I disagree. A new Dark Age doesn't "loom". It's already begun -- a Dark Age of admired ignorance & thoughtlessness, short-sighted greed, endless, unnecessary, destructive macho tribal warring & violence, reverenced superstition, anti-science denialism, neglect of our global habitat, & anti-human bigotry. It began in earnest about 16 years ago. It doesn't "loom".
260
New dark age? You must be kidding. It's always been a dark age.
32
Is it possible to control climate change by encouraging a larger carbon footprint, increasing emissions? Ironically, many leading edge scientists seem to now believe this apparent paradox is true. Who knew?
10
The 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be played in the petro-dictatorships of Russian and Qatar. The Qataris, in particular, are happily sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of workers from the Indian subcontinent to build their modern blood-drenched pyramids to the glory of the "beautiful game".
Since the liberal democracies profess respect for human life, perhaps these Games and their 50C playing fields can be boycotted.
But where money talks, morality walks, and Qatar has made immense contributions to the financial wellbeing of the FIFA rulers.
Since the liberal democracies profess respect for human life, perhaps these Games and their 50C playing fields can be boycotted.
But where money talks, morality walks, and Qatar has made immense contributions to the financial wellbeing of the FIFA rulers.
50
As humans we are very good at being industrious. But we are very limited in self-awareness as the globally dominant animal . We should be remamed Homo industriosus, and not Homo sapiens.
33
"Jim S" thinks this article is nonsense. It is, but only to people who are ignorant of the interrelationships between climate, life, physical properties of the earth and our knowledge of the above. If nothing ever changes, our knowledge would not change (assuming that we got it right in the first place). There many state in the US that have lost species of songbirds, insects, plants and fish. But not only that the rhythms of life (reproduction, raising young, pollination etc) have also been disrupted due to the loss of these species. Given that such "dark ages" have happened before, the coming dark age should not be a surprise. The difference is not that there are dark ages, but how quickly this is happening. With at least one exception -- the extinction of the dinosaur and the Cambrian Extinction -- these "ages" have taken place over eons of time, which allowed some species to thrive and replace the extinct species. Not so now. Rather than millions or thousands of years, this is happening in less than a century. Nothing will be able to recoup: but, please, go ahead Jim, continue with your deliberate ignorance; fleas, cockroaches and rats (the only critters who can live with us) will thank you.
35
To what extent do population increases worldwide , and the increasing consumption (coal, water) that contributes to global warming, contribute to the changes we are undergoing? Every ecosystem has a limit on each part of the web of life within it. Uncontrolled, run away growth is going to lead to destruction. global warming is only one part of the problem. Look farther, think wider.
42
Weather has never been predictable. Think of the Medieval (temperature) Maximum, the Little Ice Age, etc. There have always been droughts, floods, early or late frosts...it's not even clear that "normal" weather is a meaningful concept (for the technically minded, that has to do with nonstationary time series).
Nothing new here.
Nothing new here.
23
Puzzling that after we were told that the science was settled and the climate was absolutely predictable it is now...unpredictable?
As to historians there won't be any 1000 years from now to reflect on any of this. All fossil fuels and uranium will have been depleted.
As to historians there won't be any 1000 years from now to reflect on any of this. All fossil fuels and uranium will have been depleted.
6
Not to worry. The one per cent will be well provided with comfortable, even luxurious sanctuaries just as the children of the Chinese plutocracy in foul Beijing are provided "outdoor" playing fields with clean air under domes.
And who cares about the peasant classes? Not the U.S.
And who cares about the peasant classes? Not the U.S.
48
Huh?
You want to worry about something try religion, or America's true religion greed. Those are the two things destroying the planet.
The nonsensical idea we are special and an old man in the sky put all of this here for us to do as we please with is what we have to crush. Until we do that we are, as is appropriate, toast.
You want to worry about something try religion, or America's true religion greed. Those are the two things destroying the planet.
The nonsensical idea we are special and an old man in the sky put all of this here for us to do as we please with is what we have to crush. Until we do that we are, as is appropriate, toast.
65
Others have noted and so will I. There is a lot talking but little real meaningful action. Global warming has been allowed to turn into a war on coal and fossil fuels of all kinds. As a bench mark, suppose we shut down all the coal plants today, here and China. Would we see a reverse in the global warming? If so, how much? Enough to make a difference? What should we be doing regardless of the war on coal? Planting a lot more trees as one has suggested? That may be more significant. What kind of trees? Should the Amazon region stop all tree cutting?
But what about people? If we shutdown fossil fuels and it still might take decades to have an impact what should we be doing now for millions of the planets poorest people who are in the way of a rising sea? In the USA does it make any sense to issue building permits on the barrier islands? Why waste money in NC Outer Banks rebuilding RT12 after every storm.
It would seem that there should be weekly discussions on TV, all sides of the issues and projecting plans with timelines. People need a plan and businesses need a plan. If massive building projects are needed, given our success on some of the major infrastructure projects of the as 20-30 years, they should have been started yesterday.
Do the people who say man is the perpetrator of this crime against nature really believe we can stop the rise before the magic 2 degrees? Or are we heading towards the perfect collision of both man made and non-man made warming?
But what about people? If we shutdown fossil fuels and it still might take decades to have an impact what should we be doing now for millions of the planets poorest people who are in the way of a rising sea? In the USA does it make any sense to issue building permits on the barrier islands? Why waste money in NC Outer Banks rebuilding RT12 after every storm.
It would seem that there should be weekly discussions on TV, all sides of the issues and projecting plans with timelines. People need a plan and businesses need a plan. If massive building projects are needed, given our success on some of the major infrastructure projects of the as 20-30 years, they should have been started yesterday.
Do the people who say man is the perpetrator of this crime against nature really believe we can stop the rise before the magic 2 degrees? Or are we heading towards the perfect collision of both man made and non-man made warming?
19
"Some patterns will change significantly; others will be largely unaffected, though it will be difficult to say what will change, by how much, and when.
The list of possible disruptions is long and alarming."
This is what drives me crazy with most global warming, er climate change warning pieces. I'll paraphrase. "We don't know exactly what will change or what will stay the same or how much it will change... but it's going to be really, really bad. So everyone needs to do what we say." I'm sorry, that's not very compelling or persuasive science. I feel like every time I point out that the 1st IPCC report from 1992 overestimated the predicted temperature and sea level rise by a factor of 2-3 fold when compared to actual observations over the last 23 years, that the entire global warming, er climate change pushers start acting like the Wizard at the end of the Wizard of Oz demanding that Dorothy and her friends quit looking behind the curtain. Reality is there has been a near linear rise of about 1.2 degrees C over the last 100 years. In that time the world population has more than doubled and the average standard of living for the majority of people has continually improved. And yet if it goes up another 2 degrees in the next 100 years, somehow we will lose any ability to adapt, predict or overcome? Give me a break. If weathemen like Mr. Gail want to be helpful then warn the people of Houston, TX at least a week in advance that it's going to rain 14" in 24 hours.
The list of possible disruptions is long and alarming."
This is what drives me crazy with most global warming, er climate change warning pieces. I'll paraphrase. "We don't know exactly what will change or what will stay the same or how much it will change... but it's going to be really, really bad. So everyone needs to do what we say." I'm sorry, that's not very compelling or persuasive science. I feel like every time I point out that the 1st IPCC report from 1992 overestimated the predicted temperature and sea level rise by a factor of 2-3 fold when compared to actual observations over the last 23 years, that the entire global warming, er climate change pushers start acting like the Wizard at the end of the Wizard of Oz demanding that Dorothy and her friends quit looking behind the curtain. Reality is there has been a near linear rise of about 1.2 degrees C over the last 100 years. In that time the world population has more than doubled and the average standard of living for the majority of people has continually improved. And yet if it goes up another 2 degrees in the next 100 years, somehow we will lose any ability to adapt, predict or overcome? Give me a break. If weathemen like Mr. Gail want to be helpful then warn the people of Houston, TX at least a week in advance that it's going to rain 14" in 24 hours.
26
When I think about how all this will play out, I look for the weakest link. We have reached the limits of a finite planet, yet we have an economic system that demands perpetual growth. We use zero and negative interest rates to cajole borrowing to jump start growth that is not in the cards. We need more and more debt to stimulate any GDP growth. We depend on growth to fund retirement. We even borrow to pay off debt! We have developed an incredibly complex system of trade where no country produces everything they need to survive.
The weakest link is our economic system dependent on perpetual growth. As the climate changes, resources dwindle and become too polluted, the economy flat-lines and debts overwhelm the system. The world wide economy goes into a deflationary spiral. First, think about a depression an order of magnitude worse than 2008, and then think about how we deal with climate change. This is what we will face. We will be too bankrupt to fund a 'green technology' future. Sorry.
The weakest link is our economic system dependent on perpetual growth. As the climate changes, resources dwindle and become too polluted, the economy flat-lines and debts overwhelm the system. The world wide economy goes into a deflationary spiral. First, think about a depression an order of magnitude worse than 2008, and then think about how we deal with climate change. This is what we will face. We will be too bankrupt to fund a 'green technology' future. Sorry.
29
And bill and hrc have and will continue to lead us into the darkest days America will ever know.
15
Mr. Gail:
expanding the horizon that you present:
future generations will more-likely describe the early 21-st century as,
indeed, a Dark Ages stage of the species.
and your prescription, sir?
you have the platform herein,
but you leave no suggestions to consider and debate.
generally, knowledge is built upon prior knowledge,
especially when it is a shared and open conversation.
please do get back to us - - -
positive actions are obviously required,
apparently sooner rather than later.
8
Every scientist I know has done next to nothing to reduce their carbon footprint. One does recycle the aluminum foil a local sandwich shop delivers in, but he also visits really cool places after long plane rides. In fact, they all do, and they do it a lot! So Mary, [a NYT pick comment], is right on that score...save us from wasting our money on climate scientist opinions. They are worthless, and fraudulent. Instead, accept that the future is coming, and as always, mankind will adjust. Misery will continue. Starvation, now greatly reduced, will continue to abate as we learn how to grow more food in more ways. The fact is, with more people becoming consumers, the earth is going to change. The physics of weather is complicated. So is figuring out the future. Present behavior tells me that more people will not stop consuming more of everything.
7
Many scientists have begun to change their own lives. And a price on carbon is the real first step to a broader solution. But ethically you're right; pot calling a kettle black. Progress is here, with many prominent academics signed on to curb flying.
academicflyingblog.wordpress.com
https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/a-petition-calling-u...
academicflyingblog.wordpress.com
https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/a-petition-calling-u...
4
Climate science and global warming are real. Having said that, this article is like a good high school paper. Full of descriptions of the multiple possibilities before us but written as though one day, Poof! It's happening now, species are moving now, plants are moving now. Farmers are already struggling with what the current state of climate change has wrought. Science deniers are nothing new. Unfortunately they are in a position to affect response but on the other hand, who really thinks we can right this ship? Not as long as the developing countries desire what we have and want to get there as quickly as possible. Not as long as unfettered population growth runs rampant. Not as long as US Capitalism rules the day.
The planet will survive as it always has and maybe some form of homo sapien will survive too. Maybe not. Species come and species go. That we humans are cognizant of our fragility is what is new.
The planet will survive as it always has and maybe some form of homo sapien will survive too. Maybe not. Species come and species go. That we humans are cognizant of our fragility is what is new.
5
Climate change will not happen until corporations feel threatened. Until then, most will do everything they can to put profit over the future of humankind.
I fear for my grandchildren and future great-grandchildren, In just a few hundred years, since the start of the industrial revolution, humans have despoiled nature beyond belief. It will only get exponentially worse.
The first true dystopian movie I ever saw was Soylent Green. It appears it was a prescient movie. It's just a matter of time.
I fear for my grandchildren and future great-grandchildren, In just a few hundred years, since the start of the industrial revolution, humans have despoiled nature beyond belief. It will only get exponentially worse.
The first true dystopian movie I ever saw was Soylent Green. It appears it was a prescient movie. It's just a matter of time.
9
Wow- what a bunch of cry babies! Instead of an intellectual analysis of the claims and effects of those claims as stated by the author, or constructive solutions, the top reader picks are blaming others for the situation and evincimg hopelessness for the human condition. An ocean of hysteria with an ounce of intelligence. I see solutions, possibilities, and a better future, but y'all are getting in the way
12
Knowledge is totally relative, as this article points out; hardly the concrete entity we've pretended it to be in the past, a concept which lends itself to a whole spectrum of human-based intellectualization. That's good.
I disagee with some of your premise. For one thing it won't be slow.
After too much of Earth's biosphere shrivels and dies Mankind's ejection from his Garden of Eden, his Fall From Grace, won't be manageable but swift and horrific. The Golden Age will end so abruptly there won't be time to salvage much of anything.
Imagine what civilization would have been like in West and East Europe in June, 1945, without the undamaged, economically intact, fully-functioning North and South Americas to resuscitate and restore it. The "Civilized World" resembled shattered Berlin and Budapest, incinerated Dresden and Hamburg -- and Stalingrad; all of it. Mountains of ruins. Vast battlefields not even cold and still strewn with weapons, live munitions, wreckage and corpses interspersed with huge "stalags" still acting as death factories. After the biosphere falters supporting life Earth will soon resemble that, because:
"things fall apart,
the center cannot hold,
all tyranny is loosed upon the World".
and 8-billion people unfed, with no means to feed themselves, is the ultimate tyranny.
No redoubts or refuges. Even Survivalists hiding in secret shelters stocked with food and arsenals of weapons won't escape. It will outlast them.
Some -- the fittest, best-armed, most ruthless -- will survive. But the social and intellectual milieu that emerges would be as unrecognizable to us as the ruin of Rome in 720 AD would have been to any Roman of Hadrian's time (165 AD).
After too much of Earth's biosphere shrivels and dies Mankind's ejection from his Garden of Eden, his Fall From Grace, won't be manageable but swift and horrific. The Golden Age will end so abruptly there won't be time to salvage much of anything.
Imagine what civilization would have been like in West and East Europe in June, 1945, without the undamaged, economically intact, fully-functioning North and South Americas to resuscitate and restore it. The "Civilized World" resembled shattered Berlin and Budapest, incinerated Dresden and Hamburg -- and Stalingrad; all of it. Mountains of ruins. Vast battlefields not even cold and still strewn with weapons, live munitions, wreckage and corpses interspersed with huge "stalags" still acting as death factories. After the biosphere falters supporting life Earth will soon resemble that, because:
"things fall apart,
the center cannot hold,
all tyranny is loosed upon the World".
and 8-billion people unfed, with no means to feed themselves, is the ultimate tyranny.
No redoubts or refuges. Even Survivalists hiding in secret shelters stocked with food and arsenals of weapons won't escape. It will outlast them.
Some -- the fittest, best-armed, most ruthless -- will survive. But the social and intellectual milieu that emerges would be as unrecognizable to us as the ruin of Rome in 720 AD would have been to any Roman of Hadrian's time (165 AD).
11
The new dark age is already here.
People are using openness of internet to create their own realities which may not be supported by science: "Earth is flat".
This truly is much darker than what nature can do to us.
People are using openness of internet to create their own realities which may not be supported by science: "Earth is flat".
This truly is much darker than what nature can do to us.
5
I believe most Americans, even among the most intransigently Republicans, are not blind to the consequences of human activity on this planet. Deep down they know we have set things in motion that don't spell Paradise in the end and though they are troubled by the prospects their children face, they cannot make the changes that would be necessary to forestall the inevitable. And for one reason. We are some 400 million in a pool now holding 6 billion, the latter whom are intent on reproducing themselves exponentially. Our efforts to combat climate change, even as perhaps the world's most voracious consumers and polluters, are countered by the billions who will not or cannot take the same measures. The thinking goes that if no one else is willing to sacrifice, why should we?
Finally, we are sailing in uncharted waters - and the great majority of us hate not knowing who is steering the boat. We stay in our bunks, wrapped in apathy and hope for the best.
Finally, we are sailing in uncharted waters - and the great majority of us hate not knowing who is steering the boat. We stay in our bunks, wrapped in apathy and hope for the best.
4
If we had the political will, we could perhaps avoid the worst of this by halving the world's population in a few generations: one child per family.
Then we would need to transition to a sustainable economic model not based on an ever increasing GDP.
If we did that we would decrease demand for increasingly scarce resources. That, coupled with a sense of urgency, might then allow us to move away from military competition to inter(post?)national cooperative allocation of technological and scientific creativity capable of giving us a fighting chance to inhabit our world in a sustainable way.
Then we would need to transition to a sustainable economic model not based on an ever increasing GDP.
If we did that we would decrease demand for increasingly scarce resources. That, coupled with a sense of urgency, might then allow us to move away from military competition to inter(post?)national cooperative allocation of technological and scientific creativity capable of giving us a fighting chance to inhabit our world in a sustainable way.
9
The future becomes too predictable if we don't do anything to rein in our extravagant waste of earth's resources. Every step taken towards this Dark Age will require an even bigger expenditure of energy and human capital to reverse. As we go deeper, we sacrifice more of civilization and humanity, a very painful price in terms of moral behavior, philosophies we have evolved for centuries, that future generations will have to pay.
I often see products that are not worth expending earth's precious resources on-one that is without value is Swiffer products. It absolutely has not redeeming value except maybe giving people jobs (but is that a legitimate reason to make such junk?). The amount of energy spent making the product, the plastic garbage, the toxic 'cleaning' agents, waste of human ingenuity and marketing cynicism make the company who sell it almost criminal in my mind.
I often see products that are not worth expending earth's precious resources on-one that is without value is Swiffer products. It absolutely has not redeeming value except maybe giving people jobs (but is that a legitimate reason to make such junk?). The amount of energy spent making the product, the plastic garbage, the toxic 'cleaning' agents, waste of human ingenuity and marketing cynicism make the company who sell it almost criminal in my mind.
6
"IMAGINE a future in which humanity’s accumulated wisdom about Earth — our vast experience with weather trends, fish spawning and migration patterns, plant pollination and much more — turns increasingly obsolete. As each decade passes, knowledge of Earth’s past becomes progressively less effective as a guide to the future."
Note: This has already happened before, when our ancestors endured the ice ages. Now, the problem is more the economic fall-out from global-warming and the over-exploitation of natural resources. Global financial and economic collapse will kill our knowledge base faster than anything else. Right now most scientific research costs big bucks. That will all be gone if the financial system can't be resuscitated. Say goodbye to nuclear physics and the internet, say hello to widespread fear and ignorance and the revival of witch hunting.
Note: This has already happened before, when our ancestors endured the ice ages. Now, the problem is more the economic fall-out from global-warming and the over-exploitation of natural resources. Global financial and economic collapse will kill our knowledge base faster than anything else. Right now most scientific research costs big bucks. That will all be gone if the financial system can't be resuscitated. Say goodbye to nuclear physics and the internet, say hello to widespread fear and ignorance and the revival of witch hunting.
11
We have not been a good species.
Mother Earth has just about had it with us.
She will survive, but probably without us.
And we did it to ourselves.
Mother Earth has just about had it with us.
She will survive, but probably without us.
And we did it to ourselves.
24
Job #1: Governments must move aggressively to stop slash-and-burn agriculture in a world-wide effort, providing fertilizer and training people in organic farming practices that do not destroy forests and habitat. In a single decade such an effort could both reduce a major source of CO2 emissions and actually improve agriculture in some of the most food-challenged areas of the world.
Why wait on this? People do this because it is what they know, because they don't know a better way. Instead of just food, ship them seeds and fertilizer, and help them obtain water. Local governments and NGO's do local organization and monitoring, and big countries support through funding, supplies, and shipping. Slash & burn does little to improve soil, and cut plant waste can be used as mulch or composted.
We know how to do this. It is basically a matter of educating and supporting a generation of small farmers through the transition.
Why wait on this? People do this because it is what they know, because they don't know a better way. Instead of just food, ship them seeds and fertilizer, and help them obtain water. Local governments and NGO's do local organization and monitoring, and big countries support through funding, supplies, and shipping. Slash & burn does little to improve soil, and cut plant waste can be used as mulch or composted.
We know how to do this. It is basically a matter of educating and supporting a generation of small farmers through the transition.
9
No mention of ever-increasing human populations and the more-than-obvious need to halt the growth. No mention of the destruction of biodiverse environments as we commit vast acreage to growing feed for animals, acreage that could feed many more people than that meat. No mention of vast acreage committed to growing and harvesting those animals. No mention of using food crops for fuel, totally unnecessarily.
Actually, no mention of ACTION. Observations such as those in the article should be a call to action, not "it's too late" columns bemoaning paradise lost. We can change the course we've set. Time to act. Now.
Actually, no mention of ACTION. Observations such as those in the article should be a call to action, not "it's too late" columns bemoaning paradise lost. We can change the course we've set. Time to act. Now.
28
Interesting that these types of problems dealing with pattern recognition requiring a thought process more complex than rifling through all the permutations are similar to the intuitive play of a GO player and dare I say the algorithms employed by AlphaGo. Perhaps the singularity is near and we will soon leave it to the machines to guide us in where to go and what moves to make as we continue to disrupt the natural order. Brave new world coming...
3
I'm a big believer in the certainty of human-induced climate change, but this piece strikes me as unduly sensational and alarmist, without, importantly, making any concrete predictions. All scientists agree about the issues, but we are making some grudging progress even now. Whether it will be enough to avoid large-scale disruptions remains to be seen. But a "new dark age?" I think not.
9
Countries like Germany and the Scandinavians demonstrate that it is possible to shift rapidly away from fossil fuels while maintaining prosperity. But then they have rational evidence-based politicians, a seemingly endangered species in the U.S.
50
Problems: An unsustainable world population, America’s once large and affluent middle class destroyed, growing disorder worldwide and more people fleeing toward the world of order in America and the threat of a new dark age.
The first step toward a solution: A sensible change to our immigration laws that serves our nation's common good and protects the society most likely to spring forth solutions to those threats:
1) Limit entry only to those individuals who can show (i) they will contribute economically to our society (uneducated slave wage migrants and even educated tech knowledgeable migrants who take jobs away from Americans do not contribute an economic betterment rather those migrants have kept American wages stagnant for decades - good for corporate profits but not re-building America's middle class) and a migrant must show (ii) they embrace key western values of individual civil liberties, the separation of church and state, gender equality and free speech. In other words, the current "family unification" policy in current U.S. law must be replaced with a "merit based test" above.
(2) Path to citizenship: The unlawful migrants that entered the U. S. before 2012 must satisfy that merit based test above or be deported (I know that many in that 11 million will past that merit based test because they have worked hard educating themselves at our public schools and public higher education system--good for them ). All other unlawful migrants must be deported.
The first step toward a solution: A sensible change to our immigration laws that serves our nation's common good and protects the society most likely to spring forth solutions to those threats:
1) Limit entry only to those individuals who can show (i) they will contribute economically to our society (uneducated slave wage migrants and even educated tech knowledgeable migrants who take jobs away from Americans do not contribute an economic betterment rather those migrants have kept American wages stagnant for decades - good for corporate profits but not re-building America's middle class) and a migrant must show (ii) they embrace key western values of individual civil liberties, the separation of church and state, gender equality and free speech. In other words, the current "family unification" policy in current U.S. law must be replaced with a "merit based test" above.
(2) Path to citizenship: The unlawful migrants that entered the U. S. before 2012 must satisfy that merit based test above or be deported (I know that many in that 11 million will past that merit based test because they have worked hard educating themselves at our public schools and public higher education system--good for them ). All other unlawful migrants must be deported.
13
Coping with extreme weather and climactic conditions is not something with which we have no experience. I expect we'll manage.
But the true "dark age" that looms is one precipitated by the gradual obsolescence of human labor by software and hardware. We have 7 billion people on this planet, accustomed in one way or another to trading labor for food and shelter. By 2050 it's estimated that we'll have around 10 billion. If there is no work, what economic and social modalities and mechanisms will keep them alive? Will our distribution systems fail for want of resources, without which millions would starve and die of thirst every day? If software and hardware maintains production and distribution and almost all of humanity descends to merely holding out its hands, what will that do to our spirit? Entrepreneurs and free-thinkers certainly won't be the new elites: those will be bureaucrats.
I expect we'll manage at that, too. The problem is we've never been faced with the challenge before and the temptation will be to redirect ALL resources produced by a relative few to simply maintaining all the others who can no longer contribute meaningfully to their own survival. What will that do to incentives? To innovation, driven by incentives?
I see the potential for a thousand-year "New Dark Age" as we freeze ourselves at a subsistence level for all that time. And I suspect we won't "evolve" out of it but that immense blood will be the price of ending it.
But the true "dark age" that looms is one precipitated by the gradual obsolescence of human labor by software and hardware. We have 7 billion people on this planet, accustomed in one way or another to trading labor for food and shelter. By 2050 it's estimated that we'll have around 10 billion. If there is no work, what economic and social modalities and mechanisms will keep them alive? Will our distribution systems fail for want of resources, without which millions would starve and die of thirst every day? If software and hardware maintains production and distribution and almost all of humanity descends to merely holding out its hands, what will that do to our spirit? Entrepreneurs and free-thinkers certainly won't be the new elites: those will be bureaucrats.
I expect we'll manage at that, too. The problem is we've never been faced with the challenge before and the temptation will be to redirect ALL resources produced by a relative few to simply maintaining all the others who can no longer contribute meaningfully to their own survival. What will that do to incentives? To innovation, driven by incentives?
I see the potential for a thousand-year "New Dark Age" as we freeze ourselves at a subsistence level for all that time. And I suspect we won't "evolve" out of it but that immense blood will be the price of ending it.
5
"I expect we'll manage." I'm sorry -- five words of flaccid speculation on this writer's thesis before a redirect to your (clearly more important) thesis on another subject?
The issue is whether humans are wise enough to stop the activities that are known to harm us, rather than issue blithe dismissals.
The issue is whether humans are wise enough to stop the activities that are known to harm us, rather than issue blithe dismissals.
2
So plant more trees! Last time I checked they love CO2. I've heard they just gobble that stuff up. ;)
6
Population growth and increased food demand results in desertification. Rising temperatures melt arctic regions and cause rising oceans.
Which trees grow in the desert or under water?
Which trees grow in the desert or under water?
7
Nice thought, but so far it has been impossible to make up for the decimation of the rainforests by subsistence farmers living in countries without the will or means to control it...
5
I doubt if Sen.Ted Cruz reads the NYT, but he should know about this scientific opinion, especially after the devastating flash flooding in the Houston area of the state which he purportedly represents.
11
Ted Cruz made it clear that he did not intend to represent us in any traditional fashion, but, rather, that he was going to Washington to gum things up and make a name for himself. We elected him anyway. If helping Houston will help Ted Cruz, perhaps Houston will get help.
2
It sounds exciting. Who doesn’t like a good challenge every hunderd years or so?
The Dark Age is upon us. Temperature will rise above 2 degrees C in the near future. We need to reduce fossil fuels by 80% in 5 years!
Extermination of human life within 7 to 15 years is predicted by the data on Arctic News!
Survival requires a World War II type 24/7/365 all out effort. The only candidate advocating this is Bernie Sanders. If he loses the nomination we need him to lead a movement to accomplish that little recognized requirement.
What appears to be by far the fastest path to replacement of fossil fuels results from world-changing experiments by Chris Hunter. He first modified a Ford 4 cylinder engine and more recently a Kia 4 cylinder engine. Both engines ran without fuel.
AESOP's improved modifications will demonstrate manufacturers can readily produce millions of engines, of all sizes, capable of spinning generators and producing power 24/7/365 without fuel.
The energy source for such engines is atmospheric heat. This huge untapped source of solar energy is present everywhere on earth. It far exceeds the total energy available from fossil fuels. Once spun up to speed, the engines create the necessary temperature differential internally. Frost forms on the exterior.
See SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE on the aesopinstitute.org website to understand more about the breakthrough science that makes such engines possible. A WHITE PAPER is available.
Imagine the implications! Engines that need no fuel and can run 24/7 while producing power.
Extermination of human life within 7 to 15 years is predicted by the data on Arctic News!
Survival requires a World War II type 24/7/365 all out effort. The only candidate advocating this is Bernie Sanders. If he loses the nomination we need him to lead a movement to accomplish that little recognized requirement.
What appears to be by far the fastest path to replacement of fossil fuels results from world-changing experiments by Chris Hunter. He first modified a Ford 4 cylinder engine and more recently a Kia 4 cylinder engine. Both engines ran without fuel.
AESOP's improved modifications will demonstrate manufacturers can readily produce millions of engines, of all sizes, capable of spinning generators and producing power 24/7/365 without fuel.
The energy source for such engines is atmospheric heat. This huge untapped source of solar energy is present everywhere on earth. It far exceeds the total energy available from fossil fuels. Once spun up to speed, the engines create the necessary temperature differential internally. Frost forms on the exterior.
See SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE on the aesopinstitute.org website to understand more about the breakthrough science that makes such engines possible. A WHITE PAPER is available.
Imagine the implications! Engines that need no fuel and can run 24/7 while producing power.
Mark, get a grip. 7-10 years? Nobody but Geraldo is predicting that. The worst rational projections (and only the worst) have us seriously inconvenienced by the end of this CENTURY. However, it IS likely that Sebastopol, CA, along with all the smelt in CA, will be underwater by then.
5
Concur. I also had no idea that we have somehow solved the perpetual energy / motion problem and the major news media in the world just hadn't gotten around to reporting it. How cool to know
3
Richard, Arctic-news carries the data. So far, they appear to be correct with regard to the surprising speed of Global Warming - accelerated by Methane. Worst case planning is always wise. Long before the end of this Century, human life is unlikely to be present on this planet - unless an all out effort is made to supersede fossil fuels. It can probably be 100% completed in a decade, if we are wise enough to recognize this is the dawn of a surprising emergency. Wake up folks! Check the facts. The lives you save may include your own and everyone you care about.
1
Will we ever stop talking about global warming and finally start talking on global over population?
37
No: I suspect we never will. We'll somehow solve global climate change challenges and then drown in our own waste products, not because we can't build filters but because of the sheer QUANTITY of the waste products.
5
It's not PC to say too many humans are being born - the big corporations who need an abundance of cheap labor cite "unborn children's rights" and other such nonsense to drive a wedge in the masses and keep the focus on religion rather than pragmatic and scientific solutions. I hear in the US there is a growing movement to teach "creationism" as an alternative to evolution. And more than half of Americans believe climate change is a hoax. So packing on the debate about overpopulation (which would inevitably lead to discussion on birth control and abortion and other family planning) is an uphill battle unfortunately.
7
You mean it's either one or the other and not both that should be dealt with?
2
So budgeting for better earth science should have been done decades ago.
5
It doesn't help that many of our children are not taught the basic skills needed to read, calculate, and think for themselves. Relying on the internet for information (the internet, where anyone can put up a site that claims anything is true) rather than books and periodicals in the library, relying on calculators and computers to do the kinds of math that used to be done by hand, and not being taught the scientific method (because it goes against the beliefs of certain religions).
When we rely on support from devices that can disappear at any time, we risk returning to the Dark Ages--when ignorance, suspicion. intolerance, and myth win out over common sense, science, and skepticism.
Teaching myth instead of science is bad news for sure.
When we rely on support from devices that can disappear at any time, we risk returning to the Dark Ages--when ignorance, suspicion. intolerance, and myth win out over common sense, science, and skepticism.
Teaching myth instead of science is bad news for sure.
21
They are also not taught environmental stewardship. The U.S. is the only first-world nation where environmental stewardship is not part of the national curriculum!
8
And as usual, no geoengineering ideas we could use right now are discussed.
5
You need a very high confidence level in your climate models before you can begin to geoengineer your way to stable climate.
3
So, climate change will erase knowledge! That sounds serious.
We need to do something. Maybe we should criminalize even the thought of holding a different point of view. Wait, a few enterprising attorneys general are attempting to do that.
Extremism in the defense of the environment is no vice, I suppose.
We need to do something. Maybe we should criminalize even the thought of holding a different point of view. Wait, a few enterprising attorneys general are attempting to do that.
Extremism in the defense of the environment is no vice, I suppose.
4
Let me translate for you: "our historical understanding will turn obsolete faster than we can replace it with new knowledge" refers to the notion that historical patterns will no longer apply, and we will have no basis to predict future climate patterns in a radically-changed ecosystem. But it's so much easier to just dismiss it as "extremism."
2
It's that kind of attitude that the article is referring to - the short sighted, easy conclusion, zero-sum game of it all that is the real extremism that you mention. You can hold a different point of view on climate change, nobody is going to put you in jail for it, but facts and view points are two different matters. Allow some nuanced thinking and you might see some wisdom here rather than write it all off as a zero sum game in favor of nature.
4
Interesting piece. What the author does not highlight is that drastic declines in support for natural history education at every level of schooling - as well as declines simply in time spent outdoors - means that "peak knowledge" about the environment by citizens in the developed world is already decades in the past. To anticipate and respond to the changes to come, we must support education about and appreciation for the world as it is. And that we are utterly failing to do.
7
Most serious messages about the consequences of climate change routinely end with the hope that future generations won't be touched by our ignorance and indecisiveness. We are warned that the earth is "on the verge" of a catastrophe.
Thus we can turn the page with a yawn: "It's not that bad yet and someone will come up with a plan soon" etc.
Humans are a short term thinking species. Five, ten haizy years is the best we can do.
I endorse Sanders!
Thus we can turn the page with a yawn: "It's not that bad yet and someone will come up with a plan soon" etc.
Humans are a short term thinking species. Five, ten haizy years is the best we can do.
I endorse Sanders!
4
This argument, that we will loose intermediate-term, local predictability, seems sound. But I fear it makes no difference to actual outcomes. We do not have political systems capable of turning accurate information from predictive models into asset reallocations and successful projects to address the predictions. The political will, the resources, and the management control all leak away before anything effective gets accomplished.
That intractable problem is the underlying reason why we are facing long-predicted climate change in the first place.
That intractable problem is the underlying reason why we are facing long-predicted climate change in the first place.
2
Here's one thing you can personally do right now to help. The world's 270 million dairy cows emit methane (belch it out the front end). Methane is more than 25X more effective as a greenhouse gas (GHG) at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide emanating from the cow manure is something like 500X more effective. Dairy cows are a major source of GHG and cause of climate change.
What's good about methane is that it only lasts in the atmosphere for a decade while CO2 lasts much much longer. In other words, efforts to cut back on methane now will pay off in the next 10 or 20 years. Buying us years of time holding off a bit of the worst effects of climate change.
What to do? Stop (or reduce) your consumption of dairy products - milk, cheese, yogurt, whey protein drinks. Cut back on beef consumption, make it a treat rather than a daily staple. Not only will you be healthier, the planet will be healthier.
What's good about methane is that it only lasts in the atmosphere for a decade while CO2 lasts much much longer. In other words, efforts to cut back on methane now will pay off in the next 10 or 20 years. Buying us years of time holding off a bit of the worst effects of climate change.
What to do? Stop (or reduce) your consumption of dairy products - milk, cheese, yogurt, whey protein drinks. Cut back on beef consumption, make it a treat rather than a daily staple. Not only will you be healthier, the planet will be healthier.
9
THE WRITER'S Viewpoint seems to come from a black hole (i.e., melancholic) perspective. While he mentions many institutions, disciplines and forms of generating and storing knowledge, he comes a single conclusion: that we will cause not only the terrible changes that come along with global climate change, but we'll be unable to make predictions of how to accommodate to those changes. Our technological skills and research will lose its relevancy and we will remain helpless in the face of future disasters. But I'm not convinced either of the objectivity nor accuracy of his ruminative prognostications. If we look to the Dark Ages between the period during which classical knowledge was generated and amassed, we can see where the technology limited the transmission of information. All documents were handwritten. The Ear of Big Data could not possibly a replay of the past. Rather, what lacks is the political will to realize that we are in a global war; a struggle to adapt to present and future changes. The nexus is fresh water, as that is the sine qua non of human existence. Research is already being done on how to adapt crops to grow in brackish water. Reverse osmosis will provide for generating fresh water sustainably from sea water. But the integrating of systems to recycle everything is where the politics has gummed things up already. At some point, defense against climate change will become a threat to national security. But we can still keep ahead of the curve.
1
I feel much better with Sen. Bernie Sanders at the helm. Addressing this as the emergency it is.
I and, I am sure, our mother earth have had enough of No steps forward, or Two steps forward and one step back, as promised by some who would be president.
It is time to stop the profiteers from rolling up the windows on planet earth. This time we are all the baby in the back seat.
I and, I am sure, our mother earth have had enough of No steps forward, or Two steps forward and one step back, as promised by some who would be president.
It is time to stop the profiteers from rolling up the windows on planet earth. This time we are all the baby in the back seat.
2
The New Dark Age descended upon the planet in earnest in 1980. In 1992, the political force that could have been an opposition to it decided it was politically easier and more lucrative to join it. In 2008, in what looks like it might have been humanity's last chance to beat back the New Dark Age, the figure that represented that last chance tucked his tail, rolled up in a fetal position, and became, via outsized political cowardice and impotence in the face of obstruction, as destructive and co-opted towards the New Dark Age as the originator had been instrumental in creating it.
They were all men of mediocrity and lack of character and history will reward all of them as such.
They were all men of mediocrity and lack of character and history will reward all of them as such.
3
Not one government wants to talk about drastic global birth control or sterilisation on a massive scale, the only solutions to a complete meltdown of our planet. (please forget about your deceptive recycling run) Frankly, contributions such as this op-ed are too optional, as they always beat around the bush and put us back to sleep. I endorse Sanders!
6
Actually, China implemented a very effective population control program decades ago. Other than that, without changes in religious ideology birth control and family planning will not be practiced by the people who need it most, the majority of whom love in countries that cannot sustain their growing populations. Sanders has not discussed global population control as far as I am aware.
2
What is the present day financial value of real estate that will be under water in 85 years? One way to get the attention of world leaders and society's elite - who likely own waterfront and high-value property on low-lying areas like Manhattan, Miami, Amsterdam, Hong Kong. etc. - is through them realizing the financial impact and price decline begins now or very soon.
Perhaps some real estate financial expert should do a report analyzing what Miami and Manhattan property will be worth if sea levels are six feet higher and they're underwater in 2100? Just between you and me, if the decline in value doesn't start for another 10 or 20 years, it would be good for real estate investors to know that so they can start selling the real estate before everyone else realizes what will happen.
But, who will buy real estate then with the reality that no one else will want to buy it? Real estate on low-lying areas would quickly become like taxi cab licenses in the age of Uber - worthless because everyone all at once suddenly realizes they're worthless.
Finally, should this coming real estate debacle not be a major concern for insurance companies who insure houses and buildings located on low-lying flood plains in cities all over the world? What are they saying about this?
Perhaps some real estate financial expert should do a report analyzing what Miami and Manhattan property will be worth if sea levels are six feet higher and they're underwater in 2100? Just between you and me, if the decline in value doesn't start for another 10 or 20 years, it would be good for real estate investors to know that so they can start selling the real estate before everyone else realizes what will happen.
But, who will buy real estate then with the reality that no one else will want to buy it? Real estate on low-lying areas would quickly become like taxi cab licenses in the age of Uber - worthless because everyone all at once suddenly realizes they're worthless.
Finally, should this coming real estate debacle not be a major concern for insurance companies who insure houses and buildings located on low-lying flood plains in cities all over the world? What are they saying about this?
8
Climate Central maps include property value. Here's Miami with two meters of sea level rise (a 2100 estimate, though maybe sooner by some counts): http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#13/25.7800/-80.1823?show=property&pro...
3
Missing from this assessment is the destruction of habitat and the resulting mass extinction of species worldwide. As we overpopulate, we overdevelop. We are laying waste to the natural world, and socially and politically we seem oblivious to both the scale of destruction and the consequences to the biosphere. Imagine the increased health of the planet, and the slowing of climate change, that might result from a robust restoration of forests, grasslands, waterways, jungle, and more. But as long as we view nature as something to be harvested, exploited, and developed, we will continue to march into a dark age, indeed.
20
as an urban gardener in san diego one change I have noticed already is that some food plants that i plant in the summer and that previously would die out in the winter are now wintering over. I am getting production year round so that is a clear advantage. but of course irrigation is the key. there is no question that the planet is going to warm further. the heat trapping gasses that we have already put into the atmosphere will see to that. but the technological changes that will hopefully limit the amount of those gases are already under way, and the trends if they continue may be sufficient to limit the warming to something we can tolerate. the most important thing we can do is to focus on ensuring there is an adequate supply of water to go around. that is where the bulk our resources should be spent
7
Careful there, you are not allowed to discuss any potential benefits to climate change.
2
It is estimated that the eruption of Krakatoa in the year 600 cooled the earth enough to have disrupted growing patterns across Eurasia, sending many subsistence populations in migration in search of arable land under the new weather conditions. It is believed by some that this lead directly to a collapse of Roman rule in Western Europe and the Dark Age that lasted until the emergence of Charlemagne. Even with our technology, one must wonder if such a massive disruption of the basics of society could trigger that level of upheaval once again.
So we must ask ourselves, if the deniers are right, and we act on climate change, we are out some money with the payback of improved efficiency (which is what preparation really drives). If the deniers are wrong and we do not act, we can lose everything. Is there really a choice here?
So we must ask ourselves, if the deniers are right, and we act on climate change, we are out some money with the payback of improved efficiency (which is what preparation really drives). If the deniers are wrong and we do not act, we can lose everything. Is there really a choice here?
12
Also, if the deniers are right and we act on climate change, we will have a cleaner planet and healthier people, plants and animals.
A win either way.
There is nothing wrong with that.
A win either way.
There is nothing wrong with that.
4
One thing we can rely on as a water source: the oceans. As watersheds deplete desalination plants and infrastructure to send that water inland will be essential. Rather than role the dice and wait for the unpredictability, I say invest now where we know water will be. The population will grow, that is a given. Current water sources are quickly depleting, that is a fact. We will need a reliable fresh water source. Go to the ocean. Decades from now our mountains will be without predictable snow, maybe even barren. That is the scary physics of a warming planet.
2
We do not know that much today, or we would not be destroying the biosphere for life as we know it.
The answers are easy enough — privileged energy-intensive lifestyles are incompatible with our future — but who here is willing to give up enough to make a difference for our children’s children? Who here has enough that they can stop oversurviving?
onno
www.forafuture.com
The answers are easy enough — privileged energy-intensive lifestyles are incompatible with our future — but who here is willing to give up enough to make a difference for our children’s children? Who here has enough that they can stop oversurviving?
onno
www.forafuture.com
4
I know a large number of military veterans like myself, who are ready to sacrifice. Bernie is. And many of the young of the young are willing to forgo the lavish lifestyles, and do what is good for the earth, all of it's inhabitants, and future generations. i suggest you also look at some environmental philosophers and theologians, like Herman Daly, and David Ray Griffin, especially their great work, "For The Common Good." It takes leadership, dynamic courage and a willingness to to suffer, if need be. The great Albert Schweitzer put it like this: "Only at quite rare moments have I felt truly happy to be alive. I could not but feel, with a sympathy full of regret, all the pain I saw around me, not just that of men, but of the whole creation. From this world of suffering, I have never tried to remove myself. It seemed to me, a matter of course, that we should all bear our burden of pain, as a matter of course." From "Out of My Life and Thought."
(quote is from memory, and likely off, here and there.)
(quote is from memory, and likely off, here and there.)
6
Here in Colorado the unexpected effects of measurable global warming are already becoming evident. Infestations of insects whose populations now survive our milder winters have killed millions of trees. Our weather swings from one extreme to another much more rapidly in Spring and Fall. Rain patterns seem to have changed. Globally, I suspect the changes are only beginning and no one knows for sure where they will lead. I can imagine a scenario in which the survival of humanity, especially its weaker and poorer populations, will be threatened.
11
That scenario is here, now.
2
I haven't read all the comments but I think there is some misunderstanding here. Gail is making a valid point, but it is a subtle mathematical one, and maybe the "Dark Ages" is confusing.
Loosely speaking, climate is a "chaotic" system. If you think about the graphs you see associated with chaos, we have been experiencing (again loosely speaking) conditions that vary around a particular "attractor". Therefore, we have certain statistical expectations.
What has happened is that we have perturbed the system by increasing its energy, and, depending on if/when we stop that, the system will end up around a new "attractor" or equilibrium area. That could be hundreds to thousands of years.
Between now and then, Gail is saying, we are "in the dark"-- we cannot develop any statistical expectations. We can't accumulate information and then project forward, because the "local space" is constantly changing.
Now, is there no hope of adapting under those conditions? Of course not, but it will be a far more expensive and difficult proposition than anything involved in stopping CO2 emissions. In effect, we would have to build a "space"ship (infrastructure) that can deal with all possible variations as we move forward.
Loosely speaking, climate is a "chaotic" system. If you think about the graphs you see associated with chaos, we have been experiencing (again loosely speaking) conditions that vary around a particular "attractor". Therefore, we have certain statistical expectations.
What has happened is that we have perturbed the system by increasing its energy, and, depending on if/when we stop that, the system will end up around a new "attractor" or equilibrium area. That could be hundreds to thousands of years.
Between now and then, Gail is saying, we are "in the dark"-- we cannot develop any statistical expectations. We can't accumulate information and then project forward, because the "local space" is constantly changing.
Now, is there no hope of adapting under those conditions? Of course not, but it will be a far more expensive and difficult proposition than anything involved in stopping CO2 emissions. In effect, we would have to build a "space"ship (infrastructure) that can deal with all possible variations as we move forward.
22
Excellent explanation.
2
I am not a climate scientist, I am an engineer by training. On of the things engineers do when faced with a situation where you don't or can't know, all the information needed to make a decision, is to do a risk analysis of the possible decisions. This is a fancy way of saying "What is the worst that could happen?"
When the answer is " very bad things," you take steps to minimize the risk. This is why we wear seat belts, have fire extinguishers and wear helmets when biking.
Here, a whole bunch of really smart people who spend their lives studying this, all seem to be saying "Very bad things, and soon." It would seem to be prudent to act as if they are right and to take steps to reduce the risk. If we act now, and they are wrong, we have cost ourselves some money and made our systems more efficient. If we refuse to act and they are right, we could be facing disaster on a global scale. Whether you believe their predictions or not, given the risks, there doesn't seem to be much choice.
When the answer is " very bad things," you take steps to minimize the risk. This is why we wear seat belts, have fire extinguishers and wear helmets when biking.
Here, a whole bunch of really smart people who spend their lives studying this, all seem to be saying "Very bad things, and soon." It would seem to be prudent to act as if they are right and to take steps to reduce the risk. If we act now, and they are wrong, we have cost ourselves some money and made our systems more efficient. If we refuse to act and they are right, we could be facing disaster on a global scale. Whether you believe their predictions or not, given the risks, there doesn't seem to be much choice.
38
That all makes sense & is quite rational. Unfortunately, and sadly, we're dealing with a species (us) that is no where near as rational as we'd like to believe. I do fear the worst is a much more probable scenario.
3
It's time for the human race to die out. Unfortunately, we will take decent species with us.
10
John Connor: We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.
The Terminator: It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.
The Terminator: It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.
"Rome was destroyed. Greece was destroyed. Persia was destroyed. Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you think your country will last? Forever?"
- Catch 22 -
- Catch 22 -
8
nice quote from a wonderful book
IMO, global warming is inevitable. Our world civilization does not have the resolve to stop it. (Doesn't mean we don't try though.)
And, humankind will adapt. We will move more toward the poles of our planet and away from the seashores. Change our ways of growing crops, etc.
This real issue is how do we make the transition to a warmer planet, w/o the huge and terrible consequences to so many people -- esp the poor.
We will find a way. Technology will rise to the occasion. It has in the past. Not as a panacea, but as an amelioration. Just have to keep working on the problem -- and making people "aware."
And, humankind will adapt. We will move more toward the poles of our planet and away from the seashores. Change our ways of growing crops, etc.
This real issue is how do we make the transition to a warmer planet, w/o the huge and terrible consequences to so many people -- esp the poor.
We will find a way. Technology will rise to the occasion. It has in the past. Not as a panacea, but as an amelioration. Just have to keep working on the problem -- and making people "aware."
1
Technology. Ah, Technology. "Technology" has largely gotten us into this mess. Look, the bedrock of civilization isn't so much "technology" as it is, "food." The problem with that as far as climate change is concerned is that we have developed an agriculture which has certain expectations of the weather, and if the weather does not comply, crops will be lost.
The vast majority of people don't have the faintest idea how to feed themselves, and little inclination to try, anyhow. We have huge cities which are totally dependent on agriculture which is elsewhere to feed them. One year of widespread crop failure will create conditions never seen in the United States. Climate change could do that.
The vast majority of people don't have the faintest idea how to feed themselves, and little inclination to try, anyhow. We have huge cities which are totally dependent on agriculture which is elsewhere to feed them. One year of widespread crop failure will create conditions never seen in the United States. Climate change could do that.
2
I appreciate the article and I'm afraid that it is on the money. That is why we need a smaller population, fewer immigrants, and a shared culture so that ecological problems need not lead to violent anarchy. Better, far better, to live in the United States of the 1930s than the West Africa of today.
The problem is much, much bigger than us versus them, and keeping those immigrants out. Irrespective of where those immigrants live, the planet will be impacted all the same.
I am afraid, nativists solutions are not going to solve this.
I am afraid, nativists solutions are not going to solve this.
3
Global warming poses serious challenges to human beings, but the spectre of a Dark Age isn't one of them. The Dark Ages weren't a period in which traditional experiential knowledge was lost, but one in which science, philosophy, literature, art, etc were lost, and the emergence from the dark ages was spurred by agricultural innovations, not the recovery of traditional knowledge. What will pose the biggest problem for us to use science to adapt to climate change is the unprecedented population growth of the last 50 years. The population of Africa, for example, has increased four to five times in the last 50 years, that of South Asia three to four times, and much of the rest of the world isn't that far behind. That kind of population growth has no precedent in history or pre-history.
6
Surely, as we now know, the plants and animals we have come to expect to inhabit our planet will be decimated, is being decimated as we speak. Humanity is Reactive, not Proactive. Nothing will happen until it's too late to turn back the tide. This is all one big experiment, and insofar as I know, there is no Planet B! We are grappling with environmental and economic collapse on a global scale. It won't be pretty.
17
Simple it is.
Around the industrial revolution, 19th century, mankind ( mostly males) created an idea with ever increasing confidence, we will be the master of nature. I am not a 19th century person But even I heard this ideological overstatement while I am attending my early education. Capitalism to Communism or any other social and political systems main running theme was built on this one presumption. We will be master of the of the nature, we will tame the nature etc.
Following 19th century, first half of the 20th century we witness this ideology injected in to veins of almost every nation in the world. I do not know we master it, but we literally derailed existing natural system , which is described in science, golden zone of climate, environment setup.
Then things start to sour, as of today early 20th century , we ar actually witnessing the persistence of this 19th century idea , man is the master of nature, some even may claim this has a base in Abrahamic religions ( agreed).
21st century is going to show us clearly how wrong we were and are.
Science teach us one thing, every development need fine tuning, with out that approach, everything will subjected to severe collision.
At this moment what is our vulnerability and blissful ignorance is our population. we might be extremely vulnerable than what we are imagining.
Human resilience may not solve what is going to show up on our door step in this century.
Around the industrial revolution, 19th century, mankind ( mostly males) created an idea with ever increasing confidence, we will be the master of nature. I am not a 19th century person But even I heard this ideological overstatement while I am attending my early education. Capitalism to Communism or any other social and political systems main running theme was built on this one presumption. We will be master of the of the nature, we will tame the nature etc.
Following 19th century, first half of the 20th century we witness this ideology injected in to veins of almost every nation in the world. I do not know we master it, but we literally derailed existing natural system , which is described in science, golden zone of climate, environment setup.
Then things start to sour, as of today early 20th century , we ar actually witnessing the persistence of this 19th century idea , man is the master of nature, some even may claim this has a base in Abrahamic religions ( agreed).
21st century is going to show us clearly how wrong we were and are.
Science teach us one thing, every development need fine tuning, with out that approach, everything will subjected to severe collision.
At this moment what is our vulnerability and blissful ignorance is our population. we might be extremely vulnerable than what we are imagining.
Human resilience may not solve what is going to show up on our door step in this century.
12
All evolution prior to human evolution took place without a master designer-intervener. Humans were the first animals to develop a lasting culture that plays this role, for better or worse.
We are the master of nature. You aren't living in a cave, are you?
And mostly white males have developed everything you drive, live in, get health care from, invest in. In short just about everything on the planet. Of course we celebrate the little contributions from everyone else because you're special.
And mostly white males have developed everything you drive, live in, get health care from, invest in. In short just about everything on the planet. Of course we celebrate the little contributions from everyone else because you're special.
Wow- instead of an intellectual analysis of the post, let's blame the problem on males, religion, and models of govt- The bias is strong with this one.
Oh, why should we believe these silly scientists. Such an obvious plot to kill the Texas and West Virginia economies by shutting down fossil fuel development. We should be listening to Sarah Palin. She's way smarter.
10
What a bizarre article. Does this op-ed contributor really believe that over the next hundred years that farmers wouldn't adapt? That somehow we'll all wake up in 100 years and not know where we are or how to live?
It's not so much global warming that concerns me, or climate change as it's called when winter is tough, but the ever growing population - especially in third world countries that make no effort to regulate pollution of the waters, the cutting down of forests, the contamination of foods stored or raised in filth, and the proliferation of pesticides. CO2 is not our problem, mass over-use of limited resources is our problem. And paying climatologists billions of dollars so that they can continue to do research on climate patterns is more than a waste.
It's not so much global warming that concerns me, or climate change as it's called when winter is tough, but the ever growing population - especially in third world countries that make no effort to regulate pollution of the waters, the cutting down of forests, the contamination of foods stored or raised in filth, and the proliferation of pesticides. CO2 is not our problem, mass over-use of limited resources is our problem. And paying climatologists billions of dollars so that they can continue to do research on climate patterns is more than a waste.
33
You would be surprised how prevalent the pollution of waters, cutting down forests, food contamination, and proliferation of pesticides is in the United States already. These are not only third-world problems.
It's not that farmers won't try to adapt; it's that it simply may not be possible, given the forecasted climate changes, to produce and distribute the food necessary to support even the U.S. population.
It's not that farmers won't try to adapt; it's that it simply may not be possible, given the forecasted climate changes, to produce and distribute the food necessary to support even the U.S. population.
3
I think you'll find that it will happen faster than our very slow systems will be able to cope with. The scientists are trying to show us this because we're apparently not listening as can be witnessed by our relative inactivity to do something about the contributing factors.
2
You are so tight, our problems are caused by poor people who live somewhere far away from us. And more fully understanding the problem is a waste. Not and Not.
4
.... Always amusing/disturbing/educational to see the strange mix of terror, glee and vindictiveness with which apocalypse enthusiasts envision the coming upheaval
They may claim to be worried, but what comes through between the lines is happy anticipation of seeing their many enemies suffer (Republicans, people who use spray deodorant, meat-eaters, those who think the Oscar should go to whoever acted best, anyone who doesn't despise George W. Bush etc. ....)...
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Caring & Concern....
They may claim to be worried, but what comes through between the lines is happy anticipation of seeing their many enemies suffer (Republicans, people who use spray deodorant, meat-eaters, those who think the Oscar should go to whoever acted best, anyone who doesn't despise George W. Bush etc. ....)...
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Caring & Concern....
6
So, by the self-sustaining subterfuge of denigrating the commenters, one is able to maintain one's beliefs without the effort of refuting actual arguments offered about the subject at hand.
Well done.
Well done.
8
Yet another in the daily deluge of doomsayers served up by the sensationalist media, among whom we must now place the good gray NY Times. Doom sells--has done so ever since Cassandra, Savonarola, Malthus, followed in our times by Ehrlich, Schneider, and Holdren (he of the confident prediction that a billion people would die due to global COOLING). And the latter spills his poison daily directly into the ear of President Obama.
3
A minor point of order, Cassandra actually foretold the future correctly, but her curse (courtesy of Apollo) was that no one would believe her. That creates some problems for your remaining assertion.
5
There's only two or maybe three generations left on this planet. Nothing can be done to stop it, even if everyone stopped what they were doing and tried, and no one is doing anything. The resources now shouldn't be spent on educating people on what's happening, as it has already reached its 'tipping point' and is irreversible. All efforts should be focused on plans (like Bill Gates and others) to save humanity as a whole through creating a 'fake' ozone layer, as horrific as that would be. I have seen nothing but derision put on anyone mentioning these common sense plans. Anyone mentioning the obvious is ridiculed on TV and in the media. It's going to take courage to DO something now. From what I've seen that courage is in short supply. Maybe the Times could start the ball rolling on real change and stop trying to convince people that global warming is real. Believe me, I've talked to a lot of them and nothing will convince them.
2
Dr. Gail,
Excellent essay and a novel approach to sounding the alarm that action to mitigate emissions of global warming gasses is urgent. A new dark age looms is a not a wild metaphor for what is likely. Many of our electric power plants are located near water in low elevations like Florida and I anticipate a littoral blackout from flooding and storm surges in those areas, in the US and the World.
I don't think policymakers realize how urgent the situation really is. We could already have triggered a runaway release of global warming gasses from the thawing permafrost and/or methane deposits on the ocean floor. We just don't know, nobody knows, and frighteningly noone is trying to find out.
My colleague, Dr. James Powell, has proposed using Maglev to launch solar satellite to geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to the Earth. With this very cheap electricity, he proposed to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
A portion of the electricity could power his very efficient 300 mph superconducting Maglev transport system that carries trucks as well as commuters, See www.magneticglide.com for the concept. His new book Silent Earth will be published soon and available on Amazon.
Excellent essay and a novel approach to sounding the alarm that action to mitigate emissions of global warming gasses is urgent. A new dark age looms is a not a wild metaphor for what is likely. Many of our electric power plants are located near water in low elevations like Florida and I anticipate a littoral blackout from flooding and storm surges in those areas, in the US and the World.
I don't think policymakers realize how urgent the situation really is. We could already have triggered a runaway release of global warming gasses from the thawing permafrost and/or methane deposits on the ocean floor. We just don't know, nobody knows, and frighteningly noone is trying to find out.
My colleague, Dr. James Powell, has proposed using Maglev to launch solar satellite to geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to the Earth. With this very cheap electricity, he proposed to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
A portion of the electricity could power his very efficient 300 mph superconducting Maglev transport system that carries trucks as well as commuters, See www.magneticglide.com for the concept. His new book Silent Earth will be published soon and available on Amazon.
4
I am saddened by the number of people who either trivialize or try to minimize humanities responsibility for climate change.
If NASA, a group that can land a spacecraft 300 million miles away on another planet with extreme precision tells us global warming is real, then we should consider it real. Our military considers global warming to be our GREATEST threat. On no other issue do the major countries of the world agree and work together. If you can accept this, then can you acknowledge that perhaps, releasing 375 BILLION tons of Co2 since the industrial revolution (175 years ago) may have POSSIBLY altered the naturally occurring cycle of the planet?
We were given one planet, which also happens to be the ONLY planet in the ENTIRE known universe to contain life. Let's try and act grateful for the opportunity of life that we have been gifted.
If NASA, a group that can land a spacecraft 300 million miles away on another planet with extreme precision tells us global warming is real, then we should consider it real. Our military considers global warming to be our GREATEST threat. On no other issue do the major countries of the world agree and work together. If you can accept this, then can you acknowledge that perhaps, releasing 375 BILLION tons of Co2 since the industrial revolution (175 years ago) may have POSSIBLY altered the naturally occurring cycle of the planet?
We were given one planet, which also happens to be the ONLY planet in the ENTIRE known universe to contain life. Let's try and act grateful for the opportunity of life that we have been gifted.
22
Wait til the fossil fuel companies start selling us (back) our planet's fresh WATER. They are buying up rights worldwide. Google it. Meantime join me and many others at the NYC premiere of Josh Fox's new film "How To Let Go of the World". And read this piece on what one accidental Colorado fracking heiress did with her ill-gotten gains: https://oldestvocation.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/fracking-weld-county-col...
5
In 1950 global population was estimated at roughly 2.5 billion; it's currently three times that at 7.4 billion. According to the UN projections, global population is estimated to be roughly 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. These estimates have tended to underestimate in the past. What technologies will satisfy humankind's "right" to reproduce and hunger for a "western" lifestyle, and at what continued cost? Many of the areas of the world where population density and growth are highest are already on the brink, ala Yemen. My sense is that the past year's emigration from countries like Syria etc (albeit much of it due to conflict) is but a small sign of things to come. Some very serious implications here for our children and grandchildren...
17
Oh don't worry Ben, the population won't reach 11.2 million. In a couple of decades at most, famine riots are going to reduce the population of the Middle East, India, Pakistan, northern Africa, and many other third world countries by staggering amounts, probably well over 50% losses in many places. So thankfully our burgeoning numbers will be trimmed, brutally but effectively.
3
In 1950, people believed that practical controlled nuclear fusion would be demonstrated withing 20 years.
Actually last year some very disturbing things show up in science radar, north of equatorial line , over all temperature during summer spiked, 57 degree Celsius measured in a populated area in IRAN. This year first signs came from India already temperatures reached in april 47 degrees Celsius. this is practically incompatible for plant life, which means crop failure.
We in fact as in this essay depicted entering dark ages, because many things can be happen, but which one is going to hit first what degree, we have no idea. Long before water level rising, if we face up these intense heat in most populous part of the world geography, I do not know but there is no solution
other than mass immigration.
MASS IMMIGRATION. INDIA, CHINA MIDDLE EAST EVEN AMERICA.
We in fact as in this essay depicted entering dark ages, because many things can be happen, but which one is going to hit first what degree, we have no idea. Long before water level rising, if we face up these intense heat in most populous part of the world geography, I do not know but there is no solution
other than mass immigration.
MASS IMMIGRATION. INDIA, CHINA MIDDLE EAST EVEN AMERICA.
It's like the Earth (Gaia), has started to run a fever to rid itself of a virus (humans) in order to regain it's health. If it wasn't so Armageddon like, it would be fascinating to experience.
Very interesting article outlining a consequence I hadn't considered. It's got me thinking of other possibilities we might have to deal with. Consider this; Many naysayers state that even if true, climate change will offset itself by allowing crops to grow where it's been too cold before. I imagine our transportation system, set to move crops from different locations, will be located in the wrong place and need to be moved to accommodate the newest areas for food distribution. Farmers and their equipment will be placed wrong and will require a mass migration to the new fields.
Let you mind roam, the implications are numerous and enormous.
Very interesting article outlining a consequence I hadn't considered. It's got me thinking of other possibilities we might have to deal with. Consider this; Many naysayers state that even if true, climate change will offset itself by allowing crops to grow where it's been too cold before. I imagine our transportation system, set to move crops from different locations, will be located in the wrong place and need to be moved to accommodate the newest areas for food distribution. Farmers and their equipment will be placed wrong and will require a mass migration to the new fields.
Let you mind roam, the implications are numerous and enormous.
2
The current basis for dire warnings on climate change are based on climate models. So, concerns as expressed in this piece implicitly accept the accuracy and reliability of these models. Yet, at the same time, we are told that we will need to adapt to climate change by long term experience. This is incoherent; if the models are that good, they should be able to guide adaptation. The most frustrating aspect of all the coverage of climate change is the absence of anything related to how the models actually work and to what extent they can be trusted, if at all.
The problem is downscaling the models to regions where we live, and also the main challenge: we're entering a climate system no one has ever seen before, running at a higher energy state and with many nonlinear interactions. If we had 10,000 planets to study we could get a feel for it (also, that would be a terrific explainer for people who need to realize how direly we need to cut emissions). Models give us a virtual play of 10,000 planets, and are getting increasingly fine-grained, but the reality of what's going to happen each year is going to continue to bring surprises. One example of a prediction coming true: coral bleaching. Another, coming in way ahead of initial projections: the destabilization of the West Antarctica ice sheet.
5
Probably one of the best introductions to climate models is, "The Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming" by Paul N. Edwards
A wonderful book for the layman who wishes to become a bit more educated.
A wonderful book for the layman who wishes to become a bit more educated.
Mr Gail's initial premise: "As each decade passes, knowledge of Earth’s past becomes progressively less effective as a guide to the future." is based upon only his beliefs and has absolutely NO basis in science.
The scientific data collected from ice core samples clearly shows a pattern of high temperatures resulting in climate change and resultant significant environmental damage vis-a-vis agriculture that then leads to extinctions. The cause of this climate change is from increased levels of gases and particulate that trap heat in the lower atmosphere (that which contacts the earth's surface).
Current production rates of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 & CH4) are increasing faster than ever before.
So what's not to understand? The history certainly does show the future to all willing to open their eyes and accept the unbiased data.
The scientific data collected from ice core samples clearly shows a pattern of high temperatures resulting in climate change and resultant significant environmental damage vis-a-vis agriculture that then leads to extinctions. The cause of this climate change is from increased levels of gases and particulate that trap heat in the lower atmosphere (that which contacts the earth's surface).
Current production rates of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 & CH4) are increasing faster than ever before.
So what's not to understand? The history certainly does show the future to all willing to open their eyes and accept the unbiased data.
2
No doubt climate change is real; the reliability of the Farmer's Almanac hasn't been called into question as yet but certainly will in due time.
As humans have evolved over the centuries, learning ways to improve our existence through innovation has been a constant; no stone is left unturned in that regard. The ongoing efforts to [re-]solve the present crisis, no matter how dire, will continue unabated; politics be damned.
As humans have evolved over the centuries, learning ways to improve our existence through innovation has been a constant; no stone is left unturned in that regard. The ongoing efforts to [re-]solve the present crisis, no matter how dire, will continue unabated; politics be damned.
2
Climate science is the only science that uses anomalies, not real temperatures. A temperature anomaly is when you subtract the average temperature (in a baseline range) from real temperature data.
There’s just one problem: the “average temperature” of the baseline everyone uses was made up. There are no reliable global temperature records except for discrete regional climates (like Central UK for 400 years, and weather stations in the US) before the start of the satellite era in 1979. So the 1950-1980 baseline was guessed at. NASA GISS says so. It says that it subtracts a subjective “best estimate for the global mean for 1951-1980.” Not only that, now ‘scientists’ are going back and changing those monthly archival anomalies without explanation which is making the past colder than the present, and real climate scientists worldwide who use this base data in their models are furious with the US government for permitting this.
If the NYT permitted links in comments I would show you a copy of NASA’s 2011 “GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980” text file (actually 1880 to present), and what it is now. You would be shocked.
La Niñas follow El Niños. Cold follows warmth *in the US*. Further, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is predicted to be negative by 2020 in concert with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, an important association only discovered in 1999. The last time they were negative together, we had 30 years of cold.
There’s just one problem: the “average temperature” of the baseline everyone uses was made up. There are no reliable global temperature records except for discrete regional climates (like Central UK for 400 years, and weather stations in the US) before the start of the satellite era in 1979. So the 1950-1980 baseline was guessed at. NASA GISS says so. It says that it subtracts a subjective “best estimate for the global mean for 1951-1980.” Not only that, now ‘scientists’ are going back and changing those monthly archival anomalies without explanation which is making the past colder than the present, and real climate scientists worldwide who use this base data in their models are furious with the US government for permitting this.
If the NYT permitted links in comments I would show you a copy of NASA’s 2011 “GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980” text file (actually 1880 to present), and what it is now. You would be shocked.
La Niñas follow El Niños. Cold follows warmth *in the US*. Further, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is predicted to be negative by 2020 in concert with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, an important association only discovered in 1999. The last time they were negative together, we had 30 years of cold.
3
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Remember Katrina? We were told that we could expect 5-6 hurricanes of that magnitude a year. Ffffft - nothing.
Remember Hurricane Sandy? We were told to hang on because that is the new "normal". Ffffft - nothing.
As recently as 8,000 BC there was a mile thick glacier covering most of Wisconsin. 10,000 years is the blink of an eye in geological terms.
It's called variation folks. Change happens and species adapt or perish just as it had always been.
Chicken Little needs to chill.
Remember Katrina? We were told that we could expect 5-6 hurricanes of that magnitude a year. Ffffft - nothing.
Remember Hurricane Sandy? We were told to hang on because that is the new "normal". Ffffft - nothing.
As recently as 8,000 BC there was a mile thick glacier covering most of Wisconsin. 10,000 years is the blink of an eye in geological terms.
It's called variation folks. Change happens and species adapt or perish just as it had always been.
Chicken Little needs to chill.
2
My gosh! Brilliance! And who would have thought that all the scientific community had to do was make a mass pilgrimage to the font of all complex wisdom...Little Rock! How much better we would all be. (Quick rhetorical quiz: Are you a firearms enthusiast?)
The issue is not every year you are going to see a Katrina, How many Katrina you can tolerate in given time ( let say in 30 years)
Every single one of them costing you which you may not compensate, other wise nobody clearly said yet, but hurricanes are actually a good thing for earth climate, but can you tolerate.
Every single one of them costing you which you may not compensate, other wise nobody clearly said yet, but hurricanes are actually a good thing for earth climate, but can you tolerate.
Change is the only constant. I wonder at Mr. Gail's motivation in writing this commentary. If, as he says, "Our grandchildren could grow up knowing less about the planet than we do today" the cause will be the institutional ignorance being fostered by the American taliban- aka the "real conservatives".
4
I think what he means though is that change is happening so rapidly that all the records and data that we have accumulated both from measuring in the last few centuries and through scientific research into fossil and sediment findings will give us little to go on when projecting into the future. We have never experienced this level or number of changes so we won't have enough to go on to know how adaptable we are or how hospitable the environment for life will be.
1
The dark age is already here and doing well . The overpopulation in some part of the planet is evident. Every human produces his share of pollution such as consumed energy byproduct , multiply that by all of us including myself and you can see a disastrous trend . The biggest obstacle is the confusing cultures of mankind rooted so deep as to appear rock solid . Time and the nature of the planet will destroy the unwanted fraction of humanity will get rid of all billions of opinions and stories and start all over again. We call it equilibrium.
4
I would not worry about our Grandchildren not having the information they need to navigate the changes they might face in a different warmer world.
Not when the largest corporations responsible for the causes of a Warmer world deny they are the cause and pay politicians in the country that creates the greatest Greenhouse gases to actively deny and stop any attempts to mitigate that warmer , darker future from becoming reality.
First things first.
Not when the largest corporations responsible for the causes of a Warmer world deny they are the cause and pay politicians in the country that creates the greatest Greenhouse gases to actively deny and stop any attempts to mitigate that warmer , darker future from becoming reality.
First things first.
2
We have returned to the Dark Ages of "mental dysfunction," not yet fully to the Dark Age of climate change. A mental Dark Age is a more serious dysfunction which can still be averted if we are smart enough to learn how to crush the deniers. Deniers are not being conservative as needed, when a conservative approach needs to solve the looming problem facing all of us. The Dark Middle Ages led to the Renaissance, then into the scientific Modern Age, which since the 1980s, we find a dysfunctional humanity in a temporary state of Endarkenment. As the old saying goes, "Too early old, too late smart." Let's hope not.
5
This piece was what it was -- but I just want to know one thing: what is the preoccupation in it about fish? What about bees? What about horses?
What utter silliness. The climate will change, as it always had. Some areas will get drier, others wetter, some warmer and others colder, some species will become extinct while others are born. Mankind will acclimate, as will plant and animal life. It is called nature, and natural selection.
5
I think you are not aware that this will be happening at a far, far greater pace than ever before, and that the "acclimation" will likely mean the death of hundreds of millions of people if not billions, from hunger, rampant epidemics, and violence. Those numbers are of course just statistics unless they happen to include your own family. Add to that the enormous societal instabilities that will be experienced, including the collapse of the structures we currently take for granted.
4
All I know is the earth is getting hotter and we can see it and feel it here in Southern Africa. Rain is not falling like it used to, we are seeing summer dragging on for longer and longer. We are now in the grips of a very serious drought. This is no longer some 'pie in the sky' fever dream. It is real and very much part of our day to day lives. It beggars belief that so many are still debating the causes. Even if humans are only partially responsible (best case scenario) we have a very real responsibility to ensure that we reverse that effect as soon as possible. If the worst case scenario is true and we are wholly responsible, then the only good thing is that it is in our power to undo the damage we have done, IF we act soon enough. Either way the consequences of doing nothing are just too horrible to contemplate. If you think the flood of migrants from the Mid-East is bad, wait until you see what happens when the food starts running out in Africa.
12
"Society's progress"? "Progress" is the very reason we are in this environmental fix.
3
Humanity has little hope of science-based environmental guidance when political leadership views science as a threat to the stubborn verities of ideology. When we have a US Senator chairing the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee who bring a snowball into his legislative chamber as a compelling "evidence" against the reality of climate change, we have a serious problem with our national leadership.
Such spectacle is part of the same pattern of willful deception about the alleged "disaster" of Obamacare. Ted Cruz even lost HIS OWN coverage (except that he didn't). Ideology rules the roost, science be damned. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Such spectacle is part of the same pattern of willful deception about the alleged "disaster" of Obamacare. Ted Cruz even lost HIS OWN coverage (except that he didn't). Ideology rules the roost, science be damned. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
28
Might be the best thing to happen to the earth if human populations are decimated and nature resets. Maybe the next "intelligent" species will have learned a lesson from the current one. Or not. Nature will always prevail.
8
There is a kind of Republican tribal group-think that kicks in on the issue of climate change, even though Ronald Reagan spearheaded the Montreal Protocol that halted growth of the hole in the ozone layer. I'm referring to the deafening non-response to former Republican Congressman Bill Inglis's excellent recommendation that the answer to global warming is a withdrawal of gov't subsidies for all forms of energy and a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions created in production of any consumer item, including imports. This would inhibit the flow of US factories abroad, shrink burdensome gov't regulations, and quickly bring China along with the rest of the world on board. Worth a try, Republican denialists!
6
Well, he got one thing right: "Civilization’s understanding of Earth has expanded enormously in recent decades, making humanity safer and more prosperous."
Thirty years into the era of Global Warming, now Climate Change, the poorer parts of Africa and Asia, where I travel extensively, are in the middle of an unprecedented boom in food stability and good health.
Indeed, for the poorer half of humankind, the last seventy years or so have been an incredible era of growing prosperity. Yeah, some minor and generally inconsequential effects of the .7 degree planet warming have been felt, but overall, its a miracle age.
One hopes that trajectory continues. It probably will, because it reflects the overall trend in human development. After all, middle-aged Americans live in a much cleaner and healthier place than they were born into, despite growing up with warnings of impeding pollution calamities and Malthusian overpopulation.
These hysterical, and transparently political jeremiads are offensive. We'll handle the relatively benign effects of climate change quite easily. We're 40 years into it, and the New York Times has already exhausted the possibilities of a changing pattern in wild fires, or a beetle found 20 miles above its previous range. Its not going to be a 'New Dark Age.' What ludicrous hyperbole, better suited to the era of presumed impending Nuclear Holocaust. That didn't happen either, sending liberals in search of the next calamity to wring their hands over.
Thirty years into the era of Global Warming, now Climate Change, the poorer parts of Africa and Asia, where I travel extensively, are in the middle of an unprecedented boom in food stability and good health.
Indeed, for the poorer half of humankind, the last seventy years or so have been an incredible era of growing prosperity. Yeah, some minor and generally inconsequential effects of the .7 degree planet warming have been felt, but overall, its a miracle age.
One hopes that trajectory continues. It probably will, because it reflects the overall trend in human development. After all, middle-aged Americans live in a much cleaner and healthier place than they were born into, despite growing up with warnings of impeding pollution calamities and Malthusian overpopulation.
These hysterical, and transparently political jeremiads are offensive. We'll handle the relatively benign effects of climate change quite easily. We're 40 years into it, and the New York Times has already exhausted the possibilities of a changing pattern in wild fires, or a beetle found 20 miles above its previous range. Its not going to be a 'New Dark Age.' What ludicrous hyperbole, better suited to the era of presumed impending Nuclear Holocaust. That didn't happen either, sending liberals in search of the next calamity to wring their hands over.
7
Africa, with the highest proportion of subsistence farmers on the planet, will not be prosperous for long, especially without rapid emission cuts in the West.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17862361/turn-down-hea...
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-riche...
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17862361/turn-down-hea...
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-riche...
2
Excellent comment.
This is not news, and I'm wondering why NYT put this as the feature piece on their website's Op-Ed page. Bill McKibben worked exactly the same territory in his 1989 book The End of Nature, the first book about global warming effects written for a general audience.
Oh, I'd say a new Dark Ages is already upon us, as fear-mongering twits like this are allowed space on the pages of the world's newspaper to contrive new reasons to be afraid of climate change.
His fear-mongering is lame. Anyone with an inkling of historical knowledge knows that technical knowledge does not accumulate on a direct upward trajectory. Rome had hot and cold running water 2,000 years ago, which lasted until about 1,500 years ago, after which over a thousand years passed before they could again enjoy their baths.
Besides, what does he propose be done about this changing earth that is making our understanding of it obsolete? That's right, pretty much of nothing, because nothing can be done. So why worry? Oh yeah, because we have evolved to live in constant fear and there's just not enough stuff these days to be afraid of. Or there isn't, at least, for first-worlders living unimaginably comfortable and easy lives. Were any third-worlders to stumble upon this essay (perhaps as fish wrap), they'd scoff at what a silly thing to worry about.
And aside from all that, let's not selectively apply the scientific knowledge we have. Anyone distraught over the sort of legacy we might leave our heirs should recall that it has been estimated by biologists that 99% of all species to ever have existed are now extinct. How likely is it we'll be in the one percent that survives? Don't worry about the legacy. In the long run, we are all dead.
His fear-mongering is lame. Anyone with an inkling of historical knowledge knows that technical knowledge does not accumulate on a direct upward trajectory. Rome had hot and cold running water 2,000 years ago, which lasted until about 1,500 years ago, after which over a thousand years passed before they could again enjoy their baths.
Besides, what does he propose be done about this changing earth that is making our understanding of it obsolete? That's right, pretty much of nothing, because nothing can be done. So why worry? Oh yeah, because we have evolved to live in constant fear and there's just not enough stuff these days to be afraid of. Or there isn't, at least, for first-worlders living unimaginably comfortable and easy lives. Were any third-worlders to stumble upon this essay (perhaps as fish wrap), they'd scoff at what a silly thing to worry about.
And aside from all that, let's not selectively apply the scientific knowledge we have. Anyone distraught over the sort of legacy we might leave our heirs should recall that it has been estimated by biologists that 99% of all species to ever have existed are now extinct. How likely is it we'll be in the one percent that survives? Don't worry about the legacy. In the long run, we are all dead.
2
An interesting insight, and one that resonates with our ancient history. The current Holocene interglacial, which began at the end of the Pleistocene about 11,700 years ago, has been marked by unusually stable climate patterns. Some theorists believe that it was this stability that allowed civilization to develop. (Jericho, the world's oldest city, was founded at the beginning of the current interglacial.) Today, we may have the technology to survive the challenges climate instability will pose, but those challenges will likely be of a scale we have not faced for over 10 millennia. Dealing with them will require unprecedented levels of international coordination, integration, and commensurate loss of sovereignty. The resulting political challenges may, in turn, be even more difficult than the natural ones.
10
. In the sixties many noted scientists were warning us about the dangers of overpopulation when there were only three billion of us, so if we had heeded their advice and we were approaching four billion today instead of eight, Global Warming would be a distant blip on our radar, the Gulf Spill, fracking and the development of Canadian tar sands would not have happened because we would not be that hard up for oil yet, and the word Anthropocene would not have been coined to describe the man made sixth great extinction event happening on this planet right now; the last was a comet that took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, mankind is the current ongoing extinction event’s comet.
10
Not hoping for this future, but one upside could be finally a reduced human population, in number sustainable given the earth's resources and capacity. Fewer total people but all living better lives.
4
It's just as well. We've pretty much taken this homo sapiens thing as far as it's going to go and there's really not much to say positive about it all in the end.
6
The climate models have proven to be about as accurate as long range numerical weather prediction models. While they show the general warming trend of recent decades they are almost all amplifying it compared to what has actually been observed. In other words, it's not "worse than we think" it is actually "less than we predict". I am not saying "crisis averted" but the crisis will probably not be that bad. Certainly not worse than the whiplash warming/cooling around 12,000 YBP. Humanity survived that climatic upheaval quite nicely, actually. The things we should be worried about are massive volcanic eruptions such as the Toba event of 75,000 YBP that nearly wiped out humanity or an end Cretaceous-like asteroid strike. I am willing to bet any amount of money that this article will appear as quaint 40 years from now as the NYT articles touting the coming ice age from 40 years ago are now.
2
"Humanity survived that climatic upheaval quite nicely, actually." Ernesto, you say this as if there were no relevant differences between our circumstances now and those obtaining then. But there are many obvious differences, and they are relevant to how we'll fare. One of them is the fact that there are many times more of us now than there were then, and all those mouths are putting enormous strain on Earth's ability to grow things. Disruptions in growing seasons may mean the starvation of many millions of people, and the social upheaval of such an event will not be helped at all by modern weaponry. Twelve thousand years ago there were no nation-states, so people displaced by climatic change could just pick up and move. Europe today is having trouble absorbing a few thousand migrants; what happens when they number in the tens or hundreds of millions? I could go on. Citing precedent from twelve thousand years ago is worse than useless, particularly when your recommended alternative is to focus on ... volcanoes. Sure, let's try to stop plate tectonics, instead of focusing on a problem that we can actually do something about. Go to it!
3
"The climate models have proven to be about as accurate as long range numerical weather prediction models."
That's just complete nonsense. Even the simple calculations from the 50's and 60's have been remarkably in the ballpark.
That's just complete nonsense. Even the simple calculations from the 50's and 60's have been remarkably in the ballpark.
2
In light of the science, in light of this article, why does the NYT not cover climate change with 5-6 articles a day, front page, as it covered WWII? Biggest threat human civilization has ever faced looming before us, but with the NYT, it's BAU.
The day when New York Times is under six feet of water is not far off, by 2100, which is a mere 84 years from now, and there will undoubtedly be steps of increase along the way that could make much of Manhattan uninhabitable.
We're in an election year, the American public (like the rest of the world) does need to know what's at stake. But the NYT has clearly made a political decision to ignore this looming catastrophe, to minimize, marginalize, and ignore the science. It's truly shocking and undermines this paper's credibility and integrity. It seems clear that the NYT has chosen to enable the deniers.
The day when New York Times is under six feet of water is not far off, by 2100, which is a mere 84 years from now, and there will undoubtedly be steps of increase along the way that could make much of Manhattan uninhabitable.
We're in an election year, the American public (like the rest of the world) does need to know what's at stake. But the NYT has clearly made a political decision to ignore this looming catastrophe, to minimize, marginalize, and ignore the science. It's truly shocking and undermines this paper's credibility and integrity. It seems clear that the NYT has chosen to enable the deniers.
8
Of course, if there were fewer people. this would be less of a problem.
1
It is a myth that science know much about Earth patterns presently much less predictably in a generation or two. My guess is that retrospective analysis is just like what David Hume said: more or less: "just because the sun rose today gives you no reason to believe it will rise tomorrow". Dark age pun intended...
3
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre.The falcon cannot hear the falconer." Can it really be this apocalyptic? I hope not.
2
Fantasy. The real threat to the earth is its growing population.
5
This is a wonderful piece, if you read it carefully.
It admits that we have no idea what "Global Warming" means!
Exactly what the "deniers" say!
If you read it carefully ... it is full of the would "could" applied to dire warnings.
But in reality it "could" mean blissfully better climate!
The "global warming" people need to stop saying "could" and offer EXACT
predictions, ones that are backed up by successful calculations using their
models and data that stops at 1950.
It admits that we have no idea what "Global Warming" means!
Exactly what the "deniers" say!
If you read it carefully ... it is full of the would "could" applied to dire warnings.
But in reality it "could" mean blissfully better climate!
The "global warming" people need to stop saying "could" and offer EXACT
predictions, ones that are backed up by successful calculations using their
models and data that stops at 1950.
4
According to all the Hillary supporters, we need to take an incremental approach, don't want to rush into anything. In fact they guarantee they have a solution it's called Fracking and Magic.
6
A little ice age action won't hurt, give the earth a chance to rid itself of the pernicious vermin ( humans) that are always poking, digging, polluting, etc. Bring on the ice.
3
There is a disaster scenario exponentially more devastating and longer lasting than anything that can possibly be attributed to worst-case global warming. Its chance of happening is more certain than global warming and strangely related to it. The precipitating event: nuclear war among nation-states.
The greatest "natural' disasters in recent history in terms of their tolls on human beings and earth's resources including food supplies have been wars, particularly WW I and WW II. Even minor local wars like the one in Syria today cause more human suffering, starvation and deaths than all global weather events and other natural disasters combined. Now imagine WW III with nuclear explosions around the globe as the old domino affect draws one nuclear-power nation-state after another into the fray. If humanity survives, all of the potential consequences imagined in this story will occur--only worse. Given the explosive mix of nuclear-armed nation-states, grievance-based NGOs with no better way of challenging the overwhelming military power of existing governments than terrorism, and given the scientific fact that human governments are predicated on force and violence, worrying about global warming is nitpicking.
Virtually all of the prescribed plans for combating global warming call for huge increases in taxation--a form of state violence--making nuclear-armed human governments ever more powerful, capable of greater violence, and likely to use force to accomplish objectives.
The greatest "natural' disasters in recent history in terms of their tolls on human beings and earth's resources including food supplies have been wars, particularly WW I and WW II. Even minor local wars like the one in Syria today cause more human suffering, starvation and deaths than all global weather events and other natural disasters combined. Now imagine WW III with nuclear explosions around the globe as the old domino affect draws one nuclear-power nation-state after another into the fray. If humanity survives, all of the potential consequences imagined in this story will occur--only worse. Given the explosive mix of nuclear-armed nation-states, grievance-based NGOs with no better way of challenging the overwhelming military power of existing governments than terrorism, and given the scientific fact that human governments are predicated on force and violence, worrying about global warming is nitpicking.
Virtually all of the prescribed plans for combating global warming call for huge increases in taxation--a form of state violence--making nuclear-armed human governments ever more powerful, capable of greater violence, and likely to use force to accomplish objectives.
1
Dinosaurs once dominated the world, just as humans are doing now. Dinosaurs were ill-prepared to deal with major climate changes, just as humans seem to be. Most dinosaurs are now extinct, while a few evolved into completely new species that would have been unrecognizable to most dinosaurs - birds. Time will tell whether humans will fare any better.
2
Dinosaurs fared pretty well in the Cretaceous age of enormous volcanic eruptions and various other stresses. The non-avian ones were done in, mostly, if not entirely, by that large object that hit Yucatán (there were major eruptions about the same time). Perhaps more relevant to us, the end of the last ice age brought chaotic weather and climate, very different from the relative stability we've had since then. Human populations at the time were small and mobile (migration is a great way to deal with erratic resource availability), and lots of animals went extinct.
This article is pure nonsense! All of the climate predictions and even past measurements are based on modeling, not actual occurrences. These models have been proven wrong time after time!
6
There is lots of real evidence of climate change - such as on the ground temperature measurements - that has nothing to do with models. Are you purposely ignoring this data, or are you just parroting what Rush Limbaugh tells you.
2
So was that why the ocean temperature data from buoys was discarded in favor of sensors dragged behind ship engine exhausts by NOAA? The mantra of "peer review climate science" seems to be "When data doesn't fit the politically correct model, change the data"
And yet all too many people spend more effort worshiping mythical beings, whose existences have never been verified, and in deriding, even killing, those whose mythical beings are different from theirs.
We should be worshiping the earth - the land, the oceans, the lakes, the rivers, the air. One protects and coddles what one worships. Most aboriginal peoples did this and acted accordingly. But we had this thick book in which was said "Take the earth and subdue it". Well, the earth has the bigger stick, and is now subduing us. We deserve it.
We should be worshiping the earth - the land, the oceans, the lakes, the rivers, the air. One protects and coddles what one worships. Most aboriginal peoples did this and acted accordingly. But we had this thick book in which was said "Take the earth and subdue it". Well, the earth has the bigger stick, and is now subduing us. We deserve it.
7
Amen brother.
1
And this line of thinking has exactly what to do with Science?
Mother Nature swings a mean pendulum! Looks like we are headed for a future in which only the strong and adaptable will survive. P.S. That is the way it has always been.
4
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Unfortunately our esteemed climate "scientists" are not up to the task of providing proof. A good place to start for those interested in the real science is here:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#IPCC_fourth_asse...
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#IPCC_fourth_asse...
3
That article attacks the IPCC 2007 report. What about al;l the OTHER organisations that through science and evidence ALSO confirm the consequences as well as the reality of man made climate change? These include most scientific bodies in most Western Nations and include NASA and the Pentagon in yours.
Or are you saying they are ALL wrong?
And who then are you saying is right?
You are deluding yourself.
Or are you saying they are ALL wrong?
And who then are you saying is right?
You are deluding yourself.
Even the best of us have carelessly disregarded the welfare of our well-ordered natural systems in the service of greed and convenience. we are going to get what we have worked so hard to accomplish--the end of nature. time to reap the whirlwind. as George Carlin famously said, there are no innocent bystanders.
4
No matter the climate. No matter any society's achievements. There will always be on the horizon another dark ages. It is man's history and nature. Fix every problem. You will still have waiting out on the horizon of man's small spell on the planet another dark ages.
"(...) Two millenia after the collapse of the Roman and Mayan empires and one millenium after the end of the Byzantine and Inca empires, historians (...) have been unable to agree on the primary causes of those societies' loss of population, power, stability, and identity. The case of Western civilization is different because the consequences of its actions were not only predictable, but predicted." (Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, The Collapse of Western Civilization, a view from the future)
4
Inca? European diseases and Spaniards. The former were far worse than the Black Death, and the latter probably as nasty as conquering Mongols.
The new dark age has already begun. Recall, however, that during the last one, Norsemen had sufficient understanding of "patterns" and changes to get to and colonize Greenland.
2
Possibly the biggest problem is complacency based on the presumption that we'll get around to fixing things sometime down the road when things get bad.
12
Factor in millions of Self secreting know nothings that refuse to believe in peer reviewed science and instruct their children in a similar manner.
8
On the contrary, we who know too much about peer review science are the most concerned with the climate alarmism supported by the "peer review religion". Here is a paragraph from an article about the so called peer review science:
http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
"For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced. Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that "two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published."
http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
"For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced. Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that "two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published."
The christian notion of innate guilt and original sin has now infected the climate scientists. Further pruned and selected by herd mentality peer review funding, a new breed of alarmist scientists are evolving in front of our eyes. They resemble Chicken Little more than rational objective scientists. Many commenter take the notion of self hatred further with talk of forcible population reduction and punishing skeptics. Hey Folks, Climate has always undergone long term and short term changes over billions of years of earth's history. Life EVOLVES. Humans are self aware, they can and will adapt. The solar system is untouched. Lets think bigger.
8
Barbarika says: "Humans are self aware, they can and will adapt." I'm afraid any substantial adaptation might be too little too late. With snowball throwing congressmen as evidence of no global warming, how can one have much confidence in our planning for the future!
4
When people run out of things to say, they talk about the weather - a thing that happens to them. Called on account of rain - no picnic, no ball game, move the reception under a tent.
We "blame" the weather now from that kind of understanding.
Population and consumption? That's what "other people do" and they do it wrong. Now we can "blame" someone else, not the weather.
When 10 million people in Beijing, Mexico City, Moscow, London or New York cannot take a breath, there will be no one "blaming" someone else.
That might get attention, for awhile. We'll talk about that when we run out of things to say and stop talking about the weather.
Population and consumption. Do politicians ever talk about anything? Too busy, I guess.
We "blame" the weather now from that kind of understanding.
Population and consumption? That's what "other people do" and they do it wrong. Now we can "blame" someone else, not the weather.
When 10 million people in Beijing, Mexico City, Moscow, London or New York cannot take a breath, there will be no one "blaming" someone else.
That might get attention, for awhile. We'll talk about that when we run out of things to say and stop talking about the weather.
Population and consumption. Do politicians ever talk about anything? Too busy, I guess.
5
The final snow survey just came back in California. The snow pack is again below average. Not a drought year, but not enough to lift restrictions on water use. The warm winter caused more precipitation to come down as rain, not snow. If the Spring is warmer than average, the snow pack runoff is too rapid to store in reservoirs.
Just a matter of a few degrees change in average climate, and California's water system starts to fail.
Just a matter of a few degrees change in average climate, and California's water system starts to fail.
9
Another example of humans using more resources than are available. The drought is a problem because of years of over consumption particularly on indulgences like pools and green lawns and wasteful irrigation techniques.
1
There was a very good line in the movie "The Age of Stupid" wherein the character proclaims:
"We wouldn't be the first civilization to have destroyed our own habitat, but what's different about us is that we will have done so knowingly. What does that say about us as a species?"
"We wouldn't be the first civilization to have destroyed our own habitat, but what's different about us is that we will have done so knowingly. What does that say about us as a species?"
6
The global warming hysteria has spawned a massive industry where people get money or attention for fear-mongering. This article is a classic example. Mankind can solve these challenges. But spare the "dark ages" scare talk.
5
"Mankind can solve these challenges." How? By ignoring them? By the way, the real money in this fight is about the carbon industry which desperately wants to keep us all addicted, and is willing to spend big time to profit from a carbon based economy.
This article strikes me as being a secular version of the religious 'end times' visions, confirmation of a view that climate change has become a belief system akin to a religious faith, including the need for an apocalypse. This is most curious, since its flock quotes "science" as its core scripture. I think that if one really believes in this science, then one should also think that the humans will compile new data, develop new processes, and adapt, instead of wallowing in dark visions of the future.
4
David, I hate to say it, but the bad stuff is happening right now. Just think of what excess carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is doing to coral reefs around the world NOW. They are bleaching out and dying like they haven't for millenia. This is tragic since coral reefs form the foundation for the food chain in many areas of the world. Perhaps forest fires like the recent ones in CO haven't hit you yet or hurricanes like the one I experienced in VT. We need to act now before such events become the norm. Ronald Reagan didn't wait for the hole in the ozone to become even bigger. He believed the science and shut down the manufacture of the CFOs causing the problem. We must do the same with carbon.
2
Fascinating speculation. So this nightmare scenario might happen....or it might not. Get a grip, there's enough stuff already scaring our pants off that really are an existential threat right now, such as terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear device, for instance. Let's make sure, there's a civilization to save before we start worrying about this needless doomsday mongering.
1
So we should ignore the problem? Pretending it's not going to happen isn't going to make it better.
3
Well David, as I see it, anyone who wants to ignore the problem can die from it. We do need a lot less humans, anyone wishing to opt out through ignorance is going to be no great loss.
1
How about pretending it, without a shadow of a doubt, IS going to happen?
1
During the last European Christian Dark Age between the fall of the classical Greco-Roman world and the beginning of the Renaissance in Italy the Arab Persian Kurd Turk Muslim world carried and advanced the past socioeconomic educational scientific technological historical progress of the one and only human race.
Flanked and focused by a Little Ice Age they used craft and clever independent, creative and original thoughts to shine a lingering light in the darkness. China also shined and advanced the human intellectual enterprising quest to lessen our ignorance about the universe.
Flanked and focused by a Little Ice Age they used craft and clever independent, creative and original thoughts to shine a lingering light in the darkness. China also shined and advanced the human intellectual enterprising quest to lessen our ignorance about the universe.
1
We won't be losing any old knowledge because it's always been subject to change. We now have the ability to fine tune that lore and see into the future a bit more reliably. It's a no brainer that if the woods dry out they're likely to catch fire. So what if it happens earlier. The signs are still there just pay attention.
2
That future never has to arrive, if we quickly end our addiction to fossil fuels today. But first, we must overcome the fascist tyrany that keeps us hooked, and is the cause for all the fossil fuel wars waged by the US Government.
Just as individuals and groups are choosing to boycott states that have passed draconian social laws, they/we should also consider boycotting products made by the Koch brothers and their ilk. This should include looking at what Georgia Pacific and their other companies make (like Dixie Cups) and purchasing something else instead. Perhaps economic pressure to the pocketbook will be something that people like the Kochs will understand.
4
Too bad we don't have Alexander von Humboldt around, an excellent partner to have, given his firm belief that we humans are one with Nature (even if our behavior of disregard to 'the hand that feeds us' is not concordant). That Climate Change, induced by our stupidity and greed, is real, seems not a deterrent to hypocrisy and narrow interests to deny it. At present, we are already paying the price for our irresponsible inaction to tackle it, and kicking the can down the road in the hope that our children will pick up the tab.
1
A recent Report published in Science showed that vegetation zones in Ecuador have moved to higher elevations since Humboldt provided the first scientific descriptions of them.
1
"As Earth’s warming stabilizes, new patterns begin to appear. At first, they are confusing and hard to identify." This piece is much too optimistic. If we do not take serious action within the next few years, global warming and the consequent ecological and social disruption will not stabilize for thousands of years.
2
The earth is alive and angry, it is just a matter of time before the earth kills off all living things on earth and starts anew.
There will be massive volcano eruptions all at the same time and earth quakes all at the same time, and then there will be no more humans.
Humans are hurting the earth.
There will be massive volcano eruptions all at the same time and earth quakes all at the same time, and then there will be no more humans.
Humans are hurting the earth.
I find it unfortunate that Mr. Gail seems to assume that humans have minimal capacity to learn and adapt. These are two hallmarks of our species that have in simple terms, served us well. Yes, we often wait until it appears to be too late, but the notion that we will be unable to act intelligently because the world has changed too quickly for us to interpret the changes is contrary to all that human history teaches.
1
" our vast experience with weather trends, fish spawning and migration patterns, plant pollination and much more — turns increasingly obsolete." Yes but because we experience the earth as it changes, our understanding of it will increase. We will know more about why things are the way they are. We may even move beyond just passively affecting climate as we do now to controlling climate.
1
I don't think we've got the technical or political ability to address this problem on a global scale, at least in time to avoid some pretty dire consequences. And I also think there is a good chance that some of these consequences have already begun. A good 'for instance' is the range of Anopheles aegypti. And multiply that sort of thing a couple hundred times.
3
The population will read this or other stories like it and then buy dinner in a plastic container and throw it in the trash. Once again corporations make the decisions for us and we go along with it. Our wasteful ways, using Earth's resources faster than they can renew, has to be regulated to extinction. Government has to be less concerned with Wall Street profit. The financial guys and the corporations won't go broke but they will have to work.
In the last 150 years or so, a micro second in geologic time, we have returned to the atmosphere massive amounts of carbon that had been sequestered for over 300 million years. We can't put it back or even slow ourselves from releasing more of it. In our own eyes we may be a marvelous species, but in reality we have been terrible stewards of this beautiful blue planet.
6
Who sets the bar on what is acceptable with respect to fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions? Unless the judgmental finger wagging comes from people who live totally off the grid and do not drive cars or travel on trains or planes, I don't want to hear a peep. Not one single sound. Thank you. I appreciate the silence, so I can hear the melting ice.
1
Here's an idea for you: (Volkswagen... are you listening?)
Outfit every car or truck with a converter that causes the vehicle to emit a compound, as the vehicle is driven, which is climate cooling, rather than climate warming.
Here me out on this...
Why can't cars be built where the driver is fixing the problem that they create? There must be an understanding somewhere on how this could be done. Or, maybe, give the challenge to the brilliant students in our university chemical engineering departments. "One million bucks to the individual or group that invents a device that can be shared with all auto manufacturers, maybe made mandatory, which causes the car to emit the exact opposite chemical from that which causes the planet to get warmer."
Now, as we increase our driving miles, we, car by car, send into the atmosphere a cooling compound. Millions of drivers worldwide, mile by mile, reversing global warming and cooling our world.
And if Volkswagen were to sponsor this, they would get off the hook for the illegal defeat device they created. Kill two birds with one stone, and save the planet while you're at it.
And please don't tell me this is not possible. If we can send astronauts to the moon, and rovers to Mars, and map the human genome... this is possible. I bet, if we put our minds to this, the functionality could exist before the end of this decade. If Google got into this, the device could exist by next spring.
"And it would be so cool!"
Road trip, anyone?
Outfit every car or truck with a converter that causes the vehicle to emit a compound, as the vehicle is driven, which is climate cooling, rather than climate warming.
Here me out on this...
Why can't cars be built where the driver is fixing the problem that they create? There must be an understanding somewhere on how this could be done. Or, maybe, give the challenge to the brilliant students in our university chemical engineering departments. "One million bucks to the individual or group that invents a device that can be shared with all auto manufacturers, maybe made mandatory, which causes the car to emit the exact opposite chemical from that which causes the planet to get warmer."
Now, as we increase our driving miles, we, car by car, send into the atmosphere a cooling compound. Millions of drivers worldwide, mile by mile, reversing global warming and cooling our world.
And if Volkswagen were to sponsor this, they would get off the hook for the illegal defeat device they created. Kill two birds with one stone, and save the planet while you're at it.
And please don't tell me this is not possible. If we can send astronauts to the moon, and rovers to Mars, and map the human genome... this is possible. I bet, if we put our minds to this, the functionality could exist before the end of this decade. If Google got into this, the device could exist by next spring.
"And it would be so cool!"
Road trip, anyone?
Engines that run without fuel and cool their surroundings are under development. See aesopinstitute.org
For most of human history we killed chickens to predict, or try to change, the weather. Now science and computers tell us most of what we know about the weather. 100 years from now, quantum computers, millions of times more powerful and capable than the computers we have now, will tell us everything we need to know about the weather. Yes, even the weather of a warmer planet. We will live in a world where technology and AI makes us thousands of times more adaptable than we are now. This article is nothing more than speculation and hyperbole. I put "A New Dark Age Looms" somewhere between "We Are Going to Run Out of Oil by 1977" and "Population Bomb".
1
Your assumption that technology will come to the rescue is nothing but speculation and hyperbole.
2
The author's discussion around revision of current predictive climate models as a necessary first step is analogous to the work around the human genome that laid the foundation for much of what is happening with personalized medicine. The dynamic aspect of the planetary climate models however, makes the challenge that much more daunting but necessary.
1
In the planet's history, ages of climate cooling have been much more prevalent than ages of 'climate warming'. 'Snowball Earth' is just as real as the 'parched and volatile Earth promise of global warming'. In fact, it could even be a collateral side effect of global warming.
Change is going to come, and there is no way that we can 'conservatize' our way out of it. It's going to take unity and progress.
"Our mission [as a species], should we decide to accept it", is to figure out whether we can stay on the planet a while longer and outsmart nature, or get off the planet before it's too late.
Change is going to come, and there is no way that we can 'conservatize' our way out of it. It's going to take unity and progress.
"Our mission [as a species], should we decide to accept it", is to figure out whether we can stay on the planet a while longer and outsmart nature, or get off the planet before it's too late.
This is a really odd way to approach this topic. From a narrow, scientific point of view, massive climate change would be a boon, because a) we'd learn a lot by observing the effects of the changes, and b) there would be a big influx of funding for and interest in climate studies and related fields. It is always tempting to dramatize a looming disaster by analogizing it to the great apocalypses of yore, but the dark ages--which, by the way, entailed the loss of a lot more than knowledge about weather patterns--is not a good fit. Yes, extreme global warming would be a catastrophe. No, it would not be the same sort of catastrophe as the dark ages.
Gregg, you take a very odd approach to this topic. If we have an Earth 2 that we were running this experiment of warming on, and we didn't care about the civilization living on that other Earth, it would be really informative.
But we've only got this Earth, and why, exactly, do you think observing a bad thing happening to yourself is better than avoiding the avoidable bad things?
But we've only got this Earth, and why, exactly, do you think observing a bad thing happening to yourself is better than avoiding the avoidable bad things?
1
If only the "new normal" was the new normal. Then we could plan and adjust. But the changes are on-going and we have no idea what normal is going to be. But as another comment noted, we need to focus on solutions and mitigation. I wish the Times would cover that more. What's the latest with the Bill Gates initiative to invest in new technological solutions--what kind of things are they looking at. I have to believe that they are hearing some interesting proposals. Let us in on the latest, too.
4
A rise in sea level equal to predictions for 25-50 years from now will result in 50 million displaced people in Bangladesh alone. They, like millions elsewhere will migrate to places where they are not wanted culturally or economically. What happens isn't just mansions in Florida submerging. It's wars, starvation, mass instability and economic collapses. So, the morality of climate change deniers, IMHO, is as evil as anything I can imagine from history. And my children will have to live it.
17
In the U.S., it is hard to plan that far ahead while a significant part of the population refuses to understand what science is telling us and when there is no political will to act. Globally, add to those factors continued uncontrolled population growth and unchecked environmental destruction for the sake of short-term profit.
3
Humans have hardly relied on Nature's repeatable patterns for millennia; the ice ages alone prove that. Whole civilizations in the southwest disappeared because of drought. There is one theory that Europe emerged from the dark ages because there was worldwide warming that lasted a few hundred years and allowed for better crops, nutrition, lifespan.
We are at the end of the last ice age; I would imagine it might well get warmer. Nature, per usual is pretty unpredictable.
We are at the end of the last ice age; I would imagine it might well get warmer. Nature, per usual is pretty unpredictable.
5
lksf, agriculture developed after the last glaciation. City-based civilization developed after agriculture.
And according to the indicators of warm period duration between ice sheet advances, we had been gradually heading into colder times again - 10,000 years of low-ice conditions was a fairly long time during this current ice age.
So it appears we've warmed our way out of the cooling that's been happening over the last 5,000 years or so. Well done, us. That is the biggest benefit of global warming for future civilizations.
But taking it too far does risk much of what the author - a former president of the American Meteorological Society - is warning about.
I doubt he wrote the scary headline, but re-read the article. The last time ice sheets covered much of North America, it was less than 10 degrees F colder than now. And the last time we know temperatures globally were just 5 or 6 F warmer than now, sea levels were more than 12 feet higher than now.
So, we should do the best deal for future humanity we can. Cut emissions rapidly, now. The warming that's staving off the next ice age is already done. The warming that changes the environmental patterns that global civilization is accustomed to will largely be avoided.
In short, with all the issues facing humanity, why make it harder on ourselves?
And according to the indicators of warm period duration between ice sheet advances, we had been gradually heading into colder times again - 10,000 years of low-ice conditions was a fairly long time during this current ice age.
So it appears we've warmed our way out of the cooling that's been happening over the last 5,000 years or so. Well done, us. That is the biggest benefit of global warming for future civilizations.
But taking it too far does risk much of what the author - a former president of the American Meteorological Society - is warning about.
I doubt he wrote the scary headline, but re-read the article. The last time ice sheets covered much of North America, it was less than 10 degrees F colder than now. And the last time we know temperatures globally were just 5 or 6 F warmer than now, sea levels were more than 12 feet higher than now.
So, we should do the best deal for future humanity we can. Cut emissions rapidly, now. The warming that's staving off the next ice age is already done. The warming that changes the environmental patterns that global civilization is accustomed to will largely be avoided.
In short, with all the issues facing humanity, why make it harder on ourselves?
1
Actually, absent our adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, we'd be cooling slightly.
2
Too late... But the question really is, "does it really matter?" One could look at it as an evolutionary step, maybe not a pleasant one.
There will only be change once the major industrial nations feel the pain and a third of the planet will still decry any changes as being unfair. They'll keep on reproducing at an unsustainable rate and ecological abuses will continue.
I hope I'm wrong.
There will only be change once the major industrial nations feel the pain and a third of the planet will still decry any changes as being unfair. They'll keep on reproducing at an unsustainable rate and ecological abuses will continue.
I hope I'm wrong.
5
Somehow it is hard to imagine someone not understanding how seven billion human beings consuming food, water, energy and mineral resources with all it's associated waste will have a big negative impact on the earth's environment.
Not only is it the fossil fuels we burn, but the methane from all the animal food stocks we need to raise to feed us is the cause of the earth warming. Infinite human growth is not sustainable.
Not only is it the fossil fuels we burn, but the methane from all the animal food stocks we need to raise to feed us is the cause of the earth warming. Infinite human growth is not sustainable.
166
Exactly, that goes one simple direction. When we are starting to tell people (rich or poor) you may have 1 child only ( Revolting 20th century Chinese policy).
I think there is a great wisdom in it, China is the first nation think about this problem, and communism enabled to implement it. It is not communism , china found this solution. just imagine if there is no 1 child policy , what would be Chinese population now.
India never give a thought, taht si why they surpass china.
At the end this is not China or India problem, this world problem, 7 billion.
Even today we stop population increase totally, it doesn't solve any of our problems. we are so deep in to this sh.t.
I think there is a great wisdom in it, China is the first nation think about this problem, and communism enabled to implement it. It is not communism , china found this solution. just imagine if there is no 1 child policy , what would be Chinese population now.
India never give a thought, taht si why they surpass china.
At the end this is not China or India problem, this world problem, 7 billion.
Even today we stop population increase totally, it doesn't solve any of our problems. we are so deep in to this sh.t.
1
A legal research firm in DC has just produced a trove of documents dating back to the 40s that demonstrate a concerted effort on behalf of Exxon, formerly known as Humble Oil, as well as other fossil fuel industry actors, actively spreading misinformation about the greenhouse effect in an effort to stave of gov regulation and protect profits. Well guess what? Just like Phillip Morris funding false science that sowed the seeds of doubt and kept Americans smoking for decades longer than they should have, these petrol industry players have perpetuated the largest and more damaging fraud in world history. Google the Center for International Environmental Law and see for yourself. America has been duped once again and we are all paying the price. Maybe this information will make you angry enough to change something, but I doubt it. Realizing the truth of this situation is far too depressing, so instead of entering that dark night, we trouble ourselves with business as usual instead. Entering the dark night of realization intentionally is better than entering the Dark Age without an agency at all I would think.
90
Eric Drexler, deemed the father of nanotechnology claims that in time, tiny nanobots will attach themselves to carbon and the weight will sink the pollution back to earth, mainly in the ocean. This was posited a few years ago. I don't count on mankind stopping a self-harming activity, think obesity, but I do count on science to figure out a way to mitigate the specific harms. To me, this represents our only chance, given that our true leaders are the energy barons whose gut instincts in their minds outweigh the billions of weather data points recorded annually around the world.
Discovery got us into this mess. Good will, will not get us out.
Discovery got us into this mess. Good will, will not get us out.
The author concedes that our ability to predict the weather fades after about a week but claims scientists have the global climate figured out. I'm so relieved. While there has been some marginal warming recently, it's not at all clear we have caused it and more to the point that we can do anything about it. So what if the corn belt shifts north a little ? When you consider how much CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere from natural sources, the level of conviction of the climate scientists seems a little overboard. CO2 might just turn out to be plant food. Yeats was spot on - The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
3
People who see their life collapsing around them will become more conservative and will support anyone who denies the problem. Northern Idaho is a perfect example. It used to be an area that was solidly Democrat. But, thanks to pollution from mines and smelters, lead and other heavy metals polluted the air, the water, and the ground itself. The state discovered sky high levels of lead in the blood of the children. When the EPA stepped in, they became villain number one. At the same time, environmentalists forced the Forest Service to end it destruction of the forests, which included the destruction of rivers and streams, they became enemy number one.
It was because jobs were at stake. Today, northern Idaho is almost solidly Republican, full of people ready to believe any lie about Democrats and environmentalists.
It was because jobs were at stake. Today, northern Idaho is almost solidly Republican, full of people ready to believe any lie about Democrats and environmentalists.
2
Climate change will cure over population, just as smoking cures cancer. The number of smokers has been constantly declining due to people's concerns about their own health. Climate change remains on target, with the ability to adversely affect everyone, even those of us who take the threat seriously. It's like the second hand smoke scenario, but without anyone powerful enough to force a change. Winston vs. non-smokers. Exxon vs. everyone. Exxon wins, everyone looses.
1
Over population makes a bad scenario worse. In this country, we must limit immigration of people from third world countries who think it is their god given duty to reproduce in extreme numbers. Upon the arrival of (hopefully limited numbers) we must train them in BC. Those already here need to be coached from the first day in school, and the tax-free status of churches who preach over-population must be denied. We have a great location and so we may be able to protect our borders from famished refugees. Europe will not fare so well. There is nothing that can be done about the crazies in the mid-east as far as BC, but perhaps the civilized world can intervene in Africa, Central Asia, some of Latin America. BC is our only hope.
4
The thinking that brought the technological Dark Age that is long since upon us is well represented here in what Mr. Gail would have us read as an informed, sober and earnest call to action. Read his penultimate paragraph again with human hubris and myopia in mind:
"Civilization’s understanding of Earth has expanded enormously in recent decades, making humanity safer and more prosperous. As the patterns that we have come to expect are disrupted by warming temperatures, we will face huge challenges feeding a growing population and prospering within our planet’s finite resources. New developments in science offer our best hope for keeping up, but this is by no means guaranteed."
How terribly misguided and sad. The experts continue to tell us to trust "civilization" and "science," the very forces that have gotten us into this pickle. Safer and more prosperous? One wonders if such experts even read the publications that print their pious pronouncements.
"Civilization’s understanding of Earth has expanded enormously in recent decades, making humanity safer and more prosperous. As the patterns that we have come to expect are disrupted by warming temperatures, we will face huge challenges feeding a growing population and prospering within our planet’s finite resources. New developments in science offer our best hope for keeping up, but this is by no means guaranteed."
How terribly misguided and sad. The experts continue to tell us to trust "civilization" and "science," the very forces that have gotten us into this pickle. Safer and more prosperous? One wonders if such experts even read the publications that print their pious pronouncements.
The facts of the matter dictate that government should be marshaling our societal and economic resources to create communities that are resilient and more self-reliant for energy, food, and all the necessities of life. We aren't doing this even though it would result in local economies that provide jobs, along with a sense of community and meaning for our citizens.
1
Interesting article. I particularly liked the observation that "early cultures kept track of nature's ebb and flow, passing improved knowledge about hunting and agriculture to each new generation." True.
Where early cultures found these efforts difficult or incomplete, they created myths, fantasies, and supernatural explanations to fill the gap, until empirical data could perform that task properly. Hence the emergence of religion.
Our gaps in data and understanding still exist, albeit in less dramatic ways. People still seek to fill them with myths, which can take the form of a "deity" or the willful denial of climate change. It is not a coincidence that climate change deniers and religious people are sets that overlap considerably.
The dangers warned about in this article could be reduced (although not wholly eliminated) if the human race would finally dispense with the lead weight of religion. That would improve our vision, at least a little.
Where early cultures found these efforts difficult or incomplete, they created myths, fantasies, and supernatural explanations to fill the gap, until empirical data could perform that task properly. Hence the emergence of religion.
Our gaps in data and understanding still exist, albeit in less dramatic ways. People still seek to fill them with myths, which can take the form of a "deity" or the willful denial of climate change. It is not a coincidence that climate change deniers and religious people are sets that overlap considerably.
The dangers warned about in this article could be reduced (although not wholly eliminated) if the human race would finally dispense with the lead weight of religion. That would improve our vision, at least a little.
3
The article exhibits a two-fold fundamental failure in reasoning. First, climate change is just that, change. It is not necessarily disruptive or beneficial - at least not without further evidence. Since the author's thesis is that it may be unpredictably disruptive, he might also consider that it may be unpredictably beneficial - e.g., by increasing plant productivity with a longer growing season. Second, even if climate change will be disruptive in ways not now foreseen, it does not follow that the human capacity to inquire and adapt will lag behind. Consider how much more we know about the earth than we did a century ago. Consider how much more productive agriculture is than a century ago. A century ahead, the most unpredictable element is not the climate; it is human ingenuity.
3
This is but one of many comments that: 1) deny the problem is real notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, and 2) proclaim that, even if there is a problem, we can somehow fix it sometime in the future using technology that hasn't been developed. Both of these positions have been well scripted by the carbon industry and are parroted daily by the republican party and their media outlets.
1
Did the author actually predict a 'plague of locusts'?
Human-induced climate change is very real, but these classic doomsayers do nothing but polarize the discussion. We need balanced, fact-driven problem-solving. Every time someone writes about the sky falling, someone on the other side denies the entire phenomenon and each camp becomes more entrenched. The result is paralysis, like it is for so many of our increasingly intractable problems. The planet doesn't need saving - it will be here long after it's current tenants expire - but our ability to collaborate productively sure does.
Human-induced climate change is very real, but these classic doomsayers do nothing but polarize the discussion. We need balanced, fact-driven problem-solving. Every time someone writes about the sky falling, someone on the other side denies the entire phenomenon and each camp becomes more entrenched. The result is paralysis, like it is for so many of our increasingly intractable problems. The planet doesn't need saving - it will be here long after it's current tenants expire - but our ability to collaborate productively sure does.
3
I think the term 'Dark Age' is an overstatement. We will enter more of an 'Uncertain Age', but our technology and scientific understanding will not vanish. We will just have to learn and adapt at a faster rate, but I think several societies and nations are capable of it.
Several are not, and I believe within the next century we will see a massive drop in population. Fundamentalist lands will run out of water, and at some point the nearby nations will realize that to save themselves, they must eliminate the refugees rather than take them in (or turn them away, which will also be killing them). But this will be good for the planet and our species, as luckily, most of the areas which will be hit hardest by climate change have the most violent, useless, anachronistic cultures, which we'll be better off without. Nobody mourns the Dark Ages' cannibalistic Celts (sorry folks, but they were horrible) today, and nobody will mourn the taliban.
We will see changing weather patterns and widespread extinctions, but life will bounce back, and with enough of a drop in population our lesser agricultural output won't be much of a problem.
Things are going to change a lot, as they always have, but I think we'll get through it and maybe even be better off in a few centuries. Better get polar bears, elephants, and other large mammals into zoos though, or they're goners.
Several are not, and I believe within the next century we will see a massive drop in population. Fundamentalist lands will run out of water, and at some point the nearby nations will realize that to save themselves, they must eliminate the refugees rather than take them in (or turn them away, which will also be killing them). But this will be good for the planet and our species, as luckily, most of the areas which will be hit hardest by climate change have the most violent, useless, anachronistic cultures, which we'll be better off without. Nobody mourns the Dark Ages' cannibalistic Celts (sorry folks, but they were horrible) today, and nobody will mourn the taliban.
We will see changing weather patterns and widespread extinctions, but life will bounce back, and with enough of a drop in population our lesser agricultural output won't be much of a problem.
Things are going to change a lot, as they always have, but I think we'll get through it and maybe even be better off in a few centuries. Better get polar bears, elephants, and other large mammals into zoos though, or they're goners.
3
This is a perceptive article, but it missed an important point. Climate knowledge will continue to exist, but it will be more centralized and scientific, with models, data, satellite observations and vast networks of sensors. Local knowledge and folk wisdom will no longer be reliable.
Living in such a world will probably require more organization and control than Americans are used to, but maybe not. Many climate-dependent enterprises (such as agriculture) are already regulated. One could easily imagine a national agricultural policy augmented by "open source" gardening. In a natural disaster we counteract the inconstancy of Nature with the constancy of our human relationships.
One can also imagine much worse scenarios where authoritarian elements prevent collaboration from developing, and where the thieves rule by force. The author may have had these in mind, and we should keep them clearly in our minds as well.
Living in such a world will probably require more organization and control than Americans are used to, but maybe not. Many climate-dependent enterprises (such as agriculture) are already regulated. One could easily imagine a national agricultural policy augmented by "open source" gardening. In a natural disaster we counteract the inconstancy of Nature with the constancy of our human relationships.
One can also imagine much worse scenarios where authoritarian elements prevent collaboration from developing, and where the thieves rule by force. The author may have had these in mind, and we should keep them clearly in our minds as well.
3
I can offer an example of how difficult it is already to gauge future effects in the ways we've come to rely on. I edit a project about the future of NYC, newyork.thecityatlas.org, and a couple of years ago I assisted on a grant proposal with climate experts for a NYS website that would provide local projections. Downscaling climate projections is difficult (while we didn't win this grant, the team that did is presumably still at work). But in the last year, James Hansen delivered a paper that would have overturned many of our sources for local projections anyway, especially 20 years out. And here in NYC, it's accelerating sea level predictions that are becoming most disruptive.
Two things that I think are most important and least understood by the public.
1 - We're already in a transitional state, but if we drop emissions rapidly we can moderate how far out of equilibrium we take the climate system. 'Economists' and 'environmentalists' were the wrong messengers - institutions with a hard line on risk (the military, medicine) should have been the leaders. We're already in for a lot of change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
2 - Cutting emissions rapidly means changing both our lifestyles and our energy system. The late David MacKay, Britain's science advisor on climate and energy, explains, worth watching start to finish. There's nothing here we can't do.
http://www.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/why-climate-change-action-difficult-and-how...
Two things that I think are most important and least understood by the public.
1 - We're already in a transitional state, but if we drop emissions rapidly we can moderate how far out of equilibrium we take the climate system. 'Economists' and 'environmentalists' were the wrong messengers - institutions with a hard line on risk (the military, medicine) should have been the leaders. We're already in for a lot of change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
2 - Cutting emissions rapidly means changing both our lifestyles and our energy system. The late David MacKay, Britain's science advisor on climate and energy, explains, worth watching start to finish. There's nothing here we can't do.
http://www.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/why-climate-change-action-difficult-and-how...
5
Mr. Gail's comments are subtly self-contradictory. The dislocation, starvation, and disease of the Dark Age was the result of unusual cold weather. So, our pattern based knowledge of weather that Mr. Gail writes about tells us that warn is good and cold is bad.
Other pattern based knowledge is the advance of human civilization as the Earth warned in the Holocene. There was a primitive, "stone age", stasis so long and there was an ice age.
I am a mechanical engineer (think: applied Newtonian physics) and I do not trust stuff that is not scalable. A process that works for 3 days should work for 30, 300, 3000...days. If it does not the the process is flawed in some way. Something is deeply flawed in our understanding to atmospheric physics: predictions lack precision in the immediate time and fail near term. The notion that predictions regain skill predicting 50 to 100 years in the future is not convincing.
Other pattern based knowledge is the advance of human civilization as the Earth warned in the Holocene. There was a primitive, "stone age", stasis so long and there was an ice age.
I am a mechanical engineer (think: applied Newtonian physics) and I do not trust stuff that is not scalable. A process that works for 3 days should work for 30, 300, 3000...days. If it does not the the process is flawed in some way. Something is deeply flawed in our understanding to atmospheric physics: predictions lack precision in the immediate time and fail near term. The notion that predictions regain skill predicting 50 to 100 years in the future is not convincing.
24
Juan, you could probably find expert sources yourself (NASA, NSF, Royal Society) to explain the greenhouse effect, but in a nutshell, the physics is not complex. It's 19th century physics, about the characteristics of CO2 as a gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Richard Alley's talk at the American Geophysical Union in 2013 is a classic, and will answer a lot of your questions, if you genuinely want to learn. Rising heat diminishes crop yields and sea level rise obliterates coastlines, among other macro effects.
https://youtu.be/Z_-8u86R3Yc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Richard Alley's talk at the American Geophysical Union in 2013 is a classic, and will answer a lot of your questions, if you genuinely want to learn. Rising heat diminishes crop yields and sea level rise obliterates coastlines, among other macro effects.
https://youtu.be/Z_-8u86R3Yc
If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically saying that if we can't predict the weather a month from now, we can't predict climate 100 years from now. What you are missing is the difference between predicting long term trends and specific short term events. For example, insurance actuaries can predict with a high degree of accuracy the number of people they insure will be killed or injured in a car crash, will get cancer, will have children, etc. over the next 20 years. But they cannot accurately predict the likelihood any of those things will happen next week for a given individual. Specific, short term predictions are difficult to make (weather), but given enough information, long term general predictions (climate) are more reliable. In fact, many of the general trends that have been predicted by climate scientists are now occurring: flooding, drought, intensified storms, wild fire, sea level rise, melting ice sheets, ocean hypoxic zones, spread of tropical diseases, even cooling in some places, etc. If none of those previously predicted general changes to Earth's climate are not convincing to you, than perhaps you are just unwilling to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
1
It is common in science that individual events can be chaotic, but that averages of those events over larger numbers and larger time frames can show striking regularity. That's why quantum mechanics can be unable to predict the actions of a single electron but give absolutely accurate answers to how a current will flow through a transistor. It''s why we can have laws about the pressure of a gas even though the individual gas molecules move randomly.
That's not a failure of climate science - it's how science actually works.
And the "cold bad, warm good" stuff is nonsense. The issue is all about the speed of change. The rapidity of humaninduced climate change will outstrip most systems' ability to compensate - certainly biological systems, and, as comments like yours make clear, almost certainly changes in our actions.
Your ability to catch a slowly lobbed softball doesn't mean you'll be just as good a catching a bullet. Speed matters.
That's not a failure of climate science - it's how science actually works.
And the "cold bad, warm good" stuff is nonsense. The issue is all about the speed of change. The rapidity of humaninduced climate change will outstrip most systems' ability to compensate - certainly biological systems, and, as comments like yours make clear, almost certainly changes in our actions.
Your ability to catch a slowly lobbed softball doesn't mean you'll be just as good a catching a bullet. Speed matters.
Fortunately, the hoax is coming to an end. Don’t be fooled by the fanfare in Paris: The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead. Its principal propositions contain two major fallacies that can only become more glaring with time. First, in stark contrast to popular belief and to the public statements of government officials and many scientists, the science on which the dire predictions of manmade climate change is based is nowhere near the level of understanding or certainty that popular discourse commonly ascribes to it. Second, and relatedly, the movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether. ( http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-... )
In a few decades the scare will be viewed with amusement.
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!
In a few decades the scare will be viewed with amusement.
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!
1
Atlas Shrugged was one woman's fantasy, her vision of a utopia, full of internal inconsistencies and unrealistic assumptions all around. It made for a fun fiction read - nothing more, nothing less. But it is about as realistic as sci-fi books on time travel or intergalactic wars. And to take it as some sort of a guide for the future or as an economic guide, as some fools have been doing, is utter folly. Atlas Shrugged is as much a "warning" as Sarah Palin is a "scientist" - not at all.
2
This is hogwash. Yes there may be major changes in climate, weather, sea level, ocean acidification, etc. Yes these changes may cause major distress to some human populations if they happen too fast. But a dark age? Hogwash. Our state of scientific knowledge plus our astonishing new abilities to gather and process data will be put to use. Our challenge is to collectively use our collective tools wisely. Alarmist bilge like this article do not point us toward wise policy. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
1
What justifies your faith in a future fix as salvation? Will our politicians be better? Will we have more money to implement change? Will the Carbon industry be less aggressive about preserving their profits? When will all of this happen?
I would also be interested in the psychological impact on our grandchildren as they observe the last last great mammals on land and sea blink into extinction thanks to the Super Predator species.
With entire countries and major corporations polluting for profit, so to speak and wielding so much power, what chance does the earth have to recover?
Also, over population may be a factor, but consumer habits and their demands weighs in too. Just ask one person under 50 if they would give up their color screen cell phone to limit mining and see what answer you get.
Also, over population may be a factor, but consumer habits and their demands weighs in too. Just ask one person under 50 if they would give up their color screen cell phone to limit mining and see what answer you get.
1
A New Dark Age Looms - and it began with Mitch McConnell and his Party of No.
Just the thought an ever-expanding global population bequeaths more imbalance spells calamity.
2
The silver lining in this very dark cloud is that possibly billions of Homo sapiens will die, bringing the population size and density down to a much more rational level. Few talk about the effect over-population has had on these effects. Whether the earth can recover at some future time, and whether there will be much life left is unknown. The U.S. has come through much in the 200+ years of existence in good shape, partly due to our bountiful agriculture; that is about to stop witnessing what's happening in California where most of our food comes from. I do have grandchildren, and I feel worry AND guilt for what I've done. We have solar photovoltaics, and as retirees don't drive much, but we did contribute to global warming for our entire lives. We're all guilty, including that nitwit Senator from Oklahoma who will also be dead before it gets extremely bad.
2
long on doom and gloom
short on specifics
like a good climate alarmists he cries wolf at the top of his lungs without suggesting it might also be the family dog returning home from chasing a rabbit.
And -- doesn't the earth titling on its axis and our path around the sun have something to do with seasonal changes. Seems to me I read that someplace, but maybe that is part of our lost knowledge.
At least have the decency to state clearly this is simply speculation on your part. It was not part of the National Academy of Sciences report -- and no one is suggesting (other than Mr. Gail) that a new dark age looms.
Of course, that new dark age is at least another century away so neither Mr. Gail nor his readers will be around to see if his nonscientific prediction comes true.
But a nice idea for a dystopian movie.
short on specifics
like a good climate alarmists he cries wolf at the top of his lungs without suggesting it might also be the family dog returning home from chasing a rabbit.
And -- doesn't the earth titling on its axis and our path around the sun have something to do with seasonal changes. Seems to me I read that someplace, but maybe that is part of our lost knowledge.
At least have the decency to state clearly this is simply speculation on your part. It was not part of the National Academy of Sciences report -- and no one is suggesting (other than Mr. Gail) that a new dark age looms.
Of course, that new dark age is at least another century away so neither Mr. Gail nor his readers will be around to see if his nonscientific prediction comes true.
But a nice idea for a dystopian movie.
1
Take a longer view, earth history as opposed to human history, and the evidence in the rocks suggests that there have been several episodes of atmospheric change and some results have been catastrophic.
1
Here I thought this was an article about religion.
That so much of the world accepts what is mostly superstition and delusion, points to a new dark age.
That so much of the world accepts what is mostly superstition and delusion, points to a new dark age.
4
On a smaller scale, through the ages humankind has repeatedly failed to act to prevent catastrophic collapse. The Maya. The Anasazi. Easter Island. Empire upon empire. All have been blind to impending doom. We, on the other hand, see all too clearly, and yet remain paralyzed as disaster on a global scale draws ever nearer. The planet will shrug and survive. Our civilization, our history, even our species might not.
2
No, Pigliacci, " We (don't) see all too clearly" because this is the first Empire in history that is both truly global, and very well disguised behind two Vichy parties.
Don't worry about the growing population. It will take care of itself. It won't be pretty. But it will happen. As our numbers grow out of all control, optimists like to say Malthus has been disproven ... which brings to mind the old doggerel: 'The optimist fell ten stories,/And at each window bar,/He shouted to his friends,/'All right so far!' Except it hasn't been 'all right so far,' as anyone who surveys the teeming millions of the Third World must admit. Not to mention the depleted seas, the vanishing biota ...
Somewhere Mathus is mirthlessly smiling and muttering 'I told you so.'
Somewhere Mathus is mirthlessly smiling and muttering 'I told you so.'
3
It’s become somewhat of a cliché to say that “we’re a part of nature”, but there’s really no other way to drill home that message. Our species – and human civilization itself – is totally dependent on the physical, chemical, and biological processes of the world. The economy is a mere subset of ecology, not the other way around. The laws of physics will always trump the petty games being played by our species, no matter how much we try to outsmart it. This isn’t really that difficult to comprehend. But looking ideology of our time that dominates and permeates our lives – neoliberalsm – you’d think that we were doing everything we possibly could to upend that truth.
Just look at the fact-free utter nonsense that’s peddled by the know-nothing Republicans like Sarah “I’m as much of a scientist as Bill Nye” Palin. It’s like staring into the abyss of fatal ignorance.
The dark age of knowledge isn’t coming… it’s already here.
http://wp.me/p2e6qS-dY
Just look at the fact-free utter nonsense that’s peddled by the know-nothing Republicans like Sarah “I’m as much of a scientist as Bill Nye” Palin. It’s like staring into the abyss of fatal ignorance.
The dark age of knowledge isn’t coming… it’s already here.
http://wp.me/p2e6qS-dY
5
"New developments in science offer our best hope for keeping up..."
I think we might ask our republican politicians if they have any better answer other than the end of days.
I think we might ask our republican politicians if they have any better answer other than the end of days.
1
The problems with these prophesies is their accuracy. To date climate "science" predictions have been shall we say less than accurate. I suspect scientists who are interested in politics become climate "scientists", while those interested in science become physicists, chemists, etc...
1
One of the industries most in tune with the realities of climate change is the insurance industry. It's their job to predict the future, because their profits rely on getting it right.
So when the annual meeting of RIMS (the Risk and Insurance Management Society) last week concerning sea level rise came to much the same conclusion - that the past is no longer a reliable reference for predicting the future - it really caught my eye.
But their findings were far more stark. RIMS did not discuss the next century. They discussed the next 35 years:
"RIMS 2016: Sea Level Rise Will Be Worse and Come Sooner
...[NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science]Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections.
...[Executive director of the Academy of RIMS Michael] Angelina said a new way of looking at weather is required when dealing with climate change, and that just looking at averages isn’t enough to give an accurate picture of climate change and the risk it presents.
He added: “We’re in a different climate. The climate has changed."
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm
Nine feet in 35 - 45 years. That describes an apocalyptic (near) future - and one that nothing in the historical data could have predicted.
So when the annual meeting of RIMS (the Risk and Insurance Management Society) last week concerning sea level rise came to much the same conclusion - that the past is no longer a reliable reference for predicting the future - it really caught my eye.
But their findings were far more stark. RIMS did not discuss the next century. They discussed the next 35 years:
"RIMS 2016: Sea Level Rise Will Be Worse and Come Sooner
...[NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science]Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections.
...[Executive director of the Academy of RIMS Michael] Angelina said a new way of looking at weather is required when dealing with climate change, and that just looking at averages isn’t enough to give an accurate picture of climate change and the risk it presents.
He added: “We’re in a different climate. The climate has changed."
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm
Nine feet in 35 - 45 years. That describes an apocalyptic (near) future - and one that nothing in the historical data could have predicted.
6
A lot of industry, not only insurance, acknowledge the problem is real and are addressing it.
Unfortunately, the rich people who run the politicians in our country do not want us to do anything about climate change. They make plenty of money just ruining the earth and their descendants will be rich enough to live away from the damage this is all causing our world.
1
Wow, talk about hysterical. The left has always sold the latest catastrophe to agin power and control but now they are taking it to the absurd. I live in California, all winter we were bracing ourselves for the impending flooding that was predicted by the weather "experts". El Niño was on its way and we were gonna get hit hard. Well, winter is over and we ended up getting half of our average annual amount of rain. The "experts" can't even get the weather right for the weekend and were supposed to believe that the new Dar Ages are coming? Please people, wake up.
5
You understand that there's a difference between weather and climate, right?
Gail's forecast for bad times relates mostly to the food supply, which he says will be less predictable on land and sea. What's missing from this warning is that climate-related instabilities are only seriously important as long as we continue adding people. Even without any instabilities, providing food, energy and removal of waste is guaranteed to become more critical with time. With any of the alterations mentioned, it just becomes more dramatic, but the base problem is overpopulation, and the prevention is pretty obvious.
2
The earth is actually alive, and it's about to itch a scratch it's had for the last 200 years.
3
Articles are speak in terms of our grandchildren are overly optimistic. As the seas die off so does the plankton that comprises at least half of the earths lungs As the seas rise by only 10 feet, which will not take long at all, coastal populations will not only be inundated but everything inundated will now start to poison the sea We are looking at extinction of most forms of life including our own in the near-term . By my read, that is already locked in even if we stopped all use of fossil fuels today. Not to mention that, without ordinary infrastructure, there is nothing to protect us from 1000 more Fukushima's. It is not "damned if we do, damned if we don't." It is simply damned for what we didn't do, but might starting when Carter was president, have done .
7
We are going to have to turn to geo-engineering.
1
Y2K all over again except this time we won't know for 50 years.
Y2K turned out not to be a problem because of a massive and expensive effort to fix it beforehand. So we should do nothing for the next 50 years and hope for the best?
I have already noticed the effects of global warming in my own little garden. Some of the plants that used to be perennial here are now annual, lasting only one season and making for extra work each year. Luckily I can still buy what I need, but if the trend continues, even commercial growers across the world will be affected, meaning that food shortages may be widespread.
We need to rethink our culture before it is too late. Why must so many commute so far to their jobs, and, in many places, one to a vehicle? Is actually being at the office all that important, or can we leverage computer connections and cameras to ensure that the work is being done? If two persons are basically doing the same hands-on job (such as teaching or nursing) and both commuting across town, couldn't they switch to make the commute shorter? Why, in this age of low automobile emissions, are so many allowed to use lawn mowers and leaf blowers with outdated gasoline and sometimes oil and gas fuel technology that pollutes our neighborhoods at many times the rate of a modern car, or to use motorcycles that do the same? If our children and grandchildren are to have a habitable planet, we cannot grandfather these things.
We need to rethink our culture before it is too late. Why must so many commute so far to their jobs, and, in many places, one to a vehicle? Is actually being at the office all that important, or can we leverage computer connections and cameras to ensure that the work is being done? If two persons are basically doing the same hands-on job (such as teaching or nursing) and both commuting across town, couldn't they switch to make the commute shorter? Why, in this age of low automobile emissions, are so many allowed to use lawn mowers and leaf blowers with outdated gasoline and sometimes oil and gas fuel technology that pollutes our neighborhoods at many times the rate of a modern car, or to use motorcycles that do the same? If our children and grandchildren are to have a habitable planet, we cannot grandfather these things.
9
I agree! I'm sure many people would appreciate working from home much more anyway. And on that note, why are we still buying so much packaging at grocery stores? Why haven't we started bringing our own containers and utilizing bulk bins?
Advanced countries have now capped their CO2 emissions. More than 100% of the growth in CO2 emissions is happening in the world's most backward places, because they are in the grip of population explosions, the likes of which the world has never seen. Africa, with 1 billion people, is expected to have 4 billion people in the year 2100. Yemen, hungry and in a civil war, is expected to triple its population to about 100 million in the year 2100. Pakistan, filled with fundamentalist madrassas, will more than double its population to half a billion people. Contrary to the author's claims, so far global warming has not followed the projections of weather models, but that cannot be expected to continue. Aggressive population control is needed in the Third World, beginning now. All trade and aid should be conditioned on a 2-children-per-woman birth policy for all the world's developing countries.
2
Articles which speak in terms of our grandchildren are overly optimistic. As the seas die off, so does the plankton that comprises at least half of the earths lungs. As fires burn off our forests, there goes the rest. As the seas rise by a mere 10 feet (predicted for 2C rise in temperature), which will not take long at all, coastal populations will not only be inundated but everything inundated will now start to poison the sea, if its death spiral is not already underway simply to rising temperature brought on by acidification. We are looking at extinction of most forms of life including our own in the near-term. By my read, all this is already locked in even if we stopped all use of fossil fuels today. Not to mention that, without ordinary infrastructure, there is nothing to protect us from 1000 more Fukushima's. It is not "damned if we do, damned if we don't." It is simply damned for what we didn't do, but might have done, starting when Carter was president.
3
Tax carbon dioxide emissions -- $40/ton or more. Forget about cap and trade. Fee and dividend might work, a revenue neutral tax that is returned to each individual annually. Polluters pay more. Massive investments in wind, water and solar energy. Get your utility to do it -- half the cost of rooftop solar and much faster. Electric vehicles -- they are cheaper to operate, can be charged from rooftop solar. Demand that your town, city, employer, and utility install charging stations. A good site would be next to a street light. Use Skype and E-meetings rather than air travel. Encourage density -- walk, use public transit, revive the rail system. Upgrade building codes. Improve energy efficiency in everything. Disrespect deniers and wasters. Laugh at them because they are so foolish. Demand a national plan for transmission of clean energy. Turn down the heat! Wear a sweater, Turn off the air conditioners. Use no till agriculture. Buy locally. Eat seasonal foods. Cut down on meat. Join 350.org, the Sierra Club, the Citizens Climate Lobby, etc. All the solutions are here -- Just Do It!
3
As Dr. Gail knows the basic question behind climate change is now, "how mankind will deal with the cards we dealt ourselves." The basic science is understood. The cross sections for light with atmospheric gases are written down in old textbooks, and not disputed. The first law of thermodynamics is immutable, pump heat into a system, the temperature will increase. The only lingering question has been "how long before bad things happen?" As Dr. Gail points out, "bad things" are happening now, and this trend will only increase. In the end, you can fool people, not physics.
The best bet now is to institute a tax on emissions leading to climate change, and then let the market sort out which technologies can produce the most power for the least harm at the lowest cost. When we finally get political consensus for such a tax, we should reserve a portion of the money to alleviate the harm caused by climate change, and to finance means to find economical methods to reduce the amount of harmful gases in the atmosphere.
Make no mistake, mankind has embarked on a multi-century journey to see how well we can survive the problems we have caused.
The best bet now is to institute a tax on emissions leading to climate change, and then let the market sort out which technologies can produce the most power for the least harm at the lowest cost. When we finally get political consensus for such a tax, we should reserve a portion of the money to alleviate the harm caused by climate change, and to finance means to find economical methods to reduce the amount of harmful gases in the atmosphere.
Make no mistake, mankind has embarked on a multi-century journey to see how well we can survive the problems we have caused.
3
An excellent overview, Mr. Gail, but as other comments have pointed out, you failed to mention population growth. You do mention irrigation, but as droughts increase and aquifers shrink, where will the water come from? Desalination plants to take advantage of rising sea levels? There are two very serious problems that must be addressed as quickly as reducing carbon emissions: completely rethinking agricultural methods and preventing real estate development in inappropriate locations such as wildfire and flood zones. Too many people expect a diet of plentiful, cheap, and unhealthy foods and resist as "nanny state" actions any attempts to change their habits. Too many people waste ever increasing amounts of resources (and tax dollars) rescuing and/or reimbursing home owners from the destruction caused by floods and wildfires and denounce as governmental overreach all attempts to limit what they see as their property rights. Of course, these are the very same people who cling to the belief that the government should stay stay out of their lives except when they need saving from their own harmful and irrational behavior. These problems aren't unique to the United States. China, India, and other developing nations are rapidly catching up and even outdistancing the U.S. in their degree of environmental degradation and income inequality. Like climate change these are inherent results of globalization.
2
The author implies that we were the master of our planet and sustainable farmers until fossil fuels spoiled the environment.
Two major earthquakes (with fatalities) last week serve to remind us that we really don't understand much about our planet. The California water aquifers serve as a counter point to climate change as the most significant human threat to agriculture.
The author also ignores the upside of climate change - many northern climates will become farm-able land. Alaska may become the US leader in corn production in 50 years.
I believe climate change is real, and that there will be net winners (Canada and Russia) and net losers (Sub-Sahara Africa), but these purely distopian views of climate change do nothing to address how we should change with it, and serve only to further entrench the deniers. Humans have endured much more dramatic changes through history.
Two major earthquakes (with fatalities) last week serve to remind us that we really don't understand much about our planet. The California water aquifers serve as a counter point to climate change as the most significant human threat to agriculture.
The author also ignores the upside of climate change - many northern climates will become farm-able land. Alaska may become the US leader in corn production in 50 years.
I believe climate change is real, and that there will be net winners (Canada and Russia) and net losers (Sub-Sahara Africa), but these purely distopian views of climate change do nothing to address how we should change with it, and serve only to further entrench the deniers. Humans have endured much more dramatic changes through history.
4
The mistaken assumption in this article is that humans wisely use the knowledge we currently have. There are naturally-occurring droughts in the American southwest. It is a desert, after all. But we humans drain aquifers, lakes and rivers to sustain agriculture there. Why? We have been throwing petrochemical emissions into the atmosphere for a century now, more with each passing year, well aware that something has to give, somewhere. Yet we persist. Why? The Earth's human population continues to expand, exponentially, even though a junior high school student knows that in a closed system, resources are finite; populations will eventually crash. Yet we do nothing. Why?
Climate change will add a new list of concerns for us to deal with. But I doubt we will do any worse, as a species, than our history has shown to date. We will continue to live in the present, ignore the past, and deny the future. It's what we're best at.
Climate change will add a new list of concerns for us to deal with. But I doubt we will do any worse, as a species, than our history has shown to date. We will continue to live in the present, ignore the past, and deny the future. It's what we're best at.
12
Climate will cause some disruption, but it is likely that the southwest and California will do a big public works project to tap Lake Michigan to offset the aridity and the fact that the great lakes will likely swell with water due to the shifting in climactic patterns anyways.
The real big disruption will be an energy ceiling that first became apparent in late 2007 with oil spiking up to ~150$ a barrel, causing a structural and deep recession. One decade from now these events will be a regularity; two decades from now, energy scarcity, particularly for the transportation sector, will be a ugly fact of post-modern life. The only real silver lining to this is in the realm of security. Because distances become vast again with huge decay in transportation infrastructure, security becomes improved due to the inability of the various peoples of earth to travel freely.
Anyone claiming there will be a huge conflict from this is wrong; all of them will just try to move to Europe; and because Merkel still has the reigns of power, she will let them.
The real big disruption will be an energy ceiling that first became apparent in late 2007 with oil spiking up to ~150$ a barrel, causing a structural and deep recession. One decade from now these events will be a regularity; two decades from now, energy scarcity, particularly for the transportation sector, will be a ugly fact of post-modern life. The only real silver lining to this is in the realm of security. Because distances become vast again with huge decay in transportation infrastructure, security becomes improved due to the inability of the various peoples of earth to travel freely.
Anyone claiming there will be a huge conflict from this is wrong; all of them will just try to move to Europe; and because Merkel still has the reigns of power, she will let them.
A "dark age" is more likely a product of a bottomless military fuel tank than from civil-based pollution per se. The world's ministries and departments of defense are the climate elephant: they are exempt from environmental treaty, protocols, agreements or other conformity yet remain the single largest consumers of fossil fuels. Moreover, unless one understands its atmospheric and ionospheric geoengineering activities, and their affects on hydrology, temperature and draught, a discussion on this topic is incoherent or at least incomplete. Carbon doesn't move the jet stream which is causal to what extreme weather is inaccurately attributed to "global warming." Moreover, the "COP21" guidelines on temperature objectives are contaminated by such activity and are therefore rendered null. This op-ed is however aligned with the UN's IGPCC philosophy which is centered in depopulation theory, not in carbon reduction, alternative energy, investment or even fundamental pollution reduction.
3
The problem is, and it is somewhat tangentially discussed here, is that we do not know the extent to which the warming will effect our planet. We know a lot of ways that it certainly will, but it would be foolish to assume we can predict all the secondary effects that will be wrought upon life. Ultimately, it is probably too late. The death of species that are vital to the food chain will kill off billions. Those that do remain will live in a world unrecognizable to us today. The solipsism of humans causes us to believe that our civilization is permanent when in reality we have build our house on a foundation of sand.
It is most likely too late, and I despair at that notion.
It is most likely too late, and I despair at that notion.
7
Although policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions are an excellent idea, it's intellectually dishonest to argue that everything about global warming will necessarily be bad.
The extremely bad aspects of global warming are the inundation of the world's coastal cities, collapse in ocean productivity as the pH falls, and loss of low - lying land. Mass extinctions will surely accompany global warming, but I suspect that those are inevitable due to growing human population irrespective of global temperatures.
Potentially positive aspects of global warming would include conversion of the vast Canadian and Russian taiga into habitable temperate zones, longer growing seasons, and higher average global rainfall as more water vapor enters the atmosphere.
The extremely bad aspects of global warming are the inundation of the world's coastal cities, collapse in ocean productivity as the pH falls, and loss of low - lying land. Mass extinctions will surely accompany global warming, but I suspect that those are inevitable due to growing human population irrespective of global temperatures.
Potentially positive aspects of global warming would include conversion of the vast Canadian and Russian taiga into habitable temperate zones, longer growing seasons, and higher average global rainfall as more water vapor enters the atmosphere.
4
Great, but what about the pollinators that are rapidly dying off? Or is that just a big scare tactic produced by the liberals as well. Also, the rapid acceleration of coral bleaching that is taking place? Does that not make a difference either. I'm confused.
1
The Earth was on a sharply rising phase of global temperature as we entered the interglaciation period. Human production of greenhouse gases will very likely yield a faster rise in global temperature and perhaps an overshoot. However this interglaciation period was inevitable and predicted and the pace of this warming phase would probably not allow sufficient time for adaptation by many life forms, regardless of human production of greenhouse gases. Climate changes. It always does. Humans have adapted to those changes. There are surely tough times ahead.
3
The forces of science and reason lost this battle long ago. Long before anyone came up with the terms "greenhouse effect", "global warming", or "climate change", religious conservatives began casting themselves as the defenders of traditional American values against the Godless proponents of science and reason. They began passing laws against the teaching of evolution in the first decades of the twentieth century and have continued to oppose the use of science as a basis for public policy ever since. The Reagan Revolution empowered this group giving them a disproportionate amount of influence in the Republican Party.
The Republican's have fed off their passion and faith for decades and stoked it with fear of change to win elections. We are now at the point that willful ignorance has been elevated to a virtue: The Republican's are on the verge of nominating the poster boy for willful ignorance for President.
Republican's like to cast the war against ISIS as a war for Western Civilization, but the war for the future of Western Civilization is a civil war being waged in this years election. Elect Trump and the very science and reason that fueled the rise of Western Civilization will be further diminished and the future described in this editorial more likely to occur.
The Republican's have fed off their passion and faith for decades and stoked it with fear of change to win elections. We are now at the point that willful ignorance has been elevated to a virtue: The Republican's are on the verge of nominating the poster boy for willful ignorance for President.
Republican's like to cast the war against ISIS as a war for Western Civilization, but the war for the future of Western Civilization is a civil war being waged in this years election. Elect Trump and the very science and reason that fueled the rise of Western Civilization will be further diminished and the future described in this editorial more likely to occur.
17
And Cruz or Kasich, or any other possible Republican candidate are any better? The Republicans, for reasons that simply defy logic, have decided that "drill baby drill" should be their legacy. They've turned an environmental crisis into a political cause, a way to make money to be re-elected. They can't win re-election and Christian leaders like the very well paid Franklin Graham and all the other mega church leaders, can't continue to fill their bank accounts without making their constituents believe it's us against them. it's a war on Christianity. Climate change is a ruse. You can see it in some of the replies here today. I don't understand how anyone with children could put their welfare and their grandchildren's welfare at risk solely to make more money.
Think solutions. That is where the focus should be. Transition to 100% solar, wind, and hydro- energy as fast as possible. Big solar arrays can go up fast. Enhance the grid's transmission system to handle wind and solar. Switch to electric vehicles (EVs). They are better than gas-powered vehicles and much less expensive to operate. Cut down on air travel through e-meetings. Et cetera. Then we can work on getting CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the ground. It does not have to be doomsday. Hold our representatives responsible for policy that protects the environment, our home. End fossil fuel subsidies and tax emissions. There is still a window where we can make a huge difference if we act. We don't need any new knowledge or inventions. We can do stem climate disruption with what we have.
18
I would add cut down on consumer packaging. There's no reason why we can't all invest in reusable containers and bags when doing our food shopping. The middle section of the grocery store contributes too much to our pollution problem.
Both my sons and myself have considered this fate and agreed that families of their own offspring may not be in their future.
Difficult as this might be for them it could be much worse for any progeny. The rub of course is that they had nothing to do with the mess we have created to
the planet which, realistically, is theirs more than ours.
It is trying for them to see an arms buildup taking priority over homelessness, exploitation of women and children, great wealth in one corner of cities wracked
by men who have for centuries exploited other human beings.
My kids and their friends don't get why we as a society do not take steps toward peace and cooperation. It is one world and while it is controlled by arrogant men who ultimately rely on force of arms it must change or we will destroy what is left.
It is extremely important that we vote for the person who will bring about that change and there is only one person on both stages who promises that as the goal. Whoever wins in NY today will decide to a large degree the world in which our kids will live.
Vote. Their lives depend on the choice we make.
Difficult as this might be for them it could be much worse for any progeny. The rub of course is that they had nothing to do with the mess we have created to
the planet which, realistically, is theirs more than ours.
It is trying for them to see an arms buildup taking priority over homelessness, exploitation of women and children, great wealth in one corner of cities wracked
by men who have for centuries exploited other human beings.
My kids and their friends don't get why we as a society do not take steps toward peace and cooperation. It is one world and while it is controlled by arrogant men who ultimately rely on force of arms it must change or we will destroy what is left.
It is extremely important that we vote for the person who will bring about that change and there is only one person on both stages who promises that as the goal. Whoever wins in NY today will decide to a large degree the world in which our kids will live.
Vote. Their lives depend on the choice we make.
19
In the face of an impending apocalypse your advice is to vote.
Right.
Voting is literally the least you can do.
Right.
Voting is literally the least you can do.
1
Despite being a dark and foreboding essay on the future with climate change, the author does not refer to the immense global suffering that humans will undergo, even if the world collectively begins to seriously address climate change.
In fact, he even refers to the growth of population, which of course will continue, but only up to the point where the globe cannot sustain any more population growth. In other words, the dark ages to which he refers will be accompanied by declining populations all over the world, to the level at which the new dark ages can support them to at least the level of survival, if not prosperity.
So the huge irony is that the world has stumbled upon the most effective way to curb population growth, and that is to continue to pump greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide and methane) into the atmosphere.
In fact, he even refers to the growth of population, which of course will continue, but only up to the point where the globe cannot sustain any more population growth. In other words, the dark ages to which he refers will be accompanied by declining populations all over the world, to the level at which the new dark ages can support them to at least the level of survival, if not prosperity.
So the huge irony is that the world has stumbled upon the most effective way to curb population growth, and that is to continue to pump greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide and methane) into the atmosphere.
9
Remarkably, this is already happening as a result of climate science alarmism. Just look at Australia. They have a history of flooding and drought. It’s cyclical and predictable if you know how to read the oceans. But climate science predicted cyclical drought would become permanent drought so the Aussies built expensive desalination plants for water. They came on-line just as the rains came back so they now have desalination systems that mostly sit unused. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/billions-in-desalinatio... Their biggest impact is on people’s bills. The permanent drought narrative also figured into the mismanagement of the flood control systems above Brisbane, Australia a few years ago. In the past, the water level of the catchments was reduced prior to arrival of major storms so it could handle the surge of water expected. The managers of the system failed to reduce water levels prior to the a large Pacific storm leading to flooding in the city. http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/4/1149
Climate science based models are leading to significant corruption of the climate record as weather “history” with its warm and cold periods. The record is being massaged to fit a linear model. The Australia experience shows how costly this charade can be. The dark ages have arrived.
Climate science based models are leading to significant corruption of the climate record as weather “history” with its warm and cold periods. The record is being massaged to fit a linear model. The Australia experience shows how costly this charade can be. The dark ages have arrived.
3
Climate scientists use very sophisticated models, not the simplistic linear models you think (or want people to think) are being used.
And the "record is being massaged" nonsense is similar. All measurements have inherent errors - Nature doesn't give us a convenient and exact "record". So what climate scientists do, in an open and published manner, is use standard statistical techniques to account for things like systemic errors. That enables us to get more accurate information out of the available data, not less.
In terms of Australia, as with all weather patterns, while there will be global warming induced long term trends, there will always be short term variations. The fact that an La Nina gave Australia temporary relief doesn't change the fact that, as officially recorded, the 16 years since 2000 have been the warmest on record for Australia.
And the "record is being massaged" nonsense is similar. All measurements have inherent errors - Nature doesn't give us a convenient and exact "record". So what climate scientists do, in an open and published manner, is use standard statistical techniques to account for things like systemic errors. That enables us to get more accurate information out of the available data, not less.
In terms of Australia, as with all weather patterns, while there will be global warming induced long term trends, there will always be short term variations. The fact that an La Nina gave Australia temporary relief doesn't change the fact that, as officially recorded, the 16 years since 2000 have been the warmest on record for Australia.
1
I was hiking in the mountains with a climatology grad student some decades ago...we were talking about ozone and other known problems at the time, and he said something that stuck with me: "It's not that we will change the composition of the atmosphere in the future: we have already changed it, and it will take at least 10,000 years for human-caused gasses to return to baseline if we stop right now." Climates have changed in the past, and climate-change caused by human actions has already happened: if we stopped emitting CO2 today, it will still keep on happening.
That doesn't mean we should not make the changes we can, but anthropogenic climate change is our reality not just for the next century, but for the coming millennia. Let's start planning how to (1) not make the change even more extreme, and (2) how to respond to a changing climate and how to manage the human consequences.
That doesn't mean we should not make the changes we can, but anthropogenic climate change is our reality not just for the next century, but for the coming millennia. Let's start planning how to (1) not make the change even more extreme, and (2) how to respond to a changing climate and how to manage the human consequences.
47
The good news is that the current, natural warming period that spawned humans could be extended by 'human caused global warming'. In that sense, it's an potential opportunity to learn to protect ourselves from the much more prevalent and longer lasting periods global cooling (aka snowball Earth).
Our multi-million year journey around our Sun is dwarfed by the unknowns associated with our Sun's multi-billion year journey around our galaxy.
Our multi-million year journey around our Sun is dwarfed by the unknowns associated with our Sun's multi-billion year journey around our galaxy.
Is there a theorem that proves that human made global warming is actually real? I ask this as a seriously question. Everything that I read about it seems to require a leap of faith to work out logically. Trying to learn.
11
Forget "a theorem"; though it sounds sciencey it's not necessary to your understanding.
Here's one good resource:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
And this is comprehensive and reliable:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
The physics of how heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions cause accumulation in our atmosphere, increasing the energy (heat) in our planetary system (global warming) causing a disrupted circulation (climate change) was first explored by Arrhenius and Tyndall in the 1800s. Knowledge about this was solidified in the 1970s and 1980s.
Here's one good resource:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
And this is comprehensive and reliable:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
The physics of how heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions cause accumulation in our atmosphere, increasing the energy (heat) in our planetary system (global warming) causing a disrupted circulation (climate change) was first explored by Arrhenius and Tyndall in the 1800s. Knowledge about this was solidified in the 1970s and 1980s.
26
We know a lot about earth's biogeochemical cycles, like the carbon cycle and the water cycle. These cycles are tightly linked to earth's climate. There are immense stores of carbon in fossil reservoirs that we are burning. They are organic compounds, so there is a chemical reaction for combustion that shows that we are moving this store of carbon from these inaccessible stores into the atmosphere via combustion, in the form of CO2, enhancing the greenhouse effect that makes life possible. The nitrogen cycle is also being augmented with the creation of synthetic fertilizers, which leads to the formation of more N2O, which is also a potent greenhouse gas. So we are changing these cycles on a massive scale. Because the scale of our interventions is so large, they inevitably lead to changes that we can see in our environment, whether climate change, acidification or eutrophication. That doesn't always mean that we cross a boundary that leads to an ice age or global extinction.
Is this all real--outside the political arena there is widescale planning for this. Trees being planted now are selected with the assumption that the zone will change over the next century. We can see the melting happening in Greenland. So yes, there are visible effects right now. What exactly will happen? We don't yet have the knowledge and capacity to understand with total certainty. An article like this has an unfortunately apocalyptic title, but calls attention to an important phenomenon.
Is this all real--outside the political arena there is widescale planning for this. Trees being planted now are selected with the assumption that the zone will change over the next century. We can see the melting happening in Greenland. So yes, there are visible effects right now. What exactly will happen? We don't yet have the knowledge and capacity to understand with total certainty. An article like this has an unfortunately apocalyptic title, but calls attention to an important phenomenon.
2
This is a two step process. The strongest evidence for anthropic climate change are computer models that create predictive maps of the climate. The first step is to apply CO2 levels of the past, which are known from antarctic samples, to create historical climate maps. To the extent that these computer models accurately map the changes that were known is one test of their accuracy. Some are better than others. Weather prediction models were created using this strategy, but don't confuse weather with climate; weather changes daily, but climate changes over decades.
The second step is to add the carbon unearthed in form of coal and oil products. The quantity of carbon that was buried several hundred millions of years ago and is currently being released into the environment is easy to measure with fairly good statistical accuracy. Right now that is about 40 billion tons per year. Then vary this on the best models and see what happens when it is reduced or increased.
Science is slow, complex, self-critical and over time, self correcting. Popular media is impatient with real science, so with hesitation, i would finally appeal to "common sense". Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that humans could unearth 40 billion tons of carbon every year, dumping into the atmosphere, and NOT bring the atmospheric conditions closer to the climate of Earth when it was originally buried?
Read about Pangea, a continent with vast deserts, ask yourself, Want to live there?
The second step is to add the carbon unearthed in form of coal and oil products. The quantity of carbon that was buried several hundred millions of years ago and is currently being released into the environment is easy to measure with fairly good statistical accuracy. Right now that is about 40 billion tons per year. Then vary this on the best models and see what happens when it is reduced or increased.
Science is slow, complex, self-critical and over time, self correcting. Popular media is impatient with real science, so with hesitation, i would finally appeal to "common sense". Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that humans could unearth 40 billion tons of carbon every year, dumping into the atmosphere, and NOT bring the atmospheric conditions closer to the climate of Earth when it was originally buried?
Read about Pangea, a continent with vast deserts, ask yourself, Want to live there?
3
The underlying assumption of climate changer supporters that if humans just did or did not do certain things, climate would not change continues to astound. I guess among other things, humans must have caused the melting and receding of the glaciers across North America and Eurasia and the subsequent rise of sea levels by several hundred feet about 15000 years ago. Those cookfires must have been HUGE, to quote Mr. Trump.....
16
That's actually a common missunderstanding about climate change!
What is currently occuring is rapid, human-induced climate change. In the past, however, scientists have found evidence for numerous shifts in global climate. It's actually really really cool!
They find these data in air bubbles in ice which froze tens, hundreds, even millions of years ago. The gasses inside them give clues about what the atmosphere's composition was, as well as general temperature patterns at the time. For instance, in the triassic, CO2 concentrations increased by 1500ppm! (http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/triassic/climate.htm) This massive change is theorized to be a possible cause of the triassic mass extinction.
Of course, there weren't any humans around back then, but there are other ways this increase could have occured. Massive volcanism, meteorite impacts, or something else could be the culprit.
For the cycles of ice ages, we point an accusatory finger at Milankovitch cycles. These are long term, cyclic changes in the angle of the Earth's tilt, where the Earth's tilt faces at the various points in its rotation around the sun (called "precession"), and the eccentricity (how oblong or spheroid or orbit is around the sun).
These each cycle in different time periods, but every 100,000 years they reach a "max" at the same time, causing warmer, longer winters and shorter, cooler summers. These conditions allow for increased ice buildup in the poles, thus leading to glaciation!
What is currently occuring is rapid, human-induced climate change. In the past, however, scientists have found evidence for numerous shifts in global climate. It's actually really really cool!
They find these data in air bubbles in ice which froze tens, hundreds, even millions of years ago. The gasses inside them give clues about what the atmosphere's composition was, as well as general temperature patterns at the time. For instance, in the triassic, CO2 concentrations increased by 1500ppm! (http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/triassic/climate.htm) This massive change is theorized to be a possible cause of the triassic mass extinction.
Of course, there weren't any humans around back then, but there are other ways this increase could have occured. Massive volcanism, meteorite impacts, or something else could be the culprit.
For the cycles of ice ages, we point an accusatory finger at Milankovitch cycles. These are long term, cyclic changes in the angle of the Earth's tilt, where the Earth's tilt faces at the various points in its rotation around the sun (called "precession"), and the eccentricity (how oblong or spheroid or orbit is around the sun).
These each cycle in different time periods, but every 100,000 years they reach a "max" at the same time, causing warmer, longer winters and shorter, cooler summers. These conditions allow for increased ice buildup in the poles, thus leading to glaciation!
I appreciate that it must seem like this, but what I see here is not what climate scientists (nor hopefully, what many lay people concerned about climate change) are saying. I have not heard any (responsible) person claim that climate will not continue to change. I don't believe that anyone can state with certainty exactly what the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would be without the human activity that contributes to it. But acknowledging these things is a far cry from the outright denial of the issue's presence. And, even if the anthropogenic signal is higher than assumed, don't we still have a responsibility to mitigate the effects on the most vulnerable people (primarily the poorest) and ecosystems if we possibly can?
The fact that we can change the climate has an upside. That is, it might allow us to survive the seemingly inevitable next 'ice age' that will extinguish our species.
The idea is to learn to make lemonade out our lemons, whether to regulate the climate on this planet or find a place to start over on another planet with lessons learned.
In any event, understanding a climate and how to control it could come in handy going forward.
The idea is to learn to make lemonade out our lemons, whether to regulate the climate on this planet or find a place to start over on another planet with lessons learned.
In any event, understanding a climate and how to control it could come in handy going forward.
.... Always amusing/disturbing/informative to see the strange mix of terror, glee and vindictiveness with which apocalypse enthusiasts envision the coming upheaval. They may claim to be worried, but what comes through between the lines is happy anticipation of seeing their many enemies suffer (Republicans, people who use spray deodorant, meat-eaters, those who think the Oscar should go to whoever acted best, anyone who doesn't hate George W. Bush etc. ....)
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Caring & Concern....
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Caring & Concern....
15
JRS Again with the transparent silliness.
To state the obvious: it is unlikely that non-Republicans feel happy anticipation at the suffering of Republicans and meat-eaters due to climate change since they themselves will be suffering to exactly the same extent.
Get it? Cause everyone else over about the age of 6 who isn't consecrated to Fox News already understands this.
Nothing quite like the determined anti-reason which so inspires the conservative collective.
To state the obvious: it is unlikely that non-Republicans feel happy anticipation at the suffering of Republicans and meat-eaters due to climate change since they themselves will be suffering to exactly the same extent.
Get it? Cause everyone else over about the age of 6 who isn't consecrated to Fox News already understands this.
Nothing quite like the determined anti-reason which so inspires the conservative collective.
1
And you are the reason that people like Bush get elected, smugness and self righteousness don't change people's minds. The broad painting you use there is as bad almost as any other brand of bigotry, and food for thought, you wouldn't have the mental capacity to write let alone this medium if your ancestors hadn't been "meat eaters", while factory farming may be bad that doesn't make eating meat wrong period, that could be solved with regulation. And if you oppose it simply on moral grounds, I simply don't have a response because it's a ridiculous argument.
Your circular reasoning assumes everyone suddenly goes stupid to the world's problems.
12
Read some of the responses to this column. Everyone has already gone stupid to the world's problems. Everyone thinks the millions of tons of soot, carbon dioxide and particulates that we gleefully send into our atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. Climate changed in the past; therefore we can have no effect on changes now.
20
Some of that is based on the fact that climate will change regardless of what we do.
The good news is, that understanding climate and how to change it could come in very handy in the future. In that sense, global warming could be a God-send.........not necessarily in a religious sense, but metaphorically speaking.
The good news is, that understanding climate and how to change it could come in very handy in the future. In that sense, global warming could be a God-send.........not necessarily in a religious sense, but metaphorically speaking.
This article focuses mainly on people as the center of our planet. But our ecosystem is far more than ourselves. The basis of life on our planet is microbial. Even our own bodies by weight is supported and composed of tiny animals that we ordinarily do not consider us and the entire earth is like this.
We live in a complex interweaving of life forms many of which are going extinct at the same time that we have not even explored them. So how will our meddling with this balance finally affect all of us from microbes, mosquitoes, beetles, plants, fish and mammals which depend on everything else for survival. It is all interwoven and we even now with all our vaunted science have barely a clue as to how these changes will affect our survival.
We live in a complex interweaving of life forms many of which are going extinct at the same time that we have not even explored them. So how will our meddling with this balance finally affect all of us from microbes, mosquitoes, beetles, plants, fish and mammals which depend on everything else for survival. It is all interwoven and we even now with all our vaunted science have barely a clue as to how these changes will affect our survival.
44
This article focuses on people, because people are causing climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, the burning of forests and the widespread use of factory farming. Therefore, people are at the center.
1
This story seems quite similar to the inability of someone to notice the increasing debilities of a nearby loved-one, while it strikes someone who merely visits from time-to-time as quite obvious. Also, as the situation--global warming, in this case--gets worse and worse, the cycle-to-cycle changes either just disappear, or the differences--from one extreme to another--are virtually eliminated.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
5
Clearly, global warming is happening. Recent trends in that direction are undeniable. It is not possible or reasonable to deny the obvious.
Yet, science has evidence of the past, cyclic, trends in the earth's weather. I firmly do not believe that modern mankind can be blamed for what we are now seeing.
It is too simple to say that it is all our fault. That the modern societies have aided and abetted these changes is true, but let's stop beating ourselves up about it. The earth has been going through such cycles for a couple of billion years. We give ourselves too much credit to say we, alone, are responsible.
Can we stop it? No. Can we slow it down and maybe lessen the outcome? Maybe. Should we try? Absolutely.
Yet, science has evidence of the past, cyclic, trends in the earth's weather. I firmly do not believe that modern mankind can be blamed for what we are now seeing.
It is too simple to say that it is all our fault. That the modern societies have aided and abetted these changes is true, but let's stop beating ourselves up about it. The earth has been going through such cycles for a couple of billion years. We give ourselves too much credit to say we, alone, are responsible.
Can we stop it? No. Can we slow it down and maybe lessen the outcome? Maybe. Should we try? Absolutely.
13
Tens of thousands of scientific studies have considered and rejected the notion that the current climate changes could be due to the normal climate cycling that has occurred in the past. There is simply no controversy about this at all in the scientific community, period. We are changing the global climate by our actions in burning fossil fuels. The "controversy" is a hoax perpetrated by fossil fuel companies and a handful of very rich investors with their own profits in mind, employing the same PR consultants used by the tobacco companies to persuade people that smoking was harmless.
2
Sure, Bill, we're only responsible for the grand accomplishments of Progress, not the terrifying collateral damage.
We need not beat ourselves up to acknowledge the terrible truth that our techno-industrial lifeway has threatened the foundation of our era's biological life. Habitat destruction is us. Now what?
We need not beat ourselves up to acknowledge the terrible truth that our techno-industrial lifeway has threatened the foundation of our era's biological life. Habitat destruction is us. Now what?
This isn't a matter of belief. This is science.
1
It is the height of arrogance to believe that man is immune to the forces of nature and is not subject to the rules of evolution.
11
Yet surely you'd agree there has never been an animal as destructive to its habitat as us. We may indeed be a force of nature, but my goodness what an impact. The logic of your thinking leads inexorably to a new type of evolution, a techno-bio-engineered lifeway from soup to nuts, from engineered habitat to new animals to us cyborgs to new microbes. And on and on. And oh yes, on into the galaxy, which is of course the only course for a species that has adapted a bizarre grow-or-die approach.
Maybe we're a bit jaded (can't imagine why), but the best guess is that such projects will come in a bit behind schedule and over budget. With maybe a few more unintended consequences.
Somehow it seems that returning to an awed respect for, and adaption to, our planet's wonderful platform of support for an astounding array of biological life might work a little better. It will take all the know how we can muster to manage such a collapse of techno-industrialism.
Or we can keep going down the same path, with fierce loyalty to Progress even as it poisons us and all other life.
Maybe we're a bit jaded (can't imagine why), but the best guess is that such projects will come in a bit behind schedule and over budget. With maybe a few more unintended consequences.
Somehow it seems that returning to an awed respect for, and adaption to, our planet's wonderful platform of support for an astounding array of biological life might work a little better. It will take all the know how we can muster to manage such a collapse of techno-industrialism.
Or we can keep going down the same path, with fierce loyalty to Progress even as it poisons us and all other life.
1
In the recent past, there used to be the belief that as a result of growing knowledge and wisdom, driven by scientific advance, we'd be able to cope with unforeseen crises.
However, the past 36 years of Republican strangling of our culture, combined with the corporate greed that has thoroughly undermined the trustworthiness of science, and misdirected diminished resources away from true, human need and towards satisfying the deep selfishness and lust for power of a tiny elite, now guarantees that we, as a species, have grown markedly stupider and less capable of response to change.
Nothing less than a full-scale revolution at this point will save us, and that looks unlikely to happen; the inspiring vision is as lacking there as it is in everything else.
Goodnight, moon.
However, the past 36 years of Republican strangling of our culture, combined with the corporate greed that has thoroughly undermined the trustworthiness of science, and misdirected diminished resources away from true, human need and towards satisfying the deep selfishness and lust for power of a tiny elite, now guarantees that we, as a species, have grown markedly stupider and less capable of response to change.
Nothing less than a full-scale revolution at this point will save us, and that looks unlikely to happen; the inspiring vision is as lacking there as it is in everything else.
Goodnight, moon.
3
Nothing like blaming the Republcans for our whole way of life. Please. Last we checked, the Dems are pretty committed to prosecuting it, too. Not to mention most all other political tendencies around the world. Maybe check out China and India and Russia and Europe sometime.
I don't like the Republicans either, but blaming them for everything doesn't help. And a lot of global corporations are way ahead of governments on climate change.
1
We already have a thousand years of ocean warming to equalize the 400 PPM CO2 we already have in the atmosphere. That means ice melt for that period of time.
Add to that there is no policy to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere. All I hear is economist hand ringing about economic growth percentages. There is no decoupling of economic growth from energy use. We add 3 parts +- per year CO2 to the atmosphere right now. That means by 2050 we'll be at or over 500 PPM. That means 9 degrees fahrenheit of warming. That is equal to the difference between the the depth of the last ice age and today. Do the math.
Add to that there is no policy to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere. All I hear is economist hand ringing about economic growth percentages. There is no decoupling of economic growth from energy use. We add 3 parts +- per year CO2 to the atmosphere right now. That means by 2050 we'll be at or over 500 PPM. That means 9 degrees fahrenheit of warming. That is equal to the difference between the the depth of the last ice age and today. Do the math.
7
Hydroponics and artificial sunlight will be the answer.
Before you jump all over me I have one more prediction: There will less than 2 billion people on the planet in the year 2166.
We have crossed every "line of no return" that climatologists have laid down. The climate of this planet is GOING to change radically and there is little to nothing we can do to stop it (short of planetary wide engineering, which isn't going to happen). Africa and Asia, whom are going to suffer the worst consequences from climate change, will lose the vast majority of their populations to disease, famine and war. No place will be spared though, there will be blood in American streets. As the author correctly points out, the agricultural cycle will be broken and profoundly inefficient. The answer will be to take agriculture indoor and high-tech. I submit that if you cut the global population by more than a third, hydroponic growing (which is radically more efficient than traditional methods) can sustain that number of people, though grocery stores will be much smaller as the choices will be far fewer.
Before you jump all over me I have one more prediction: There will less than 2 billion people on the planet in the year 2166.
We have crossed every "line of no return" that climatologists have laid down. The climate of this planet is GOING to change radically and there is little to nothing we can do to stop it (short of planetary wide engineering, which isn't going to happen). Africa and Asia, whom are going to suffer the worst consequences from climate change, will lose the vast majority of their populations to disease, famine and war. No place will be spared though, there will be blood in American streets. As the author correctly points out, the agricultural cycle will be broken and profoundly inefficient. The answer will be to take agriculture indoor and high-tech. I submit that if you cut the global population by more than a third, hydroponic growing (which is radically more efficient than traditional methods) can sustain that number of people, though grocery stores will be much smaller as the choices will be far fewer.
7
The dark age has already started, out here in the antipodes!
The current leader of the Australian Government, Malcolm Turnbull, who believes in innovation, recently eviscerated both the Bureau of Meteorology AND the CSIRO division studying climate change.
This is a country that lurches from one el Nino to the next.
The current leader of the Australian Government, Malcolm Turnbull, who believes in innovation, recently eviscerated both the Bureau of Meteorology AND the CSIRO division studying climate change.
This is a country that lurches from one el Nino to the next.
7
Mankind used to sacrifice human beings to guarantee that the Sun would rise. We've come a long way since then. No doubt our ability to adapt has as well.
3
Global warming fanatics and religious fanatics are the opposite sides of the same coin. Both predict, both are almost always wrong....
6
Yes, both have been wrong.
Religious fanatics are still waiting for the apocalypse they predicted.
However, climate change "fanatics" grossly underestimated the speed of change: the climate is changing FASTER than what was predicted.
Religious fanatics are still waiting for the apocalypse they predicted.
However, climate change "fanatics" grossly underestimated the speed of change: the climate is changing FASTER than what was predicted.
The wealthy oligarchy that controls this nation will drive it into the ground. All this talk of conservative philosophy is a bag of lies. The proper label of this brand of thievery is sycophancy and greed.
18
This is why we should punish the deniers. And the worst sort of deniers are the scientists (or pseudo scientists) that claim a scientific basis for denying climate change. A good example is a paper I found online written by a guy named Fyfe. He has the gall to jump onto the hiatus band-wagon with this ridiculous statement: "It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate global warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims." He also claims that the "climate models did not reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early 20th century" despite the steady march of carbon pollution. Michael Mann got it right when he called it the "faux pause." At a minimum, the author of this paper should be investigated. My guess is there's an Exxon connection somewhere. This kind of material has the potential to undermine legitimate science and derail the movement to radically change our energy systems and economy.
11
The pseudo scientists propagandizing their junk science are bad. But they would not do it if they were not paid off by the upper management of the fossil fuel companies. They are the worst kind of enemy the world can have. They are the cause of most of the war mongering conducted by the US Military. They should all be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity, and all of their corporate and personal assets seized and used to promote alternative energy.
Oh yes, let's punish people who disagree with you. What an enlightened position.
2
Perhaps you could simply torture him until he repents. Or torture the data, as Michael Mann is wont to do, until it shows you an alarming result that the raw data so unhelpfully doesn't show on its own. A new Dark Age looms indeed, and you may be in the running for High Priest.
2
A few scientists have been predicting drastic changes like climate change for centuries. Like now, few listened. Most denied, if not intellectually, then by lack of action. Malthus and Ehrlich are now scorned because they made the mistake of making specific predictions. But their basic, common sense predictions of carrying capacity were the opposite of a mistake. Their deniers want to pack us into our world like sardines and parrot "everything will be fine as soon as everyone gets educated and has fewer children". If we had listened and leveled off our 1850 population at 1 billion--95% of environmental problems would be moot. Since the baby boomers arrived our numbers have tripled. Now we need to control both our appetites and our numbers--and ask "Why is 7.4 billion better than 1 billion?" --unless you want more unsustainable consumers. Please think about a 0-1 child policy by financial incentive--or the sky will fall. You can hear Jane Goodall's and David Attenborough's thoughts on this priority at populationmatters.org
4
If you limit family size to 0-1 by fiat you will have the same problem as the Chinese are now faced with: female infanticide leading to more young adult males than females leading to social malaise and worse.
In a nation today once nearly all children survive childhood and literacy, particularly female literacy, is widespread human reproduction rates tend to fall to a replacement rate. As social safety nets become robust the rate falls lower, at which point immigration from "less developed" nations is beneficial.
In a nation today once nearly all children survive childhood and literacy, particularly female literacy, is widespread human reproduction rates tend to fall to a replacement rate. As social safety nets become robust the rate falls lower, at which point immigration from "less developed" nations is beneficial.
3
CO2 pollution, and not population, is the cause of global warming.
Besides, the number of new babies being born is leveling off. Where the population is growing the most is in the 60-80 and 81+ age groups. So unless you want to lead by committing suicide when you get old, there is nothing you can do to stop the population from growing, short of instituting a plan for global genocide.
Besides, the number of new babies being born is leveling off. Where the population is growing the most is in the 60-80 and 81+ age groups. So unless you want to lead by committing suicide when you get old, there is nothing you can do to stop the population from growing, short of instituting a plan for global genocide.
This is the key point. We are triggering climate change that keeps on changing. We have huge environmental control systems that depend on climate records for operation. One example is the system of dams in California used to control flooding and for irrigation. Right now levels are so low that overfilling is not an issue but that will change back at some point, even if just for a while. For example Lake Oroville is still low but at some point it will be recharged and then, in a future winter, operators will need to release water to prepare for late winter/spring flood control. Ideally they will time it so that they both control flooding and refill in time for summer irrigation. This operation is done using tables of past snow melt and rainfall. Having the guidance from the past history go wrong can go badly wrong. Not releasing enough water (now 1/5 of capacity is released to provide for flood control if the dam is filled in the winter) and then having a major rainfall event over-fill the dam. The result would be catastrophic failure of the dam.
1
Gail is stuck in his domain. He's predicting the future based on his narrative, his perspective. As an inventor, I see these putative dangers as opportunities. Humans are the scourge of the earth because we are infinitely adaptable. We'll adapt and flourish.
5
The focus of this article is how our present level of scientific knowledge is inadequate to meet the climate challenges of the future. But it lightly skirts the real issue. Many of the climate events that will affect our ability to accurately predict weather in the future are already happening.
We just completed the worst forrest fire season in history. In fact, ti's not longer seasonal. States in the west have to prepare for year long draughts and fires. Houston just got two feet of ran over night. February was the warmest on record but then we get 26 degree weather in April.
The idea that a two meter rise in sea level is an event that might occur by 2100 is what the old models, the ones this article says are no longer viable estimates. The variables for climate calculators are changing so rapidly that accurate baselines for measurements no longer exist. We could see these sea level increases in 25 years, not 75.
Rather than talk about the need for better climate models these articles should be sounding the alarm, loudly and more often. We currently lack the political will to met this challenge and nothing short of dramatic action will change that. Maybe the only way to get the attention of politicians is to remind them how much this will cost in dollars and cents since they seem oblivious to what it is costing in human and other natural life.
We just completed the worst forrest fire season in history. In fact, ti's not longer seasonal. States in the west have to prepare for year long draughts and fires. Houston just got two feet of ran over night. February was the warmest on record but then we get 26 degree weather in April.
The idea that a two meter rise in sea level is an event that might occur by 2100 is what the old models, the ones this article says are no longer viable estimates. The variables for climate calculators are changing so rapidly that accurate baselines for measurements no longer exist. We could see these sea level increases in 25 years, not 75.
Rather than talk about the need for better climate models these articles should be sounding the alarm, loudly and more often. We currently lack the political will to met this challenge and nothing short of dramatic action will change that. Maybe the only way to get the attention of politicians is to remind them how much this will cost in dollars and cents since they seem oblivious to what it is costing in human and other natural life.
114
Or perhaps when their own children are swept away by an extreme climatic event....?
At some point, hopefully within the next couple of election cycles, American will begin taking climate change with the seriousness required. We now spend 3.5% of GDP on defense, yet soon climate change will be a greater threat to the nation's security than all foreign military threats combined. 3.5% of GDP focused on energy transformation and modern infrastructure is a pittance.
12
Most of the money spent on defense is used for illegal war mongering to prop up the fossil fuel monopoly.
The solution is to eliminate the global corporate elite fascist sociopaths who control the US, the EU and most of the countries on the planet. They are the true terrorists in the world, and they must be stopped at all costs.
The solution is to eliminate the global corporate elite fascist sociopaths who control the US, the EU and most of the countries on the planet. They are the true terrorists in the world, and they must be stopped at all costs.
I do not understand the author's assumption that for example, plants will for some reason not behave like plants do now. We have quite good, though not great, simulation models of how plants respond to the environment whether it is cooler now or warmer in the future (or in other regions). We certainly need more investment in scientific research of biological, and every other field, responses to the environment. But as the physics of the weather remain the same, the basic biology of plants, animals and other organisms will stay the same even if the temperature or CO2 increase and the results change.
3
Yes, in a drought, plants die-if they get drowned by early intense downpours, they don't grow. Part of the physics of the climate indicate now that droughts and extreme rainfall will increase, and plants will respond as they always do.
That's the problem for plants, and animals as well. They stay the same. Climate change is happening too quickly for plants to evolve in their new climates. We are already experiencing the sixth great die off on the planet. If we don't stop CO2 pollution now, there will be a time in the very near future where billions of people will starve to death because of global crop failures.
This threat being all so real, who will win the NY primaries today? In the Know Nothing party, it's sure to be a denialist because they all are. In the party of Demos, will it be the incrementalist who a few years ago toured the world promoting methane-releasing fracking, or the one who wants to address this crisis with the urgency of WWII?
4
Weather determines everything. Why was there a renaissance and development in Europe as opposed to Africa ? Weather! Because mankind in colder places were able to stay inside and think more.Hitler invasion of Russia was going fine till the weather said sorry Adolph....
3
Climate is weather over space (earth and atmosphere) and time (decades at the least). (h/t Heidi Cullen, www.climatecentral.org )
2
Now picture that none of this happens. Because that is just as likely an outcome as the one the whole opinion piece lays out.
The dark age to worry about isn't the lack of quick enough scientific knowledge to predict weather and climate patterns - it's the dark spaces in so many minds - where science is replaced by, or pre-empted by, superstitions of various kinds.
204
We are destroying our own future. We are creating a living hell for our descendants.
When farmers crops fail people will starve. And we can expect 10 billion people in this planet by 2050. Where will they go when the rains shift?
This country needs to change course. And if we choose not to do so- we need to end immigration into this country. The best thing, when the future is uncertain, is a low population.
When farmers crops fail people will starve. And we can expect 10 billion people in this planet by 2050. Where will they go when the rains shift?
This country needs to change course. And if we choose not to do so- we need to end immigration into this country. The best thing, when the future is uncertain, is a low population.
1
The focus on a more distant future is baffling. It's clear this is all happening now, rolling out faster than any but most dire scientific projections. Basing the future on the past devalues the recent past, which should be sufficiently startling to get all our attentions.
This will be so obvious and troubling in the next two decades that even the most dedicated "hoax" accusations will be revealed as dangerous antisocial garbage. It's impossible to cover the breadth of available information in 1500 characters, but here's one chunk of the pie (think Houston floods):
"Many extreme weather events can be traced back to an atmospheric 'traffic jam,' study suggests"
http://mashable.com/2016/04/15/stuck-weather-patterns-extreme-events/
I've been revisiting the little-known ABC prime time special from 2009, "Earth 2100". It imagines what things will be like as time goes on, from the viewpoint of a nurse born in 2009, when we were full of hope that attention would begin to be paid. Do take a look!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqRpM72Odg
(It was put together with a constellation of top scientists, so no need to come in with the "John Podesta is a lobbyist" nonsense. I am hoping that the wisdom presented in this work will influence Hillary Clinton to be less beholden to and convinced by the arguments of big fossil's most skilled anti-science advocates.)
Bankrupting infrastructure is expensive: disaster relief. Why not work together to solve problems?
This will be so obvious and troubling in the next two decades that even the most dedicated "hoax" accusations will be revealed as dangerous antisocial garbage. It's impossible to cover the breadth of available information in 1500 characters, but here's one chunk of the pie (think Houston floods):
"Many extreme weather events can be traced back to an atmospheric 'traffic jam,' study suggests"
http://mashable.com/2016/04/15/stuck-weather-patterns-extreme-events/
I've been revisiting the little-known ABC prime time special from 2009, "Earth 2100". It imagines what things will be like as time goes on, from the viewpoint of a nurse born in 2009, when we were full of hope that attention would begin to be paid. Do take a look!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqRpM72Odg
(It was put together with a constellation of top scientists, so no need to come in with the "John Podesta is a lobbyist" nonsense. I am hoping that the wisdom presented in this work will influence Hillary Clinton to be less beholden to and convinced by the arguments of big fossil's most skilled anti-science advocates.)
Bankrupting infrastructure is expensive: disaster relief. Why not work together to solve problems?
17
No other summary has so perfectly crystallized my personal fears, and feelings of grief for what we are losing, already, day by day. A deep sense of the rhythms of life, the cyclicality, imbues human history i believe it has been imprinted in our bodies and brains ( akin to diurnal cycles) - also gives hope for recovery after inevitable natural disasters. Its disruption may have profound effects on humanity's own resilience.
30
The Earth will warm. The only question is how much. We might be able to limit it. We can no longer stop from warming enough to cause major changes.
Crop zones will shift, as heat and moisture shift. Animal habitat will shift. Oceans will rise.
It is true that we don't yet know how much, or how fast, these things will happen.
However, that is not a "dark age." We will see it happen. The rise of the oceans will be measured very precisely as it happens. Failed crops will be in our face in the first season. Farmers very quickly catch on when they can, or must, grow something else they couldn't grow before. Fish just won't be where they were, they'll be somewhere else. Trees and plants will fail to prosper in their former places, but appear in new ones, creeping on the margins as zones shift.
The changes will be as obvious as a 2x4 across the head. I reject the idea of a dark age. We'll see this and feel this in real time. We'll suffer. But we won't be oblivious to it as it happens to us.
Crop zones will shift, as heat and moisture shift. Animal habitat will shift. Oceans will rise.
It is true that we don't yet know how much, or how fast, these things will happen.
However, that is not a "dark age." We will see it happen. The rise of the oceans will be measured very precisely as it happens. Failed crops will be in our face in the first season. Farmers very quickly catch on when they can, or must, grow something else they couldn't grow before. Fish just won't be where they were, they'll be somewhere else. Trees and plants will fail to prosper in their former places, but appear in new ones, creeping on the margins as zones shift.
The changes will be as obvious as a 2x4 across the head. I reject the idea of a dark age. We'll see this and feel this in real time. We'll suffer. But we won't be oblivious to it as it happens to us.
44
Yes, but this provides an excellent opportunity for those who control wealth to make more money building things and charging taxpayers.
You know, this will be great for GOP funders.
Why do you think they deny that it is happening. They're not stupid. They see a chance to milk an opportunity...regardless of the common weal.
You know, this will be great for GOP funders.
Why do you think they deny that it is happening. They're not stupid. They see a chance to milk an opportunity...regardless of the common weal.
61
Sorry, this is regardless of this discussion but I wonder what 'milk an opportunity' means. I guess it means 'an opportunity that can not recover like split milk, am I right?. Can you explain me? (I'm 22 years old student who study English).
The author concedes that our ability to predict the weather fades after about a week but claims scientists have the global climate figured out. I'm so relieved. While there has been some marginal warming recently, it's not at all clear we have caused it and more to the point that we can do anything about it. So what if the corn belt shifts north a little ? When you consider how much CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere from natural sources, the level of conviction of the climate scientists seems a little overboard. CO2 might just turn out to be plant food. Yeats was spot on - The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
It means to exploit, or take advantage of, an opportunity. The use of this term implies disapproval of this action.
1
Where Gail says decades, insert centuries or millennia. For "we," substitute a much reduced human presence, in fragments. High tech and science require vast infrastructure that will be gone. So don't worry about people or their Facebook pages living too long, or curing cancer. Humans will as a whole be fewer and much poorer as we struggle to avoid one catastrophe after another, and often fail.
28
Mr Gail: I find your benign view truly terrifying. We have doubled the CO2 content of our atmosphere and you seem to think it is trivial. We have created a disasterous climate problem. Here in Seattle, we have had many very powerful wind storms, torrential rain sufficient to blind drivers on our freeways, our mountain water supplies are rapidly dwindling, summer temperatures are much higher and drier than anything we have seen in the 40 years I have lived here. Winter temperatures are noticeably warmer. We may well see the end of the California Central Calley agricultural crops a prime source of food in the US. Some insects have moved further north creating the potential for major epidemics that destroy food crops and kill people. In major cities across the US the summer death rate due to dehydration and overheating is up significantly. We have lost in our area significant numbers of birds that could significantly act to reduce crop yields due to insects. These are just a few things that indicate to me that the current shifts in weather could easily result in disastrous problems. While I do not have your weather expertise, I am a professional chemist, I cannot accept your apparently mild view of the urgency of our situation. We must take every immediate step that we can to change our infrastructure to cease in a short time our CO2 emissions and in fact take every possible step to remove the excessive CO2 from our atmosphere.
135
Ahem, re. California agriculture. With the stroke of a pen, our state could force the elimination of almonds and pistachios, which have no place in our climate, can grow elsewhere, and are mostly for export anyhow. They are also not essential foods. No more alfalfa and cotton either. Same reasons as the nuts. An emphasis on annual crops like vegetables-- will allow farmers to provide needed food and respond with regularity to changing climate, seasons, etc.
I don't believe the author is minimizing the impact of climate change, not at all. Rather, he remarks on a little discussed effect of climate change, that is the loss of predictive capability. We rely on long established weather and climate patterns to plan for the necessities of life. Those patterns are being smashed.
1
Thanks for this solid comment. The NYT continues its push to soft-pedal climate change.
I too live in Seattle, and I first came here 27 years ago. The change is shocking. I remember when there was no sun until after the 4th of July. June was cold and misty. The English daisies in the park lawns were the first flowers. Now they come well after the full spring display. The dry season has begun this month (like last year), it was over 80 yesterday, in April, and to me, it feels apocalyptic.
There is now humidity -- you can smell all the fading flowers -- and there are mosquitoes. Amazing.
Last year, on the Washington Coast, starving Common Murres dying on the beach were everywhere.
Meanwhile, the denial goes on, aided and abetted by the NYT, which will inhabit a city under 6 feet of water in a mere 84 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-...
I too live in Seattle, and I first came here 27 years ago. The change is shocking. I remember when there was no sun until after the 4th of July. June was cold and misty. The English daisies in the park lawns were the first flowers. Now they come well after the full spring display. The dry season has begun this month (like last year), it was over 80 yesterday, in April, and to me, it feels apocalyptic.
There is now humidity -- you can smell all the fading flowers -- and there are mosquitoes. Amazing.
Last year, on the Washington Coast, starving Common Murres dying on the beach were everywhere.
Meanwhile, the denial goes on, aided and abetted by the NYT, which will inhabit a city under 6 feet of water in a mere 84 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-...
This assumes that there is a future for humans. Right now, especially with climate denial a centerpiece of Republican policy, that is wishful thinking in the nation that is the largest cause of global warming and severe climate change. One truth that we already know is that over the millennia species have come and gone as the climate has undergone extreme changes and disruptions. The assumption that we are smart enough to save ourselves is, unfortunately, in doubt.
124
@Paul,
Speaking of smart, your first and last sentences are particularly smart and on point. That's what worries me.
4-19-16@11:10 am
Speaking of smart, your first and last sentences are particularly smart and on point. That's what worries me.
4-19-16@11:10 am
2
Increasingly, population control seems to be the only way out of this mess. That said, the article's problem (i.e. we might not be able to feed everyone) is its own sad solution.
34
Should . . . will . . . can . . . reading this reminds me of a neuroanatomy final exam I once took. "Describe the effects of a spinal cord lesion at C-2." So I wrote out pages of all the deleterious effect on neural pathways, physiological systems, etc., etc., etc. until finally I realized what the "effects" would be. So I just wrote at the top of the exam book: Death. Forget the gee whiz! what-if? optimism. The planet's disease is cancer and it is located at the level of C-2, and we cannot organize a response. A New Dark Age Looms all right. And it will be a corker.
99
@tashmuit,
Death. It will be a corker. Concise, scary and depressing.
Reading your comment jogged my memory about a prior piece in the NYT. I commented-asked then is this piece saying we're doomed? Someone replied yes. As, you're doing now, I gather? We're toast, aren't we? It's too late?
4-19-16@11:35 am
Death. It will be a corker. Concise, scary and depressing.
Reading your comment jogged my memory about a prior piece in the NYT. I commented-asked then is this piece saying we're doomed? Someone replied yes. As, you're doing now, I gather? We're toast, aren't we? It's too late?
4-19-16@11:35 am
2
At the epicenter of this crisis (among many) is the American predilection with short term gain and purposeful ignorance of long term costs. Climate denial is all about maximizing profits from carbon fuel and the consumer goods and services industries that depend on carbon fuels before they are forced to cut their emissions. The men and women who profit the most from denial will be long dead when the truly horrific effects of climate change ravage the landscape. The same people in many cases decry the 'legacy of debt" ( in reality, because it makes tax cuts harder ) and its impact on future generations while saddling the same generation with the inestimable cost of combating or mitigating climate change.
57
"The men and women who profit most from climate change"?
You mean every person on the planet who enjoys that air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter are not luxuries for the rich? Or every person who owns a car or motorcycle? Or how about every person who buys a product from another country that is shipped by boat, plane or truck using fossil fuel?
Every person in the U.S. and other developed and developing countries bears culpability for climate change, and the human race is not equipped with a mechanism where the entire species responds to an obvious threat with a single action. Stop blaming the people who sell fossil fuels; they are acting in their own self-interest, just as every other human does.
You mean every person on the planet who enjoys that air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter are not luxuries for the rich? Or every person who owns a car or motorcycle? Or how about every person who buys a product from another country that is shipped by boat, plane or truck using fossil fuel?
Every person in the U.S. and other developed and developing countries bears culpability for climate change, and the human race is not equipped with a mechanism where the entire species responds to an obvious threat with a single action. Stop blaming the people who sell fossil fuels; they are acting in their own self-interest, just as every other human does.
I meant exactly what i said.
Our self interest is not burning up in a carbon induced heat wave, drowning in rising seas or wiping out ocean life we depend on for food. To that end mankind would be perfectly happy using alternative energy sources. Will sacrifices be needed? Yes, but its not that bad if you consider the alternatives.
The fossil fuel industry knew what the long term effects of burning their product was decades ago Instead of marketing alternatives, they chose denial and obfuscation. The same can be said of the tobacco industry, the lead industry, the asbestos industry, and recently,the banking industry. That goes for virtually any product or resource that has deleterious effects on human health , quality of life and the environment.
Our self interest is not burning up in a carbon induced heat wave, drowning in rising seas or wiping out ocean life we depend on for food. To that end mankind would be perfectly happy using alternative energy sources. Will sacrifices be needed? Yes, but its not that bad if you consider the alternatives.
The fossil fuel industry knew what the long term effects of burning their product was decades ago Instead of marketing alternatives, they chose denial and obfuscation. The same can be said of the tobacco industry, the lead industry, the asbestos industry, and recently,the banking industry. That goes for virtually any product or resource that has deleterious effects on human health , quality of life and the environment.
1
Why do you think the powers that be want to eliminate any inheritance tax, and to shelter from taxes most of the income of the 1%? The perpetrators of this will be dead as you say; they have a mad hope that they can protect their progeny and their progeny and so on.
I predict an onslaught of incoherent and unscientific commentary from the flat-earth denial crowd. Can't wait to read the nonsense. This section will be closed for comments by noon.
Or, perhaps they are out enjoying the unusual 80+ degree warmth of an April day in NY.
Or, perhaps they are out enjoying the unusual 80+ degree warmth of an April day in NY.
18
Astute article. Reflects an ever increasing realization that many of the major challenges (and opportunities) human civilizations face are couched in the dynamic of coping with emergent phenomena of complex adaptive systems. e.g. climate change, data intensity, technological change, the global economy...
But as the only species that can think about the way it thinks, we are not propagating the necessary educational and cognitive approaches as fast as the rate of change and its unpredictable feedback loops are increasing. When this happens, humans often get paralyzed or retrench into simple ideological belief systems. A better and needed approach is to communicate how to navigate, accept and adapt to uncertain environments. We need to teach our coming generations to be comfortable in such contexts.
Allowing the gap of knowledge/adaptation to simplified beliefs/traditions to expand too far could have adverse civilizational affects and allow us to miss what could be a species level opportunity to advance to a higher and more advanced existence. Its all in managing our cognitive approach to change.
But as the only species that can think about the way it thinks, we are not propagating the necessary educational and cognitive approaches as fast as the rate of change and its unpredictable feedback loops are increasing. When this happens, humans often get paralyzed or retrench into simple ideological belief systems. A better and needed approach is to communicate how to navigate, accept and adapt to uncertain environments. We need to teach our coming generations to be comfortable in such contexts.
Allowing the gap of knowledge/adaptation to simplified beliefs/traditions to expand too far could have adverse civilizational affects and allow us to miss what could be a species level opportunity to advance to a higher and more advanced existence. Its all in managing our cognitive approach to change.
7
We need more pieces like this. Too many consider global warming will be inconvenient without thinking about the logical implications of changing climate. My candidate for the next government bailout would be property insurance companies. Imagine we get hit by flooding along the Mississippi, fires and drought out west and some hurricanes on the East Coast in one or two years. Will the insurance industry be able to pay out on all these claims? I doubt it. Then if there are no real insurers, who will risk rebuilding? What would this mean for construction workers?
The next task is to think more deeply into the future so that the response is more intelligent. We also need to develop greater human solidarity so that the world does not devolve through increasing scarcity of essential needs like food and water bringing greater social conflict and watching civilization slowly fade away.
The next task is to think more deeply into the future so that the response is more intelligent. We also need to develop greater human solidarity so that the world does not devolve through increasing scarcity of essential needs like food and water bringing greater social conflict and watching civilization slowly fade away.
13
I agree with you, but what can I do? I don't have enough money to buy my very own senator or congressperson like the Koch brothers, so my donations to conservation organizations are drowned in a sea of money from the climate deniers. Until places like Miami are literally under water, Rick Scott and his friends will say climate change is just a lie from those pesky liberal scientists. The people with the money call the shots and they'll all be living in floating gold plated bubbles.
574
Right on. We need a climate event so unusual and costly that the deniers can no longer deny. Until then it's war on climate science.
1
One person cannot stop the imminent global warming train wreck but you can reduce your own carbon footprint by 1. no air conditioning, 2. drive less or better yet, not at all, 3. change your diet, animal husbandry is one of the leading causes of deforestation and pollution, not to mention the horrific abuse suffered by the animals.
If those of us who care about the condition of the Earth take action in their own lives to curb emissions, we can collectively have a positive effect.
Instead of waiting for someone else to fix the problem, be a part of the solution by making personal changes to reduce your carbon footprint. Start today.
If those of us who care about the condition of the Earth take action in their own lives to curb emissions, we can collectively have a positive effect.
Instead of waiting for someone else to fix the problem, be a part of the solution by making personal changes to reduce your carbon footprint. Start today.
2
Hey as long as the Kochs and executives at Big Oil like Exxon keep lining their pockets thanks to elaborate climate change disinformation campaigns stretching over decades involving corrupt scientists and politicians in the Greedy Oily Party it's all good right?
After all only their and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will live to see Mother Nature's retribution for a century or two of civilization bingeing on carbon. Right now it's high tide and green grass for the wealth of the .01% coal and oil barons and they'll be long gone by the time the whip comes down.
So again, it's all good.
After all only their and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will live to see Mother Nature's retribution for a century or two of civilization bingeing on carbon. Right now it's high tide and green grass for the wealth of the .01% coal and oil barons and they'll be long gone by the time the whip comes down.
So again, it's all good.
118
Climate Sinners Repent! The end of the world is upon us! Or so say the climate alarmists. The climate IS changing, and it always will be. Previous cold and hot spells have caused widespread famine - and they will again. Rather than focusing on trying to change the un changeable, society should focus on how to use technology to minimize the impact.
6
"Rather than focusing on trying to change the un changeable, society should focus on how to use technology to minimize the impact."
This is a good point. So, what do you want your money to be spent on - the local school system or a 20 foot high sea wall that runs for thousands of miles so you can continue to live in the New York/New Jersey area?
The way to use technology to minimize the impact is to try to limit greenhouse gases.
This is a good point. So, what do you want your money to be spent on - the local school system or a 20 foot high sea wall that runs for thousands of miles so you can continue to live in the New York/New Jersey area?
The way to use technology to minimize the impact is to try to limit greenhouse gases.
1
Instead of “global warming” or “climate change” I suggest we use the term "Climate Instability." Anyone who watches a national newscast must be aware that new and dangerous weather patterns are manifesting throughout this country and across the globe. Even Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is publicly dismissive on the issues of changing climate, must notice the softball size hail destroying cars and buildings in Texas while his hometown of Houston under 2 feet of water.
9
I realize that the majority of NYT readers think that people who study the Bible and actually believe what it says are delusional, or even nuts, but I will offer this anyway. The Bible, both the old and new testaments, are very clear that as the end times of Earth, as we know it, approaches there will indeed be " A New Dark Age" . We are told that there will be a seven year period, referred to as the tribulation; filled with many wars, plagues, famine, evil and other ghastly things. Jesus Christ then returns to Earth and restores order out of chaos. Perhaps global warming is a precursor of this tribulation period.
And here we thought that Barack Obama was the Messiah just a seven short years ago.
It's just amazing how these predictions never seem to come to fruition.
It's just amazing how these predictions never seem to come to fruition.
2
it is difficult to accept this viewpoint as anything other than pablum, especially after noting that in real life, it often leads to very bad logic, the sense that anyone who disagrees is totally completely wrong and usually evil, and how much hypocrisy those who espouse these types of viewpoints engage in routinely. the amount of vehemence that is energized by this viewpoint is astounding until you get used to it.
The main purpose of this viewpoint is to provide emotional solace in a world that is just too hard to comprehend unless you like nuance and are capable of growing beyond what you were taught as a child. if you prefer to remain a child, this one is for you. and don't forget, there are other passages that can be interpreted in the opposite way.
The main purpose of this viewpoint is to provide emotional solace in a world that is just too hard to comprehend unless you like nuance and are capable of growing beyond what you were taught as a child. if you prefer to remain a child, this one is for you. and don't forget, there are other passages that can be interpreted in the opposite way.
5
Aren't we already in the time of these ghastly things, ongoing wars, plagues of ebola and zika, famine, using captives as suicide bombers, killing in the name of a deranged god, lies of Exxon denying their part in climate change since the late 70s, lies of the Republican party denying benefits of ACA, refusal to accept refugees, refusal to allow immigrants to stay in this country.
1
There are multiple levels of assumptions piled on top of even more assumptions in this article which essentially render its conclusions as rank speculation. While it is an interesting article about what might happen, by the article's own admission, there is no assurance that new patters will likely be other than "confusing and hard to identify." This is not to suggest that we stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best, but we also cannot be like Chicken Little and believe that the sky is falling.
I disagree with the assumption that, "as Earth warms, our historical understanding will turn obsolete faster than we can replace it with new knowledge." It is probably not an assumption that the Earth is going through a warming period. However, I do not feel compelled to assume that we will not be able to cope with the new issues this will raise. Humans have proven to be enormously resilient and creative. In the 200,000 years or so that homosapiens have been on the Earth, they have lived through much more dramatic changes than what we are likely to see in the next 1000 years and, maybe even 10,000 years.
I disagree with the assumption that, "as Earth warms, our historical understanding will turn obsolete faster than we can replace it with new knowledge." It is probably not an assumption that the Earth is going through a warming period. However, I do not feel compelled to assume that we will not be able to cope with the new issues this will raise. Humans have proven to be enormously resilient and creative. In the 200,000 years or so that homosapiens have been on the Earth, they have lived through much more dramatic changes than what we are likely to see in the next 1000 years and, maybe even 10,000 years.
2
"In the 200,000 years or so that homosapiens have been on the Earth, they have lived through much more dramatic changes..."
Survival is a pretty low bar to jump over.
Survival is a pretty low bar to jump over.
2
No, not at this pace. We've raised the level of CO2 past what it's been for the entire span of homo sapiens, and we've done it in less than 200 years.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-...
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-...
2
This is a ludicrous column. Global warming is occurring at a rate of 0.1 C per decade. That provides plenty of time for people to adapt. Civilization will not collapse because our previous expectations of the weather become increasingly inaccurate. We will revise our expectations and act accordingly. It is crazy prophesies like this that discredit the environmentalist cause.
7
Excellent op-ed. It shows that a new realism is taking hold. All past thought is being forced to respond to the reality of the possibility of the end of our species.
There is no time to waste. We need to reexamine the validity of eight thousand years of our social, political, religious and economic thought and the institutions that arose from that thought and separate out those originating presuppositions we have believed to be "inherent truths" that we are now discovering were built on non-sustainable ecological flaws.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
There is no time to waste. We need to reexamine the validity of eight thousand years of our social, political, religious and economic thought and the institutions that arose from that thought and separate out those originating presuppositions we have believed to be "inherent truths" that we are now discovering were built on non-sustainable ecological flaws.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
3
Repent! The end of the world is upon us! Or so say the climate alarmists. The climate is changing, and it always will be. Previous cold and hot spells have caused widespread famine - and they will again. Rather than focusing on trying to change the un changeable, society should focus on how to use technology to minimize the impact.
3
What an apt metaphor, Mr. Gail! The Dark Ages (AKA Middle Ages) were 900 to 1300 AD or so and most of it enjoyed a much more hospitable climate, world-wide, than we experience today. It was called the Medieval Warm Period and was indeed considerably warmer than today's global climate.
It was an era of agricultural fecundity. Grapes were grown (and wine made) in Britain, grain in Greenland. Population soared. And all this with lower than optimal CO2 concentrations.
Imagine the yields we'll see if temperatures do rise as anthropomorphic theory claims! What a wonderful world!
It was an era of agricultural fecundity. Grapes were grown (and wine made) in Britain, grain in Greenland. Population soared. And all this with lower than optimal CO2 concentrations.
Imagine the yields we'll see if temperatures do rise as anthropomorphic theory claims! What a wonderful world!
2
"It was called the Medieval Warm Period and was indeed considerably warmer than today's global climate."
Actually, this is demonstrably false.
Actually, this is demonstrably false.
Now I can say, "I've heard it all".
Global warming will make us dumb, perhaps it already has.
Global warming will make us dumb, perhaps it already has.
2
That's why the dumbest people are in Texas, Florida, and all parts south where red states prevail and people like Cruz can rise past their level of incompetence.
2
As many people have noted, Mother Earth won't suffer. She'll keep spinning in orbit ... hot, cold, windy, icy, oceanic, volcanic.
It's the people who will disappear.
It's the people who will disappear.
438
And those people will be taking most other life on the planet with them.
3
... and a large fraction of all biological species.
4
Oh, here am I
Wishing well is nearly running dry
Addicted to this way of lIfe,
The party's winding down
Sober up, or Mother's gonna shrug us off!
Oh, woe is me
Aren't so many fish left in the sea
Look at our predicament;
It can't have come to this, and yet~
Here we stand upon the precipice.
Wishing well is nearly running dry
Addicted to this way of lIfe,
The party's winding down
Sober up, or Mother's gonna shrug us off!
Oh, woe is me
Aren't so many fish left in the sea
Look at our predicament;
It can't have come to this, and yet~
Here we stand upon the precipice.
It is great these scientist can publish their "research".
The parameters or variables they never discuss are population growth and public health in reducing disease.
Look at the explosion in the worlds population which coincides with the disease theory of medicine. Germs cause disease.
Can the planet support 10 billion people with every person wanting gasoline powered car? Probably not.
Population is the problem. Not coal or oil.
The parameters or variables they never discuss are population growth and public health in reducing disease.
Look at the explosion in the worlds population which coincides with the disease theory of medicine. Germs cause disease.
Can the planet support 10 billion people with every person wanting gasoline powered car? Probably not.
Population is the problem. Not coal or oil.
5
"Our grandchildren could grow up knowing less about the planet than we do today."
LOL, that statement circles around and defeats itself. Our current so-called knowledge of the planet is recorded and will be available to our grandchildren, so they will have all that. That would give them at least What each generation learns is that the previous generation did not know what it thought it knew.
LOL, that statement circles around and defeats itself. Our current so-called knowledge of the planet is recorded and will be available to our grandchildren, so they will have all that. That would give them at least What each generation learns is that the previous generation did not know what it thought it knew.
1
One principle will always be true - the more humans on the planet the more trouble we, and all life forms, are in.
6
The hopelessness of these climate change doomsayers is so depressing!
Either humankind is TOTALLY at fault for climate change or we are not - which is it?
If it is the former, than just as there is cause for despair there is also cause for hope to make it better. So stop the hand wringing and moaning that is stressing us all out!
If we are not the cause, then we better start moving on from trying to change the weather and start adapting. I believe that this is the actual case, that there is more than just mankind at work in changes to the climate. Given that, I believe all these carbon emission control efforts will prove utterly futile - and is the equivalent of throwing money on a burning tropical rainforest. We should be putting our money in to adaption instead of transformation.
And cheer up - we'll all be dead eventually!
Either humankind is TOTALLY at fault for climate change or we are not - which is it?
If it is the former, than just as there is cause for despair there is also cause for hope to make it better. So stop the hand wringing and moaning that is stressing us all out!
If we are not the cause, then we better start moving on from trying to change the weather and start adapting. I believe that this is the actual case, that there is more than just mankind at work in changes to the climate. Given that, I believe all these carbon emission control efforts will prove utterly futile - and is the equivalent of throwing money on a burning tropical rainforest. We should be putting our money in to adaption instead of transformation.
And cheer up - we'll all be dead eventually!
22
It would be nice if people acknowledged there is a problem and tried to help. There are many obvious things that can be done, but attacking our understanding and working to promote ignorance isn't one of them.
As to altering the climate, we already know that has a variety of unintended consequences, and doesn't stop the problem, which will come back with renewed virulence once the 24/7 efforts fail, which they will.
"Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
Indulge us, and yourself.
Turn off the lights at night. Turn down the temperature when you are not home. Don't waste, Ignore marketing. What goes out of your drain is more important than your bacteria free counters.
Clean renewable energy (don't forget geothermal; use small hydro, wind, solar, local; not biomass or corn biofuels). Efficient vehicles. Gas prices won't stay low forever.
Please.
As to altering the climate, we already know that has a variety of unintended consequences, and doesn't stop the problem, which will come back with renewed virulence once the 24/7 efforts fail, which they will.
"Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
Indulge us, and yourself.
Turn off the lights at night. Turn down the temperature when you are not home. Don't waste, Ignore marketing. What goes out of your drain is more important than your bacteria free counters.
Clean renewable energy (don't forget geothermal; use small hydro, wind, solar, local; not biomass or corn biofuels). Efficient vehicles. Gas prices won't stay low forever.
Please.
7
Your totalitarian view is not very scientific. Would you care t state your qualifications for making this judgment?
I am no more or less qualified than these climate "scientist" who are the equivalent of Ptolemy and his earth-centric interpretation of the universe. Like back then, the climate change industry is about selling a set of beliefs that are barely grounded in scientific methods when looking at the spectrum of global changes seen over billions of year.
The cult of climate change has degenerated in to the science of hubris - to the detriment of real changes we should be effectuating, such as providing clean water and sanitary conditions to millions of our brothers and sisters in need.
The cult of climate change has degenerated in to the science of hubris - to the detriment of real changes we should be effectuating, such as providing clean water and sanitary conditions to millions of our brothers and sisters in need.
The climate change is certainly a serious matter, but I have been observing a Dark Ages in our societal climate as well. The advent of pervasive greed in our business dealings, the distrust of one another, where one's word means little, the fact that children are taught never to speak to a stranger, the neglect of getting to know your neighbors. This to me is the other serious "Dark Age".
10
Man will burn whatever he can get his hands on to stay warm or cool, generate electricity to run his gadgets, move himself through space, even at the risk of extinction.
The real problem facing the world and continued human existence is not humanities contribution to Climate Change (it's real), but our leadership, who naively believe that limiting emissions will solve the problem. We've passed the greenhouse gas tipping point and unless we have a commitment to develop CO2 removal technologies, allowing for repairing the damage already done to the atmosphere and oceans, we're toast.
The real problem facing the world and continued human existence is not humanities contribution to Climate Change (it's real), but our leadership, who naively believe that limiting emissions will solve the problem. We've passed the greenhouse gas tipping point and unless we have a commitment to develop CO2 removal technologies, allowing for repairing the damage already done to the atmosphere and oceans, we're toast.
108
Responded to the wrong comment above, about "fixing" the climate, here's the nub:
We already know that has a variety of unintended consequences, and doesn't stop the problem, which will come back with renewed virulence once the 24/7 efforts fail, which they will.
"Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
We already know that has a variety of unintended consequences, and doesn't stop the problem, which will come back with renewed virulence once the 24/7 efforts fail, which they will.
"Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
2
The biggest issue in attempting to mitigate global warming? "It's not my problem". The deniers care not one whit for their children or grandchildren. The deniers will be long dead when global warming moves from inconvenience to critical so it couldn't concern them less. The selfishness and unwillingness to admit that they were misled is not surprising from a rigid ideology which cares not if their fellow citizens are without food, shelter, healthcare. They believe that government has no right to tell them what to do, unless it involves a woman's right to reproductive freedom or who one is allowed to marry or which religion they choose to follow. The conservatives claim that everything they do is "for the children" but there could be nothing further from the truth. They deny prenatal care to pregnant women while espousing their concerns for the unborn, defund WIC and SNAP, of which the majority of recipients are children, cut funding for public education, vote in lockstep against raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing the continued impoverishment of children. They love their money and their gods (power and control) in that order. They deny the science not because they don't believe the science but because of an innate selfishness that will not allow sacrifice, no matter how minimal, for the greater good. The deniers know that the climate is changing and the earth is warming. The truth is they just couldn't care less.
292
Maybe is is a new Age of Englightenment looming and not a new Dark Age, as William Gail posits. The illustration to his column by Oliver Munday shows a field of ice which should be water or sea, covered with ice-skate scratch marks or meteorological patterns carved in the ice upon which a small dinghy or catboat sots with a little figure and one oar trying to row over the frozen wabe, Perhaps our very messy reality of climate change (denied by Luddites) is a signal that our earth's long life (but short in the big picture of eternity) is winding down and time is nigh for all of us - scientists and imaginative inventors to figure a getaway to another less hostile and more unplundered planet? Meanwhile, as the world turns, interesting suppositions of the ramifications of climate change, and an interesting political event is occuring in New York State for our strange contenders for the Presidency in this from here to eternity election season. A Yuge shark with two remoras attached on the Republican side, a merry can-do former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, wife of Bill Clinton, rich as Croesus, who is "entitled" to the Presidency, and a gruff crusty old guy, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont who is the God of Very Small Donors and is stirring up a revolution such as the one that Les Miz brought to the Bourbons in 1789
2
Human over population receives too little emphasis in this discussion. Too many people matched to too much over use for limited resources accelerated by climate change may well increase your time line. There could be a major human die off (disease or war or both) but personally I do not want to experience that option. Not to worry, I also suspect the GOP thinks they will be immune to any and all negative events. Denial is another aspect of greed.
222
"Human over population receives too little emphasis in this discussion."
You are right. And while we focus on economic growth there is little discussion of whether or how we can have economic growth without population growth. I see almost not discussion of this by Krugman, Baker, and other leading economists who write for the popular or semi-popular press.
You are right. And while we focus on economic growth there is little discussion of whether or how we can have economic growth without population growth. I see almost not discussion of this by Krugman, Baker, and other leading economists who write for the popular or semi-popular press.
3
I hate to tell you this, Mr Gail: no one cares. At least, no one with the power to affect great change cares. Humans aren't evolving, we are devolving....into a stupider, less enlightened 'drone society'. We are aware of sound and light, if emitted from a phone. We believe what we want to believe, and then we seek other drones who will repeat what we believe, into our increasingly desensitized ears. We are less emphathetic, less compassionate, and more convinced of our individual isolation than we ever have been. We are a virus, that dependably never mutates. We are the stuff of old science fictions novels, premises that we never believed could become reality.
308
Au contraire, mmcshane - there is one politician running for President who puts this issue front and center, and that is Bernie Sanders, who articulates it as the crisis that it is. All the others either don't mention it, or add it as an afterthought. Bernie is clear that the hour is late. Vote for him.
2
To this dark but real view I would add: "and we've always been this way". Yes, technology has changed, we know more, we are able to see more... but that has not changed who we are as a species. We gather together into large groups and create societies and rules, but when you look at the sheer numbers of people on this planet and how billions of them live I don't see any difference between the last Dark Age and the current one. We are as we've always been. We just have better stuff.
1
I look forward to learning more about the dynamics of climate, weather and the adaptability of life on earth as the planet warms. Warming may cause a few difficulties, but we stand to learn about terraforming, which could turn out to be useful at some point in the future.
So much depends on our ability to adapt. Humanity will have to learn to respond quickly and fluently to challenges that cannot be predicted.
That kind of fluidity is the opposite of what's grown in American politics for decades: a conservatism that denies change, and fights adapting to new conditions. But at least our younger generations of voters are showing more awareness and adaptability--our hope is with them.
That kind of fluidity is the opposite of what's grown in American politics for decades: a conservatism that denies change, and fights adapting to new conditions. But at least our younger generations of voters are showing more awareness and adaptability--our hope is with them.
2
Imagine a future where the political process no longer drives science and scientists to alter their conclusions to fit the narrative of the people who fund their research.
In other words imagine a future where the facts are not distorted, the data is not cooked, the information massaged and computer models are not monkeyed with to produce the "right" outcome.
We now know that Obama lied when he told the world that 2014 and 2015 were the hottest years on record, the truth is that they were not even in the top twenty.
We now know that Al Gore was wrong when he predicted that the glaciers would be gone by 2014, they are in fact expanding.
We now know that the polar ice caps didn't disappear in 2015 as predicted. They are both at their widest and thickest in modern history.
We now know that the ocean isn't rising, in fact is fell during the period 2012 to 2015.
We now know that the ocean deepest trenches are not a refuge for hidden increases in temperature.
Now if we could just get the prophets of gloom and doom to stop playing Chicken Little and stop playing the tune written by those seeking to make money off the false God of "Climate Change."
In other words imagine a future where the facts are not distorted, the data is not cooked, the information massaged and computer models are not monkeyed with to produce the "right" outcome.
We now know that Obama lied when he told the world that 2014 and 2015 were the hottest years on record, the truth is that they were not even in the top twenty.
We now know that Al Gore was wrong when he predicted that the glaciers would be gone by 2014, they are in fact expanding.
We now know that the polar ice caps didn't disappear in 2015 as predicted. They are both at their widest and thickest in modern history.
We now know that the ocean isn't rising, in fact is fell during the period 2012 to 2015.
We now know that the ocean deepest trenches are not a refuge for hidden increases in temperature.
Now if we could just get the prophets of gloom and doom to stop playing Chicken Little and stop playing the tune written by those seeking to make money off the false God of "Climate Change."
4
Denial knows no bounds. The planet could be on fire and there will be those saying, "Nope, don't see it". Reminds me of my stubborn uncle who continued smoking for many years despite the overwhelming evidence of its terrible health effects. He claimed that no one had ever "proved" that cigarettes cause cancer, etc. Now my uncle is on oxygen and in the last stages of emphysema. Wow, reality can hurt.
9
Yes, if we were capable of thinking ahead, the Times would be running stories about renewable energy technologies readily available, each of which could help us end the fossil-fuel age as concerns space heating. The Times provides no such stories.
Commenters by the 100s (see those for example at Stop A Pipeline for Fracked Gas-bad title I note here, no such thing as fracked gas) follow Times practice telling readers that solar and wind will never save us, thus showing their zero knowledge about other technologies).
Yes indeed predicting the earth's future is difficult but what is not so difficult is switching to renewable energy technologies now. And, if you can, watch the new Norwegian TV series "Ockupation" which is about the world wide consequences of a decision by a future Norway to shut down all its fossil-fuel production sites out in the North Sea. There are powerful forces who do not want to give up on fossil fuel.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
Commenters by the 100s (see those for example at Stop A Pipeline for Fracked Gas-bad title I note here, no such thing as fracked gas) follow Times practice telling readers that solar and wind will never save us, thus showing their zero knowledge about other technologies).
Yes indeed predicting the earth's future is difficult but what is not so difficult is switching to renewable energy technologies now. And, if you can, watch the new Norwegian TV series "Ockupation" which is about the world wide consequences of a decision by a future Norway to shut down all its fossil-fuel production sites out in the North Sea. There are powerful forces who do not want to give up on fossil fuel.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
4
The snake said it's OK to bite the apple....
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said... “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
hmmmmm, isn't turning out so well... so, maybe we aren't like God after all.....
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said... “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
hmmmmm, isn't turning out so well... so, maybe we aren't like God after all.....
4
This sounds worse, but not radically different from the world and culture we already are having to grapple with. Dysfunctional governments failing to competently regulate out of control business executives and volatile markets, a generation being raised to believe that knowledge of science, math, history geography, etc. are fundamentally irrelevant because everything one needs to know is but a few clicks or sweeps away on a ubiquitous and designed-for-addiction hand-held device, etc.
2
As usual, nothing but despair and gloom await. Of course a warming climate is necessarily bad in all dimensions, there is no possibility for saluatory impacts is there?
3
We are all confronting the ultimate moral hazard. Will we (i.e., our grandchildren) pay the price for the risks we took? Conservatives choose to ignore those future costs in their blind pursuit of small government and free and open markets. Environmentalists can only fashion dire warnings. Something cataclysmic, definitively caused by anthropogenic climate change, will need to happen soon for us to learn our lesson. We aren't getting bailed out from this calamity.
4
We Westerners think that science is going to save us from ourselves. Mr. Gail is pointing out the limits of science, which is based in part on knowledge of the past, but when patterns change, the past is no longer a reliable predictor.
Climate deniers are a convenient scapegoat, but we have all contributed to this problem and the blame game does not improve the situation. We do need to make the ecology an issue in the election so the next president will hopefully have a mandate to make real changes.
Climate deniers are a convenient scapegoat, but we have all contributed to this problem and the blame game does not improve the situation. We do need to make the ecology an issue in the election so the next president will hopefully have a mandate to make real changes.
3
I disagree on a number of points - science can inform - rapid response to disease, better policies on water use, addressing climate change. The inaction comes from lack of political will. This is something that does have a historical record. The right wing thinks that God will provide - remember Noah and the Ark.
1
Yes, losing our formerly known weather patterns to Climate Chaos disrupts every aspect of our modern civilization, an all-encompassing, nightmare version of "Who Moved My Cheese?" and brought these floods, droughts, heat, cold, fires, crop failure, etc.? Combined with increasing population - with many on the move due to Climate Chaos and political upheaval - and declining resources, we don't have time for "Hem" and "Haw" and "Deny", we'd better all be "Sniff" and "Scurry" and "Adapt" and "Mitigate" and "Innovate".
Food forests, widely diversified agricultural practices, sensible homes, yard gardens, energy conservation and sustainability,no more monocropping...the list of possibles is endless. Let's do it for the grandkids...
Food forests, widely diversified agricultural practices, sensible homes, yard gardens, energy conservation and sustainability,no more monocropping...the list of possibles is endless. Let's do it for the grandkids...
81
The greatest threat to humanity is too many humans which is the underlying driver of climate change or global warming. Our evolution, which includes our awareness, will need to come to the point of realization that we are too many. A progressive, peaceful, and purposeful means of reducing human population growth rate to zero then negative needs to be achieved if we are to survive as a specie.
5
Solar energy stored in fossil fuels for millions of years and released in just a few decades is contributing to global warming. Any type of change, including global warming, can provoke devastation but also offer opportunity. This change will have its downside but it will also open up vast areas of land to agriculture and human settlement. The melting of the ice in the Arctic Sea will provide shipping lanes where none exist today. Doomsayers are useful in that they act as an early warning system that provokes creative responses of human ingenuity. Will that be enough this time?
2
"Our grandchildren could grow up knowing less about the planet than we do today." That may be true. But one thing they will know is that the unstable world they are forced to live in is the result of the greed and avarice of those who went before.
4
I know the purpose of this column."The sky is falling,the sky is falling!!" The writer is simplistic in assuming it takes years or decades to understand weather patterns, centuries would be a better assumption. Droughts have never been predictable and probably won't be anytime soon. Irrigation is necessary in arid climates but also useful in temperate zones like the midwest.
The climate change boosters lose a lot of support because their goals are so intertwined with income redistribution and political agendas that have nothing to do with the science. I was in a museum recently that showed the coastline when the earth was 40 degrees warmer than today. It wasn't our fault then and even though the small increases are our fault today there is no political reality that we will stop it. Doubling the cost of energy to the USA will only give China and the rest of the world another nail to put in our coffin.
The climate change boosters lose a lot of support because their goals are so intertwined with income redistribution and political agendas that have nothing to do with the science. I was in a museum recently that showed the coastline when the earth was 40 degrees warmer than today. It wasn't our fault then and even though the small increases are our fault today there is no political reality that we will stop it. Doubling the cost of energy to the USA will only give China and the rest of the world another nail to put in our coffin.
2
There were not 7 billion people on the planet pumping billions often of carbon emissions into the atmosphere back then.
4
r rogers "The climate change boosters lose a lot of support because their goals are so intertwined with income redistribution and political agendas that have nothing to do with the science."
Every reader knows where this endlessly chanted 'opinion' comes from, 'r': a religious viewing of Fox News -- the network where truth dare not show its face -- and a devout memorization of its dogmas. Because honesty is such a drag.
Every reader knows where this endlessly chanted 'opinion' comes from, 'r': a religious viewing of Fox News -- the network where truth dare not show its face -- and a devout memorization of its dogmas. Because honesty is such a drag.
5
Go back to sleep, America, and disregard that liberal propaganda about global warming. It's being spouted by those people we once called Commies and probably was written someplace like Moscow. You need to buy another Suburban and keep barreling down the local interstate at speeds approaching 100 mph on your daily routines...go ahead. Who cares about stuff that'll happen when we're all reposing in a pine box 6 feet under anyway?
142
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm. We have grown in numbers and disturbance to Gaia, to the point where our presence is perceptively disturbing…the human species is now so numerous as to constitute a serious planetary malady. Gaia is suffering from Disseminated Primatemaia, a plague of people.”
James Lovelock
As E.O. Wilson said,“Darwin's dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
Prometheus in Greek means to know before. When I was a young boy I had great intuited visions that the world was headed to some sort of disaster in my lifetime
Therefore I cunningly chose not to procreate, to overcome my biological puppetry, to initiate my true free will, to deny Eros the most powerful force in nature. When I take my final breath, I'll not be leaving my babies to suffer for the folly of the Crazy Ape. I took the Greeks at their word. Theognis states: "the best for man were not to have been born and not to have seen the light of the sun; but, if once born the second best for him is to pass through the gates of death as speedily as may be”. The words of Theognis are re-echoed in the words of Sophocles in the Oedipus Coloneus "not to have been born exceeds every reckoning", or Socrates "death is life's greatest blessing"
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself
Philip Larkin, from "This Be The Verse" from High Windows
James Lovelock
As E.O. Wilson said,“Darwin's dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
Prometheus in Greek means to know before. When I was a young boy I had great intuited visions that the world was headed to some sort of disaster in my lifetime
Therefore I cunningly chose not to procreate, to overcome my biological puppetry, to initiate my true free will, to deny Eros the most powerful force in nature. When I take my final breath, I'll not be leaving my babies to suffer for the folly of the Crazy Ape. I took the Greeks at their word. Theognis states: "the best for man were not to have been born and not to have seen the light of the sun; but, if once born the second best for him is to pass through the gates of death as speedily as may be”. The words of Theognis are re-echoed in the words of Sophocles in the Oedipus Coloneus "not to have been born exceeds every reckoning", or Socrates "death is life's greatest blessing"
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself
Philip Larkin, from "This Be The Verse" from High Windows
5
Our ability to understand and cope with the effects of climate change will also suffer from the impact of the political and economic changes that follow in the wake of global warming. The availability of resources (including the amount of land mass) will increase in scarcity, triggering military conflicts and wholesale migrations of populations. If the comparatively small refugee problems caused by the crisis in Syria have unleashed such disruptions in Europe and the ME, imagine the instability that would be generated by the droughts and flooding of low-lying land areas associated with climate change.
Would governments facing such severe challenges divert resources to the scientific research that might enable us to cope more effectively with the consequences of our folly? An increase in military spending, in order to keep the 'barbarians' at the gate, might seem to most officials a better use of limited resources. Our western, liberal civilization probably could not survive such a crisis.
Would governments facing such severe challenges divert resources to the scientific research that might enable us to cope more effectively with the consequences of our folly? An increase in military spending, in order to keep the 'barbarians' at the gate, might seem to most officials a better use of limited resources. Our western, liberal civilization probably could not survive such a crisis.
3
What makes you think many of us have ever left the "Dark Ages". Look around the world. Look at how quickly Eastern Europe descended into barbarism (Bosnia and the breakup of Yugoslavia). Look at the hoards of refugees from the middle-east and the horn of Africa. Look at the Central African Republic and the constant warfare. Look at the treatment of women and the lgbt community in huge swaths of the world (Female Genital Mutilation is still practiced in a good chunk of the world). North Americans, and generally speaking Western Europeans and Scandinavia have largely left the dark ages and if anything have powerful central governments that to a great extent mute those urges and is mostly supported by cultures that mostly finds them abhorrent. However large parts of the world have only thin veneers that are very fragile and climate change, which the West will largely treat as a difficult challenge, will destroy those veneers. Those parts of the world will become very ugly. We've also seen with the Syrians and ISIS how the rest of us treat refugees too. The West will begin to see itself as an overcrowded lifeboat and react accordingly. The end will be scary, very, very scary.
11
I think my very strong resonance with this paper comes from having read Jared Diamond's book Collapse. People tried to keep going doing what they'd always done because it was what they knew. I am terrified by this piece - my pulse is up. I have grandchildren. We're awash in guns.
9
A few weeks ago the NYT published an op-ed piece by EO Wilson- arguably the leading life scientist and thinker in the world today. In it he proposed setting aside one half the land area and one half of our oceans to remain in their natural states. This should have ignited calls to action and discussion of hiw to do it, but lo, it seems it has not.
Hopefully today's article will help speed us toward that and other action.
Having studied the subject for over 20 years it is my opinion that halting deforestation and implementing reforestation and afforestation projects will be even more effective than leaving carbon in the ground.
Every new analysis that research provides seems to indicate that forests not only pull carbon out the air but that they stabilize the climate in profound and hitherto unexpected ways... Atmospheric moisture stabilization and simple direct shading as a couple of examples...but there are many more
"It's the trees stupid"
We did kind of , on a certain level, know this all along...
Hopefully today's article will help speed us toward that and other action.
Having studied the subject for over 20 years it is my opinion that halting deforestation and implementing reforestation and afforestation projects will be even more effective than leaving carbon in the ground.
Every new analysis that research provides seems to indicate that forests not only pull carbon out the air but that they stabilize the climate in profound and hitherto unexpected ways... Atmospheric moisture stabilization and simple direct shading as a couple of examples...but there are many more
"It's the trees stupid"
We did kind of , on a certain level, know this all along...
3
The problems are more urgent than the author suggests. Each and every day, civil engineers are designing and putting in place infrastructure that is expected to last 30, 40, 50 plus years. They're doing it based on the long-held assumption of stationarity: past conditions are reliable predictors of future conditions. Unfortunately because of climate change, "non-stationarity" is the new normal. Environmental conditions have changed and continue to change significantly in ways that are not readily predictable. As a result, the infrastructure we are designing today cannot be relied upon to be safe and functional throughout its design life. So, why don't we engineers change the assumption? Well, it ain't so easy! We work in a world where stationarity is a given. Civil engineering had become commoditized. All we need to know is in the handbooks. Predictability is expected. Unexpected environmental conditions is equated to poor planning and a basis for claims and litigation. Innovation is a punishable offense. Today's standard defense in these matters is, "Did you do your work like everyone else would have done it?" Regardless, civil engineers understand that we have to change our standards and practices and do so relatively quickly. Some of us design civil works that are more robust, resilient and adaptable. We build in redundancy. We question whether the project and even the system is right for the problems at hand. We're starting to act like, well, like real engineers.
11
Everything old is new again. Wow~
Do you mean the coming Dark Ages---or the media's willingness to give a forum to every fear-mongering crackpot with a new, arrogant theory about how Life As We Know It is about to end?
While those climate deniers, with all of those thousands of peer reviewed scientifically based studies to back them up (not!) are entirely ignored?
2
Our problem, as I see it, is that emotionally we are incapable of seeing the obvious and reacting to it in an intelligent way. Look at the trouble we're having dealing with global warming. The U.S., leader in pollution for many years, can't seem to sponsor or even sign a global warming agreement with the world. In fact, many of us continue to believe that there is no such thing. Our dark age will not be caused by lack of information, but our denial of the obvious and inability to act.
5
Ah, a new angle: so the Pollution Apocalypse, when it comes, will be the direct fault not of, say, China, which for many years has unscrupulously produced more pollution then the United States could if we tried, but the fault of the United States because we USED to be the world's number one polluter.
Weather patterns may change, but you can count on one thing: the New York Times and its readers will always blame America for whatever goes wrong!
Weather patterns may change, but you can count on one thing: the New York Times and its readers will always blame America for whatever goes wrong!
4
The "Dark Age" was an English invention, as real as King Arthur, and a myth we should cast off.
It reflected the fact that England was being invaded by people who spoke the Germanic languages, who were expanding from their homes in between the Rhine and Elbe, and from the coasts of Scandinavia, to ultimately reach North America, north Africa, and west Asia.
At the same time, the Arabic peoples were expanding from the Arabian peninsula across north Africa and west Asia to the point where they met the expanding Germanic peoples.
In contrast to the British myth, the Roman Empire continued to exist and thrive for most of this period as well, with its capital of Constantinople. Yes, it gets called the Byzantine Empire. But they called themselves Romans.
The Slavic peoples also migrated westward and southward, forming part of the trading network that extended from Greenland to Baghdad.
The Germanic, Arabic, Slavic, and eastern Roman civilizations flourished in these days. Just not the Romano-British who would evolve into the English. And if you were to ask the other inhabitants of the British Isles, the Irish, the Welsh, the Scots, about their "dark age", you'd probably find they consider the English to be the cause of it.
It reflected the fact that England was being invaded by people who spoke the Germanic languages, who were expanding from their homes in between the Rhine and Elbe, and from the coasts of Scandinavia, to ultimately reach North America, north Africa, and west Asia.
At the same time, the Arabic peoples were expanding from the Arabian peninsula across north Africa and west Asia to the point where they met the expanding Germanic peoples.
In contrast to the British myth, the Roman Empire continued to exist and thrive for most of this period as well, with its capital of Constantinople. Yes, it gets called the Byzantine Empire. But they called themselves Romans.
The Slavic peoples also migrated westward and southward, forming part of the trading network that extended from Greenland to Baghdad.
The Germanic, Arabic, Slavic, and eastern Roman civilizations flourished in these days. Just not the Romano-British who would evolve into the English. And if you were to ask the other inhabitants of the British Isles, the Irish, the Welsh, the Scots, about their "dark age", you'd probably find they consider the English to be the cause of it.
3
Thank you.
Most people still don't realize that the Roman Empire really didn't fall until 1453.
Most people still don't realize that the Roman Empire really didn't fall until 1453.
I'm somewhat taken aback by Mr. Gail's unfettered optimism. Political and economic instability, food and water scarcity, massive population displacement, new and virulent strains of pestilence, collapse of communication and transportation infrastructure, dwindling access to resources, inadequacy of sheltering systems, the deterioration of nuclear arsenal and material security and, of course, the wars that will result from all these pressures will result in shocking contractions of the earth's population and technological capabilities. Some pockets of humanity may survive in the form of feudal outposts or nomadic groups for a couple of generations, but before humanity can recover some level of cohesion reminiscent of where we are today, the planet will have become uninhabitable. Unless truly drastic measures are taken right now, our species will not be able to withstand the chaos that is surely coming. Let's stop pretending we are above extinction. We are not.
270
Everything will just move further north. Canada (with North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota...) will be the new bread basket of America. Crops will grow in northern Europe and Siberia. The mediterranean basin could be saved by enormous geo-engineering such as a dam at Gibraltar to control sea level. Desalination plants will ensure enough water for advanced mediterranean countries such as Italy, Spain and France.
But millions upon millions of people in the poorest and hottest parts of the world will suffer and die. Mass migrations will flood the rich (and cooler) countries.
Our civilization will survive, but the human cost will be enormous.
But millions upon millions of people in the poorest and hottest parts of the world will suffer and die. Mass migrations will flood the rich (and cooler) countries.
Our civilization will survive, but the human cost will be enormous.
1
Lots of foreboding here but little actual boding...credit to Roger Ebert.
3
Here they go again - more apocalyptic disasters just down the road starting with farmers and our food supply. How many times in the past hundreds of years has mankind been warned that mass starvation is ahead because not enough food can be grown to feed the planet's inhabitants? And just how many times have these predictions been proven wrong?
Yes today - the same folks predicting calamity also pressure against GMO's. Where's their science then? And of course they all oppose making nuclear energy - the only absolutely certain technology that can supply energy demands (say for all those future electric cars) for the world pollution free - and thus thwart climate change (or global warming) - where is their support for that solution?
There's nothing new in this Op-Ed Contribution. More doom and gloom we've been hearing since the collapse of the Roman empire.
Yes today - the same folks predicting calamity also pressure against GMO's. Where's their science then? And of course they all oppose making nuclear energy - the only absolutely certain technology that can supply energy demands (say for all those future electric cars) for the world pollution free - and thus thwart climate change (or global warming) - where is their support for that solution?
There's nothing new in this Op-Ed Contribution. More doom and gloom we've been hearing since the collapse of the Roman empire.
7
Attitudes about global climate change in my area are, very gradually, changing.
1) There's so such thing! The climate's always been the same and always will be! January snow in my Maine backyard proves it!
2) Of course the climate changes--it always has! Soon, every place on Earth will be comfortably warm with more plants growing. My Maine town's change from zone 4 to zone 3 proves this. I'm investing in palm tree seeds.
3) OK, global climate change will make a lot of lives worse (though not my own, so it doesn't matter). But it's not the fault of polluting corporations or individuals. God ordained it, so fluctuations have happened forever. "Warmists" are spreading lies just to make money. Those hypocrites take jet planes to their conferences!
4) It's happening in *my* area, so now it's real... and it's the liberals' fault! If they hadn't kept harping about it, we wouldn't have had to deny it all these years and might have tried to slow or stop it.
1) There's so such thing! The climate's always been the same and always will be! January snow in my Maine backyard proves it!
2) Of course the climate changes--it always has! Soon, every place on Earth will be comfortably warm with more plants growing. My Maine town's change from zone 4 to zone 3 proves this. I'm investing in palm tree seeds.
3) OK, global climate change will make a lot of lives worse (though not my own, so it doesn't matter). But it's not the fault of polluting corporations or individuals. God ordained it, so fluctuations have happened forever. "Warmists" are spreading lies just to make money. Those hypocrites take jet planes to their conferences!
4) It's happening in *my* area, so now it's real... and it's the liberals' fault! If they hadn't kept harping about it, we wouldn't have had to deny it all these years and might have tried to slow or stop it.
33
Talking about the future is a risky business. But addressing how the basis of the present state of affairs will be jeopardized going forward should command more attention - well done Mr. Gail
3
You really need to step back from the cliff. It is true that we do not know what the future will bring. There could be devastating environmentall disasters, the earth may be struck by a large meteor or maybe not. We really do not know what the future holds. We never did in the past either. The earths climate has a never been stable over extreme long periods of time. It is only because a human lifetime is so short that we have developed these theories that the climate is stable. You can walk through the shale pits in the mountains of Pennsylvania and find fossils of sea creatures. At one time the of taints of Pennsylvania were under water, now that is climate change! The fact that we see danger, death and distraction around every corner says ore about the fragility of the human psyche than it does about future environmental events.
6
Global warming is not only about fossil fuels. Our dependence on them is a symptom of a bigger problem, which is our consumer culture and its increasingly warp-speed consumption patterns.
For instance, technological advancements and software upgrades result in us replacing hardware sooner versus later on still serviceable tablets, PCs and printers. The younger adults I have met/observed in Asia buy a new mobile phone every one to two years. Most of the parts that make up these electronical gadgets cannot be recycled, and their accumulation in dumps - often located in developing countries where the poor collect the usable scraps – seems to be an afterthought.
We need technology and innovation to be sure. Though I wonder if the flipside to that encourages a disconnect between nature and our grandchildren if there isn’t some kind of balance in how we live and how we consume.
For instance, technological advancements and software upgrades result in us replacing hardware sooner versus later on still serviceable tablets, PCs and printers. The younger adults I have met/observed in Asia buy a new mobile phone every one to two years. Most of the parts that make up these electronical gadgets cannot be recycled, and their accumulation in dumps - often located in developing countries where the poor collect the usable scraps – seems to be an afterthought.
We need technology and innovation to be sure. Though I wonder if the flipside to that encourages a disconnect between nature and our grandchildren if there isn’t some kind of balance in how we live and how we consume.
5
Fear-mongering, yet again.
The Medieval Warming Period changed farmers' ability to predict what crops to grow, where to grow them, and when to reap and sow them - until the Little Ice Age. Yet humans and animals and plants continued forward. Vikings ventured to Greenland, Brits started growing grapes for wine.
The Little Ice Age destroyed farmers' ability to predict what crops to grow, where to grow them, and when to reap and sow them. And it did it over a decade or two. Yet humans and animals and plants continued forward. Vikings left Greenland, Brits stopped growing grapes for winemaking.
Stop propagandizing fear. Stop writing like Chicken-Little.
The Medieval Warming Period changed farmers' ability to predict what crops to grow, where to grow them, and when to reap and sow them - until the Little Ice Age. Yet humans and animals and plants continued forward. Vikings ventured to Greenland, Brits started growing grapes for wine.
The Little Ice Age destroyed farmers' ability to predict what crops to grow, where to grow them, and when to reap and sow them. And it did it over a decade or two. Yet humans and animals and plants continued forward. Vikings left Greenland, Brits stopped growing grapes for winemaking.
Stop propagandizing fear. Stop writing like Chicken-Little.
10
The wonderful thing today is: We have greater technology than the farmers and Vikings in the MWP and the LIA. We can conquer anything that Nature throws at us, especially as a result of access to cheap, plentiful energy, like that provided by fossil fuels and completely unlike that provided by so-called "renewables".
To paraphrase Alex Epstein: Nature doesn't provide a "safe" environment that humans end up making more "dangerous". Nature provides a dangerous environment - including climate changes - that humans are making safer. To wit, climate-related deaths have continuously decreased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
To paraphrase Alex Epstein: Nature doesn't provide a "safe" environment that humans end up making more "dangerous". Nature provides a dangerous environment - including climate changes - that humans are making safer. To wit, climate-related deaths have continuously decreased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
3
And millions died in the Great Famine, and prolonged malnutrition based on climate change food deprivation laid the ground work for the huge mortality rates of the Black Death. But heh, change happens, rights?
8
What's your point, izzy607? That millions of the poor in the Middle Ages died as a result of consequences of climate change they had neither the science nor the wealth to handle?
Today we are smarter and have access to cheap and plentiful energy - which are the best bulwarks against Nature and her unceasing attempts to kill every human being on the planet. The environmental movement today is dedicated to one goal: Sending humans back to the Stone Age. We could have nuclear power generators today, but for the rampant hatred of environmentalists for cheap, plentiful energy. See, they're afraid that with access to cheaper, more plentiful energy, humans will build more things to use that energy. And that would move us further away from the Stone Age. So their leading proponents yearn for a virus - like the Black Death - to kill off major segments of the population. But heh, death happens, rights?
Today we are smarter and have access to cheap and plentiful energy - which are the best bulwarks against Nature and her unceasing attempts to kill every human being on the planet. The environmental movement today is dedicated to one goal: Sending humans back to the Stone Age. We could have nuclear power generators today, but for the rampant hatred of environmentalists for cheap, plentiful energy. See, they're afraid that with access to cheaper, more plentiful energy, humans will build more things to use that energy. And that would move us further away from the Stone Age. So their leading proponents yearn for a virus - like the Black Death - to kill off major segments of the population. But heh, death happens, rights?
2
We humans are strange. We feel the lump in our throat and go to the doctor, yet refuse to believe anything is wrong until the phone call with the biopsy results. And then we despair.
The climate is our ultimate tumor, and yet many of us refuse to acknowledge that it is there. We certainly don't seem to want to hear the truth or plan for the worst. No, we'd rather just whistle past the graveyard...
The climate is our ultimate tumor, and yet many of us refuse to acknowledge that it is there. We certainly don't seem to want to hear the truth or plan for the worst. No, we'd rather just whistle past the graveyard...
164
There is no substantiated evidence of global warming. Remember in the '80s scientists were telling us that we were facing another ice age? Our weather is always changing, not just daily or seasonally, but cyclically, Even if there was evidence supporting another global warming, we have absolutely no evidence that it is man made. Our climate has cooled and warmed for centuries before man.
We hear that "Scientists all agree that the earth is warming and it is due to man." No, not all scientists agree to that.
Now, you could say, "What if we could prove that the earth is warming and will continue to do so, and mankind and fossil fuels are responsible? Shouldn't we consider that possibility and act accordingly?" I would compliment you for looking a few steps ahead--planning for possibilities (many decision makers in our gov't don't plan for contingencies, but, when things go south, they claim "unintended consequences"--completely foreseeable, but they just cross their fingers.) Sure, but playing Chicken Little is ridiculous. Ask experts (not gov't personnel) how we can responsibly cut back on fossil fuels, and how we can responsibly go about replacing them.
We hear that "Scientists all agree that the earth is warming and it is due to man." No, not all scientists agree to that.
Now, you could say, "What if we could prove that the earth is warming and will continue to do so, and mankind and fossil fuels are responsible? Shouldn't we consider that possibility and act accordingly?" I would compliment you for looking a few steps ahead--planning for possibilities (many decision makers in our gov't don't plan for contingencies, but, when things go south, they claim "unintended consequences"--completely foreseeable, but they just cross their fingers.) Sure, but playing Chicken Little is ridiculous. Ask experts (not gov't personnel) how we can responsibly cut back on fossil fuels, and how we can responsibly go about replacing them.
Not sure what is the purpose of this column but there may be several points of contention here.
Mr Gail seems to use words like 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' liberally when they can be replaced with phrases like 'data points.'
Recently, students at a Chinese middle school are sick because their school is built atop a toxic dump. That would be a data point if the world never heard of Love Canal in the U.S. But since the latter is well documented in any environmental science and history books, China fails by not learning from the knowledge and wisdom of history.
So pattern recognition is just basic. Agreeing with Mr Gail, with the advent of data collection like Big Data and machine learning, and even A.I., we are getting more and more data, but we need to be able to digest and learn from them in the deepest sense. Otherwise, garbage in and garbage out.
Mr Gail mentions about feeding the population. The truth is that this is indeed the land of Milk & Honey. Without going into nutrition politics like debating paleo or not - after all, I do eat meat and I enjoy splurging on occasions - my suspicion is that the world is producing enough to feed everyone, human or not, if we learn not to hoard. And that kind of learning doesn't require pattern recognition but deep understanding humanity as we evolve into a more enlightened species
Mr Gail seems to use words like 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' liberally when they can be replaced with phrases like 'data points.'
Recently, students at a Chinese middle school are sick because their school is built atop a toxic dump. That would be a data point if the world never heard of Love Canal in the U.S. But since the latter is well documented in any environmental science and history books, China fails by not learning from the knowledge and wisdom of history.
So pattern recognition is just basic. Agreeing with Mr Gail, with the advent of data collection like Big Data and machine learning, and even A.I., we are getting more and more data, but we need to be able to digest and learn from them in the deepest sense. Otherwise, garbage in and garbage out.
Mr Gail mentions about feeding the population. The truth is that this is indeed the land of Milk & Honey. Without going into nutrition politics like debating paleo or not - after all, I do eat meat and I enjoy splurging on occasions - my suspicion is that the world is producing enough to feed everyone, human or not, if we learn not to hoard. And that kind of learning doesn't require pattern recognition but deep understanding humanity as we evolve into a more enlightened species
50
Maybe...
Naf 86yrold exTechie
Naf 86yrold exTechie
Try rereading the article again. Climate change isn't about moving from A to B but about constant disruption and change. Don't underestimate the incredible value of accumulated knowledge and practices. Democracy itself depends on it. Our current system evolved over centuries and we could not replace it accurately in all its detail.
3
Mr only quibble with this comment is that the problem with food production and distribution is political. I have read authoritative sources claiming that we easily have the capacity to produce enough food for the human population in a sustainable way, but we don't use it for basically "business model" reasons. Further, it has been claimed that as much as 40% of the food that is produced is wasted, apparently at each stage of production/distribution.
3
Would you please correct the impression that, with business as usual, we will be slightly inconvenienced in the future. In scientific terms, we will not be seeing a linear response to our pollution, but rather a non-linear one. A tipping point is fast approaching, beyond which we have run-away Global Warming. Even if we bring Carbon emissions to zero, it won't matter.
What are some of the things we'll see? Air travel will become too dangerous. CAT, or clear air turbulence will disrupt travel. We are already seeing planes crash on landing when they get stuck in storms. Surface winds will become so strong they will fling boulders into our houses and infrastructure. For safety, we'll have to move into underground shelters. Heat waves above 130 to 160 degrees F will become common place and kill tens of thousands per event.
Why are we trying to extinct our own species when we have readily available alternatives to energy in solar? It's past time to leave unburned Carbon in the ground and move on.
What are some of the things we'll see? Air travel will become too dangerous. CAT, or clear air turbulence will disrupt travel. We are already seeing planes crash on landing when they get stuck in storms. Surface winds will become so strong they will fling boulders into our houses and infrastructure. For safety, we'll have to move into underground shelters. Heat waves above 130 to 160 degrees F will become common place and kill tens of thousands per event.
Why are we trying to extinct our own species when we have readily available alternatives to energy in solar? It's past time to leave unburned Carbon in the ground and move on.
300
Oh my! Boulders flung into our homes? This is far out!
3
I have tried for many years to convey the concept and implications of the non-linear aspect of many/most processes in nature (such as that non-linear dynamic system that is the weather) to my siblings and friends. I have used such analogies as the transition from laminar to turbulence as one slowly raises the temperature of water in a pot sitting on a stove. I have failed in all attempts. The responses I usually elicit appear to resemble talking points taken from Fox 'news'. I hate to say it, we are doomed.
7
Look at what just happened in Texas, first with the baseball-sized hail and then fifteen inches of rain in just a few hours with water rising so quickly that people died. The hail was like a rain of missiles slamming into every car and house and people if you weren't lucky to find shelter. Very dangerous.
Yes, I agree that it will be much worse than this writer suggests.
Yes, I agree that it will be much worse than this writer suggests.
6
peak oil, what about peak ice melt. earthquakes just days ago left survivors homeless, that ice melted will leave a billion landless and without former cooling. Glacial scoring evidenced widely should take this scenario into the possible and motivate a political revolution all its own.
27
Good point Eddies... The inexorable melting of glaciers will, in the not too distant future, deprive many of today's top food producing areas with their water supply.
3
Would that we could extend the lives of the global warming deniers into the next century. Into the next Dark Age. Put them in the dock before the court of the world, and demand to know why they didn't do all the things they should have done. But we can't. Mortal lives being what they are by the time the new Dark Age arrives they will have long escaped justice.
175
All we need is significant life extension on top of runaway population growth.
4
Oh please. Are you and your family using a car, bus, train or plane? Or cooking, heating and cooling with gas or electric? Short of going to live in the wild and off the land, we are all culpable - that's if there is any credence to manmade climate change.
The reality is that discerning between the natural and manmade in alleged climate change is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Given that, instead of trying to transform the planet back to its former pristine beauty - as if - we need to start adapting. Which we'll do with our usual aplomb.
Excelsior mankind!
The reality is that discerning between the natural and manmade in alleged climate change is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Given that, instead of trying to transform the planet back to its former pristine beauty - as if - we need to start adapting. Which we'll do with our usual aplomb.
Excelsior mankind!
2
Why wait? Perhaps you & your like-minded friends could convene a New Inquisition right now, so that you might hunt down and execute all those annoying folks who fail to agree with you.... Oh, wait: there are many such places operating across America: check the nearest leftist university.
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Concern....
Nothing quite like seething hatred of humanity disguised as Concern....
3
And the GOP's head's in the sand
Will nothing make them understand?
As up problems pile
They stick with denial
Proclaim a vast Hoax through the Land.
All children/grandchildren they doom
To a life of gargantuan gloom,
But coal and oil dealing
Runs on cash not feeling
And so a new Dark Age does loom!
Will nothing make them understand?
As up problems pile
They stick with denial
Proclaim a vast Hoax through the Land.
All children/grandchildren they doom
To a life of gargantuan gloom,
But coal and oil dealing
Runs on cash not feeling
And so a new Dark Age does loom!
303
Well done, Larry.
Azizen Pesach !
Azizen Pesach !
3
to Socrates
adank
adank
3
Tsu gezunt, Larry !
3