I agree 100 percent we are massively overpopulated and would just add that overconsumption by a minority, particularly the billionaire class, is equally troublesome. And of course predatory capitalism ties to that. Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine is my go to on that subject. There is no one source for complete information, Oxford or Stockholm, one of the reasons I peppered the article with many other links. Hell, on the rare occasions something from Fox or the NY Post lines up, I love it. I remember Elliot from Twitter, and have run across that Hiroshima comparison in a few places, boggling. Yup, Greenland ice sheet is done, and the Pentagon knew what was going on by 1990! I've touched on both of those issues. COP29 is coming up, and they are planning to expand oil production (I know, surprising). I hope to be as sarcastic as I was on COP28. Yes, screaming time is here. Watching the madness is infuriating. My theory is they want us dead, and I'm not joking. There's a gruesome logic to it. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/circumstantial-evidence
Why do you suppose these “COP” shows keep going on, Geoffrey? The petro-ghouls are running the show. Is there any value to be gleaned in future COP’s, outside of networking?
Thanks, Geoff, but I've seen this very incomplete report before. I totally omits the three most important elements of climate collapse, which, BTW, we are well into NOW: massive human overpopulation (3,000 times more numerous than were our last ecologically balanced and self-sustaining population--migratory Hunter-Gatherers/pastoralists), overconsumption driven by predatory capitalism, and atmospheric/land/ocean heat accumulation. The GHGs (CO2, water vapor, etc.) are responsible for a minor part of global heat accumulation, and nowhere is the central issue of heat production addressed. According to the calculations of polymath Eliot Jacobson, we are currently generating the heat energy equivalent of 20-30 Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. Nowhere have I seen a thorough accounting of heat energy production, and this piece from Oxford is equally lacking. For any nonbelievers, Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice, as it captures 144 BTUs of heat energy/pound, hourly, and if that's not a "canary in the coal mine" indicator of our massive overproduction of heat energy, I don't know what else could possibly be more stark. The fossil fuel industry and, perhaps, a terrified Pentagon, do not want the general public to find out just how far down the road to total climate collapse we have already willfully blindly stumbled. Time to wake up the truth tellers and start screaming from every house top!
The report is regularly updated Greeley. All that you've listed is incorporated into the climate change section. It doesn't detail every nuance of the problem because it would be too large to read. But, the science of it all underpins the words. Same for each section. It's a summary.
Annual global ice loss is 1.2 trillion tons, 3.3 billion tons per day, per the gold standard for climate research reporting: C3S (EU). They predict that 2/3rds of the world's 220,000 glaciers will be gone by 2,100. Remember, this melting ice is the first stage of our global temp regulation system, as in the hydrological system that is our primary cooling mechanism, and it's overwhelmed with the massive amount of heat energy we are generating, primarily from burning fossil fuels, but ALL sources of energy mined by humans are also generating heat. This story has been sequestered in the MSM and you'll never find it in the academic press either. Search the net and come to your own conclusions. I start with C3S, as it is an independent and has no political controllers, like here in the US.
You may also wish to see their "Fall Report". They are an independent agency of the EU, unlike here in the US with NOAA or the NWS. They give a totally different and more urgent and honest analysis of climate collapse (my term).
I'm really tired of hearing that the Earth is about to run out of oil, and that hydrogen power will save us. It is obvious bullshit coming from oil companies to pacify us. Oil companies are not going to run out of oil, natural gas, and methane, before life on Earth is cooked to death. And hydrogen power is decades away from being turned into a practical energy source. Somehow, we've got to stop the big oil companies and their cheerleaders and enablers like Donald Trump and the libertarians.
Even if Harris is the lesser of two evils - I am voting for Harris trying to save ALL life on Earth. She might help diminish global warming sources. We can't let our principles get in the way of the overall ethical choice.
The daily normal high in Buffalo on October 22nd is 57F, not 31F to 41F as you suggest. You can look up that climatological fact - among many others - here: https://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/wxstation/nowdata.html. Your work is good but if you’re going to be commenting on climate warming, you should have a handle on what the current averages are.
I moved back to Buffalo after over 30 years away about three years ago, and the change in the weather is profound. When I was here in college, October was mostly 20s and 30s and summers rarely broke 80. Check out these links.
Do read: Rees,W.E. The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major Population Correction’ Is Inevitable. World 2023, 4, 509–527. at https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030032
Hi Kathleen. I actually had this bookmarked in my "overpopulation" folder, but never entirely read the paper. I probably found it in researching an article where it didn't apply. I've begun digging into it. Excellent analysis and insights. It appears to connect all the dots. I'm through the first few sections, and could see boiling it down to something shorter and friendlier here, pretty much my purpose for this Substack. Thank you.
Geoffrey, do be careful with this paper, I grade it B- and "needs improvement." See reviewer's reports. Dr. Rees has many excellent points (which I agree with) but often draws inadequately supported conclusions. This needs a rewrite!
Thanks. I approach most information with caution and look for corroborating evidence. Many times the science itself is being argued, and lately it's coming out that much of the computer modeling has been too conservative. Like you, so far I have read excellent points that support what I know and have learned over the last three plus year and like that he touches on the behavioral aspect of the mess we have created.
What I get from all the environmental stuff is that ..yes…we are having some impact of the planet,
But it needs to be calibrated with the level of risk and recovery…. And it may not be at a critical level.
Its also interesting that climate change scores far less than other categories of environmental issues.
In most every class of issue as society becomes more prosperous the ability to manage the impact improves exponentially.
So, our prime goal through current capabilities and new technology and social plans is to move toward prosperity as quickly as practical.
This means we must support the most effective methods and tools to get everyone up the prosperity curve and focus on human flourishing factors.
This means using fossil fuels and slowly evolving to other energy forms when they we are “entitled” to be used and not before, or we go backward on the real driver which is prosperity.
This means pushing anything other than some focused adaption to any of the issues until technology and prosperity intersect.
So… In practical terms this means halting NetZero until we have the alternative energy technologies 100% in place.. and that’s going to take quite a while.
The book FOSSIL FUTURE by ALEX EPSTEIN is a good read on this policy balance.
I agree 100 percent we are massively overpopulated and would just add that overconsumption by a minority, particularly the billionaire class, is equally troublesome. And of course predatory capitalism ties to that. Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine is my go to on that subject. There is no one source for complete information, Oxford or Stockholm, one of the reasons I peppered the article with many other links. Hell, on the rare occasions something from Fox or the NY Post lines up, I love it. I remember Elliot from Twitter, and have run across that Hiroshima comparison in a few places, boggling. Yup, Greenland ice sheet is done, and the Pentagon knew what was going on by 1990! I've touched on both of those issues. COP29 is coming up, and they are planning to expand oil production (I know, surprising). I hope to be as sarcastic as I was on COP28. Yes, screaming time is here. Watching the madness is infuriating. My theory is they want us dead, and I'm not joking. There's a gruesome logic to it. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/circumstantial-evidence
Why do you suppose these “COP” shows keep going on, Geoffrey? The petro-ghouls are running the show. Is there any value to be gleaned in future COP’s, outside of networking?
At this point it's all networking. There's barely any pretense of concern anymore, but they'll talk solar and wind as if they're doing something.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/23/cop29-host-azerbaijan-set-for-major-fossil-gas-expansion-report-says
Thanks, Geoff, but I've seen this very incomplete report before. I totally omits the three most important elements of climate collapse, which, BTW, we are well into NOW: massive human overpopulation (3,000 times more numerous than were our last ecologically balanced and self-sustaining population--migratory Hunter-Gatherers/pastoralists), overconsumption driven by predatory capitalism, and atmospheric/land/ocean heat accumulation. The GHGs (CO2, water vapor, etc.) are responsible for a minor part of global heat accumulation, and nowhere is the central issue of heat production addressed. According to the calculations of polymath Eliot Jacobson, we are currently generating the heat energy equivalent of 20-30 Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. Nowhere have I seen a thorough accounting of heat energy production, and this piece from Oxford is equally lacking. For any nonbelievers, Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice, as it captures 144 BTUs of heat energy/pound, hourly, and if that's not a "canary in the coal mine" indicator of our massive overproduction of heat energy, I don't know what else could possibly be more stark. The fossil fuel industry and, perhaps, a terrified Pentagon, do not want the general public to find out just how far down the road to total climate collapse we have already willfully blindly stumbled. Time to wake up the truth tellers and start screaming from every house top!
The report is regularly updated Greeley. All that you've listed is incorporated into the climate change section. It doesn't detail every nuance of the problem because it would be too large to read. But, the science of it all underpins the words. Same for each section. It's a summary.
Your arrogance is duly noted.
Wow. OK.
Don't forget. We're on the same team.
Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice an hour? JHFC! I can’t even wrap my brain around this. Talk about unsustainable. Color me gobsmacked,
Greeley.
Annual global ice loss is 1.2 trillion tons, 3.3 billion tons per day, per the gold standard for climate research reporting: C3S (EU). They predict that 2/3rds of the world's 220,000 glaciers will be gone by 2,100. Remember, this melting ice is the first stage of our global temp regulation system, as in the hydrological system that is our primary cooling mechanism, and it's overwhelmed with the massive amount of heat energy we are generating, primarily from burning fossil fuels, but ALL sources of energy mined by humans are also generating heat. This story has been sequestered in the MSM and you'll never find it in the academic press either. Search the net and come to your own conclusions. I start with C3S, as it is an independent and has no political controllers, like here in the US.
The ice sheet formed around 300 ppm of CO2. We've been over that before such records were kept, beginning in 1959. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/the-greenland-ice-sheet-is-gone
Doing my search for C3S now, Greeley. Thanks.
A standard Google search should get it, if not, try "Copernicus Climate Change Service". Good hunting. My fav is the "Climate Pulse" page.
It popped right up in position 1 of my search.
You may also wish to see their "Fall Report". They are an independent agency of the EU, unlike here in the US with NOAA or the NWS. They give a totally different and more urgent and honest analysis of climate collapse (my term).
I'm really tired of hearing that the Earth is about to run out of oil, and that hydrogen power will save us. It is obvious bullshit coming from oil companies to pacify us. Oil companies are not going to run out of oil, natural gas, and methane, before life on Earth is cooked to death. And hydrogen power is decades away from being turned into a practical energy source. Somehow, we've got to stop the big oil companies and their cheerleaders and enablers like Donald Trump and the libertarians.
Absolutely not. I will not vote for Holocaust Harris. She's a monster and she is all good with fracking too.
And your alternative?
Petrocommunism. And if you don't know what that is, check out my substack.
Even if Harris is the lesser of two evils - I am voting for Harris trying to save ALL life on Earth. She might help diminish global warming sources. We can't let our principles get in the way of the overall ethical choice.
The daily normal high in Buffalo on October 22nd is 57F, not 31F to 41F as you suggest. You can look up that climatological fact - among many others - here: https://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/wxstation/nowdata.html. Your work is good but if you’re going to be commenting on climate warming, you should have a handle on what the current averages are.
I moved back to Buffalo after over 30 years away about three years ago, and the change in the weather is profound. When I was here in college, October was mostly 20s and 30s and summers rarely broke 80. Check out these links.
https://weatherspark.com/h/m/20372/1979/10/Historical-Weather-in-October-1979-in-Buffalo-New-York-United-States#Figures-Temperature
https://weatherspark.com/h/m/20372/1980/10/Historical-Weather-in-October-1980-in-Buffalo-New-York-United-States#Figures-Temperature
Also, the blizzard we got two winters ago was because Lake Erie was not frozen over. That was not the case in 1977. Climate change is here in Buffalo.
I do appreciate people keeping me on my toes though!
Do read: Rees,W.E. The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major Population Correction’ Is Inevitable. World 2023, 4, 509–527. at https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030032
My next post is: Requiem for Humanity.
Hi Kathleen. I actually had this bookmarked in my "overpopulation" folder, but never entirely read the paper. I probably found it in researching an article where it didn't apply. I've begun digging into it. Excellent analysis and insights. It appears to connect all the dots. I'm through the first few sections, and could see boiling it down to something shorter and friendlier here, pretty much my purpose for this Substack. Thank you.
Geoffrey, do be careful with this paper, I grade it B- and "needs improvement." See reviewer's reports. Dr. Rees has many excellent points (which I agree with) but often draws inadequately supported conclusions. This needs a rewrite!
Thanks. I approach most information with caution and look for corroborating evidence. Many times the science itself is being argued, and lately it's coming out that much of the computer modeling has been too conservative. Like you, so far I have read excellent points that support what I know and have learned over the last three plus year and like that he touches on the behavioral aspect of the mess we have created.
What I get from all the environmental stuff is that ..yes…we are having some impact of the planet,
But it needs to be calibrated with the level of risk and recovery…. And it may not be at a critical level.
Its also interesting that climate change scores far less than other categories of environmental issues.
In most every class of issue as society becomes more prosperous the ability to manage the impact improves exponentially.
So, our prime goal through current capabilities and new technology and social plans is to move toward prosperity as quickly as practical.
This means we must support the most effective methods and tools to get everyone up the prosperity curve and focus on human flourishing factors.
This means using fossil fuels and slowly evolving to other energy forms when they we are “entitled” to be used and not before, or we go backward on the real driver which is prosperity.
This means pushing anything other than some focused adaption to any of the issues until technology and prosperity intersect.
So… In practical terms this means halting NetZero until we have the alternative energy technologies 100% in place.. and that’s going to take quite a while.
The book FOSSIL FUTURE by ALEX EPSTEIN is a good read on this policy balance.
More at https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/netzero-versus-prosperity