 |
| Cold Holocene spell! |
John Michael Greer´s "centrist" position on climate change. He *does* make some good points, but overall, I find his critique unpersuasive. Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to comment some statements in his article. Note, btw, that the essay is part one of two in a series, and that the second part won´t be due for another month or so. But I just couldn´t help myself...
Climate change: the crisis management model
ChatGPT says:
The assertion that climate change produces both winners and losers is supported by evidence, though the specific examples regarding Russian agriculture and the Sahara Desert require nuanced examination.
🌾 Russia's Wheat Production and Climate Change
Russia has experienced record-breaking wheat harvests in recent years, attributed in part to favorable weather conditions and expanded cultivation areas. However, attributing these successes solely to climate change overlooks the complexity of agricultural systems.
-
Recent Trends: In the 2016/17 season, Russia's wheat production reached a record 72.5 million metric tons, surpassing previous records. ipad.fas.usda.gov
-
Climate Factors: While warmer temperatures have extended the growing season in some northern regions, leading to increased agricultural productivity, these benefits are counterbalanced by challenges such as droughts and extreme weather events. For instance, in 2024, hot and dry conditions led to reduced yields of winter cereals and grain maize in Russia. EU Vetenskapsnav
-
Geopolitical Implications: Increased wheat exports from Russia can influence global markets, potentially providing affordable grain to countries facing food insecurity. However, the revenues from these exports may also support geopolitical strategies, such as military expenditures.
🌿 Sahara Desert and Potential "Greening"
The idea that the Sahara could become more hospitable due to climate change is based on historical climate patterns and recent observations.
-
Historical Context: Approximately 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, during the African Humid Period, the Sahara experienced significantly more rainfall, supporting grasslands and human settlements. Wikipedia
-
Recent Observations: Some studies suggest that parts of the Sahara and Sahel regions have seen increased vegetation due to higher rainfall in recent decades. ScienceDirect
-
Future Projections: Climate models indicate that continued global warming could alter monsoon patterns, potentially leading to increased rainfall in the Sahara. However, these projections are uncertain and depend on various factors, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes.Live Science
-
Challenges: Even if rainfall increases, transforming arid regions into productive agricultural land would require significant investment in infrastructure, soil management, and sustainable practices.
⚖️ Conclusion
While climate change may offer certain regions temporary advantages, such as extended growing seasons or increased rainfall, these benefits are often accompanied by significant risks and uncertainties. The overall impact of climate change remains predominantly negative, with challenges including extreme weather events, water scarcity, and threats to biodiversity.
Therefore, while acknowledging that some areas might experience short-term gains, it's crucial to address the broader and more pressing adverse effects of climate change globally.
xxxxx
The claims you've encountered contain elements of truth but also oversimplify complex scientific concepts. Let's examine them in detail:
🌍 Earth's Historical Climate: Was It Warmer Than Today?
It's accurate that Earth has experienced periods significantly warmer than the present. For instance, during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum (~56–48 million years ago), global temperatures were substantially higher, and tropical conditions extended to higher latitudes. Similarly, the Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period (~3.3–3 million years ago) saw global temperatures about 2–3°C warmer than today, with sea levels approximately 25 meters higher. WikipediaWikipedia+1Wikipedia+1
However, stating that Earth was colder than at any point in the last 200 million years until recent decades is misleading. The current Quaternary Period, spanning the last 2.6 million years, has been characterized by repeated glacial and interglacial cycles, with significant temperature fluctuations. While we're presently in an interglacial phase (the Holocene), global temperatures have risen rapidly in recent decades due to human activities, reaching levels comparable to or exceeding some past warm periods.
🌿 The "Green Sahara": Could It Return?
The Sahara Desert has indeed undergone periods of increased rainfall and vegetation, known as African Humid Periods. These occurred approximately every 21,000 years, driven by changes in Earth's orbital precession, which affected the strength of the African monsoon. The most recent humid period ended around 5,000 years ago. ScienceDirectWikipedia+3Phys.org+3bristol.ac.uk+3Wikipedia
While these historical shifts were natural and gradual, the current climate change is rapid and primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Predicting a return to a "green Sahara" due to modern climate change is speculative, as the mechanisms differ significantly from past natural cycles.
⚠️ Climate Change: Winners and Losers?
It's true that climate change can have varied regional impacts. Some areas, like parts of Russia, have experienced increased agricultural yields due to longer growing seasons. However, these benefits are often offset by negative consequences elsewhere, such as extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, the long-term sustainability of such gains is uncertain, as climate change can also lead to soil degradation, water scarcity, and other challenges.
Therefore, while there may be short-term or localized benefits, the overarching scientific consensus is that the risks and adverse effects of climate change far outweigh the potential advantages.
📚 Conclusion
Understanding Earth's climatic history provides valuable context, but it's crucial to recognize the unprecedented rate and scale of current climate change. While past warm periods occurred over millennia, today's changes are happening over decades, posing significant challenges for ecosystems and human societies.
xxxxx
You're absolutely right—and you've identified one of the most crucial points often overlooked in arguments that romanticize Earth's hotter past.
🌍 Yes, Earth Was Hotter—But That’s Not the Point
While it’s true that for much of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history the climate was hotter, wetter, and more tropical—with little to no polar ice—human civilization evolved and depends on the relatively cool and stable conditions of the Holocene, the period covering the last ~11,700 years.
🧠 Why That Stability Matters
The Holocene provided:
-
Stable temperatures and predictable seasons
→ Crucial for the development of agriculture and permanent settlements. -
Moderate sea levels
→ Allowed coastal cities, ports, and trade networks to flourish without constant threat of flooding. -
Reliable rainfall patterns
→ Enabled irrigation and long-term planning for food production. -
Ecosystem balance
→ Biodiversity adapted to these conditions over millennia, forming the basis for everything from food chains to pollination.
In contrast:
During hotter past epochs like the Eocene, the Earth had no ice caps, sea levels were dozens of meters higher, and the planet was largely inhospitable to large mammals, let alone complex civilizations.
⚠️ The Core Issue: Rate of Change
Another vital factor is not just how hot it gets, but how fast.
-
Paleoclimatic shifts took place over thousands to millions of years.
-
The current warming, largely driven by human activities, is occurring over mere decades.
-
Natural systems (and human infrastructure) simply can't adapt quickly enough to keep up.
🤔 A False Equivalence
So when critics say things like “Earth used to be a jungle planet, life thrived, so warming isn’t a problem”, they’re committing a false equivalence:
-
Yes, life in general survived hotter climates.
-
But human life and civilization are tightly tied to the relatively narrow climatic band of the Holocene.
If climate zones shift too rapidly, food systems, water supplies, and human habitability break down—not in 10,000 years, but within our own lifetimes.
✅ In Summary
You're correct:
The issue is not just whether Earth has been warmer before—it's that human civilization depends on today’s cooler, more stable climate.
Ignoring this is like saying “fish thrived during the Cambrian period, so we shouldn’t worry if oxygen levels drop today.” Evolution doesn’t move at the pace of fossil fuel emissions.
Let me know if you’d like a breakdown of Holocene climate data or examples of how ancient civilizations collapsed due to climate shifts.
xxxxx
The statement you've quoted raises a provocative critique of climate advocacy—specifically the perceived hypocrisy of high-profile individuals who warn of climate catastrophe while maintaining lavish, high-emission lifestyles. Let’s unpack it carefully, separating the emotional charge from the actual logic and evidence.
✅ What’s True in This Critique?
-
Hypocrisy Exists
Yes, many celebrities, politicians, and business leaders do live in ways that seem to contradict the urgency of their climate messaging. Private jets, luxury cars, sprawling homes, and frequent international travel all leave massive carbon footprints. -
Public Perception Is Affected
This inconsistency undermines trust in the message. People reasonably wonder: If it’s really that dire, why don’t you live accordingly? -
Messaging vs. Action Gap
There’s often a disconnect between rhetoric and personal sacrifice, not just in celebrities but even in climate policies. Advocating system-level change while avoiding personal change can come off as disingenuous.
🚫 What’s False or Misleading?
-
Assuming Hypocrisy Proves Disbelief
The logic in the quote essentially says:“If they really believed climate change was a threat, they wouldn’t live high-emission lifestyles. Since they do, they must not actually believe it.”
This is a non sequitur. People frequently act against their own stated beliefs due to comfort, habit, inertia, or perceived exceptionalism—not necessarily because they don’t believe what they say. For example:
-
Many people believe in healthy eating and still consume junk food.
-
Smokers often believe cigarettes are harmful and still smoke.
-
People can believe in climate change and still behave unsustainably—especially when the system itself supports and rewards that behavior.
-
-
The “Planet’s Survival” Is a Misframe
Most serious climate scientists and advocates aren’t saying Earth will die, but that human civilization will face increasing disruption—mass displacement, agricultural failure, water crises, economic instability, etc. The Earth will go on; the question is how livable it will be for us. -
Personal vs. Systemic Change
Many climate experts argue that system-level policy changes (like taxing emissions, decarbonizing power grids, and redesigning infrastructure) matter more than individual lifestyle changes. This doesn't excuse hypocrisy—but it explains why the focus is often on policy, not just personal virtue.
🧠 A Better Framing
A more balanced way to think about this might be:
“Yes, the disconnect between high-emission lifestyles and climate advocacy is problematic and undermines credibility. But that doesn't automatically mean the threats of climate change aren't real—it means human behavior is often inconsistent, and public discourse often fails to link belief with personal sacrifice.”
🏁 Conclusion
The behavior of some climate advocates is hypocritical, and criticism of that hypocrisy is valid. But it doesn’t logically follow that their message is false—only that they may not be the best messengers. Climate science should be judged on its data and predictions, not the inconsistency of its celebrity spokespeople.
Let me know if you’d like a look at the actual emission data from high-profile individuals, or how different lifestyle choices compare in carbon terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment