Thanks for the heads up. Everybody you gotta check Max's post out. Just when you think it can't get any weirder, ... but this MacCormack woman is way beyond weirdest. Are you sure it is not a parody?
Let's see. With more/cheaper/available energy and human intelligence we could clean up a lot of what bothers "normal" people. Woke-mind virus folks obsess in their anti-human-flourishing, insoluble pretzel-logic ... ignore them. OTOH, maybe they would be happier with a trip to the Amazonian rain forest with a loin cloth and nothing else ... they could make their own green paradise / doh-topia...
I’m presently reading Wild New World by Dan Flores. This is an account of the early biome of the Americas and the impact of humans on the wildlife- the extinction of camels, mastodon, mammoths, horses, sabre tooth tigers and a long list of long extinct species. There seems to be a bit of an overlap between the arrival of humans and the disappearance of many species - especially the tasty ones. There’s some interesting evidence and this has some applications concerning our present angst about the environment. Maybe the early natives didn’t really live in harmony with the land- maybe they ‘gasp’ acted just like us.
(I’ve seen videos of indigenous folks on caribou hunting on snowmobiles who just slaughtered as many as they could- and the fellow who showed me was doing the hunting, took the video and was quite proud of his actions)
Two issues with the CO2 comparison across the planet's history:
1. CO2 concentration is not the only factor that determines global temperature, as the graph itself implies. There are many more inputs to the function, like solar output (the sun is slowly getting brighter), planetary albedo, other greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. So it's hard to say if the CO2 concentration now is a problem or not on its own. You need to look at everything else too.
2. While the current CO2 concentration is low, the *rate of change* is very high compared to any other time in the planet's history. Global warming is not a problem so much because of the temperature itself -- the planet has been hotter before -- but the speed it is happening. If the planet warmed or cooled 3 degrees over ten thousand years or even a thousand years, that's no problem. Life would adapt easily and so would human civilization. The problem is that the temperature change is happening over tens of years, and that may be unprecedented in the planet's history since life evolved, apart from sudden disasters like asteroid impacts.
Jack, as I was writing for Risk & Progress, one of the recurring themes that kept coming up was the counterintuitive nature of human progress. I think that plays a large role in the way these movements operate.
It’s only natural to believe that the lifeboat has a fixed size. It’s logical to think that when population grows geometrically and agriculture growth linearly, eventually we will run out of food.
The concept that more people = more available resources runs against the zero-sum world that is biologically etched into our minds.
It’s the same with climate change. The idea that more growth=less environmental impact, doesn’t “feel” logical yet the data suggests otherwise.
I say again the only point of Figure 2 is that current CO2 levels are not a problem for the planet.
The planet has survived far higher CO2 levels in the past.
It seems some members of the choir define "planet" as something like "human well-being".
That strikes me as a very long stretch,; but, if that is your definition, then yes Figure 2 tells you almost nothing useful. An entirely different perspective is appropriate. See, for example,
Well played. No preacher can afford to be on the wrong side of the Good Book.
I say again the piece is not about global warming; but I will take the bait. So now we are talking about something that might happen by 2200, after admitting that nothing much will happen until 2100, even under worst case (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5) assumptions about emissions, using models whose ECS's are in the upper 10\% of the CMIP6 ensemble. RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 are the old Business as Usual scenarios, which are already highly implausible, even if we do nothing more than we already have.
We can assume the psalmist was familiar with Genesis 6-9. I doubt he'd be impressed by "as much as 5.5 feet" by 2200 Anno Domini under these assumptions.
My own takeaway from this 50+ author, 30 MB?? paper is: we have some time; let's use it wisely.
Thanks, JD, for your instructive and, indeed, enjoyable reply. I greatly appreciated it.
On my first reading of "Malthusians" I was dismayed at the stark assertion "The planet is not threatened by a 100 or 200 ppm increase from current concentrations"--as if you were giving the green light for companies and individuals to belch CO2 freely for decades to come. This, from what I understand from James Hansen and others would be nuts.
But now I see, or at least think I see, that your position is much more nuanced. In fact it is is not too far from sentiments expressed in a fine 2008 column by Charles Krauthammer entitled "The Church of Global Warming."
You and other readers who are interested, can find this column using the search terms "Krauthammer church environment" or can take a stab at giving the URL, probably without success:
Another good piece. I recently wrote about misanthropism and antihumanism and the human extinctionists:
https://maxmore.substack.com/p/the-voice-of-the-void
Max,
Thanks for the heads up. Everybody you gotta check Max's post out. Just when you think it can't get any weirder, ... but this MacCormack woman is way beyond weirdest. Are you sure it is not a parody?
Let's see. With more/cheaper/available energy and human intelligence we could clean up a lot of what bothers "normal" people. Woke-mind virus folks obsess in their anti-human-flourishing, insoluble pretzel-logic ... ignore them. OTOH, maybe they would be happier with a trip to the Amazonian rain forest with a loin cloth and nothing else ... they could make their own green paradise / doh-topia...
Brilliant work.
I’m presently reading Wild New World by Dan Flores. This is an account of the early biome of the Americas and the impact of humans on the wildlife- the extinction of camels, mastodon, mammoths, horses, sabre tooth tigers and a long list of long extinct species. There seems to be a bit of an overlap between the arrival of humans and the disappearance of many species - especially the tasty ones. There’s some interesting evidence and this has some applications concerning our present angst about the environment. Maybe the early natives didn’t really live in harmony with the land- maybe they ‘gasp’ acted just like us.
(I’ve seen videos of indigenous folks on caribou hunting on snowmobiles who just slaughtered as many as they could- and the fellow who showed me was doing the hunting, took the video and was quite proud of his actions)
Oh well.
Wonderful post, cheers!
Two issues with the CO2 comparison across the planet's history:
1. CO2 concentration is not the only factor that determines global temperature, as the graph itself implies. There are many more inputs to the function, like solar output (the sun is slowly getting brighter), planetary albedo, other greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. So it's hard to say if the CO2 concentration now is a problem or not on its own. You need to look at everything else too.
2. While the current CO2 concentration is low, the *rate of change* is very high compared to any other time in the planet's history. Global warming is not a problem so much because of the temperature itself -- the planet has been hotter before -- but the speed it is happening. If the planet warmed or cooled 3 degrees over ten thousand years or even a thousand years, that's no problem. Life would adapt easily and so would human civilization. The problem is that the temperature change is happening over tens of years, and that may be unprecedented in the planet's history since life evolved, apart from sudden disasters like asteroid impacts.
David,
Agree completely that the rate of change dictates
a species' ability to respond to a change in its environment.
This is precisely the subject of the piece
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/how-much-time-do-we-have
Pls check it out, and let me know with what you disagree.
But this piece is not about the ability of sapiens
to respond to global warming.
It's about the survival of the planet,
and how a portion of the conservation movement
somehow morphed into an attack on humanity.
Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
Jack, as I was writing for Risk & Progress, one of the recurring themes that kept coming up was the counterintuitive nature of human progress. I think that plays a large role in the way these movements operate.
It’s only natural to believe that the lifeboat has a fixed size. It’s logical to think that when population grows geometrically and agriculture growth linearly, eventually we will run out of food.
The concept that more people = more available resources runs against the zero-sum world that is biologically etched into our minds.
It’s the same with climate change. The idea that more growth=less environmental impact, doesn’t “feel” logical yet the data suggests otherwise.
JK,
I think the reason Malthus has been wrong so far is
1) technological progress, and
2) the drop in birth rate once wealth gets high enough.
If we stifle technological progress, and don't raise a lot more people out of poverty,
Uncle Thomas will have the last laugh. I believe we must have cheap nuclear to keep that from happening.
Uncle Thomas :)
Re: Malthusians and Misanthropes.
I say again the only point of Figure 2 is that current CO2 levels are not a problem for the planet.
The planet has survived far higher CO2 levels in the past.
It seems some members of the choir define "planet" as something like "human well-being".
That strikes me as a very long stretch,; but, if that is your definition, then yes Figure 2 tells you almost nothing useful. An entirely different perspective is appropriate. See, for example,
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/how-much-time-do-we-have
JD,
I would define "planet" as did the psalmist: the earth and the fullness thereof.
How much time do we have to preserve the earth in a reasonable semblance of it's present glory? Here is some of the latest thinking:
Rapid loss of Antarctic ice after 2100 likely under current emissions, climate scientists find
12 Sep 2024
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-rapid-loss-antarctic-ice-current.html
Future,
Well played. No preacher can afford to be on the wrong side of the Good Book.
I say again the piece is not about global warming; but I will take the bait. So now we are talking about something that might happen by 2200, after admitting that nothing much will happen until 2100, even under worst case (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5) assumptions about emissions, using models whose ECS's are in the upper 10\% of the CMIP6 ensemble. RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 are the old Business as Usual scenarios, which are already highly implausible, even if we do nothing more than we already have.
We can assume the psalmist was familiar with Genesis 6-9. I doubt he'd be impressed by "as much as 5.5 feet" by 2200 Anno Domini under these assumptions.
My own takeaway from this 50+ author, 30 MB?? paper is: we have some time; let's use it wisely.
"...we have some time; let's use it wisely.'
Thanks, JD, for your instructive and, indeed, enjoyable reply. I greatly appreciated it.
On my first reading of "Malthusians" I was dismayed at the stark assertion "The planet is not threatened by a 100 or 200 ppm increase from current concentrations"--as if you were giving the green light for companies and individuals to belch CO2 freely for decades to come. This, from what I understand from James Hansen and others would be nuts.
But now I see, or at least think I see, that your position is much more nuanced. In fact it is is not too far from sentiments expressed in a fine 2008 column by Charles Krauthammer entitled "The Church of Global Warming."
You and other readers who are interested, can find this column using the search terms "Krauthammer church environment" or can take a stab at giving the URL, probably without success:
https://www.post-gazette.com/2008/05/31/Charles-Krauthammer-The-Church-of-the-Environment-dogma-is-based-on-speculation/stories/200805310178
Cheers, FG
I think the point is too subtle and to different from current dialogue to be easily heard.
How do you say that in ten words in a way that most people can hear?
"Most modern environmentalism is anti-human"?
"Clean air, clean water, and ever-growing wealth are 100% compatible"?
"Want happy healthy people and a clean environment? Just add nuclear."?