This month’s open thread on climate science topics.
Reader Interactions
376 Responses to "Unforced variations: July 2024"
Boksays
Radge Havers @ 29 JUL 2024 AT 12:57 PM
Good article. I’ve avoided talking about Ehrlich and his legacy itself because I believe that the subject of overpopulation is separate from the man. I’ve never liked what he did to the environmentalist movement with his prophesying. Probably because of the rash, stupid predictions he made that made anti-environmentalist businesse’s arguments against it so much easier. It can even be assumed that he harmed climate science too, thereby harming the earth, the reverse of his intentions.
On his behalf, though, I think his predictions were a sign of the times. Global Cooling, for example, was equally alarming at the time, wasn’t it? The science of extrapolation was nascent so people argued from ignorance. Yet they felt they should say something based on their new fangled tools and.their interpretations of current trends. Based on the fact that people looked to them, “scientists”, for answers. But they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight into the repercussions of utter certainty for specific events that we have learned. It’s like the difference between weather and climate. Of short-term predictions vs long-term trends. I do think that ultimately he was right, though. An end to one or another has to come sooner or later.
By the way, anti-Ehrlich people often mention the resource wager he lost to Julian Simon. But they don’t mention that Simon also lost a wager to Ehriich. Look it up.
Anyway, in my view, and it’s a view that is based on hindsight, we humans can grow a lot more on this planet. But Newton’s third law will, of course, always apply. Every inch we take from a limited earth for us is one less inch for non-human animals. We are causing the unnatural reduction of its biota. A sixth extinction. It’s unavoidable. So it’s our choice. We like to think of ourselves as intelligent. Is what we are knowingly doing intelligent?
Can I wax a bit poetic?
Every planet that we’ve looked at is dead (that we know of). Not a leaf. Not even a single cell.
The history of evolution on this planet through the long, looooong stretches of time, however, is a remarkable story. It’s like the earth KNEW that life in the universe was EXCEEDINGLY rare, so when it finally caught and lit it held onto that flame with a white knuckle grip, refusing to let go, protecting it from the winds of extermination even under the greatest of assaults: The hellish start of this rock. A snowball earth. Being repeatedly pummeled by meteors and asteroids. Five huge extinction events, (one wiping out 96% of life!). Through it all life changed and adapted and stubbornly continued.
The sixth extinction, though, we, her own progeny, have very sadly, accidentally or intentionally, instituted ourselves.
We have in our hands the ability to stop it. Whether we have the intelligence and the will, well there’s another question.
Radge Havers @ 29 JUL 2024 AT 12:57 PM
Good article. I’ve avoided talking about Ehrlich and his legacy itself because I believe that the subject of overpopulation is separate from the man. I’ve never liked what he did to the environmentalist movement with his prophesying. Probably because of the rash, stupid predictions he made that made anti-environmentalist businesse’s arguments against it so much easier. It can even be assumed that he harmed climate science too, thereby harming the earth, the reverse of his intentions.
On his behalf, though, I think his predictions were a sign of the times. Global Cooling, for example, was equally alarming at the time, wasn’t it? The science of extrapolation was nascent so people argued from ignorance. Yet they felt they should say something based on their new fangled tools and.their interpretations of current trends. Based on the fact that people looked to them, “scientists”, for answers. But they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight into the repercussions of utter certainty for specific events that we have learned. It’s like the difference between weather and climate. Of short-term predictions vs long-term trends. I do think that ultimately he was right, though. An end to one or another has to come sooner or later.
By the way, anti-Ehrlich people often mention the resource wager he lost to Julian Simon. But they don’t mention that Simon also lost a wager to Ehriich. Look it up.
Anyway, in my view, and it’s a view that is based on hindsight, we humans can grow a lot more on this planet. But Newton’s third law will, of course, always apply. Every inch we take from a limited earth for us is one less inch for non-human animals. We are causing the unnatural reduction of its biota. A sixth extinction. It’s unavoidable. So it’s our choice. We like to think of ourselves as intelligent. Is what we are knowingly doing intelligent?
Can I wax a bit poetic?
Every planet that we’ve looked at is dead (that we know of). Not a leaf. Not even a single cell.
The history of evolution on this planet through the long, looooong stretches of time, however, is a remarkable story. It’s like the earth KNEW that life in the universe was EXCEEDINGLY rare, so when it finally caught and lit it held onto that flame with a white knuckle grip, refusing to let go, protecting it from the winds of extermination even under the greatest of assaults: The hellish start of this rock. A snowball earth. Being repeatedly pummeled by meteors and asteroids. Five huge extinction events, (one wiping out 96% of life!). Through it all life changed and adapted and stubbornly continued.
The sixth extinction, though, we, her own progeny, have very sadly, accidentally or intentionally, instituted ourselves.
We have in our hands the ability to stop it. Whether we have the intelligence and the will, well there’s another question.
New AMOC paper: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.11738v1