Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
This is so totally right.
It is ridiculous to assume that we will keep on doing what we are doing today for very long. We never have in the past and there is no reason to start not changing and developing now. We love to improve and use new technology, particularly when it is so cool and more efficient.
Don Shaw
September 5, 2010 8:09 pm
Tom says,
“But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.”
Tom, Pelosi and Boxer surely fit my definition of “those who have blown this out of proportion” yet you have previously stated that you will vote for them in November in your blog. Have you changes your mind about voting for them or is this all meaningless words on your part?
My optimism will hopefully return after the November election, otherwise the foolish spending and energy policy including cap and trade on the table will reduce the USA to a second rate nation and the hopes I have for my granchildren to live a better life are doomed.
Oliver Ramsay
September 5, 2010 8:12 pm
JeffM says:
“I am passionately averse to any argument that invokes grandchildren or further posterity.”
———-
I’m with you there. I always wonder if the caring about future generations is logarithmic, like IR extinction. Does the caring lapse rate reverse with the last generation to have natural gas? How about the generation that sees the asteroid approaching at 50,000 miles?
My answer to the line “They’re our future” is “No, we’re their past.”
savethesharks
September 5, 2010 8:14 pm
Thomas Fuller I appreciate your attempt at reason here and even more your evolved “anti-amygdala” approach to being polite and reasonable and objective.
I think the whole of the CAGW argument can be seen in this flaw….inciting riots on both sides of the argument:
There are two separate arguments here:
One is “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. (There is no data to support this.)
The other is “catastrophic anthropogenic global pollution.”
Plenty of real time data.
From China’s coal dust blackening the Arctic…to the overfishing of the oceans….to Monsanto.
Two completely separate arguments, though like oil and water. Yet they are treated as one in the same.
I’m an optimist too, though.
As one of the most evolved species that the universe has ever produced–especially because we have frontal lobe reasoning powers and a conscience–we can fix the problems that WE created.
Otherwise we are just another opportunistic species like poison ivy, fire ants, and locusts.
I would agree with the other posters that you implied [not on purpose, I am now sure!] a “better than thou” attitude about caring for posterity just because of your convictions, and as if others did not….and that it was a little insulting.
I am reminded of a Sting song from the Cold War era: “Even the Russian mothers, love their children, too.”
It is all about finding that common ground of purpose and working symbiotically to leave this planet, better than we found it.
Thanks for your efforts…and to that end, I join you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Daniel H
September 5, 2010 8:18 pm
Um, wow. This article sucks.
It’s amazing how rapidly the quality of WUWT content deteriorates when Anthony steps away. There are something like a gazillion interesting hard science news stories mentioned in the “tips and notes” section of WUWT that were passed over in favor of this semi-coherent, rambling, and trite opinion piece about… well, who the hell knows?
What this article desperately needs (aside from a theme) is a third-grader to proof read it. Please study the following modified sentence fragments to grasp the concept of plural vs singular verb forms:
“They, and almost everyone else, estimates that…”
“The two points I’d like to make isare, first…”
Steve Keohane
September 5, 2010 8:28 pm
“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem”
That’s true, 10% of the time Chicago does not have a mile of ice sitting on it.
FWIW, Tom I think you’re right on.
I too am optimistic. While cynics and pessimists may sound smarter, in the past they have been wrong about the future. Tertullian predicted the end of times in the 3rd century. Malthus predicted apocalypse in the 18th century. Ehrlich, et. al. predicted mass famines to happen during the 1970’s. Despite their Jeremiad warnings of deprivation and doom, we live longer; eat better, and on far less land than ever before. And, the trend is accelerating. By all indications the world will be much richer in fifty years and able to accomodate changes from warmer temps.
“On what principle is it,” asked Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830 in the Edinburgh Review, ” that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”
Lew Skannen
September 5, 2010 8:48 pm
There seems to be a presumption that because you genuinely care about future generations your predictions are somehow more accurate and valid.
I would say that if your underlying science and logic are flakey it really doesn’t matter where your heart is.
Good article. I am retired, and I will drink to both the article and my retirement.
Methow Ken
September 5, 2010 8:58 pm
Several good posts on this thread, especially the one by Max Hugoson:
Nuclear is indeed the long-term energy self-sufficiency answer; especially if we want to back off burning coal and oil while moving to electric cars on a large scale.
Given the huge array of important products that come from oil, burning it is in fact the LAST thing you would like to do with it, long-term; i.e.:
From petroleum resources we get: Lubricants, plastics, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etcetera.
The Generation-III+ nuclear plant designs are ready to go; and in fact several are in the approval cycle at the NRC. Naturally occuring uranium ore is still so cheap that designs for Generation-IV fast-neutron reactors to burn up what is now referred to as ”spent” nuclear fuel rods may not be economically viable on a large scale for a while yet, but eventually they will be. Remember that the 104 current Generation-II nuclear plants around the U.S. only ”burn up” about FIVE percent of the total energy in the fuel rods. After reprocessing, ultimately Gen-IV fast neutron reactors should be able to extract close to NINETY percent of the total energy in said fuel rods.
Noelene
September 5, 2010 9:02 pm
I believe progress will be delayed because some men believe they can alter the temperature of earth.
Food stocks being comandeered for bio fuel.
London not building a 3rd runway.
governments not building power stations.
rationed health care(that’s a biggie for the 50 year old now)
no investment in oil exploration on land.
bike lanes instead of extra highways
insufficient housing because more land is locked up each year
fishing areas locked up
allowing animals to take over more and more of our space
allowing criminals to prey on us time after time
Banks to be regulated to the point that the government has control of our money
Internet to be monitored for dissidents
Then we have the green agenda on top of that
Any refugee must be allowed to walk into any country
pesticides must be banned
forestry must be cut back to the bone
electric cars for everybody
businesses must comply with any regulations
plane travel must be restricted
all fishing and hunting banned
no mineral exploration
no nuclear
no coal
no gas
only necessary people allowed to live in rural areas
vaccinations to be banned
Iran and Palestine must be allowed to do as they please
Any dictator must be allowed to treat the people as he or she pleases
I see the future and it’s nowhere near as rosy as Mr Fuller portrays.
K~Bob
September 5, 2010 9:03 pm
Someone upthread wrote: “Many of the improvements in efficiency have been swallowed up by more consumer stuff using electricity”
I doubt this very much. Most of the electrical appliances from the past were energy hogs. Nearly every consumer gadget uses far less electricity than its roughly equivalent ancester gadgets. The old luggable analog cellphones tethered to 12volt bricks could power a large number of iPhones today.
I miss the smell of ozone and the risk of shock from my grandmothers kitchen appliances. Also how they dimmed the lights when she used them. Fun times.
A few of the posters on this blog will supplement their opinions with several html links. This is probably a good way to back up what you are saying, but I almost never look at those links. If the commenting authors articulate their point without a half-dozen links, then I lose interest in what they are saying.
Short sentences, precise points, and only a link or two will suffice.
James Allison
September 5, 2010 9:18 pm
If you read and agree to the principles contained in the book The Singularity is Near When Humans Transcend Biology: By Ray Kurzweil.
Y’all wont care one way or the other.
grayman
September 5, 2010 9:24 pm
Tom, could you see if the U.N. will let me use thier crystal ball, my is in the shop getting repaired. Slight accident with a wall. The U.N. predictions are as worth less as thier climate assements. And as you say “Non-pollant CO2 should also be reduced” if it is not a pollant and good for plant life WHY should we worry about it. I do like your post it does give one things to talk and think about so keep up the good work and thanks to Anthony for for having you on.
Cassandra King
September 5, 2010 9:26 pm
The post by Thomas Fuller raises some very good and valid questions and that is a good thing I think.
Humanity grows and evolves in stages, the struggle at the beginning of the industrial revolution has many lessons for us if we care to examine them. We are seeing a fear of the future combined with a lack of self confidence and this happens just before great change in our social/political/economic structures takes place.
Just as a child is sometimes frightened of taking the next step in the journey to adulthood so society exhibits similar traits, now we see uncertainty tainted with fear and we see cynical exploitation of that fear and uncertainty show its ugly face and like the overwhelming mother who seeks the eternal baby to comfort.
The future could be a wonderful and bright place filled with hope and we only have to reach out and strive for that future and it can be ours to enjoy but first we must put aside our childish fears and the excuses we hide behind to justify that clinging to that fear.
We cannot know for sure what the future holds for us, we cannot know what our descendents will or will not think of us just as our ancestors could not know how we would judge them, they will hold different values to our own and we cannot know what those values will be, all we can do build and grow as fast as we can and hope we are fast enough to avoid the fate of all species so far.
Let me put it this way, its time to put aside our childish fears and the childish self justifications of those fears and its time to jump into the lake of our future, yes it may be cold and it may hurt a bit but jump we must if we are to face the future without fear and its fear that is the killer. If we turn away now then history will not be kind to us, we have a duty to put aside our fears and we owe to those who follow to build the foundations of strong industrial capitalist free trade economy, we evolve or we wither and die and the choice is ours to make right now.
Dont let the Luddites spread their silky lies, there is no ideal planetary and social stasis and if that dream is chased it will only lead to decay and misery, our only hope is full spectrum evolution, its a race to grow and survive folks whether we realise it or not the clock of the evolutionary clock is ticking and our time and place in the chain is limited, we either grow ASAP and with all the tools at our disposal or we go the way of millions of other failed species.
We have but two simple choices in reality, we grow or we die, we either strive to colonize and inhabit a million worlds or we end up with none, we are predators not grazers and the sooner we come to terms with that the better.
According to David Archer, who knows more about this stuff than either you or I do, the time scale for CO2 mixing with the upper ocean, which removes about 2/3 of the perturbation, is about 300 years. The time scale for the next fifth, which amounts to the equilibration of the deep ocean and the decay of the acidification spike. The residual decays on geological time scales, about half a million years. That is less than forever, but for practical purposes, not much.
I have tried on several occasions to explain to Tom Fuller the distinction between emissions and concentrations. While he protests that he is well aware of it, the current article again shows that he thoroughly misses the point.
See Archer’s accessible book “The Long Thaw”, or of course his contributions to the primary literature.
Christoph Dollis
September 5, 2010 10:46 pm
Walter Scheider, as far as Earth’s population and energy usage stabilizing, I agree with Thomas Fuller.
“… I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place.” [for energy usage, sure — Christoph]
“… as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.”
As far as everything being hunky dory for our ancestors in 90 years, I am doubtful. Certainly I don’t see how they could be in 190. Not if computer processing power and AI increases at present rates, well, continues to increase exponentially.
Will our species maintain control of this intelligence and capability forever?
Maybe. But I doubt it.
Baa Humbug
September 5, 2010 10:46 pm
So it turns out that Mr Fuller is another tepid warmist?
May I suggest you take a half hour or so and read Michael Crichtons essay on predicting the future and his article on the impact of “good intentions” in relation to Yellowstone NP.
The best way to minimise the impacts of “weather” is to provide poor nations with the cheapest form of energy available at the time…COAL…and may it burn beneficially for generations to come.
Engchamp
September 5, 2010 11:08 pm
Tom,
You are correct in one assumption – I am a caucasian male in his early 60s.
However, I would not trust any information that the UN sees fit to divulge.
On what criteria is the estimation that Earth’s population will peak at 9.1 billion?
Until such time as the so-called environmentalists see sense, advancing technology will be hampered; e.g., in the UK we have the wherewithal for useless wind powered generators, but not for thorium based nuclear plants, even though we are importing French nuclear powered electricity on a daily basis.
On my assumption that the green movement will never be reasonable (which includes compromise), in the UK we will inevitably have to endure future power failures, resulting in reduced industrial output.
3% p.a. growth? Poppycock!
Rhoda R
September 5, 2010 11:14 pm
Thank you Grayman – I’m so tired of this “CO2 isn’t a pollutant but we still have to control it” nonsense.
Dr. Dave
September 5, 2010 11:24 pm
While reading through these comments I flashed on an idea. If you were to graph the average life expectancy from 100 years ago to today and drew a trend line through it you might be convinced that in another 50 years the average life expectancy will be 150 years. Intuitively we know this is not possible because even in the healthiest of human specimens the physical body simply wears out after the age of 90 even if all other diseases are avoided. I feel the same way about global warming. We might be getting a little warmer after coming out of the LIA and we might get a little warmer still. But what goes up invariably go down again or at least levels off. History has taught us this much.
The goal of “saving the planet” is purely propaganda. The real goal is controlling energy and thereby controlling the population. Sadly, this is an all too common human trait among some people. Demonizing CO2 is actually silly and in about 10 years it will be remembered as being even sillier. At least 85% of mankind’s energy is derived from the combustion of hydrocarbons (even more if you count biologic metabolism of food). At the present time there is no suitable substitute. I have little doubt there will be a better alternative one day, but these things take time. The best thing we can do in the interim is to resist governmental control of CO2 or energy. Let the free market and non-government funded innovation lead to new discoveries.
The reality is that it is impossible to get the entire human population on the same page. Even if we were somehow able to cut global CO2 emissions by 50% within a decade it wouldn’t make a lick of difference in terms of global warming. We do, however, know a lot about electricity. We know that in countries that have electricity we have seen a drastic increase in life expectancy, improvements in standard of living, greater innovation and an improvement in environmental conditions. The free market is the best arbiter of how energy should be used and allocated. Some argue that the USA uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources. Perhaps, but the USA has also contributed a disproportionate number of advances to mankind.
Christoph Dollis says:
September 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Sorry about misspelling your first name before. That was caused out of habit. Christopher is the name of one of my grandsons
It is a good thing that you are somewhat more specific with respect to which points you feel Thomas Fuller is deluding himself, but I don’t think that there is more realistic evidence right now that we will be buried by AI than there was in the 19th century that we were likely to be buried in horse manure.
However, if you wish to project from the way things are right now to what they will be like a hundred or two-hundred years from now, how come you put no limit on exponential growth of the capabilities of AI and yet, you feel that there should be a limit to the growth of energy generating capacity?
David, UK, September 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm, correctly stated, “The human ability to adapt and invent (when free to do so) has proven over the centuries to be the key to our success.” Therefore there is no technological limit to the availability of natural resources, no limit to our capability to grow food and to generate energy or to use available space far more efficiently. For those reasons it is needless to set limits for population growth.
Freely available cheap energy creates wealth, and wealth eliminates the urge for people to propagate in large numbers.
Reality will be much different from what you or Thomas Fuller worry about. We have nothing to fear but fear itself and the totalitarian measures that grow out of that fear.
Mr Fuller, while I found your previous posts interesting if rather converse (nothing wrong with an alternative and polite point of view), your latest post reads like one of those tiresome Guardian opinion pieces. I visit WUWT to try and get a handle on the major contributing factors responsible for our chaotic climate system. If I wanted utopian/distopian predictions I’d consult professionals such as Mr Romm, Mr Hansen, Mr Pachauri, the UN, the Met Office and Gypsy Petulengro.
As for the title of this piece – Climate Change is Not a Forever Problem. Apologies for being pedantic but I beg to differ. Climate change is with us constantly. It will always be with us right up until the time our sun becomes a post main sequence star and expands to swallow the Earth. Climate is not something you can attach an on/off switch to even if our politicians think they can. The only people who have achieved global ambitions of this magnitude are the likes of Asimov or Heinlein. Personally I prefer my science fiction to be entertaining and not gratuitously taxing.
BTW I’m not part of the demographic mentioned in your opening paragraph. I’m a well educated female in my fifties so what are the chances of that?
Philip Thomas
September 6, 2010 12:36 am
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“Now that I’ve ticked a few of you off, I’ll be trying to go after the other side in my next few posts. ”
Is it ususal for a guest poster to confidently assume that he will be given more slots, even after ticking a few people off? What is the deal here? Are you a new WUWT columnist?
This is so totally right.
It is ridiculous to assume that we will keep on doing what we are doing today for very long. We never have in the past and there is no reason to start not changing and developing now. We love to improve and use new technology, particularly when it is so cool and more efficient.
Tom says,
“But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.”
Tom, Pelosi and Boxer surely fit my definition of “those who have blown this out of proportion” yet you have previously stated that you will vote for them in November in your blog. Have you changes your mind about voting for them or is this all meaningless words on your part?
My optimism will hopefully return after the November election, otherwise the foolish spending and energy policy including cap and trade on the table will reduce the USA to a second rate nation and the hopes I have for my granchildren to live a better life are doomed.
JeffM says:
“I am passionately averse to any argument that invokes grandchildren or further posterity.”
———-
I’m with you there. I always wonder if the caring about future generations is logarithmic, like IR extinction. Does the caring lapse rate reverse with the last generation to have natural gas? How about the generation that sees the asteroid approaching at 50,000 miles?
My answer to the line “They’re our future” is “No, we’re their past.”
Thomas Fuller I appreciate your attempt at reason here and even more your evolved “anti-amygdala” approach to being polite and reasonable and objective.
I think the whole of the CAGW argument can be seen in this flaw….inciting riots on both sides of the argument:
There are two separate arguments here:
One is “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. (There is no data to support this.)
The other is “catastrophic anthropogenic global pollution.”
Plenty of real time data.
From China’s coal dust blackening the Arctic…to the overfishing of the oceans….to Monsanto.
Two completely separate arguments, though like oil and water. Yet they are treated as one in the same.
I’m an optimist too, though.
As one of the most evolved species that the universe has ever produced–especially because we have frontal lobe reasoning powers and a conscience–we can fix the problems that WE created.
Otherwise we are just another opportunistic species like poison ivy, fire ants, and locusts.
I would agree with the other posters that you implied [not on purpose, I am now sure!] a “better than thou” attitude about caring for posterity just because of your convictions, and as if others did not….and that it was a little insulting.
I am reminded of a Sting song from the Cold War era: “Even the Russian mothers, love their children, too.”
It is all about finding that common ground of purpose and working symbiotically to leave this planet, better than we found it.
Thanks for your efforts…and to that end, I join you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Um, wow. This article sucks.
It’s amazing how rapidly the quality of WUWT content deteriorates when Anthony steps away. There are something like a gazillion interesting hard science news stories mentioned in the “tips and notes” section of WUWT that were passed over in favor of this semi-coherent, rambling, and trite opinion piece about… well, who the hell knows?
What this article desperately needs (aside from a theme) is a third-grader to proof read it. Please study the following modified sentence fragments to grasp the concept of plural vs singular verb forms:
“They, and almost everyone else, estimate
sthat…”“The two points I’d like to make
isare, first…”“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem”
That’s true, 10% of the time Chicago does not have a mile of ice sitting on it.
FWIW, Tom I think you’re right on.
I too am optimistic. While cynics and pessimists may sound smarter, in the past they have been wrong about the future. Tertullian predicted the end of times in the 3rd century. Malthus predicted apocalypse in the 18th century. Ehrlich, et. al. predicted mass famines to happen during the 1970’s. Despite their Jeremiad warnings of deprivation and doom, we live longer; eat better, and on far less land than ever before. And, the trend is accelerating. By all indications the world will be much richer in fifty years and able to accomodate changes from warmer temps.
“On what principle is it,” asked Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830 in the Edinburgh Review, ” that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”
There seems to be a presumption that because you genuinely care about future generations your predictions are somehow more accurate and valid.
I would say that if your underlying science and logic are flakey it really doesn’t matter where your heart is.
Good article. I am retired, and I will drink to both the article and my retirement.
Several good posts on this thread, especially the one by Max Hugoson:
Nuclear is indeed the long-term energy self-sufficiency answer; especially if we want to back off burning coal and oil while moving to electric cars on a large scale.
Given the huge array of important products that come from oil, burning it is in fact the LAST thing you would like to do with it, long-term; i.e.:
From petroleum resources we get: Lubricants, plastics, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etcetera.
The Generation-III+ nuclear plant designs are ready to go; and in fact several are in the approval cycle at the NRC. Naturally occuring uranium ore is still so cheap that designs for Generation-IV fast-neutron reactors to burn up what is now referred to as ”spent” nuclear fuel rods may not be economically viable on a large scale for a while yet, but eventually they will be. Remember that the 104 current Generation-II nuclear plants around the U.S. only ”burn up” about FIVE percent of the total energy in the fuel rods. After reprocessing, ultimately Gen-IV fast neutron reactors should be able to extract close to NINETY percent of the total energy in said fuel rods.
I believe progress will be delayed because some men believe they can alter the temperature of earth.
Food stocks being comandeered for bio fuel.
London not building a 3rd runway.
governments not building power stations.
rationed health care(that’s a biggie for the 50 year old now)
no investment in oil exploration on land.
bike lanes instead of extra highways
insufficient housing because more land is locked up each year
fishing areas locked up
allowing animals to take over more and more of our space
allowing criminals to prey on us time after time
Banks to be regulated to the point that the government has control of our money
Internet to be monitored for dissidents
Then we have the green agenda on top of that
Any refugee must be allowed to walk into any country
pesticides must be banned
forestry must be cut back to the bone
electric cars for everybody
businesses must comply with any regulations
plane travel must be restricted
all fishing and hunting banned
no mineral exploration
no nuclear
no coal
no gas
only necessary people allowed to live in rural areas
vaccinations to be banned
Iran and Palestine must be allowed to do as they please
Any dictator must be allowed to treat the people as he or she pleases
I see the future and it’s nowhere near as rosy as Mr Fuller portrays.
Someone upthread wrote: “Many of the improvements in efficiency have been swallowed up by more consumer stuff using electricity”
I doubt this very much. Most of the electrical appliances from the past were energy hogs. Nearly every consumer gadget uses far less electricity than its roughly equivalent ancester gadgets. The old luggable analog cellphones tethered to 12volt bricks could power a large number of iPhones today.
I miss the smell of ozone and the risk of shock from my grandmothers kitchen appliances. Also how they dimmed the lights when she used them. Fun times.
A few of the posters on this blog will supplement their opinions with several html links. This is probably a good way to back up what you are saying, but I almost never look at those links. If the commenting authors articulate their point without a half-dozen links, then I lose interest in what they are saying.
Short sentences, precise points, and only a link or two will suffice.
If you read and agree to the principles contained in the book The Singularity is Near When Humans Transcend Biology: By Ray Kurzweil.
Y’all wont care one way or the other.
Tom, could you see if the U.N. will let me use thier crystal ball, my is in the shop getting repaired. Slight accident with a wall. The U.N. predictions are as worth less as thier climate assements. And as you say “Non-pollant CO2 should also be reduced” if it is not a pollant and good for plant life WHY should we worry about it. I do like your post it does give one things to talk and think about so keep up the good work and thanks to Anthony for for having you on.
The post by Thomas Fuller raises some very good and valid questions and that is a good thing I think.
Humanity grows and evolves in stages, the struggle at the beginning of the industrial revolution has many lessons for us if we care to examine them. We are seeing a fear of the future combined with a lack of self confidence and this happens just before great change in our social/political/economic structures takes place.
Just as a child is sometimes frightened of taking the next step in the journey to adulthood so society exhibits similar traits, now we see uncertainty tainted with fear and we see cynical exploitation of that fear and uncertainty show its ugly face and like the overwhelming mother who seeks the eternal baby to comfort.
The future could be a wonderful and bright place filled with hope and we only have to reach out and strive for that future and it can be ours to enjoy but first we must put aside our childish fears and the excuses we hide behind to justify that clinging to that fear.
We cannot know for sure what the future holds for us, we cannot know what our descendents will or will not think of us just as our ancestors could not know how we would judge them, they will hold different values to our own and we cannot know what those values will be, all we can do build and grow as fast as we can and hope we are fast enough to avoid the fate of all species so far.
Let me put it this way, its time to put aside our childish fears and the childish self justifications of those fears and its time to jump into the lake of our future, yes it may be cold and it may hurt a bit but jump we must if we are to face the future without fear and its fear that is the killer. If we turn away now then history will not be kind to us, we have a duty to put aside our fears and we owe to those who follow to build the foundations of strong industrial capitalist free trade economy, we evolve or we wither and die and the choice is ours to make right now.
Dont let the Luddites spread their silky lies, there is no ideal planetary and social stasis and if that dream is chased it will only lead to decay and misery, our only hope is full spectrum evolution, its a race to grow and survive folks whether we realise it or not the clock of the evolutionary clock is ticking and our time and place in the chain is limited, we either grow ASAP and with all the tools at our disposal or we go the way of millions of other failed species.
We have but two simple choices in reality, we grow or we die, we either strive to colonize and inhabit a million worlds or we end up with none, we are predators not grazers and the sooner we come to terms with that the better.
According to David Archer, who knows more about this stuff than either you or I do, the time scale for CO2 mixing with the upper ocean, which removes about 2/3 of the perturbation, is about 300 years. The time scale for the next fifth, which amounts to the equilibration of the deep ocean and the decay of the acidification spike. The residual decays on geological time scales, about half a million years. That is less than forever, but for practical purposes, not much.
I have tried on several occasions to explain to Tom Fuller the distinction between emissions and concentrations. While he protests that he is well aware of it, the current article again shows that he thoroughly misses the point.
See Archer’s accessible book “The Long Thaw”, or of course his contributions to the primary literature.
Walter Scheider, as far as Earth’s population and energy usage stabilizing, I agree with Thomas Fuller.
As far as everything being hunky dory for our ancestors in 90 years, I am doubtful. Certainly I don’t see how they could be in 190. Not if computer processing power and AI increases at present rates, well, continues to increase exponentially.
Will our species maintain control of this intelligence and capability forever?
Maybe. But I doubt it.
So it turns out that Mr Fuller is another tepid warmist?
May I suggest you take a half hour or so and read Michael Crichtons essay on predicting the future and his article on the impact of “good intentions” in relation to Yellowstone NP.
The best way to minimise the impacts of “weather” is to provide poor nations with the cheapest form of energy available at the time…COAL…and may it burn beneficially for generations to come.
Tom,
You are correct in one assumption – I am a caucasian male in his early 60s.
However, I would not trust any information that the UN sees fit to divulge.
On what criteria is the estimation that Earth’s population will peak at 9.1 billion?
Until such time as the so-called environmentalists see sense, advancing technology will be hampered; e.g., in the UK we have the wherewithal for useless wind powered generators, but not for thorium based nuclear plants, even though we are importing French nuclear powered electricity on a daily basis.
On my assumption that the green movement will never be reasonable (which includes compromise), in the UK we will inevitably have to endure future power failures, resulting in reduced industrial output.
3% p.a. growth? Poppycock!
Thank you Grayman – I’m so tired of this “CO2 isn’t a pollutant but we still have to control it” nonsense.
While reading through these comments I flashed on an idea. If you were to graph the average life expectancy from 100 years ago to today and drew a trend line through it you might be convinced that in another 50 years the average life expectancy will be 150 years. Intuitively we know this is not possible because even in the healthiest of human specimens the physical body simply wears out after the age of 90 even if all other diseases are avoided. I feel the same way about global warming. We might be getting a little warmer after coming out of the LIA and we might get a little warmer still. But what goes up invariably go down again or at least levels off. History has taught us this much.
The goal of “saving the planet” is purely propaganda. The real goal is controlling energy and thereby controlling the population. Sadly, this is an all too common human trait among some people. Demonizing CO2 is actually silly and in about 10 years it will be remembered as being even sillier. At least 85% of mankind’s energy is derived from the combustion of hydrocarbons (even more if you count biologic metabolism of food). At the present time there is no suitable substitute. I have little doubt there will be a better alternative one day, but these things take time. The best thing we can do in the interim is to resist governmental control of CO2 or energy. Let the free market and non-government funded innovation lead to new discoveries.
The reality is that it is impossible to get the entire human population on the same page. Even if we were somehow able to cut global CO2 emissions by 50% within a decade it wouldn’t make a lick of difference in terms of global warming. We do, however, know a lot about electricity. We know that in countries that have electricity we have seen a drastic increase in life expectancy, improvements in standard of living, greater innovation and an improvement in environmental conditions. The free market is the best arbiter of how energy should be used and allocated. Some argue that the USA uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources. Perhaps, but the USA has also contributed a disproportionate number of advances to mankind.
Christoph Dollis says:
September 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Sorry about misspelling your first name before. That was caused out of habit. Christopher is the name of one of my grandsons
It is a good thing that you are somewhat more specific with respect to which points you feel Thomas Fuller is deluding himself, but I don’t think that there is more realistic evidence right now that we will be buried by AI than there was in the 19th century that we were likely to be buried in horse manure.
However, if you wish to project from the way things are right now to what they will be like a hundred or two-hundred years from now, how come you put no limit on exponential growth of the capabilities of AI and yet, you feel that there should be a limit to the growth of energy generating capacity?
David, UK, September 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm, correctly stated, “The human ability to adapt and invent (when free to do so) has proven over the centuries to be the key to our success.” Therefore there is no technological limit to the availability of natural resources, no limit to our capability to grow food and to generate energy or to use available space far more efficiently. For those reasons it is needless to set limits for population growth.
Freely available cheap energy creates wealth, and wealth eliminates the urge for people to propagate in large numbers.
Reality will be much different from what you or Thomas Fuller worry about. We have nothing to fear but fear itself and the totalitarian measures that grow out of that fear.
Mr Fuller, while I found your previous posts interesting if rather converse (nothing wrong with an alternative and polite point of view), your latest post reads like one of those tiresome Guardian opinion pieces. I visit WUWT to try and get a handle on the major contributing factors responsible for our chaotic climate system. If I wanted utopian/distopian predictions I’d consult professionals such as Mr Romm, Mr Hansen, Mr Pachauri, the UN, the Met Office and Gypsy Petulengro.
As for the title of this piece – Climate Change is Not a Forever Problem. Apologies for being pedantic but I beg to differ. Climate change is with us constantly. It will always be with us right up until the time our sun becomes a post main sequence star and expands to swallow the Earth. Climate is not something you can attach an on/off switch to even if our politicians think they can. The only people who have achieved global ambitions of this magnitude are the likes of Asimov or Heinlein. Personally I prefer my science fiction to be entertaining and not gratuitously taxing.
BTW I’m not part of the demographic mentioned in your opening paragraph. I’m a well educated female in my fifties so what are the chances of that?
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“Now that I’ve ticked a few of you off, I’ll be trying to go after the other side in my next few posts. ”
Is it ususal for a guest poster to confidently assume that he will be given more slots, even after ticking a few people off? What is the deal here? Are you a new WUWT columnist?