There is no point to a planet without human beings; yet we are constantly browbeaten with nonsense about how bad humans are for the planet.

This contributor does say "The biggest threat to our own survival is the combined effect of our own successful propagation and our natural desire to improve our standard of living, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere …..", which is a welcome change from the orthodox hysteria about an essential gas. But, what is he going to do about it? Diddly squat, just like the people who could do something but don't. If the problem is too many people, there is no point in preaching to educated Westerners who are not the ones doing the unsustainable breeding. If nature had been allowed to take its course, and the do-gooders in the West had stopped interfering in the Third World, including sponsoring mass immigration to the West, we wouldn't have the problems we do have now.

ttbn,
> There is no point to a planet without human beings;
There'd be a lot less point, but not none at all. Other life is not completely worthless.

>yet we are constantly browbeaten with nonsense about how bad humans are for the planet.
On the contrary, we are occasionally reminded of the valid point about how much damage humans are doing to the planet. The damage is not due to any intrinsic feature of humans, but rather the decisions that humans are currently making. Once your generation die off, there will be a lot less intransigence and the problems are likely to be addressed quite quickly. But the task will be a lot greater due to the damage that's occurring in the meantime.

If nature had been allowed to take its course, the problems would probably be much worse, as it would still be the norm to have many children in the hope that some of them would survive.

As for the article, it's deeply flawed. I'll explain why later today.

Seems like a well informed sane assessment of the humanly caused situation of Earthkind in the "21st century".
This essay provides the same assessment.
http://www.da-peace.org/excerpt-two-is-not-peace

Numerous corroborative references: http://www.beezone.com/news.html

This essay provides a radical (meaning going to the root) critique of the now world dominant Western power-and-control-seeking (scapegoat) mind which has caused this situation.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

There is no point to a planet without human beings;

I'd be inclined to say that there's no point in some humans on this planet !

A sober piece of logic by the author.

Climate change is fraught with complications of its many parts. That is why there is major disagreement in looking for solutions.

Politicians dishing up quasi solutions to imagined problems, is a bigger problem in itself.

What concerns me is who pays the piper. Invariably, that’s not the piper himself, which turns the whole subject of climate change into a dogs breakfast of capitalism, which in turn throws the burden of what is politically displayed as essential change, onto those with the least power to absorb the cost.

What highlights my conclusion is best displayed by flicking back through the pages of history a little way, to Julia Gillards “cash for clunkers” scheme.

It is hard to imagine Gillard driving her idea of an offending vehicle, so it is acceptable then, to cast the real cost of change onto those least capable of controlling outcomes inflicted upon them, by politicians desperate for votes at the least cost.

Dan

Sadly the author, who claims to be an earth scientist, omits a major historical driver of climate change. The flipping of the earths magnetic polarity.

Shouldn't an earth scientist have detailed knowledge of this apparently recurring event and its effect on the earth's environment and specifically its effects on climate.

Surely that is scientific.

With the currently recorded facts the earth's magnetic poles are moving and appear to be in the process of flipping shouldn't scientists at least acknowledge this major influence or is it that earth scientists haven't yet explored this event?

Or perhaps memory deficient illigimate temporary Pres Joe might just order flipping polarity to stop.

That would work as that's something Trump never did or would do.

hahaha

"There is no point to a planet without human beings;"

On a planet without humans there'd be no creature with the wherewithal to ask if there was any point to anything. It'd be a planet teeming with utterly unknowing lifeforms, none of which would be asking "what's the point".

THE point is that only a human brain can ponder what the point might be.

Its a pretty good summary of the issues which, when looked at this dispassionately, come into focus as being far from urgent and far from insurmountable.

Just a couple of points...

"Deforestation continues on a large scale across the planet..."

Well not quite. Deforestation continues in parts of the planet but not across the planet. Oceania, which is basically us, has shown an increase in forest cover this century. Equally, the US/Canada have shown an increase. The main reason the globe has suffered a small decline in forest cover is the deforestation in Africa and South America.

Likewise, overall, the global has shown an increase in vegetation cover this century.

So two things can be surmised from that. 1. The author's fear about oxygen levels is misplaced. 2. Rich countries increase their forest cover, poor countries don't. So solve the problem by making the poor countries richer.

Similarly, while the author talks about 'we' adding plastics to the ocean, the fact is that the vast majority of those plastics come from developing Asian nations - China primarily. So in the same way we can't do much about their decisions continue to burn coal, there's bugger all we can do to stop them dumping plastic in their rivers. So fret all you want but our efforts are futile.

Overall though a pretty good summary of the situation.

A better dissertation than the average, but still far too green tinged to be taken seriously.

For example he goes on about plastics in the ocean. "Great Garbage Patch in the north Pacific - a concentrated soup of microplastics, or tiny fragments less than 5 mm across. It is 3 times the size of France and was discovered in 1997", & presents it as a major problem.

He fails to mention that when a greenie expedition went out to photograph & publicize it, they found not islands of plastic, but nothing. It was only by dragging a micro sized net through the water that were able to gather anything.

He then ignores the fact that it has been recently discovered there are a number of microbes that are happily consuming this plastic, & growing in number as the feed source increases.

Surely this is a garbage control problem, if it is really any sort of problem, not a reason to stop using the most useful material yet developed by man. I doubt that a little inert plastic is any worse for them when ingested by fish, than the sand you find they have ingested naturally. Meanwhile the entire modern medical system would cease to exist without a host of specialist plastics, as would our entire safe food storage systems.

Charles Hemmings,
>Although caution is recommended, we should not panic about climate changes that we
>may not have any control over and needlessly sacrifice the quality of living on the planet

The panic thing is a strawman; everyone knows it's unproductive. People such as Greta Thumberg are trying to induce action, not panic.

Doing nothing is a much much much bigger threat to quality of life than taking action.

>Since the Industrial Revolution the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased
>from about 200 ppm to 400 ppm
The generally accepted figure is only a 50% rise, from 280ppm to 420ppm.

>and is considered an anthropogenic effect, which is a reasonable assumption but not proven fact.
How is it not a proven fact when calculations have shown that the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned is more than enough to account for the rise?

>Although the concentration of carbon dioxide has doubled since the Industrial
>Revolution, this increase of 200ppm is equivalent to 0.02% absolute change in the
>concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is a miniscule change in concentration.

THAT'S A RED HERRING! The amount of non greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doesn't stop the greenhouse gases from having the effect they do. But expressing the 50% increase in CO2 concentration in terms of percentage of the total atmosphere makes it difficult for the feeble minded (such as yourself) to comprehend the huge effect it's having (as evidenced by the doubts you repeatedly express based on the claim that it's "miniscule").

BTW any figure expressed as a percentage is relative, not absolute.

(tbc)

Charles Hemmings (continued)
>There are other greenhouse gases, like methane, but the increase in carbon dioxide is
>singled out due to our dependence on combustion of fossil fuels, emitting carbon dioxide.

Wrong! The increase in carbon dioxide is singled out because it's got such a bigger impact on climate. Apart from water vapour (which wrks at the atmosphere can hold)s a feedback mechanism because increasing temperatures increase how much of it the atmosphere can hold) CO2 is dominant because there's so much more of it. But the other greenhouse gases are not ignored, and their effect is often calculated in terms of CO2 equivalent.

You're also clueless on energy! The high capital cost of wind power is not ignored at all, and is one of the reasons why the renewables' market share is still fairly low. But the economics have changed, and new coal is already economically unviable (as well as being environmentally unacceptable, being much higher than from anything accept old coal). China's investment in coal power certainly won't pay off, but continues for political reasons albeit at a reduced pace.

mhaze is correct about plastic.

Actually _you're_ wrong Aidan. CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere while water vapour is between 0.2% and 4%. So water is between 500% and 1000% more prevalent. https://sciencing.com/percentage-water-vapor-atmosphere-19385.html On top of that water absorbs more infrared energy than CO2 https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/CO2_Versus_Water.html. Combination of these makes water vapour much more significant than CO2 in terms of warming the earth.

On top of that the ability of both to absorb IR decreases per additional unit of either molecule in the atmosphere, which means the effect is logarithmic. We could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for a trivial increase in temperature of around 1.5 degrees. And then double it again for the same effect

GrahamY,
Your claim that I'm wrong is due to a lack of comprehension on your part, as I acknowledged the role of water vapour. However I concede that was rather unclear due to a typo and mouso on my part. What I meant to say was:
"Apart from water vapour (which works as a feedback mechanism because increasing temperatures increase how much of it the atmosphere can hold) CO2 is dominant because there's so much more of it."

I want to check you understand how it's a feedback mechanism: Water vapour doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere like other greenhouse gases, but instead condenses out. The warmer the atmosphere is, the more water vapour it can hold. So the warming effect of other greenhouse gases increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed that's compounded by the effect of water vapour itself. Do you still follow this?

Your claim that "We could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for a trivial increase in temperature of around 1.5 degrees. And then double it again for the same effect" is extremely dubious for four reasons:

1. The effect is not entirely logarithmic. Factors including doppler shifting of the frequencies absorbed in the upper atmosphere make it more complicated than that.

2. .The figure of 1.5 degrees for a doubling ignores the enormous buffering effect of the ocean. Without the ocean's huge thermal mass, the atmosphere would have warmed far more. And because of the ocean's huge thermal mass, the atmosphere will continue to warm even after we cease to increase atmospheric CO2 levels.

3. A 1.5 degree increase is far from trivial, as that's just the average, and hot conditions are disproportionately affected. Some heatwaves will exceed 50°C.

4. There are other feedback mechanisms, such as melting tundra releasing methane. AIUI the most devastating feedback mechanism of all (which is fortunately quite a long way off) is the disappearance of marine stratus, which threatens to increase temperatures by 8°C.

Sorry, forgot to include the link for that last claim:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190225123036.htm

You keep making the same mistake. There is much more water than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 only adds a little warming, H2O the most. However, H2O also cools the planet by reflecting radiation back into space as well as condensation transferring heat from the surface up into the troposphere where the heat is released and rain comes down.

It is not at all clear whether water vapour warms or cools the planet overall. You have to pit cooling from condensation and cloud formation against warming from humidity and cloud formation.

The fact that there has been no runaway global warming effect when the earth has been a lot warmer suggests that water vapour actually provides a negative feedback. So, on an historical basis while water may be a stronger greenhouse gas when it comes to reradiation of IR, it may be the handbrake which caps the heat increase from other mechanisms like CO2 emissions, increased solar activity and increased solar insolation due to orbit.

BTW, the thermal mass of the ocean is a bit of a furphy. It is the temperature of the oceans that controls the temperature of the earth, and if the heat was trapped in the ocean then it wouldn't be escaping into the atmosphere and there would be no global warming. You can't have it both ways.

When I go scuba diving on the GBR I find the water a lot colder now than say 30 years ago. The coral aren't as colourful anymore either ! The fish have all but disappeared. The jetsam on the beaches of Cape York has turned the Peninsula coast into the last great wildermess !

There were a couple of Japanese papers recently showing that increased CO2 tended to replace water vapor thus reducing the level of water vapor in the air.

I don't see how this would happen, but the observations appeared to support the theory. The math was very heavy, & not so convincing, if I understood it fully, however if it is true, increased CO2 would be a cooling factor.

This winter in Europe, & Texas, plus our summer do agree.

GrahamY,
>You keep making the same mistake
It's no mistake; merely poor comprehension on your part.

I'm well aware that there's much more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, and of the cooling effect of evaporation, the warming effect of condensation, and the net cooling effects of clouds despite their warming effect under some circumstances (most significantly at night). But it is absolutely clear that water VAPOUR warms the planet overall.

Now for the important bit:
Do you understand that when the planet is warmer due to other greenhouse gases, the more vapour the atmosphere can hold (warming it further) and the longer it takes for that vapour to condense out into clouds?

>The fact that there has been no runaway global warming effect when the earth has
>been a lot warmer suggests that water vapour actually provides a negative feedback

No, it suggests that negative feedback mechanisms exist. There's a difference.
The trouble is positive feedback mechanisms exist too. The present warming is the fastest for millions of years, so while it's a good sign that negative feedback mechanisms prevailed before, it doesn't guarantee we'll be OK this time.

(tbc)

>BTW, the thermal mass of the ocean is a bit of a furphy.
No it isn't. It's a major moderating factor but it could ultimately make the problem harder to deal with, as the task appears smaller than it really is.

>It is the temperature of the oceans that controls the temperature of the earth,
Not entirely, but it's a VERY big influence.

>and if the heat was trapped in the ocean then it wouldn't be escaping into the
>atmosphere and there would be no global warming. You can't have it both ways.
STRAWMAN ALERT!

I never even claimed the heat was TRAPPED in the ocean, yet you're assuming a proposition far dumber: that it's trapped in an INESCAPABLE trap!

If you don't realise how truly idioic your strawman is, consider home insulation: it traps heat, but the heat then gradually leaks out.

Anyway, my point is that greenhouse gases are likely to be causing far more warming than we realise, because a lot of the heat is going into the ocean. This WILL cause the atmosphere to warm in future, but there is a significant time lag.

Mr Hemmings makes some fundamental mistakes concerning the flora of the planet. They are unfortunately common. Photosynthesis only occurs in the presence of light. During periods of darkness, plants revert to respiration where oxygen is taken in and carbon dioxide is excreted. In dense rain forest this additional CO2 overnight could enhance rates of growth during the following day.
I think that he may also be underestimating the oxygen produced from the phytoplanckton in the oceans. As many of my generation and even following ones were, we were told that the Amazon rain forests were the "lungs of the earth". This is quite misleading. During the 1980's the evaluation of this showed at approximately 80% of the respirable oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the oceans.
With his concern on "extensive" deforrestation around the world, that is dealt with by mhaze. However, his concern probably should go to the present practice in the US, Canada and Brazil where natural growth forests are being cleared and converted to wood chips (Biofuel) to be exported to and be burnt in UK and EU power stations as a green fuel. This practice completely fails the EIEO balance. While we have Governments endorsing such a practice, we know that there is no science in the argument.

This seems more about justifying delays in environmental actions and phasing out of fossil fuels?

Exemplified by this paragraph, with neither elaboration nor any supporting evidence:

'What is ignored is the high capital cost and life cycle considerations (meaning they are costly), the unreliability due to the vagaries of the weather, and that they are dependent on surface area for upscaling, but they are good for supplementing base line power and for niche markets. A solar farm or wind farm can only produce more electricity by increasing the area of panels or turbines'.

Population? Fertility rates are dropping much faster than predicted but the UNPD data for global population is coming under scrutiny i.e. claiming a slow fall from 2.5 to 2.2 by mid century i.e. replacement rate.

However, according to researchers Bricker & Ibbitson, Pearce, Sanyal et al. the UN is inexplicably lowering fertility in both India and China but then increasing it again, without explanation (maintains the high headline numbers)?

Not only will global population stall, Bricker & Ibbitson fear precipitous decline by mid century impacting economies, state budgets etc.

This is opposed to the Malthusian based prism Australia views population through via channeling of ZPG's Paul 'Population Bomb' Ehrlich and John 'passive eugenics' Tanton viewing (NOM inflated) 'population growth' as an existential threat ('Great Replacement' theory); good way to avoid environmental constraints on industry, especially fossil fuels related and promote white nationalism.

Malthus, the miserable preacher, was wrong on his population principles, so has Ehrlich on his predictions of catastrophe; why do Australian media and MPs keep promoting this form of white nativist eugenics on a daily/weekly basis, especially when wrong?

I just made a bet (to be assessed in five years) that China has already reached peak population 5 years early, based upon Hukou data via the SCMP; meanwhile India and most of Africa show fertility declining with commensurate increase in education, health and empowerment of women.

I somewhat disagree with a previous comment: 'There is no point to a planet without human beings'.
Had intelligent man not evolved, I am quite sure the planet would have got along just fine without him.
And, if left to itself, life is self regulating.
There is a limit to how much food can grow on the land, so naturally there is a limit to how much animal life can be sustained.
There is a balance reached between the opposing needs of plant and animal life.
Life will settle in to a regular sustainable pattern.

But the advent of intelligent man changed that.
He used his intelligence to make the land provide more food that it normally would.
He used his intelligence to keep alive those who were physically challenged or genetically doubtful.
Then these reproduced, and introduced their 'defects' in to the population.
Problems compounded.
I am not blaming intelligent man. He means well, and has done a good job overall.
But his intervention in an otherewise natural process has caused an explosion in the number of humans alive on the planet.
The real problem we now face is overcrowding.
And it is getting worse.
I am sure no one really believes the population can go on increasing as it has?
But beware! Nature has a trick up her sleeve.
It is called disease.
It can wipe out vast numbers of people.
Covid has been nibbling round the edges.
Or perhaps the contamination we produce and spread far and wide will poison our food supply.
Then our numbers will diminish rapidly.
If you come back in a hundred thousand years, there will still be life.
But, almost certainly, far far fewer human beings.
The natural processes of life, death, and rebirth, will be back in balance.

We remain waiting for "intelligent" man.
Monty Python is quite correct.

Thanks for the article. I agree at least that we need to reduce the population of the world. We should perhaps aim to decrease the population to under one billion for a start. It will take a few generations.

Canem, Why? In spite of predictions going back well over 50 years that the planet had already gone beyond peak capacity, we have seen none of the calamitous disasters that were predicted to be inevitable and occurring within a decade of the predictions.
As has been shown, when a community reaches a level of education and overall quality of life, the birthrate drops to a barely sustainable level.
Some countries however appear to need a level of mass poverty as drivers and sustainers of their social and economic economies.