesnt make people think in a deeper way. But how do you teach students in maths to think deeply as such? Could Zebra explain with some examples.
One thing I thought of is getting students to figure out from first principle how some of the famous equations are derived such as for the area of a circle and the value of pi in the equation. Ive seen how its derived by dividing a circle into triangles approaching a limit. There are other ways as well, apparently. Such an exercise would be very challenging for students, but you could give them some clues along the way.
I think that adapting education to societal changes of the last decades is one of biggest challenges that stand before us, as a humanity. People are extremely diverse. A didactic approach which is helpful for someone may be harmful for someone else.
Ten years ago, my younger son spent as a 16-years old boy one semester at the Rangitoto School in Auckland, and still appreciates this experience as one of a few which decisively formed his further life. I therefore think that it is a good way that someone learns to understand mathematics and someone else learns how to be a good carpenter but they still meet each other and exchange their experience in the same school.
Nevertheless, even such an integrated and at least from the viewpoint of of Germany or Czech Republic almost revolutionary school can be still at a very start to changes that must came – at least according to an original Czech thinker and educator Jan Kršňák. Although his works
are, to my best knowledge, still accessible in Czech language only, I think that they may deserve an attention.
He thinks that the present education system is basically untenable and irreparable and, if not replaced with a new system based on very different principles, it will unavoidably collapse sooner or later, due to deep changes in literacy requirements, knowledge sharing and social interactions brought by digitalization.
He supposes that we will have to desist from the idea that it is necessary to teach a universally shared “knowledge base” as an obligatory curriculum, because this base now does exist externally in a digital form, in which it may be practically instantly accessible to everyone. What should be taught is rather how to navigate therein.
Kršňák therefore expects that the traditional teaching in form of a knowledge transfer from the teacher to the pupil will widely change to a kind of “exploration with guidance”, wherein the teacher rather gives his/her younger pupils an example/inspiration where (and how) to gain the knowledge by learning new things himself/herself in parallel with them than by directly passing a specific knowledge on them. In other words, it is possible that most effective way how the teachers could transfer their learning skills to their pupils may consist in exploring the quickly changing world basically in parallel with them and in a kind of a partnership therewith.
Kršňák arrived at this vision because he every day meets children, teachers and parents who are desperate of the present education system but do not know how to fix it.
I think that implementing his vision is, of course, a big challenge, because
1) nobody knows if the idea is correct, and even in case that it is correct,
2) nobody knows how to successfully iterate from existing system to the new one.
Nevertheless, I share Kršňák’s feeling that the 250 years-old Prussian model of general education, originally designed for upbringing children to loyal citizens and disciplined soldiers of an absolute monarchy, reached its limits already long ago. I think that his ideas may not be completely silly, because although they were promoted already by John Comenius
I am afraid that they have in fact never been implemented consistently.
I think that it may perfectly apply just for the central role of personal example in upbringing and education. Although the Latin proverb “verba movent, exempla trahunt” may be much older than Comenius’ works, I think that there is still a huge unexploited space for its broader application in education.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Piotr July 14 : “That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …”
KIA : “ Nothing went over my head”
Unfortunately for you – by their fruits, not by their self-serving assurances you shall know them:
– I pointed to Killian the irony of his using toward his opponents – the language of MAGA (“snowflakes”)
– KIA joined in to prove … what nobody discussed (whether MAGAns use their “snowflakes” only to environmentalists, or not only to environmentalists.)
Hence you understood nothing the discussion you joined in was about. That you can’t even admit it – and instead assure how “ Nothing went over [your] head” – just proves that self-reflection is not your strong suit either.
But that’s hardly a surprise – not being the sharpest knife in a drawer, along with covering your ignorance with arrogance toward others, and the lack of self-reflection – are the necessary conditions for believing Trump.
prlsays
Yes, I made a clear typo in the unit when I typed my post, but you failed to find any actual error in what I posted.
It would also make the conversation simpler if you used the units that the data you quote rather than converting them.
However, -68ºC (-90ºF) is not an extraordinarily low minimum for Vostok in July. The July average minimum there is -64ºC (-83ºF).
The record minimum at Vostok was −89.2 ºC (−128.6ºF) in 1983, and it’s the coldest weather temperature reliably recorded anywhere on earth.
If you want to try to make some sort of point about Vostok not warming, then you’d need to look at the average temperatures over longer time windows and over a longer time span than a few days in winter. And even if Vostok isn’t warming, it doesn’t tell use much about global climate change, other than the expected “global warming doesn’t mean that everywhere increases in temperature, and by the same amount”. But I doubt there’s anyone here that thinks that.
KIA: FYI, forecast low temperature for July 11 in Vostok, Antarctica is -101 F. Brrrrrr……
Typical temperatures for July there are between -64°C and -71°C. So your Brrrrr is only 10 C colder than avg. temp. Let’s say the Vostok station is representative of 500 km2 around it. Earth in comparison has an area of 510,000,000 km2.
And one day is weather, not climate – for climate you need, say, 3 decades.
So your Brrrrrrrrr on July 11 lowered the GLOBAL climatological average . by a stunning 1 BILLIONTH of a degree!
Quickly, call Trump that you have just disproved GLOBAL warming !
Boksays
Unless I’m mistaken, Silent Running was when the human population increased by such an amount that farming for food was taken off the planet altogether and pushed into space.
Some say that we will stop growing. Others that, like rabbits, will keep growing until the food runs out and a crash results. The way it naturally happens. Think there’s a scientific study that claims that too. Better then that we think ahead and not leave things to chance.
Boksays
Sorry, I messed up that bold text. Not intended.
Anyway, people who are population apathetic say that the population will level out when everybody is as rich as Americans. Well 1. We’re running short on stuff, and causing a lot of issues getting it, now, how much more so when we have twice as many people? 2. Even if they all get as rich as those in the west that won’t be the end. That same demand for stuff will need to continue to keep them and the children rich.
A fine line is approaching. A point of no return. Why are we cutting it so close? Why are we leaving it to chance?Just hoping things will work out? To me it’s a gamble that is not worth the risk.
Who knows though, maybe those who say the rate of increase is slowing and will stop at a certain maximum population are right as far as people are concerned. But in so doing we will lose probably all the big wildlife that exists. :( Oh well.
BPL: Looks like Julian SImons was insane. The man literally thought growth could last forever.
Boksays
KIA. I asked the AI in my search engine what the trends are for wildlife in Africa. It said,
“Decline: Lion populations are declining rapidly across Africa, except in intensively managed areas. The estimated decline from 2006 to 2023 is around 36%.”
“The Great Elephant Census found that the carcass ratio (the number of dead elephants per 100 alive) was nearly 12%, indicating a continent-wide decline in elephant populations.”
Yes deer numbers are high, but that’s agreed to be because we’re have eliminated or are eliminating their natural predators including the cougar, wolf and grizzly bear (due to hunting and habitat fragmentation. True, with intensive conservation efforts cougar numbers are rebounding somewhat yet AI concludes that,
“populations have declined in most parts of their historical range due to intensive hunting and human development overall”
For wolves it says,
“Wolves were once widespread across the United States, occupying approximately 95% of their historic range. However, due to human activities such as hunting, trapping, and habitat destruction, their populations declined drastically.”
For grizzly bears,
“Between 1850 and 1970, grizzlies were eliminated from 98% of their original range. In the Yellowstone region, the population has exhibited little or no growth since 2004, with evidence of decline during recent”.
Julian Simon saw the writing on the wall for endangered species (not really caring though) and so proposed that if people are worried,
“do we want only to maintain the species just this side of extinction? If the latter, why not just put them in a few big zoos.”
Even if some wildlife is increasing, to me it’s not a great success when they number only in the thousands while we number in the billions..
Boksays
A few more,
“Hippos have undergone significant population declines due to habitat loss, hunting, and human encroachment. According to recent estimates, there are approximately 125,000-148,000 common hippos remaining in the wild”
It sounds like rhinos are making a comeback because of strict conservation efforts. However there’s this comment.
“In the early 20th century, there were approximately 500,000 rhinos in Africa and Asia. By 1970, their numbers had declined to 70,000. Today, as few as 29,000 rhinos remain in the wild, highlighting the significant decline in their population over the past century. …. Overall, rhino populations have declined significantly since the early 20th century, with only a few thousand remaining in the wild”
Tiger,
“Historically, tigers have lost an estimated 95% of their original range. They were once widespread across Asia, but human activities such as deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and poaching have significantly reduced their numbers.”
I don’t want to be all doom and gloom. Maybe hunting helps sometimes, I don’t know. Some say that the money made from allowing hunting which is supposed to go to conservation is instead being diverted and siphoned by corrupt governments and individuals. In any case, any conservation today is only as long as the current political regime that has protected them remains in power..
Again, it’s sad that we are measuring our variable and fragile “successes” in conservation by the fact that we have slightly increased some endangered species numbers. Yet they still number in the mere thousands while our numbers are in the billions and rising. But hey, that’s me.
Again, why not stop our encroachment (in all its various forms) while we still can? The best way to do that it seems to me is to figure out a way to humanely reduce our population (and thus our population pressure).
Radge Haverssays
Bok,
“The best way to do that it seems to me is to figure out a way to humanely reduce our population”
Maybe so, but the “figuring out” part is a monster.
Meanwhile, what has to happen either way is preserving/creating open spaces and corridors, building sustainable cities up instead of just sprawling out, remediating invasive species, providing local peoples with economic alternatives and education, etc. etc.
But anyway you look at it, it’s largely a matter of will.
Boksays
All good points, Radge. Don’t forget education about overpopulation. From the top down. Give it all the attention we give to climate change. Right now no one “official” wants to touch the problem. It’s a political hot potato. There’s money invested in keeping the population growing.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Humans have wiped out some species. We were short-sighted, but we are learning from our mistakes. We continue to work to prevent the extinction of the “big wildlife” you refer to. We are not going to reduce our population – “big wildlife”, particularly predators, will have to live on the land available to them. Grizzlies and wolves are not endangered. In North America they have most of Canada and all of Alaska where they live with little interaction with humans. They can live in the lower 48, but will be limited to the remaining wild areas, and if they go after livestock or humans they will be killed. We are the apex predators.
Africans can conserve their “big wildlife” as they see fit. Plenty of other nations and organizations are willing to help them. I do hope they are successful.
MR. KiA,
Julian Simons was insane. The world reached peak conventional crude oil a few years ago. Ehrlich was on track. End of story. Simons has become a footnote warning people to ignore cranks offering up wagers on crackpot theories.
But that’s precisely what much of the world is actually doing, albeit slowly. Per this list, 51 nations–OK, 50 if you don’t count Vatican City!–have population growth rates that are negative or 0. Another 97 have annual growth rates of 1% or less, and many of them are going to see that drop predictably due to demographic structure (read: “aging population.”) Piotr has made some decent arguments why this might not be something to take for granted, but nevertheless significant chunks of the world are seeing population declines, or are reasonably expected to see them soon.
Bruce Calvert in Ottawasays
Readers may be interested in my newly published research article (https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4791) that discusses improvements to global instrumental temperature datasets to better account for non-uniform warming across the planet, in particular with respect to greater warming in the Arctic and the impact of melting sea ice. The result of the research is a new dataset (https://doi.org/10.26050/WDCC/HadCRU_MLE_v1.2), which is similar to HadCRUT5 Analysis, but with some improvements (and a few disadvantages) relative to HadCRUT5 Analysis. The results suggest that existing global temperature datasets (with the possible exception of Berkeley Earth) have underestimated global warming since the late 19th century by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. The best estimate of my research paper is that the Earth’s surface has warmed by an average of 1.548°C since the late 19th century, with a 95% confidence interval of [1.449°C, 1.635°C]. Although, as discussed in my research article, I suspect that my methodology might slightly overestimate the global mean surface temperature change due to the use of a temperature field that is discontinuous between open sea and sea ice regions (Berkeley Earth may also be affected by this). Uncertainty in sea ice concentrations remains a major source of uncertainty for estimates of global mean surface temperature change since the late 19th century, and this uncertainty is not quantified or included in any global instrumental temperature dataset.
Although past performance does not guarantee future results, constant predictions of doom and gloom should be put in perspective. Humanity has solved many challenges in the past, and there is no reason to believe that we will not be able to solve problems in the future. Put differently, there is no compelling evidence to support calls for mandatory curbs on human reproduction and consumption.
We will certainly be able to solve problems in the future. However, we have never to my knowledge solved all problems in the past, and there is equally no reason to believe that we will be able to solve all problems in the future.
As for “no compelling reason, etc.,” the question must be asked “compelling for whom?” It’s an inherently subjective term, which means that the assertion of non-existence is almost certainly false. Especially when there is highly ‘compelling’ reason to believe that, mandatory curbs or not, energy consumption will be curbed by something at some point:
Dr. Murphy provides as mathematically compelling a reductio to infinte growth as can be conceived. More recently, he has gone on to question what he calls “modernity,” or “human supremacism”:
I’m not uniformly convinced by all the points he makes in that post, but it’s certainly well-worth pondering. And in my dizzy little mind at least, it connects with the recent discussion about lessons from indigenous culture. Murphy writes:
A human supremacist—not driven by hate, let’s be clear—thinks nothing of clearing a forest for crops; exterminating pests; enslaving animals for work or food; damming a river for energy; killing a bear who has attacked a human; animal research for the remote possibility of someday treating a human disease; scraping the ocean floor for minerals; destroying desert communities of life with solar installations; killing countless birds with domestic cats, speeding hulks (planes, cars, windmills), and even house windows. Why ever wouldn’t we do these things? One human life (especially a child) is worth any number of frogs, eels, meerkats, chickadees, or deer, in the human supremacist mind—a point I’ll revisit in a future post.
Indigenous people certainly harvested animals for food, killed them in self-defense from time to time, cleared land for cultivation or habitation, and arguably “enslaved” dogs, and when Europeans brought them over, cats and horses for their own purposes. What they generally seem not to have lost sight of, though, was that all those things came at a cost to the animals, plants, or the world generally–and that we ourselves are an inextricable part of that world, not ‘lords of creation’ with a divine right to waste without thought.
Mr. Know It Allsays
My best estimate is that the temperature in a building cannot be determined to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, much less the temperature of the planet. :) In semiconductor manufacturing facilities, they measure to such accuracy in some areas, but not the entire building. The planet? Ain’t gonna happen.
John Pollacksays
Apparently, you haven’t considered that it is much easier to get an accurate average of a large number of measurements than an individual measurement, since an average is likely to minimize small random errors of measurement. But weren’t you telling us a little while back that you had an understanding of statistics? This is a beginner’s error!
It was in reply to this: ” The results suggest that existing global temperature datasets (with the possible exception of Berkeley Earth) have underestimated global warming since the late 19th century by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. The best estimate of my research paper is that the Earth’s surface has warmed by an average of 1.548°C since the late 19th century,………”
We cannot measure Earth’s average surface temperature to within a few hundredths of a degree, because the number of measurements is too low for the size of the Earth. The vast areas we do not measure, all of them changing every second, make such accuracy impossible. You cannot even claim you can calculate the average of the measurements we do make to such accuracy unless every one of them is taken at the exact same point in time.
I’ll leave detailed explanations to the more statistically adept, but I have it on good and ample authority that none of what you said is correct. But you may profit from pondering this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
Mal Adaptedsays
Speaking of acceleration, Tamino has just confirmed a statistically significant increase in the rate of global warming since 2000, over five global datasets:
…While the significance is weakest for HadCRU and strongest for NOAA, it’s over 95% confidence for all of them. My conclusion is that recent acceleration of global warming isn’t just likely, it’s confirmed.
There is still room for doubt, if you doubt that the adjusted data represent things correctly then the recent apparent acceleration may be just random accident. All told, I find that too unlikely.
Addendum: I should answer the question in this post’s title. In my estimation, the current rate of global warming is greater than 0.02°C/year, probably greater than 0.025°C/year, and my opinion is up to 0.03°C/year.
IMHO, that significantly increases the urgency of national and global decarbonization. My fellow US voters, please vote Democratic this November.
Yes. A vote for Trump is a vote for a significantly worse future; a failure to vote *against* Trump is a failure to vote for a significantly better future.
From Project2025 (note that this is just one of many anti-climate mitigation policies proposed):
Needed Reforms
l End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden
Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive
policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable
resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to
the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy
security and cost. For example, EERE’s five programmatic priorities
during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the
electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the
agricultural sector.
l Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency
is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency
standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances,
including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers
and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads.
Current law and regulations reduce consumer choice, drive up costs for
consumer appliances, and emphasize energy efficiency to the exclusion of
other important factors such as cycle time and reparability.
New Policies
l Eliminate EERE. The next Administration should work with Congress to
eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in EERE
(with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for
new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize
preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market
and undermining energy reliability.
Mal Adapted,
I don’t see anything immediately new in the Tamino post.
The April 2024 RC post on the subject noted Tamino’s finding of ‘significance’ but suggested we needed to understand first “quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration or not is a bit ambiguous, and also that the alarming “Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting.”
What could be considered a bit mealy mouthed, the “screened” CMIP6 models in the presented-graph are projecting a post-2014 global warming rate of +0.27ºC/decade which fits with the Tamino analysis, as well as my own humble efforts.
Mal Adaptedsays
MAR,
The finding of statistically significant acceleration was new to me, but you may be paying closer attention. I know Tamino hasn’t previously verified acceleration by rigorous statistical test, amirite? A beautiful theory now confirmed by an ugly fact.
Mal Adaptedsays
Bok:
A fine line is approaching. A point of no return. Why are we cutting it so close? Why are we leaving it to chance?Just hoping things will work out? To me it’s a gamble that is not worth the risk.
I’m pretty sure most of us here agree that the growth of population, per capita GDP and technological capacity over the past couple of centuries has taken an incalculable toll on the biosphere, eroding global biodiversity and degrading ecosystem services by innumerable mechanisms. We’re an educated (on average) group, however. Much of the rest of world is insensitive to the ongoing 6th Great Extinction in the history of life:
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise. ” (A. Leopold).
The ultimate answer to your questions about why this happening is signaled by your use of ‘we’. The accumulating injuries to the biosphere amount to the Tragedy of the Commons on the largest possible scale. Economics explains why common-pool resource tragedies require collective intervention in markets, which otherwise socialize every transaction cost they can get away with. Correcting market failures, by implementing “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (G. Hardin), is a legitimate function of governments that purport to serve their country’s collective will.
Therein lies the rub: under the modern tilt to popular sovereignty, taking any collective action against aggregate environmental (i.e. socialized) costs requires a plurality of voters to agree that mutual coercion is required. Due to the rise of Capitalism along with population, affluence and technology, government by popular will is vulnerable to hijacking by, for example, fossil fuel corporations and their investors, who wield the power of wealth beyond historical dreams of avarice, and whose primary interest is in fending off collective intervention in their profit streams. In the USA, the growing influence of carbon capital on politics and public discourse is documented over at least three decades, as is frequently cited on RC; no need to link those documents here. They are a matter of public record, the product of disciplined investigative journalism published in credible venues, e.g. the New York Times, and New Yorker magazine, and must be considered probative. They should, also, really piss off every US voter. Apparently, we have sold our democracy to people who got rich by charging all the traffic will bear for their products while socializing the marginal climate change costs. No wonder we didn’t manage to enact the first national legislation aimed at taking the profit out of selling fossil carbon, until 2022!
What is to be done? If you’re a US voter, the literal least you can do is vote Democratic this November. The Democratic Party isn’t innocent of fossil fuel money, but is plainly the lesser evil now.
Boksays
Hi MA.
“Therein lies the rub: under the modern tilt to popular sovereignty, taking any collective action against aggregate environmental (i.e. socialized) costs requires a plurality of voters to agree that mutual coercion is required.”
Yes but under others such as communistic governments those governments get around popular opinion by simply disregarding what the people want and having little to no environmental laws at all if it impinges on business, and they back that up with their military. So we have the horrible air in China that people are forced to breathe. When the wall fell in Germany and western journalists poured in they found lots of pollution in the East, At least westerners can make laws that business are required to follow. The question is who’s better at getting their message out, the people or business.
“Apparently, we have sold our democracy to people who got rich by charging all the traffic will bear for their products while socializing the marginal climate change costs”
Would have been much more marginal if we’d started a lot earlier. If there’s one thing that the FF companies are good at it’s manipulating public opinion in their behalf. Taking a page from Big Tobacco. We can argue it all we want here. They don’t care. Whatever. But soon as you try to do something concrete they come out shooting..
But it’s looking like it’s inevitable that T is going to win. Man, I don’t want to endure that again! I finally just stopped reading the news years ago. Can’t stand politics anyway. Sick of it all. Even discussing it. I know people will say that I’m part of the problem then. I’m just tired of this continual back-and-forth hate fest. Got to come up with a better system. That’s what James Hansen says too.
Comment from Zebra above.
“That’s less than the current population of California”.
According to the Internet the current population of California is 41.737 million. The entire country of Canada is 39. 107. Send to me though that Canada has shot up since I last saw their number.
Mal Adaptedsays
Bok, we are largely in agreement, but I wanted to explain what “marginal climate change costs” are. You may already understand this, but I wanted to be clear: “Marginal cost”, in this context, is a term of Economics art meaning incremental cost per additional unit of fossil carbon emitted to the atmosphere. Every fossil carbon transaction on the “free” market adds quantitatively, i.e. marginally, to the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The aggregate, ie. sum, of everyone’s marginal emissions is what’s causing global warming. I hope that helps.
I don’t want to defend China across the board–the lack of political freedom and basic human rights, the subjugation of law to the interest of the oligarchy, the oppression of minorities, and more latterly the resurgence of what appears to be a colonizing mentality certainly merit forceful condemnation.
However, it appears to me that we constantly underestimate the dynamism of Chinese society, as well a particular characteristic of the CPC regime (now under Xi apparently firmly enmeshed in what they used to deride as a “cult of personality”): the insight that political control (AKA ‘tyranny’) is much easier to maintain if you take pains to keep the masses as happy as possible within the parameters of your political hegemony. (Hey, Macchiavelli had that figured out, too.) In ancient Rome, it was “panem et circenses”; in China today, it means in part dealing with what has indeed been a hideous air pollution problem. Urban air quality is still not good there, let alone great; most of the year, sensitive folks are still advised to avoid outdoor exercise. But let me quote from what appears to be a pretty neutral source:
In the last 15 years, China has been steadily improving its air quality. It reduced levels of PM2.5 by 47% between 2005 and 2015. Beijing recorded its lowest ever monthly reading for air pollution in August 2019, with a low of 23 µg/m³. The main reasons for the reduction of air pollution in China are the shift from coal to natural gas in the power stations, the large number of electric vehicles used by the people and the effort from the Chinese government to halt deforestation in the country.
It’s my perception, at least, that one of the motivations of the phenomenal deployment of renewable energy, EVs, and now battery storage in China has been to improve air quality and hence appease popular discontent on that score. (Other motivators cited include direct and indirect economic savings–air pollution still causes a lot of premature death, morbidity, and economic loss; increased energy independence; and, yes, climate change mitigation.)
China, which has been the primary driving force behind the acceleration of carbon emissions over the last couple of decades, is now the primary driving force behind the accelerating deployment
of cleantech.
China accounts for almost 60% of new renewable capacity expected to become operational globally by 2028. Despite the phasing out of national subsidies in 2020 and 2021, deployment of onshore wind and solar PV in China is accelerating, driven by the technologies’ economic attractiveness as well as supportive policy environments providing long-term contracts. Our forecast shows that China is expected to reach its national 2030 target for wind and solar PV installations this year, six years ahead of schedule. China’s role is critical in reaching the global goal of tripling renewables because the country is expected to install more than half of the new capacity required globally by 2030. At the end of the forecast period, almost half of China’s electricity generation will come from renewable energy sources.
I don’t know how many denialati told me after the Obama bilateral climate deal, which led up to Paris, that China would never fulfill the deal, and had never had any intention of fulfilling it. Instead, the opposite has happened–so much so, that a number of analysts are projecting Chinese emissions to peak this year, or next. Should that happen, world emissions will likely follow in relatively short order. Finally, we may see the much-wished-for “bend in the curve.” Fingers crossed…
Vote like this will be your last chance, because it probably is!
#VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy
Everything you care about depends on Democrats getting out the vote.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
Correct. It should be mandatory to vote, I don’t appreciate outsourcing democracy to others by not voting. Since it is not, let’s get as many people as we can to vote and to vote on issues that matter and to vote for people who deliver for the common good. And to never vote for reactionaries, including indirectly by protest voting.
My list of policy priorities:
1. Climate emergency
2. Biodiversity
3. Democracy
4. Peace
5. Health
6. Equality
7. Education
8. Dignified, meaningful, fairly paid work for all
9. Respect, care and love for all humans and all the living
10. Degrowth towards an economy in service of society and nature
If we don’t solve 1, by 2030 the latest, nothing else will matter.
Barry E Finchsays
Bok 12 JUL 2024 5:19 PM “as rich as”. There’s no such thing. It’s mostly Relative nowadays, not Absolute. Nutrititious food, water, disposal of garbage-waste, shelter from elements, defence from tigers, bears & squirrels (modern add-on: medical assistance for repairs, pain & suffering relief I find nice. Also 3 bicycles in perfect repair). I think that’s it isn’t it? All else is Frills so therefore it’s Relative so there’s no “as rich as” once you got the preceding, like I clearly got a lot more Frills than the rest of you but I don’t go on and on about it. What did I forget? (Maybe trousers, I was in Canadian Tire parking lot the other day).
Boksays
Cmon Barry. You KNOW how capitalism works. There’s no WAY you’re going to stop businesses from trying to sell all kinds of junk to anyone who has the money to pay for it, and no WAY you’re going to stop anyone from buying all that junk if they can. If I’m understanding you correctly. You can’t dictate what other countries can and cannot buy. If it’s there to buy.
Barry E Finchsays
KIA 11 JUL 2024 6:12 AM Vostok has “Antarctica is . Building on the crucial KIA physics, in that case the “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere works backwards (GHGs make the air lose some nice warm heat to space before it can descend to toes level and warm them) per at 20:09 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgP-lwf2tb8 and at 2:37 at zyoutubezNNgMyDRWWrA That’s because “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere has nothing whatsoever to do with “a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon from surface and reradiates<re-emits) it so half the time it's back down to surface" as shown in some junk pictorials and heard in junk speech, like I correctly pointed out for some random reason a few weeks back.
Sabinesays
JCM
What you say is great to hear and it has the ring of truth, and matches with the limited knowledge I have. Yet it is also so depressing in a world that is already going to hell fast. I fear we are far too late. I fear even more I have wasted my life and my talents and opportunities not grasped. It is a terribly sad place this planet of ours looking at what we have done to it and to each other.
Susan Andersonsays
Nonetheless, as long as we draw breath, it is up to us to not give up and do what we can.
Absolutely. At the personal level, we were always going to die; that hasn’t changed. My ambition is to appreciate whatever can be appreciated on the last day of my life–and to make meaning as best I can up to that point.
(Which is not to say that I’m likely to seek to accelerate the arrival of that ‘last day’ unduly. Though I have students and family 50 and 60 years my juniors. There might be times or circumstances I’d give up some of my time for them, if it seemed likely to be of use.)
A question for the climate scientists here. June 2024 was the 13th month in a row to set a new global temperature record for that month of the year. So we have now “lapped” the year.
My question is: looking ahead, what do you think will be the next month that DOES NOT set a new global temperature record for that month of the year?
“The next month the DOES NOT set a new global temperature record for that month of the year” will be July, this certainly in ERA5 and likely also in the likes of GISTEMP.
The resulting run of 13 ;scorchyusimo!!!’ months in ERA5 is shorter than the 16 month run set in ERA5 June2015-Sept2016 but the 13 months in GISTEMP 2023-24 exceeds the 8-month run October2015-May2016 (and with =1st months included in the run – June2015=June2016, also the 12-month run October2015-September2016).
Adam Leasays
January 2025. We have a developing weak La Nina and La Nina events tend to peak in early winter and result in a small global cooling, with heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean.
nigeljsays
From the Sydney Morning Herald: “It’s good news’: Scientists suspect history about to be made in China” July 13th 2024.
“But it is data from the past few months that is intriguing analysts today. The world’s economy is growing. China’s economy is growing. Yet greenhouse gas emissions appear to have peaked.”
“Some time last year, or perhaps earlier this year, it appears China’s emissions, in particular, reached a high point. If China has peaked, there is good reason to believe global emissions peaked, too. It would mean that some time over the past few months, the stubborn nexus between economic growth and greenhouse gas pollution was snapped, and the 250-year surge in emissions ended…….”
“In November last year, he wrote that despite the post-COVID surge in emissions, China’s massive deployment of wind and solar energy, growth in EVs and an end to a drought that had cut hydroelectricity generation had caused emissions to tumble.”
“A 2023 peak in China’s CO2 emissions is possible if the build-out of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year,” he wrote in an analysis for Carbon Brief based on official figures and commercial data.”
“Largely as a result of the China green surge, global investment in renewable technology in 2023 outstripped that in fossil fuels for the first time, the International Energy Agency reported.”
Lots of caveats of course. But I found the article interesting. Especially Chinas self interested motivation to dominate certain technology markets, and reduce its dependence on foreign oil for geo political reasons. But at least the environmental consequences are positive:
Yes, there have been at least two projections I’ve seen that global emissions were likely to peak this year–IIRC, RMI and Bloomberg were the sources. (N.B.–“I” may not “RC” here, but I’m not going back to check just this minute.) My fingers are certainly crossing on this one.
Mr. Know It Allsays
In reply to Barry E Finch 14 July 8:45 PM.
Thanks for that YouTube link. That info on the temperature inversion in Antarctica was good. The section on saturation was also very informative. I haven’t watched it all YET, but near the end he reassures us that the world will not end any time soon, despite the wisdom of our favorite Democrat bartender in Congress!
:)
Chuck Hughes, 16 July 3:26 AM says: “#VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy”
MKIA says: Tell us again how the Democrat party, the party trying everything possible to remove from the ballot BOTH major party candidates that THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IN THE PRIMARY is the party of “muh sacred Democracy”. We’ll wait. BWAHAHAHA! :)
Mal Adapted, 12 JUL 2024 AT 4:24 PM says in reply to the trick question about what year it is, says: “It’s 2024,…”
MKIA says: 2,024 years since WHAT happened?
;)
Mal Adaptedsays
MKIA says: 2,024 years since WHAT happened?
Well, it’s a big world, and I’m sure a whole lot of things happened all over it in the year-one-by-Western-convention. History itself is just one damn contingency after another, you know. If you asked a believing Christian that question you’d get one answer; if you asked a fundamentalist Hindu, you’d get another; a Confucian scholar, yet another. The “AD” literary convention arose because “science”, i.e. reality-based investigation of phenomena occurring on a consensus timeline, achieved global prominence concomitantly with Christianity, and the adoption of “CE” in place of AD reflects modern science’s religiously and culturally agnostic underpinnings. It’s not as if there’s any cosmic calendric marker, although the ignition of fusion in the newly accreted Sol might serve our parochial purpose. We’ve got that dated to within a mere 100 million years, at 4.6 billion years (GY) BP, i.e. Before Present; epochal year 1950 CE, solely by scholarly convention. Or how about the origin of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all earthly life, at ~4.2 GY (4.09–4.33 GY) ago? The ultimate origin year, however, the true Year Zero with none before it, was the origin of time itself*, about 13.7 GY BP. You know all this, Shirley.
Note that under AD and CE numbering, the year of Christ’s purported birth is counted as year 1, not year 0. That’s because Dionysius Exiguus, who invented “Anno Domini” calendar numbering, was constrained to use Roman numerals like every Christian scholar in 525 CE, and he had no numeral zero at his disposal. Western culture had to borrow that a few centuries later from India, via the Muslim conquests. While we were at it, we mostly chucked Roman numerals out the window, on account of Arabic numerals were better. What do you say to that, Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist?
* “Listen up: The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.” (R. Munro)
DOAKsays
“Democrat party” (look at me, look at me!)
The Colorado lawsuit to keep the insurrectionist Trump was filed by “six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters…”
President Biden withdrew his name from the nominating process, put his support behind the other person on the ballot that all Democratic primary voters voted for, and that candidate proceeded to raise 140 million within two days.
Besides, who doesn’t want to see an election between the Prosecutor and the Felon? :)
I’m just one guy, but this Democrat actually prefers Trump on the ballot to the plausible alternatives, because the only thing (usually) worse than an incompetent tyrant is a competent one.
Radge Haverssays
The curse is, “May you live in interesting times.”
I suspect that after the election things will get a little too interesting no matter who wins.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Killian 8 July 5:31 AM says concerning indigenous people:
“They accepted various genders.”
MKIA says: If we know they accepted various genders, we must know what they were. So, what are the various genders that they accepted? Did they have different roles in society for the “various genders”; in other words did they respect differences in capabilities of the various genders?
(+) feedbacks with momentum distribution allowing shifting (of storm track activity?**) N-S, but (–) thermal feedback would tend to anchor storm track activity eg. it wouldn’t just wander into and persist in the tropics – right? (Solar heating gradient+ocean currents (feedback there: wind- currents))
(** (+) momentum feedback exists – although – would the storm track activity necessarily follow the eddy-driven jet??? – I think/believe/reason/have the impression that there’s some wiggle room there)
– But I imagine there could be (+) thermal feedback (cloud+latent heating) – and if? storm track activity tends to maintain a thermal gradient by taking APE from elsewhere, then it presumably has greater capacity to shift around…? Hmmm…
nigeljsays
To JCM and Tomas Kalisz, who claim the IPCC ignores everything apart from greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and their impact on warming:
“Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.”
I do not think that JCM has ever asserted that the IPCC “ignores everything” etc. – it sounds somewhat too strong to me. It is rather my feeling that he repeatedly expressed concerns that the IPCC perspective and the picture offered to public may be (unintentionally) distorted.
I will attempt to explain why I share these concerns, by returning to the Czech philosopher Jan Kršňák mentioned in my post of yesterday, 19 Jul 2024 at 3:13 PM,
Kršňák emphasizes the central role of “nevědění” (which could be translated as non-wisdom, if the correct translation of “vědění” is wisdom, or “non-knowledge” or “knowledge gap” if the proper translation of this term is rather knowledge) in human life. I think that he intentionally coins this new word, with the aim to make a distinction between “nevědění” (“non-wisdom” or “knowledge gap”) and “neznalost” (ignorance). Whereas ignorance means simply lack of knowledge, “nevědění” includes an awareness thereof, and an awareness of possible risks linked thereto. This difference may look irrelevant, however, I think that it may sometimes become important, especially in real-life decision making.
It can make a dramatic difference if we, under so called “informed decision”, understand just the hypothetical situation wherein we have all necessary information available and have “just” to evaluate it properly, or rather the real life situation, wherein we can be hardly ever completely sure that we do not lack a knowledge which can be crucially important for the right decision. Kršňák thinks that the role of knowledge is overemphasized in present educational system and assumes that an education for real life in a digital society should include the awareness of a practically permanent “knowledge gap” which is an equally important component of our life as well.
To make a more specific practical example, I think that the role of knowledge gap in our thinking could be compared to the role of dark matter in the universe. Although astronomy collected an impressive amount of information about the universe, yet our present picture of the universe and our understanding thereto comprise mostly the visible matter, which seems to form in fact a tiny fraction of all the matter in the universe only.
Returning finally to the IPCC report cited by you, it indeed comprises lot of references to soil degradation, cooling effect of evapotranspiration, etc. I see its biggest weakness just in the exclusive focus on the available knowledge and in a complete absence of any attempt to directly address possible knowledge gaps that may distort the overall picture significantly.
In other words, the role of hydrology and terrestrial vegetation on local and regional level is emphasized correctly, in accordance with studies made. It may, however, rise a feeling that this role is limited to local and regional level and cannot play a role globally. For example chapter A4.1 of the “Summary for policy makers” may in my opinion lead to a such conclusion:
A.4.1
Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small (medium confidence). {2.4, 2.6.1, 2.6.2}
Such a conclusion might be, however, misleading. The seeming limitation of the role of hydrology to local and regional level might have been in fact caused by the circumstance that the role of hydrology in global climate has been barely studied.
[The IPPC report cited] indeed comprises lot of references to soil degradation, cooling effect of evapotranspiration, etc. I see its biggest weakness just in the exclusive focus on the available knowledge and in a complete absence of any attempt to directly address possible knowledge gaps that may distort the overall picture significantly.
I think that’s unfair. First, because the purpose of the ARs is to update and synthesize new knowledge regarding climate change. And second, because one very notable characteristic of all the ARs has been careful accounting for uncertainty, and attention to what is not yet known. One well-known case in point was the estimate of sea level rise which did not include known, but as yet unquantifiable, effects due to ice dynamics. You may question if they made the right call to report a number known to be too low because of the unquantifiable component, but you can’t fault their acknowledgement of the uncertainty, about which they were very clear. (AR5, IIRC?)
I am aware of the AR’s effort go accompany each assertion the made with an assessment of certainty. Uncertainty of a knowledge is, however, in my opinion something qualitatively different from its complete absence.
I complained that ARs do not try to address the real gaps, wherein either no knowledge does exist yet or seems to be too controversial, such as just the yet open question if human interferences with terrestrial water cycle might or might have not contributed to the observed global warming. Or another yet open question if changes in global water cycle intensity follow the same pattern as changes in global surface temperature.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kaliszsays
a correction to my post of 25 Jul 2024 at 1:30 AM:
The first sentence had to read:
I am aware of the AR’s effort to accompany each assertion they made with an assessment of certainty.
I apologize.
Sabinesays
Over the last year, the Earth has seen one of the sharpest short-term temperature spikes on record, pushing @BerkeleyEarth’s 12-month global average temperature to a stunning 1.68 °C (3.02 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
Globally, June 2024 was the warmest June since directly measured instrumental records began in 1850. It broke the previous record by 0.14 °C (0.25 °F), a relatively large margin clearly outside the range of the uncertainties.
The following is a summary of global temperature conditions in Berkeley Earth’s analysis of June 2024.
Globally, June 2024 was the warmest June since records began in 1850.
The previous record for warmest June, set in 2023, was broken by a relatively large margin (0.14 °C / 0.25 °F).
The ocean-average and land-average each also set new records for the warmest June.
Particularly warm conditions occurred in South America, parts of Asia, Africa, and large areas of the Atlantic Ocean.
Parts of Antarctica exhibited unusually cold monthly averages in June.
We estimate that 63 countries set new national monthly-average records for June.
The El Niño that began last year has now ended. La Niña is expected later this year.
The 12-month moving-average sets a new record at 1.68 ± 0.07 °C (3.02 ± 0.13 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
2024 is likely to be the warmest year on record.
The interesting bit of that Berkeley Earth monthly temp update you link-to is the discussion of the ‘Causes of Recent Warmth’ which is described saying“record warmth over the last 12 months has been due in large part to the El Niño condition in the Pacific,” with this additional to the ever-increasing AGW and with a nod to a “likely” contribution from “other variability” and in particular here the Northern Atlantic temp is noted which “was persistently warm during the second half of 2023 and remains warm in June” 2024. :Likely reasons for this Atlantic warmth include a contribution from “man-made regional warming due to new marine shipping regulations that abruptly reduced maritime sulfur aerosol pollution by ~85%.”
The Temp Update also discusses the possible annual average for the calendar year 2024 and whether 2024 will become the warmest year on record.
I’m not that impressed with their method here. They talk of a “statistical approach” which I would suggest has let them down. They say “it is typically true that the second year after an El Niño emerges is warmer than the first, though that is not guaranteed and I would say this is likely what has led them astray.
The graphic they present shows Jan-Jun2024 warmer than 2023 but then shows a good possibility of Jul-Dec2024 being warmer still. I cannot see how that would happen.
I’ve been plotting out the ERA5 daily global anomalies and comparison with the El Niño years 1997-98, 2009-10 & 2015-16 (posted HERE -graph ‘First Posted 15th Dec 2023’) and it is evident that recent El Niños have been peaking earlier and earlier (1998 June, 2010 March, 2016 February and 2024 the previous November). That shift to earlier peaking El Niños will have played havoc with any statistical approach.
As to why the earlier peak, answers on a postcard please. My own thought is that the response to the El Niño, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is altering possibly due to increasing ocean stratification as the warming from AGW builds.
Where that would leave the final full calendar year 2024 relative to 2023?
The daily ERA5 numbers put the first 201 days of 2024 +0.09ºC warmer than the 365 days of 2023 meaning the final 164 of 2024 would have to average -0.11ºC cooler than the 2023 average for the full year 2024 to be cooler than 2023. That is entirely possible but with stuff happening in an unprecedented way (global temperatures went “absolutely gosmackingly bananas” in the second half of 2023), the future may not be that predictable.
The Earth Climate App has been updated to version 1.8 beta, now features a character who reads video titles, supporter names, greets the user, and in a future patch will read RSS feeds, and perhaps the feed content as well. Other planned features may include user comments, ratings, a form to submit video content suggestions. Current videos are hosted at Cloudflare and NASA.
This is my first time on this forum. I saw the list of “Our Books”, and it stops in 2011. The authors should at least add Bradley’s 3rd edition of Paleoclimatology! It’s great, and from the Author’s Note to the 3rd edition, it sounds as though there are a lot of additions to the 3rd edition.
The press are reporting the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis global SAT for 22nd July as being “hottest day”on record, this based on the prelimenary result of +17.15ºC, a daily anomaly of +0.90ºC at the hottest part of the year. These prelimenary values do get adjusted but only by a couple of hundreths of a degree, so this is high enough above the previous daily record of +17.08ºC set on 6th July last year to make the declaration.
The daily anomaly of +0.90ºC is not a record with ClimatePulse showing anomalies of +1.1ºC over the last year. The monthly average is perhaps more of interest than a single daily value, and whether July 2024 will be hotter than July 2023, which would make it the 14th hottest ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ month in a row.
Despite the strong upward wobble in the ERA5 global anomaly of recent days, July 2024 looks unlikely to gain ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ status. It would require the last nine days anomalies of the month to average above +0.944ºC. Such a nine-day average has occurred four times before (over the last year) and once that happened within nine days of a start-point with a nine-day average equal to today’s latest nine-day average. But that was in late December last year and from the bottom of a wobble. The wobble would have to be seriously impressive to achieve that nine-day +0.944ºC average so quickly.
However, a July 2024 ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ isn’t such a distant possibility that it appeared a week back. The average to the 22nd is +0.63ºC and with the latest daily anomaly sitting up at +0.90ºC, that July average will drift up towards the +0.73ºC ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ value. It may well end up close enough that other SAT records could end up showing a ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ for July.
A graphic of the ERA5 dailies is being maintained HERE – graph FIRST POSTED 15th December 2023.
Some other July stuff.
2024 Atlantic hurricanes
Apart form the Cat 5 Hurricane Beryl, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season has so-far been rather quiet.
Beryl, as a powerful & long-lived storm, has racked up a high Accumulative Cyclone Energy score for July putting 2024 so-far in 3rd place for end-of-July ACE, with top spot being 2005 which racked up end-of-July ACE=63 and second placed 2008 with ACE=37, these three years well above all other years (4th spot becomes 2003 ACE=18), these high ACE by end of July being due to big early storms in those years.
What is perhaps odd with the 2024 season is it being so quiet given the predictions have been for a well-above-average season for storm numbers.
The top years for storm-count are 2020 (30 named storms), 2005 (28), 2021 (21) & 2023 (20). The predictions have all been showing 2024 with well-above 20 storms so the quiet start to the season (with the exception of Beryl) isn’t what was expected.
2024 Antarctic SIEJAXA VISHOP & NSIDC Charctic
Back in 2022, the Antarctic SIE was posting record daily lows through June & July, but these were entirely eclipsed by the crazy record lows seen through 2023, most impressive through June-August.
Through to June, 2024 wasn’t showing anything exceptional but then started running 2nd to 2023 and recently have dropped close enough to 2023 to start off thoughts that we could be seeing some record days in 2024.
Adam Leasays
“Apart form the Cat 5 Hurricane Beryl, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season has so-far been rather quiet.”
That is because it is July. Nothing much typically develops in the north Atlantic in July, the peak season is August to October. Even in prior hyperactive seasons (which 2024 is forecast to be) there have been examples where little formed before mid August. For example, 2004 which had a total ACE index well over 200 and was a very destructive season with many major hurricane landfalls had virtually nothing before the 1st August. We are still miles ahead of climatology when it comes to activity to-date. ACE up to now in the Atlantic is 36. Comparable or half of ACE to-date years with the total ACE are 2008 (146), 1966 (137), 1951 (126), 2003 (176) and 1996 (166). A quiet period in July means nothing as to how the season will pan out; however, a named storm forming in the tropical Atlantic prior to 1st August is pretty-much a sufficient condition for at least an average season and more likely than not is followed by an active season.
Adam Lea,
I wouldn’t myself rate 2004 as “hyperactive” in terms of storm numbers but, yes, it did kick off at the very end of July with a fair few big storms to rack up the seasonal ACE.
And yes, July is a bit of a pre-season period.
I suppose the two contrasting things which caught my attention this year was more the absence for long periods of even potential storm on the NHC webpage, although after a fortnight of nothing, one potential storm (20% chance) is now showing when I link to it. Judging this absence of potential July activity in 2024 as being exceptional is from memory
This contrasts with the average prediction for storm numbers being high for 2024 which I can quantify. For previous busy years, storm numbers, the predictions (made May-July) and storms by end-July run:-
The largest predicted number is for this year. And they all previously under=predict the busy seasons, even with August predictions. Perhaps these previous under-predictions make this year’s predictions sound rather ominous.
Adam Leasays
MA Roger:
Seasonal forecast skill for named storm numbers is the lowest out of the four metrics and is the least useful for analysing a season. ACE index is a much better metric as it is influenced by storm intensity and longivity as well as numbers. 2004 might have had lower storm numbers that some other recent seasons but many of those storms had long tracks across the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean sea, and had plenty of time to take advantage of good atmospheric conditions to develop into major hurricanes which made landfall on the Caribbean islands and the U.S. mainland (especially Florida). Compare to a season like 2010 with 19 named storms but no U.S. hurricane landfalls. If you look at seasonal forecasts of ACE that has tended to be overpredicted in recent years, mainly because of unpredictable intra-seasonal factors over-riding the large scale predictable climate fields, the best example being 2022 which was expected to be very active/hyperactive but no storms formed in August which was completely unexpected. Of course, that season contained the devestating hurricane Ian which illustrates it only takes one storm in the wrong place to make it a bad season.
furuwusays
Hello yall. First time here. I’m here asking for some help to speed things up. Probably next year i’ll have a teaching position (biology and geology in secondary education) and as such i would like to understand what i’ll be talking about.
The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338628078_Comprehensive_Analytical_Study_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_of_the_Atmosphere
and i can’t really identify the errors here. I would like someone to point out the mistakes.
To try and get some answers, i plan on reading “The climate crisis, archer” and “Principles of planetary climate, pierrehumbert” in this order. However, it would make things easier for me if i just got an answer here to filter my study goals
zebrasays
Furuwu, if you plan to have a teaching position, have you thought about how you would respond to a student who said what you just did?
“Hey, teach, here’s a paper I just found…. could you read the whole thing and explain everything to me? I can’t be bothered to figure anything out myself.”
The first thing a good teacher does when a student doesn’t understand something is to figure out what the student does understand, what their background level is, vocabulary, and so on.
Why don’t you help us out by telling us what you think the paper is saying, in your own words?
furuwu,
I’m not sure why the paper you link-to would be of interest to anyone. The author isn’t a clomatologist although he has been publishing the odd paper on CO2/GHGs, with “odd” being a well-chosen descriptor for these papers. And what this paper manages to set out in forty-one pages is surely a catalogue of the author’s failure rather than grand discovery. Debunking forty-one pages of nonsense is a bit of a big ask so perhaps there is some specific section that spurs your interest.
A quick look at Section 2 will perhaps provide an exemplar of what this paper comprises.
(1) The criticism of the description “greenhouse effect” is puerile. Greenhouses are far more leaky than the atmosphere (which the author admits is “close to thermodynamic equilibrium”). The mention of elevated CO2 within greenhouses is an irrelevance as is his botanical drought-resistance argument, while his citation of Ångström is history not science.
(2) Suggesting that a CO2-temperature correlation provides “one of the strongest arguments” ignores half a century of climatology. Suggesting Henry’s Law could explain such a correlation would require a driver of temperature strong enough without a CO2 feedback to explain paleoclimates, a requirement overlooked by the author.
(3) The calculation of the climate sensitivity to dCO2, “value expected for the greenhouse effect (1.4 mK/ppm),” is entirely bogus. He references himself where he in turn references the classic-cllimate-change-denier Lindzen to obtain ECS=+0.5ºC and applies this to a doubling from 357ppm to obtain a CO2-T correlation of [500mK/357ppm=] 1.4 mK/ppm. To correct his calculation requires it to be 6x larger to account for the conventional ECS=+3ºC and then multiplied again x2^(0.5) to account for the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing. And while ECS doesn’t properly apply to AGW over a few decades, this understood by the author, there are other things forcing climate through the period 1958-2018, this in both directions which is something the author fails to grasp. The absence of consideration of these other forcing processes become eye-wateringly tragic when the author attempts to find reason for an ECS=+24ºC [=95mK/ppm] and his analysis becomes quickly incoherent when he attempts to include a linear rate of delayed warming and argue for a physical cause of that delay.
(4) Modern dCO2 is apparently too big for ocean out-gassing to be the source of dCO2 (and given CO2 concentrations in the oceans are rising, it is quite obviously not so). The final paragraph of the section tells us that, apparently, ocean temperature and dCO2 give some grand explanation for “these signals” whatever that means (presumably all explained by this 2018 paper co-authored by the author, “presumably” as the citation is missing) and then all that remains is to identify how weak the CO2 impact on climate actually is.
Thank you for your reference to an interesting article. It appears that it is a hard-core piece of criticism with respect to present mainstream climate science. It is therefore well possible that the hosts of this website already have discussed it (or another similar contribution of the same author) herein. If so, regular long-term readers certainly provide a reference.
I would like to say only that although lot of the theory Mr. Callinga presents may be perfectly correct, the bold conclusions he makes may be still misleading. It is very easy, because a single wrong step on a complicated path may result in a failure, even though all other steps might have been correct.
What I, as a layman, see in the cited article as somewhat suspicious on the first sight, is the assertion (based on a quite strange reference 18) that carbon dioxide causes only a few % of the entire “greenhouse effect”.
I am aware of an article which gives a several times higher estimation:
It has been presented by its author Dr. Schmidt also here on Real Climate,
I do not know if this single difference can explain and/or rectify all supposed contradictions presented by Mr. Callinga, if any. It should be just an example that there might be disputable points in his article and that the things may in fact not be as simple as he presented them therein.
I also do not suppose that the thermodynamic radiative model of the atmosphere presented by Mr. Callinga is his own invention, and somewhat doubt that supercomputer climate models used for present scientific studies are perhaps not yet based thereon. I do not expect that they still rely on simpler atmosphere models that Mr. Callinga (I suppose correctly) disproves as inaccurate.
I am looking forward what comments scientifically more literate readers of this website add.
Best regards
TK
Piotrsays
Re: furuwu:
Since you are new to this group – I’ll let you on the time-saving secret – to pre-screen the papers. we use here a device called “Tomas Kalisz”. The device is quite simple:
– if “Tomas Kalisz” compliments something, e.g. “ Thank you for your reference to an interesting article.” – there is a good chance a denier’s crap (p-value 0.005?)
Susan Andersonsays
Amateur nonprofessional here. I wouldn’t start with the skeptics though. I think there are masses of excellent secondary-school level discussions of climate science which might be less university-level academic. For debunking, Skeptical Science has an excellent database at 3 levels of sophistication which might be useful. DeSmogBlog also maintains a database.
This wasn’t where I was going to start but it’s a good one! https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465 and you can wander on to their other materials quite easily from there. https://www.desmog.com/climate-disinformation-database/
Others will no doubt be able to name good resources for you. Our fearless leaders here at RC might be good. I love Dr. Schmidt’s tech talk: Emergent Patterns of Climate Change, older by timeless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
Gives me a chance to repeat myself about its excellence in understanding the nature of the scientific enterprise as it relates to environmental/climate research
Starting from the first line — “1. Introduction …. One of the strongest argument of Alarmists”
From a scientific/technical expository perspective, no idea who “Alarmists” are. The author capitalizes the word so it sounds as if it some kind of nationality or sect. It’s not even correct grammar, as it should be a singular of a plural group “one of the strongest arguments”. Most people will stop reading at this point according to the cockroach theory, which is if you see one cockroach on the floor, there are likely to be many more hiding away.
Mal Adaptedsays
Excellent reply, Paul. You’ve explained what’s fallacious about the straw man rhetorical tactic, i.e. attacking a hyperbolic caricature of one’s opponents, and poisoning the well for their factual claims with a belittling label..
Most people will stop reading at this point according to the cockroach theory, which is if you see one cockroach on the floor, there are likely to be many more hiding away.
LOL! That one is new to me, and feels maximally apt in this context. It turns out to have currency with investors, referring to bad news about a publicly traded company’s financial situation. From Investopedia:
Cockroach theory was named from the common belief that seeing one cockroach is evidence there are more.
That’s an excellent screen for purported “climate change” information as well! Investopedia’s conclusion, however:
Because investors may reconsider other holdings in the same industry because of bad news, the cockroach theory tends to have a negative effect on the market as a whole.
If only that were true for climate-change disinformation as well!
Paul Pukite. Yeah good point. I thought the use of the term Alarmists was unscientific, and an indication this man cant supress his derisive views and ideological leanings. So I googled his name and found this study , confirming my suspicions, and packed full of cockroaches:
Science in the times of Covid. An alternative hypothesis
Peter Stallinga1,4∗ Igor Khmelinskii2,4 Leslie V. Woodcock3,4
His maths looks impressive in both studies, and beyond my pay grade, but its easy to see he gets tripped up by the GIGO factor..
Barton Paul Levensonsays
I don’t know what specifically is wrong with their model, but I can tell you that computer radiative-convective models go back to 1964 (after the theory was provided in 1931), and they have no trouble at all reproducing Earth’s atmosphere. The argument of the article is “my model doesn’t work, therefore nobody’s does,” which is a pure non sequitur.
Secular Animistsays
furuwu wrote: “The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one”
If you are reading “skeptics papers” you are getting off to a VERY BAD START. At best you are wasting your time and at worst you are being seriously misled.
Global warming deniers ARE NOT “SKEPTICS”. They are deliberate liars and/or the weak-minded, gullible, ignorant dupes of deliberate liars. Their so-called “research” is nothing but propaganda paid for by the fossil fuel corporations.
Syd Bridgessays
This article from The Guardian caught my eye. For my birthday on Sunday, I was given “The heat will kill you first,” by Jeff Goodell. Rather apposite on a day which set a new world temperature record. But that record seems to have been amazingly ephemeral.
”But that’s precisely what much of the world is actually doing, albeit slowly. Per this list, 51 nations–OK, 50 if you don’t count Vatican City!–have population growth rates that are negative or 0. Another 97 have annual growth rates of 1% or less, and many of them are going to see that drop predictably due to demographic structure (read: “aging population.”) Piotr has made some decent arguments why this might not be something to take for granted, but nevertheless significant chunks of the world are seeing population declines, or are reasonably expected to see them soon.”
Yes but this likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem. In all cases in nature (that I know of) the population only falls when the food runs out. However since Ehrlich’s book people have been aware. Therefore education and awareness needs to continue.
Further, in light of the extinction crisis now happening before our eyes because of us (the Anthropocene), which amounts to a greatly accelerated and unnatural unraveling of billions of years of evolution (species becoming extinct now that otherwise would not have and the likely domino-like consequences of that) it is incumbent upon us to increase the pressure by increasing that knowledge and education. We don’t have a lot of time.
Just as knowing what’s at stake we do not want to throw up our hands and leave the reining in of co2 to chance, we also should not relax and just hope that we as a species do the right thing in this case either.
I mean, why only concentrate on one but ignore the other? Huh? Does that make a bit of sense? It’s all one earth! Some might say it’s even more important than climate change because there will be an end to that. But as they say, extinction is forever,.
zebrasays
Bok, you say:
“Yes but this likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem.”
That’s simply wrong. What is Un-natural is women having 9 children… it simply doesn’t make sense if there is low infant/childhood mortality and children are not needed for a primarily small-agriculture economy.
The only other reason to have more children is to produce “warriors” in order to control scarce resources. But this doesn’t apply if you have a high resource/population ratio, and even a moderate degree of prosperity makes it less appealing for women…… if they have a choice.
People really do seem to have trouble imagining a paradigm that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions. If you had a USA population of 70 million, split evenly between the two coasts, with the global numbers proportionately reduced, and modern technology, neither of the two mechanisms I described would operate.
The real science question is what the fertility curve looks like in the range between 8 billion and .8 billion global population.
So how about people stop living in the past and try to answer the questions, based on current realities. What happens to fertility rates as population declines? What happens to consumption of energy and other resources? What does the curve look like??
No noble Kumbaya stuff, please.
Boksays
Hmm. ”noble Kumbaya stuff”. You also implied that concern for other than humans is “highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached.”
I propose we start calling concern about climate change “highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached but you’d probably object to that.
It sounds like you’re arguing about details thereby diverting the discussion into impossible delaying avenues. As in climate change denial this can go on forever. Meanwhile the clock ticks. I’m saying that in the big picture human population growth is responsible (from over hunting and over fishing to land taking and habitat destruction etc) for the loss of other than human species, and that’s unarguable. It’s happening now and it’s happening fast.
So I could take the bait, but I won’t.How we solve it I’ll leave to the perpetual arguers. I’m just saying that, IMO, I don’t think that taking much more from the planet will be a viable solution.
Bok, maybe you are somewhat new here but I have been bringing up population for a long time.
The problem is that the standard response was always “but it isn’t going to solve the problem fast enough”…. and then people would say…. “we really just have to go carbon-free in the next 20 years”.
And this is where I first applied the description of “Kumbaya solution”. It is more unlikely that people will decide to stop burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years than it is that women will decide to have fewer or no children, because having fewer children is in the woman’s short-term rational self-interest, and not burning fossil fuels is not in much of the world.
There’s ample evidence for this in the current significant TFR declines.
But those declines are not, as the survey I provided shows, primarily the result of people being Kumbaya virtuous, just like the transition to renewable energy is not primarily the result of individuals being concerned about climate. In both cases, rational self-interest is the primary motivator.
For example, electric transportation is just better/cheaper, and in the third world, people can elevate their situation not by buying Teslas but by replacing their bikes and other cheap vehicles… again, not to be virtuous, but to improve their lives.
For population, the thing that works is spreading “Western values” with respect to the empowerment of women, along with economic improvement. The latter doesn’t mean living in McMansions in an African village, rather getting local electricity and internet connections.
What promotes such a transition is contact with the first-and-second world, both through trade and immigration. Just lecturing them about how they should reduce their population for the sake of biodiversity does not.
Radge Haverssays
Bok,
Pretty much what Zebra said.
Education is great, but what matters is how you do it. Population reduction is a communications nightmare, for all sorts of reasons.
At least climate change is an issue that can be more easily intellectualized (somewhat). When it comes to making babies, you’re up against several billion years of evolution driven by a reproductive imperative now churning away below peoples belts — plus several hundred thousand years of tribalism to reinforce it.
This just in: JD Vance is pushing for giving parents more votes than people without children. That should make Quiverfull Christians ecstatic. Of course his orange divinity is promising Christians that they won’t have to vote after he’s elected, so make of that what you will, handmaids and trad wives.
nigeljsays
Zebra says “But those declines are not, as the survey I provided shows, primarily the result of people being Kumbaya virtuous, just like the transition to renewable energy is not primarily the result of individuals being concerned about climate. In both cases, rational self-interest is the primary motivator.”
Depends what definition of primary motivation Zebra is using. Primary motivator: Oxford Dictionary: 1) of chief importance; principal. 2)earliest in time or order.
The main ongoing reason for the development of renewables is arguably the wider benefits of renewables and lower costs.The primary motivator for first developing renewables was concern about climate and its impacts leading to carbon taxes or subsidies etcetera, to kick start renewables.. Without such kumbya concern there would be no wind or solar power of any significance.
Boksays
But this doesn’t apply if you have a high resource/population
Right, but you’re failing to see that the availability of food is also> a resource. Not only that, it’s the oldest, most basic resource there is! Naturally the only thing that limits species populations is the availability of food. What will happen if, for example, you stick a couple of rodents a room, fill it with food, then close and lock the door? The rodents will multiply until the food runs out then a crash will ensue.
In your case because of ingrained religious and cultural beliefs those women may drastically reduce the number of their offspring when they can prosper and only average 3 or 4 kids each (a big reduction from 9) but more of the children that they do have will survive to also reproduce.
There’s also the fact that because of tradition and other complicating factors, especially in certain countries, having big families is a desirable thing – whether you’re rich or not. To reduce it further, then, something else is required – and that’s education. Education that a population explosion will inevitably result in an inhumane crash, probably including their offspring. Something that the population proponents never mention.
In your case they would have moved on from a basic Maslowian sense of self-survival to one that encompasses the survival of their children and children’s children. But they need the education about population to want to reduce their numbers below replacement levels, which is what is needed.
You’re right that to want to do this they first need to be sure enough of their own survival. I’m saying that bringing them up to first world standards is going to cost them later by costing the earth now. Unless you’re Julian Simon or Freeman Dyson that cares only for people, the earth and other species simply cannot handle it! Look at what we are already doing! There might already be too many people here to make it work even if we do everything correctly. We in the west have demonstrated our reticence to lower our standards. So bringing up the third world while doing nothing in the west will probably be the nail in the coffin.
We need to strenuously figure this out. How to bring the third world up enough while taking the first world down some. All the while we have to couple that with concerted education. Whether we do all this or not is another question.
Think Easter Island.
Boksays
In all cases in nature (that I know of) the population only falls when the food runs out.
I mean here where natural predators either don’t or almost don’t exist because its a nonnative species, as in the rabbit/Australia case, but in lots of others as well, or have been eliminated, both micro and macro, as in the human case, the population only falls naturally when the food runs out.
In both cases something else is required, and soon. We shouldn’t kick it down the road.
nigeljsays
BOK.
“Yes but this ( slowing population growth and shrinking populations) likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem.”
I disagree. Slowing rates of population growth and shrinking populations have happened in many countries. As countries industrialised and wealth increased beyond a certain point, people stopped having large families because they were a financial burden, and were no longer needed to provide security in old age, and to labour on the farms, and the modern contraception allowed people to limit family size. This is known as the demographic transition process. It was a side effect of wealth creation so it clearly would have happened regardless of public levels of awareness of the population problem.
Some countries have worked to speed up this process for example Chinas forced one child policy and government programmes in some countries on family planning was successful. Notably SE Asian countries.
I do agree with your general concerns about population pressure, and the need to stop population growth and be proactive about this, and not rely totally on the natural process of wealth creation. Family planning and cheap contraception can help. For example one of the very poor African countries, (may have been Niger I just cant rmember exactly) , engaged in an experiment where the governmnet providing free contraception to some areas, and birth rates plummeted, even although its still a relatively poor country.
Boksays
because they were a financial burden
How much more of a burden were they when the parents didn’t have money?
You might be right that population would have declined some regardless. Who knows? But still I have to think that a general awareness that there is a problem contributed to the decline. That’s why it was written after all!
That’s the difference between humans and non-human animals (that we know of). We have the ability to think and project.
Nigeljsays
Bok
“How much more of a burden were they (large families) when the parents didn’t have money?”
Ok fair point. I walked into that one. But it wasn’t just that. Raising large families is hard work.
It appears the majority of people were quite happy to have smaller families once it became a practical option enabling them to pursue wider interests more easily. Like buying things, travelling etc. says something about human values.
“You might be right that population would have declined some regardless. Who knows? But still I have to think that a general awareness that there is a problem contributed to the decline. That’s why it was written after all!”
I recall reading some poll somewhere taken recently in America where the number of people electing to have small families for the good of the planet or environment is still quite small, sadly to say. Most people quoted other reasons. So Im inclined to think the main reason for lower fertility in Europe and America was just the increasing wealth etc, etc. Awareness of the population time bomb probably played some role but a much lesser role. The process was natural. Governmnets mostly didnt incentivise small families.
You cant assume that awarness was causative just because books were written on the subject (if thats what you are saying)
What interests me is given the public have understood the population problem for a long time, why wasnt this a big factor in decision making at least in western countries? It might be because people see a population crash or associated environmental crash as somewhere away in the future. Our brains are hardwired to deal with more present problems rather than distant problems (or problems perceived to be distant). This is also an issue with mitigating climate change.
But as I mentioned the reasons for declining fertility rates did seem to differ in Asian countries. Unlike western countries, they had huge rapidly growing low income populations and the possibility they were heading for human and environmental disaster must have been obvious to people, and it was not in the far distant future either. Several of these countries governments had deliberate familiy planning with incentives to have small families.
Excuse the rant. Intriguing subject with huge implications environmentally. I agree if we have any sense we will actively encourage populations to stop growing.
Boksays
Hi Nigel. No, I don’t think just one book by itself contributed to population reduction.awareness. It might not even have been originally read by many people. Who knows? But in blowing his trumpet others who also have trumpets (like the media) read it and blew their trumpets as well. And so on. And so on. I doubt that a lot of people read a Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring either, as another example. Yet when it was read by some in the media and talked about after that it became a contagion that soon spread until everyone was talking about it. It even contributed to the first Earth Day.
That’s what I mean when I say The Population Bomb led in a big way to a general awareness of the population problem. When people have children I suspect that the issue is at least in the back of everyone’s mind where it probably wasn’t before.
One thing about RealClimate is that you don’t get a lot of the heat that occurs in other fora around the topic of population. What you don’t see here are thorough bashings of Ehrlich, or accusations that talk of population reduction is a racist campaign to reduce the numbers of brown people (which is not an unreasonable fear given historic precedents).
Now imagine the furor on the right if they thought that not only were libs and egghead scientists going to take away their guns, but their babies as well… holy cow!
Nigeljsays
Bok
“That’s what I mean when I say The Population Bomb led in a big way to a general awareness of the population problem. When people have children I suspect that the issue is at least in the back of everyone’s mind where it probably wasn’t before.”
Yes agreed. Good points. I became aware of the exponential population growth problem decades ago when I was about 12 years old. I cant remember exactly how but it might have been a book like the population bomb or Paul Erlichs work ( right in theory but wrong on the timing, IMHO).
The population issue made a strrong impression on my as being a major problem, and I’ve never changed my view. It has influenced my decisions in life quite strongly.
Human motivations seem quite complex to me and although the majority of people probably base family size mainly on financial and practical considerations I can believe concerns about population and environment play some part.
Radge Haverssays
Also Bok, you know what a third rail is, right? If you don’t have a way around that, all you’re doing is standing in the middle Nowheresville waving your hands at a known problem.
Others here have made substantive points about population trends and the kinds of things that might bring population numbers down.
A personal anecdote from back in the day: When “The Population Bomb” came out, a friend alerted me to it and gave it an enthusiastic hard sell. Not long after that they got married, ended up with three kids, and so much for ZPG. Reality has a way of intervening.
Bok, your paragraph 2 seems to be saying in essence that 1) population growth is decreasing because people are making choices, and 2) they are making those choices based on awareness of the ‘big picture’ problem of overpopulation, thanks to books like “The Population Bomb.”
Paragraph 3 seems to be saying that we need to keep up the “pressure” (presumably, the PR pressure to reduce population), because we have an extinction crisis going on.
Paragraph 4 strays into Straw Man territory, I’m afraid, in that nothing I said suggested that we should sit back and relax. I simply corrected KIA’s contention that “we won’t reduce population,” which I see as factually incorrect.
Ditto paragraph 5; I’m not suggesting we “ignore” anything.
Boksays
Of course, Kevin. Sorry if I implied that.
Well have we not been pressuring the world to reduce Co2 for decades? There’s nothing wrong in applying pressure (education, from the top down) in these cases where something rather large is at stake. Before the abolition of slavery certain people pressured their leaders to ban it because that was the right thing to do right?
Like Global Warming, world population and the resulting extinction crisis need similar pressure to stop. Like Global Warming we should not rely on hope or current trends, which could reverse if something changes, but be proactive in dealing with it. Too much is at stake. If we just hope that population will level out at the turn of the century we might, or might not, be right. But in the intervening years we will have lost species that we otherwise would not have had we taken it seriously earlier.
This is happening now so this is our generation’s issue to solve.
Taber Allisonsays
Hi:
It’s been awhile since I posted here or followed the various conversations. It has been almost 20 years since this site hosted a discussion on the early Anthropocene, Bill Ruddiman’s hypothesis that humans began altering the climate because of deforestation and agriculture, including rice cultivation, some 8000 years ago. I’ve been aware of this hypothesis for awhile, but recently reread Bill Ruddiman’s 2005 Scientific American article for some work I’m doing on prehistoric human impacts in North America and Googled for the latest status (a 2021 posting in the Global Policy Journal) . It may be that this topic is not of sufficient interest for this platform, but if there are others who have been following this hypothesis, I’d be happy to take the conversation “off line”.
I close with a comment on the latest hockey stick diagram (I tried to paste it in this post, but was not successful) which in my viewing clearly shows a decline in global temperatures over the past ~1800 years ended and reversed by the onset of the industrial era.
Taber
Piotrsays
furuwu 24 JUL “ I’m here asking for some help to speed things up. Probably next year i’ll have a teaching position (biology and geology in secondary education) and as such i would like to understand what i’ll be talking about. The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that your request is not disingenuous (i.e., that you are not just sealioning here), you are putting the cart in front of the horse – first you need to educate yourself about the topic, and only then identify the lies, half-truths, and manipulations of the “skeptics”. And even then –
– your target audience, students, is not likely to encounter the paper your brought up, but the much simpler denier talking points online- and for those – there are websites listing the most common deniers claims and short answers identifying why these are manipulations.
But again – the time for it comes AFTER you educated yourself enough from credible sources – and for that – you can use the resources of this site – go to Menu – then “Start Here” which has a list of credible resources for people on a spectrum of climate knowledge, so you can find a level appropriate for you.
furuwusays
Thanks for the responses yall!
zebra
i get your point but like i said, i’m a newbie, and don’t know much yet. And if they didn’t tell me anything, i would try to tell them what i know from the start.
MA Rodger
the author not being a climatologist is not relevant to me since i don’t really care about credentials. For a bit of context, i finished a bachelor of science in biology and geology this year and it had a bit of geology component ofc. Two of my uni teachers were climate deniers and openly talked about it. I was not convinced and asked for some papers to read and one of them sent me “Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking, Leslie V. Woodcock” and that Stallinga one i sent. I sent that one because it had values for the sensitivity and besides, that guy is mentioned here https://clintel.org/ as an embassador for my country (Portugal). I did not have any course specifically on climate science/physics. Anyway, that is to say, there’s some gaps in my training since this is (probably the most) relevant topic in this field.
(3) that is what i asked, thanks
(2) that makes sense to me, i guessed the model was too simple and i know the negative feedback systems are central to the current theory but according to the author, none of it was necessary so yeah…
Tomáš Kalisz
thanks,
the first phrase of that article is smt i noticed too.
“The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers to the present-day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change”
Susan Anderson
thanks (i’ll stick with the books i mentioned for now)
Paul Pukite
That is true tbh but not really a an argument
Barton Paul
yup gotta study the models
Piotr
i mean, lots of people want quick answers to complicated questions and i’m no exception. It’s like those videos on youtube debunking wrong ideias. It kinda raises my determination so study the topic. Some people just like exploring ig, and it’s not because the students would not ask that i would not be interested in if there are alternative conceptions. So thanks for pointing out the obvious but i don’t care for your critique
SecularAnimistsays
furuwu wrote: “the author not being a climatologist is not relevant to me since i don’t really care about credentials.”
So you DON’T REALLY CARE whether the author of a “paper” is a scientist conducting actual science, or a propagandist paid by the fossil fuel corporations to lie to you.
In that case, the fact is that YOU DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile your statement with caring about science AT ALL.
Piotrsays
furuwu: “ i mean, lots of people want quick answers to complicated questions and i’m no exception
what “lots of people” do or don’t, does not make it automatically right. If you are going to teach students – there are no shortcuts in learning the subject you are going to teach and I have given you the link to those resources recommended by the climate scientists running this site.
As long as you still lack the basics – there is no point wasting your time on the deniers papers,
since often you won’t be able to spot the manipulation, and you have to take claims by others on faith.
And when people point out this to you – you responded with arrogance:
furuwu: “ i don’t care for your critique“.
And no, the advice you got WASN’T pointing the obvious” since if it were obvious to you – we would not have point it out to you.
P.S. Two deniers profs??? Where did you study – Putin’s Academy?
That the author P. Stallinga is involved with the Dutch clinate deniers CLINTEL does explain his motives for writing such ‘odd’ climatology papers. Here in UK we were in the past treated to the crazy antics of the GWPF (which my best guess was it really stood for Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) making appearances in main-stream media outlets, and with a bit more public support in UK of late for right-wing political parties who are happy to promulgate denialist policy, the likes of the GWPF may be re-energised in their work.
The other paper presented to you by that Uni teacher was a real crazy read. It perhaps provides an exemplar of where a non-climatologist can end up while an actual climatologist would have spotted the “No Entry” signs or be put right by climatology colleagues. That he, Woodcock, and denialist Stallinga both work at the same place and are co-authors on other papers could help explain Woodcock’s venture into lunacy.
Woodcock (2022) ‘Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking: Energy Industry’s Enthalpy Footprints’ insists the variations in temperature increases seen across the world rules out CO2 as a warming agent, CO2 being spread evenly across the planet and so is unable to force the variations seen in regional temperature rises. And to add utter madness to craziness, Woodcock proposes that this regional variation has the fingerprint of shale gas fracking and thus the warming is due to an increase in geo-thermal energy reaching the surface due to that fracking.
There are problems attributing a warming seen since the 1970s to fracking which (as Woodcock [2022] describes) has only been significantly practised since 2005. And there are big problems in locating the main sites of this fracking and matching them to the regions showing higher warming (as in the paper’s Fig 1). Even today, the US dominates global fracking operations which are absent from Belarus and Honduras/Nicaragua. (By 2020 US production 700bn m^3/y, the few other major producers 10bn m^3/y.)
But the real crazy part is a mistake no climatologist in their right mind would make. The geo-thermal heat flux is measured in tens of milliWatta/sq metre, as Woodcocks Fig 4 correctly shows. Yet a very very simple calculation attributing even the +0.4ºC AGW 2000-2015, with ECS=3ºC that would require a forcing of +1.5Wm^-2 globally which, over the area of US fracking operations (say 1M sq miles = 2.5 sw km) would require +300Wm^-2 or a rather noticeable +40ºC increase in the area’s ground surface temperature!!
Susan Andersonsays
furuwu: Your sticking with false information and being unwilling to question it tells us all we need to know about you. I am sorry you are determined to ‘do your own research’ while focusing on the poorly supported fake skeptic universe.
I and others gave you resources which include the people whose hospitality enables you to post here.
I also gave you resources which identify the lack of credibility of your ‘do your own research’ materials.
The people here know vastly more than you do. You would do well to appreciate that. You have shown that you are being disingenuous, and we’ll all seen this so many times before. To spread this abuse of knowledge to teenagers makes this effort doubly culpable.
Meanwhile, the condition of the world under accelerating global warming is serious and obvious. It will get to your dooryard sooner or later.
Mal Adaptedsays
Nice dressing down, Susan. The heck with polite circumlocution. As direct as any frank denialist like furuwu needs to, but will not, hear. It gladdened my heart regardless!
Radge Haverssays
SA,
Yep. Sounds familiar. Meet the new troll, same as the old troll.
zebrasays
I still think “zebra’s troll test” is the most efficient: They never answer the question.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
z: I still think “zebra’s troll test” is the most efficient: They never answer the question.
BPL: Agreed. I see this a lot.
jgnfldsays
by that measure EVERY politician is a troll.
zebrasays
Well, I really don’t think it is true of every politician, but anyway, the point of the test in this context is just to first see if the commenter is sincere, rather than allowing them to manipulate you into validating whatever pretend science they offer up.
If you start answering that nonsense in detail, it doesn’t matter how thoroughly you debunk it…. their goal is to create the illusion of a “debate” between two real positions.
John Pollacksays
Some are. However, I think that the true skill of an electable politician is to answer questions in a way that people want to hear. If that isn’t possible, best to leave the question unanswered.
Boksays
My apologies for being so “vigorous” here. I know that’s frowned upon in this gentleman’s club. :/
Zebra @ July 28 7:55 am: I understand what you are saying (though you do provide an example of how not burning fossil fuels can be in a woman’s self interest by not buying expensive Teslas but fixing their bicycles instead).
What I’m saying though is that bringing up the third world to first world standards won’t stop at getting electricity and internet connections as you imply. It would be rather naive to think so. Look at what economic development means, for example, for Bangladeshis:
With the development of cities and establishments, a large number of people started moving towards the cities. Many of the agricultural areas were also being urbanized and being modernized. Most people would not think that this is necessarily a problem. In fact, most people would see this as a positive sign of progress among the developing countries. With urbanization came new settlements, new establishments, and more factories that provided more jobs to the people.https://ecolonomics.org/third-world-population-growth-urbanization-progress/
In their improvement of course they will want all the amenities that the first world enjoys, which is understandable of course. If they earn it and have the natural resources to exploit why should they not be allowed to do what Westerners have done? They are not any less entitled to them than we, which is exactly what they’ve been saying.
The problem is that this one, small, planet, which I don’t need to remind you of is the only one we know of thats actually living, can barely handle what we in the west are taking from it. If the third world also develops that will likely be the end of the life on earth as we know it. We are already in the midst of the sixth extinction.
So how do we solve it? I don’t know that we can. It’s late. Someone smarter than me will have to figure it out. But I do know that if we are to we will need to start first (and soon) by actually giving a damn, admitting there’s a problem, and stop hiding the truth. Stop being willfully ignorant. Peter Raven, the past president of AAAS, has predicted that if we do nothing, the majority of all species will become extinct by the end of this century. So yeah, let’s get with it.
End of soapbox.
Vendicar Decariansays
Now epidemic online.
I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump. Then I won’t have to see any more of this hyperbolic, mass hysteria, fo-news. Trump will shutter any publication pushing the disproven climate change agenda. And that will be the end of climate change! It’s just that easy to solve because there’s no real problem to fix. TRUMP/VANCE 2024!
You should have heeded my warnings years ago.
Susan Andersonsays
Reality is coming for you. You’re wasting your time here. I know you want to shut down NASA, but it ain’t gonna happen. You wouldn’t like a world without doctors and people who can build things that don’t break. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
Jonathan Davidsays
I had long believed it to be impossible for a modern, post-industrial, science-based society based on democratic principles and universal education to degenerate into a society based on tribalism, violence, autocratic personality-cult leadership, ignorance, superstition and religious extremism. Perhaps similar to modern day Afghanistan. With the emergence of the MAGA movement I feel I may need to reassess this. Probably won’t happen within my lifetime unless the US foolishly tries to engage China militarily over Taiwan. But if and when this does happen I’m sure it’ll be great.
Nigeljsays
Jonathon David.
“I had long believed it to be impossible for a modern, post-industrial, science-based society based on democratic principles and universal education to degenerate into a society based on tribalism, violence, autocratic personality-cult leadership, ignorance, superstition and religious extremism”
I had long believed the same. It’s almost like America is sleep walking to civil war. Or even racing towards it.
The fact that about 50% of Americans support this MAGA nonsense has surprised and shocked me, and has made me somewhat more cynical about human nature.
Im inclined to partly blame MAGA on lack of intelligence or education to some extent but many who believe are very educated and intelligent so they have other motives / reasons. MAGA is a movement apparetnly attracting gullible poorly educated people, various types of opportunists and different ideological groups.
MAGA seems to be characterised by anger, emotion, gut reactions, instincts, bigotry, racism, mysogeny, scapegoating and irrationality and lying, and hatred of environmentalists, elites and experts. Its massively contradictory as well. These things are all having a huge resurgence. The veneer of civilsation is certainly quite thin. Its all a bit depressing.
Radge Haverssays
One of the reasons for a system of checks and balances is because you can’t always expect people to behave rationally. Systematically corrode those; crank up the agitprop to mess with peoples’ heads and terminate rational discourse; substitute a mythical past for the lessons of history… Hell, there’s plenty of crap just below the surface to exploit.
“A republic if you can keep it.”
Thomas W Fullersays
That 50% seems a bit high. Only 32% of American voters are registered Republican. Not all Republicans are MAGA-heads.
Still far too many, of course.
Jonathan Davidsays
Nigelj, yes it’s all of that. I would point out that there is a large amount of distrust and anger in the US directed at the government, politicians and other institutions of authority. There is a broad awareness that the government does not serve the interests of the common citizenry but ever more increasingly, the interests of multinational corporations, big money interests and Wall Street. As a consequence there has been a great deal of loss of economic opportunity due to globalization, deindustrialization and capital flight. This has been largely ignored by government, the media, and economists. The Right (especially Trump) has capitalized on this. Of course, their approach is to vilify Democrats and “Socialism”. So the MAGA proponents include some powerful figures in the Right that seek to eliminate portions of the government that inhibit maximum profit. Unfortunately the Left (such as it is) has no response to this.
Jonathan Davidsays
Last sentence is sarcasm, of course.
Piotrsays
Jonathan David: “ With the emergence of the MAGA movement I feel I may need to reassess this. Probably won’t happen within my lifetime unless the US foolishly tries to engage China militarily over Taiwan. But if and when this does happen I’m sure it’ll be great.”
“I, for one, welcome our new MAGA overlords” ? ;-)
Ray Ladburysays
I am not sure why this surprises you. Civilization doesn’t change human nature. It really just puts a thin veneer over our violent, tribal and ideologically blinkered nature.
Our nature as social mammals has allowed large groups of us to team up to bend nature to our will. However, that same nature fosters groupthink and intolerance for dissent when some notice that Mother Nature is getting pissed and is about to kick the snot out of us.
And humans can also be amazingly creative and insightful in developing ways to compensate for our cognitive shortcomings. The entire scientific method was developed originally by philosopher and royal embezzler Francis Bacon as a compensation for some if the cognitive biases that blind us to truth. With that method, we have managed to gain insight into the workings of nature from the dynamics of point particles to the birth of the Universe. I really do believe that if humans do survive their current existential crisis, it will be by embracing that method.
Unfortunately, the scientific method is not a way of thinking that comes naturally. Nor is it conducive to social harmony. The thing about attacking sacred cows is that somebody’s ox is gonna get gored. This makes it seem particularly unnatural to some minds–particularly those who develop existential vertigo when they stare into the abyss. In the end, our survival is going to come down to whether we can make embracing science the norm rather than the exception.
Piotrsays
Vendicar Decarian: “ I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump. Trump will shutter any publication “pushing the disproven climate change agenda ”
So did Stalin to those “ pushing the disproven genetics agenda“: “Soviet scientists who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed from their posts and left destitute. Hundreds if not thousands of others were imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state.”
So your Beloved Trump is not the first one, who shoots the messengers of the message he didn’t want to hear. But, heck – like Stalin, he won’t be around the answer for the results of his actions:
“[Anti-genetics] ideas and practices contributed to the famines that killed millions of Soviet people. The adoption of his methods from 1958 in the People’s Republic of China had similarly calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1961. ”
[Stalin died in 1953]
– Vendicar Decarian: “TRUMP/VANCE 2024!”
– Donald Trump: “‘We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated”.
SecularAnimistsays
“Vendicar Decarian” is a textbook example of a troll. Just google his handle. You will find him spewing obnoxious BS all over the Internet, in all sorts of forums.
None of it has any substance, none of it has anything to do with any particular subject — it’s just an endless diarrhea of bitter, hateful insults, with no purpose but annoying people to get them to engage with him so he can waste their time. He is a truly sad case.
Mal Adaptedsays
Vendicar, I’m afraid you didn’t make it clear you’re citing a meme that’s “Now epidemic online.” AFAIK, posting such a comment in earnest would be totally out of character for you. You don’t need me to defend you, however.
Mal Adaptedsays
Oops. Trolling the Internet with ludicrous denialism is, actually, totally in character for you. Never mind. I must have been thinking of someone else!
Geoff Miellsays
Vendicar Decarian: – “And that will be the end of climate change! It’s just that easy to solve because there’s no real problem to fix.”
In the YouTube video titled Steve Keen: “On the Origins of Energy Blindness” | The Great Simplification, recorded on 14 Dec 2023, included (from the transcript):
01:25:07 Nate Hagens:And on your previous podcast here, this is your third appearance on this show, you predicted that economists, because of their identities and status and built personal situation, they will not change until there’s a crisis. So can we anticipate what’s going to happen with the environment with oil depletion, though that’s going to happen gradually, with what’s coming and create some blueprints and break glass in case of emergency plans that are actually based on what a physiocrat might advise the French king, the modern equivalent of that? Can we do that?
01:25:55 Professor Steve Keen:I think it’s incredibly late timing to be doing that, but as you know, we depended on fossil fuels for about 85 percent of our energy, and that hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years. It’s gone down to some extent for some time because of growth in fossil fuel production, decline in hydroelectric, which that’s the main form of renewables even now is hydroelectric. It’s not wind and solar. Potentially, we’re going to see quite serious climate catastrophes is coming our way. Most of the climate scientists I’m in touch with are scared about are a global famine caused by a collapse in food output from one of the wheat belts or corn belts of the world, and that then leading to social breakdown because suddenly we haven’t got the food we need. Or wet-bulb catastrophe is the other one, which would hit third world countries more than it would hit Westerners probably.
But something which is catastrophic, which causes a massive collapse in population, and then leads to probably rogue behavior by governments around the world then, because we haven’t managed to even reach an agreement to phase out fossil fuels, the last COP-out meeting. It’ll be every country for itself in what could be a very chaotic environment, will be a very chaotic environment if we see something like a global famine.
01:27:22 Nate Hagens:So you’re saying that we shouldn’t look to the neoclassical economists who are the current economic shaman and cheerleaders of our cultural narrative of the early 21st century? We shouldn’t look to them to change their minds and chart a different course?
01:27:40 Professor Steve Keen:They will be the most shocked and most confused by what happens completely. They’re useless. They’ve led us astray. It’s just been a cascade of errors right back to Smith, as I’ve said, that led us to the situation, but the last people that have any understanding of the physical role of production on the planet are economists, and the were last ones who realized the dangers of climate change are also economists. So I would just like to kick them out of the room. They don’t belong here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrMWSkzrMYg
When the Chernobyl reactor blew-up at 1:23 am on 26 Apr 1986, the Soviet regime tried to contain the situation by lying about how bad it was, to the international community, and to their own citizens. The rising toll of deaths, cancers, birth defects (both in humans and animals), etc. became undeniable. The Soviet citizens lost faith in the Soviet regime, which arguably led as a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxUOKqSxNs
VD: I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump.
BPL: God forbid.
VD: Then I won’t have to see any more of this hyperbolic, mass hysteria, fo-news.
BPL: Why? Will things be censored that don’t agree with the regime?
VD: Trump will shutter any publication pushing the disproven climate change agenda.
BPL: Well, that answers that question. All I can say is, I’m voting the straight Democratic ticket in 2024, precisely because I don’t want to experience Trump’s brand of fascism.
Boksays
Radge Havers @ 28 JUL 2024 AT 10:27 AM
Aye, I understand, yet in being protective of their children now hopefully that is extending to more concern for their children’s children too. In preserving the family lineage.
So in that way being concerned about protecting the earth IS in their best interests, right?
Of course his orange divinity is promising Christians that they won’t have to vote after he’s elected
That’s scary. So in his mind he’s not running for president but for King. A King of one for life.
BrianExorosays
High-Resolution Gaming Mouse Devices: Quickness and Precision
High-Sensitivity (dots per inch) video gaming mice may provide you the upper hand in high-speed games. DPI measures the mouse’s sensitivity, with increased numbers enabling for faster pointer motion. This is particularly advantageous in playing where rapid reactions and exact aiming remain vital.
One of the main pros of high DPI settings becomes better precision. With elevated responsiveness, you might make smaller movements, which remains vital for targeting opponents in FPS games (FPS) and other cheap playing. Adaptable DPI preferences allow you change between different levels of sensitivity on the spot, adjusting to various in-game scenarios.
Velocity becomes One other Important benefit. High-sensitivity pointing devices respond more quickly to your motions, permitting for speedier reflexes. This may cause a notable impact in gaming sessions that demand rapid decision-making and swift responses, giving you a upper hand over opponents.
Ease and adjustment In addition play a part. Many high-sensitivity mouse devices arrive with comfortable designs and Modifiable weights, transforming them cozy for lengthy use. Programmable keys and program personalization choices allow you personalize the controller to your particular needs and choices.
By examining the advantages of high-resolution electronic gaming mouse devices and comprehending how they may enhance your precision and reflexes, you may improve your gaming journey and abilities, obtaining a substantial edge in saturated playing.
Despite climate change deniers, who still fail to acknowledge the human hand in climate change, the majority of environment scientists have no doubts that the present climate change is caused by human factors. As for the general public, a large section now understands the seriousness of the issue and for us and them, the writing is clearly on the wall – the future of planet Earth increasingly lies in our hands. The future generations will inherit a world where they would move from one crisis to another – air, water and ground pollution, shortage of clean water, lack of green spaces, destruction of forests and wild places, lifeless water bodies, extinction of species, unbearable heat and uncontrollable rise in sea levels.
Until today, the Grenadines were credited with the Caribbean’s finest sailing, as they lie far enough South of the Hurricane belt to merit a stiff discount on both home and boat insurance, I spent the day sending satellite and NOAA sea state updates to friends in Bequia, Mustique and Mayreau which face decimation ashore and catastrophic coral damage to the Tobago Keys by ten+ meter waves and 100+ knot winds in the hours to come
The insurance industry may consider the relatively small number of hurricane strikes on the Grenadines as worthy of a “stiff discount on both home and boat insurance,” but I would not agree that the Grenadines “lie … South of the Hurricane belt“. There is even a Wikithing page listing the storms that have “affected” the islands in past years, a list that now includes Hurricane Beryl 2024.
The last storm to do serious harm was Emily in 2005, I was down in June 2007, and while Bequia Mustique and Mayreau suffered little structural damage ,the diving industry suffered enough to trigger a coral conservation program.
The insurance discount line seems to be the thirteenth parallel , depending on the underwriters, and many , many big boats get parked for the summer in Grenada which led to an insane marine traffic jam last week as they all ran to get alee of Trinidad, where hurricanes hardly happen:
https://x.com/RussellSeitz/status/1807617510956503295
There are some powerful storms in that list!
Janet, 1955 – 175 mph winds
Allen, 1980 – 190 mph winds
Ivan, 2004 – 165 mph winds
Matthew, 2016,- 165 mph winds
Beryl, 2024 – 165 mph winds
List of Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricanes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes
List of Cat 5 Pacific Hurricanes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Pacific_hurricanes
Eastern Pacific Hurricane Patricia in 2015 wins the wind speed record: 215 mph, with pressure of 25.75 in Hg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Patricia
https://en.as.com/latest_news/what-was-the-strongest-hurricane-ever-recorded-where-and-when-was-it-n/
https://x.com/TimeAlmanac/status/1697280682131955819
YCC’s Eye on the Storm is the best place for tropical storm updates, especially Atlantic storms. New updates in comments every few seconds (yes, it’s excessive, but these are meteo people and they know their stuff). Jamaica in the target, down to Category 4 (which is no comfort): the most recent -> Jamaica prepares for record-breaking Hurricane Beryl: The Atlantic’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record will weaken as it heads further west, but is expected to affect Jamaica as a Cat 3 and Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula as a Cat 1.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/jamaica-prepares-for-record-breaking-hurricane-beryl/
MDR Main Development Region
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOMmOfnWEAAYqry.png
The wisdom and practices of indigenous groups provide a blueprint for sustainable living within the nature of reality. The obvious connection to the land and ecosystems offers valuable lessons in resilience, adaptation, and stewardship. Recognizing and integrating this knowledge into broader environmental and climate policies is essential for achieving sustainable and equitable futures.
The undeniable truth is that an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today. i’m sorry.
Indigenous peoples’ approaches to land management, resource use, and biodiversity conservation are often based on ages of accumulated knowledge. These practices contrast sharply with recent industrial and extractive models that have led to environmental deterioration. Recognizing and respecting indigenous knowledge is critical not only for justice but also for the development of sustainable ecological practices, including climate mitigation and adaptation.
This is far superior to the textbook stories taught by the dominant contemporary Urban university lecturers, journalists, and science fiction writers today. i’m sorry.
Not to be confused with a primitive hunter gatherer stereotype, the indigenous relationship between pastoralism and climate is particularly significant. Pastoralist knowledge of animal husbandry, coupled with intricate social structures, enables them to sustain their livelihoods in balance with their environment. This has never been and never will be achieved with soybean plantation, biocides, and Timber. Never.
The narrative that dismisses indigenous as primitive hunter-gatherer societies and inherently inferior is both misleading and harmful. It fails to appreciate the complexity, resilience, and sustainability of these lifestyles. Indigenous groups continue to demonstrate the value of traditional knowledge in fostering ecological balance all around the world. Follow the 5th generation Yak herder before your modern climate idols; i’m serious.
Embracing a more inclusive and respectful view of these diverse ways of life is essential for building a sustainable future, and rectifying the damaging injustices inadvertently perpetuated by the participants on these pages. Engaging deeply in academia often reveals the fallacy of suggesting that a PhD comprehends reality more profoundly than someone rooted in the land. This reveals the essence of phony environmentalism.
Happy Canada day.
JCM: The wisdom and practices of indigenous groups provide a blueprint for sustainable living
BPL: Indigenous peoples wiped out the large animals in Australia, and in North America they would set forest fires to drive entire vast herds of animals over cliffs. Many recently living species were exterminated in the Americas by overhunting. Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
It’s not an either/or proposition. “Indigenous people” is not an homogeneous category, either in place or time. As paleoIndians lived within particular environments, their knowledge and skills must have deepened and broadened. That would include knowledge of what was sustainable, and what was not.
And JCM is correct that indigenous knowledge is being increasingly recognized as valuable, including in the mitigation of climate change. To repeat a citation:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/indigenous-partnership.html
“Indigenous leadership and knowledge are critical to achieving the foundational changes required to address climate change and ensure a healthy environment.”
And while the “buffalo jump” may seem wasteful, the largest one, near Ulm, MT, was used for ~1500 years, and still is only estimated to have remains of about 6,000 individual bison. The near-extinction of the buffalo, far from being a sin to lay at the doors of the Plains tribes, was a conscious act by the US government and people, aimed in considerable part at the “pacification” of the “Indians.” The latter fully recognized their own reliance on the herds, resisting the extermination as best they could–but ultimately in vain.
Kevin: “ JCM is correct that indigenous knowledge is being increasingly recognized as valuable, including in the mitigation of climate change”
to some extent, yes, but JCM goes from one extreme disregarding any traditional knowledge to the other extreme:
“ an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today.”
which is a politically correct generalization of the JCM’s repeated attempts to discredit on climate science and scientists.
Maybe. Yours is a fair comment, at least. I do think JCM does pick unnecessary fights and pose false dichotomies, and I wish he’d reconsider such. Surely, as Radge’s recent comment suggests, he’d be better off training his rhetorical fire on the developers of, say, exurban amusement parks, golf courses, palm oil plantations and data centers, rather than scientists studying radiative forcing.
On the other hand, much as I admire and advocate for science and the scientific method, it doesn’t suffice for the full development of human culture. It must exist in what I call “creative tension” with other aspects of life. (And actually, most scientists I know or have known, do pretty well in that regard, participating in all kinds of other human activities and living well-rounded lives. The ‘robot in a lab coat’ stereotype we may recall from bad 1950s science fiction movies is not, in my experience, very accurate or characteristic.) Which is a long-winded way of setting up my opinion that JCM’s Bhutanese child may indeed have something to offer the rest of us. (So might that obscure stay-at-home mom sharing her work at the local poetry slam, just to cite one example that comes to mind.)
Science offers knowledge–reliable, reproducible knowledge. That’s a gift beyond price. But without a larger cultural context to place that knowledge in, it cannot offer meaning–which we need at least as much. JCM says “Follow the 5th generation Yak herder before your modern climate idols; i’m serious.”
I’d say there’s value in ‘following’ both; they have different perspectives and framings to offer. I think JCM falls into the trap of “discrediting,” as you term it, when he uses that pejorative “idol” term.
BPL. Indigenous peoples were also less harmful to the environment but only because of their relatively small global population in the millions. On the positive side indigenous peoples tend to be inherently less wasteful than modern humans. We could learn from that.
There’s evidence that the pre-Columbian population of the Americas, at least, was much larger than traditionally believed.
Already this was emerging in 2005:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus
Actually, the highest estimate so far appears to be that of Henry Dobyns, from 1966, which came up with a range of ~90-112 million. Current work seems to have a bit more granular approach, trying to use local or regional proxy data, from what I could tell. If successful, that could enable more reliable global estimates. But some of the work I looked at found indications that for the South American tropics at least, population was in fact limited by carrying capacity, which would argue that environmental impact was not limited by a small population. Of course, the situation is pretty cloudy still, overall.
Kevin. Ok, but theres a huge difference between the precolumbian global population reckoned to be around 500 million, and todays 8 billion people. The environmental footprint of 8 billion people is going to be much greater than 500 million, even if we all lived like subsistence farmers. Think of the deforestation. Then there is the IPAT equation.
Sure, there’s good reason to think that current population levels are unsustainable under any plausible medium-term technological/social scenario. No disagreement there.
My point is just that there is also good reason to think that indigenous folk do have knowledge that is worth sharing and using. Partly, I suspect, it’s precisely because they did have to live with environmental consequences–the Maori of your homeland had to cope with the loss of biodiversity they themselves had induced. The same could be true of North America megafauna extinctions, although the jury is still out on the cause of those losses. (If, as some recent results indicate, humans were present in North America thousands of years before said extinctions, then at the very least the correlation of the two events is much looser.)
If it’s true that indigenous environmental practices arose partly from the ‘school of hard knocks’, then it’s quite possible that we are ourselves living through a similar process. Possible, that is, if we actually learn anything from the lessons of contemporary history, and apply the lessons to our cultural ways.
Kevin: I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using. Their methods of fishing and farming may be enlightening. Theres an unfortunate tendency to discard old knowledge just because its old.
Some of the indigenous peoples herbal cures have been shown to work in proper scientific trials (Germany did a set of these). If they have been used for thousands of years you can see that they may have gradually figured out that they work. But science shows some have no effect.
That said, as other people point out indigenous knowledge and technolgies are often very place specific.
And then we come to the indigenous peoples economies and sustainability. Obviously hunter gatherer culture is more sustainable than modern economies. It could have gone on largely unchanged for millenia. But what if anything can we learn from them or adapt from them? They took what food they needed from nature but the impact was small and nature easily regenerated to compensate without any real change in its abundance. But I suspect this was largely because their population was small. They had few tools so none of the destructive impacts of modern humans. They didnt use coal or iron so were never going to run out. The early farmers didnt waste their food because they barely had enough to survive. So sure if we copied that we could go on for millenia, but with a population of 8 billion we just cant, especially if we want a tecnology based society at even half current levels.
We do have some good histories about how ancient societies failed and recovered. The Maori decimated half the species of native birds. White people nearly decimated the other half. The birds were large and flighless and had no fear of humans. No sustainable hunting practices going on there. It was open slaughter. I vaguely recall that the Maori then switched to more harvesting of sea foods. Maori also grew sweet potatoes.
But I don’t see much we can learn much from that process. Our ecosystems are already quite different, and we dont need their example to know that where we have messed things up, we may have to consider alternatives. Perhaps you have an example.
Charles C. Mann, in 1491, expressed his frustration with the difficulty of estimating population numbers in the Americas from the scanty, low-quality data available. AFAIK, a consensus has yet to emerge. A recent, peer-reviewed paper offers an updated estimate of 60 million:
The paper is titled “Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492”. The authors faced the same problem their predecessors did: no reliable contemporaneous population estimates, and insufficiently quantitative archaeological data. Despite the historic lack of quantitative data, however, evidence is accumulating that pre-contact Americans modified local and regional landscapes extensively: first by at least hastening the extinction of multiple keystone species, then by burning, farming, urbanizing, and exploiting resources as local economies developed. And that the catastrophic die-off of Indigenous Americans following first contact with Europeans allowed much of the modified landscape to return to apparently natural conditions, fixing carbon from the atmosphere as it did so. Meanwhile, the survivors adapted to the arrival of the global marketplace in their homelands.
The simple heuristic model “I=PAT”, i.e. (I)mpact is a function of (P)opulation, per-capita (A)ffluence, and per-capita (T)echnological wherewithal, comes in handy here. If we use 60 million as a working assumption, we can then ask, “What per-capita ability to modify their environment did pre-contact Americans have?” One assumes that ceteris paribus, more wealth means more impact. The per-capita affluence of Europeans certainly enjoyed a boost, albeit unequally distributed, as the plunder of the conquistadores returned by the shipload. How did the economies of, say, the Inca empire, and newly unified Spain compare in 1491, however? Dunno.
The next question is “What technological force multipliers could pre-contact Americans deploy when exploiting the resources in their location?” Here’s where “I=PAT” gets left behind: “Technology” covers the full range of human cultural adaptations! It could refer to the invention of tools from available materials; the extent of trade networks and the scope of markets; the size of armies; or the rise and fall of political power to coerce behavior over large areas. It entails the animals suitable for domestication, Darwinian evolution of human resistance to their diseases, and the impacts of contact with non-resistant populations. In any case, some collective achievements of various pre-contact American cultures can still be viewed on the landscape, and can hardly be called inferior to those of Renaissance Europe.
Nonetheless, it seems likely that if Indigenous Americans were less wasteful than modern humans, it was because material resources that might be wasted were more limited by the technology of exploitation, and thus more expensive per capita, for them. And of course, their per-capita affluence declined drastically after European contact, along with their population, while the survivors became technological aids to expanding their conquerors’ affluence and impact on the land, i.e. slaves. By all that’s hypothetically holy, what a freaking horror. The stuff of nightmares. I’m reminded yet again of just how lucky I am!
I don’t have definitive values for the I=PAT model, but if the take-home is that we should all minimize our private impacts and live more mindfully: well, we know how to do that, but internalizing all our socialized costs so that we can’t afford to waste anything, is not likely to be implemented collectively. We all do the best we can within our private and social constraints. As to anthropogenic global warming specifically: full decarbonization of one’s private lifestyle requires severing all connections with “the grid”, i.e. the global economy, until collective intervention decarbonizes that economy, and nobody wants to transfer fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the gigatonnes annually anymore. Please vote Democratic in November. It’s the least you can do!.
Mal,
“Nonetheless, it seems likely that if Indigenous Americans were less wasteful than modern humans, it was because material resources that might be wasted were more limited by the technology of exploitation, and thus more expensive per capita, for them.”
Define “wasteful”.
I would think a simpler approach for calculating approximate population could be based on information recorded by first contact. If the indigenous population has a long residence time in a particular contiguous landscape (such as a forested region), one might assume a uniform population density over that length scale. On first contact, I imagine that facts such as geographic location, distance traveled by Europeans and approximate number of indigenous encountered would allow an estimate for population for a given region. Or is that too naive? It does seem that stories of first encounters found considerable indigenous population at each.
They were less wasteful because they had no choice. They did not have resources they could afford to waste. As BPL correctly implies, their knowledge and technology were so primitive that they just did not have the capability of impacting the environment the way Europeans were able to, except as BPL also correctly points out – by using fire they could be very destructive.
And they did not have firearms. All good liberals know that before firearms, all peoples around the world lived in total harmony and peace and there were no murders at all. But then, some idiot invented the GUN, and ever since that day we’ve had total chaos and mayhem 24/7/365. There’s even a documentary on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmyyEbvDgr8
:)
KIA.
“They (early indigenous peoples) were less wasteful because they had no choice. They did not have resources they could afford to waste”
Good point. It took them huge effort to make tools and build settlements and grow crops. You repair or conserve these these rather than just throw them out. But this is different from making a conscious choice to be sustainable.
I was considering a counter example. Hunter gatherers did not appear to over consume food and didnt appear to have weight problems like modern humans. However I doubt it was a conscious choice to be frugal or sustainable. Its probably related to a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables leading to quick feelings of satiation and the effort required especially with hunting.
The cereal crops modern humans eat seem to be a bit addictive and we dont know when to stop eating this stuff. And it has become low cost to produce.
I’m just not persuaded that hunter gatherers were “wiser” or morally superior than modern humans or had some conscious plan to be sustainable. Instead their apparent sustainability choices reflected their physical circumstances at the time. Then along came farming and this changed eveything, and its hard for us to go backwards from this.
It doesnt change the fact that modern humans are wasteful on multiple levels. Even C02 is proving to be a troublesome form of waste from the burning of fossil fuels. IMO most of our environmental problems.have waste in some form at the core of the problem. If we dont deal with it better it will eventually bury us.
I don’t think that the Māori used fire when they hunted the moa (and, as a consequence, Haast’s eagle) to extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa#Extinction
Nigel asked:
The answer to that will of necessity be general, because as has already been said on this thread, indigenous cultures tend to be highly specific to place. (Which is worth remembering when we stop to consider the many instances of forced displacement imposed upon indigenous folks, especially, though not exclusively, in the US. But I digress.)
So my answer would be, what we can learn from indigenous people is two-fold: first, how the ecologies of their landscapes function in practical terms. If you are trying to, say conserve the bearded seal population in Kotzebue Sound, it’s probably a very good idea to talk to the Inupiaq folk who live there. Actually, some folks are doing just that:
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/science/2023/08/06/indigenous-knowledge-holders-share-thousands-of-observations-on-the-changing-arctic-in-a-new-study/
Indigenous knowledge is very often the product of a prolonged, careful, and intense study of the local environment–and not only observing, but carefully considering trophic relationships. What eats what, and when? These are existential questions if you are ‘living off the land.’
There is a larger and more general lesson there, though–which is the value of such observation, and of attitudes that sustain it. The present discussion seems to turn in part on this point. Can someone such as thee and me really value the natural world as it deserves to be valued, distanced as we are from it? Or do you have to have a more intimate, quotidian relationship? If the latter, then JCM’s Bhutanese child may well be wiser than we, in at least one dimension.
Another Nigel comment to this point:
The problem here is, who is to judge, and by what standards? (I think quite highly of my own system of morality, and would be glad to propose it as standard here, but I must note that it seems not to be universally accepted.) If we take survival of cultural disruption as an operational test of “wisdom,” then it’s hard to compete with indigenous folks, who have done little else for the past several centuries than survive the most severe cultural disruptions imaginable.
Jonathan made a suggestion:
Good thought, but as I understand it, the utility is limited by the fact that it seems probable that many populations were already severely depleted by disease prior to the first recorded contact. That’s discussed in “1491,” an excellent book Mal linked to above:
https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059
Alas, Mr. KIA is flatly wrong (yet again), saying:
See some of the “1491” blurb linked above for a partial refutation. Maya math was capable of accurate astronomical calculation, and had independently arrived at the pivotal concept of zero before Europe adopted it from the Arabs, who apparently had it from Indian scholars. And fire was used with intention and understanding by indigenous folks, in Australia and the Americas.
https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires
Similar points, but other info too, including thoughts on climate change, and from modern indigenous folk who are also managers, scholars and firefighters:
https://crosscut.com/focus/2019/09/indigenous-fire-practices-once-shaped-northwest-and-they-might-again
A Canadian perspective:
https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/full/10.1139/facets-2021-0062
And in Australia:
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2024/03/indigenous-fire-management-began-more-than-11000-years-ago-new-research-shows/
Also in Australia, a ‘[quasi] natural experiment’ demonstrates the destructive impact of disrupting indigenous burning practices:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12946-3
Also, and more generally, it’s a mistake to think that “primitive” people lack knowledge. It’s rather the reverse, in that we ‘modern’ people have a strong tendency to substitute technology for knowledge. Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’ has a huge practical knowledge base which they rely on for survival: what can be eaten at this time of year; where to find it; techniques for harvesting it, including techniques for creating whatever tools might be required; techniques for preparing and cooking it. Techniques for finding or creating shelter, finding potable water, lighting and nurturing fires. Technique, technique, technique. We know how to pay for stuff, which usually means holding a job. And yes, there’s a knowledge base for that. But the whole dynamic of our society is specialization, the thrust of which is to enable any given member of our society to be as ignorant as they wish of everything except whatever brings in the boodle.
Kevin McKinney says @ 9 JUL 2024 AT 1:37 PM
Yes indigenous peoples have in depth knowledge of the local environment etc,etc, but maya maths doesnt impact on the environment significantly. The point BPL and myself are making, in different ways, is that indiginous peoples technology does not degrade the environments like modern technology. A horse and plough tilling a field does not have the same impact as a tractor which makes over tilling very easy (the dust bowl problem). Cow manure as fertiliiser has different and more benign impacts to nitrate fertilisers. Using a few basic iron tools is different to our modern technology and the mining involved and pollutants the manufacture of such tools generates. There is a qualitative and quantitative difference.
It makes me wonder how much of indigenous peoples low environmental impacts was due to how they did things in fine detail, and the so called sustainability, how much is due to the basic nature of their technology. I suspect a large proportion is the later.
Indigenous people used fire wisely as per your links but also arguably used fire to push animals over cliffs and over hunt them. Both ancient farmers and modern farmers have some wise and sustainable farm practices mixed in with bad practices. Both ancient and modern peoples are sensitive to the effects of the seasons and other cycles. Its not that indigenous people had a monopoly on such things.
“Every competent, functioning ‘primitive’ has a huge practical knowledge base which they rely on for survival: what can be eaten at this time of year; where to find it; techniques for harvesting it, including techniques for creating whatever tools might be required; techniques for preparing and cooking it.”
Ok but so do modern farmers! So you dont have much of a point!
Sure there are some things we can learn from ancient peoples but ultimately our problems mostly come down to a few big specific issues: A continued tendency to over till soils and create soil erosion, the impacts of nitrate fertiliisers, the over use of pesticides decimating pollinating insects for example. Indigenous peoples didnt use those technologies. It doesnt help us solve the problem because 8 billion people are very reliant on modern farming technologies and simply stopping using them is problematic. It has to happen somehow to some extent, but indigenous culture doesnt tell us HOW to phase down their use without causing even more problems. So part of me admires indigenous culture (always has actually) but the other part says there are only a few things we can really learn from them. It doesnt do much to help us solve the big problems I listed.
Nigel, thanks for a lovely extended discussion. I hope you are enjoying it, as I am. But the “Maya math” point was not in response to anything that you said, but rather WRT KIA’s comment about indigenous knowledge generally.
So, moving on…
Nigel, you said:
And the point I’m making is that you can’t assume that that is due to mere incapacity. “Indigenous tech doesn’t degrade the environment, therefore indigenous folks couldn’t make tech that degrades the environment.” The argument is clearly fallacious. Of course, that doesn’t make it impossible that incapacity, in one respect or another, was a factor. For example, a number of folks have pointed out (including, I think, Jared Diamond) that the lack of good draft animals could have had a very formative effect on pre-Columbian civilizations–an ‘incapacity’ of motive power, if you will.
Nigel:
I’m not sure you can meaningfully separate the two. But perhaps I’m not grasping your meaning?
That was another comment aimed at the discussion I was having with KIA. But that’s OK, I don’t mind responding here–so let me add a bit of emphasis to my sentence:
So, all but a smattering of the adult population, and extending well down into the kids, by degrees. Now–what proportion of the population would you say farmers represent in the developed world today? Today’s cultural frame in developed nations is not dominated by folks practicing agriculture and having the sorts of knowledge we’re talking about.
Here, you question the utility of indigenous knowledge:
I think that’s rather more an assumption than anything else. Certainly Andre Antonelli disagrees. Well, who is he, you ask? Here’s the answer:
And how do I know he disagrees? Well, I’m going by the title of his article in Nature, Indigenous knowledge is key to sustainable food systems.
An extract:
So here we have a vision of marrying living indigenous knowledge with modern science and technology for the good of all. Professor Antonelli is not naive about the difficulties involved; read the article for his comments. But it’s a specific answer to your question: here’s one way in which we could use indigenous knowledge to address the difficulties in agriculture you named.
There’s also a more general lesson, which is the potential reframing of our culture. We assume that we are above or at least aside from nature; indigenous cultures assume that they are part of nature, embedding inextricably within it. We could, in theory at least, seriously consider the validity of that alternative framing, with an eye to normalizing it or adopting it.
We could, in theory at least, consider ways in which to increase our regard for the future: much of our behavior now is driven by concern for relatively immediate goals–the next paycheck, this quarter, maybe just the end of the day, or the end of the shift. We say we love our kids, but corporately I really don’t think our behavior says that that’s true.
And we could consider deprioritizing convenience in our culture. It’s a top priority for us, because it’s the easiest thing to sell, and selling is (almost) literally and metaphorically the bottom line. But what convenience means, really, is thinking about one’s behavior as little as possible. Thinking, especially about mundane things rather than Grand And Beautiful Thoughts, is always a bit of a bother. We want to toss that packaging, toss that depleted lighter or worn sweater, toss the leftovers from last night. And we definitely don’t want to think about the fact that they don’t just disappear.
These sorts of cultural changes are, IMO, necessary. If we keep to every single one of our current cultural paradigms, how and why would, or could, we change our collective behaviors? I think Killian is absolutely right about that. (Where I differ with him is in the difficulty and speed of cultural change, Change isn’t easy or quick, in my experience. But it is possible, and often necessary.) And these sorts of changes aren’t the purview of one group or another in society, but are cross-cutting. Cultural workers–artists of all sorts, clergyfolk, entertainers and teachers, basically–obviously have a role, but so do all manner of thinkers and practical people–farmers, technicians, engineers of all stripes, and on and on. And I don’t believe anybody knows how this will, or should, shake out–which is exactly why I think talking and dreaming about the possibilities now is so potentially valuable.
One last point–or, if that’s too pretentious, one last notion. It may be unnecessary, but I’ll risk redundancy for the sake of clarity. There’s a tendency, evident throughout this thread, to place indigenous people exclusively in the past. KIA uses the past tense exclusively, I think; BPL may have, also. And you did use the term “ancient peoples” in this context. But as Prof. Antonelli points out, indigenous people amount to about 15% of the current global population. (If that seems high to you, well, it does to me, too–but for current purposes, I’m going to take his word for it. I suspect he’s more reliable on this point than my general impression would be.) Whatever the percentage, though, indigenous people aren’t just bygone communities. They’re here, pretty much wherever “here” may be, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Kevin
Thanks for the info.
“And the point I’m making is that you can’t assume that that is due to mere incapacity. “Indigenous tech doesn’t degrade the environment, therefore indigenous folks couldn’t make tech that degrades the environment.” The argument is clearly fallacious.”
Your argument appears to suggest that indigenous people may have discarded inventions they felt might be environmentally damaging or chosen not to persue some ideas. Possibly, but it hasnt stopped some groups adopting damaging western technologies or the products of them. I’m sure I’ve seen hunter gatherers in the Amazon wearing industrially made cotton or polyester tea shirts!
All I’m saying is there are two sides to indigenous societies, the good and bad sides, like with modern society. We can of course pick out the good side of their cultures and learn from that, and I agree with your examples and the need to reduce our wasteful convenience culture.
The problem I have is the way Killian generalises that the indigenous peoples total system / way of life is just better than us, and I agree his timeframes for system change are too short to be remotely plausible.
Nigel said:
Precisely. What you find tends to reflect to a considerable degree what you are looking for, and what you are interested in.
Absolutely. From quite early on, trade items were used pretty enthusiastically by indigenous people, and quite a few such items had potential for ecologically destructive effects–iron leghold traps, say. These effects were not always managed to indigenous advantage–sometimes, in fact, they did severe damage to traditional culture. (But also, sometimes not so much.)
Today, First Nations in Canada, as elsewhere, make free use of modern technology–snowmobiles, outboard motors, pick-up trucks, digital technology, everything. They adapt, and try to synthesize old and new ingredients into something that works for them today. I well remember visiting Manitoulin Island–the largest freshwater island in the world–and seeing the tribally-owned McLean’s Mountain wind farm. A pic:
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/panoramic-view-wide-open-spaces-wind-turbines-manitoulin-island-canada-255311211.jpg
Yes, that’s right. While I think as I said earlier that some cultural practices are preferable to others on various ground, and that there may still be things we can learn from other cultures, including indigenous ones, that’s not to say that everything indigenous is perfect, nor negate the reality that “people are people.” A case in point is the 2001 film “Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner,” which retells a traditional Inuit tale. Lots of bad behavior in that film!–as well as an authentically Inuit sensibility. (Again, AFAICT.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanarjuat:_The_Fast_Runner
(Good luck following that plot description, though!)
BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.
Indigenous peoples wiped out the large animals in Australia, and in North America
This is absolutely unsettled and very unlikely. We know for a fact humans were crossing the Bering Strait for thousands of years before the last mammoths died out. Certainly, they would have been hunted, sitting there all cooped up on Wrangel? Further, humans we in the Americas for at least 13k years before the megafauna went extinct, then they went extinct in the blink of an eye. In no way does that make sense if due to hunting. Etc.
they would set forest fires to drive entire vast herds of animals over cliffs.
Really? How vast? This is news to me. Herds? Sure. Parts of herds? Sure. Vast herds? No. And they made use of what they were able to obtain. There is evidence large gatherings of tribes would gather for one of these drive and potentially spend months there processing, eating, making use of the resources. There is no credible evidence they went around slaughtering just to slaughter as you imply. And in what way, shape or form is that form of hunting in some way bad as you clearly attempt to imply? It’s not like they had long rifles. Pretty damned smart to not risk getting killed for a mammoth steak.
And there were a LOT of biota compared to today. A LOT.
Many recently living species were exterminated in the Americas by overhunting.
You have no credible basis for the certitude of this statement. Again, it shows a massive degree of bias that is absolutely shameful.
Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
This is flatly racist. We not only have the corollaries of present-day pastoralists and H-Gs, but evidence that even in large settlements, like the ones now known to have existed in what is now Ukraine, which were the same combination of H-G-gardeners as today, their diets were only about 30% meat. And they had a very diverse array of meats to eat. Why would they hunt down all the big dangerous animals in a short paroxysm of flesh gorging when they could get small game and fish far more easily?
Evidence from every intact Indigenous people I am aware of indicates very careful management of their ecosystems, including knowing what to harvest and not harvest to keep the system balanced, intentionally burning to encourage new growth and prevent large fires, intentionall spreading seeds and preferential causing wanted flora to grow. Amidst such careful understanding and attention to the health of the ecosystem, they just slaughter all the large fauna?
The Kua people of Africa don’t hunt giraffes. Why? Because they are the only animals that eat the leaves of acacia trees. They spread the seeds keeping the acacia population healthy. The acacia is a nitrogen fixer and was long understood to be a “mother” species that other lives depended on. The women would go gathering seeds, etc., and as they walked would allow seeds to fall to the ground and stop to heel them into the soil. Such thinking is supposed to lead to indiscriminate slaughter? You confuse your own violent manner for theirs. Projection.
I know of not one group that shows signs of careless overhunting, over-gathering, etc. If we could build Gobekle Tepe, et al., over 10k years ago, we could probably figure out our environments effectively. We are, and perhaps this thread is some of the best evidence, less intelligent today than we were then.
Killian said: “BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.”
You are wrong. You clearly dont read carefully enough or are mixing me up with someone else. Ive been very civil, and I have NOT stated or inferred that indiginous peoples are savage or mindless or violent (as in inherently a violent people). Provide an example and I bet you can’t. Obviously I may have said somewhere that indigenous peoples sometimes engage in violent conflicts because its a simple fact.
Please note my comment to Kevin 6 July @9.28 where I said ” I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using. Their methods of fishing and farming may be enlightening. Theres an unfortunate tendency to discard old knowledge just because its old. Some of the indigenous peoples herbal cures have been shown to work in proper scientific trials…”
Regarding BPLs take on things. I dont know how accurate all his statements are but its a fact that indigenous peoples hunted some species to extinction, including several native birds species in New Zealand. I live there so I know the history. Its also a fact indigenous peoples also sometimes took care to treat the natural world wisely. My point is the record is very varied just as it is with modern humans.
However I doubt it was a conscious choice to be frugal or sustainable… …I’m just not persuaded that hunter gatherers were “wiser” or morally superior than modern humans or had some conscious plan to be sustainable. Instead their apparent sustainability choices reflected their physical circumstances at the time.
This is insultingly dismissive and completely ignores what you have been told on these pages and in sources linked here… and generally in the modern literature. I have previously linked the direct lived experiences of Prof. Helga Vierich on these pages, e.g. And despite their massive degree of monumental architecture spread throughout the Amazon – the first monumental building in Peru going back over 5k years – how did they manage to keep the Amazon ecosystem from collapsing? Sheer luck? It would take a very deep understanding of the environment and careful use of it to fill it with buildings, roads and people and keep it intact, but you dismiss this as unskilled luck. Balderdash. Absurdly so.
You cite the Maori. Though I use more recent societies as somewhat correlating, I take pains to clarify, when needed, that I draw the line at the period of transition to sedentary farming and monumental architecture. However, it is necessary to take that case-by-case since for Europeans it was 11k to 4k years ago, but for parts of the Americas as late as pre-Columbian times, and for Australia something like only 200 years ago.
The Maori were new immigrants to NZ, not Indigenous there, when they hunted the moa to extinction. This is simply not the same as being indigenous to a place for tens of thousands of years and suddenly supposedly gorging yourself on fauna you understood expertly. Further, they were already hierarchical and capable of monumental building – characteristics of NON-regenerative societies.
So, once again you argue via decontextualized bits you have gathered here and there with little or no systemic understanding.
Please note my comment to Kevin 6 July @9.28 where I said ” I agree that some of the indigenous knowledge may be worth sharing and using.
Yeah… see the above. Did you take even a moment to calculate into your thoughts the list of sustainability principles I listed and what the implications of living by them would be? No, I am certain you did not.
As for the claim by KIA which you agreed with they had no choice but to have low consumption, in reality the abundance of most ecosystems in pre-contact and pre-modern era societies was high. How do you have a LOT more leisure time if not?
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/pre-colonial-australia-natural-wilderness-or-gentleman-s-park
The Americas were so populated and co-created when the population crashed after contact it initiated the LIA as forests regrew. I.e., it was chock full of people NOT going hungry who so affected the lands settlers moving into then-depopulated areas were amazed at how well organized nature seemed to be, so accommodating. They just didn’t realize how many Indigenous there had been or how much they had affected the land.
They were wiser. They literally avoided destroying their environment and even enhanced it. Can we say the same? They were egalitarian. They shared. They accepted various genders. Etc. How does this not qualify as wiser?
Hierarchies, patriarchy, greed, et al., changed these things over various time frames around the world, but to say effective, non-destructive use of the environment, acceptance of differences, minimization of large-scale violence, etc., was not wiser is pure White man bias. Boggles the mind that your own ancestors lived better but you simply cannot accept it despute the evidence. Try to remember: We all were dark-skinned, attuned to nature, sharing people once.
Killian. IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the regiion being a small fraction of todays numbers. Brazils population alone is over 200 million now all wanting land for farming etc. And the ancient monumental cities being a tiny fraction of the total land area.
I dont dispute ancient societies like this would have made some wise and sustainable environmental decisions along the way, but a large part of their small environmental footprint and small impacts on ecosystems is logically due to much smaller populations relative to today and less invasive technologies. Thats all Im saying.
Please also read my response on the regenerative governance issue ( 6 JUL 2024 AT 4:09 PM). Briefly I accept the ancient hunter gatherer and early farming commons worked without the need for a police force and a hierarchy etc,etc, but this may be largely because of the small population size and basic technology. The small groups self regulated well enough, their was nothing much to steal, the natural enviroment was abundant so taking too much occasionally didnt have significant consequences. With 8 billion people and at least some modern technology and posessions, I dont believe you would make a commons work without something like a police force and rule of law.
The Maori people are widely considered by academics to the the indiginous people of New Zealand. Certainly they immigrated to NZ from polynesia, but most indigenous peoples ultimately came form some other region. The time Maori were in New Zealand doesnt seem all that material, because they bought their customs from polynesia so if they were wise and sustainable in polynesia (not over fishing for example) then they should be sustainable in NZ. They do not have to re-learn everything from the beginning do they just because they are in a new place.
The native birds like the Moa were large flighless birds with no fear of humans. Nobody claimed Maori gorged themselves, but they didnt stop and think they were in danger of causing an extinction.
That said obviously modern society needs to live as sustainably as we practically can and as much as possible within planetary boundaries. And we are not doing this nearly well enough.
K: BPLs and nigelj’s comments contiue [sic] to be horribly inappropriate. Such comments should not be tolerated here – but I clearly waste my breath on asking for civility on these pages, We are far past the time with anthropological and archeological knowledge to put up with these nonsensical, centuries-old, outdated tropes of the savage, mindless, violent Indigenous. The biases of these two should be bore-holed.
BPL: No one here mentioned such a stereotype. I merely pointed out, correctly, that indigenous people were not living in some kind of gentle, caring ecotopia. Primitive peoples wiped out many existing species. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
You have demonstrated it perfectly. Again.
nigel: “IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the regiion being a small fraction of todays numbers. ”
Wrong, again. Numbers were maybe 25% of now, but despite there being urban organization, there were also many hunter-gatherers – and farmers would have also hunted and gathered – and H-Gs need anywhere from 20 to 100x more space, so the load would have been equal or higher then.
“logically due to much smaller populations relative to today and less invasive technologie”
Our much higher population is directly due to the planet-killing use of chemicals in ag to create a massive overabundance of food leading to a massive over-abundance of people. Again, H-Gs need far more space than urban societies. so that is not it. Yes, tech is the problem. not population. We could have a healthy ecoystem now if all lived regeneratively. So stop blaming population size.
“Please also read my response on the regenerative governance issue ( 6 JUL 2024 AT 4:09 PM). ”
You have no qualifications to speak on the issue. Moot.
Re Maori: You completely lost the plot. My point was they WERE NOT INDIGENOUS there and certainly did not have long generations of knowledge of that ecosystem yet, so we can be certain they would have made some mistakes. It’s not analogous to my comments about TEK.
“obviously modern society needs to live as sustainably as we practically can and as much as possible within planetary boundaries”
As much as we can? That sentence is self-contradictory. I wish you’d stop speaking on issues you have no expertise in.
Killian
The Amazon region meaning the Amazon basin (mostly rainforest) had a population of around 500,000 – 10 million in pre columbian times. Lets assume the upper end of 10 million. You are probably right that the modern population in the basin itself is indeed probably four times that.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.2035#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20pre%2DColumbian%20populations,2015).
But by Amazon region I meant the ‘wider’ region of modern Brazil. As per my comments I said: “IMO the reason the Amazon ecosystem didnt collapse despite large pre columbian monument building societies was probably mainly the population of the ‘region’ being a small fraction of todays numbers. BRAZILS population alone is over 200 million now all wanting land for farming etc.” I should have been a bit clearer.
Although the people of Brazil do not all live in the Amazon basin they are taking from it in various ways. This is why its collapsing today. I contend the reason it didnt collapse in pre columbian times was mainly the much smaller population both living in and ‘reliant’ on the Amazon basin compared to todays Brazil as a whole, and other countries encompassing the Amazon basin.
Yes sure the pre columbian lifestyle would also be a factor in minimal impacts on the ecosystem. Its a very basic lifestyle, so of course its more sustainable than ours.
BPL: Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.
K: This is flatly racist.
BPL: I think you need to look up what “racist” means.
[BPL: Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.]
K: This is flatly racist.
BPL: Wow, I say that indigenous people are the same kind of people as modern people, but with less technology. And Killian finds this “horribly racist.”
You need to read this, Killian:
“rac·ism /ˈrāˌsiz(ə)m/ noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. “a program to combat racism”
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”
I’ve been talking about this on these pages for seventeen years. #RegenerativeGovernance is exactly what you talk about. The following are all incorporated in Regen Gov.
Characteristics and Principles of Regenerative Societies:
* Living within ecosystem limits
* Needs-based decision-making
* No time-limited decision-making (obvious exception: emergencies)
* Nested Commons
* Egalitarian
* Equality: Gender, racial, economic, etc.
* Bioregional
* Networks of small communities
* Highly cooperative, yet…
* Absolute individual autonomy
* Work is freely chosen; no “jobs”
* “Work” is a social event
For each of those bullet points, how does current US Society differ from those characteristics and principles?
Also, why is it “flatly racist” for BPL to point out THE KNOWN FACT that “Indigenous peoples are less harmful to the environment simply and solely because their technology is too low-level to ruin things as efficiently as industrial societies.”?
Is that similar to the nonsense we hear Democrats say such as: “Math is racist”?
KIA: Is that similar to the nonsense we hear Democrats say such as: “Math is racist”?
BPL: I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.
BPL, the educational system operates in a way that disadvantages certain populations. The problem, as is so often the case with many issues, is how “math” (or any topic) is defined.
For people like KIA, performance on tests which measure memorization of High School problem sets, and performance of mindless algorithms, is considered the pinnacle of mathematical achievement. And to those people, that defines “math”. The problem is that when this criterion is used to “evaluate” the student and place them in a hierarchy, it does exhibit a bias.
Taking the typical standardized test, if you live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, with your own quiet room in which to practice, and get a good night’s sleep, and wake to a nutritious breakfast, and have multiple human and internet resources for explanation and reinforcement……….. is really different from if you are living in a war zone. And that’s what many inner city neighborhoods are like.
I never taught HS; but I was set on the path to exploring and understanding the connection by a student who was as White as you could get…. but was a returning veteran with PTSD. A very aha moment for a young me, who had never thought about such things, to see him break down from “just a math quiz.” Nothing to do with actual mathematics; nothing to do with how one might perform in the real world.
So here I am, Dem certified, saying that “math”, as KIA (and perhaps the majority) defines it, is… de facto… racist, given the zip code distribution of the populations in question.
BPL says: “I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.”
Your favorite Climate Science source says they do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/08/racism-our-curriculums-isnt-limited-history-its-math-too/
Even a fair and balanced news source says they say it:
https://www.newsweek.com/math-racist-crowd-runs-rampant-seattle-portland-opinion-1701491
And Zebra below says that he says it.
I say it is nonsense, and you? I’d say it is racist to claim math is racist!
It’s not a “known fact,” either with or without all caps; it’s just a common notion that KIA happens to agree with.
And it actually flies in the face of many of the statements made on this very thread. If, as alleged by some, North American paleo-Indians were responsible for the extinction of the megafauna here, well, that’s a pretty ‘efficient’ ruination. And if they did, then why did they not drive the buffalo to extinction, too?
Frequently on this thread we’ve seen a presumption that indigenous folks weren’t “wiser” or more “morally superior” than we. It’s an analog, I suppose, of the cosmological principle: as every sufficiently large chunk of the universe should look and act much like any other sufficiently large one, we assume that, well, “people are people.” And I don’t disagree; there’s little evidence to suggest any sufficiently large and representative group of people has markedly different potential than any other sufficiently large and representative one.
But surely some cultures adaptations are preferable to others, as assessed by some set of rational criteria? It’s correct, I’m sure, to try to set aside our own allegiances for a moment, should we be making cultural comparisons–however imperfectly that attempt may succeed. But we don’t have to assert a sort of cultural pan-equivalency. There are better and worse cars, boats, clothes, recipes, musical compositions, and, heck, RC posts. Does it seem improbable that some cultural adaptations will be more functional than others? Or that not every group will evolve the optimum response to a particular challenge every time?
(I note that the Norse Greenlanders didn’t, whereas the Thule proto-Inuit moving in at roughly the same time did–or at least, they came up with a response that allowed them to survive in Greenland right up to the present day. By contrast, the Norse left behind ruins, artifacts, some written records, and a marginal genetic legacy in the Greenlandic gene pool.)
So, “people are people”, but can’t there be particular wisdoms existing as part of a cultural matrix? I would think the answer is “yes”–there can be and there are.
And I think too, that posing “wisdom” as resident purely in individual, conscious choice somewhat misframes the matter. The late great Robert Heinlein made a great point about that, with respect to our convention of paying attention to traffic lights. It’s a social norm that virtually everybody obeys with enormous consistency, but without thinking about, all the time. Sure, one might override the default sometimes–say, at 3 in the morning on a country road with nary a soul in sight for miles; or perhaps under the spur of a medical emergency or the like. And sure, some of us are bigger ‘rule-followers’ than others. But basically, if the light is red you stop, because it generally functions well for everybody in the culture if you do. It just makes sense, and you know it makes sense, so you don’t fight it unless you have a good reason.
“Honoring the land”, it seems to me, could work just that way, too. And so, I see no reason to doubt the word of folks who say that that is precisely how their culture operates.
I hate to but in like this, but I have a queasy feeling that America is on the verge of losing it’s Democracy.
Okay, carry on.
You’re not really butting in Chuck–it’s a open conversation! Yes, it’s very disturbing that Trump continues to lead in the polls, albeit very narrowly. It’s perhaps even more disturbing to observe the RNC, in that they have so far had three nightly themes, and every one of the three has been founded on falsehoods. (Briefly, 1) America isn’t poor–had the GOP said “make America equitable again” they might have had a point; 2) America isn’t suffering a crime spree driven by immigrants–though had the GOP wanted to address the saturation of society with semi-auto and quasi-auto weapons they might have had a point; and 3) America is much better respected under Biden than under Trump–interestingly, no mention of Ukraine in the foreign policy points. Anyway, carry on, all.)
But don’t give up hope. There are a hell of a lot of good people working hard to turn this around.
Climate science does not tell us how to live, how to organize and run a sustainable society. It does not say anything about gender roles or lack thereof. It doesn’t help us identify which plants are edible and which are poisonous. It does not tell us how to harvest crops. It does not tell us whether we should have kings or elected leaders.
What it does tell us is what we may expect to happen if we do certain things such as dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, deforest large areas, irrigate, emit SO2, or if a volcano erupts or when the Sun gets brigher over 100s of millions of years. That kind of thing. And I’m not sure how much of that was worked out by indigenous societies – or anyone else – pre-1700s/1800s/etc. Of course, we didn’t *need* to know about the effects of CO2 until recently.
Indigenous societies of course have developed bodies of knowledge and perspectives which should be respected and which may be helpful to people more generally. But if we want to live sustainably and with some modern pleasures (toys, knowledge, food, A/C) and securities (medicine, food), we’ll probably need something more.
Also, there is much variety of Indigenous cultures. There’re/ve been the Aztec and Incan empires, vs. Tlaxcala, Teotihuacan, Wendat, Pacific Northwest vs. Californian tribes (big differences), … Mayans … – and that’s just the Americas. And I may admire some things and abhor others – that I find in the same culture.
PS (re BPL) I have been under the impression that after some period of time, a sustainable equilibrium was often or generally reached. Eg. the inhabitants of Yosemite (who were removed by John Muir) – Yes/No? Although I saw something on PBS once about the Nazca lines …
PS (JCM) – you have at least once before referred to ~ (rural?) people living close to the land without specifying their having indigenous cultures or sustainable practices. Some may have thought you were referring to modern-style farmers and ranchers. …
Refrain from conceptualizing indigenous wisdom as ancient living standards. Idealizing ancient times obviously overlooks extreme hardships.
Traditional teachings are adapted to various modern cultural contexts over time. Particularly, the importance of fostering a strong sense of community and maintaining a respectful relationship with local landscapes.
This knowledge is essential and timeless. Foundational is that landscape is not merely a physical space but a cornerstone of human identity, community, livelihood, and spirit. That is natural and undeniably real.
In a Western urban context, this knowledge appears often mystifying and uncomfortable, inconvenient, and foreign. Whereas in other cultures, the understanding is an innate part of life from childhood.
Bhutan, for example, enshrines these teachings in its modern state constitution. However, under academic scholarship and Western nation building this realization has somehow gone missing. There is an obvious lack of awareness that landscape process deterioration is associated directly with community decline and environmental hazards. How could that possibly be so?
Maybe it’s because human landscape interactions still defy computation, even while it has already been known since forever that respect is inviolable (and already beyond criticism).
Remarkably, the epistemologies that underpin STEM appear inadequate to fully grasp these concepts. Nonetheless, mechanistic puzzle-solving is a valuable addition to accumulated wisdom.
Importantly, it is an artificial fixation which restricts realclimate science to astrophysical radiative transfer and Gray/spectral code with convective parameters. If guiding public science leaders have the audacity to propose that their discipline assimilates ecology, hydrology, and geography in to one thing called “climate science” then there does become a burden of responsibility to legitimately and genuinely respect the interactions at all scales, and to avoid imposing bias and half-baked narratives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwiYWDgLRk at 50:40
Cultural practices deeply rooted in respecting landscapes & community connections are foundational for successful environmental stewardship. While these timeless teachings can be traced back to the distant past, they are anything but archaic must never be displaced.
JCM,
etc, etc…. fine, but none of which demonstrates that the science is wrong about GHGs. BTW, before there were people, there was an earth with drastic shifts in climate from CO2.
Your rhetoric has more to do with a broad rejection of the evils of colonialism than with the efficacy of modern science (not that modern science isn’t far from perfect). Hearing what you said is like being transported back to the 70’s in a rhetorical time capsule whose contents have been replaced through repetition by dogma.
I don’t see you complaining where belief in traditional medicine threatens species, and by extension, ecosystems– for instance by the poaching of rhinos for their horns…
Gavin put it well: “It is probably inevitable that, as dealing with climate change becomes an established concern, those who make a habit of reflexively being anti-establishment will start to deny there is a problem at all.” (From an article about Alexander Cockburn)
JCM, in one breath you say that you see what I will call for brevity and convenience “atmospheric” and “terrestrial” perspectives as “complementary;” in another you say the former is a mere “artificial frame.”
I am not able to reconcile these two statements–something you may wish to address in your explanations going forward.
Just as artificial as a Straw Man, I’d say. While there is certainly an emphasis on radiative effects, and understandably so, since that aspect of our environmental crisis is clearly very significant, there has also been a lot of work on land use incorporated into ARs, and particularly WG 2 & 3 do a lot of work at ‘ground level.’ From my perspective–admittedly a lay one–I don’t see such a restriction.
I’m really not sure how to parse that clause in the context of the preceding statement I just quoted. How are these “guiding public science leaders” managing to simultaneously ignore and co-opt (or annex) “ecology, hydrology, and geography?” Seems like quite the paralogical feat.
Luckily, I don’t think you need that prior conditional to agree on the existence of a “burden of responsibility to legitimately and genuinely respect the interactions at all scales, and to avoid imposing bias and half-baked narratives.” Although avoiding the imposition of (usually implicit) bias and the consequent fallacious narratives is no easy matter, in science or out of it–as the current culture wars amply attest.
Thank you for the diverse perspectives. I’ll engage with McKinney’s point regarding how guiding public science leaders can simultaneously ignore and co-opt ecology, hydrology, and geography, which seems paralogical.
Under UNFCCC Article 2, the goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent dangerous climate interference. Article 4 promotes the development and transfer of technologies to reduce emission.
UNEP co-founded IPCC along with WMO to help nation-states build their capacity to mitigate unnatural environmental change with the goal of conserving realclimates. This includes administrative involvement in scholarly and democratic institutions to direct appropriate resources for the cause, including the mission statement of authoritative national laboratories.
This treatment tightly frames ecological and hydrological trends as passive subjects of radiative forcing; i.e. those changes driven by unnatural accumulation of major and minor trace GHG in atmosphere. Professionals recognize this false framing, but some are overweening. For observers it’s advisable to avoid restricting yourself to the teachings of WG1, 2, or 3 as this may risk adopting a narrow and superficial environmentalism. You may even feel attacked when it’s pointed out the interactions go both ways, and subsequently project accusations of false dichotomy. Nevertheless, biological and hydrological systems are active agents in the climate system.
While the UNFCC framing is useful (somewhat), it is also artificially restrictive and does not adequately capture realclimate phenomena. I don’t think anyone really denies that, not even UNEP itself, but the unintended consequence is that educational syllabi and communications developed under this framework are promoting a biased and limited perspective, even hate. This now transcends environmental discourse in scholarship, media, and politics fostering polarizing and harmful beliefs. These range from denying human influence on Earth systems, to promoting technological climate “mastery” paradigms, to an artificially narrow focus on major and minor trace gas emission.
Under bizarre reference terms, it is overlooked that by altering flows of energy, mass and nutrients, directly obliterating 5 billion hectares of functional ecology causes dangerous anthropogenic interference with realclimates across scales, in addition to trace GHG. The nature of geophysical fluid change can be described by ΔT=λ⋅ΔRF whereupon regulation and scholarly pursuit is to focus exclusively on persuasion campaigns to minimize ΔRF. UNFCCC prescriptions also result in dynamic modules which incorporate stomatal conductance and LAI response to CO2, in addition to environmental accounting by tabulating the number of carbon sticks.
Nevermind direct active extreme ecological annihilation ongoing… that’s out of scope even while it is admitted that passive dynamic feedbacks are necessary to calibrate climate stability. Furthermore, no consistent protocols exist to interpret landscape hydrological change and ESMs have practically unconstrained freedom. #paralogical
Recently World Food Programme gave the analogy of 4 footbal fields per second landscape demolition ongoing. In particular, this includes the 10x biota below grade disappeared compared to that visible using eyeballs. Previously it was discussed that impeding terrestrial ET through landscape deterioration increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks, an unnatural accumulation of the solar beam, and associated temperature increase. From a local perspective (which is practically everyplace), the impacts of landscape deterioration are far more acute (nevermind GMST). For globally uniform prescriptionist techno-ideologues, that looks more like delta λ which is missing from the scope of the framework convention.
I am convinced the scholarly virtues of rigorous empirical argument, best available data (BAD), and an imposed incomplete problem definition creates an artificial fixation on half-baked nonsense. This misleading approach now trickles down even to regional community council who appear inclined to overlook local circumstance. By directly causing extended periods of water scarcity and direct catchment deterioration, communities appear somewhat oblivious to their own unique environmental connections and responsibilities. For example: arbitrary, phony, and damaging frames suggest that draining and sealing the wetland can be offset by installing carbon sticks overseas. Consumers are convinced replacing the gas stove with induction will save the local waterfowl by affecting ΔRF. #nonsense.
Arbitrary generalized conclusions result in shocking and frankly frightening ignorance.
It is advisable to address the imposed artificial disconnect from reality immediately, and influential leaders must avoid inadvertently compounding stupidity. Misleading teaching lumps ecologies and environmental change as a sub-discipline under a half-baked conceptual framework. In many ways, this approach is obviously backwards and harmful. It’s not about dichotomy or authority, but about the reality outside.
I’ve read the response with some care; it’s not always easy to parse.
I hear about folks ignoring salient aspects of their situation–local councils, etc.–but that doesn’t appear to me to be down to science of any particular description; to me it sounds like politicians trying to get by without appreciable thought by checking boxes instead. (A problem in applied sociology, perhaps?)
It may be true that some folks are struggling under the misapprehension that the only environmental problem is the climate crisis. It’s certainly true that the UNFCC was founded specifically to deal with said crisis. However, neither of those things in any way implies that there isn’t a climate crisis, or that it isn’t worth dealing with.
Do we need a more holistic view? Sure. We can’t forget environmental stressors that are not driven by radiative forcings. We need to preserve wetlands, and forests, and alpine meadows, and coral reefs, and relatively pristine desertscapes of various sorts, and so on. We need to stop toxifying our environment with ever more species of synthetical chemicals and materials. We can’t keep acidifying the oceans. And we have to figure out how to control our unfortunate proclivity of introducing exotic species to novel environments. Really–and this is where I am probably most in agreement with JCM–we need to find ways to operationalize/socialize/normalize the reality that lands, waters, and their ecosystems aren’t just so many commodities.
But should we do all that ever so well and completely, it will still be necessary to stop raising the RF.
Thank you very much for this input McKinney,
for clarity, UNFCCC and its offshoots deal specifically with GHG emission and adoption of technologies to abate such emission. Comparatively, UNEP underscores climates as the patterns of temperature, humidity, precipitation in a given area over long periods.
I advocate for values and experiences that align more closely with a UNEP approach to climates rather than focusing solely on UNFCCC framing, while recognizing that both perspectives are complementary.
If you wish to examine one aspect in the disparity of how ESMs deal with the passive aspects ecological change and temperature extremes (i.e. those related ΔRF), refer to Denissen and co. 2024 “Intensified future heat extremes linked with increasing ecosystem water limitation”.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-717-2024
Whether knowingly or unwittingly steered by checking boxes, the authors remark that: “identifying regions where [ecosystem limitation index] trends and related evaporative cooling are important for future heat extremes can inform long-term adaptation strategies.”
Using artificial frames, the remark de-emphasises how significant human interference is directly and actively associated with their ecological index, not merely as passive feedback to trace gas. By overlooking aspects of their own analysis, the concluding remarks obscure how the findings inform mitigation strateges in addition to adaptation. Once the regional ecology is radically altered it is unavoidable that patterns of temperature, humidity, and precipitation will be different.
Terrestrial properties are essential to realclimates, yet hypothesis development remains artificially fixated on UNFCCC frames and the associated CO2 experiments, treating environmental change as a passive feedback.
Soil moisture–atmosphere coupling accelerates global warming
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40641-y
The Role of Interactive Soil Moisture in Land Drying Under Anthropogenic Warming
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105308
Soil moisture is a key variable in the climate system and plays a major role in climate-change projections. Killian rightly highlights soil organic matter (SOM) – it’s the link between biosystems, moisture, and climates. It is artificial to view climate or atmosphere as external perturbations on ecologies, because patterns of temperature, humidity, and precipitation are encompassed within the ecology. This reality is instinctively understood by those rooted in local communities, without the imposed, derivative perspective from a document signed in 1992 (ironically, at the “Earth Summit”).
For example, the recent unprecedented shift from a prevailing global soil genesis regime to one of erosion is directly attributable to contemporary landscape treatment. This conversion of soil to rockflour has led to persistent unnatural moisture-limited regimes over larger areas and longer durations. That is simple to understand, and you can literally feel it outside right now in most communities. The soil resembles more like concrete than something selected by nature; a recent phenomenon.
From an astrophysics perspective the striking disparities among labs as it pertains to moisture feedback suggests significant compensating errors in developing TOA energy budgets. Why might that be? Additionally, the LW & SW TOA all-sky trends in observation tend to not overlap the change found in models that use protocols such as A MIP…
This is not new nor is it controversial – the calls for international cooperation in improved environmental monitoring are ongoing.
Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A review
Sonia I. Seneviratne and co
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004
“…the availability of ground observations continues to be critical in limiting progress and should therefore strongly be fostered at the international level. Exchanges across disciplines will also be essential for bridging current knowledge gaps in this field. This is of key importance given the manifold impacts of soil moisture on climate, and their relevance for climate-change projections. A better understanding and quantification of the relevant processes would significantly help to reduce uncertainties in future-climate scenarios, in particular with regard to changes in climate variability and extreme events, as well as ecosystem and agricultural impacts.”
For a Canadian context, which may be of interest to you, do you think it’s appropriate for leading climate communicators trained in astrophysics and maths, acting a lead scientist for The Nature Conservancy? We observe daily how these current frameworks lead to catastrophic biases, impaired cognitive processes, and deeply prejudiced human categorization methods. Personally I find it dissonant to engage actively in community stewardship, primary research, and monitoring while facing hostility on these pages in response to highlighting climate connections such as temperature and hydrological extremes. Admittedly, I sometimes prod detractors for amusement, but I believe their negativity and cynicism may stem from a sense of helplessness and depression which is serious health hazard. I recommend to engage back in your communities in a productive and positive way to restore mental wellness. Sean B Caroll offers what I think is a positive message https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOfH54GjCVc “do we want to sit on our armchairs and forecast doom or do we want to get up off our asses and do something?”. This is in addition to advocating for your preferred federal candidate.
What does Conservation North’s map “Seeing Red” mean to you? Does CBC News mention the 80-90% of missing natural forests in British Columbia during its annual fire weather coverage? Do the citizens of BC know that 100 million hectares of their lands are lacking functional ecologies, directly impacting patterns of temperature, humidity, and precipitation? https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/maps-show-how-little-undisturbed-primary-and-old-growth-forest-is-left-around-vancouver-and-bc-3546914
These changes load the dice for unnatural disasters. Under the guidance of Covering Climate Now, communications obscure the perception of reality right outside the front door.
Do you think it is appropriate to frame Natural Climate Solutions as land management actions that minimize atmospheric CO2 concentration and thus continue funding landscape stewardship, monitoring, and research at 5% of the levels related to UNFCCC problem definitions? Personally I prefer to embrace a frame based in reality, and I do not see any reason to enforce artificial fixation on the CO2 problem. Realclimates and ecologies are intertwined, inseparable entities. While the essence of wilderness may evade the precision of measurement akin to radiometry, it is no less real or tangible in terms of realclimate observables.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823251
“atmospheric” and “terrestrial” perspectives as “complementary” – former is a mere “artificial frame.”
Thanks McKinney.
This is not, however, an appropriate conceptual framework and misrepresents the point of view that I offer (at no cost to anyone I might add!).
Try to avoid falling into the trap of active distortion or persistent miscommunication. The intent is not to introduce a false dilemma. I do understand the temptation to reject biases different from your own, and that social identity can result in an ingroup-outgroup exclusion, but ultimately I prefer and Earth Systems framework which recognizes the coupling of disciplines. Previously I tried to argue how we are all allies in our obsession with climate stabilization but to this day constructive partnership continues to be rejected by some participants.
The flows of mass, energy, nutrients, and momentum between the surface and atmosphere create a tightly coupled system. What’s artificial is an international framework that fixates on major and minor trace gases and technological interventions, leading to subsequent administrative meddling.
A useful review that places systems in the context of climates is Kleidon’s work, including “Working at the Limit…” (https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/861/2023/esd-14-861-2023-discussion.html). This work introduces Earth System processes in the frame of thermodynamics, along with the hypothesis of maximum energy conversions toward higher entropy states (cooler temps). The same principle has been applied to thermodynamics in life and the inevitability of biodiversification.
Underlying the argument is the notion of physical limits (or inversely freedom). One such example is “equilibrium evaporation” in which the bounding limit for surface with unlimited moisture is the available energy. Restricting moisture availability in space or duration will render an evaporation rate less than that associated with the equilibrium partitioning of turbulent flux, whereupon such a condition results in a moisture limited state. To borrow (loosely) the analogy from Tomas, landscapes exist in different ‘shades’ of moisture limitation, and moisture limitation is directly associated with ecological function through SOM.
Ghausi links terrestrial moisture limitation along with radiative controls through clouds in atmosphere based on Kleidon’s foundation. There can be no ecological distinction between landscapes, atmosphere, clouds, and climates as they are encompassed within the same system bounded by radiative flows at TOA. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2220400120
In related streams, thermodynamic constraints are applied broadly, particularly in ecological literature and even in the framework of so-called artificial life, whereupon limits are applied to an organism’s metabolic rate. What are the limiting factors from first principles?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-74913-4_13
The argument (from the perspective of globally averaged climates) is that functional ecologies naturally introduce additional (thermodynamic) degrees of freedom to Earth System processes, especially through the cycling of moisture and nutrients. Conversely, human interventions that destroy functional ecologies consequently reduce the rate of energy conversions. This leads to an increasingly impaired state with unnatural restriction in passing the solar beam onwards to space (and ultimately unprecedent energy accumulation with ΔT).
JCM: “The undeniable truth is that an average child in the hills of Bhutan does indeed possess a deeper wisdom about the nature of reality than the average urban Western academic today.”
But where do they publish? While obviously their insight into local ecology is detailed and deep, to provide the “blueprint” for dealing with climate change – it would have to be communicated and TRANSFERABLE to the rest world. Until it is, I wouldn’t haul the Western science to the dustbin of history just yet.
And no – calling your opinion The undeniable truth does not make it so.
JCM, with all due respect, the burden is on you to show that an average Bhutanese child possesses a “deeper wisdom about the nature of reality” than the average urban Western academic. What some call “deep wisdom about the nature of reality”, others may call myth and superstition. Indigenous people’s knowledge about their own homelands and histories should be given credence to the extent that it is backed up by documented observations, whether by contemporaneous written records, or if transmitted orally, then by archaeology and other historical sciences. Just as “Western” knowledge should be!
Every literate culture is founded on the oral histories of its pre-literate ancestors; one thread of Western culture began with the Abrahamic scriptures, which were the oral traditions of neolithic pastoralists in the Fertile Crescent, written down after writing became widespread. Those ancient stories still evoke emotions in many Westerners today, but most of us don’t believe that Noah’s Ark actually came to rest high on the slopes of Mt. Ararat, partly because no evidence of an immense flood reaching from sea level to that elevation has been found, and partly because the Book of Genesis wasn’t written down until the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE. We do have abundant, dated evidence of recurring, regional-scale river floods in lowland Mesopotamia, and evidence as well of the relatively rapid sea-level rise following the melting of the continental ice sheets, with the gradual, permanent flooding of the upper Persian Gulf. Piecing together a verifiable narrative of Western history from there is a full-time occupation for an industry of modern scholars, far beyond the resources of the pre-literate Hebrews, and will always carry an irreducible margin of error. Without science, though, we have no way to know whether we’re fooling ourselves or not!
I’m in favor of acknowledging the injustices committed on subjugated cultures during the expansion of Western society around the world. That includes repatriating human remains and sacred objects held in museums and private collections, although I’d hope some of them could be made available to vetted scholars. I’m not in favor of giving Indigenous oral traditions a pass on investigation by trained, disciplined empirical observation, with intersubjective verification by equally trained and mutually disciplined peers. Science is international, and membership in the peer community is open to everyone regardless of origin, the more so as scientific culture evolves; all that’s required of aspirants is to put the effort in. Of course cultural antecedents of science can be seen around the world throughout history, even in pre-literate cultures, and certainly long before Gutenberg’s printing press made wide dissemination and verification of empirical observations practical. At that historical juncture, the rulers of Renaissance Europe were eager for the military advantages science could offer, and patronized schools and individual scientists, giving the growth of the profession a boost. And science subsequently went everywhere Western conquerors did, to the benefit of both science and conquest. Science serves all humanity equally, not just rulers, thankfully. Science’s success at accumulating verifiable, self-correcting, useful knowledge, on durable media widely accessible to scientists across time and distance, was arguably Western culture’s edge over the rest of the world in the past five centuries. Without the international scientific culture’s traditions of intensive training in empirical methods, and unsparing scrutiny of everyone’s work by skeptical peers who are committed to not allowing their peers to fool themselves, there would have been no such accumulation. I, for one, will honor that worthy tradition above all, while behaving respectfully toward Indigenous persons who are familiar with their people’s oral traditions. Who am I to contradict them?
Quote: “Who am I to contradict them?”
You just did: “Those ancient stories still evoke emotions in many Westerners today, but most of us don’t believe that Noah’s Ark actually came to rest high on the slopes of Mt. Ararat, partly because no evidence of an immense flood reaching from sea level to that elevation has been found, and partly because the Book of Genesis wasn’t written down until the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE. “
Heh. I’m actually quite willing to contradict both Ancient Mesopotamian and Ancestral Puebloan stories about their respective origins, but not in person or under my real name. Of course, there’s an art to engaging in dialogue with anyone about their cherished beliefs. I’m generally as respectful to an elder of a historic tribe of Indigenous Americans talking about his people’s oral traditions, as I am to an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints talking about the golden plates. I may privately scoff, but I’m not trying to start a fight with them in public!
Yes, being civil, and not starting fights in public over such things is wise.
Trick question: What year is it?
It’s 2024, CE (“Common Era“). With all civility: can it be you don’t actually know it all?
KIA: Trick question: What year is it?
BPL: What dating system are you using?
The term “indigenous” is probably poorly chosen based on what JCM appears to want to convey. A better dichotomy would be pastoral vs urban cultures. There are plenty of examples in history of advanced, urbanized, indigenous societies that have collapsed through believed overpopulation, and over-resource utilization such as the Maya, the Anasazi, Mohenjaro-Daro, etc..
The problem with traditionalist wisdom is not just that it’s geographically local i.e. the traditional wisdom of the Inuit bears little relevance to that of the Yanomami and vice versa. But that traditional knowledge is based on accumulated experience within a certain specific environment over a certain specific time period. If that environment changes in fundamental ways, such as through climate change, traditional knowledge no longer applies as is happening with the Inuit.
Scientific knowledge is based on universal principals, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized. Traditional wisdom may be useful in providing philosophical perspective on ecological matters and important understanding of local phenomena but provide a very limited view of reality beyond the environment in which it develops.
Jonathan, your observation is quite correct. But let’s expand on this:
“Scientific knowledge is based on universal principles, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized.”
As I point out from time to time, there seems to be a reluctance here to work with scientific knowledge about human behavior to better understand the various adaptations we observe… whether in “primitive” cultures or the modern world.
We can certainly conclude that humans have a constrained range of behaviors, and we have lots of data on how these manifest in societal organization, as well as the “environmental’ conditions under which those manifestations may occur. It’s not physics, but it isn’t astrology either.
Why is everyone afraid to discuss these issues? Does it make people so uncomfortable to view their own “identity” in that context?
The parsimonious answer to your first question, z, is “because people with expertise in those disciplines don’t frequent RC, and few regular commenters here [with some exceptions] wish to argue from ignorance .” And your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters. I personally would like to see more discussion of peer-reviewed results from the behavioral sciences, even including “political science”. I’m uneasy about interpreting them, however, not least because I lack metaliteracy in those disciplines; but also because of unconscious biases I might be fooled by, as you suggest. Anyone want to take a stab at, for example, Historical ecology, human niche construction and landscape in pre-Columbian Amazonia: A case study of the geoglyph builders of Acre, Brazil in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology? It was linked to that New World reforestation article at the side, under “Recommended Articles”.
Interesting! In view of some previous comments, note this:
Mal: your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters.
BPL: Very few otters can type.
Mal, people “argue from ignorance” all the time here. Your opinion (or mine) about a peer-reviewed paper on climate doesn’t really count as a peer review, now does it. And what exactly are your “metaliteracy” credentials, other than personal opinion, if I might ask?
What I am talking about is what we do when we discuss various ideas… including the silly denialist ones… based on underlying principles that are not in question. As John said:
““Scientific knowledge is based on universal principles, such as physical laws that allow conclusions to be generalized.”
So the discussion serves to perhaps educate the visitor/lurker on the scientific reasoning process, and point out gross errors like the denial of conservation of energy which often crop up.
And the most basic principle in scientific reasoning is that we all agree on the definitions. But any discussion that isn’t physics (and even then sometimes) devolves into handwavy rhetoric.
Question: Is it “wasteful” to kill woodpeckers to create decorative headwear with their scalps?
https://parabola.org/2018/05/28/the-one-who-flies-all-around-the-world-by-thomas-buckley/
Mal: your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters.
BPL: Very few otters can type.
RH: Depending on the type of otters?
Mal: your 2nd question is worth a long thread, that I will leave to otters.
BPL: Very few otters can type.
TK: Some otters can definitely typo. Beast records!
:-)
Richard Creager says
26 Jun 2024 at 7:16 AM
Killian: “Regenerative Governance. There is no other way.”
That is plainly true, …into positions of authority.
I was a bit confused by this bc you say the premise is true, but then say, “into positions of authority.” Problem is, there are no positions of authority in Regenerative Governance, so you clearly are taking Regenerative Governance, capitalized, as regenerative governance, general concept of a society that is sustainable.
Regen Gov is a specific model. The term “regenerative governance”, capitalized or lowercase, was coined by me ten years or more ago. Others have started using the term, but their work does not reflect the Regen Sys model in any way, and all uses thus far have been well short of regenerative.
but how do you justify even a shred of optimism.
Obviously, as time slips away and action crawls like a disinterested toddler, our situation worsens exponentially, so optimism is at a very low ebb. I have always known the chances of us pulling our collective head out was slim. Just look at the decade of immature taunts and gaslighting from the most active users of this site. (Recent example: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-june-2024/#comment-822711) No matter how prescient or accurate one’s observations are, if they don’t stay within the bounds allowed by the egos of those who have been prescient about nothing and offered zero unique, yet accurate, analysis, they are ridiculed by the omnicidal bullies on this site.
If not here, then where? If people who are self-professedly active in the climate science and/or mitigation/adaptation realms can do no better than that linked above, what should we expect of less-educated, less-interested people? No, we get Trumpesque responses from those that decry Trump. It’s absurd.
No, I am not optimistic, but I am knowledgeable and have spent my time learning about regenerative systems and creating solutions, not dragging down those who do. Is it still possible to reverse things? Yes. Regardless how improbable, it is still possible. The caveat, which is blatantly obvious, is the passing of irreversible bifurcations. We are, in all likelihood, in the midst of a major bifurcation now that began to be measurable around 2016 (based on multiple studies noting an uptick at the time of the 2016 El Nino), not 2023.
The trajectory of the world we live in bears significant inertia. Regenerative Governance that is not a veneer requires organizations with cultures that consistently draw enlightened individuals of capacity, with selfless orientation,… Where do you see that?
That inertia is irrelevant in the sense that every large social change faces the same inertia and the changes cannot and will not come from within the system nor necessarily in fighting the system. I believe it will only be successful if there is the quiet creation of a parallel system that fills in the needs the current system does not, cannot, and does not want, to meet and, increasingly, those it cannot meet as the system fails.
The very creation of a parallel system necessarily requires increasing numbers to opt out of the old and into the new, thus accelerating yet ameliorating the collapse of the old, thereby being in place before the collapse of the old occurs.
That is, of course, the ideal, but it is already forming unconsciously.
How could those cultures be created, sustained and reinforced? Serious question, if you have resources/links. And promulgated on a society-wide basis on a timeline relevant to the incipient climate-based disaster? More hopefully, the ideas you envision may grow from the rubble of the remains as humans find a better way.
Ecovillages, the Global Ecovillage Network, intentional communities, Transition Towns, La Via Campesina, Ecosystem Restoration Communities, the bio-region movement, Indigenous organizations, et al., are all working toward some version of “sustainable” future. All that is needed is to stitch these entities, and all communities, together. Regenerative Governance is the means to that end. It’s really quite a simple shift. As I have posted here many times already, there are already simpler examples of Regen Gov in place…. and there always have been. It’s the default of most of humanity prior to the dawn of hierarchical, patriarchal societies. Regen Gov, of necessity, is more complex in that it must have more scales. Indigenous societies exist on two scales: The local community and the wider society. The Kua of Africa, e.g., assigned each “band” or “tribe” or, as Helga Vierich termed them, IIRC, camping parties an area of their territory to live in and take care of each year. They would gather once a year in a whole-society meet-n-greet where such decisions were made. The rest of the year, fully autonomous. I am not suggesting we become GGH’s (Gatherer, Gardener, Hunters) because there is not the space to do so, I present only the issue of scales. Modern society needs up to five: Walkable communities, areas/cities, regions, bio-regions, and inter-bio-regions.
Regenerative communities, as I have determined from my own experiences, research, conversations with anthropologists and conversations with Indigenous persons have the following characteristics and more:
* Egalitarian
* Commons-based
* Scale-based decision-making
* Networks of small communities
* Intimate knowledge of their environment
* Needs-based decision-making.
Etc.
Walk out your door, start with one other person, do stuff. You’re now a regenerative community. Draw others in, encourage other communities around you to do the same, form networks and an area/city/regional council. Form regional networks (if a large bio-region), form a bio-region-level council.
There you go.
The simplcity of this confuses people.
So much simplicity. So many words.
chortle!
Killian said: “That inertia is irrelevant in the sense that every large social change faces the same inertia and the changes cannot and will not come from within the system nor necessarily in fighting the system. I believe it will only be successful if there is the quiet creation of a parallel system that fills in the needs the current system does not, cannot, and does not want, to meet and, increasingly, those it cannot meet as the system fails.”
Some good points, but major change comes from within sometimes. For example in the 1980s the New Zealands government made massive changes that transformed the socio-economic landscape of the country and the changes endured. But I acknowldedge such change needs specific circumstances, and dont happen easily or often.
Some countries like the USA seem are very unsettled right now which suggest we might be near a tipping point of major socio economic changes from within the system or as a reaction against the system, but whether it goes in a good direction is very uncertain.
Creating a parallel socio-economic system sounds plausible. in principle By analogy Tesla cars lead the way with electric cars. It didnt come from within the established automobile companies. But there would still be an inertia problem. People have a strong dependence / addiction to the current socio-economic system, and enticing them away to form new communities with a totally new system, could therefore be a slow process and time is not our friend with climate change.
“intentional communities” (sometimes called alternative communities)
Intentional communities are well intended (IMO and I have had friends in such communities)) and often practice egalitarian governance, community ownership, etc,etc. Apparently most intentional communites fail after a few years. It seems to me most people are just not good enough to make such things work. Im on Richard Creagers side because I dont see how we can change this especially on time frames sufficient to help keep under 2 degrees.
“Regenerative communities….are commons based”
Nobody owns a commons. Killian said somewhere that regenerative governance means nobody owns anything apart from a few basic personal possessions. IMHO there is a real risk people will take more than their fair share of products and services from the stockpiles. You would need a means to stop this that has teeth like a police force. But you then have an authority, a hierarchy which conflcits with the idea of regenerative governance.
In traditional hunter gatherer tribes everyone polices the behaviour of everyone so you do not have a hieararchy as such. This works fine in very small groups with simple cultures and who just gather food, but we have 8 billion people and inevitably larger groups, and groups in close contact with other groups, and a vast array of products (even if we were to simplify this a bit), so a huge temptation to over indulge, so I just need to see a convincing explanation of how you would stop people taking more than their fair share and being lazy. Because make no mistake this is likely to be a huge problem. And its precisely why human society eventually developed ideas of the police, criminal law and property rights and private ownership.
“Draw others in, encourage other communities around you to do the same, form networks and an area/city/regional council. Form regional networks (if a large bio-region), form a bio-region-level council.”
In modern society councils normally manage and administer aspects of local communities. They are sometimes called local authorties in New Zealand. They are hierarchical groups because they are a group of people with a certain role, exerting authority over other groups of people. This would seem to conflict with Killians statements that regenerative governance has “no authorities” and no hierarchies. So what exactly do regenerative councils do?
zebra says
2 Jul 2024 at 9:04 AM
So much simplicity. So many words.
And still, the childishness continues after a decade and in the face of our own extinction. And we wonder why we are failing.
Don Williams says
2 Jul 2024 at 8:03 PM
1) The problem is 8+ billion mouths to feed and wars to grab vital resources. Plus voters that react harshly to politicians that don’t raise living standards. Look at Macron, the Greens and the recent election results in the EU.
We can easily feed up to 12 billion (for now) ;we currently feed, mostly, over 8 billion and waste 1/3 on top of that. As for wars, ye, it became clear long ago any wars would make it exponentially harder to turn things around. As for conservatism, it was to be expected; societies strongly tend toward conservatism/fascism/totalitarianism in times of crisis – which is another reason we could not afford to wait so long to take serious action.
nigelj
For example in the 1980s the New Zealands government made massive changes that transformed the socio-economic landscape of the country and the changes endured
They made changes. They did not make massive changes. We are talking about systemic changes to the very core functioning and organization of society.
Creating a parallel socio-economic system sounds plausible. in principle… to form new communities with a totally new system, could therefore be a slow process and time is not our friend with climate change.
Why are you repeating what I said?
Apparently most intentional communites fail after a few years. It seems to me most people are just not good enough to make such things work.”
It has nothing to do with goodness. The characteristics I listed above are not fully assimilated by such communities at this time. This is a significant aspect of why they fail. They also are attempting this in isolation, which is a huge part of why they fail. Another is they are embedded in the current utterly destructive paradigm which makes it virtually impossible to be regenerative. This is why most will continue to fail until they realize they must exist within networks, not in isolation.
IMHO there is a real risk people will take more than their fair share of products and services from the stockpiles.
Tragedy of the commons… wah. wah. wah… so scary! Boring. Interesting: Why and how Commons do work.
See if you can figure out under what conditions this DOES NOT happen (hint: listed previously) and why there are still societies hundreds, if not thousands, of years old proving you wrong. Your opinion does not matter here; scholarship does.
You would need a means to stop this that has teeth like a police force. … I just need to see a convincing explanation of how you would stop people taking more than their fair share and being lazy.
No, you would. And people like you. Most people. But people like you have to learn to think and act very differently before you can be part of a Commons. If you need a police force, you’re not operating as a Commons. The greater context of having waited far too long and now only having one pathway to a survivable future… needs repeating? Do you not understand the use of context?
As I already laid out above, you simply have to do it. We start from what is. A functioning Commons is the endpoint. The transition will be difficult and imperfect.
Tell me, why would one be inclined to be lazy in a society where you work far less than we do today? Boredom would be the far greater challenge. This is an important reason why UBI (which is a weird hybrid pseudo-Commons) works.
You need to educate yourself on why people choose the Commons (though I have laid it out above so not sure why you missed it) – and why humanity largely did for the vast majority of 300k years.
In modern society councils normally manage and administer aspects of local communities. They are sometimes called local authorties in New Zealand. They are hierarchical groups
We are not talking about modern society. This is obvious. The characteristics of regenerative societies are laid out above. Put two and two together: Who would be part of the council in a Commons? And there’s no such thing as a “regenerative council.”
Please stop repeating the same shallow “can’t be done” tropes you’ve spouted every single time since 2016. Be of use rather than just taking up space in the thread. Do the research.
Killain, I accept that the hunter gatherer / early indigenous peoples commons works, and people mostly dont take more than their fair share, and they didnt have or need a police force. But I would argue this was because of physical issues. They had very few posessions so there was nothing much to steal. The natural world was abundant relative to their small populations, so it was never under much pressure if people took too much. Small kinship groups self regulate ok. Groups were relatively small and isolated so conflicts between groups were limited. There are research studies backing this up I have previously posted.
Your model appears to be a hybrid model for modern society that tries to emulate the socio-economic values system of hunter gatherer peoples but with keeping some limited modern industrial technology and with 8 billion people and a farming culture. In this system group size will tend to be larger and less likely to self regulate. Groups of whatever size will also be in close proximity to other groups so considerable possibilities for conflict. There will be far more items to steal and far more pressure on the natural world. Without a police force ( a hierarchy) and decision makers at bioregional level ( a hierarchy) to avoid inter regional conflcits, I suspect it would all be a train wreck. You wont make such a hybrid system work without some compromises.
You said people need to learn to think and act differently before they join a commons. How on earth are you going to achieve this? Because if you dont have a practical plan the entire regenerative governance idea wont work. And what you are suggesting would require massive levels of change in how people think and act.
I lean towards public ownership of important vital assets like the water supply and basic education. Im a bit suspicious of the neoliberal agenda and its obsession with privatising everything. But I equally see the problems society has encountred historically where the total means of production is put in public ownerhip. Your idea of “nobody owns anything” takes public ownerhip to a whole new level, and its very hard to see why it would work any better than other similar experiments no matter how you adjust the formula.
You havent answered my question about what the councils would do and why they wouldn’t by definition be hierarchical.
I find your ideas on simplification slightly more practical. (But only slightly) Human society could simplfy up to a point, and reduce energy use and still have a decent life, and this is sort of self evident. It will possibly be forced to eventually due to resource depeltion. But I suspect we have evolved too far away from hunter gatherer values and their physical situation to make your version of regenerative governance work, unless you accept some practical compromises to it.
1) The problem is 8+ billion mouths to feed and wars to grab vital resources. Plus voters that react harshly to politicians that don’t raise living standards. Look at Macron, the Greens and the recent election results in the EU.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:65.4/centery:11.5/zoom:2
https://www.flightaware.com/live/airport/KJFK
Yup, and that doesn’t even include maps of all the cars, trains, trucks, fossil fuel power plants, farm machinery, mines, data centers, oil rigs, pump stations, pulp and paper mills, factories, and on and on and on. :)
Are you sure those are the characteristics of regenerative communities? I’m a little confused because in a previous post you said this:
“Characteristics and Principles of Regenerative Societies:
* Living within ecosystem limits
* Needs-based decision-making
* No time-limited decision-making (obvious exception: emergencies)
* Nested Commons
* Egalitarian
* Equality: Gender, racial, economic, etc.
* Bioregional
* Networks of small communities
* Highly cooperative, yet…
* Absolute individual autonomy
* Work is freely chosen; no “jobs”
* “Work” is a social event”
Killian-
Appreciate your response to my comment and your appeal for civility. I’ll add a pipe-dream for self-restraint from the stream-monopolizers with initials and animal names and larp handles, to allow visibility for any insight comments.
Dimensionality reduction of chaos by feedbacks and periodic forcing is a source of natural climate change, by P. Salmon
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-024-07191-5
Bottom line is that a forcing will tend to reduce chaos by creating a pattern to follow. This has implications for climate prediction.
I blogged on Salmon’s paper and he responded.
https://geoenergymath.com/2024/07/03/order-overrides-chaos/
Is the next breakthrough in natural climate variability here? What happens if the current heat spike is a part of natural variability? Just as there are extreme earthquakes, super-giant oil reservoirs, etc, why can’t there be a collective ordering of forced events leading to an extreme temperature spike?
From a NYT article:
“Often owned partly or entirely by local or provincial governments, factories need exports to keep their workers busy. And despite weak domestic sales, they are hesitant to lay off workers.
A housing market crash has left millions of Chinese families wary of big-ticket purchases. Yet the state-controlled banking system, acting under direction from Beijing, is lending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to build and expand more factories.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/business/china-cash-for-clunkers.html
So the question is simple. Is what drives consumption the Greedy Capitalists, or is it the need to find something for a surplus population to do? China has built/started all these apartment buildings, but they seem to just sit empty and deteriorate. Lots of CO2 produced to create the concrete and glass, environmental destruction, blah blah blah, but the population isn’t buying any of this stuff, even with government incentives. Kind of like how women are having fewer children despite government incentives.
It seems to me that people with scientific backgrounds, used to using mathematics and underlying principles to characterize complex systems, should be interested in applying those skills to this question… without all the flowery and emotive language.
But so far, it seems that long, hand-wavy, undefined rhetoric is the favorite activity.
Zebra said “China has built/started all these apartment buildings, but they seem to just sit empty and deteriorate. Lots of CO2 produced to create the concrete and glass, environmental destruction, blah blah blah, but the population isn’t buying any of this stuff, even with government incentives. ”
The reason apartments sit empty is apparently partly because of hokou rules that effectively discourage rural people from immigrating to cities. Quite bizarre that the government encourages cities yet makes it difficult for people to live in them! But change is apparently on the way.
https://orcasia.org/hukou-system-in-china
Yes. “Hukou” seems arbitrary from our point of view, but apparently has pretty deep roots in Chinese culture, long predating the CCP.
It has certainly created a deep rural/urban division, and would seem to be in urgent need of reform or even abolition.
“deep rural/urban division”
So what’s the translation of that word into French and English, Kevin?
HouseDaddy 27 JUN 2024 AT 7:30 AM “Eau de Musk @magpiewdc Jun 25 If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols, then the world has warmed considerably more than 1.3C” is, obviously, claptrap. It’s the lazy drivel I’ve read in GoogleTubey comments for year. If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s then guess what? The world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s. What is it with all this endless, lazy posturing and Meme stupidity all over the place? Has “Build That Wall! Build That Wall! Axe The Tax!! Axe The Tax!! Lock Her Up!! Lock Her Up!! Four More Years!! Four More Years!!” turned amost all brains into worthless lazy mush? Or is it just that Social Media that got going a couple decades ago puts the mush on display? .
Barry E Finch. I believe we have a serious warming problem but I agree with you that the claim the world has warmed by more than 1.3 degrees is clap trap.
The people who make the claim are probably genuinely worried about climate chnage, but they may not be very scientifically literate, and they seem to think hyping everything to make things look as bad as possible, even to the extent of making imaginative but bizarre and innacurate claims will somehow inspire more action when it will more probably inspire cynicism and suspicion.
There is no reason to hype things. The IPCC projections on warming, SLR. heatwaves should be enough to scare people unless they are asleep. And the real world warming trend is broadly consistent with the projections.
Now obviously if new science is produced or the consensus swings in behind something like high climate senstivity this should be communicated to the public.
The reason for lack of sufficient action reducing emissions is likely due to the denialist campaign wearing people down, the perception that climate change is away in the future and not a priority, the daunting scale of change needed, and worries about the costs of mitigation on households. For those reasons we face a challenge fixing the problem.
Solutions clearly need to be low pain solutions with wide benefits. Renewable energy is now cost effective so one good thing.
All just my opinion of course.
UAH has reported for June with a TLT anomaly of +0.80ºC, the lowest monthly UAH TLT anomaly since Sept 2023, with Sept23-May24 sitting in the range +0.83ºC to +1.05ºC, these nine months Sept23-May24 with June 2024 become the top-10 monthly anomalies on the UAH TLT record. Prior to Sept23, the highest anomaly was the +0.71ºC of Feb16, the peak of the 2015/16 El Niño.
So June 2024 becomes the hottest TLT month on the UAH record, this by quite some margin, the previous hottest Junes running 1998 (+0.44ºC), 2023 (+0.38ºC), 2019 (+0.35ºC), 2020 (+0.31ºC) & 2016 (+0.21ºC).
The SAT re-analyses are showing a different situation down at the surface although as expected June 2024 still comes in as the warmest June on record.. The June SAT anomaly is reported higher than May in <a href="https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/" while the daily numbers for ERA5 at ClimatePulse put June SAT roughly +0.675ºC, higher than both April (+0.67ºC) and May (+0.65ºC). June 2023, the previous hottest June in ERA5, measured +0.53ºC.
Er, Nigel, I don’t think that NOAA can be characterized as “not very scientifically literate.”
Here’s what they say:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
So, no, the claim that we have warmed 1.3 C is absolutely NOT “claptrap.”
One can, I suppose, quibble about the status of a record-warm year in determining truly “how much we have warmed.” But I’d cheerfully bet every dollar in assets I have–even every dollar my wife and I have, which would be taking my life in my hands!–that the average anomaly from 2024 through 2038 will be significantly higher than that of 2023. Which would, I think, be pretty definitive that we’d exceeded 1.3 C.
I note that the OLS trend since 1995 in the WFT temp index has been 0.18 C/decade, which projected forward would mean 0.27 C more warming for 2038. Simplistically, 1.35 + 0.27 = 1.62. Now, this is admittedly mixing indices–the WFT index is an in-house thing, and the NOAA number is, well, the NOAA number. Sadly, WFT does not include NOAA data, though it does have GISTEMP and HADCruT, as well as remote-sensed datasets.
But it’s still a pretty good BOTE indicator that things actually are worse than you are saying. No need to hype–but still less need to minimize.
Kevin. I accept your comments. .However my comment ” I agree with you that the claim the world has warmed by more than 1.3 degrees is clap trap” was if read in context obviously an abbreviation of BEFs statement ” If the world has warmed ~1.3C since mid-1800s but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols, then the world has warmed considerably more than 1.3C” is, obviously, claptrap”. (And it is). But I admit it was a bad abbreviation!.
Well, that makes more sense, nigel! Yes, it was a bad abbreviation, completely misleading me as to what you meant to say.
However, there is also some basis for the other half of the statement Barry took issue with–that is, the “but up to a degree of warming is being masked by aerosols.” For example, from 2009, NASA has this:
It appears that the 1 C estimate has been lowered to 0.7 C by more recent work:
But as I read Barry, my best guess is that what he’s really taking exception to isn’t the numbers, but rather the poorly stated formulation. He says:
Thus, the “masked warming” would be an additional term–there would be (is) an RF forcing not fully realized as a result upon temperature. But that doesn’t change the main point of the original post, which is that as we eliminate FF, we also ‘unmask’ that forcing, causing yet more warming.
Of course, we’ve discussed that issue here more than once, so it’s not exactly news. But the OP does serve to highlight the risk of breaching the 2 C ‘guardrail,’ not just 1.5 C–which, IIRC, Zeke Hausfather recently characterized as “probably toast.”
Killian 1 JUL 2024 AT 6:31 AM “noting an uptick at the time of the 2016 El Nino), not 2023”. Quote: “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says”.
Barry said:
“The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.”
Does no one see the problem here? The high pressure is caused by the warming or cooling of the ocean due to changes in the thermocline, So instead the suitable analogy is more of a playground roundabout getting an extra push by the children blowing air out of their mouths while riding it. What’s already on the merry-go-round can’t push it but some truly external event can. Certainly some momentum feedback but nothing on the scale required to initiate the behavior. Wind isn’t a perpetual motion machine, at best it is an additional factor in finely balancing conservation of angular momentum in a combined ocean/atmosphere/solar/lunar system. The angular momentum is conserved considering the entire system.
I already showed how this works in regards to the QBO winds, which is an angular momentum conservation system between the atmosphere, moon, and sun, while considering the fluid dynamics wave solutions: https://geoenergymath.com/2024/03/25/proof-for-allowed-modes-of-an-ideal-qbo/
As Hurricane Beryl churns itself westward towards an eventual ocean-exit somewhere near the US-Mexican border, the Accumulative Cyclone Energy (ACE) for the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season ramps up ever higher. Already the total ACE for 2024 has racked up ACE=22, exceeding the ACE=18 achieved in 2003 by end-July, 2003 being the 3rd-highest end-July ACE value (since 2000).
Big ACE totals all come down to powerful hurricanes and July isn’t when such storms usually start appearing.
The 2nd-placed year for end-Jul ACE is 2008 achieving ACE=37 due mostly to the ACE=28 of 2008 Hurricane Bertha which was Cat3 but long lasting in its trek up the central Atlantic.
The prize for highest end-July ACE is 2005 which saw Cat4 Hurricane Dennis contribute ACE=19 and Cat5 Hurricane Emily (running on a track not far from that of Beryl today) contributing ACE=33, the total end-July ACE for 2005 being a whopping ACE=63.
Please consider providing input on a recent Opinion piece
HESS Opinion: Floods and droughts – Land use, soil management, and landscape hydrology are more significant drivers than increasing temperatures
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1702/
13 Jun 2024
“””Land use has significantly changed over the past two centuries, particularly since World War II. Many soils have been sealed by pavement or roofing; in addition, agricultural soils have been compacted, and drainage systems have been introduced. Sealing, compaction, and drainage also lead to rapid water runoff, flooding, and, as less water enters the soil (Fig. 3, right panel) – this decreases evapotranspiration and increases temperature””””
“””The importance of these processes is generally poorly addressed in modeling because hydrological models rarely reflect lateral fluxes in the atmosphere, on the soil surface, and in the soil. Land use is only considered in coarse categories, and neighborhood effects and feedback mechanisms are neglected. However, even if models fail and if we cannot create landscape experiments, there is sufficient evidence that land use is an important part of the problem and of the solution to mitigate floods, droughts, and heatwaves. Addressing land-use changes is imperative as they persist even with zero net CO2 emissions, making the world more vulnerable.”””
“””Reports of severe storms, catastrophic floods like the Simbach event (Brandhuber et al., 2017; Mayr et al., 2020), and tragic events such as the Ahrtal floods, which caused over 150 casualties (Mohr et al., 2023), are increasingly common. These occurrences, alongside water shortages, droughts, and heatwaves (Ciais et al., 2005; Miralles et al., 2019), suggest a significant imbalance in landscape hydrology, often attributed to CO2-driven climate change.
In public discourse, explanations for these climate-driven changes often revolve around statements such as “The soil dries out because of the heat” or ” … because air humidity is so low,” as seen in the German Drought Monitor (https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=37937, Boing et al., 2022). While these statements correlate with observations, they offer only circular reasoning, lacking a causal explanation. This can easily be recognized because the logic of the sentences can be reversed and still holds: “It is so hot because the soil is dry”. Even the plausible sentence “the soil is dry because it hasn’t rained for a long time” is at least partly circular reasoning since terrestrial evapotranspiration globally contributes 40 % to terrestrial precipitation, with 57 % of the terrestrial evapotranspiration being recycled (van der Ent et al., 2010)”””
“””In addition to the general trends of rising temperature and increasing precipitation, many studies suggest that the unusually persistent and amplified disturbances in the jet stream are associated with persistent extreme weather events like floods or drought. These persistent events have been related to high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves resulting from quasi-resonant amplification. However, there is considerable variation among climate models regarding this effect. Some predict a near-tripling of quasi-resonant amplification events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease (Mann et al., 2018).”””
“””The most significant challenge may rest on hydrological science, where we largely neglect lateral interactions happening in the atmosphere, on soil surfaces, and in soils. We poorly address lateral phenomena like advection in the atmosphere, run-on infiltration, or subsurface flows. Physical experiments designed to analyze the influence of lateral interactions on the landscape scale are almost impossible to conduct, as extensive areas would have to be included, manipulated, and replicated to fulfill statistical requirements. Hence, we rely on modeling. However, our models often disregard these lateral effects. Field size and neighborhood hardly play a role in many model calculations like evaporation. Land use is typically considered in broad categories like forestland, grassland, cropland, and urban land. We use parameter values derived decades ago, which hardly reflect the unprecedented changes within each land-use category during the last decades”””
“””Comprehensively considering all effects in modeling is hindered by data limitations, computational time constraints, and the unfavorable behavior of models that consider feedback mechanisms. Consequently, it is crucial to acknowledge our limited understanding of land-use effects. Any conclusions regarding the impact of land use based on modeling must be drawn cautiously, regardless of the apparent certainty of modeling results. In turn, considering meteorological changes only in the light of greenhouse gasses is biased by the same limitations.””””
“””Undoubtedly, measures against climate change by reducing CO2 emissions are essential and have become a global policy target. However, exclusively focusing on this goal ignores other important mitigation measures that urgently need to be realized. As illustrated here, restoring hydrologically functional landscapes and soils is at least equally important to mitigate climate change, especially concerning extremes such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves”””
JCM,
My first blush, off-the-cuff reaction:
If what they’re saying is that climate change caused by green house gasses doesn’t account for, I don’t know, say a feedback caused by poor land management, and that they’re not saying that poor land management causes global warming instead of GHGs, then I don’t necessarily have a problem with it.
My admittedly amateur opinion runs more along the lines that, for instance, desertification exacerbated by humans is a local or regional problem in addition to GHG induced global warming.
As an aside, I don’t see the need to bash atmospheric scientists for doing atmospheric science, while at the same time ignoring all the money and effort that goes into, not just government sponsored conservation, but myriad environmental conservancies, funds, and and other non-profits large and small world-wide. Or should I presume that you spend a lot of time going to sites run by people trying to thwart those activities and register vigorous complaints there? Give those coal-rollers what for!
Thanks for that, Radge. I think JCM–or rather, his source–poses a bit of a false dichotomy.
You two are seeing what you want to see for some strange reason. Bashing? Seriously? Are you two snowflaking here?
I can’t speak to the accuracy of the work cited, but the argument is sound: To really understand the changing climate, we have to get much better at quantifying land use changes. As is stated and/or inferred, likely a very significant amount of flooding is due to how we have changed, decarbonized and paved over the ground. Dry soils are, absolutely, significantly hotter than high-carbon hydrated soils.
Maybe this work will enlighten why sensitivity might be as high as 7C (recent paper)…?
Just because you don’t like the suggested conclusions, don’t attack the work with Ad Hom insults.
K,
You apparently haven’t been following the conversation closely over the past several months.
Which I completely agree with. You’d know that if you’d bothered to read carefully, you’re apparently seeing what you want to see for some strange reason.
What I’d like JCM to clarify (and apparently to falsify) is how CO2 accounts for AGW, you do realize that he’s been downplaying the role of “trace gasses” in global warming, right?
Whatever. That’s rich coming from you since a good portion of your rhetoric consists of belligerence.
Killian: “ decarbonized the ground”
You realize that the author you defend here, JCM, dismissed concerns over carbon:
JCM June 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates
And you are lecturing others that it is them who: are seeing what you want to see for some strange reason. Bashing? Seriously? Are you snowflaking here?
And the language you use (“snowflakes”) is a language of climate deniers and MAGA-people toward concerned about environment and climate change. By the language they adopted you shall know them?
This is in reply to Piotr who said: “And the language you use (“snowflakes”) is a language of climate deniers and MAGA-people toward concerned about environment and climate change.”
As a “MAGA-people” the first time I remember hearing the term snowflakes was when watching the videos of Democrats crying like babies when Hillary lost the election in 2016. I guess it could be used generally for any folks who have to run off to a safe space when they hear an opinion they disagree with. That COULD include those “..concerned about environment and climate change”, but is not limited to those people. FYI, I just looked it up and Wikipedia seems to agree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
:)
KIA: “ [The contemptuous label “snowflakes” assigned by QAnon and MAGA to their opponents] COULD include those “..concerned about environment and climate change”, but is not limited to those people.
Nobody said that it is limited, Genius, so you are discussing with yourself.
The point of the post to which you “reply” – was the irony of Killian toward his critics resorting to the SAME contemptuous language as QAnon and MAGA. That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …
Radge, gaslighting is not OK. The Peanut Gallery going after me and any others who spoke of simplicity/regenerative solutions, etc., beginning 2015 is completely documented. Self-defense is not attack. Stick to the issues or STH up.
I don’t care what JCM *has been doing;* I was responding to the content of this thread and this thread only and any other threads are irrelevant since this thread has nothing at all to do with trace gases. This paper was actually about why we are seeing so much flooding and drought and makes the argument poor design choices, i.e. land use changes, are bigger issues in that regard than temps are… at this time. This is very likely true. At the very least, its impact is very likely underestimated. The paper is not blaming climate change on land use changes – though they do contribute.
No, Kevin, it is not a false dichotomy. You didn’t understand the paper.
This is a very germane and appropriate topic. It was you two who didn’t understand it, not JCM.
Killian 16 JUL “ The Peanut Gallery going after me and any others who spoke of simplicity/regenerative solutions, etc., beginning 2015 is completely documented.
As honorable member of the said Gallery, let me help you – we don’t go after you for
your “simplicity/regenerative solutions”. We go after you for you dismissing other ways of stabilizing climate, your doctrinal dismissal of the difficulties of converting the entire Earth population and socio-economic system toward your only correct solution, your incessant tooting your horn of unappreciated prophet. and your allergy to any criticism (allergic to Peanut Gallery?)
And example of the real approach to you is my post from
Piotr Jul. 15
where I used your own heavily promoted source (K: “ Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design“) – to show that according to its results – even if we converted ALL croplands into permaculture – the resulting GHG mitigation would take care of substantially less than … 10 % of the current emissions.
With all the best wishes from the Peanut Gallery
Piotr
So, Killian, in what respect did I misunderstand the paper JCM quoted?
Re-reading, this bit in particular still seems to me like a false dichotomy, or perhaps more aptly yet, a straw man:
Who, after all, is suggesting an “exclusive focus?” I’ve never heard anyone advocate for it.
Word nerd alert. Re: Peanut Gallery
I admit I’m old enough to remember Howdy Doody and that the term “peanut gallery’ has long been a fond part of my lexicon. Turns out it can also be a sore spot for some, so just thought I’d pipe up with this:
The complicated origin of the expression ‘peanut gallery’
https://theconversation.com/the-complicated-origin-of-the-expression-peanut-gallery-148897
Who knew? Not me.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
KIA said:
Given that Trump’s administration nearly wrecked our alliances (and thereby did severely damage our national credibility); that it divided our nation more than we’ve see since the Civil War; that it divided families forever; that it waged war on the environment not only nationally but internationally; and that it ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans unnecessarily by a bungled Covid response, their tears seem pretty prescient in retrospect.
And regardless, infinitely preferable to breaking into and vandalizing Congress in an attempt to overturn the democratic will of the people.
It is true that Trump divided the nation. He divided common sense (conservatives) from stupidity and evil (leftists). He EXPOSED the true nature of leftists, and leftists hate him for it.
Yes, lives were lost under Trump BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ACCUSED HIM OF BEING RACIST when he suggested we stop flights from China. He enabled the creation of a vaccine AT LEAST 5 YEARS before ANY Democrat could have. There were more COVID deaths under Biden EVEN WITH A VACCINE, than under Trump without one:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-have-more-americans-died-covid-under-joe-biden-donald-trump-1661528
Trump strengthened our alliances, particularly with NATO by threatening to withdraw IF THEY DID NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. They did it. Under Trump we had NO NEW WARS. Under Biden, we have several hot spots which could go nuclear at any moment.
He stopped the border invasion by threatening Mexico with tariffs and other sanctions, so they stopped them at THEIR southern border, not ours.
He told the protesters to go peacefully and patriotically make their voice heard at the capitol. Excellent and fair timeline of that day showing the good, the bad and the ugly:
https://rumble.com/v4648ft-january-6th-a-true-timeline-doc.html
It is DEMOCRATS, not Trump or the GOP, who are trying to keep BOTH Biden and Trump off the ballot EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR BOTH OF THEM to be their nominees. So much for the party of “muh sacred democracy”.
Hope this helps.
KIA,
Are you for real?
And just out of curiosity, what does any of that have to do with climate?
JCM: “As illustrated here, restoring hydrologically functional landscapes and soils is at least equally important to mitigate climate change“.
“ at least equally important” is a quantitative statement ( X >= Y) thus require numbers supporting it. Your OPINION piece offers hardly any, and those it has – do not show that restoring hydrology has comparable or larger effect to climate change than GHG mitigation.
Contrast this with a research paper by Lague et al 2023, the paper you brought up here and recommended yourself – based on which patrick has shown the opposite – that altering hydrology by humans had negligible effect of global temperature: reforesting of ALL agricultural land would have lowered AGW by a fraction of 0.3 K). Hardly, “ at least equally important to mitigate climate change“, as reductions in GHG emissions.
Nor does your OPINION piece substantiates your earlier attack on climate science:
JCM, Jun. 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates [desertification and “massive degradation of land resources”] due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates“
In Re to Piotr, 7 JUL 2024 AT 4:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823058
Dear Piotr,
I think that your conclusion (that Lague 2023 can be construed the way that human interferences with land hydrology have negligible effect on global climate) may be too bold.
On one hand, global temperature change 0.3 K caused by desertification of ca five millions square km of wetland seems to be small. On the other hand, are you sure, on the basis of a first work that attempted to deal with this topics, that we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?
Just as a reminder, there are authors like Makarieva et al who object that due to convective parametrization, present climate models do not treat latent heat flux properly and underestimate its role in climate regulation.
Greetings
Tomáš
“…we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?”
I didn’t see anybody claim that we shouldn’t worry about it.
What I did see, is a pretty good argument that it’s not a primary driver of global warming. Remember, whether or not climate models “treat latent heat flux properly” or not, they *can* account for the observations we have pretty darn well. Which means that the latent heat issue is at best something of a solution in search of a problem, at this point.
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 9 JUL 2024 AT 2:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823095
Dear Kevin,
Similarly, I do not claim that we should not worry about rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
Different from majority herein, and similarly to JCM, I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change). And I am also afraid that climate is not only temperature and that climate change is not just warming.
I asked if anyone knows climate sensitivities of the two opposite extremes of Lague’s Earth, because I guess that the “swamp land” may be significantly more robust towards changes in greenhouse gas concentration than the “desert land”. In other words, I can imagine that already the stepwise slow anthropogenic changes in land hydrology that occurred during the preindustrial era might have prepared the stage for anthropogenic global warming. Who knows?
And if so, what if the “primary cause” thereof?
I also think that e.g. the debates about aerosols illustrate the distorted “astrophysical” perspective of Earth’s climate and obsession with temperature as the sole climate feature quite well. Despite there are strong hints that proposed “mitigation” of the greenhouse effect by aerosols would have been on the expenses of a decrease in global water cycle intensity, (almost) nobody cares.
To be honest, I am more afraid of “drying” than of “warming”, because I have a strong feeling that precipitation is equally important for human civilization as temperature, however, 99% of public attention still seems to be directed just to “warming”.
Greetings
Tomáš
a correction and amendment to my post of 9 Jul 2024 at 6:11 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823103
Dear Kevin,
My question
“And if so, what if the “primary cause” thereof?”
should in fact read
“And if so, what is the “primary cause” thereof?”.
I apologize for overlooking this typo.
Just in addition:
I would be happy if the models indeed accounted for available observations “pretty darn well”, as you wrote.
Unfortunately, I am not sure yet that it is true:
1) It appears that the available reanalyses of global precipitation data, see e.g.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20total%20annual%20precipitation,of%200.18%20inches%20per%20decade.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/reanalysis/MERRA/reanalysis_precipitation_climatology.php
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/tables/precipitation.html
https://www.cen.uni-hamburg.de/en/icdc/data/atmosphere/gpcc-full-data-reanalysis.html
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-high-resolution-precipitation-mswep
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000574
still suffer from bigger uncertainties and lower accuracy than available global temperature reanalyses.
2) It appears that the references you kindly provided with respect to model testing by hindcasting in fact pertain to weather forecasting models, not to climate models.
3) If the “greenhouse” forcing was during the industrial era broadly “masked” (in terms of its effect on global surface temperature) by the opposite aerosol forcing, the models should be able to correctly quantify the corresponding decrease in global water cycle intensity during the industrial era, as it follows from thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, my repeated question (Do state-of-art climate models confirm the prediction of thermodynamics that the supposed broad “compensation” of greenhouse effect by aerosol pollution during industrial era in fact must have occurred on expenses of decreasing water cycle intensity?) still remains unanswered.
For all these three reasons, I still tend to believe that JCM’s objection (that present climate models treat precipitation / latent heat flux rather as a kind of freely adjustable parameters that are used for achieving the desired more-less good fit of temperature modelling with reality) may be correct.
Should it be so, then it would be, however, really advisable that conclusions and recommendations made on the basis of projections and predictions coming from these models are taken with caution.
The same might apply also for estimations in which aspects is the present climate already perturbed by anthropogenic “forcings”.
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).
BPL: Have you heard of “analysis of variance?”
Thomas Kalisz.
“To be honest, I am more afraid of “drying” than of “warming”, because I have a strong feeling that precipitation is equally important for human civilization as temperature, however, 99% of public attention still seems to be directed just to “warming”.”
You should consider this study: “Climate Change Is Drying Out Earth’s Soils.”
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/climate-change-is-drying-out-earths-soils
So perhaps you do need to worry about warming.
Hi, Tomas–
You said:
Yes, I think we’ve all got that point by now. But if you’re going to reiterate it, let me re-iterate mine: climate models can (and do) reproduce past climate trends pretty well. That ability gives a good evidentiary basis for thinking that we do in fact have the ability to differentiate quantitatively the strengths of various climate drivers. (And also, as an aside here, as long as we agree that there are more than one climate drivers, how could there not be some that are relatively primary and others that are relatively secondary? Sure, logically they could all have precisely the same weight, but I think that’s clearly a very remote possibility indeed.)
Welcome to mainstream climate science! (Yes, I’m being facetious here, but ‘climate science’ has long recognized that there is much more to climate change than just warming.) As an easily scanned instance, I’d point toward this:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/AR6_WGI_outlines_P46.pdf
You’ll note many topics going beyond “just warming,” including “change in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, land, and biosphere”; “Large scale patterns of climate change”; “Feedbacks between climate and biogeochemical cycles”; and most of the matter in chapters 8, 9, and 11.
I think the public is a bit more aware of other dimensions than you are giving credit for. Quite a few are aware, for instance, that the observed increase in extreme precipitation events is a predicted consequence of anthropogenic climate change, as are the regional droughts bedeviling certain regions (including the North American southwest.)
TK:” “Different from majority herein, and similarly to JCM, I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).”
You mean that all possible drivers have the COMPARABLE importance???
So much for your assurances how you have never tried to minimize the importance of GHGs reductions.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 10 JUL 2024 AT 4:59 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823121
TK: I am afraid that there are no “primary” and “secondary” “drivers” of climate (change).
BPL: Have you heard of “analysis of variance?”
Dear Barton Paul,
I have to honestly admit that I had no idea about this statistical tool before I read your question. I looked into Wikipedia to gain a first information about it, but still feel quite uncertain how the method can be applied for distinguishing between supposed primary and secondary climate drivers.
More specifically – how was this method applied for showing that GHG concentration change is more important climate driver than e.g. land hydrology change?
Is a such evaluation really possible, even though it (at least from the previous discussion about global precipitation records) appears that nobody knows how the land hydrology changed not only during holocene but even during the industrial era?
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to nigelj, 10 JUL 2024 AT 5:23 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823122
Dear Nigel,
I think that the articles cited by you
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023EF003511
and by JCM
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1702/
offer perspectives that are complementary to each other.
I think that JCM’s point is that these two perspectives are in fact inseparable.
Greetings
Tomáš
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 10 JUL 2024 AT 6:45 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823125
Dear Kevin,
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
I am still not sure that I explained my doubts about single and/or “primary” climate change driver clearly enough. Let me therefore try once again.
Let us assume that Lague 2023 is correct and the difference in global mean surface temperature that can be caused by opposite extremes in water availability for evaporation from the land is about 8 K.
Then it would have been clear that water availability for evaporation from land does represent a further possible climate change driver besides greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.
A first question that follows is: In which extent might have humanity changed water availability for evaporation from the land during holocene? A further question might read: Has mankind caused a significant change in water availability for evaporation from the land during industrial era?
And, last but not least, even in case that the change in water availability for evaporation might have looked significant but its direct effect on the average equilibrium global temperature might be only a tiny fraction of the above mentioned 8 K, I would like to repeat my third question: Do we know that the change in water availability for evaporation from land has no effect on Earth climate sensitivity to other forcings, such as the greenhouse gases concentration?
Should present climate change resulted from a synergy between greenhouse effect of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic land hydrology perturbations that made Earth climate more vulnerable thereto, was the “primary driver” the carbon dioxide, the hydrology perturbation, or might be perhaps better to not insist that any complex effect must have a simple / single or “main” cause?
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: More specifically – how was this method applied for showing that GHG concentration change is more important climate driver than e.g. land hydrology change?
BPL: Do a multiple regression of temperature anomalies on both CO2 and some measure of land hydrology changes. Then do regressions with one at a time removed. Which accounts for more variance?
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 13 JUL 2024 AT 8:28 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823184
Dear Barton Paul,
Many thanks for your recommendation.
I think that you largely overestimate my abilities – I definitely think it is rather a task for professional climate scientists having both the training in application of these statistical methods as well as the access to the respective data.
I only somewhat wonder that if the task is so straightforward as you present it, why nobody herein has already cited a bunch of publications describing the results of such works.
If I understood you correctly, this would have been indeed a direct, hardly disputable support for the assertion that changes in the atmospheric concentration of non- condensing greenhouse gases are the major cause of the observed climate change and that other forcings are indeed secondary and/or of minor importance.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ I think that your conclusion may be too bold
Too bad that so far you have been impotent to prove it.
TK On one hand, global temperature change 0.3 K caused by desertification of ca five millions square km of wetland seems to be small
Nobody was talking about your hare-brained scheme to increase global desalination 1000-fold, and spread this water over 5 mln km2, and maintain this scheme for 100s of years in the hope of achieving up to 0.3K of cooling – which by that time would have benn long eclipsed by the warming caused by the cumulated GHG emissions from running your scheme over 100s of years.
Instead, I was talking about patrick calculations (hence the name “patrick” and not “Kalisz” in the post to which you reply). Patrick calculated that abandoning of all agriculture would cool the Earth by mere 0.3K, and even that not accounting for the warming by the abandonment of irrigation of croplands, which without crops would have no justification. This effect would have reduced the 0.3K cooling, or even reverse it into an additional … warming.
TK: “ are you sure, on the basis of a first work that attempted to deal with this topics”
Buyers remorse? Shouldn’t you told this your JCM who brought “this work” up and described it in painful detail over many pages. Instead, you embraced it as a support of your and JCM narrative (minimize the importance of GHG reductions in response to AGW in favour of human intervention in the global water cycle). Interesting how both of you have started to question the reliability of JCM’s own source – ONLY AFTER we showed that it proves the opposite to what you had claimed it does.
TK: “ that we should not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology, etc?
Don’t change the subject. Mr. Kalisz – we re talking here about your crazy schemes of increasing global evaporation as an ALTERNATIVE to reduction of GHGs. Nobody has been proposing to “ not worry about human influence on soils, hydrology,etc“.
That you would imply that tells me that either you are incapable to understand what is being patiently explained to you again and again, or you and JCM are trolls who unable to defend your denying the importance of GHGs as a driver of AGW – try to portray the criticism of your denialism as … callous indifference toward non-AGW effects of humans impacts on ecosystems:
e.g. JCM’s: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.”
The Occam’s razor suggest that you and JCM are either dense, or dishonest. Neither characteristic particularly useful in a discussion.
in Re to Piotr, 11 JUL 2024 AT 5:58 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823138
Dear Piotr,
I think that the main reason for JCM’s efforts may be his concern – which I share with him – that every kind of greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
If you agree to the importance of soil, terrestrial vegetation and land hydrology in climate regulation, then I do not think that there is a substantial difference between yours and JCM’s perspective, I do not think that he has ever proposed dealing with soil conservation and land hydrology INSTEAD of GHG reduction.
I choose the example with wetland desertification, because I believe it is simpler than Patrick’s example with forest to cropland conversion. Please be aware that Patrick had to introduce a few further assumptions that may be quite uncertain and thus significantly complicate the picture. And also please note that my desertification example does not comprise the technical issues with desalination etc. that might have obscured the opposite example with desert irrigation.
As a layman, I can no way assess validity of Lague 2023. I am really happy that this publication occurred, and hope that much more attention will be paid to the influence of land hydrology for global climate in the future.
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: I think that the main reason for JCM’s efforts may be his concern – which I share with him – that every kind of greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
BPL: Absolutely no one here is against preventing soil degradation or water cycle deteriorating (whatever that is).
TK,
No, pretty sure he’s attributing an outsized cause of AGW to lack of soil conservation, instead of GHGs.
Outsized.
In terms of adaptation and maybe local mitigation, yeah damn well better protect soils, also build sea walls, cool down urban heat islands, and so on.
So what is impacting what? No doubt there’s feed back from the state of soils and the biomes that depend on them, but the significance of that is still an open question, and appealing to principles of of culture just won’t answer. Those principles may turn out to be explanatory of why something has gone awry in the modeling after it’s been conclusively shown to be, in this case, massively in error.
Big picture, the modeling seems to concord remarkably well with observation– hindcasting, forecasting, and all that good stuff. Do you really think climate scientists are so far gone that they wouldn’t have noticed if it were otherwise?
That’s my take, anyway.
TK: greenhouse gases emission reduction may miss the intended goal (climate change mitigation), if it will not be accompanied by measures preventing further soil degradation and water cycle deterioration.
Unfortunately for this claim – patricks calculations using JCM own source have shown that human-driven changes in evaporation are just too small to have a significant effect on AGW.
Ergo we have to address the AGW by mitigating GHG emissions, and NOT by diverting the resources from GHG reductions to hare-brained schemes of yours of artificially increasing global evaporation.
And this has been obvious not only from analysis of JCM’s source (Lague et al 2023), but also from elementary scale analysis:
– humans CAN significantly change the balance of GHG fluxes, and GHG conc. in atmosphere
– humans CAN’T significantly change the water cycle – because the incomparable larger volume of natural water fluxes, limited amount of water we have not yet tapped, and the very short residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere – 2-10 days, compared to at least DECADES of GHGs.
That you, Shurly and JCM refuse to acknowledge it – just proves your intentions – you inflate the importance of human effects on water cycle to AGW, in order to reduce the importance of GHG emissions.
The only outstanding question is why – are you paid trolls of the fossil fuel lobby and/or Russia, or more likely just their useful idiots – who jumped into Russia’s bed for an ego gratification, something along the lines:
“if hardly anybody recognizes the crucial importance of water cycle to AGW mitigation, but I do, then I must be really really smart!“
in Re to Piotr, 14 Jul 2024 at 12:18 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823213
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
First of all, I would like to mention that as much as I know, JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management by provision of additional water supply for evaporation using technical means. He strongly focuses rather on soil quality, organic matter content therein, and lanscape ecological functionality.
As regards further objections raised by you, let me now focus only on one point, namely your assertion that “humans CAN’T significantly change the water cycle”.
I think you in fact meant something like “based on Lague2023,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
even a quite significant change of five millions square kilometers of wetland into desert or oppositely, representing about 3% change in global latent heat flux, would have resulted in global mean surface temperature change as small as about 0.3 K only”.
I do not think, however, that humanity is not capable to cause latent heat flux changes of this order of magnitude – although the exact global cumulative excess of the already caused changes (that could be evaluated from similar points of view as in the article
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1702/
recently cited by JCM) remains unknown.
I would like to turn your attention to the circumstance that from a practical perspective, desertification of five millions square km wetland, or any analogous change in terrestrial hydrology, may have dramatical consequences that are not on the first look obvious from the seemingly small average global temperature change which would have accompanied this water cycle change.
What is important and JCM strives to emphasize: These hydrology changes very likely occur (and, possibly, accumulate) much longer than only during the industrial era. They accelerated, however, very likely during the last decades significanty. They might have represented a threat for humanity even in case that there was no issue with anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions and global warming caused therewith.
It is my opinion that neglecting this threat is risky, and even more risky may be neglecting possible negative synergy between both anthropogenic climate change drivers.
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to Radge Havers, 13 Jul 2024 at 12:41 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823194
Dear Radge,
Thank you for your comment.
I think that JCM speaks rather about “climate change” than just about “AGW”, and then, if we will speak about drivers of climate change rather than about drivers of the observed global warming, I tend to agree with him that nobody knows yet the quantitative contribution of various drivers to the observed changes.
I think that it applies especially if someone focuses on other aspects of the climate change than just changes in the mean global surface temperature. I think that for example the previous discussion on this website about historical record of global precipitation provided a hint that other aspects of the climate change still remain very unclear. It is my feeling that scientific efforts to quantify contributions of various drivers to such aspects of the climate change as the changes in terrestrial hydrology still remain in an embryonal development stage.
I think that I understand why JCM is reluctant to acknowledge that relatively mature understanding to mechanisms of global waming can be easily extrapolated to climate change in its entirety. I have a feeling that describing anthropogenic climate change just as “global Earth warming” may be like painting a landscape using one colour only. Or, possibly, as recording a a social event solely as a motion picture, without sound. In some cases, e.g. if the recorded event will be a TV discussion, there may be very weak link between the information that is comprised in the visual record, and the one comprised in the acoustic record. Accordingly, an evaluation of the recorded event that will focus on one of these aspects only may result in a severe bias.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz July 16: “I would like to mention that as much as I know, JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management”
That’s because he is a more clever denier than you. The clever denier never makes specific proposals – since that can be verified with numbers and their absurdity. be shown.
That’s while appreciating you being on his side, JCM keeps distance from your SPECIFIC proposals, which absurdity I have shown repeatedly in these threads (tha latest one in the post to which you “reply”)
For the same reason, when Lague et al 2023 , promoted on RC by JCM source – was used by patrick and showed how SMALL effect to global temp, human changes in evaporation produce – JCM turned on his own source , dismissing the analysis of the numbers from Lague et al 2023, and therefore by extension – the credibility of modelling by Lague et al., – by disparaging modelling: “ imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be” according to their authors, and as such – offer no insight into the real world.
Hell hath no fury like a JCM scorned ?
In reply to Tomas comment:
Nice image, but as I’ve previously written, there is ample consideration of many other aspects of anthropogenic climate given in any and all of the ARs from the last 20 years. This includes land use, atmospheric circulation, carbon cycle, hydrological cycle, and more. That’s not to say that the ARs are infallible or perfect–though I think they are remarkable scholarly projects indeed!–but they certainly aren’t ‘painting monochromes.’
in Re to Piotr, 18 Jul 2024 at 8:39 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823276
Dear Piotr,
I cannot speak for JCM, however, I think that when he mentioned the “imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be”, it is well possible that he addressed rather the way how you and Patrick treated the message brought by Lague 2023 than this article specifically or modelling generally.
I think that very cautiously formulated conclusions, as provided by the authors of the article, may be a hint that they were well aware of many unavoidable limitations they met and could, with the available resources, hardly resolve better. In this respect, I do not wonder that JCM disagrees with bold claims (like “human interferences with water cycle cannot significantly influence global climate”) construed from the same article by you.
To be more specific, I will try to show on one detail why I, on one hand, appreciate the exercise made by Lague et al, but on the other hand, am reluctant to take quantitative estimations from their article as a proven truth.
Please look on Figure 4 reporting the computed differences in precipitation between the two “swamp land” and “desert land” extreme model cases. You wil see that on land, the studied model afforded a difference in annual precipitation between these two extremes in a quite humble size, namely 88 mm.
Personally, I somewhat doubt that converting the entire land on Earth from a swamp to a perfectly sealed and drained parking lot would have caused a such relatively tiny difference. I rather suspect that the entire land would have step-by step changed in a real desert with annual sum of precipitation corresponding to such climates on the recent Earth. In other words, I can imagine that in a real case, the difference in land precipitation between the swamp land and the desert land might have been counted rather in hundreds of mm annually than in higher tens of mm as computed by Lague et al.
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to Kevin McKinney, 18 Jul 2024 at 10:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823283
and 18 Jul 2024 at 10:03 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823282
Dear Kevin,
I am aware that IPCC deals with various aspects of climate change, including changes in cryosphere, hydrosphere, etc.
Yet it is my feeling that JCM is correct that the prevailing perspective is treating all these aspects as mere “feedbacks” to the changing greenhouse effect which is caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and somewhat mitigated by anthropogenic aerosol emissions acting oppositely. It was my feeling that the “LULUCF” chapter deals mostly with surface albedo, carbon dioxide sequestration in plants, and with agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases.
It is further my feeling that this approach, prevailing already on the basic level of individual scientific publications, is strongly amplified when a message in form of a summary for “policy makers” is extracted therefrom, and then even further amplified by media and various activists and educators.
I do not know curricula taught in climate science courses, nevertheless, I am aware of some hints that the narrow perspective of climate change as a “global warming caused by anthropogenic perturbations to radiative equilibrium” is widespread also among people who work as professional meteorologists and/or climatologists and inform the public in the Czech Republic where I am from.
I already mentioned the official report of the Czech Academy of Sciences “Avex 4/2020” and a public exchange between authors of this report and two biologists who criticized the absence of any mention of anthropogenic degradation of soils and hydrology therein. The authors of the report assigned their opponents as pseudo scientists and in parallel asserted that terrestrial evapotranspiration cannot play any role in global climate because it would have been in conflict with the law of energy conservation.
Analogously herein on the RC discussion forum, JCM became suspect of being a paid agent of Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, striving to support their fossil fuel business by diverting resources from life-saving mitigation of greenhouse gases towards unnecessary soil conservation.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz says: “Analogously herein on the RC discussion forum, JCM became suspect of being a paid agent of Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, striving to support their fossil fuel business by diverting resources from life-saving mitigation of greenhouse gases towards unnecessary soil conservation.”
Wrong. Dont just make things up Tomas. The facts are some people have suggested JCM might be a climate denialist / paid agent of fossil fules companies because of 1) rhetoric suggesting greenhouse gases are not the main component of global warming, (without being able to provide any proof) and 2) his support of crazy irrigation schemes to cool the planet. Nothing about soil conservation and how much funding it should get.
Tomas Kalisz Jul 19: “ I cannot speak for JCM
and yet you are doing it all the time – the latest example 3 days before:
Tomas Kalisz Jul 16: “ JCM has not promoted my idea of the active evaporation management by provision of additional water supply for evaporation using technical means.”
You can’t eat a cake, and then try to score points for not eating cakes.
TK JUl. 19: “ when JCM” mentioned the “imaginary process mechanisms that apply arbitrary rules about how things ought to be”, it is well possible that he addressed rather the way how you and Patrick treated the message brought by Lague 2023”
In science we discuss the results of models, not the “messages” that JCM and you have read into those results, particularly that both of you have a record of either not understanding what is being written, or have confirmation bias – cherry-picking only these parts than can be construed as a support of your beliefs, while ignoring the rest.
And when JCM unable to show SPECIFIC problems with Patrick’s or my calculations, goes into the generalities and talks about
“ imaginary process mechanisms ” and about choosing “ rules about how things ought to be”
– then he does not apply it to our calculations. since we have done neither, but only to the credibility of the RESULTS of Lague et al that we had used. So he attacked the credibility of Lague et al, and climate modelling in general. Which fits well with JCM open contempt toward climate models, at least those that counter his beliefs at the importance of human changes in evaporation over dealing with GHGs, e.g.:
JCM’: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates . ”
This case is amusing because JCM started thinking that Lague et al support him – so he brought it up on RC and typed many pages of paper’s results minutia. But when Patrick and I used the main result of this paper in calculations showing how insignificant are human-changes in water cycle to addressing AGW – JCM threw Lague et al. under the bus (see above).
So Mr. Kalisz, don’t talk about things you have very little understanding of, and, perhaps, start doing what you say (TK: “ I cannot speak for JCM“).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823276
Thank you very much, Tomas.
Piotr has constructed a bizarre strawman and he stubbornly clings to it for months. Either he is upset or confused because the communication was already clarified long ago. Despite this, he projects accusations of dishonesty, as if everyone operates like him. It’s both sad and ridiculous
Regarding your additional comments, The essential premise in Lague’s process-based model is that suppressing terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by limiting cloud and raising temperature.
“””The anomalous surface energy fluxes driven by atmospheric cloud, water vapor, and temperature feedbacks are larger than the initial change in latent heat flux driven directly by suppressed terrestrial evaporation”””
The precipitation depends on the residence time of atmospheric water vapor, where residence time as a ratio τ ≡ precipitable water / global mean precipitation.
τ increases from 6.7 days in SwampLand to 10.2 days in Desertland.
I reckon the residence time is very uncertain, and no change in precipitation is foreseeable if τ is placed at 8 or 9 days. Conversely, significant precipitation declines if τ doubles, or an increase if τ remains constant under ET suppression.
Comparatively, Ghausi finds the same principle of coupling ET and cloud using their analytical thermodynamic boundary constraints framework, independently from Lague’s complex process model.
Ghausi:
“””We show that the mean temperature variation across dry and humid regions is mainly controlled by clouds that reduce surface heating by solar radiation.”””
“””Our results imply that the role of evaporation on continental land surface temperatures is not determined by evaporative cooling at the surface but by the ability of evaporation to affect the local cloud cover.”””
“””The main effect of hydrologic cycling on surface temperatures is modulated mostly by clouds that alter the mean radiative environment…”
“””Although arid regions also have a higher surface albedo, we show that changes in absorbed solar radiation with aridity are largely due to decrease in cloud cover.”””
“””This approach works very well in predicting observed climatological variations in surface temperatures, showing that arid regions are typically warmer due to the stronger solar heating in the absence of clouds.”””
The difference is Ghausi is limited to constraints in local profiles, while Lague uses a GCM which brings in the ocean influence under higher temperature.
“””while a reduction in land evaporation is expected to produce a transient reduction in local atmospheric water vapor, changes in the precipitating atmospheric circulation dominate to allow more water to accumulate in the atmosphere and then be maintained at that higher level.”””
Comparatively, in terms of global energy budgets, IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers makes no mention of the direct link between desertification and decreased cloud.
IPCC SRCCL:
A.4.1
“””Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small (medium confidence).”””
A.4.4
“””Desertification amplifies global warming through the release of CO2 linked with the decrease in vegetation cover (high confidence). This decrease in vegetation cover tends to increase local albedo, leading to surface cooling (high confidence).”””
The report implies that the impact on the mean radiative environment through landscape destruction can only be related to the warming influence of GHG and surface albedo change. In this view, the principle of interest is out of scope – cloud change is implicitly deemed a feedback to temperature and effective radiative forcing, not linked to ET suppression.
Qualitative predictions for profound desertification outside the scope of the IPCC include the following impacts: decreased SW outgoing radiation, increased all-sky LW outgoing radiation, reduced precipitation area (frequency), more precipitable water, decreased relative humidity, and increased hydrological and temperature extremes. Annual precipitation change is probably relatively small.
Cheers Tomas, and thanks for your ongoing good-spirited input.
JCM Piotr has constructed a bizarre strawman and he stubbornly clings to it for months. Either he is upset or confused because the communication was already clarified long ago
Why should _I_ be upset at _you_ showing everybody what YOUR intellect and personal integrity are worth?
But yes – both “have been clarified long ago”:
1. patrick used the results of your own source (Lague et al. 2023) and show how little human alterations of the water cycle matter to Global T. – he calculated that the reduction in evaporation from converting natural land cover with to the current area of croplands, Such massive, civilization-wide alteration, amounted to warming by 0.3K.
2. I pointed out that even this is an overestimate – e.g. it does not take into account the growing crops invited cropland irrigation, which increases evaporation from the croplands – thus COUNTERING the reduction of evaporation from p.1,, and therefore offsetting at least a part of that 0.3K warming.
3. Unable to falsify any specific part of patrick’s calculations, nor my comment about crop irrigation – JCM responded with vague accusations of:
JCM: imaginary process mechanisms that [apply arbitrary] rules about how things ought to be ” according to their authors, and as such – offer no insight into the real world.
Since I have not introduced any “imaginary process mechanisms” nor “rules about how things ought to be” (irrigation of the field is not “imaginary” nor follows my rules) – hence the only way to read it – is an attack on the credibility of the RESULTS of the model by Lague at al, that both patrick and me have used.
And since JCM didn’t show specifically WHICH processes Lague modelled were “imaginary”
and which of the rules they used in their model were dishonest (designed to produce the a priori hoped for results) – then the accusation of “ imaginary process mechanisms” and “rules about how things ought to be” are general in nature – thus apply to the results of ANY climate modelling.
Which is consistent with JCM other attacks on the climate science, like the one in which he blamed global deforestation and massive destruction of environment on … climate scientists and their models:
“ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.” (c) JCM
As for the underlying motives of JCM – Occam’s razor suggests a Killian syndrome – if the best in the field, climate scientists publishing in best scientific journals, CAN’T see what I,
a layperson can, then I, JCM, must be …. really, really, smart, a “fiercely-independent” mind.
In response to Piotr,
I have no particular desire to revisit the issue, but I want to remind you, not an imagined audience, that in my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth System.
In that vein, it is worth placing the issue within context. Personally I find it fascinating to witness the ongoing cognitive dissonance on display among detractors and cynics. I do recognize this website is specifically catered to debunking, not for productive discourse, but there is a risk of becoming mired in negativity and prejudice, leading to destructive outcomes. The prevailing negative undertones in the climate space are obvious to interested stakeholders and, frankly, it’s repulsive. This benefits no one.
I am not one of the run-of-the mill idiots you might face on other platforms, and I repeat that I strongly encourage you and your buddies to get a grip.
I do recognize that environmental conservation as it is known originated from conservative politics a century ago, such as in McKinney’s Ontario with conservation authorities built on the model of local governance boards based on regional watershed extent. However, those roots are now long gone. Today, conservative politics generally endorses a centrally manifest ignorance of environmental issues — a complete 180. The regulatory governance space in Ontario appears to be totally undermined by phony logics, when until recently it was a global leader: https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-conservation-authorities-changes/
People like me find ourselves in a nebulous space between trace gas techno-ideologues and contemporary denialists, both of whom exhibit almost total ignorance of the reality outside. This seems to result from urbanization bias in decision-making across the political spectrum, media landscape, and educational curricula. I recommend repeatedly to go outside and touch the soil for spiritual renewal. You will not find this through a screen. Recently on Dan Miller’s “Climate Chat” reputable physicist/climate scientist David Keith responded that ecologies have practically no connections at all to realclimates, but that “protecting intact ecosystems” is important to him so his great grandchildren can have nature viewing opportunities. WTF
According to the IPCC SRCCL, human activities directly affect more than 70% (likely 69–76%) of the global, ice-free land surface (high confidence). That is an insanely huge area of (direct) influence. IMO it’s essentially impossible to truly grasp the scale. Intact ecologies are gone. oops. no viewing opportunities.
This translates to about 10 to 15 billion hectares. In my estimate (and experience), around half of this land has become effectively ecologically dysfunctional. This could be sampled in any community today. This includes rendering soil to rockflour, immense catchment drainage, and replacing natural forests with plantation (and so-on). The destruction continues at a rate equivalent to 4 football fields per second. From Pennsylvania to Philippines, and everywhere in between, this is ongoing. Perhaps 35% of the global, ice-free land surface totally impaired, and the other 35% on the downslide. This 69-76% direct influence then impacts indirectly the remaining lands through downstream connection.
In contrast, Patrick o’s rough estimate of 0.3K and your subsequent fixation was limited to about 1.5 billion hectares (10-15% of the global, ice-free land surface). This was based on a static concept of landuse change to foodcrop (or something).
As a gesture of good faith, I suggested that Patrick O’s estimate might be a reasonable guesstimate, even if the conceptual framework was flawed A 0.3K guess could represent (0.3K/1.5K) 20% of human-caused global warming to date. A significant figure. Adding in a 5% loss of soil organics and the missing atmospheric carbon sink increases the ecological destruction to roughly 25% of global warming by including major trace gas effects. Additionally, converting soil to rockflour requires additional life support systems, such as huge artificial chemical fertilizer manufacture and input, and extra passes with compaction and associated major and minor trace gas influence. In USA timber is administered under the USDA (Ag). Carving drainage channels through woodland and converting distributed catchment process to downstream reservoir is a profound disruption. Additionally, use of biocides and converting natural forests to timber significantly impact biological condensation nuclei and nutrient cycling.
Now there is almost nowhere you can insert a soil probe without pounding it, whereas historically it would go-in with ease. Try camping at the local plantation recreation parcel – do you have to pound the tent pegs? That is not normal or natural.
These are complex issues, nobody disputes that, and applying arbitrary corrections to Patrick’s 0.3K estimate is likely misleading. In fact, it’s audacious and misconceived to believe this would be convincingly sorted using a process akin to scribbles on a napkin, particularly when the conceptual framework was restricted to a small fractional area of human influence. This is know for certain. I don’t think anyone claims to have definitive statements other than you.
In general, however, I am pleased to see your recent change of perspective, Piotr. Initially, you argued profusely (and with contempt) that improved terrestrial moisture availability in space and duration was directly related to a warming influence. Now, it’s clear that you understand how moisture availability represents a stabilizing influence on realclimates, in addition to the rich co-benefits across a range of interests. This is a wonderful outcome, and I couldn’t have asked for more. This insight, already known by professionals, has somehow become missing in basic teaching and even denied by political fanatics.
cheers
Supplementary:
Global surface energy budget closure remains elusive to no better than 20 watts per meter square; the wide range of protocols for LSM modules in coupled ESMs display conditions ranging from increasing to net decreasing ET; ERA5L displays a significant decreasing trend in ET, FluxCOM displays a non significant decreasing trend; CMIP6 displays a significant increasing trend, along with the known biases in spaceborne remote sensing retrievals. On the flipside, global annually averaged precipitation volumes appear to remain rather stable during global warming, as opposed to 2-3% per K in CMIP. This suggests important constraints on the hydrological regime that should be improved with a coordinated refocus on the subject. I have not yet heard any objective rationale why this should be resisted, other than perhaps the comfort of holding onto a simplified conceptual framework for communication, and perhaps the freedom in compensating errors to calibrate regional and global climate parameters.
clarification: the 5% soil organics remark was in reference to the relative contribution to atmospheric trace greenhouse gas concentration. Soil organic net loss continues at a rate 1-20 tons per acre per year. The only sustainable rate is zero net loss. For each gram organics retains 8x its mass in moisture, reduces bulk density, and enables biogeochemical cycling process. The loss of soil organic matter is synonymous with desertification.
JCM,
I guess this is a good enough place to ask what ‘realclimates’ are. Other than the name of a blog (this one) the closest thing I’m finding is ‘reacclimate’.
This is starting to sound like a manifesto, and it draws overly broad conclusions from a peculiar reading of a local situation. It certainly doesn’t concord with what I’ve seen elsewhere.
I have to ask where you’ve demonstrated that Big Climate (or whatever) is generally hurting conservation efforts at a significant scale? Trying to poke a few holes here and there isn’t convincing. Not to me anyway.
It’s big assumptions like the one buried in that sentence that undermine your credibility. Condescension much?
FWIW, I doubt anyone here thinks you’re an idiot. However ‘steadfastly eccentric’ does come to mind…
Replying to Tomas, here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823176
The comment:
No, because IIRC 1) the “opposite extremes,” or anything like them, have not been shown to be a realistic possible scenario, and 2) the “opposite extremes,” or anything like them, certainly have not been realized in the real world. Hence, they cannot be driving the observed changes in temperature, hydrology, circulation patterns and so on. And, to reiterate, the actual change in RF *can*.
in Re to Kevin McKinney, 16 Jul 2024 at 11:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823249
Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your comment, although I have a feeling that our thoughts still resemble two extraneous lines that do not intersect anywhere.
I think that studying extreme cases may be useful even though they cannot be realized in the real world. It is my understanding that by computing the difference in global average temperature between the two extreme states, Lague 2023 provided a quite strong hint that water availability for evaporation from land can indeed play a role in global climate. I appreciate this work because there was a significant scepticism if such an effect can exist, and the doubts in this direction were expressed very clearly in some posts herein on RC.
I think that the hint provided by Lague 2023 justifies further questions I have recently asked:
1) In which extent might we (mankind) have changed water availability for evaporation from the land during holocene?
2) Has mankind caused a significant change in water availability for evaporation from the land during industrial era?
3) Are we sure that a change in water availability for evaporation from land has no effect on Earth climate sensitivity to other forcings, such as the greenhouse gases concentration?
I hoped that someone with a profound climate science knowledge can either cite some publications providing at least partial answers, or confirm that there is still a knowledge gap in this direction.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas wrote:
\
Oh, they are intersecting, all right–precisely at the point of considering whether “water availability for evaporation from land” is a possible “climate change driver” or not. I’m saying it is not. You persist in saying, well, it seems like it could be, because there is a hint in Lague et al.
Why I think not:
1) As I’ve emphasized, RF forcings have been shown to a pretty high degree of confidence to account for observed warming, and other observed changes, too. One cause is satisfying, if both necessary and sufficient. Two is an embarrassment–and your possible cause is by your own account manifested as “a hint.”
2) Precipitation has increased, as has absolute humidity. This implies that evapotranspiration must also have increased. Now, maybe the oceans are taking up the slack for decreased evaporation on land. But even so, how would a shift to a larger marine share of evaporation vs. terrestrial cause the entire system to warm?
in Re to Kevin McKinney, 19 Jul 2024 at 1:43 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823311
Dear Kevin,
You wrote “precipitation has increased”. I have not found yet a source providing a clear long-term reanalysis of global precipitation data.
I found a graph showing global precipitation record reconstruction for last 120 years, from land stations only
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-precipitation-anomaly
As a layman, I do not see any trend therein, perhaps except that interannual oscillations in the time span 1901-1940 seem to have smaller amplitude than oscillations between 1940 and 2021.
I assume that if there was an analogous global precipitation reanalysis, someone would already cited the respective reference herein. I therefore rather suspect that no such thing does exist yet.
I therefore suppose that the fit of models with reality, which can be taken into account as an evidence for emissions of greenhouse gases as the sole cause of the observed climate change, pertains solely to the fit of the modelled surface temperatures with available reanalyses of the global surface temperature. Am I right, or do you anyway know a comparison with both the temperature as well as precipitation global record?
As regards your question: “How would a shift to a larger marine share of evaporation vs. terrestrial cause the entire system to warm?” I think that it is just Lague 2023 who provides some hints that lower evaporation from the land can cause global warming. It was my understanding that this effect results from the circumstance that in such a situation, global water cycle intensity in fact decreases – in other words, a slight increase in the latent heat flux from ocean does not compensate the latent heat flux decrease from the land. According to Lague 2023, this effect is further amplified by cloud feedback and by the greenhouse effect caused by higher global absolute humidity.
I do not know if Lague 2023 is indeed correct. I already mentioned my doubts about some quantitative estimations provided therein, in my reply to Piotr of 19 Jul 2024 at 8:41 AM ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823298 .
That is why I speak about a “hint”. On the other hand, I also do not see any clear evidence yet, undoubtedly showing that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial water cycle have NOT contributed to the observed climate change.
As I tried to suggest by my questions that I repeatedly asked (last time on 18 Jul 2024 at 8:24 AM), I can imagine that human interferences with land hydrology may perhaps indeed have a low direct influence on global mean surface temperature. We should, however, take into account also other aspects of climate such as precipitation. Moreover, the possibility of an indirect influence, such as changes in climate sensitivity towards other “forcings”, should be in my opinion considered as well.
Greetings
Tomáš
At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7CLnU2EVQ at 13:50 is seen a linear Delta-GSAT rate of +0.32 degrees/decade from 2010-2024 (14 years) and also is seen a linear Delta-GSAT rate of +0.31 degrees/decade from 1934-1946 (12 years). Does this mean that global warming accelerated mid 1930s to mid 1940s or does it mean that a record of 14 years length is required to dampen the noise of natural fluctuations enough for high-quality assessment and 12 years is woefully inadequate?
Barry E Finch,
The document being discussed in that YouTube video is one of Jim Hansen’s little essays – Hansen et al (2024) ‘The World Will Cool Off – A Bit – and Other Good News!’.
You are correct that a 14-year OLR thro’ GISTEMP between mid-1930s and mid-1940s yields rates of warming roughly +0.3ºC/decade, a rate that held for about 5 years. The rate prior to that was running less than +0.1ºC/decade for a couple of decades, and after the +0.3ºC/decade period it quickly dropped into negative territory.
The use of 14-year-long OLRs does need a better analysis than that given by Hansen et al. The rate seen prior to the period 2002-15 had been very roughly +0.2ºC/decade for more than three decades and after than it rapidly rose to roughly +0.3ºC/decade.
I posted a graphic HERE of the recent 168-month (=14 yr) rolling OLR, with early 20th century values also shown.
The Hansen thesis is that the acceleration from +0.2ºC/decade to +0.3ºC/decade, now being fueled by the “bananas” temperatures of late 2023, cannot be attributed to El Niño because the 2023-24 El Niño was not strong enough to be responsible for the “bananas”. I don’t agree – not the least, why was the impact of the 2015-16 El Niño so much greater than the 1997-98 El Niño?
And with Hansen et al giving no attribution to El Niño, they insist:-
Myself, I would point to that three-decade period where the rate of warming was stuck at roughly +0.2ºC/decade and ask why it persisted until the 2015-16 El Nino began to appear in the data. The climate models were suggesting we should have been seeing warming rates at roughly +0.27ºC/decade by then, not stuck at +0.2ºC/decade, and the recent increase in warming rate post-2015/16 shown in these 14-year OLRs isn’t greatly different from such a rate. Indeed, if different lengths of OLR and alternative methods are used, the +0.27ºC/decade looks like a pretty good estimate.
I haven’t been able to find the reference for a while, but there was a paper about 10 years back that said based on Monte Carlo simulations that the minimum span required to reliably detect a warming trend in the observational record was 18 years. That could presumably, and in principle, change. But it would suggest that yes, 12 years was grossly inadequate, and probably 14, too.
There was a sort of empirical trial of this, in that the execrable “Lord” Monckton ran a series of so-called analyses for several years that showed that “warming had stopped” just about 18 years ago. I wrote about it here:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/When-Did-Global-Warming-Stop
Monckton apparently even tried to restart this notion in 2022, after a years-long ‘hiatus’ caused by a period of more rapid warming that imploded his thesis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/
Needless to say, warming did not stop. You’d think these guys would have the grace to be at least a little embarrassed after decades of failed claims. And maybe some are–and have just silently slunk off to attack trans kids, or immigrants, or wind turbines instead. Or maybe we’ll be hearing from them again, soon, if as seems likely 2025 fails to continue the record warm streak we are currently living in.
When I first attended Cambridge in 1969, I took no interest in the student politics. But I did hear from others who were more on the left, of this clown who turned up at the meetings in a gown and mortar board, proclaiming “I’m a fascist!” That was the first time that I heard the name “Christopher Monckton.” So he can tell the truth on occasion.
See 3-post thread:
https://mstdn.social/@JohnMashey/112743920526541935
I updated an old spreadsheet that graphs the regression slopes for N-year intervals, plotted at *end* of interval, with controls to interactively raise/lower the interval size. This elimnates challenge of eyeballing graphs and estimating rates of change in noisy diagonal lines.
Nice! I did something very similar in a post here, looking at 40-year trends.
It’s on FB, here:
https://www.facebook.com/EarthDaySouthCarolina/posts/pfbid02HP5W2sgScFwijPHvBzYVR8R1azSJjTJAC2KrWPXqSW8bW7Kj8qZ1oy1DereEL585l
Kevin: “Lord” Monckton [claimed] “warming had stopped” just about 18 years ago”
I have seen many, including a professor of plant biology from Sweden who claimed that it stopped earlier – their “years and months since the end of the so-called global warming” they counted from the warmest month of the 1997/1998 El Nino…
And of those you quote – I like the one illustrating a recent subject of the deniers confusion about time-scales:
“ Only a fool or a paid lackey with vested interests in keeping the AGW charade going still believe in catastrophic Global Warming. All evidence points to a coming Ice Age, which is due anytime soon“.
I.e. explaining the supposed trend over a dozen of years by the glaciation trends that happened over 10,000s years, and which were driven by very different factors that do not change in any appreciable way over 100s, or 1000s of years.
And then came the obligatory anti-science proclamations:
“ a coming Ice Age, which is due anytime soon, and that is backed up by solid 100% real world historical data, not some BS computer models with programmers in the pay of the environmental movement.”
I.e. a rustic (N. Ontario?) version of our JCM, who also tried to discredit climate science and climate modelling:
JCM Jun 5: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences
[desertification and “massive degradation of land resources”] due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates”
Birds of feather cluck together …
Thanks for reading the link, Piotr!
Well, I’m from Northern Ontario, too, so I don’t grudge ‘Mr. NO’ has origins. Nor does it make you a rustic, necessarily–though we certainly had, and have, ‘rustics’ in Northern Ontario. (But we also have higher education and industry.)
Kevin: “ we also have higher education
I didn’t imply that you don’t – the point was that when one calls themselves: “NorthernOnt”, then rather not to invoke your higher education/research into climate change.
And the quality and the tone of the argument by the said “NorthernOnt”. is … not a strong indication of having been exposed to the higher education … Rather a QAnon-North, or MNOGA (Make Northern Ontario Great Again).
fwiw, we participated in a massive ‘experiment’ which is an early warning of the effects of human interference. We caused the dust bowl when we ploughed up the prairies in a massive giveaway to settlers.
That period is not an exception but another data point on our long road to excess.
Didn’t spend much time looking for backup, but here’s one which looks decent: 1930s Dust Bowl affected extreme heat around Northern Hemisphere: Research points to links between distant climate patterns
https://news.ucar.edu/132872/1930s-dust-bowl-affected-extreme-heat-around-northern-hemisphere
Killian upthread,
“We can easily feed up to 12 billion (for now)”
Spoken like a true disciple of Julian Simon (‘we can feed up to 70 billion people’ and ‘if we’re worried about species extinctions why not just put them in a few zoos’) because he doesn’t think anything other than human beings count.
Monoculture anyone?
Why not rather stop making so many rabbits while we are ahead? And 12? Then it’ll be 14. Then 18. Then 20. Then ….
FYI:
A March 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that:
“If U.S. farmers took all the land currently devoted to raising cattle, pigs and chickens and used it to grow plants instead, they could sustain more than twice as many people as they do now … If beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all were replaced by a nutritionally equivalent combination of potatoes, peanuts, soybeans and other plants, the total amount of food available to be eaten would increase by 120%, the researchers calculated.”
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-more-food-vegan-20180326-story.html
I don’t think that “sustain” is the right verb for this scenario. You would still be practicing unsustainable high intensity agriculture on row crops, with high intensity inputs of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, and irrigation. You could feed a lot more people for a while with this system, if you could somehow convince them to give up meat.
If U.S. farmers took all the land currently devoted to raising cattle, pigs and chickens and used it to grow plants instead, they could sustain more than twice as many people as they do now
Hmm, question is do we need more than twice as many people as we do now? Do we need any more at all? What’s the point? Where’s the limit? This also doesn’t answer my monoculture point.
Besides, I’m not disputing that there’s still land left we can use to grow if we tweak this or that. What I’m saying is WHY the heck grow any more? What’s the point???To grow for the sake of growing? See how many people we can fit on this small rock? We should go backward imo, and soon before it’s too late.
Haven’t we caused enough trouble as it is?
” What’s the point???” It sounds like Bok has reached the Repugnant Conclusion, central to debates about population ethics. The ethical point encompasses Western values of prosperity and humanity’s relationship with the biosphere, but is less central to climate change specifically, on account of I=PAT. For one thing, a small but affluent society powered by transferring fossil carbon to the atmosphere while socializing the climate change costs, can cause more climate change than a larger but poorer society that uses only carbon-neutral energy.
That said: as my ‘nym indicates, I’ve taken his objection to heart, and will leave no offspring. I mean, it’s not like the world actually needs more bourgeois White people.
Bok. I would suggest we don’t need more than twice as many people as now. We don’t need any more people than now. Exponential population growth has transformed the biosphere and is causing huge problems. Just one example. Vast areas of natural habitat have been converted to farmland. Biodiversity is thus now under huge threat. This is in rich and poor countries with different methods of farming, so essentially its sheer numbers of people doing the transforming. Although industrialisation has made the situation worse. The IPAT equation first proposed by Paul Erlich describes the situation quite well.
Studies suggest the ideal global population that minimises environmental problems but achieves adequate economies of scale is from 2 – 5 billion people depending on the study. Before I googled those my instincts were that 2 billion is ideal. As a civilisation we should work towards a smaller population and encourage it by making contraception is easily accessible as possible, improving womens rights, education, etc, etc.
Some countries populations are already shrinking as a natural outcome of the demographic transition. However it will be a difficult path. Lower fertility rates and thus a shrinking population creates a short to medium term problem where a large number of elderly people have to be supprted by decreasing numbers of young people. This will require a lot of policies and changes to make the transition workable. But we probably have no choice. Government programmes to encourage larger families have proven to be costly and futile.
Well, if demographic projections are to be trusted, it’s moot, as we’ll hit Peak People well before either 2x current population, or the end of the century.
Kevin: Well, if demographic projections are to be trusted,
These projection are based on the demographic transition theory – in simplification – if society is affluent enough, it would reduce its population growth. It worked in Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China.
It is not clear that we can extrapolate on the rest of the world – many poor places – squeezed by wars and climate change – may not rich the level of enough affluence and social security to reduce their birth rate. Other countries see the “economical” forces are subjugated to cultural – where culture/religion measures the value of a man by how many children he sires and limits the rights of women – see the high fertility rates among the ultraorthodox Jews and in Saudi Arabia. And they project their influence – for instance among the UN’s 8 Millennium Sustainability Goals – no population control – any notion of it was expunged, as a result of the intense pressure of the Holy Alliance – Vatican and radical Islamic clerics, who for that – overcame their differences …
Finally – there is evolutionary component – even in the countries that went through the demographic transition there seems to be a fertility “rebound” – if women fertility and preference to have many children have genetic component – then over time the proportion of these high-fertility genes in the general population increases:
see for instance:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-fertility-rebound-in-terms-of-HDI-and-GDP-per-capita-Period-1970-2016-OECD_fig1_344268682
To sum up – the idea that we should not worry about population growth because demographic projections will make it soon moot (i.e., that without doing anything we will level off soon at 10-11 bln people and then begin to shrink) – may be not as certain as many think it is.
Piotr. I agree that we can’t assume that the demographic transition will inevitably cause global population growth to stop. However I would suggest the general trend is pointing in that direction.
For example dspite the desire of religious leaders in the muslim world to promote large families, and the annoying influence of Saudi Arabia and Jewish Clerics on global population policy, consider this from Pew Research:”. The average Total Fertility Rate for all 49 Muslim-majority countries has fallen from 4.3 children per woman in 1990-95 to an estimated 2.9 children in 2010-15. Over the next 20 years, fertility rates in these Muslim-majority countries as a whole are expected to continue to decline, though not quite as steeply, dropping to 2.6 children per woman in 2020-25 and 2.3 children in 2030-35 – approaching and possibly reaching replacement levels.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors/
It appears to me that once people want small families its very hard for the authorities to stop them, with the exception of some very hardline countries like Saudi Arabia. But they are in a minority.
The fertility rebound effect. You found a good study there. Here is some related discussion on the genetic component.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/11/08/will-fertility-rebound-new-study-says-yes/
But note the discussion of the other factors that could influence things and reduce the level of the rebound effect:
“Just as important in determining a country’s fertility rate are economic conditions and norms within the broader culture — whether a baby boom in which women without deeply maternal desires feel pressure to have children or, in current conditions, when women are outsiders, and possibly even shamed, for having an above average number of children. ”
And the fertility rebound effect appears to relate to good rates of economic growth:
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173319/1/wp-gut-fme-a-23-DominiakLechmanOkonowicz.pdf
We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely due to 1) resource scarcity and 2) The global warming problem 3) demograpic changes.
The experts seem to think that that global population will peak at about 9 – 10 billion people sometimes this century.
Piotr:
Except that virtually every country tracked by the World Bank shows a decline in national TFR between the global population boom of the 1960s and today. That includes your examples, but also (2022 numbers) India with TFR 2.0, and Brazil at TFR 1.6, Even Mexico, TFR 1,8 – don’t know why you’d exclude it. Another treatment of the same data by Our World in Data, attributes the global fertility decline thusly:
The original links each of the three items to pages documenting the claim. The article goes on to confidently state:<blockquote“The big global demographic transition that the world entered more than two centuries ago is then coming to an end: This new equilibrium is different from the one in the past when it was the very high mortality that kept population growth in check. In the new balance, it will be low fertility that keeps population changes small.”
I, for one, acknowledge your caveats, but the still-declining global TFR is real. Evidently, so are the general improvements in per-capita GDP, access to healthcare, and female empowerment; of course, there’s still wide variation within those. We live in interesting times.
Nigel: ” the fertility rebound effect appears to relate to good rates of economic growth: We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely”
But the problem is that we are gaining a penny while losing a (100? ) pound(s) – the economic downturn will not not ONLY slow the fertility rebound of the very rich (who make up a small part of the global population), but more consequentially – will slow demographic transition from high to low fertility among the poor,
The demographic transition is predicated on good rates of economic growth, since high fertility correlates with being poor: The top five countries in terms of Total Fertility Rate (TFR = avg. number of children in a lifetime per woman) are:
1 Niger 6.6
2 Chad 6.0
3 DR Congo 6.0
4 Somalia 6.0
5 Central African Republic 5.7
Not pnly there are civil wras in most (all?) of them, 4 of these 5 are also among the 6 POOREST countries in the world (“4 out of 5” because Somalia …. is not listed in my <a href=" https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/" source :
Per capita Parity Purchasing Power (PPP) as % of global average PPP:
171 Chad 8%
172 Niger 7%
173 Mozambique 7%
174 DR Congo 6%
175 Central African Republic 5%
176 Burundi 4%
Somalia – not listed (no reliable data?), while two new arrivals Mozambique and Burundi – although not in the top 5 of fertility – are pretty close – 14-th and 9-th, respectively.
In fact, all the assumptions underlying the projections of stabilization of the population in the next few decades – are based on the assumption of economic growth in poor countries being much faster than their population growth. The reality seems to be going in the opposite direction – the income gap between the rich and poor, both between countries, and within countries – increases, and we can’t assume the [global] economic growth to continue indefinitely.
Therefore, a reduction in the economic growth – while possibly reducing the SMALL fertility rebound among the very rich, would be DWARFED by the increase in fertility in the poor countries , because there is MUCH more poor than very rich (of the last billion of people added to Earth – 99% were added in poor countries)
So as long as the poor have enough food not to die of starvation, but not enough opportunities to lift themselves to our level of consumption, and as long as their social systems are fragile – they will have continue 4, 5 or 6 children per women, regardless of the “demographic projections” that require them to achieving affluence and having a stable social system.
That’s why I am skeptical about the Earth populations smoothly levelling off, rather we will continue to increase, until the climate and degradation of soils prevents us from producing enough food for the increasing population – at which point people will start dying, in massive numbers of starvation, diseases and conflict, Which would be the nature’s way to do what we refused to – to cut the Earth population to a sustainable size.
What this size it will be – it depends – the longer we stay over the Earth’s carrying capacity (currently perhaps 40% over?), the more Earth resources will be irreversibly used up, and the lower the future Earth carrying capacity, which based on the still unused resources, will be.
MalAdapted: “ Except that virtually every country tracked by the World Bank shows a decline in national TFR between the global population boom of the 1960s and today. That includes your examples, ”
Really? Since the TFR in my examples was 5.7 to 6.6 (.today:) what according to you were these numbers 1960 where the global population growth rate was about 2.5 times today’s rate? Average 15 children per woman?
Mal: “ but also (2022 numbers) India with TFR 2.0, and Brazil at TFR 1.6, Even Mexico, TFR 1,8 – don’t know why you’d exclude it.
Wasn’t it obvious? The projections of the demographic transition RELY on achieving relative affluence, and social stability. Your India, Brazil and Mexico have achieved those, hence their lower TFR.
But it does not mean that the same will happen to dozens of the still poor and/or ravaged by conflicts countries, countries where most of the global population growth today happens, particularly when we discuss Nigel’s statement
“ We cant assume good rates of economic growth continue indefinitely”
So if the economic growth stalls and/or civil strife intensifies – the poor will remain poor and therefore will continue to have many children, thus negating the demographic projections based on continued economic growth and increasing affluence.
And to illustrate THAT – I have chosen the five countries to show what happens to TFR, if you DON’T reach affluence and/or social/political peace:
country TFR: % of global avg. per capita internal conflicts/civil wars
purchasing power:(PPP)
1 Niger 6.6 7% yes
2 Chad 6.0 8% yes
3 DR Congo 6.0 6% yes
4 Somalia 6.0 N/A yes
5 Central African Republic 5.7 5% ?
So why to illustrate what happens to TFR if growth fails, and the POVERTY and CONFLICT rein – would I NOT use the examples of ….poverty and conflict, and instead use YOUR examples of … relative affluence and stability^* ????
——
^* Mal:: I don’t know why you’d exclude [India, Brazil and Mexico] .)
Piotr. Excellent points. As you correctly say the demographic transition towards low fertility involves escaping from poverty and slowing economic growth reduces the escape from poverty (Paraphasing). But doesn’t it depend on how quickly economic growth slows down over this century and next? If Africa gets wealthy enough before economic growth slows too much they could lock in low fertility.
And how much poverty do you need to escape? Because one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children.. This indicates that contraception may be the main factor in lowering fertility. You dont need to be a rich country for people to be able to afford to buy contraception. You just need moderate levels of income, easy availability, and basic awareness. I tried to find the study but I just can’t, but I have a clear recollection of its findings.
And even if Africa doesnt get to replacement levels its remaining population growth might be cancelled by shrinking populations in other countries.
I know there are dozens of caveats, fish hooks, and counter arguments…
Zebra will be crying in his cornflakes if he read your post.
NIgel: “ one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children..”
Exactly, Nigel – this points to the need of a concerted action to reduce TFR – not flinging your legs on the table and implying that such an action ^* is “moot” since the demographic transition would do it for us anyway.
Particularly, that your example has shown that direct action – can succeed MUCH FASTER without waiting for increasing affluence and stable social support system in the old age (the lack of which drives the TFR up, since it is your sons and their spouses who are expected to support you financially in your old age).
—-
^* By direct action I mean: free access to contraceptives, contraceptive education, as well as girls education ,and increasing women’s economical opportunity and rights – so they are no longer are seen primarily as machines to churning up, preferably, sons, so their husbands can be respected for their fertility.
Without the latter – making contraceptives free or very affordable won’t affect TFR among the ultraorthodox Jews or in Saudi Arabia, since the women there don’t have much say about their bodies, and therefore about use of contraceptives, and don’t have much social opportunities in their lives other than producing and raising children.
Piotr, we may have gotten afoul of the limits on reply nesting here. You started out with:
In my first response, I was referring to your examples of “Europe. USA and Canada (but not necessarily in Mexico), Japan and seems now in China.”. My argument is that while not every “third-world” nation has been through the classic demographic transition of rising per-capita income and lower TFR since the peak of global TFR in 1963, the TFR data show that practically every country has reduced its internal TFR since then, in some cases after a later peak than the global one. Your later examples, with their current and peak TFRs:
1 Niger 6.6: down from 7.9 in 1985
2 Chad 6.0: down from 7.3 in 1993
3 DR Congo 6.0: down from 6.7 in 1987
4 Somalia 6.0: down from 7.7 in 1997
5 Central African Republic 5.7; down from 6.1 in 1981
Of those five nations, only the DR Congo and Central African Republic have experienced little or no decline of TFR. Their total populations add up to about 100 million. They are swamped by the globe’s 8 billion. Otherwise, global TFR wouldn’t be trending downward.
Your observations about nations whose GDP hasn’t kept up with population growth are cogent, and warrant a level of concern. My point is that the global trend of TFR is still down, and already close to global replacement rate; and the countries with the largest current populations are all at or below internal replacement rate. Both high TFR and low per-capita GDP will cause social and political unrest in your five nations, but those five contribute little to global population growth, which is still on track to end this century. What we are likely to see, however, is more emigration from high-TFR countries. What the direct impact on the biosphere of more migration is, independent of global population growth, I won’t attempt to estimate.
Mal Jul.18: “ those five contribute little to global population growth
Those five were just extreme examples – but well above the replacement TFR there were MANY DOZENS of countries. In Africa alone:
See IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion.
That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone
Your India still has 0.8% growth rate and in 2023 added 11.5 mln. Then you have Indonesia + 2.6mln , Pakistan +4.7mln, Bangladesh + 1.7 mln, – that’s despite already having 1330 people per km2!
So:
1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.
2. You have countries where cultural/religious norms overpower the economic factors demographic transition. I recall an interview with well a surgeon in Palestine. Given his professional/affluence status – he should have 1 or 2 kids. He had 7.
3. On top of that, the affluent countries experience the TFR rebound – by a combination of genetic self selections (those who can and want to have more children – over time increase % of their genes in the population) and immigration from poor countries that typically bring with them the cultural preference for having more children.
To sum up – I am not sure that I share Kevin’s optimism:
“ if demographic projections are to be trusted, it’s moot“
Piotr:
Fair enough. Somewhat to my surprise, I find I do share Kevin’s optimism, having witnessed the population bomb going off in the 1960s and 70s, but then reach a limit and start to fade away. To be sure, there was a time when I felt alarmed by exponential population growth, but the data have relieved me of that. I’m now getting used to the idea that subsequent changes in our sheer numbers will matter less to the pace of the Sixth Great Extinction, than changes in our aggregate economic and technological wherewithal. As to that: US voters, please vote Democratic in November, no matter who the party’s POTUS candidate is!
Piotr says @ 18 JUL 2024 AT 8:07 AM
NIgel: “ one of the very poor sub saharan african countries, might be niger, carried out an experiment where the government gave away free contraception to several rural villages, and the birth rate absolutely plumetted down to 2 – 3 children..”
Piotr; “Exactly, Nigel – this points to the need of a concerted action to reduce TFR – not flinging your legs on the table and implying that such an action ^* is “moot” since the demographic transition would do it for us anyway.”
Nigel: Agreed to the extent that If we want population growth to stop ASAP and to be as certain as possible it will stop, its going to need something a bit more than just waiting for people to be wealthy and wise enough. Its going to need a push from governments with programmes to increase availability and reduce costs of contraception, etcetera.
But that was not my point. The conventional explanation of the demographic transition is its driven by rising incomes, high quality healthcare and education, improved womens rights, and social security. These are undoubtably all factors ( and all desirable for multiple reasons) but the experiment in niger with free contraceptives lead to a huge drop in the fertility rate even although modern health care and education is very basic and women dont have many rights as in western culture, all suggesting cheap or free contraception is pivotal meaning Africa probably doesnt need first world living standards to have low fertility / zero population growth.
Piotr respsonse to MA: “See IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion. That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone”
Nigel: Ok but maybe its possible that enough other countries will have shrinking populations to offset growing populations in Africa. Of course populations will not shrink forever but Africa wont have a perpetually growing population either because it will hit the hard limits of its geography, and it should be noted other countries are becoming resistant to immigration from Africa.So it wont cancel their shrinking populations.
Using Mal Adapteds numbers for the poorest countries with the slowest decline in fertility and extrapolating the trend their population growth will stop early to middle of next century. Others will likely stop well before then.
Piotr to MA: “1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.”
Nigel: Im not sure about this. Lets take Japan a relatively wealthy country already with a shrinking population. Its had rather dismal levels of economic growth in recent decades, but lets say that economic growth stopped completely. Then why would fertility rate reverse and go up? I cant see a reason because all the requirements are there for low fertility: Good incomes, education and healthcare. It would have reached a threshold locking in low fertility yes?
Now if economic growth went NEGATIVE for a long period (maybe you meant this?) then I reckon you would be right fertility rate would start to increase as income dropped, social security degrades, contraceptive costs become significant. Although I think it would have to be substantially negative economic growth, because as per the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions.
But it does suggest one thing: The HUGE degrowth promoted By Killian could lead to a surge in high fertility. Oops! This is the problem with these degrowth and simplification plans. The unintended consequences could be huge.
Correction to my previous comment to Piotr @19 JUL 2024 AT 4:36 PM
“These are undoubtably all factors ( and all desirable for multiple reasons) but the experiment in niger with free contraceptives lead to a huge drop in the fertility rate even although modern health care and education is very basic and women dont have many rights as in western culture, all suggesting (words cheap and free deleted) CONTRACEPTION is pivotal meaning Africa probably doesnt need first world living standards to have low fertility / zero population growth”
However it would certainly help if governmnets also made contraception more easily available and lower cost or free. In fact declining fertility in some countries especially Asia, has already been driven by government programmes promoting family planning. So it wasnt just caused by the rising prosperity of the DT.
Piotr 18 JUL “IMF: “ Fueled by a combination of falling mortality and some of the highest birth rates in the world, Africa’s total population has increased tenfold and now stands at over 1.4 billion. The United Nations projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion. That’s adding 1 bln in mere 25 years by by Africa alone”
Nigel: 19 JUL Ok but maybe its possible that enough other countries will have shrinking populations to offset growing populations in Africa.
That’s …. unlikely
1. exponential growth is not symmetric: – in absolute numbers – grows much faster on the up side than shrinks on the down side:- in our IMF example above
– Africa today has 1.4bln, in 2050 will gain have 1100 mln. That requires avg. growth rate of + 2.2% /yr.
– Coincidentally, China today has also about 1.4 bln. So let’s see if the identical but opposite in sign, growth rate, – 2.2% /yr, would cancel out the Africa’s growth:
1.4 bln, over 27 years and growth rate -2.2% would shrink by 630 mln
So even at the same growth rate, just different sign, Africa would gain almost twice as much as China would lose.
2. But China won’t have anywhere close to the -2.2%/yr – even countries that have been for many decades in the postindustrial stage – don’t shrink anywhere near this rate : – Japan -0.2%, or actually keep growing: Germany +0.5%, Sweden +1%.
Probably as result of the demographic rebound and as a result of immigration – which brings in people from high TFR-cultures. And by the same reason as demographic rebound – their population in the general population will increase even if you close the border for the new arrivals.
Nigel: Using Mal Adapteds numbers for the poorest countries with the slowest decline in fertility and extrapolating the trend their population growth will stop early to middle of next century.
The whole point is that the extrapolation may not be justified – what held true at the time of economic growth , may not continue to apply in the growth, under pressure of population and climate change, stops or becomes negative.
– Piotr to MA: “1. There is nothing to say that if the economic growth does not continue forever – then the decrease in TFR brought upon by increased affluence – would not reverse.”
– Nigel: Im not sure about this. Lets take Japan a relatively wealthy country already with a shrinking population. Its had rather dismal levels of economic growth
They are still heads and shoulders above the GDP/capita level in the developing countries with high TFR,
NIgel: “ why would fertility rate reverse and go up? ” for the same reason they dropped – if have to count of your children to support you in the old age – you will need more kids. If the industries and city life collapses and you move back to the country – you will need more kids to help you grow crops, look after livestock, or babysit your siblings when parents do that.
If your professional career prospects collapse – stay at home mother becomes the only alternative. If travel, leisure pursuits, social life dry up – sex becomes the main entertainment in town.
Nigel: the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions
which is my another point – cheap and available contraception is in example of a direct action, i.e. the very opposite of doing nothing counting on demographic transition (based
on a linear extrapolation of the past into possibly a very different future) to do it for us.
I’m not ready to give up on simple HTML yet! Piotr:
Speaking as a once-wannabe evolutionary biologist, I was skeptical that selection for family size could affect future global TFR in a meaningful timeframe. Certainly, the current falling global TFR suggests that exponential population growth 60 years ago wasn’t much driven by the heritability of fertility, or TFR wouldn’t have immediately begun to fall, as cultural factors became conducive to voluntarily fertility limitation in country after country. IOW, the global scope of the classic demographic transition is more consistent with low heritability of fertility.
However, I did a quick’n’dirty search for “heritability of human fertility” on Google Scholar, and got a bunch of potentially interesting hits. One peer-reviewed article in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior is titled The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in the foreseeable future. From the Introduction:
.
Well, there you go. It appears your concern has some expert support, although the above authors hedge their language nicely. I’m not inspired to get deep into how expert it is, possibly because I’ve voluntarily limited myself out of the gene pool altogether. I leave debate over the role of selection for human fertility in the near term to otters.
Piotr,
“exponential growth is not symmetric: – in absolute numbers – grows much faster on the up side than shrinks on the down side:-”
Thanks. I admit didnt realise this. I asked the microsoft AI chat bot for the details and got a great explanation. So yes you are right shrinking populations wont cancel growing populations. Although I would suggest the shrinking populations will help reduce the effects of growing population and Africa cant grow indefinitely.
“And by the same reason as demographic rebound – their (Africans) population in the general population will increase even if you close the border for the new arrivals.”
If the Africans are in another society with higher incomes, better social security etc wouldnt their fertility rate match local communities. Or are you arguing immigrants end up in the low paying jobs. But only some of them end up in low paying jobs and its still likely higher pay than in Africa. So the problem may not be all that significant.
“why would fertility rate reverse and go up (if economic growth stops) ? ” for the same reason they dropped – if have to count of your children to support you in the old age – you will need more kids. If the industries and city life collapses and you move back to the country – you will need more kids to help you grow crops, look after livestock, or babysit your siblings when parents do that.
I already acknowledged that process would happen if economic growth stoppped AND economices then started to shrink. Its not clear why it would happen if economies hit zero economic growth but didnt then shrink, a likely outcome medium term. I assume you must be thinking its inevitable economies will shrink considerably very long term, which does seem possible to me .
“the Niger example the key factor seems to be just moderate levels of social security and cheap contraceptions…which is my another point – cheap and available contraception is in example of a direct action, i.e. the very opposite of doing nothing counting on demographic transition (based on a linear extrapolation of the past into possibly a very different future) to do it for us.”
Fair point. However my point in my corrected response above thread was that the Niger gave away free contraceptives and fertility plumetted despite lack of much health care or social security, therefore contraception (free or otherwise) is the key factor in the demograpic transition) not high levels of wealth or advanced health systems. But clearly making contraception free is helpful and would speed up the demographic transition.
Nigel “If the Africans are in another society with higher incomes, better social security etc wouldnt their fertility rate match local communities.
Only if they fully integrate – both economically and ESPECIALLY – culturally. There are few indications of that happening – if anything the opposite trend is seen – the closing of the borders to the new immigrants you have mentioned is caused precisely by the failure of this integration. So if you are living in the impoverished ghetto and identify with the culture and religion of your ancestors – then you TFR is more similar to that of your ancestors than the country you living in, but which is rejecting you.
Nigel: “ But only some of them end up in low paying jobs and its still likely higher pay than in Africa”
But the costs of living are much higher too – so for the sense of social fairness it matters only how well off you are compared to your neighbours (from the dominant culture). And if you feel that the system is unfair to you – you won’t integrate, and instead you stick to the culture and religion of your group.
Nigel: “ Its not clear why it would happen if economies hit zero economic growth but didnt then shrink ”
“zero economic growth” – by modern societies based on perpetual growth means “stagnation”, and “stagnation” -> less financial “security” -> TFR may go up .
If that didn’t happen yet in your Japan example, it means that Japan’s previous affluence was so high, that even with a stagnation – they don’t see themselves as a Third World country.
NIgel “ clearly making contraception free is helpful and would speed up the demographic transition”
My point is the these two are DIFFERENT things – so Kevin and Mal’s relaxed attitude that
direct actions are “moot” because demographic transition would do it for us anyway – is unjustified for two reasons:
1. because there are questions whether the demographic transition will indeed continue in case of the climate change and uncertain economic growth
2. and even if it does – not waiting for it, but lowering the population growth with direct actions (like family planning) – would level off the Earth population MUCH quicker – meaning at the lower overall level, and reduce the damage to the life-supporting systems by staying over the “optimal” carrying capacity of Earth for humans: the bigger the overshoot, and the longer it lasts, the bigger the damage to others species, and the lower the future Earth carrying capacity for humans.
Mal A.: “ I leave debate over the role of selection for human fertility in the near term to otters. [link to Judith Curry site] ”
I’ve met a sealion (named Kalisz), but what type of denial do otters do?
==
^* Sealioning: “ a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate” ),
Piotr: “I’ve met a sealion (named Kalisz), but what type of denial do otters do?”
Some otters play ClimateBall (https://climateball.wordpress.com). A handful of RC regulars also frequent the And Then There’s Physics blog (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com). If you don’t, you may not be acquainted with its moderator, Canadian philosopher “Willard”, a soi-disant “ninja” whose whimsical sense amuses me. He’s got a long history of skewering denialist rhetoric on the Internet, and occasionally leaves comments here. His comment at Curry’s place 10 years ago is probably not his first coinage of “otters” in this context, but it’s the earliest I could find with a quick search! Maybe he’ll see this and correct me.
Piotr
“Only if they (immigrants) fully integrate – both economically and ESPECIALLY – culturally. There are few indications of that happening – if anything the opposite trend is seen – the closing of the borders to the new immigrants you have mentioned is caused precisely by the failure of this integration. So if you are living in the impoverished ghetto and identify with the culture and religion of your ancestors – then you TFR is more similar to that of your ancestors than the country you living in, but which is rejecting you.”
It seems like you are essentially right. I had a quick look at the published studies on fertility rates of immigrants, particularly in developed countries where the host countries are poor like Africa. The immigrant communities do generally have considerably higher fertility rates than the native born people, although the descendants of immigrants generally have lower fertility rates gradually converging over time on the host countries rates. But this can be a lengthy process.
It all makes me wonder why the experts mostly think global population growth will stop later this century. Because your counter arguments are pretty good. I haven’t had time to look in depth but they must believe that the growth in Africas population in the next few decades, and of poor getto communities in wealthy countries, will be swamped longer term (end of century) by the declines in the rest of the world / population.
But it comes back to the main point that if economic growth were to slow down significantly in coming decades the demographic transition could stall (that we both agree on) and would require additional forced measures like government programmes, free contraceptives, etc,etc.
Several governments in SE Asian countries had family planning programmes in the 1970s and 1980s ( I think) and these definitely accelerated the emerging natural decline in fertility due to the DT process. But Africa seems a bit more reluctant to have such programmes. So we are very reliant on those governmnets waking up and putting their biases and cultural values of having large families aside. I admit I’m a bit sceptical about this, because Africas governments are amongst the most hopelessly incompetent around..
Bok wrote: “What’s the point?”
The point is that if we can feed twice as many people from the same amount of land, then we can feed the current population from half as much land, thereby returning half of current farmland to nature.
But the interesting question… if we want to do real science… is how much land would be required to feed …
.9 Current Population
.8 CP
.7 CP
.6 CP
.5 CP
.4 CP
.3 CP
.2 CP
.1 CP
…?
But this question seems to be too much of a challenge for all the folks who think they are good at that math stuff. They only seem comfortable with straight lines.
I’m for that of course. But we don’t need to increase our population to do that do we? I mean what’s the point in increasing human population growth? Growth for the sake of growth? Cause as of now that’s what’s going on. It’s a runaway freight train. There’s even less attention being thought out about it at the highest levels than Climate Change.
Julian Simon suggested that the more people there are the more likely that there will be another Beethoven or Einstein or some genius. So he was willing to sacrifice the earth and billions of years of evolution for that possibility. Doesn’t sound too well thought out to me.
MAR 4 JUL 2024 AT 6:30 AM “three-decade period where the rate of warming was stuck at roughly +0.2ºC/decade and ask why it persisted until the 2015-16” I randomly came across tropical Pacific wind speed plot in 2013 when I started taking a look at global warming. It was unchanging for decades (ups&downs) but
started a big trend up in 1995. By 2012 the wind on that plot was 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. I’d already plotted in early 2013 GAST on paper 1960-2012 and trended La Nina & ENSO-neutral points by eye with a pretty-solid +0.165/decade each but the messy El Ninos were clearly trending higher (but big uncertainty on how much) with 2 lines a much better fit than one. The lines had intersected at 1995 CE (I see John Mashey above has 1995 for something changed) so of course that 1995 CE match interested me. Then just 6 mopnths or so later I came across 14 February 2014 “Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus” Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
—–
“We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales” “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
—–
“When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures”. Perhaps that uncommon Atlantic Ocean wind-coupling *change* effect on tropical Pacific came to an end in 2015.
Copernicus ERA5 has reported for June with the hottest June on record It is the 11th highest monthly global anomaly, the the top nine anomalies being July 2023 – March 2024 with the peak of the 2015/16 El Niño Feb 2016 in 10th place. April-May 2024 sit 12th & 13th in this ranking.
Despite a general cooling trend globally, the June 2024’s anomaly sits above April & May’s, this due to there being a bit of a warm wobble in the northern hemisphere thro’ July. (See graphics HERE – FIRST POSTED 15th December 2023 showing Global, NH & SH ERA5 5-day-rolling averages.)
June 2024 is the 13th “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-a-row. (It will presumably be the final “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-this-row as anomalies are generally falling by the month and, after a cooler start to July 2024, to top July 2023 (+0.72ºC) the coming 25 days would require a significant upward wobble for the rest of July averaging above +0.77ºC.)
Previous nine hottest Junes comprise Junes 2015-23, with the hottest of those (so now 2nd placed) 2023 being head-&-shoulders above previous years, and below them, the El Niño year 1998 now dropped down to 11th hottest. They run:-
2023 +0.53ºC, 2019 +0.37ºC, 2020 +0.36ºC, 2022 +0.31ºC, 2016 +0.26ºC, 2018 +0.23ºC, 2021 +0.21ºC, 2017 +0.20ºC, 2015 +0.19ºC & 1998 +0.18ºC.
And GISTEMP has reported for June with an anomaly of +1.21ºC the hottest June on record, this a rise on the May anomaly (+1.16ºC) within a generally dropping sequence of anomalies since the start of the year. (Prior to June, the average Jan-May is +1.31ºC.)
June 2024 is the 13th highest all-month global anomaly, the twelve higher monthly anomalies including from before the “bananas of 2023, Feb & Mar 2016 and Feb 2020.
June 2024 is also the 13th “scorchyisimo!!!” month-in-a-row and it will require a lower anomaly (which appears likely) for July for us not to be the 14th in-a-row as the July 2023 anomaly was +1.19ºC.
The previous hottest GISTEMP (now 2nd-placed June 2023, +1.08ºC) sat well above previous hot Junes, 2022 +0.94ºC, 2020 +0.91ºC, 2019 +0.90ºC, 2021 +0.84ºC.
With half the year now gone, with all six months the warmest-of-each-month on record, the rest of 2024 would have to average below +1.06ºC for the full calendar year not to gain hottest-on-record from 2023.
#Permaculture
#Climate
#Solutions
#CarbonSequestration
#Biodiversity
#EcosystemRestoration
Et al.
Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate, etc. The results several times the outcomes of conventional farming systems across a broad range of effects while maintaining equal production. a few notes:
1. The study does not actually study permaculture at all sites (and possibly none) as the requirement to be included in the study only required the inclusion of 2 of a set of criteria. Their results must logically be understood to be the low end of potential improved outcomes yet are very significant.
2. No loss in output is incorrect. The paper does not account for nutrient density. Conventional farms produce nutrient-deficient food. Regenerative systems produce nutrient-dense foods. The actual output in terms of nutrient density will be 40%- to 60% higher, not equal, as demonstrated by past research. This richness has positive outcomes for reducing obesity, improving health, and reducing the area of land needed to feed a given population.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01405-8
Findings:
On permaculture sites soil organic carbon content (3.4 ± 0.3 g 100 g−1) was 71% higher compared to control fields of this study (2.0 ± 0.3 g 100 g−1) as well as 94% higher than on average German arable fields (1.8 ± 0.2 g 100 g−1) and by trend 18% higher than on average German grasslands (2.9 ± 0.2 g 100 g−1; Fig. 1a) according to the first comprehensive soil inventory 36.
Carbon stocks within the first 30 cm were 27% higher on permaculture sites (87 ± 9 t ha−1) compared to control fields (68 ± 8 t ha−1) and 37% higher than on average German arable fields (62 ± 3 t ha−1; Fig. 1c)36.
There was no significant difference between permaculture sites and average German grasslands (90 ± 4 t ha−1), indicating that permaculture is able to store similar levels of carbon as grassland while still producing a share of arable crops such as vegetables and grains.
The proportion of permanent grassland among all permaculture sites was 67% (Table 2). In addition, humic topsoil was 59% deeper on permaculture sites (45 ± 4 cm) compared to control fields (28 ± 2 cm; Fig. 1b), suggesting an even higher difference in organic carbon stock.
As has been stated on these pages for well over a decade, #Permaculture/#TEK are not just nice little additions to our set of tools, they are central to achieving a regenerative society.
Reply to Bok:
Your comment https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823052 is absurdly cherry-picked, off-base and insulting. I have posted on these boards since 2007; perhaps you should peruse some of my output before spouting Ad Hom foolishness – particularly since your comment indicates we think along the same lines.
Good christ…
Hmm. Just quoting you. You said, ”We can easily feed up to 12 billion (for now)” in dispute of Don Williams mention of feeding 8 billion mouths the problem, I took that to mean that you have no problem with that. Yes we can feed lots more people, of course, but only if we continue to take space from all the other forms of life out there. Continue with the 6th extinction.
Unless you meant we can through vertical farming in skyscrapers? Perhaps hydroponically? But then remember that food is not our only use of limited earthly materials. People = problems. Period. MORE people = more problems.
This subject reminds me, btw, of a movie I one watched called Silent Running. Depressing. Anyway, sorry if I misunderstood you.
I look at each comment or statement as a the person’s current stand alone position. Don’t want to, or have the time to, research what each person might have said in the past.
Bok, the problem is that people have a hard time with change, and with imagining a different paradigm, and with letting go of what they consider their “wisdom” and “righteousness”. As somebody said, doing science (and even engineering, which is what this topic really is) requires recognizing the risk of fooling yourself.
Although I didn’t remember the film, and had to look it up, I think your seeing a connection is reasonable.
Here’s my sci-fi scenario:
A benevolent and all-powerful inter-dimensional species finds 10 uninhabited planets ecologically identical to Earth prior to the expansion of humanity. They offer to split up the human species completely randomly, 800M to each planet, and provide whatever technological basis each group would choose (current tech only, e.g. fossil fuels or renewables or nuclear and so on).
The only condition is that there will be a mechanism that (again randomly) limits fertility so that the population doesn’t increase.
This would make many people terribly unhappy… including those here who ramble on endlessly about the highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached.
For them, it doesn’t count if we have a sustainable ecosystem and egalitarian socioeconomic paradigm that occurs because it is the best choice in terms of individual self-interest. Which would be the case in this scenario.
It just doesn’t count.
Don’t quite understand you mean here but The Selfish Gene does work when we have a large and diverse ecosystem that balances out all the accounts in the end to ensure the continuation of life on earth, as evolution has so laboriously provided us, giving us that sustainable ecosystem.
It doesn’t much when we have a monoculture because all opponents either don’t exist or have been removed like the rabbit explosion in Australia – or the human population of earth.
What a sad day that will be if we get to the point of just putting all the endangered animals in zoos, as Simon proposed (the writing’s on the wall for them – seems a terrible waste of evolution doesn’t it?). What a sad day that will be too when the only green nature that exists is a perfectly manicured, human engineered construct devoid of any hint of the wild.
Hmm. Maybe we should think this through while we can….
Bok, sorry if I mixed in too many concepts, but here’s the simplified version:
1. If there are 8 billion humans, than it is rational to fight over control of resources and exploit/extract them as much as possible, which leads to the “monoculture” type of situation you describe. It’s a matter of individual self-interest to do that.
2. If there are 800 million humans, and the population is not increasing, then (1) doesn’t make any sense as a matter of individual self-interest.
This is about numbers, which science is supposed to honor. Divide the US population by 10, and you get 35 million people. That’s less than the current population of California… the entire population could live on the west coast, or the east coast. [In a comment last month, I used the number 1.6 billion, so you could have equal numbers on the two coasts.]
Not only would there be vast amounts of territory for all the other parts of nature, but the human culture… technology, socioeconomic/political structure, and so on… would be completely different.
The problem I was bringing up was that people don’t want to think about this as scientists… they are attached to concepts grounded in the 8 billion situation, or applicable to cultures without our modern science and technology. They want to moralize about how they think people should organize their lives, rather than accepting that rational self-interest, given the appropriate environment, will solve all the problems they wish to solve.
z: 1. If there are 8 billion humans, than it is rational to fight over control of resources and exploit/extract them as much as possible, which leads to the “monoculture” type of situation you describe. It’s a matter of individual self-interest to do that.
2. If there are 800 million humans, and the population is not increasing, then (1) doesn’t make any sense as a matter of individual self-interest.
BPL: I can’t see any way to get from 8 billion to 800 million without either a horrible collapse of civilization or reducing the birth rate to slightly below the death rate and waiting about a thousand years.
BPL,
First, wasn’t there just a discussion about the “collapse of civilization” here? In which I had to point out that a population decline would be a likely consequence?
Second, you are one of the people who is supposed to be thinking like a scientist, but instead you ignore the point of the exercise in favor of facile rhetoric.
What we do in physics (and other sciences) is look at extreme values in order to understand the underlying fundamental principles. Einstein didn’t really think people could ride bicycles at close to the speed of light, right?
So the point is to let go of the preconceptions that have developed because we live in the 8B paradigm. Some things would obviously be very different at .8B; the question is what would likely be the same.
And the point of that question is to then work out the variation with population over the range in question… do the math, looking for the factors that might be “tipping points” and so on, just like we do with the analogously complex, non-linear, climate system.
Maybe it’s just too hard to let go, even if being a scientist is supposedly all about objectivity and not fooling oneself. Too bad.
Yes, that’s the problem with the ‘population solution.’ We don’t have a huge amount of control over that variable, especially on relatively short time frames, unless we want to accept genocide on a scale that would beggar the Holocaust. We can and should do all the things we’ve previously discussed as helpful on this forum, but there is no ‘quick fix.’
z: Maybe it’s just too hard to let go, even if being a scientist is supposedly all about objectivity and not fooling oneself. Too bad.
BPL: Maybe you can sit on it and rotate. Yes, I think that’s more likely.
Kevin:
Well, no. “We” are just a bunch of virtual IDs on the Internet. OTOH if “we” refers to everyone alive, what would acceptance of genocide look like? A global, universal plebiscite on the question “should 90% of everyone now living be killed?” Should not everyone be allowed to vote? Who, then, is “we”? Let’s not even go there, please.
No. The only plausible collective intervention in global human population dynamics is by, as BPL says:
As we’ve seen, collective intervention to reduce birth rates need not be direct. China’s one-child policy was effective, but unless China takes over the world (not implausible, but not likely IMHO), collectively supported “family planning” assistance may have less impact on TFR than internal and international programs to improve family health, eliminate child labor, and generally empower females. We might not have to wait that long, either. Right now, even after the 1-child policy was eased to a 2-child maximum in 2015, China’s TFR is only 1.2, and its population growth rate is already negative. A number of developed nations including Spain, Italy and Japan, are equally infertile, and already shrinking. South Korea’s current TFR is 0.8! Those countries will shrink by large fractions in each succeeding generation, unless immigration from still-growing nations keeps pace. And the migrants fleeing economic, social and political turmoil in their still-growing countries may even find a qualified welcome in shrinking countries that want more workers. There will still be plenty of collective resistance to immigration, however, for all the reasons there always has been. It won’t be pretty!
The upshot: IMHO, it’s hard to imagine any global “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” driving a more rapid global population decline than is already occurring without it. This really is a unique moment in history.
Mal, accepting genocide would look much like contemporary Ukraine, except with nuclear and biological weapons, and everybody “playing” with them who had them. Which is, tragically, something humanity just conceivably might “accept” in effect if not by intention.
If it wasn’t already clear, let me say that that would be a terrible, terrible scenario.
Step one in avoiding it: vote Democratic this fall, if you are a US voter.
Kevin: <blockquoteif it wasn’t already clear, let me say that that would be a terrible, terrible scenario.
It was clear. I know you weren’t taking a mass-death solution to the population problem seriously. Sorry if my comment sounded like I was criticizing you for that.
No, Bok. Completely wrong. You are new here. Listen first, speak second, don’t assume, eh? I’ve been talking about regenerative systems here for 15 years. Avoid assumptions in the future.
We CAN feed 12B does not = I ADVOCATE for feeding 12B. In fact, demographics strongly indicate we never will. Thus… the context was clear: I was correcting a false assertion about population and food supply. FOR NOW, food supply is not the problem. FOR NOW, all the very unsustainable methods you mention are not necessary and are solutions looking for a problem AND are a huge opportunity cost as billions go into nonsense tech ag instead of improving our soils – which would solve food supply issues AND climate change.
Clear?
Killian says: Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate,
Let’s see:
– your study gives the carbon sequestration on permaculture sites of 0.8t ha−1 yr−1
– global area of croplands ~= 1.25 10^9 ha.
So if (and that’s a big IF ) – we somehow managed to export the practices from hobby farms from Germany (“mean area of 2.8 ha”) to ALL croplands – i.e. to all size of farms, in different climates. with different crop-growing traditions – all over the worlds – the resulting sequestration would be:
= 0.8t ha−1 yr−1 * 1.25 10^9 ha = 1 Gton C per year. Current emissions are about … 10 Gt
If only half of the world croplands were converted to that – then it this becomes 5 % of global C emissions. Furthermore – the authors write:
The carbon input [of soil] is increased by the application of organic matter in the form of compost, livestock manure, organic mulch, or terra preta. It should be noted that overall carbon sequestration may be lower if part of this organic matter originates from outside the permaculture site and would otherwise have been stored in soils elsewhere.
Which means – even less GHG mitigation/ha.
Furthermore, the C sequestration is only 27% higher than on the control sites without permaculture. therefore, So for the NET sequestration from switch the crop practices – whatever we have left after the series of downward corrections above – it would have to be further divided 4.
And that’s only with C-sequestion effect on the climate. then we have to account for the effect on evaporation: no tilling, probably no rice fields covered with water – means less evaporation => less clouds => more warming, which would further offset at least a part of the cooling from the C-sequestration.
All these TAKEN TOGETHER mean that while the permaculture practices may be positive to a wide range of ecosystem issues – for the subject of THIS forum – mitigation of AGW, they are rather …. of limited effectiveness, to put it mildly.
But thank you, Killian, for finally finding a study that allowed us to test with NUMBERS the bold qualitative claims you have been making for years ^*
——
^* “ I have posted on these boards since 2007” (c) Killian]
Piotr: You are a liar and a troll. You points are, frankly, intentionally stupid distortions. I said, e.g., the farms used were almost certainly not even close to being regenerative. The criterion used did not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing. Bio-char alone can get us back to < 300ppm if scaled.
Shush You are not now and never will be part of the solution; you enjoy trolling far too much.
nigel (up-thread): "The HUGE degrowth promoted By Killian could lead to a surge in high fertility. Oops! This is the problem with these degrowth and simplification plans. The unintended consequences could be huge."
Jesus wept at the utter ignorance: Regenerative societies are, by definition, deeply knowledgeable about their ecosystems. Why do you think they currently maintain 80% of remaining bio-diversity without destroyng it with massive populations? Will you never use your damned head?
There are ZERO ecosystem-destroying unintendedconsequences of degrowth.
Shush.
Kevin (up thread):
It's not at all a false dichotomy. The money going into CO2 dwarfs funding for actual solutions by orders of magnitude. If we had a chart of what is funded and what is not, I doubt you could make a chart large enough for actual solutions to be visible.
nigel (upthread): "But by Amazon region I meant the ‘wider’ region of modern Brazil."
Bull. This is a sleight of hand you try whenever you say something ridiculous.
" Its a very basic lifestyle, so of course its more sustainable than ours."
It was in no way "basic." It required an incredibly detailed knowledge of the space, all kept within their heads, and despite a lower population, the population pressure overall would have been very similar, as already demonstrated.
As I have said since 2016, you simply do not belong in these conversations and should edit yourself out of them. You should be the student, not pretending to be the teacher.
BPl (upthread): No, you need to read it.
Killian 21 JUL : You are a liar and a troll. You points are, frankly, intentionally stupid distortions
Let the reader decide. Here are your words in question:
Killian 9 JUL
” #Permaculture #Climate #Solutions #CarbonSequestration #Biodiversity #EcosystemRestoration
Finally! A comprehensive study of the effects of Permaculture Design on the food system, thus ecosystems generally, and therefore climate.”
Then Killian praises the study by saying that it proved that Permaculture Design has “several times the outcomes of conventional farming systems across a broad range of effects while maintaining equal production” , quotes several paragraphs on the detailed results of #CarbonSequestration and concludes with:
“K: As has been stated on these pages for well over a decade, #Permaculture/#TEK are not just nice little additions to our set of tools, they are central to achieving a regenerative society.
Powerful words. The only problem are … the numbers – I used the so-recommended by you comprehensive study to show with their own numbers that Permaculture Design EVEN IF expanded to ALL croplands in the world – would remove at most 2.5% of annual carbon emissions. Thus having entirely NEGLIGIBLE “ effect on climate”
Now you had a choice:
a) admit a case of confirmation bias – that you read into that study what you wanted to see, not what was actually there
OR
b) throw what you previously praised as: “Finally! A comprehensive study” and “Permaculture Design”, under the bus, to protect your ego
And protecting the ego it is:
Killian Jul 21 the farms used [by that previously called “comprehensive” study] were almost certainly not even close to being regenerative. The criterion used did not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing
So you mean that one “ not even slightly approach what a regenerative farm would be doing” and yet still be … “ central to achieving a regenerative society???? And you have been “ stating [it] on these pages for well over a decade” ???
But please, feel free to call OTHERS: “ liars, trolls and distorters .
Killian @21 JUL 2024 AT 10:12 AM
Killians claims tghat Piotr is lying, trolling and making stupid distortions seems unjustified to me, Piotr chose to address the permaculture study. He doesnt have to acknowledge Killians unproven, wild claims permaculture would actually sequester far more carbon.
Killian says “There are ZERO ecosystem-destroying unintended consequences of degrowth . (Like it causing high fertility and this damaging the environment). Killian then makes the argument again that the large regenerative society (like the precolumbian population of the Amazon basin, mostly rainforest) did not cause the ecosystem to collapse, because they were wise stewards of the land. He argues in his various posts the population of modern farmers living in the area is not much greater but they have wrecked it.
I responded eslewhere that in pre columbian times the population was about 10 million, and this is not huge, given the vast land area. It would be easy for such a small low density population with such basic lifestyle, to have minimal impacts on the environment.
Killian says Its wrong to say they had a basic lifestyle. It should be OBVIOUS they have a basic lifestyle compared to industrial society which was the context of discussion. They are sophisticated in their own way and were wise stewards of the land to some extent but population size is a huge factor.
The modern population living in the Amazon basin is only about twice this, including modern and traditional societies, but Brazils population alone of 200 million is dependent on the Amazon basin . Killian says sleight of hand but its what really matters. This is a large part of why you have massive areas of deforestation and farms and thus ecosytem destruction.
Earlier related posts by Killian at 8 JUL 2024 AT 5:31 AM, 16 JUL 2024 AT 4:21 AM 18, and by me at JUL 2024 AT 1:17 AM and elsewhere.
Killian telling me Im pretending to be a teacher. This is amusing given I havent engaged in teaching sessions or tutorials. I comment to debate and discuss and point out flaws in peoples statments, share information, and to promote viable climate solutions. Killian is projecting.. .
K: Piotr: You are a liar and a troll.
BPL: Projection,
Piotr is not a troll.
Stop blaming fossil fuel companies – Climate Change is our own fault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMOzaudSe8
This fake “personal responsibility” propaganda doesn’t help systemic changes. That’s why we have nations that should oversee private companies, not the other way around where private companies run the governments and the COP meetings.
Our personal choices including voting will not impact global warming as much as fair and targeted rational legislation and regulation within a Socialist market economy such as operates in China and Russia where the People come first and not the wealthy corporations and mega rich.
What is needed is a global people’s revolution but all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms of Despotism to which they are accustomed.
In Re to Sabine, 10 Jul 2024 at 1:44 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823111
Dear Sabine,
I grew up in former Czechoslovakia and likely have more personal experience that you with socialism.
There was no market economy in former socialist states, and there is no socialism in China and/or Russia.
Quite oppositely, in these two countries, you can find an almost perfect merge of unrestricted corporate capitalism with the state. There is a single constraint for the enterprises – their absolute subjugation to unvoted criminal gangs ruling these countries. A perfect Maffia society, I would say.
If you would like to implement this model to the rest of the world, I recommend to move into Russia or China and collect a personal experience by living therein first. Maybe you can consider also Iran or some of countries like South Africa, Brasilia or India that play with ideas like building alliances with them. I wish you good luck.
There certainly is a significant influence of big business on public policies in countries like USA, European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of China (Taiwan) or United Kingdom, but there is still some public control over it. Personally, I strongly prefer dealing with complexities and malfunctions of our societies and their political systems within the existing framework that was not easy to build, instead destroying this framework by revolutions.
Best wishes
Tomáš
Be careful what you wish for! Even when evils become insufferable, the probability of replacing them with something both sufferable and sustainable is always low. Revolutions tend to eat their children. Experience, and history, hath shewn that there are many more wrong ways of trying to abolish the forms of despotism than right ways, and that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The arguable benefits of modern popular sovereignty come with hidden and deferred costs that threaten its sustainability, and are forever at risk from demagoguery and cynical self-serving. But what other non-despotic forms are within reach of our collective will? Because forms not supported by popular will, however benighted the people may be, can only be despotic in their turn.
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half-alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
…
Yeah
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
-P. Townshend
Sabine: fair and targeted rational legislation and regulation within a Socialist market economy such as operates in China and Russia where the People come first and not the wealthy corporations and mega rich.
“People come first” ;-) Good one, Sabine! That explains the tens of millions of the “People” who perished in the Soviet Union and Communist China.
(According to <a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.CHAP.1.HTM#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20probably%20somewhere%20between,the%20table%20(line%2094)." https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.CHAP.1.HTM#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20probably%20somewhere%20between,the%20table%20(line%2094). the most likely numbers are: 62mln and 35 mln, respectively.)
Having lived under the Communist rule, I was always perplexed by the ability of the Western intellectuals to look past the mass graves and seeing in the totalitarian systems only the realization of their dreams of justice and equality. “Useful idiots of Russia“, as Lenin derisively called them.
Sabine. I agree with your first paragraph but russia and china are dominated by wealthy oligarchs. Russia is in denial about climate change and has done nothing. Thomas kalisz is correct.
Countries like Sweden and Norway that combine a bit of capitalism and socialism are better societies by virtually any measure.
Kevin’s July 9 reply to the question: what we can learn from indigenous cultures:
“…..The answer to that will of necessity be general, because as has already been said on this thread, indigenous cultures tend to be highly specific to place. (Which is worth remembering when we stop to consider the many instances of forced displacement imposed upon indigenous folks, especially, though not exclusively, in the US. But I digress.)….”
Mr. KIA says: ALL cultures are highly specific to place, not just indigenous cultures. Southern US culture is different from New England culture or Midwest culture. Italian culture is different from Swiss culture, or English culture. Exactly as it is with indigenous folks.
The forced displacement of indigenous cultures in the US was no different than that of any other culture. Fact is that they were fighting and displacing each other constantly before Europeans arrived. They were not living here in total peace and harmony:
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-native-Americans-fight-wars-before-the-European-settlers-arrived-Can-you-leave-me-a-link-to-this-kind-of-information
Europeans were doing the exact same thing as the indigenous folks in the Americas: They were killing each other like a bunch of savages 24/7/365. Those who won the fights, displaced, by force, the losers, and it was no less traumatic for Europeans than for the indigenous folks in the US. It’s what humans have always done, and always will do as long as there are humans. We are a violent species. One difference is that in Europe they had organized armies, and they recorded their wars in writing. Here’s a video showing “battles” over the past 1,000 years. This would not include minor unrecorded skirmishes, or battles among indigenous folks because they weren’t recorded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI
These unchanging, brutal facts of human life are just part of the reason that our founding fathers made sure that the Constitution prohibited the government from infringing on THE PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms.
And then Kevin said this:
“”Alas, Mr. KIA is flatly wrong (yet again), saying:
{…[indigenous] knowledge and technology were so primitive that they just did not have the capability of impacting the environment the way Europeans were able to, except as BPL also correctly points out – by using fire they could be very destructive.}
See some of the “1491” blurb linked above for a partial refutation. Maya math was capable of accurate astronomical calculation, and had independently arrived at the pivotal concept of zero before Europe…..” “”
MKIA says: So, they could do math. Did they invent machines to push down forests and move mountains? Chainsaws? Airliners and airports? Freeways full of cars? Steam trains? Electricity? Looks like most of the indigenous folks, including the Maya, barely even used the wheel, if at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel#History
So, BPL, Nigel, and myself are correct. Other than fire which we all noted, their technology was too primitive to do much damage to Mother Earth. Why is that so? Is there something to learn from this? Perhaps a history of inventions and achievement by the various peoples of the world give a clue:
What did the various peoples of the world invent and achieve in the past?
Europeans and their descendants in America, Australia, etc: invented A LOT, built major cities with magnificent architecture, classical music, outstanding art, complex societies, scientific discoveries, world exploration, factories, sophisticated weapons, and on and on.
Most of the rest of the world: some contributions to math and science, fireworks, built simple homes or huts, some stone temples crude by European standards, some big pyramidical piles of rock is Egypt, simple weapons, a big racist wall in China,
:) :)
That’s a tad oversimplified, but SOMETHING is going on there in that picture. What is it? What can we learn from the YUGE disparity in achievement among the various peoples of the world?
LOL! A faint glimmer of self-awareness from the hitherto anosognosic typist! What’s next – cats and dogs living together?!
KIA:
No. Southern culture, or midwest culture, or Italian culture, are exportable in ways that indigenous cultures per se are not, because language, history and lore aren’t so anchored to places, and because the foods and other cultural items are widely available. For indigenous cultures, culture and religion are typically tied to specific places, as are foodways. This “place-centeredness’ of indigneous cultures WRT European cultures is not an absolute distinction, but a quantitative one. Nevertheless, it’s quite appreciable–or so I understand it, at least.
(Not sure why KIA makes a point of indigenous conflict as if I’d argued against it. But moving on.)
Kinda goes to the “knowledge” piece, don’t you think?
It’s well-known that pre-Columbian America didn’t make appreciable use of the wheel (except maybe rollers in moving stone?) Elsewhere, I pointed out in this connection that the wheel is much less useful without draft animals capable of pulling carts, which for most of America’s paleohistory were absent.
But KIA is mixing time periods here. Europeans–heck, let’s address the elephant in the room!–white people didn’t invent any of those things before the Columbian contact, either, (the wheel excepted.) However, indigenous people did invent or develop, among other things, corn–and see 1491 for what *that* took!–rubber, kayaks and canoes, snow goggles, cable suspension bridges, raised bed agriculture, baby bottles, syringes, and hammocks. So, clearly, they weren’t short of ingenuity.
Again, as I pointed out to Nigel, that they didn’t create technology suitable for all the destructive feats named, is no kind of evidence for the proposition that the reason is incapacity. It can equally well be a product of choice.
KIA:
Let’s take those in order:
1) “Some contributions to math and science…” No. You don’t get much more pivotal contributions to math than the concept of zero, which was invented independently in a couple of places, including Mesoamerica, but never by anybody classifiable as “European.” Europe did of course adopt it enthusiastically when it came to their notice, centuries later. Other non-European contributions include silk, paper, writing itself, as well as important knowledge in astronomy, medecine, and engineering.
2) “Simple homes or huts.” No. Non-western residences spanned the gamut over time and space, of course, but are certainly not limited to the “simple.” Some Mesoamerican residences are stone, and display high degrees of precision, for example. Or take the “windcatcher”–a traditional architectural device with numerous regional and local variants across northern Africa and the middle East. Its use goes back millennia in Egypt and Iran. Only now are Western architects beginning to take it up. Obviously, such structures were not going to be useful for nomadic groups. But the elegance of some of their habitations renders them more than “simple.” I’m thinking particularly of the igloo–all an Innuit person needed was their snow knife, and the technique to use it correctly. (But that latter was a big deal!)
3) “Some stone temples crude by European standards.” Like Karnak? Or Angkor Wat? Or, for that matter, many Mayan structures?
4) “Simple weapons.” Try making a good bow, or for that matter, a good arrow. Then let me know how “simple” it is. Or a war club edged with obsidian. Or a blow gun, complete with the appropriate poisoned dart. They may not be firearms, but they are, or were, all highly effective and quite refined. And although it’s a tool for hunting, not a weapon of war, I’ll include the toggle harpoon–another Inuit invention that eventually Europeans and Americans ‘unbent’–hah!–enough to adopt from their racial ‘inferiors’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toggling_harpoon
5) “a big racist wall in China…” Odd that that adjective would be used after a peroration about the “unchanging, brutal facts of human life,” but whatever. I guess Hadrian’s Wall must have been “racist,” and the Newark Earthworks, too. One does wonder why anyone would expect the Trump Wall to work any better than its predecessors did, though.
Gosh, Kevin, weren’t you one of the people who didn’t consider metallurgy and ceramics, which developed in many “indigenous” locations, including Sub-Saharan Africa, to be evidence of the application of the scientific method?
When I proposed that a few years back?
How quickly they forget.
Apparently you have forgotten to read for comprehension. The discussion above isn’t about “the scientific method;” it’s about intellectual and practical achievements of all sorts. Try again.
Kevin, you are clearly not KIA, but consider the language you use:
“But KIA is mixing time periods here. Europeans–heck, let’s address the elephant in the room!–white people didn’t invent any of those things before the Columbian contact, either, (the wheel excepted.) However, indigenous people did invent or develop, among other things, corn–and see 1491 for what *that* took!–rubber, kayaks and canoes, snow goggles, cable suspension bridges, raised bed agriculture, baby bottles, syringes, and hammocks. So, clearly, they weren’t short of ingenuity.”
“Ingenuity”.
But in all that comment, you never mentioned the two very complex enterprises, metallurgy and ceramics, which were developed in sub-Saharan Africa. So, your indigenous peoples are “clever” and “ingenious” and “inventive”, but not up to the standards of Europeans in how they achieved their results, correct?
And BTW, the various spear-throwers (not used in Africa, I think) would require a more sophisticated application of physics than bows and arrows, although bows and arrows are indeed clever.
Absolutely *IN*correct. The list was merely a short, semi-random collections of counterexamples, with no attempt at a comprehensive listing of non-European (not necessarily “indigenous”–see KIA’s post for the context–achievements. Such a list would be excessively lengthy (for our purposes) both to compile and to read.
KIA: These unchanging, brutal facts of human life are just part of the reason that our founding fathers made sure that the Constitution prohibited the government from infringing on THE PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms.
BPL: Yes, as part of a well-regulated militia.
Meow and Woof,
In over simplified terms perhaps.
How Does Geography Affect Culture: Discover The Cultural Differences
https://www.spatialpost.com/how-does-geography-affect-culture/
And speaking of geography, some quotes from Jack Dangermond (pretty much boosting ESRI as you might expect, but still…) and Vine Deloria– for the amusement of JCM (or whoever):
“GIS is waking up the world to the power of geography, this science of integration, and has the framework for creating a better future.”
“GIS is the only technology that actually integrates many different subjects using geography as its common framework.”
“GIS, in its digital manifestation of geography, goes beyond just the science. It provides us a framework and a process for applying geography. It brings together observational science and measurement and integrates it with modeling and prediction, analysis, and interpretation so that we can understand things.”
— Jack Dangermond
“New Swedens, New Frances, and New Englands flourished, and one glance at the map of New England will indicate how thoroughly the new settlers wished to relive their former lives in familiar places. No comprehensive theory of human existence, no profound religious insights, and no universal political ideas came to these shores initially. Rather the ideas that came with the first settlers were the perverted ideas that had failed in Europe; the psychological walking wounded brought with them an irrational fear of the unknown that was slightly less emotional than the fear of extinction that they had known in Europe.”
― Vine Deloria Jr.
Regarding the warring instability of Europe in colonial times, I wonder in particular about the effects of physical geography on say Balkanization in modern times.
Hmm, I don’t know a lot about racial equality but I would point out that Arab societies were centers of learning about various aspects of the sciences in the Middle Ages and contributed unique insights that the Europeans hadn’t thought of. I looked it up and these names are highlighted:
Al-Khwarizmi
Avicenna
Ibn Al-Haytham
Al-Bīrūnī
Muhammad al-Idrisi
They made significant advances in math and astronomy, medicine and biology, navigation and cartography and music etc.
Course that was before the full blown fundamentalism of later societies. Similar creativeness could be found in other, non white cultures.
People like to think, as another example, that naturally people are “smarter” than non human animals. But that’s not actually how evolution works. Each species evolves in a way to best utilize their particular environment so as to ensure their continuance. I wonder if you survive in an environment that, say, a chimpanzee would find easy? How about a polar bear (they recycle their urea so that they can hibernate for up to 9 months!). Or a cat, etc. There are about 10,000,000 other species on this planet. That’s 10,000,000 other ways of living that suits their biology to ensure their survival.
On the other hand it was white peoples that ruined this land called America that the native Americans lived in for something like 40,000 years without over populating. Without completely destroying their environment. Look what we whites have done to this land in less than a mere 600 years by contrast.
You could argue that the native Americans were savages, fought in wars, killed off their large animals. I agree, that’s pretty awful. But we’ve also done the same thing. As a rule though they learned from their mistakes. S as a rule they’ve treated the land with respect. We have not.
Another thing to consider about our supposed superiority, which race was mainly involved in inventing the bomb? That has made generations of people, billions of them, sick with worry about the ever present possibility of destroying the entire planet with nuclear weapons?
There’s many different kinds of intelligence on this planet. I understand what you’re saying but it’s not a fair or accurate representation. It’s not the complete picture. It’s one promulgated by the same kinds of people who say that Columbus “discovered” America, even though native Americans were here long before they set foot here.
A book by paleontologist Stephan J Gould called The Mismeasure Of Man discussed your idea further.
“But that’s not actually how evolution works” that sounds arrogant. Caveat: I’m not a biologist. Just giving my empirical opinion.
Another example of what I’m talking about. Take the Yanomami of the Amazon. True, they are primitive by western standards. But compare them to the west for that ultimate measure of a society’s success, happiness, and you would be hard pressed to put most whites in that group I think. We are a very depressed people in the west and over medicated because of it.
Too, they might be primitive by western standards, but do you think you could live off the land as easily as they do?
Another example of mostly western contribution to global welfare. Climate Change through our burning of fossil fuels and refusal to stop. Is that intelligent? So, yeah, different way to measure intelligence.
Again, just my opinion
“Up and Atom”: “Why the number 0 was banned for 1500 years” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmwB8F2kxA
Perhaps the ancient greeks were “petrified of silence”, as Alanis Morissette would say :)
(And we can add “Anti-zero-ism” to the laundry list of sins of “vaporized” (and perhaps partially ‘ionized’) Christianity (context: 1, 2 (near end)). (don’t forget about anti-potato-ism, … and some more serious offenses))
Vihart: “What was up with Pythagoras?” (Vi Hart’s impression of Pythagoras is awesome!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1E7I7_r3Cw
Veritasium: “How Imaginary Numbers Were Invented” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo
—————————-
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/a-to-z/ :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/a-to-z-the-first-alphabet/ , https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/a-to-z-how-writing-changed-the-world/ : …
from “TRANSCRIPT”:
…
…
…
…
——
…”It’s one promulgated by the same kinds of people who say that Columbus “discovered” America, even though native Americans were here long before they set foot here.” – Well, the Europeans didn’t know about the Americas (and the Native Americans didn’t know about Europe … (setting aside Vikings?) … so the Voyage helped them discover each other’s lands. Columbus himself thought he went to India so I’m not sure he himself discovered the Americas at all (also, he killed a bunch of people and thought the Earth was smaller than it was; Eratosthenes – well, there’s some question about unit conversions, but he may have calculated a fairly accurate size of the Earth long before; Ancient Greeks (Ptolemy) already figured out the Earth was round).
*- it’s been awhile since I’ve read these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_Myth
*(Racism and inequality in U.S. history)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/03/origins-how-earth-made-us-lewis-dartnell-review
*What I remember from this, and from “Against The Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization” (Richard Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Manning ): Eurasian civilizations had some geographical/biological advantages (long E-W distance so people living in similar climates could … learn from each other and trade…? Also effects on flora and fauna; Eurasia had horses, etc. Many other interesting things…)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/12/journey-of-humanity-by-oded-galor-review-inequality-explained
*What I remember:
When a society industrializes, this may economically suppress industrialization of its trading partners – ie. suppliers of agricultural goods.
The slave trade sowed the seeds of distrust in parts(?) of Africa; trust is important for the economy to work well.
Other things – some interesting, some… well see the review’s criticisms. Idk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Freedom
*What I remember:
Europe’s geography impeded the unification of the continent, so different societies were competing with each other; the Church and the kingdoms each kept each other from becoming more powerful.
Carl Sagan: “Cosmos” (book) – *What I remember: a hierarchy in which few or none do both manual labor and thinking labor will tend to inhibit the development of science. (Well, everyone thinks – but people may be too tired from doing manual labor all day to really get deep about stuff?) Also, I believe there was a mention of the steam engine being invented in Greco-Roman antiquity, but … was it only used for theatrics? Because they had slaves?
The updated/sequel series with Neil deGrasse Tyson describes some intellectual achievements in other parts of the world outside the Mediterranean/Europe.
More: (** = I only saw part of it or I haven’t seen it yet)
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/great-human-odyssey/
** https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/lady-sapiens-preview/6071/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/ice-age-footprints/
“How Did Pleistocene Megafauna Go Extinct? GEO GIRL” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWaOoTI1Bec
(Overhunting is not the only way for humans to cause an extinction.
PS It occurs to me that sustainability is not the same thing as preservation; a sustainable way of life could displace another ecosystem.)
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/nazca-desert-mystery/
from “TRANSCRIPT” (my memory was vague; I skimmed through the transcript and found these snippets (near the end); **hopefully I didn’t miss any important context.**)
…
…
(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors had slaves or conducted human sacrifice or ritual torture, not only don’t do those things today but have no desire to. The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500 (perhaps in part due to influence/inspiration from indigenous cultures), and I know many are quite happy about that – although maybe not all (MAGA?).)
…
Were the Inca no longer indigenous once they started conquering other people?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/ancient-maya-metropolis/
** https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/ancient-builders-of-the-amazon/
** https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/hidden-amazon-preview-kqftyv/6342/
** https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/star-chasers-of-senegal/
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/egypts-darkest-hour-egypts-darkest-hour-about-the-film/4097/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/first-horse-warriors/
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/end-romans-preview-x1q8pw/6318/
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/king-arthurs-lost-kingdom-king-arthurs-lost-kingdom-about-the-film/4069/
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/viking-warrior-queen/5180/
————————————-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything :
from “Summary”:
…
…
…
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors had slaves or conducted human sacrifice or ritual torture, not only don’t do those things today but have no desire to. The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500 (perhaps in part due to influence/inspiration from indigenous cultures”[democracy, equality?, freedom – including freedom of thought, perhaps]“), and I know many are quite happy about that – although maybe not all (MAGA?).)”
– I suppose this sounds odd without the context of how many white settlers/colonists mistreated indigenous people. Sorry, I just hadn’t planned to go into that.
I will note – It seems to me that indigenous societies/cultures were not (generally) simply static for the 5000+ years before 1000 CE or 1500 CE. It makes sense: people try new things, things happen (natural changes (climate), changes caused by other peoples, etc.) So my guess is that societies would sometimes cease to be sustainable and have to adapt.
“I suppose this sounds odd without the context of how many white settlers/colonists mistreated indigenous people.”
A gross understatement given official and coordinated campaigns of genocide. Repercussions of that and abuses go on to this day.
“Sorry, I just hadn’t planned to go into that.”
Yeah, it’s a whole other topic…
On a more uplifting note
Indomitable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTJvpfkRRdA
(and cultural genocide, …)
If the incompleteness and imprecision of my tangent gave any aid and comfort to history deniers, I do apologize.
Patrick o twentyseven,
My apologies for being pedantic and ot. It was inappropriate. I blame it on a caffeine deficit.
No need to apologize, and you were no more OT than I was; I was concerned that my original wording could have implied a fictitious level of symmetry.
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors ” …
I hope no one took that to mean all indigeneous societies did all those things, etc. (I’d like to say most did none of that sort of thing, at least not regularly, but I don’t know. I do know there were differences among the societies.)
I would also remove “also” from “The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500”…
(replaces prior comment, if I posted something similar yesterday)
“(YIKES! – OTOH, I presume many indigenous people, whose ancestors ” …
I hope no one took that to mean all indigeneous societies did all those things, etc. (I don’t know how common or rare these behaviors were; I do know there were differences among the societies.)
I would also remove “also” from “The cultures of European peoples and their descendants around the world have also evolved greatly since 1500”…, as it may imply more symmetry than there was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
“Seven generation stewardship is a concept that urges the current generation of humans to live and work for the benefit of the seventh generation into the future. It is believed to have originated with the Great Law of the Iroquois – which holds appropriate to think seven generations ahead and decide whether the decisions they make today would benefit their descendants.”
LGBTQI+ in indigenous societies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit
… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Traditional_Indigenous_terms …
Quick Addenda:
Note: be careful about using the term “two-spirit”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Criticism_of_the_term
(based on the term alone, I expect it would not apply to every category under the LGBTQI+ umbrella ( eg., “agender”))
—————
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahwahnechee#Plant_use
“ The Ahwahneechee burned undergrowth in the Valley to protect the oak trees. Acorns were a central staple of their diet, Black oak acorns providing almost 60% of it.[13]” – It makes sense to me that people who manage the land/water to maintain or boost its productivity of resources for themselves (including but not limited to farming crops) would probably be sustainable conscientiously or deliberately, if they are sustainable.
Yes. If your livelihood depends on the workings of the natural world around you–including your own interventions–and if it requires close observation of said workings, you aren’t so likely to throw random metaphorical sabots into the system. You won’t necessarily be infallible, nor immune to cultural seductions, or personal or familial desperation, or whatever may come along to challenge you, distract you, or overpower you. But if you’re reflexively paying attention to the environment, you’re going to make a lot fewer ecological ‘unforced errors.’
FYI, forecast low temperature for July 11 in Vostok, Antarctica is -101 F. Brrrrrr……
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/vostok-station/ext
Will have a heat wave after that.
Yes, it’s the southern hemisphere winter, 1300km from the south pole and at an altitude of 3500m. The average July minimum is -65ºC (-85ºF).
However, the only -74ºC (-101ºC) forecast for the 14 days 13-27 Jul is the “feels like” temperature on the 15 Jul. The actual temperature forecast for that day is a balmy -57ºC (-71ºF), 8ºC above the July average. Only 4 days in the coming 14 have temperatures below the July average. The coldest day in the 14 day forecast is 21 Jul, -70ºC (-86ºF).
But sure, it’s cold.at Vostok in winter. Did you expect otherwise?
Zebra, 10 July 4:51 AM said: “….performance on tests which measure memorization of High School problem sets, and performance of mindless algorithms, is considered the pinnacle of mathematical achievement. And to those people, that defines “math”. ”
MKIA says: Where did you go to school? I do not remember memorizing any “HS problem sets”. What is that? What are you talking about?
What is “performance of mindless algorithms”? Again, with lots of HS math 3 semesters of Calculus, one of Differential Equations, and a quarter of Linear Algebra, I do not remember any “mindless algorithms”? OK, maybe LA is a little bit like that. Got any examples? In what math subjects did you experience these “mindless algorithms”? You’re not confusing algorithms with world renowned climate scientist Al Gore are you? :)
Piotr July 14 6:19 PM said: “That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …”
MKIA says: Nothing went over my head, I just pointed out that YOUR definition was not the generally accepted meaning of the word “snowflake”. It is not directed specifically at scientists or environmentalists. It doesn’t have anything to do with actual snow. :)
BPL 9 July 11:42 AM said: “BPL: I have never heard a Democrat say that in my life.”
MKIA says: I wish you were correct, but sadly, it appears that they say it all the time, as Zebra did above. The reasons for this nonsense are sinister and is off-topic here, but the end result does not bode well for science in the future:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/08/racism-our-curriculums-isnt-limited-history-its-math-too/
https://www.newsweek.com/math-racist-crowd-runs-rampant-seattle-portland-opinion-1701491
prl 12 Jul 2024 8:19 PM said: “However, the only -74ºC (-101ºC) forecast for the 14 days 13-27 Jul is the “feels like” temperature on the 15 Jul. The actual temperature forecast for that day is a balmy -57ºC (-71ºF), 8ºC above the July average.”
MKIA says: No, the FORECAST Low was -101 F, but I see how you could be confused. If you click on the left side of the graph you can go back in time to the actuals. The actual was -99 F on 11 Jul. On that day the “feels like” was about -122 F. The lows for July 8 thru July 12 were -90F or lower every day. And yes, it is expected to be cold down there when the sun does not rise above the horizon for months at a time. Tough being a climate scientist down there! I’ll bet there is a huge celebration when the sun pops up over the horizon as spring approaches.
KIA, can you give an example of solving a problem on a typical e.g. calculus test that does not involve performing an algorithm? Do you even know what an algorithm is?
Perhaps you think that since software has been able to solve those kinds of problems for decades and decades, we’ve had “Artificial Intelligence” all along?
No, it’s simply a process of pattern recognition… “if you see this, do that”. You can do well on the standardized tests if you practice a lot, and can handle the stress of the testing environment. It’s recitation, not thinking,
And I’ve yet to hear anyone explain why we apply this form of testing to the general population, given that even scientists and engineers and such don’t sit in isolation from external resources, with pencil and paper, and an artificial time limit, when doing their jobs.
Zebras right that maths, at least at secondary school level, is basically learning and applying ‘algorithms’. Definition of algorithm Oxford Dictionary: “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.”
I wouldn’t call it recitation as such because you arent just regurgitating facts. Its more of using a process rather than thinking deeply.
Memorising and knowing how to use algorithms has value of course. I’m no maths expert, but I had to use basic equations of algebra, trig., and occasionally calculus, in my job, but I agree just learning them and how to use them doesnt make people think in a deeper way. But how do you teach students in maths to think deeply as such? Could Zebra explain with some examples.
One thing I thought of is getting students to figure out from first principle how some of the famous equations are derived such as for the area of a circle and the value of pi in the equation. Ive seen how its derived by dividing a circle into triangles approaching a limit. There are other ways as well, apparently. Such an exercise would be very challenging for students, but you could give them some clues along the way.
In Re to nigelj, 19 Jul 2024 at 3:13 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823314
Dear Nigel,
I think that adapting education to societal changes of the last decades is one of biggest challenges that stand before us, as a humanity. People are extremely diverse. A didactic approach which is helpful for someone may be harmful for someone else.
Ten years ago, my younger son spent as a 16-years old boy one semester at the Rangitoto School in Auckland, and still appreciates this experience as one of a few which decisively formed his further life. I therefore think that it is a good way that someone learns to understand mathematics and someone else learns how to be a good carpenter but they still meet each other and exchange their experience in the same school.
Nevertheless, even such an integrated and at least from the viewpoint of of Germany or Czech Republic almost revolutionary school can be still at a very start to changes that must came – at least according to an original Czech thinker and educator Jan Kršňák. Although his works
https://digideti.cz/kontakt/
are, to my best knowledge, still accessible in Czech language only, I think that they may deserve an attention.
He thinks that the present education system is basically untenable and irreparable and, if not replaced with a new system based on very different principles, it will unavoidably collapse sooner or later, due to deep changes in literacy requirements, knowledge sharing and social interactions brought by digitalization.
He supposes that we will have to desist from the idea that it is necessary to teach a universally shared “knowledge base” as an obligatory curriculum, because this base now does exist externally in a digital form, in which it may be practically instantly accessible to everyone. What should be taught is rather how to navigate therein.
Kršňák therefore expects that the traditional teaching in form of a knowledge transfer from the teacher to the pupil will widely change to a kind of “exploration with guidance”, wherein the teacher rather gives his/her younger pupils an example/inspiration where (and how) to gain the knowledge by learning new things himself/herself in parallel with them than by directly passing a specific knowledge on them. In other words, it is possible that most effective way how the teachers could transfer their learning skills to their pupils may consist in exploring the quickly changing world basically in parallel with them and in a kind of a partnership therewith.
Kršňák arrived at this vision because he every day meets children, teachers and parents who are desperate of the present education system but do not know how to fix it.
I think that implementing his vision is, of course, a big challenge, because
1) nobody knows if the idea is correct, and even in case that it is correct,
2) nobody knows how to successfully iterate from existing system to the new one.
Nevertheless, I share Kršňák’s feeling that the 250 years-old Prussian model of general education, originally designed for upbringing children to loyal citizens and disciplined soldiers of an absolute monarchy, reached its limits already long ago. I think that his ideas may not be completely silly, because although they were promoted already by John Comenius
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Amos_Komenský
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Amos_Comenius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amos_Comenius
I am afraid that they have in fact never been implemented consistently.
I think that it may perfectly apply just for the central role of personal example in upbringing and education. Although the Latin proverb “verba movent, exempla trahunt” may be much older than Comenius’ works, I think that there is still a huge unexploited space for its broader application in education.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotr July 14 : “That the irony went over your head – is not a surprise either …”
KIA : “ Nothing went over my head”
Unfortunately for you – by their fruits, not by their self-serving assurances you shall know them:
– I pointed to Killian the irony of his using toward his opponents – the language of MAGA (“snowflakes”)
– KIA joined in to prove … what nobody discussed (whether MAGAns use their “snowflakes” only to environmentalists, or not only to environmentalists.)
Hence you understood nothing the discussion you joined in was about. That you can’t even admit it – and instead assure how “ Nothing went over [your] head” – just proves that self-reflection is not your strong suit either.
But that’s hardly a surprise – not being the sharpest knife in a drawer, along with covering your ignorance with arrogance toward others, and the lack of self-reflection – are the necessary conditions for believing Trump.
Yes, I made a clear typo in the unit when I typed my post, but you failed to find any actual error in what I posted.
It would also make the conversation simpler if you used the units that the data you quote rather than converting them.
However, -68ºC (-90ºF) is not an extraordinarily low minimum for Vostok in July. The July average minimum there is -64ºC (-83ºF).
The record minimum at Vostok was −89.2 ºC (−128.6ºF) in 1983, and it’s the coldest weather temperature reliably recorded anywhere on earth.
If you want to try to make some sort of point about Vostok not warming, then you’d need to look at the average temperatures over longer time windows and over a longer time span than a few days in winter. And even if Vostok isn’t warming, it doesn’t tell use much about global climate change, other than the expected “global warming doesn’t mean that everywhere increases in temperature, and by the same amount”. But I doubt there’s anyone here that thinks that.
But yes, Antarctic bases do often mark the first sunrise after winter. Here’s an announcement from the Australian Davis base (which is a good bit further north than Vostok):
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2024/sun-returns-to-antarctica/
The Australian Antarctic bases also celebrate midwinter:
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2024/mid-winter-celebrations-mark-turning-point-for-expeditioners/
KIA: FYI, forecast low temperature for July 11 in Vostok, Antarctica is -101 F. Brrrrrr……
Typical temperatures for July there are between -64°C and -71°C. So your Brrrrr is only 10 C colder than avg. temp. Let’s say the Vostok station is representative of 500 km2 around it. Earth in comparison has an area of 510,000,000 km2.
And one day is weather, not climate – for climate you need, say, 3 decades.
So your Brrrrrrrrr on July 11 lowered the GLOBAL climatological average . by a stunning 1 BILLIONTH of a degree!
Quickly, call Trump that you have just disproved GLOBAL warming !
Unless I’m mistaken, Silent Running was when the human population increased by such an amount that farming for food was taken off the planet altogether and pushed into space.
Some say that we will stop growing. Others that, like rabbits, will keep growing until the food runs out and a crash results. The way it naturally happens. Think there’s a scientific study that claims that too. Better then that we think ahead and not leave things to chance.
Sorry, I messed up that bold text. Not intended.
Anyway, people who are population apathetic say that the population will level out when everybody is as rich as Americans. Well 1. We’re running short on stuff, and causing a lot of issues getting it, now, how much more so when we have twice as many people? 2. Even if they all get as rich as those in the west that won’t be the end. That same demand for stuff will need to continue to keep them and the children rich.
A fine line is approaching. A point of no return. Why are we cutting it so close? Why are we leaving it to chance?Just hoping things will work out? To me it’s a gamble that is not worth the risk.
Who knows though, maybe those who say the rate of increase is slowing and will stop at a certain maximum population are right as far as people are concerned. But in so doing we will lose probably all the big wildlife that exists. :( Oh well.
Take it away Julian Simons.
Looks like Julian Simons was right:
https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/julian-simon-was-right-half-century-population-growth-increasing
What do you consider “big wildlife”? To conserve wildlife populations, support hunting.
In Africa:
https://www.perc.org/2019/07/18/the-role-of-hunting-in-conserving-african-wildlife/
https://www.perc.org/2019/09/06/conservationists-should-support-trophy-hunting/
In the USA:
https://www.fws.gov/story/hunters-conservationists
https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/02/hunting-wildlife-conservation-explained/
https://www.rmef.org/hunting-is-conservation/
US White tail deer harvest:
https://business.realtree.com/business-blog/america%E2%80%99s-deer-harvest-numbers
Other harvest numbers:
https://archerytrade.org/state-by-state-hunting-data/
KIA: Looks like Julian Simons was right
BPL: Looks like Julian SImons was insane. The man literally thought growth could last forever.
KIA. I asked the AI in my search engine what the trends are for wildlife in Africa. It said,
“Decline: Lion populations are declining rapidly across Africa, except in intensively managed areas. The estimated decline from 2006 to 2023 is around 36%.”
“The Great Elephant Census found that the carcass ratio (the number of dead elephants per 100 alive) was nearly 12%, indicating a continent-wide decline in elephant populations.”
Yes deer numbers are high, but that’s agreed to be because we’re have eliminated or are eliminating their natural predators including the cougar, wolf and grizzly bear (due to hunting and habitat fragmentation. True, with intensive conservation efforts cougar numbers are rebounding somewhat yet AI concludes that,
“populations have declined in most parts of their historical range due to intensive hunting and human development overall”
For wolves it says,
“Wolves were once widespread across the United States, occupying approximately 95% of their historic range. However, due to human activities such as hunting, trapping, and habitat destruction, their populations declined drastically.”
For grizzly bears,
“Between 1850 and 1970, grizzlies were eliminated from 98% of their original range. In the Yellowstone region, the population has exhibited little or no growth since 2004, with evidence of decline during recent”.
Julian Simon saw the writing on the wall for endangered species (not really caring though) and so proposed that if people are worried,
“do we want only to maintain the species just this side of extinction? If the latter, why not just put them in a few big zoos.”
Even if some wildlife is increasing, to me it’s not a great success when they number only in the thousands while we number in the billions..
A few more,
“Hippos have undergone significant population declines due to habitat loss, hunting, and human encroachment. According to recent estimates, there are approximately 125,000-148,000 common hippos remaining in the wild”
It sounds like rhinos are making a comeback because of strict conservation efforts. However there’s this comment.
“In the early 20th century, there were approximately 500,000 rhinos in Africa and Asia. By 1970, their numbers had declined to 70,000. Today, as few as 29,000 rhinos remain in the wild, highlighting the significant decline in their population over the past century. …. Overall, rhino populations have declined significantly since the early 20th century, with only a few thousand remaining in the wild”
Tiger,
“Historically, tigers have lost an estimated 95% of their original range. They were once widespread across Asia, but human activities such as deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and poaching have significantly reduced their numbers.”
I don’t want to be all doom and gloom. Maybe hunting helps sometimes, I don’t know. Some say that the money made from allowing hunting which is supposed to go to conservation is instead being diverted and siphoned by corrupt governments and individuals. In any case, any conservation today is only as long as the current political regime that has protected them remains in power..
Again, it’s sad that we are measuring our variable and fragile “successes” in conservation by the fact that we have slightly increased some endangered species numbers. Yet they still number in the mere thousands while our numbers are in the billions and rising. But hey, that’s me.
Again, why not stop our encroachment (in all its various forms) while we still can? The best way to do that it seems to me is to figure out a way to humanely reduce our population (and thus our population pressure).
Bok,
“The best way to do that it seems to me is to figure out a way to humanely reduce our population”
Maybe so, but the “figuring out” part is a monster.
Meanwhile, what has to happen either way is preserving/creating open spaces and corridors, building sustainable cities up instead of just sprawling out, remediating invasive species, providing local peoples with economic alternatives and education, etc. etc.
But anyway you look at it, it’s largely a matter of will.
All good points, Radge. Don’t forget education about overpopulation. From the top down. Give it all the attention we give to climate change. Right now no one “official” wants to touch the problem. It’s a political hot potato. There’s money invested in keeping the population growing.
Humans have wiped out some species. We were short-sighted, but we are learning from our mistakes. We continue to work to prevent the extinction of the “big wildlife” you refer to. We are not going to reduce our population – “big wildlife”, particularly predators, will have to live on the land available to them. Grizzlies and wolves are not endangered. In North America they have most of Canada and all of Alaska where they live with little interaction with humans. They can live in the lower 48, but will be limited to the remaining wild areas, and if they go after livestock or humans they will be killed. We are the apex predators.
Africans can conserve their “big wildlife” as they see fit. Plenty of other nations and organizations are willing to help them. I do hope they are successful.
A dismal vision, KIA.
MR. KiA,
Julian Simons was insane. The world reached peak conventional crude oil a few years ago. Ehrlich was on track. End of story. Simons has become a footnote warning people to ignore cranks offering up wagers on crackpot theories.
But that’s precisely what much of the world is actually doing, albeit slowly. Per this list, 51 nations–OK, 50 if you don’t count Vatican City!–have population growth rates that are negative or 0. Another 97 have annual growth rates of 1% or less, and many of them are going to see that drop predictably due to demographic structure (read: “aging population.”) Piotr has made some decent arguments why this might not be something to take for granted, but nevertheless significant chunks of the world are seeing population declines, or are reasonably expected to see them soon.
Readers may be interested in my newly published research article (https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4791) that discusses improvements to global instrumental temperature datasets to better account for non-uniform warming across the planet, in particular with respect to greater warming in the Arctic and the impact of melting sea ice. The result of the research is a new dataset (https://doi.org/10.26050/WDCC/HadCRU_MLE_v1.2), which is similar to HadCRUT5 Analysis, but with some improvements (and a few disadvantages) relative to HadCRUT5 Analysis. The results suggest that existing global temperature datasets (with the possible exception of Berkeley Earth) have underestimated global warming since the late 19th century by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. The best estimate of my research paper is that the Earth’s surface has warmed by an average of 1.548°C since the late 19th century, with a 95% confidence interval of [1.449°C, 1.635°C]. Although, as discussed in my research article, I suspect that my methodology might slightly overestimate the global mean surface temperature change due to the use of a temperature field that is discontinuous between open sea and sea ice regions (Berkeley Earth may also be affected by this). Uncertainty in sea ice concentrations remains a major source of uncertainty for estimates of global mean surface temperature change since the late 19th century, and this uncertainty is not quantified or included in any global instrumental temperature dataset.
We will certainly be able to solve problems in the future. However, we have never to my knowledge solved all problems in the past, and there is equally no reason to believe that we will be able to solve all problems in the future.
As for “no compelling reason, etc.,” the question must be asked “compelling for whom?” It’s an inherently subjective term, which means that the assertion of non-existence is almost certainly false. Especially when there is highly ‘compelling’ reason to believe that, mandatory curbs or not, energy consumption will be curbed by something at some point:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Dr. Murphy provides as mathematically compelling a reductio to infinte growth as can be conceived. More recently, he has gone on to question what he calls “modernity,” or “human supremacism”:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
I’m not uniformly convinced by all the points he makes in that post, but it’s certainly well-worth pondering. And in my dizzy little mind at least, it connects with the recent discussion about lessons from indigenous culture. Murphy writes:
Indigenous people certainly harvested animals for food, killed them in self-defense from time to time, cleared land for cultivation or habitation, and arguably “enslaved” dogs, and when Europeans brought them over, cats and horses for their own purposes. What they generally seem not to have lost sight of, though, was that all those things came at a cost to the animals, plants, or the world generally–and that we ourselves are an inextricable part of that world, not ‘lords of creation’ with a divine right to waste without thought.
My best estimate is that the temperature in a building cannot be determined to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, much less the temperature of the planet. :) In semiconductor manufacturing facilities, they measure to such accuracy in some areas, but not the entire building. The planet? Ain’t gonna happen.
Apparently, you haven’t considered that it is much easier to get an accurate average of a large number of measurements than an individual measurement, since an average is likely to minimize small random errors of measurement. But weren’t you telling us a little while back that you had an understanding of statistics? This is a beginner’s error!
And you point would be what, exactly?
It was in reply to this: ” The results suggest that existing global temperature datasets (with the possible exception of Berkeley Earth) have underestimated global warming since the late 19th century by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. The best estimate of my research paper is that the Earth’s surface has warmed by an average of 1.548°C since the late 19th century,………”
We cannot measure Earth’s average surface temperature to within a few hundredths of a degree, because the number of measurements is too low for the size of the Earth. The vast areas we do not measure, all of them changing every second, make such accuracy impossible. You cannot even claim you can calculate the average of the measurements we do make to such accuracy unless every one of them is taken at the exact same point in time.
Yeah, no.
“…number of measurements is too low…” Wrong.
“…make such accuracy impossible…” Wrong.
“…taken at the exact same point in time…” Wrong.
I’ll leave detailed explanations to the more statistically adept, but I have it on good and ample authority that none of what you said is correct. But you may profit from pondering this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
Speaking of acceleration, Tamino has just confirmed a statistically significant increase in the rate of global warming since 2000, over five global datasets:
IMHO, that significantly increases the urgency of national and global decarbonization. My fellow US voters, please vote Democratic this November.
Yes. A vote for Trump is a vote for a significantly worse future; a failure to vote *against* Trump is a failure to vote for a significantly better future.
From Project2025 (note that this is just one of many anti-climate mitigation policies proposed):
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-12.pdf
(Pp, 378-9)
Mal Adapted,
I don’t see anything immediately new in the Tamino post.
The April 2024 RC post on the subject noted Tamino’s finding of ‘significance’ but suggested we needed to understand first “quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration or not is a bit ambiguous, and also that the alarming “Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting.”
What could be considered a bit mealy mouthed, the “screened” CMIP6 models in the presented-graph are projecting a post-2014 global warming rate of +0.27ºC/decade which fits with the Tamino analysis, as well as my own humble efforts.
MAR,
The finding of statistically significant acceleration was new to me, but you may be paying closer attention. I know Tamino hasn’t previously verified acceleration by rigorous statistical test, amirite? A beautiful theory now confirmed by an ugly fact.
Bok:
I’m pretty sure most of us here agree that the growth of population, per capita GDP and technological capacity over the past couple of centuries has taken an incalculable toll on the biosphere, eroding global biodiversity and degrading ecosystem services by innumerable mechanisms. We’re an educated (on average) group, however. Much of the rest of world is insensitive to the ongoing 6th Great Extinction in the history of life:
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise. ” (A. Leopold).
The ultimate answer to your questions about why this happening is signaled by your use of ‘we’. The accumulating injuries to the biosphere amount to the Tragedy of the Commons on the largest possible scale. Economics explains why common-pool resource tragedies require collective intervention in markets, which otherwise socialize every transaction cost they can get away with. Correcting market failures, by implementing “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (G. Hardin), is a legitimate function of governments that purport to serve their country’s collective will.
Therein lies the rub: under the modern tilt to popular sovereignty, taking any collective action against aggregate environmental (i.e. socialized) costs requires a plurality of voters to agree that mutual coercion is required. Due to the rise of Capitalism along with population, affluence and technology, government by popular will is vulnerable to hijacking by, for example, fossil fuel corporations and their investors, who wield the power of wealth beyond historical dreams of avarice, and whose primary interest is in fending off collective intervention in their profit streams. In the USA, the growing influence of carbon capital on politics and public discourse is documented over at least three decades, as is frequently cited on RC; no need to link those documents here. They are a matter of public record, the product of disciplined investigative journalism published in credible venues, e.g. the New York Times, and New Yorker magazine, and must be considered probative. They should, also, really piss off every US voter. Apparently, we have sold our democracy to people who got rich by charging all the traffic will bear for their products while socializing the marginal climate change costs. No wonder we didn’t manage to enact the first national legislation aimed at taking the profit out of selling fossil carbon, until 2022!
What is to be done? If you’re a US voter, the literal least you can do is vote Democratic this November. The Democratic Party isn’t innocent of fossil fuel money, but is plainly the lesser evil now.
Hi MA.
“Therein lies the rub: under the modern tilt to popular sovereignty, taking any collective action against aggregate environmental (i.e. socialized) costs requires a plurality of voters to agree that mutual coercion is required.”
Yes but under others such as communistic governments those governments get around popular opinion by simply disregarding what the people want and having little to no environmental laws at all if it impinges on business, and they back that up with their military. So we have the horrible air in China that people are forced to breathe. When the wall fell in Germany and western journalists poured in they found lots of pollution in the East, At least westerners can make laws that business are required to follow. The question is who’s better at getting their message out, the people or business.
“Apparently, we have sold our democracy to people who got rich by charging all the traffic will bear for their products while socializing the marginal climate change costs”
Would have been much more marginal if we’d started a lot earlier. If there’s one thing that the FF companies are good at it’s manipulating public opinion in their behalf. Taking a page from Big Tobacco. We can argue it all we want here. They don’t care. Whatever. But soon as you try to do something concrete they come out shooting..
But it’s looking like it’s inevitable that T is going to win. Man, I don’t want to endure that again! I finally just stopped reading the news years ago. Can’t stand politics anyway. Sick of it all. Even discussing it. I know people will say that I’m part of the problem then. I’m just tired of this continual back-and-forth hate fest. Got to come up with a better system. That’s what James Hansen says too.
Comment from Zebra above.
“That’s less than the current population of California”.
According to the Internet the current population of California is 41.737 million. The entire country of Canada is 39. 107. Send to me though that Canada has shot up since I last saw their number.
Bok, we are largely in agreement, but I wanted to explain what “marginal climate change costs” are. You may already understand this, but I wanted to be clear: “Marginal cost”, in this context, is a term of Economics art meaning incremental cost per additional unit of fossil carbon emitted to the atmosphere. Every fossil carbon transaction on the “free” market adds quantitatively, i.e. marginally, to the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The aggregate, ie. sum, of everyone’s marginal emissions is what’s causing global warming. I hope that helps.
I don’t want to defend China across the board–the lack of political freedom and basic human rights, the subjugation of law to the interest of the oligarchy, the oppression of minorities, and more latterly the resurgence of what appears to be a colonizing mentality certainly merit forceful condemnation.
However, it appears to me that we constantly underestimate the dynamism of Chinese society, as well a particular characteristic of the CPC regime (now under Xi apparently firmly enmeshed in what they used to deride as a “cult of personality”): the insight that political control (AKA ‘tyranny’) is much easier to maintain if you take pains to keep the masses as happy as possible within the parameters of your political hegemony. (Hey, Macchiavelli had that figured out, too.) In ancient Rome, it was “panem et circenses”; in China today, it means in part dealing with what has indeed been a hideous air pollution problem. Urban air quality is still not good there, let alone great; most of the year, sensitive folks are still advised to avoid outdoor exercise. But let me quote from what appears to be a pretty neutral source:
It’s my perception, at least, that one of the motivations of the phenomenal deployment of renewable energy, EVs, and now battery storage in China has been to improve air quality and hence appease popular discontent on that score. (Other motivators cited include direct and indirect economic savings–air pollution still causes a lot of premature death, morbidity, and economic loss; increased energy independence; and, yes, climate change mitigation.)
China, which has been the primary driving force behind the acceleration of carbon emissions over the last couple of decades, is now the primary driving force behind the accelerating deployment
of cleantech.
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary
I don’t know how many denialati told me after the Obama bilateral climate deal, which led up to Paris, that China would never fulfill the deal, and had never had any intention of fulfilling it. Instead, the opposite has happened–so much so, that a number of analysts are projecting Chinese emissions to peak this year, or next. Should that happen, world emissions will likely follow in relatively short order. Finally, we may see the much-wished-for “bend in the curve.” Fingers crossed…
https://www.vox.com/climate/24139383/climate-change-peak-greenhouse-gas-emissions-action
Oh, yeah–I can’t forget to acknowledge that cleantech is also a huge moneymaker for China:
https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/how-china-became-the-worlds-clean-tech-giant/
Vote like this will be your last chance, because it probably is!
#VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy
Everything you care about depends on Democrats getting out the vote.
Correct. It should be mandatory to vote, I don’t appreciate outsourcing democracy to others by not voting. Since it is not, let’s get as many people as we can to vote and to vote on issues that matter and to vote for people who deliver for the common good. And to never vote for reactionaries, including indirectly by protest voting.
My list of policy priorities:
1. Climate emergency
2. Biodiversity
3. Democracy
4. Peace
5. Health
6. Equality
7. Education
8. Dignified, meaningful, fairly paid work for all
9. Respect, care and love for all humans and all the living
10. Degrowth towards an economy in service of society and nature
If we don’t solve 1, by 2030 the latest, nothing else will matter.
Bok 12 JUL 2024 5:19 PM “as rich as”. There’s no such thing. It’s mostly Relative nowadays, not Absolute. Nutrititious food, water, disposal of garbage-waste, shelter from elements, defence from tigers, bears & squirrels (modern add-on: medical assistance for repairs, pain & suffering relief I find nice. Also 3 bicycles in perfect repair). I think that’s it isn’t it? All else is Frills so therefore it’s Relative so there’s no “as rich as” once you got the preceding, like I clearly got a lot more Frills than the rest of you but I don’t go on and on about it. What did I forget? (Maybe trousers, I was in Canadian Tire parking lot the other day).
Cmon Barry. You KNOW how capitalism works. There’s no WAY you’re going to stop businesses from trying to sell all kinds of junk to anyone who has the money to pay for it, and no WAY you’re going to stop anyone from buying all that junk if they can. If I’m understanding you correctly. You can’t dictate what other countries can and cannot buy. If it’s there to buy.
KIA 11 JUL 2024 6:12 AM Vostok has “Antarctica is . Building on the crucial KIA physics, in that case the “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere works backwards (GHGs make the air lose some nice warm heat to space before it can descend to toes level and warm them) per at 20:09 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgP-lwf2tb8 and at 2:37 at zyoutubezNNgMyDRWWrA That’s because “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere has nothing whatsoever to do with “a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon from surface and reradiates<re-emits) it so half the time it's back down to surface" as shown in some junk pictorials and heard in junk speech, like I correctly pointed out for some random reason a few weeks back.
JCM
What you say is great to hear and it has the ring of truth, and matches with the limited knowledge I have. Yet it is also so depressing in a world that is already going to hell fast. I fear we are far too late. I fear even more I have wasted my life and my talents and opportunities not grasped. It is a terribly sad place this planet of ours looking at what we have done to it and to each other.
Nonetheless, as long as we draw breath, it is up to us to not give up and do what we can.
Absolutely. At the personal level, we were always going to die; that hasn’t changed. My ambition is to appreciate whatever can be appreciated on the last day of my life–and to make meaning as best I can up to that point.
(Which is not to say that I’m likely to seek to accelerate the arrival of that ‘last day’ unduly. Though I have students and family 50 and 60 years my juniors. There might be times or circumstances I’d give up some of my time for them, if it seemed likely to be of use.)
On the 1930s, Bob Henson / Jeff Masters at Yale Climate Connections Eye on the Storm provides a convenient and well documented review of why that was an early instance of human hubris resulting in changing the climate.
Why were the 1930s so hot in North America?
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/why-were-the-1930s-so-hot-in-north-america/
“How the Dust Bowl teamed up with natural oceanic cycles to create all-time record heat”
Some subsidiary links: U of Nebraska, https://drought.unl.edu/dustbowl/
[some others …]
Dessler: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/which-was-warmer-the-1930s-or-the
A question for the climate scientists here. June 2024 was the 13th month in a row to set a new global temperature record for that month of the year. So we have now “lapped” the year.
My question is: looking ahead, what do you think will be the next month that DOES NOT set a new global temperature record for that month of the year?
“The next month the DOES NOT set a new global temperature record for that month of the year” will be July, this certainly in ERA5 and likely also in the likes of GISTEMP.
The resulting run of 13 ;scorchyusimo!!!’ months in ERA5 is shorter than the 16 month run set in ERA5 June2015-Sept2016 but the 13 months in GISTEMP 2023-24 exceeds the 8-month run October2015-May2016 (and with =1st months included in the run – June2015=June2016, also the 12-month run October2015-September2016).
January 2025. We have a developing weak La Nina and La Nina events tend to peak in early winter and result in a small global cooling, with heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean.
From the Sydney Morning Herald: “It’s good news’: Scientists suspect history about to be made in China” July 13th 2024.
“But it is data from the past few months that is intriguing analysts today. The world’s economy is growing. China’s economy is growing. Yet greenhouse gas emissions appear to have peaked.”
“Some time last year, or perhaps earlier this year, it appears China’s emissions, in particular, reached a high point. If China has peaked, there is good reason to believe global emissions peaked, too. It would mean that some time over the past few months, the stubborn nexus between economic growth and greenhouse gas pollution was snapped, and the 250-year surge in emissions ended…….”
“In November last year, he wrote that despite the post-COVID surge in emissions, China’s massive deployment of wind and solar energy, growth in EVs and an end to a drought that had cut hydroelectricity generation had caused emissions to tumble.”
“A 2023 peak in China’s CO2 emissions is possible if the build-out of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year,” he wrote in an analysis for Carbon Brief based on official figures and commercial data.”
“Largely as a result of the China green surge, global investment in renewable technology in 2023 outstripped that in fossil fuels for the first time, the International Energy Agency reported.”
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/it-s-good-news-scientists-suspect-history-about-to-be-made-in-china-20240709-p5jsbi.html
Lots of caveats of course. But I found the article interesting. Especially Chinas self interested motivation to dominate certain technology markets, and reduce its dependence on foreign oil for geo political reasons. But at least the environmental consequences are positive:
Yes, there have been at least two projections I’ve seen that global emissions were likely to peak this year–IIRC, RMI and Bloomberg were the sources. (N.B.–“I” may not “RC” here, but I’m not going back to check just this minute.) My fingers are certainly crossing on this one.
In reply to Barry E Finch 14 July 8:45 PM.
Thanks for that YouTube link. That info on the temperature inversion in Antarctica was good. The section on saturation was also very informative. I haven’t watched it all YET, but near the end he reassures us that the world will not end any time soon, despite the wisdom of our favorite Democrat bartender in Congress!
:)
Chuck Hughes, 16 July 3:26 AM says: “#VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy”
MKIA says: Tell us again how the Democrat party, the party trying everything possible to remove from the ballot BOTH major party candidates that THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IN THE PRIMARY is the party of “muh sacred Democracy”. We’ll wait. BWAHAHAHA! :)
Mal Adapted, 12 JUL 2024 AT 4:24 PM says in reply to the trick question about what year it is, says: “It’s 2024,…”
MKIA says: 2,024 years since WHAT happened?
;)
Well, it’s a big world, and I’m sure a whole lot of things happened all over it in the year-one-by-Western-convention. History itself is just one damn contingency after another, you know. If you asked a believing Christian that question you’d get one answer; if you asked a fundamentalist Hindu, you’d get another; a Confucian scholar, yet another. The “AD” literary convention arose because “science”, i.e. reality-based investigation of phenomena occurring on a consensus timeline, achieved global prominence concomitantly with Christianity, and the adoption of “CE” in place of AD reflects modern science’s religiously and culturally agnostic underpinnings. It’s not as if there’s any cosmic calendric marker, although the ignition of fusion in the newly accreted Sol might serve our parochial purpose. We’ve got that dated to within a mere 100 million years, at 4.6 billion years (GY) BP, i.e. Before Present; epochal year 1950 CE, solely by scholarly convention. Or how about the origin of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all earthly life, at ~4.2 GY (4.09–4.33 GY) ago? The ultimate origin year, however, the true Year Zero with none before it, was the origin of time itself*, about 13.7 GY BP. You know all this, Shirley.
Note that under AD and CE numbering, the year of Christ’s purported birth is counted as year 1, not year 0. That’s because Dionysius Exiguus, who invented “Anno Domini” calendar numbering, was constrained to use Roman numerals like every Christian scholar in 525 CE, and he had no numeral zero at his disposal. Western culture had to borrow that a few centuries later from India, via the Muslim conquests. While we were at it, we mostly chucked Roman numerals out the window, on account of Arabic numerals were better. What do you say to that, Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist?
* “Listen up: The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.” (R. Munro)
“Democrat party” (look at me, look at me!)
The Colorado lawsuit to keep the insurrectionist Trump was filed by “six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters…”
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2024/PR20240304SCOTUS.html
President Biden withdrew his name from the nominating process, put his support behind the other person on the ballot that all Democratic primary voters voted for, and that candidate proceeded to raise 140 million within two days.
Besides, who doesn’t want to see an election between the Prosecutor and the Felon? :)
I’m just one guy, but this Democrat actually prefers Trump on the ballot to the plausible alternatives, because the only thing (usually) worse than an incompetent tyrant is a competent one.
The curse is, “May you live in interesting times.”
I suspect that after the election things will get a little too interesting no matter who wins.
Killian 8 July 5:31 AM says concerning indigenous people:
“They accepted various genders.”
MKIA says: If we know they accepted various genders, we must know what they were. So, what are the various genders that they accepted? Did they have different roles in society for the “various genders”; in other words did they respect differences in capabilities of the various genders?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4rCmCoero4
See this essay for one take on that question:
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/
re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-june-2024/#comment-822842 :
“PS ~ 12? yr ago, I was trying to reason through mechanisms of variability, and I stated something about” [extratropical] “storm-track activity” … “… – I think I stated it as if it were fact, though, which I shouldn’t have done. Sorry.”
Same thing with me saying something like:
(+) feedbacks with momentum distribution allowing shifting (of storm track activity?**) N-S, but (–) thermal feedback would tend to anchor storm track activity eg. it wouldn’t just wander into and persist in the tropics – right? (Solar heating gradient+ocean currents (feedback there: wind- currents))
(** (+) momentum feedback exists – although – would the storm track activity necessarily follow the eddy-driven jet??? – I think/believe/reason/have the impression that there’s some wiggle room there)
– But I imagine there could be (+) thermal feedback (cloud+latent heating) – and if? storm track activity tends to maintain a thermal gradient by taking APE from elsewhere, then it presumably has greater capacity to shift around…? Hmmm…
To JCM and Tomas Kalisz, who claim the IPCC ignores everything apart from greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and their impact on warming:
“Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
in Re to nigelj, 19 Jul 2024 at 5:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823317
Dear Nigel,
I do not think that JCM has ever asserted that the IPCC “ignores everything” etc. – it sounds somewhat too strong to me. It is rather my feeling that he repeatedly expressed concerns that the IPCC perspective and the picture offered to public may be (unintentionally) distorted.
I will attempt to explain why I share these concerns, by returning to the Czech philosopher Jan Kršňák mentioned in my post of yesterday, 19 Jul 2024 at 3:13 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823314 .
Kršňák emphasizes the central role of “nevědění” (which could be translated as non-wisdom, if the correct translation of “vědění” is wisdom, or “non-knowledge” or “knowledge gap” if the proper translation of this term is rather knowledge) in human life. I think that he intentionally coins this new word, with the aim to make a distinction between “nevědění” (“non-wisdom” or “knowledge gap”) and “neznalost” (ignorance). Whereas ignorance means simply lack of knowledge, “nevědění” includes an awareness thereof, and an awareness of possible risks linked thereto. This difference may look irrelevant, however, I think that it may sometimes become important, especially in real-life decision making.
It can make a dramatic difference if we, under so called “informed decision”, understand just the hypothetical situation wherein we have all necessary information available and have “just” to evaluate it properly, or rather the real life situation, wherein we can be hardly ever completely sure that we do not lack a knowledge which can be crucially important for the right decision. Kršňák thinks that the role of knowledge is overemphasized in present educational system and assumes that an education for real life in a digital society should include the awareness of a practically permanent “knowledge gap” which is an equally important component of our life as well.
To make a more specific practical example, I think that the role of knowledge gap in our thinking could be compared to the role of dark matter in the universe. Although astronomy collected an impressive amount of information about the universe, yet our present picture of the universe and our understanding thereto comprise mostly the visible matter, which seems to form in fact a tiny fraction of all the matter in the universe only.
Returning finally to the IPCC report cited by you, it indeed comprises lot of references to soil degradation, cooling effect of evapotranspiration, etc. I see its biggest weakness just in the exclusive focus on the available knowledge and in a complete absence of any attempt to directly address possible knowledge gaps that may distort the overall picture significantly.
In other words, the role of hydrology and terrestrial vegetation on local and regional level is emphasized correctly, in accordance with studies made. It may, however, rise a feeling that this role is limited to local and regional level and cannot play a role globally. For example chapter A4.1 of the “Summary for policy makers” may in my opinion lead to a such conclusion:
A.4.1
Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small (medium confidence). {2.4, 2.6.1, 2.6.2}
Such a conclusion might be, however, misleading. The seeming limitation of the role of hydrology to local and regional level might have been in fact caused by the circumstance that the role of hydrology in global climate has been barely studied.
Greetings
Tomáš
I think that’s unfair. First, because the purpose of the ARs is to update and synthesize new knowledge regarding climate change. And second, because one very notable characteristic of all the ARs has been careful accounting for uncertainty, and attention to what is not yet known. One well-known case in point was the estimate of sea level rise which did not include known, but as yet unquantifiable, effects due to ice dynamics. You may question if they made the right call to report a number known to be too low because of the unquantifiable component, but you can’t fault their acknowledgement of the uncertainty, about which they were very clear. (AR5, IIRC?)
in Re to Kevin McKinney,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823364
Dear Kevin,
I am aware of the AR’s effort go accompany each assertion the made with an assessment of certainty. Uncertainty of a knowledge is, however, in my opinion something qualitatively different from its complete absence.
I complained that ARs do not try to address the real gaps, wherein either no knowledge does exist yet or seems to be too controversial, such as just the yet open question if human interferences with terrestrial water cycle might or might have not contributed to the observed global warming. Or another yet open question if changes in global water cycle intensity follow the same pattern as changes in global surface temperature.
Greetings
Tomáš
a correction to my post of 25 Jul 2024 at 1:30 AM:
The first sentence had to read:
I am aware of the AR’s effort to accompany each assertion they made with an assessment of certainty.
I apologize.
Over the last year, the Earth has seen one of the sharpest short-term temperature spikes on record, pushing @BerkeleyEarth’s 12-month global average temperature to a stunning 1.68 °C (3.02 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
Globally, June 2024 was the warmest June since directly measured instrumental records began in 1850. It broke the previous record by 0.14 °C (0.25 °F), a relatively large margin clearly outside the range of the uncertainties.
Remember when 1998 seemed warm?
https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2024-temperature-update/
The following is a summary of global temperature conditions in Berkeley Earth’s analysis of June 2024.
Globally, June 2024 was the warmest June since records began in 1850.
The previous record for warmest June, set in 2023, was broken by a relatively large margin (0.14 °C / 0.25 °F).
The ocean-average and land-average each also set new records for the warmest June.
Particularly warm conditions occurred in South America, parts of Asia, Africa, and large areas of the Atlantic Ocean.
Parts of Antarctica exhibited unusually cold monthly averages in June.
We estimate that 63 countries set new national monthly-average records for June.
The El Niño that began last year has now ended. La Niña is expected later this year.
The 12-month moving-average sets a new record at 1.68 ± 0.07 °C (3.02 ± 0.13 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
2024 is likely to be the warmest year on record.
Sabine,
The interesting bit of that Berkeley Earth monthly temp update you link-to is the discussion of the ‘Causes of Recent Warmth’ which is described saying“record warmth over the last 12 months has been due in large part to the El Niño condition in the Pacific,” with this additional to the ever-increasing AGW and with a nod to a “likely” contribution from “other variability” and in particular here the Northern Atlantic temp is noted which “was persistently warm during the second half of 2023 and remains warm in June” 2024. :Likely reasons for this Atlantic warmth include a contribution from “man-made regional warming due to new marine shipping regulations that abruptly reduced maritime sulfur aerosol pollution by ~85%.”
The Temp Update also discusses the possible annual average for the calendar year 2024 and whether 2024 will become the warmest year on record.
I’m not that impressed with their method here. They talk of a “statistical approach” which I would suggest has let them down. They say “it is typically true that the second year after an El Niño emerges is warmer than the first, though that is not guaranteed and I would say this is likely what has led them astray.
The graphic they present shows Jan-Jun2024 warmer than 2023 but then shows a good possibility of Jul-Dec2024 being warmer still. I cannot see how that would happen.
I’ve been plotting out the ERA5 daily global anomalies and comparison with the El Niño years 1997-98, 2009-10 & 2015-16 (posted HERE -graph ‘First Posted 15th Dec 2023’) and it is evident that recent El Niños have been peaking earlier and earlier (1998 June, 2010 March, 2016 February and 2024 the previous November). That shift to earlier peaking El Niños will have played havoc with any statistical approach.
As to why the earlier peak, answers on a postcard please. My own thought is that the response to the El Niño, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is altering possibly due to increasing ocean stratification as the warming from AGW builds.
Where that would leave the final full calendar year 2024 relative to 2023?
The daily ERA5 numbers put the first 201 days of 2024 +0.09ºC warmer than the 365 days of 2023 meaning the final 164 of 2024 would have to average -0.11ºC cooler than the 2023 average for the full year 2024 to be cooler than 2023. That is entirely possible but with stuff happening in an unprecedented way (global temperatures went “absolutely gosmackingly bananas” in the second half of 2023), the future may not be that predictable.
God help us all.
The Earth Climate App has been updated to version 1.8 beta, now features a character who reads video titles, supporter names, greets the user, and in a future patch will read RSS feeds, and perhaps the feed content as well. Other planned features may include user comments, ratings, a form to submit video content suggestions. Current videos are hosted at Cloudflare and NASA.
Download the App for Windows for free here https://climatestate.com/climate-state-app/
This is my first time on this forum. I saw the list of “Our Books”, and it stops in 2011. The authors should at least add Bradley’s 3rd edition of Paleoclimatology! It’s great, and from the Author’s Note to the 3rd edition, it sounds as though there are a lot of additions to the 3rd edition.
Welcome! Don’t be put off by some of the more, er, ‘vigorous’ commenters.
The press are reporting the Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis global SAT for 22nd July as being “hottest day”on record, this based on the prelimenary result of +17.15ºC, a daily anomaly of +0.90ºC at the hottest part of the year. These prelimenary values do get adjusted but only by a couple of hundreths of a degree, so this is high enough above the previous daily record of +17.08ºC set on 6th July last year to make the declaration.
The daily anomaly of +0.90ºC is not a record with ClimatePulse showing anomalies of +1.1ºC over the last year. The monthly average is perhaps more of interest than a single daily value, and whether July 2024 will be hotter than July 2023, which would make it the 14th hottest ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ month in a row.
Despite the strong upward wobble in the ERA5 global anomaly of recent days, July 2024 looks unlikely to gain ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ status. It would require the last nine days anomalies of the month to average above +0.944ºC. Such a nine-day average has occurred four times before (over the last year) and once that happened within nine days of a start-point with a nine-day average equal to today’s latest nine-day average. But that was in late December last year and from the bottom of a wobble. The wobble would have to be seriously impressive to achieve that nine-day +0.944ºC average so quickly.
However, a July 2024 ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ isn’t such a distant possibility that it appeared a week back. The average to the 22nd is +0.63ºC and with the latest daily anomaly sitting up at +0.90ºC, that July average will drift up towards the +0.73ºC ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ value. It may well end up close enough that other SAT records could end up showing a ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ for July.
A graphic of the ERA5 dailies is being maintained HERE – graph FIRST POSTED 15th December 2023.
Some other July stuff.
2024 Atlantic hurricanes
Apart form the Cat 5 Hurricane Beryl, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season has so-far been rather quiet.
Beryl, as a powerful & long-lived storm, has racked up a high Accumulative Cyclone Energy score for July putting 2024 so-far in 3rd place for end-of-July ACE, with top spot being 2005 which racked up end-of-July ACE=63 and second placed 2008 with ACE=37, these three years well above all other years (4th spot becomes 2003 ACE=18), these high ACE by end of July being due to big early storms in those years.
What is perhaps odd with the 2024 season is it being so quiet given the predictions have been for a well-above-average season for storm numbers.
The top years for storm-count are 2020 (30 named storms), 2005 (28), 2021 (21) & 2023 (20). The predictions have all been showing 2024 with well-above 20 storms so the quiet start to the season (with the exception of Beryl) isn’t what was expected.
2024 Antarctic SIE JAXA VISHOP & NSIDC Charctic
Back in 2022, the Antarctic SIE was posting record daily lows through June & July, but these were entirely eclipsed by the crazy record lows seen through 2023, most impressive through June-August.
Through to June, 2024 wasn’t showing anything exceptional but then started running 2nd to 2023 and recently have dropped close enough to 2023 to start off thoughts that we could be seeing some record days in 2024.
“Apart form the Cat 5 Hurricane Beryl, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season has so-far been rather quiet.”
That is because it is July. Nothing much typically develops in the north Atlantic in July, the peak season is August to October. Even in prior hyperactive seasons (which 2024 is forecast to be) there have been examples where little formed before mid August. For example, 2004 which had a total ACE index well over 200 and was a very destructive season with many major hurricane landfalls had virtually nothing before the 1st August. We are still miles ahead of climatology when it comes to activity to-date. ACE up to now in the Atlantic is 36. Comparable or half of ACE to-date years with the total ACE are 2008 (146), 1966 (137), 1951 (126), 2003 (176) and 1996 (166). A quiet period in July means nothing as to how the season will pan out; however, a named storm forming in the tropical Atlantic prior to 1st August is pretty-much a sufficient condition for at least an average season and more likely than not is followed by an active season.
Adam Lea,
I wouldn’t myself rate 2004 as “hyperactive” in terms of storm numbers but, yes, it did kick off at the very end of July with a fair few big storms to rack up the seasonal ACE.
And yes, July is a bit of a pre-season period.
I suppose the two contrasting things which caught my attention this year was more the absence for long periods of even potential storm on the NHC webpage, although after a fortnight of nothing, one potential storm (20% chance) is now showing when I link to it. Judging this absence of potential July activity in 2024 as being exceptional is from memory
This contrasts with the average prediction for storm numbers being high for 2024 which I can quantify. For previous busy years, storm numbers, the predictions (made May-July) and storms by end-July run:-
Year … …. … Actual .. Predicted . … By end-July
1995 … … … … 19 … … … … 12 … … … … 5
2005 … … … … 28 … … … … 14 … … … … 7
2010 … … … … 19 … … … … 18 … … … … 2
2011 … … … … 19 … … … … 14 … … … … 4
2012 … … … … 19 … … … … 12 … … … … 4
2020 … … … … 30 … … … … 17 … … … … 8
2021 … … … … 21 … … … … 18 … … … … 5
2023 … … … … 20 … … … … 17 … … … … 4
2024 … … … … n/a .. … … … 23 … … … … 3
The largest predicted number is for this year. And they all previously under=predict the busy seasons, even with August predictions. Perhaps these previous under-predictions make this year’s predictions sound rather ominous.
MA Roger:
Seasonal forecast skill for named storm numbers is the lowest out of the four metrics and is the least useful for analysing a season. ACE index is a much better metric as it is influenced by storm intensity and longivity as well as numbers. 2004 might have had lower storm numbers that some other recent seasons but many of those storms had long tracks across the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean sea, and had plenty of time to take advantage of good atmospheric conditions to develop into major hurricanes which made landfall on the Caribbean islands and the U.S. mainland (especially Florida). Compare to a season like 2010 with 19 named storms but no U.S. hurricane landfalls. If you look at seasonal forecasts of ACE that has tended to be overpredicted in recent years, mainly because of unpredictable intra-seasonal factors over-riding the large scale predictable climate fields, the best example being 2022 which was expected to be very active/hyperactive but no storms formed in August which was completely unexpected. Of course, that season contained the devestating hurricane Ian which illustrates it only takes one storm in the wrong place to make it a bad season.
Hello yall. First time here. I’m here asking for some help to speed things up. Probably next year i’ll have a teaching position (biology and geology in secondary education) and as such i would like to understand what i’ll be talking about.
The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338628078_Comprehensive_Analytical_Study_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_of_the_Atmosphere
and i can’t really identify the errors here. I would like someone to point out the mistakes.
To try and get some answers, i plan on reading “The climate crisis, archer” and “Principles of planetary climate, pierrehumbert” in this order. However, it would make things easier for me if i just got an answer here to filter my study goals
Furuwu, if you plan to have a teaching position, have you thought about how you would respond to a student who said what you just did?
“Hey, teach, here’s a paper I just found…. could you read the whole thing and explain everything to me? I can’t be bothered to figure anything out myself.”
The first thing a good teacher does when a student doesn’t understand something is to figure out what the student does understand, what their background level is, vocabulary, and so on.
Why don’t you help us out by telling us what you think the paper is saying, in your own words?
furuwu,
I’m not sure why the paper you link-to would be of interest to anyone. The author isn’t a clomatologist although he has been publishing the odd paper on CO2/GHGs, with “odd” being a well-chosen descriptor for these papers. And what this paper manages to set out in forty-one pages is surely a catalogue of the author’s failure rather than grand discovery. Debunking forty-one pages of nonsense is a bit of a big ask so perhaps there is some specific section that spurs your interest.
A quick look at Section 2 will perhaps provide an exemplar of what this paper comprises.
(1) The criticism of the description “greenhouse effect” is puerile. Greenhouses are far more leaky than the atmosphere (which the author admits is “close to thermodynamic equilibrium”). The mention of elevated CO2 within greenhouses is an irrelevance as is his botanical drought-resistance argument, while his citation of Ångström is history not science.
(2) Suggesting that a CO2-temperature correlation provides “one of the strongest arguments” ignores half a century of climatology. Suggesting Henry’s Law could explain such a correlation would require a driver of temperature strong enough without a CO2 feedback to explain paleoclimates, a requirement overlooked by the author.
(3) The calculation of the climate sensitivity to dCO2, “value expected for the greenhouse effect (1.4 mK/ppm),” is entirely bogus. He references himself where he in turn references the classic-cllimate-change-denier Lindzen to obtain ECS=+0.5ºC and applies this to a doubling from 357ppm to obtain a CO2-T correlation of [500mK/357ppm=] 1.4 mK/ppm. To correct his calculation requires it to be 6x larger to account for the conventional ECS=+3ºC and then multiplied again x2^(0.5) to account for the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing. And while ECS doesn’t properly apply to AGW over a few decades, this understood by the author, there are other things forcing climate through the period 1958-2018, this in both directions which is something the author fails to grasp. The absence of consideration of these other forcing processes become eye-wateringly tragic when the author attempts to find reason for an ECS=+24ºC [=95mK/ppm] and his analysis becomes quickly incoherent when he attempts to include a linear rate of delayed warming and argue for a physical cause of that delay.
(4) Modern dCO2 is apparently too big for ocean out-gassing to be the source of dCO2 (and given CO2 concentrations in the oceans are rising, it is quite obviously not so). The final paragraph of the section tells us that, apparently, ocean temperature and dCO2 give some grand explanation for “these signals” whatever that means (presumably all explained by this 2018 paper co-authored by the author, “presumably” as the citation is missing) and then all that remains is to identify how weak the CO2 impact on climate actually is.
in Re to furuwu, 24 Jul 2024 at 12:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-july-2024/#comment-823393
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your reference to an interesting article. It appears that it is a hard-core piece of criticism with respect to present mainstream climate science. It is therefore well possible that the hosts of this website already have discussed it (or another similar contribution of the same author) herein. If so, regular long-term readers certainly provide a reference.
I would like to say only that although lot of the theory Mr. Callinga presents may be perfectly correct, the bold conclusions he makes may be still misleading. It is very easy, because a single wrong step on a complicated path may result in a failure, even though all other steps might have been correct.
What I, as a layman, see in the cited article as somewhat suspicious on the first sight, is the assertion (based on a quite strange reference 18) that carbon dioxide causes only a few % of the entire “greenhouse effect”.
I am aware of an article which gives a several times higher estimation:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287
It has been presented by its author Dr. Schmidt also here on Real Climate,
I do not know if this single difference can explain and/or rectify all supposed contradictions presented by Mr. Callinga, if any. It should be just an example that there might be disputable points in his article and that the things may in fact not be as simple as he presented them therein.
I also do not suppose that the thermodynamic radiative model of the atmosphere presented by Mr. Callinga is his own invention, and somewhat doubt that supercomputer climate models used for present scientific studies are perhaps not yet based thereon. I do not expect that they still rely on simpler atmosphere models that Mr. Callinga (I suppose correctly) disproves as inaccurate.
I am looking forward what comments scientifically more literate readers of this website add.
Best regards
TK
Re: furuwu:
Since you are new to this group – I’ll let you on the time-saving secret – to pre-screen the papers. we use here a device called “Tomas Kalisz”. The device is quite simple:
– if “Tomas Kalisz” compliments something, e.g. “ Thank you for your reference to an interesting article.” – there is a good chance a denier’s crap (p-value 0.005?)
Amateur nonprofessional here. I wouldn’t start with the skeptics though. I think there are masses of excellent secondary-school level discussions of climate science which might be less university-level academic. For debunking, Skeptical Science has an excellent database at 3 levels of sophistication which might be useful. DeSmogBlog also maintains a database.
This wasn’t where I was going to start but it’s a good one!
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465 and you can wander on to their other materials quite easily from there.
https://www.desmog.com/climate-disinformation-database/
Kathryn Hayhoe might appear to be a bit juvenile for secondary schoolers, but she gets all the facts right and stays friendly and supportive throughout.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow
Others will no doubt be able to name good resources for you. Our fearless leaders here at RC might be good. I love Dr. Schmidt’s tech talk: Emergent Patterns of Climate Change, older by timeless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
oops, Ted Talk not Tech Talk – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
Gives me a chance to repeat myself about its excellence in understanding the nature of the scientific enterprise as it relates to environmental/climate research
Starting from the first line — “1. Introduction …. One of the strongest argument of Alarmists”
From a scientific/technical expository perspective, no idea who “Alarmists” are. The author capitalizes the word so it sounds as if it some kind of nationality or sect. It’s not even correct grammar, as it should be a singular of a plural group “one of the strongest arguments”. Most people will stop reading at this point according to the cockroach theory, which is if you see one cockroach on the floor, there are likely to be many more hiding away.
Excellent reply, Paul. You’ve explained what’s fallacious about the straw man rhetorical tactic, i.e. attacking a hyperbolic caricature of one’s opponents, and poisoning the well for their factual claims with a belittling label..
LOL! That one is new to me, and feels maximally apt in this context. It turns out to have currency with investors, referring to bad news about a publicly traded company’s financial situation. From Investopedia:
That’s an excellent screen for purported “climate change” information as well! Investopedia’s conclusion, however:
If only that were true for climate-change disinformation as well!
Dang, more HTML Fail. I give up. The link to Investopedia’s “Cockroach Theory” page is https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cockroach-theory.asp
Paul Pukite. Yeah good point. I thought the use of the term Alarmists was unscientific, and an indication this man cant supress his derisive views and ideological leanings. So I googled his name and found this study , confirming my suspicions, and packed full of cockroaches:
Science in the times of Covid. An alternative hypothesis
Peter Stallinga1,4∗ Igor Khmelinskii2,4 Leslie V. Woodcock3,4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359337673_Science_in_the_times_of_Covid_An_alternative_hypothesis
His maths looks impressive in both studies, and beyond my pay grade, but its easy to see he gets tripped up by the GIGO factor..
I don’t know what specifically is wrong with their model, but I can tell you that computer radiative-convective models go back to 1964 (after the theory was provided in 1931), and they have no trouble at all reproducing Earth’s atmosphere. The argument of the article is “my model doesn’t work, therefore nobody’s does,” which is a pure non sequitur.
furuwu wrote: “The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one”
If you are reading “skeptics papers” you are getting off to a VERY BAD START. At best you are wasting your time and at worst you are being seriously misled.
Global warming deniers ARE NOT “SKEPTICS”. They are deliberate liars and/or the weak-minded, gullible, ignorant dupes of deliberate liars. Their so-called “research” is nothing but propaganda paid for by the fossil fuel corporations.
This article from The Guardian caught my eye. For my birthday on Sunday, I was given “The heat will kill you first,” by Jeff Goodell. Rather apposite on a day which set a new world temperature record. But that record seems to have been amazingly ephemeral.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/24/record-hottest-day-earth-temperature-july
Kevin McKinney
”But that’s precisely what much of the world is actually doing, albeit slowly. Per this list, 51 nations–OK, 50 if you don’t count Vatican City!–have population growth rates that are negative or 0. Another 97 have annual growth rates of 1% or less, and many of them are going to see that drop predictably due to demographic structure (read: “aging population.”) Piotr has made some decent arguments why this might not be something to take for granted, but nevertheless significant chunks of the world are seeing population declines, or are reasonably expected to see them soon.”
Yes but this likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem. In all cases in nature (that I know of) the population only falls when the food runs out. However since Ehrlich’s book people have been aware. Therefore education and awareness needs to continue.
Further, in light of the extinction crisis now happening before our eyes because of us (the Anthropocene), which amounts to a greatly accelerated and unnatural unraveling of billions of years of evolution (species becoming extinct now that otherwise would not have and the likely domino-like consequences of that) it is incumbent upon us to increase the pressure by increasing that knowledge and education. We don’t have a lot of time.
Just as knowing what’s at stake we do not want to throw up our hands and leave the reining in of co2 to chance, we also should not relax and just hope that we as a species do the right thing in this case either.
I mean, why only concentrate on one but ignore the other? Huh? Does that make a bit of sense? It’s all one earth! Some might say it’s even more important than climate change because there will be an end to that. But as they say, extinction is forever,.
Bok, you say:
“Yes but this likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem.”
That’s simply wrong. What is Un-natural is women having 9 children… it simply doesn’t make sense if there is low infant/childhood mortality and children are not needed for a primarily small-agriculture economy.
The only other reason to have more children is to produce “warriors” in order to control scarce resources. But this doesn’t apply if you have a high resource/population ratio, and even a moderate degree of prosperity makes it less appealing for women…… if they have a choice.
People really do seem to have trouble imagining a paradigm that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions. If you had a USA population of 70 million, split evenly between the two coasts, with the global numbers proportionately reduced, and modern technology, neither of the two mechanisms I described would operate.
The real science question is what the fertility curve looks like in the range between 8 billion and .8 billion global population.
And then there’s this:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/
So how about people stop living in the past and try to answer the questions, based on current realities. What happens to fertility rates as population declines? What happens to consumption of energy and other resources? What does the curve look like??
No noble Kumbaya stuff, please.
Hmm. ”noble Kumbaya stuff”. You also implied that concern for other than humans is “highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached.”
I propose we start calling concern about climate change “highly unlikely Kumbaya, noble, virtuous solutions to which they are attached but you’d probably object to that.
It sounds like you’re arguing about details thereby diverting the discussion into impossible delaying avenues. As in climate change denial this can go on forever. Meanwhile the clock ticks. I’m saying that in the big picture human population growth is responsible (from over hunting and over fishing to land taking and habitat destruction etc) for the loss of other than human species, and that’s unarguable. It’s happening now and it’s happening fast.
So I could take the bait, but I won’t.How we solve it I’ll leave to the perpetual arguers. I’m just saying that, IMO, I don’t think that taking much more from the planet will be a viable solution.
https://mediafeed.org/heres-how-many-earths-wed-need-if-everyone-lived-like-americans/
But maybe you can make it work.
I apologize if I misunderstand.
Bok, maybe you are somewhat new here but I have been bringing up population for a long time.
The problem is that the standard response was always “but it isn’t going to solve the problem fast enough”…. and then people would say…. “we really just have to go carbon-free in the next 20 years”.
And this is where I first applied the description of “Kumbaya solution”. It is more unlikely that people will decide to stop burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years than it is that women will decide to have fewer or no children, because having fewer children is in the woman’s short-term rational self-interest, and not burning fossil fuels is not in much of the world.
There’s ample evidence for this in the current significant TFR declines.
But those declines are not, as the survey I provided shows, primarily the result of people being Kumbaya virtuous, just like the transition to renewable energy is not primarily the result of individuals being concerned about climate. In both cases, rational self-interest is the primary motivator.
For example, electric transportation is just better/cheaper, and in the third world, people can elevate their situation not by buying Teslas but by replacing their bikes and other cheap vehicles… again, not to be virtuous, but to improve their lives.
For population, the thing that works is spreading “Western values” with respect to the empowerment of women, along with economic improvement. The latter doesn’t mean living in McMansions in an African village, rather getting local electricity and internet connections.
What promotes such a transition is contact with the first-and-second world, both through trade and immigration. Just lecturing them about how they should reduce their population for the sake of biodiversity does not.
Bok,
Pretty much what Zebra said.
Education is great, but what matters is how you do it. Population reduction is a communications nightmare, for all sorts of reasons.
At least climate change is an issue that can be more easily intellectualized (somewhat). When it comes to making babies, you’re up against several billion years of evolution driven by a reproductive imperative now churning away below peoples belts — plus several hundred thousand years of tribalism to reinforce it.
This just in: JD Vance is pushing for giving parents more votes than people without children. That should make Quiverfull Christians ecstatic. Of course his orange divinity is promising Christians that they won’t have to vote after he’s elected, so make of that what you will, handmaids and trad wives.
Zebra says “But those declines are not, as the survey I provided shows, primarily the result of people being Kumbaya virtuous, just like the transition to renewable energy is not primarily the result of individuals being concerned about climate. In both cases, rational self-interest is the primary motivator.”
Depends what definition of primary motivation Zebra is using. Primary motivator: Oxford Dictionary: 1) of chief importance; principal. 2)earliest in time or order.
The main ongoing reason for the development of renewables is arguably the wider benefits of renewables and lower costs.The primary motivator for first developing renewables was concern about climate and its impacts leading to carbon taxes or subsidies etcetera, to kick start renewables.. Without such kumbya concern there would be no wind or solar power of any significance.
But this doesn’t apply if you have a high resource/population
Right, but you’re failing to see that the availability of food is also> a resource. Not only that, it’s the oldest, most basic resource there is! Naturally the only thing that limits species populations is the availability of food. What will happen if, for example, you stick a couple of rodents a room, fill it with food, then close and lock the door? The rodents will multiply until the food runs out then a crash will ensue.
In your case because of ingrained religious and cultural beliefs those women may drastically reduce the number of their offspring when they can prosper and only average 3 or 4 kids each (a big reduction from 9) but more of the children that they do have will survive to also reproduce.
There’s also the fact that because of tradition and other complicating factors, especially in certain countries, having big families is a desirable thing – whether you’re rich or not. To reduce it further, then, something else is required – and that’s education. Education that a population explosion will inevitably result in an inhumane crash, probably including their offspring. Something that the population proponents never mention.
In your case they would have moved on from a basic Maslowian sense of self-survival to one that encompasses the survival of their children and children’s children. But they need the education about population to want to reduce their numbers below replacement levels, which is what is needed.
You’re right that to want to do this they first need to be sure enough of their own survival. I’m saying that bringing them up to first world standards is going to cost them later by costing the earth now. Unless you’re Julian Simon or Freeman Dyson that cares only for people, the earth and other species simply cannot handle it! Look at what we are already doing! There might already be too many people here to make it work even if we do everything correctly. We in the west have demonstrated our reticence to lower our standards. So bringing up the third world while doing nothing in the west will probably be the nail in the coffin.
We need to strenuously figure this out. How to bring the third world up enough while taking the first world down some. All the while we have to couple that with concerted education. Whether we do all this or not is another question.
Think Easter Island.
In all cases in nature (that I know of) the population only falls when the food runs out.
I mean here where natural predators either don’t or almost don’t exist because its a nonnative species, as in the rabbit/Australia case, but in lots of others as well, or have been eliminated, both micro and macro, as in the human case, the population only falls naturally when the food runs out.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227269417_Human_Carrying_Capacity_Is_Determined_by_Food_Availability – and others
In both cases something else is required, and soon. We shouldn’t kick it down the road.
BOK.
“Yes but this ( slowing population growth and shrinking populations) likely would not have happened naturally had people been unaware that there is a population problem.”
I disagree. Slowing rates of population growth and shrinking populations have happened in many countries. As countries industrialised and wealth increased beyond a certain point, people stopped having large families because they were a financial burden, and were no longer needed to provide security in old age, and to labour on the farms, and the modern contraception allowed people to limit family size. This is known as the demographic transition process. It was a side effect of wealth creation so it clearly would have happened regardless of public levels of awareness of the population problem.
Some countries have worked to speed up this process for example Chinas forced one child policy and government programmes in some countries on family planning was successful. Notably SE Asian countries.
I do agree with your general concerns about population pressure, and the need to stop population growth and be proactive about this, and not rely totally on the natural process of wealth creation. Family planning and cheap contraception can help. For example one of the very poor African countries, (may have been Niger I just cant rmember exactly) , engaged in an experiment where the governmnet providing free contraception to some areas, and birth rates plummeted, even although its still a relatively poor country.
because they were a financial burden
How much more of a burden were they when the parents didn’t have money?
You might be right that population would have declined some regardless. Who knows? But still I have to think that a general awareness that there is a problem contributed to the decline. That’s why it was written after all!
That’s the difference between humans and non-human animals (that we know of). We have the ability to think and project.
Bok
“How much more of a burden were they (large families) when the parents didn’t have money?”
Ok fair point. I walked into that one. But it wasn’t just that. Raising large families is hard work.
It appears the majority of people were quite happy to have smaller families once it became a practical option enabling them to pursue wider interests more easily. Like buying things, travelling etc. says something about human values.
“You might be right that population would have declined some regardless. Who knows? But still I have to think that a general awareness that there is a problem contributed to the decline. That’s why it was written after all!”
I recall reading some poll somewhere taken recently in America where the number of people electing to have small families for the good of the planet or environment is still quite small, sadly to say. Most people quoted other reasons. So Im inclined to think the main reason for lower fertility in Europe and America was just the increasing wealth etc, etc. Awareness of the population time bomb probably played some role but a much lesser role. The process was natural. Governmnets mostly didnt incentivise small families.
You cant assume that awarness was causative just because books were written on the subject (if thats what you are saying)
What interests me is given the public have understood the population problem for a long time, why wasnt this a big factor in decision making at least in western countries? It might be because people see a population crash or associated environmental crash as somewhere away in the future. Our brains are hardwired to deal with more present problems rather than distant problems (or problems perceived to be distant). This is also an issue with mitigating climate change.
But as I mentioned the reasons for declining fertility rates did seem to differ in Asian countries. Unlike western countries, they had huge rapidly growing low income populations and the possibility they were heading for human and environmental disaster must have been obvious to people, and it was not in the far distant future either. Several of these countries governments had deliberate familiy planning with incentives to have small families.
Excuse the rant. Intriguing subject with huge implications environmentally. I agree if we have any sense we will actively encourage populations to stop growing.
Hi Nigel. No, I don’t think just one book by itself contributed to population reduction.awareness. It might not even have been originally read by many people. Who knows? But in blowing his trumpet others who also have trumpets (like the media) read it and blew their trumpets as well. And so on. And so on. I doubt that a lot of people read a Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring either, as another example. Yet when it was read by some in the media and talked about after that it became a contagion that soon spread until everyone was talking about it. It even contributed to the first Earth Day.
That’s what I mean when I say The Population Bomb led in a big way to a general awareness of the population problem. When people have children I suspect that the issue is at least in the back of everyone’s mind where it probably wasn’t before.
Bok,
The Book That Incited a Worldwide Fear of Overpopulation
‘The Population Bomb’ made dire predictions—and triggered a wave of repression around the world
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/
One thing about RealClimate is that you don’t get a lot of the heat that occurs in other fora around the topic of population. What you don’t see here are thorough bashings of Ehrlich, or accusations that talk of population reduction is a racist campaign to reduce the numbers of brown people (which is not an unreasonable fear given historic precedents).
Now imagine the furor on the right if they thought that not only were libs and egghead scientists going to take away their guns, but their babies as well… holy cow!
Bok
“That’s what I mean when I say The Population Bomb led in a big way to a general awareness of the population problem. When people have children I suspect that the issue is at least in the back of everyone’s mind where it probably wasn’t before.”
Yes agreed. Good points. I became aware of the exponential population growth problem decades ago when I was about 12 years old. I cant remember exactly how but it might have been a book like the population bomb or Paul Erlichs work ( right in theory but wrong on the timing, IMHO).
The population issue made a strrong impression on my as being a major problem, and I’ve never changed my view. It has influenced my decisions in life quite strongly.
Human motivations seem quite complex to me and although the majority of people probably base family size mainly on financial and practical considerations I can believe concerns about population and environment play some part.
Also Bok, you know what a third rail is, right? If you don’t have a way around that, all you’re doing is standing in the middle Nowheresville waving your hands at a known problem.
Others here have made substantive points about population trends and the kinds of things that might bring population numbers down.
A personal anecdote from back in the day: When “The Population Bomb” came out, a friend alerted me to it and gave it an enthusiastic hard sell. Not long after that they got married, ended up with three kids, and so much for ZPG. Reality has a way of intervening.
Bok, your paragraph 2 seems to be saying in essence that 1) population growth is decreasing because people are making choices, and 2) they are making those choices based on awareness of the ‘big picture’ problem of overpopulation, thanks to books like “The Population Bomb.”
Paragraph 3 seems to be saying that we need to keep up the “pressure” (presumably, the PR pressure to reduce population), because we have an extinction crisis going on.
Paragraph 4 strays into Straw Man territory, I’m afraid, in that nothing I said suggested that we should sit back and relax. I simply corrected KIA’s contention that “we won’t reduce population,” which I see as factually incorrect.
Ditto paragraph 5; I’m not suggesting we “ignore” anything.
Of course, Kevin. Sorry if I implied that.
Well have we not been pressuring the world to reduce Co2 for decades? There’s nothing wrong in applying pressure (education, from the top down) in these cases where something rather large is at stake. Before the abolition of slavery certain people pressured their leaders to ban it because that was the right thing to do right?
Like Global Warming, world population and the resulting extinction crisis need similar pressure to stop. Like Global Warming we should not rely on hope or current trends, which could reverse if something changes, but be proactive in dealing with it. Too much is at stake. If we just hope that population will level out at the turn of the century we might, or might not, be right. But in the intervening years we will have lost species that we otherwise would not have had we taken it seriously earlier.
This is happening now so this is our generation’s issue to solve.
Hi:
It’s been awhile since I posted here or followed the various conversations. It has been almost 20 years since this site hosted a discussion on the early Anthropocene, Bill Ruddiman’s hypothesis that humans began altering the climate because of deforestation and agriculture, including rice cultivation, some 8000 years ago. I’ve been aware of this hypothesis for awhile, but recently reread Bill Ruddiman’s 2005 Scientific American article for some work I’m doing on prehistoric human impacts in North America and Googled for the latest status (a 2021 posting in the Global Policy Journal) . It may be that this topic is not of sufficient interest for this platform, but if there are others who have been following this hypothesis, I’d be happy to take the conversation “off line”.
I close with a comment on the latest hockey stick diagram (I tried to paste it in this post, but was not successful) which in my viewing clearly shows a decline in global temperatures over the past ~1800 years ended and reversed by the onset of the industrial era.
Taber
furuwu 24 JUL “ I’m here asking for some help to speed things up. Probably next year i’ll have a teaching position (biology and geology in secondary education) and as such i would like to understand what i’ll be talking about. The climate hasn’t been my main interest so i’m newbie on this. I have found some skeptics papers like this one
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that your request is not disingenuous (i.e., that you are not just sealioning here), you are putting the cart in front of the horse – first you need to educate yourself about the topic, and only then identify the lies, half-truths, and manipulations of the “skeptics”. And even then –
– your target audience, students, is not likely to encounter the paper your brought up, but the much simpler denier talking points online- and for those – there are websites listing the most common deniers claims and short answers identifying why these are manipulations.
But again – the time for it comes AFTER you educated yourself enough from credible sources – and for that – you can use the resources of this site – go to Menu – then “Start Here” which has a list of credible resources for people on a spectrum of climate knowledge, so you can find a level appropriate for you.
Thanks for the responses yall!
zebra
i get your point but like i said, i’m a newbie, and don’t know much yet. And if they didn’t tell me anything, i would try to tell them what i know from the start.
MA Rodger
the author not being a climatologist is not relevant to me since i don’t really care about credentials. For a bit of context, i finished a bachelor of science in biology and geology this year and it had a bit of geology component ofc. Two of my uni teachers were climate deniers and openly talked about it. I was not convinced and asked for some papers to read and one of them sent me “Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking, Leslie V. Woodcock” and that Stallinga one i sent. I sent that one because it had values for the sensitivity and besides, that guy is mentioned here https://clintel.org/ as an embassador for my country (Portugal). I did not have any course specifically on climate science/physics. Anyway, that is to say, there’s some gaps in my training since this is (probably the most) relevant topic in this field.
(3) that is what i asked, thanks
(2) that makes sense to me, i guessed the model was too simple and i know the negative feedback systems are central to the current theory but according to the author, none of it was necessary so yeah…
Tomáš Kalisz
thanks,
the first phrase of that article is smt i noticed too.
“The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers to the present-day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change”
Susan Anderson
thanks (i’ll stick with the books i mentioned for now)
Paul Pukite
That is true tbh but not really a an argument
Barton Paul
yup gotta study the models
Piotr
i mean, lots of people want quick answers to complicated questions and i’m no exception. It’s like those videos on youtube debunking wrong ideias. It kinda raises my determination so study the topic. Some people just like exploring ig, and it’s not because the students would not ask that i would not be interested in if there are alternative conceptions. So thanks for pointing out the obvious but i don’t care for your critique
furuwu wrote: “the author not being a climatologist is not relevant to me since i don’t really care about credentials.”
So you DON’T REALLY CARE whether the author of a “paper” is a scientist conducting actual science, or a propagandist paid by the fossil fuel corporations to lie to you.
In that case, the fact is that YOU DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile your statement with caring about science AT ALL.
furuwu: “ i mean, lots of people want quick answers to complicated questions and i’m no exception
what “lots of people” do or don’t, does not make it automatically right. If you are going to teach students – there are no shortcuts in learning the subject you are going to teach and I have given you the link to those resources recommended by the climate scientists running this site.
As long as you still lack the basics – there is no point wasting your time on the deniers papers,
since often you won’t be able to spot the manipulation, and you have to take claims by others on faith.
And when people point out this to you – you responded with arrogance:
furuwu: “ i don’t care for your critique“.
And no, the advice you got WASN’T pointing the obvious” since if it were obvious to you – we would not have point it out to you.
P.S. Two deniers profs??? Where did you study – Putin’s Academy?
furuwu,
That the author P. Stallinga is involved with the Dutch clinate deniers CLINTEL does explain his motives for writing such ‘odd’ climatology papers. Here in UK we were in the past treated to the crazy antics of the GWPF (which my best guess was it really stood for Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) making appearances in main-stream media outlets, and with a bit more public support in UK of late for right-wing political parties who are happy to promulgate denialist policy, the likes of the GWPF may be re-energised in their work.
The other paper presented to you by that Uni teacher was a real crazy read. It perhaps provides an exemplar of where a non-climatologist can end up while an actual climatologist would have spotted the “No Entry” signs or be put right by climatology colleagues. That he, Woodcock, and denialist Stallinga both work at the same place and are co-authors on other papers could help explain Woodcock’s venture into lunacy.
Woodcock (2022) ‘Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking: Energy Industry’s Enthalpy Footprints’ insists the variations in temperature increases seen across the world rules out CO2 as a warming agent, CO2 being spread evenly across the planet and so is unable to force the variations seen in regional temperature rises. And to add utter madness to craziness, Woodcock proposes that this regional variation has the fingerprint of shale gas fracking and thus the warming is due to an increase in geo-thermal energy reaching the surface due to that fracking.
There are problems attributing a warming seen since the 1970s to fracking which (as Woodcock [2022] describes) has only been significantly practised since 2005. And there are big problems in locating the main sites of this fracking and matching them to the regions showing higher warming (as in the paper’s Fig 1). Even today, the US dominates global fracking operations which are absent from Belarus and Honduras/Nicaragua. (By 2020 US production 700bn m^3/y, the few other major producers 10bn m^3/y.)
But the real crazy part is a mistake no climatologist in their right mind would make.
The geo-thermal heat flux is measured in tens of milliWatta/sq metre, as Woodcocks Fig 4 correctly shows. Yet a very very simple calculation attributing even the +0.4ºC AGW 2000-2015, with ECS=3ºC that would require a forcing of +1.5Wm^-2 globally which, over the area of US fracking operations (say 1M sq miles = 2.5 sw km) would require +300Wm^-2 or a rather noticeable +40ºC increase in the area’s ground surface temperature!!
furuwu: Your sticking with false information and being unwilling to question it tells us all we need to know about you. I am sorry you are determined to ‘do your own research’ while focusing on the poorly supported fake skeptic universe.
I and others gave you resources which include the people whose hospitality enables you to post here.
I also gave you resources which identify the lack of credibility of your ‘do your own research’ materials.
The people here know vastly more than you do. You would do well to appreciate that. You have shown that you are being disingenuous, and we’ll all seen this so many times before. To spread this abuse of knowledge to teenagers makes this effort doubly culpable.
Meanwhile, the condition of the world under accelerating global warming is serious and obvious. It will get to your dooryard sooner or later.
Nice dressing down, Susan. The heck with polite circumlocution. As direct as any frank denialist like furuwu needs to, but will not, hear. It gladdened my heart regardless!
SA,
Yep. Sounds familiar. Meet the new troll, same as the old troll.
I still think “zebra’s troll test” is the most efficient: They never answer the question.
z: I still think “zebra’s troll test” is the most efficient: They never answer the question.
BPL: Agreed. I see this a lot.
by that measure EVERY politician is a troll.
Well, I really don’t think it is true of every politician, but anyway, the point of the test in this context is just to first see if the commenter is sincere, rather than allowing them to manipulate you into validating whatever pretend science they offer up.
If you start answering that nonsense in detail, it doesn’t matter how thoroughly you debunk it…. their goal is to create the illusion of a “debate” between two real positions.
Some are. However, I think that the true skill of an electable politician is to answer questions in a way that people want to hear. If that isn’t possible, best to leave the question unanswered.
My apologies for being so “vigorous” here. I know that’s frowned upon in this gentleman’s club. :/
Zebra @ July 28 7:55 am: I understand what you are saying (though you do provide an example of how not burning fossil fuels can be in a woman’s self interest by not buying expensive Teslas but fixing their bicycles instead).
What I’m saying though is that bringing up the third world to first world standards won’t stop at getting electricity and internet connections as you imply. It would be rather naive to think so. Look at what economic development means, for example, for Bangladeshis:
With the development of cities and establishments, a large number of people started moving towards the cities. Many of the agricultural areas were also being urbanized and being modernized. Most people would not think that this is necessarily a problem. In fact, most people would see this as a positive sign of progress among the developing countries. With urbanization came new settlements, new establishments, and more factories that provided more jobs to the people. https://ecolonomics.org/third-world-population-growth-urbanization-progress/
In their improvement of course they will want all the amenities that the first world enjoys, which is understandable of course. If they earn it and have the natural resources to exploit why should they not be allowed to do what Westerners have done? They are not any less entitled to them than we, which is exactly what they’ve been saying.
The problem is that this one, small, planet, which I don’t need to remind you of is the only one we know of thats actually living, can barely handle what we in the west are taking from it. If the third world also develops that will likely be the end of the life on earth as we know it. We are already in the midst of the sixth extinction.
So how do we solve it? I don’t know that we can. It’s late. Someone smarter than me will have to figure it out. But I do know that if we are to we will need to start first (and soon) by actually giving a damn, admitting there’s a problem, and stop hiding the truth. Stop being willfully ignorant. Peter Raven, the past president of AAAS, has predicted that if we do nothing, the majority of all species will become extinct by the end of this century. So yeah, let’s get with it.
End of soapbox.
Now epidemic online.
I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump. Then I won’t have to see any more of this hyperbolic, mass hysteria, fo-news. Trump will shutter any publication pushing the disproven climate change agenda. And that will be the end of climate change! It’s just that easy to solve because there’s no real problem to fix. TRUMP/VANCE 2024!
You should have heeded my warnings years ago.
Reality is coming for you. You’re wasting your time here. I know you want to shut down NASA, but it ain’t gonna happen. You wouldn’t like a world without doctors and people who can build things that don’t break.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
I had long believed it to be impossible for a modern, post-industrial, science-based society based on democratic principles and universal education to degenerate into a society based on tribalism, violence, autocratic personality-cult leadership, ignorance, superstition and religious extremism. Perhaps similar to modern day Afghanistan. With the emergence of the MAGA movement I feel I may need to reassess this. Probably won’t happen within my lifetime unless the US foolishly tries to engage China militarily over Taiwan. But if and when this does happen I’m sure it’ll be great.
Jonathon David.
“I had long believed it to be impossible for a modern, post-industrial, science-based society based on democratic principles and universal education to degenerate into a society based on tribalism, violence, autocratic personality-cult leadership, ignorance, superstition and religious extremism”
I had long believed the same. It’s almost like America is sleep walking to civil war. Or even racing towards it.
The fact that about 50% of Americans support this MAGA nonsense has surprised and shocked me, and has made me somewhat more cynical about human nature.
Im inclined to partly blame MAGA on lack of intelligence or education to some extent but many who believe are very educated and intelligent so they have other motives / reasons. MAGA is a movement apparetnly attracting gullible poorly educated people, various types of opportunists and different ideological groups.
MAGA seems to be characterised by anger, emotion, gut reactions, instincts, bigotry, racism, mysogeny, scapegoating and irrationality and lying, and hatred of environmentalists, elites and experts. Its massively contradictory as well. These things are all having a huge resurgence. The veneer of civilsation is certainly quite thin. Its all a bit depressing.
One of the reasons for a system of checks and balances is because you can’t always expect people to behave rationally. Systematically corrode those; crank up the agitprop to mess with peoples’ heads and terminate rational discourse; substitute a mythical past for the lessons of history… Hell, there’s plenty of crap just below the surface to exploit.
“A republic if you can keep it.”
That 50% seems a bit high. Only 32% of American voters are registered Republican. Not all Republicans are MAGA-heads.
Still far too many, of course.
Nigelj, yes it’s all of that. I would point out that there is a large amount of distrust and anger in the US directed at the government, politicians and other institutions of authority. There is a broad awareness that the government does not serve the interests of the common citizenry but ever more increasingly, the interests of multinational corporations, big money interests and Wall Street. As a consequence there has been a great deal of loss of economic opportunity due to globalization, deindustrialization and capital flight. This has been largely ignored by government, the media, and economists. The Right (especially Trump) has capitalized on this. Of course, their approach is to vilify Democrats and “Socialism”. So the MAGA proponents include some powerful figures in the Right that seek to eliminate portions of the government that inhibit maximum profit. Unfortunately the Left (such as it is) has no response to this.
Last sentence is sarcasm, of course.
Jonathan David: “ With the emergence of the MAGA movement I feel I may need to reassess this. Probably won’t happen within my lifetime unless the US foolishly tries to engage China militarily over Taiwan. But if and when this does happen I’m sure it’ll be great.”
“I, for one, welcome our new MAGA overlords” ? ;-)
I am not sure why this surprises you. Civilization doesn’t change human nature. It really just puts a thin veneer over our violent, tribal and ideologically blinkered nature.
Our nature as social mammals has allowed large groups of us to team up to bend nature to our will. However, that same nature fosters groupthink and intolerance for dissent when some notice that Mother Nature is getting pissed and is about to kick the snot out of us.
And humans can also be amazingly creative and insightful in developing ways to compensate for our cognitive shortcomings. The entire scientific method was developed originally by philosopher and royal embezzler Francis Bacon as a compensation for some if the cognitive biases that blind us to truth. With that method, we have managed to gain insight into the workings of nature from the dynamics of point particles to the birth of the Universe. I really do believe that if humans do survive their current existential crisis, it will be by embracing that method.
Unfortunately, the scientific method is not a way of thinking that comes naturally. Nor is it conducive to social harmony. The thing about attacking sacred cows is that somebody’s ox is gonna get gored. This makes it seem particularly unnatural to some minds–particularly those who develop existential vertigo when they stare into the abyss. In the end, our survival is going to come down to whether we can make embracing science the norm rather than the exception.
Vendicar Decarian: “ I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump. Trump will shutter any publication “pushing the disproven climate change agenda ”
So did Stalin to those “ pushing the disproven genetics agenda“: “Soviet scientists who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed from their posts and left destitute. Hundreds if not thousands of others were imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state.”
So your Beloved Trump is not the first one, who shoots the messengers of the message he didn’t want to hear. But, heck – like Stalin, he won’t be around the answer for the results of his actions:
“[Anti-genetics] ideas and practices contributed to the famines that killed millions of Soviet people. The adoption of his methods from 1958 in the People’s Republic of China had similarly calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1961. ”
[Stalin died in 1953]
– Vendicar Decarian: “TRUMP/VANCE 2024!”
– Donald Trump: “‘We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated”.
“Vendicar Decarian” is a textbook example of a troll. Just google his handle. You will find him spewing obnoxious BS all over the Internet, in all sorts of forums.
None of it has any substance, none of it has anything to do with any particular subject — it’s just an endless diarrhea of bitter, hateful insults, with no purpose but annoying people to get them to engage with him so he can waste their time. He is a truly sad case.
Vendicar, I’m afraid you didn’t make it clear you’re citing a meme that’s “Now epidemic online.” AFAIK, posting such a comment in earnest would be totally out of character for you. You don’t need me to defend you, however.
Oops. Trolling the Internet with ludicrous denialism is, actually, totally in character for you. Never mind. I must have been thinking of someone else!
Vendicar Decarian: – “And that will be the end of climate change! It’s just that easy to solve because there’s no real problem to fix.”
Earth had the two hottest days on record and the weather is acting like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5babdQYKV8
In the YouTube video titled Steve Keen: “On the Origins of Energy Blindness” | The Great Simplification, recorded on 14 Dec 2023, included (from the transcript):
01:25:07 Nate Hagens: And on your previous podcast here, this is your third appearance on this show, you predicted that economists, because of their identities and status and built personal situation, they will not change until there’s a crisis. So can we anticipate what’s going to happen with the environment with oil depletion, though that’s going to happen gradually, with what’s coming and create some blueprints and break glass in case of emergency plans that are actually based on what a physiocrat might advise the French king, the modern equivalent of that? Can we do that?
01:25:55 Professor Steve Keen: I think it’s incredibly late timing to be doing that, but as you know, we depended on fossil fuels for about 85 percent of our energy, and that hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years. It’s gone down to some extent for some time because of growth in fossil fuel production, decline in hydroelectric, which that’s the main form of renewables even now is hydroelectric. It’s not wind and solar. Potentially, we’re going to see quite serious climate catastrophes is coming our way. Most of the climate scientists I’m in touch with are scared about are a global famine caused by a collapse in food output from one of the wheat belts or corn belts of the world, and that then leading to social breakdown because suddenly we haven’t got the food we need. Or wet-bulb catastrophe is the other one, which would hit third world countries more than it would hit Westerners probably.
But something which is catastrophic, which causes a massive collapse in population, and then leads to probably rogue behavior by governments around the world then, because we haven’t managed to even reach an agreement to phase out fossil fuels, the last COP-out meeting. It’ll be every country for itself in what could be a very chaotic environment, will be a very chaotic environment if we see something like a global famine.
01:27:22 Nate Hagens: So you’re saying that we shouldn’t look to the neoclassical economists who are the current economic shaman and cheerleaders of our cultural narrative of the early 21st century? We shouldn’t look to them to change their minds and chart a different course?
01:27:40 Professor Steve Keen: They will be the most shocked and most confused by what happens completely. They’re useless. They’ve led us astray. It’s just been a cascade of errors right back to Smith, as I’ve said, that led us to the situation, but the last people that have any understanding of the physical role of production on the planet are economists, and the were last ones who realized the dangers of climate change are also economists. So I would just like to kick them out of the room. They don’t belong here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrMWSkzrMYg
When the Chernobyl reactor blew-up at 1:23 am on 26 Apr 1986, the Soviet regime tried to contain the situation by lying about how bad it was, to the international community, and to their own citizens. The rising toll of deaths, cancers, birth defects (both in humans and animals), etc. became undeniable. The Soviet citizens lost faith in the Soviet regime, which arguably led as a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxUOKqSxNs
The worsening effects of a warming planet will become undeniable soon.
https://x.com/rahmstorf/status/1661450321766371329
VD: I’ll be so glad when Jan 2025 ushers in the inauguration of President Trump.
BPL: God forbid.
VD: Then I won’t have to see any more of this hyperbolic, mass hysteria, fo-news.
BPL: Why? Will things be censored that don’t agree with the regime?
VD: Trump will shutter any publication pushing the disproven climate change agenda.
BPL: Well, that answers that question. All I can say is, I’m voting the straight Democratic ticket in 2024, precisely because I don’t want to experience Trump’s brand of fascism.
Radge Havers @ 28 JUL 2024 AT 10:27 AM
Aye, I understand, yet in being protective of their children now hopefully that is extending to more concern for their children’s children too. In preserving the family lineage.
So in that way being concerned about protecting the earth IS in their best interests, right?
Of course his orange divinity is promising Christians that they won’t have to vote after he’s elected
That’s scary. So in his mind he’s not running for president but for King. A King of one for life.
High-Resolution Gaming Mouse Devices: Quickness and Precision
High-Sensitivity (dots per inch) video gaming mice may provide you the upper hand in high-speed games. DPI measures the mouse’s sensitivity, with increased numbers enabling for faster pointer motion. This is particularly advantageous in playing where rapid reactions and exact aiming remain vital.
One of the main pros of high DPI settings becomes better precision. With elevated responsiveness, you might make smaller movements, which remains vital for targeting opponents in FPS games (FPS) and other cheap playing. Adaptable DPI preferences allow you change between different levels of sensitivity on the spot, adjusting to various in-game scenarios.
Velocity becomes One other Important benefit. High-sensitivity pointing devices respond more quickly to your motions, permitting for speedier reflexes. This may cause a notable impact in gaming sessions that demand rapid decision-making and swift responses, giving you a upper hand over opponents.
Ease and adjustment In addition play a part. Many high-sensitivity mouse devices arrive with comfortable designs and Modifiable weights, transforming them cozy for lengthy use. Programmable keys and program personalization choices allow you personalize the controller to your particular needs and choices.
By examining the advantages of high-resolution electronic gaming mouse devices and comprehending how they may enhance your precision and reflexes, you may improve your gaming journey and abilities, obtaining a substantial edge in saturated playing.
Picking Perfect Gaming Chair for Your Space 393042b
Modifiable Swivel Rolling Game Armchair
Despite climate change deniers, who still fail to acknowledge the human hand in climate change, the majority of environment scientists have no doubts that the present climate change is caused by human factors. As for the general public, a large section now understands the seriousness of the issue and for us and them, the writing is clearly on the wall – the future of planet Earth increasingly lies in our hands. The future generations will inherit a world where they would move from one crisis to another – air, water and ground pollution, shortage of clean water, lack of green spaces, destruction of forests and wild places, lifeless water bodies, extinction of species, unbearable heat and uncontrollable rise in sea levels.