The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and 99.999% of those physical and climate changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet. Humanity’s 8 billion have only been on earth for less than 200 years which represents a micro-second of the 4.5 billion years the Sun and Earth have existed.
Published March 18, 2024, America Out Loud NEWS
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Without getting too detailed with geological explanations of the physical and climate changes to Mother Earth over the last 4.5 billion years, let’s review, in layman’s language, some of those changes against the current evaluation of the rise in temperatures during the “micro-second”, i.e., the “hockey stick” of time that current humanity has been on this planet.
To put size, time, and events in perspective, let’s look at this old planet that we’re on:
SUN: The Sun is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it.
AGE OF EARTH: The earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.
Earth’s age 4,500,000,000 years
Present day humanity 200 years
The current 8 billion people on this planet have been on earth for about a micro-moment of the Earth’s life!!!!
Many physical and climate changes have occurred because of the complexity of atmospheric, planetary, and galactic forces of the solar system that determine Earth’s climate and 99.999% of those changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet.
- GLACIAL MOVEMENTS: Glacial advances and retreats have been caused by changes in the axis of the earth in the solar system. The earth has experienced 40 or so glacial maximums throughout its history, with the most recent glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago.
- GRAND CANYON: The Grand Canyon was developed over 12,000 years of water erosion carving out the majestic cliffs and valleys that we see today. There were no environmentalists around at that time that were concerned about the vast changes occurring to the earth’s landscape.
- HABITABLE LAND: Today the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land. Out of this 29%, about 33% are considered uninhabitable as it is mountainous, deserts, Artic or other inhospitable environments. This means that roughly 20% of the Earth’s total surface area is habitable by humans.
- OCEANS: The deepest part of the ocean at 36,000 feet is at the Marianas Trench located in the Pacific Ocean. To put this depth into perspective, consider that the highest point in the world is Mount Everest at 29,029 feet. The size and depth of the oceans account for 99% of the planet’s living space.
- HUMANITY INHABITANTS: The earth population increased from 1 to 8 billion in 200 years after the discovery of oil.
- Oil has allowed us to produce more food, provide better healthcare, generate substantial industries, and create more jobs. Oil is used to power machinery that is used in agriculture, communications, transportation, and manufacturing. This has allowed us to produce more food than ever before, which has fed a growing population. Additionally, in modern times, oil is used to produce pharmaceuticals and medical equipment that have helped to extend life expectancy and improve overall worldwide health.
- Furthermore, the discovery of oil has led to the creation of new industries and job opportunities. The oil industry itself employs millions of people around the world, but it has also spurred the growth of other industries, such as the automobile, healthcare, electronics, and airline industries. These industries have created millions of additional jobs and have helped to drive economic growth.
- Note: While renewables have made some strides in generating occasional electricity from inconsistent breezes and sunshine, they cannot make any of the more than 6,000 products demanded by our materialistic society that are now totally based on crude oil. Fossil fuels are essential in the production of countless products that we use in our daily lives, from tires and synthetic fibers to fertilizers and pharmaceuticals.
- INFRASTRUCTURES: The infrastructures that exist today are vastly different from those that existed before the 1800s. In the past, infrastructure was limited and mostly rudimentary. Roads were unsealed and were often narrow and winding. Bridges were made of wood and could not carry the load of today’s traffic. Transportation was limited to horse-drawn carriages and sailing craft. Communication was slow, as it relied upon the manual carriage of written messages and was unreliable.
- Since the 1800s, medical science has made significant advancements in the field of healthcare. Prior to the 19th century, most medical treatments were based on superstitions and folklore. However, with the advent of modern medical science, new medicines and medical facilities have been developed to help treat a variety of illnesses and diseases. Some of the most significant medical advancements since the 1800s include the discovery of antibiotics, the development of vaccines, the creation of X-rays and other imaging technologies, and the establishment of hospitals and medical schools. These advancements have helped to improve the overall health and well-being of people around the world.
- Today, infrastructure has evolved significantly, thanks to advancements in technology and engineering. Roads are wider, smoother, and made of concrete or asphalt. Bridges are made of steel and can withstand heavy loads. Communication is instantaneous, because of modern electronic systems. Transportation has become faster and more efficient, with the invention of cars, trains, modern ocean-going ships, and airplanes.
- CO2 LEVELS: During the Earth’s glacial advances and retreats, the CO2 levels were driven nearly entirely by temperature changes in the ocean, with the colder oceans during glacial advance sequestering huge amounts of CO2 and then expelling it during interglacial warming periods.
- Today CO2 levels are about 420 ppm. The level at which plants stop growing and die is 150 ppm. When plants die, all life on Earth will die.
- Today, commercial greenhouse owners control the CO2 levels up to 1000 to 1200 ppm to maximize growth rates.
- Today, the level of CO2 in submarines averages 3,500 ppm as submarines routinely operate with higher levels of ambient CO2 in submarines in the range of, 2000 – 5000 ppm.
- Today, like sailors in nuclear submarines, cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS), minimum ambient CO2 concentrations are approximately 3000 ppm, but can reach values greater than 6500 ppm.
- A MICRO MOMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE: 200 years of the earth’s existence is a micro moment, of climate change.
- To be exact, 200 years of the 4.5 billion-year-old planet represents only a micro-second of the total time the Earth has existed. This tiny fraction highlights just how young human civilization is in comparison to the age of this planet within the solar system that we inhabit.
- Humanity’s 8 billion have only been on earth for less than 200 years of the 4,500,000,000 (4.5 billion) year old planet, that represents a microscopic proportion of the total time the Earth has existed.
The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and 99.999% of those changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet. Thus, after putting our current “micro second” on this planet into perspective of the earth’s existence in the solar system, we might ask: How dare the political, bureaucratic, academic, and media ruling elites, who disseminate theoretical nonsense, calculated myths and outright disinformation imply that their “green” policies for humanity’s micro moment presence on this planet to change the climate are more forceful than the galactic forces of the solar system?
My personal thoughts about present day humanity’s ability to impact climate change are comparable to an individual urinating in the ocean and believing he or she can change the temperature of the ocean waters!
How dare the Globalists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Pope Francis, John Kerry, and millions of zombie followers that have only been on the planet less than 80 years out of the 4.5 billion plus years of the existence of this marvelous planet, imply that their “green” policies to change the climate are more forceful than the effects of the Sun and the solar system? What mindless arrogance!
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy literacy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as
Which is why Mann wants his Hockey Stick to be accepted as real. Industrial society must be evil, to a Green.
It’s that time of year again….many corporations are having annual elections….and almost every one will have a stockholder proposal regarding……DEI and…..climate change…..and fortunately most will be voted down.
I think Boeing having DEI DERs will be their downfall.
Not sure what is meant by the Grand Canyon was developed over 12,000 years. It’s been around for millions of years.
I once made the Great Wall wet, at least for a little while.
yeah, I think that’s probably a typo
When did the Grand Canyon actually become a canyon and not just the banks of the Colorado?
In the ice ages did the glaciers reach Arizona?
Wouldn’t the melt at the end of the last ice age have increased the volume of water flowing through the canyon, thus accelerating its formation?
That it developed in fits and starts rather than a single smooth process, with the ebb and flow of the ice caps changing the quantity of water flowing down the river?
At a maximum depth of 6,000′, it would require an average erosion rate of about 0.5′ per year over 12,000 years, with most of that happening during the Spring floods. In the 155 years since John Wesley Powell explored and mapped the Grand Canyon, it should have cut into the basement rock another 78′, which should be obvious from comparing the early maps and land marks. While major floods can and do make big changes, particularly in the South West, I think that the evidence suggests an age greater than 12,000 years for the Grand Canyon.
I have observed Pleistocene(?) benches along the upper-Feather River in California that are more than 78′ above the current water level, but that probably includes uplift-effects that accelerated erosion and may be a couple million years old. On the other hand, there have been two major floods through Serpentine Canyon above Rich Bar during my lifetime. Other than a huge boulder being removed at Rich Bar, I haven’t seen any obvious deepening of that section of the River in over 60 years. Therefore, again, I’d have to conclude that it is unlikely that the Grand Canyon is as young as 12,000 years.
https://scitechdaily.com/grand-canyon-thought-to-be-65-million-years-older-than-previous-estimates/
There are some that think that the Deep Blue Leads in the Sierra Nevada rivers may also be of Cretaceous age. They are certainly as old as Eocene.
When the photosynthesis plant cells first appeared and started using CO2 to produce O2……did that cause an ice age to develop…..according to someone …a “doctor” on Youtube?
At the core of the green’s ideology is Mathusianism/anti-natalism. They want fewer people and will do just about anything to achieve their goal. They aren’t just misguided, they are evil.
I’ve been saying that for years.
If you look up The Optimum Trust aka Population Matters (David Attenborough is the patron saint), you can also throw in racism. Population Matters accidentally released a spreadsheet showing exactly which countries needed to reduce their population and it wasn’t the predominantly white, Christian countries.
Link to spreadsheet
Mandatory reading.
I’m in awe to think while I’m still here and living the dream, apparently my Dad was born in a previous Earth epoch.
And he didn’t bother passing this life-shaping info on to us kids.
Or maybe like us, he just didn’t notice any changes in weather from year to year, decade to decade, century to century.
Maybe if his generation had social media, he would have been more anxious?
“What mindless arrogance!”
I’ve been saying that for years.
We humans aren’t half as important as we think we are.
This article is just complete nonsense. The question of whether or not humans are able to alter the climate does not depend on how long humans have existed but rather on what means they have at their disposal.
The grand canyon may have taken millions of years to form via erosion but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t alter it in a few hours using 100 of nuclear weapons for example,
or over a longer period by altering the flow of the colorado river.
Nor does the fact that the climate has changed in the past imply that humans can’t change the climate. All that means is that a lot of factors can change the climate and human activity is now one of them.
Your comment is based on your usual total ignorance and brain-washed gormlessness.
There is no evidence that humans have altered the global climate in any way what so ever.
You know that to be a FACT… but your far-left idiotology won’t let you admit to it.
It is a really putrid and anti-human form of virtue-seeking non-science that you indulge yourself in.
Izaak is certainly very ignorant, anti-human, and his example is crazy. What is it about leftists and their fixation on nuclear weapons being used for measure in arguments?
The fact is that people clearly have altered the flow of the Colorado River, no bombs needed. Construction of dams, for example, have impacted natural ecosystems, but they also allow the utilization of massive resources for a desolate region of the country. Now, water especially is available to directly support and improve the lives of millions.
Even though I live on the Eastern side of the Continental Divide, a large portion of the water serving the area of my community comes from the Colorado via under the Divide tunnels.
I think we all would like to know the true extent to which global warming is a result of human activities, but don’t expect to hear truth from leftists.
It is clear that warming is better than cooling, as is more CO2 for the benefit of life.
But there is no “global climate”.
There are certainly hundreds if not thousands of unique climates in localities all around the world, all with their own characteristics and behaviors.
And “averaging” their characteristics is a nonsense construct.
As Izaac intimates though, human activities such as broad scale vegetation clearing and creating vast lakes can alter local climate behaviors.
Need I mention UHI effects?
“And ‘averaging’ their characteristics is a nonsense construct.”
Alas!! It’s another averaging action. Averaging temperatures is thermodynamic nonsense.
IW, you posted:
“The question of whether or not humans are able to alter the climate does not depend on how long humans have existed but rather on what means they have at their disposal.”
Really??? I’m would love to know that such a claim was true because we could then dismiss out-of-hand all the talk about how how much higher in the future atmospheric temperatures will be driven by human emissions from burning fossil fuels . . . you know, “1.5 °C hotter by 2050”, “3.0 °C hotter by 2100″, etc. etc.
That is, unless one claims to have a crystal ball to know perfectly what means humans will “have at their disposal” in the future.
Now, you started off saying something about “complete nonsense” . . .
Human activity can affect local climate. The urban heat island effect is pretty common. Can we noticeably affect global climate? So far we have seen no evidence of that. All the squawking and hand-wringing is over a theory that has yet to be proved. The lack of supporting evidence strongly suggests that the theory of human effect(s) on global climate are vastly overstated. The evidence so far shows that human effects on global climate are insignificant or non-existent, especially compared to natural variation. Are we contributing to a global increase in temperature? Maybe, but it’s paltry as far as we can tell. All the hyperbole about boiling oceans, “extreme” weather, catastrophic sea level rise, a plague of frogs and locusts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria… is nonsense. Well, the mass hysteria is real, and you’re one of the gullible devotees.
Kindly present the evidence that at least some of the climate change observed since 1850 is actually anthropogenic.
You can’t, of course.
Theories as to how Earth was created involve massive amounts of energy of a scale no human being could contemplate let alone think about creating for themselves. Some days Mother Nature may feel a bit of a tickle or an itch from mankind’s multiple misdemeanours but to believe our species is capable of significantly changing our Planet’s climate is an unbelievable conceit we need to rid ourselves of PDQ.
We have a long way to go to even contain the many weaknesses our species has let alone exchange them for strengths. We cannot even ask the question when did our last war end. We exaggerate our best and try to hide our worse but we will always be subservient to a Mother who has seen it all and more, much, much more, before.
Meanwhile, one of Mother’s average electric storms contains more energy creation and release in a few moments than mankind can produce in a whole year or more. And we seem to have completely forgotten that without carbon dioxide we wouldn’t even be here. One day, very soon we should hope, we will get our perspective and sanity back, and for a while we will relax and even enjoy, that is until the next time we have a mad turn like this.
I see small telltales of some sanity but insanity abounds.
One of our Supreme Court judges cannot even define what a woman is, but she will judge any man, delusional or not, to be a woman if he says that he is (it helps if he wears a dress). Much of the insanity we face today is a result of magical thinking by leftists who are not grounded in reality.
The same is true with so-called ‘assault weapons.’ None of the Leftist I have encountered who profess to want to ban them have been able to define what it is that they want to ban. What is it about Liberals that causes them to be so illogical?
No no you don’t understand that climate change is off the charts!
Climate change is ‘off the charts,’ a new report warns (msn.com)
GREENHOUSE GASES: Temperatures are largely fueled by greenhouse gas emissions, and these continued to climb in 2023. WMO says data for concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases in the air (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) are not yet available for the whole of 2023, but in 2022 they reached ‘new highs’. Globally averaged concentrations were 417.9 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1,923 parts per billion (ppb) for methane (CH4), and 335.8 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O). Respectively, this marks an alarming rise of 150 per cent, 264 percent and 124 percent compared with greenhouse gas concentrations levels in the year 1750.
Ahhh that must be it-
1750s – Wikipedia
The 1750s was a pioneering decade. Waves of settlers flooded the New World (specifically the Americas) in hopes of re-establishing life away from European control, and electricity was a field of novelty that had yet to be merged with the studies of chemistry and engineering. Numerous discoveries of the 1750s forged the basis for contemporary scientific consensus.
“the three main greenhouse gases in the air (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide)”
And here I thought H2O played a role…
“And here I thought H2O played a role…”
Probably the only one that does..
No evidence that anyone seems to be able to produce that CO2, CH4 or N2O do much of anything in the atmosphere at all.
Here’s evidence of the role of H2O; the same cloud in visible and IR. Note the relative temperature of the power transformer.
You can only imagine the heating effect of the CO2 in the clear sky beyond.
“You can only imagine”
Like any other fantasy !!
You can see the “clear sky” next to the cloud.
No heat.
“… the “clear sky” next to the cloud.
No heat.”
Not quite correct bnice2000.
High school physics teaches that all things radiate energy.
The cloud is radiating at an effective temperature of -7.4 degrees C.
The “clear sky” is radiating at an effective temperature of ~ -30 degrees C.
This is the dreaded “back radiation” that’s going to destroy the planet. It comes from a source that is in fact very cold.
MSN also does not understand that it is the sun that fuels, you know the thing.
“GREENHOUSE GASES: Temperatures are largely fueled by greenhouse gas emissions,”
There is no evidence supporting this (CO2) contention. The above is an unsubstantiated assertion typical of alarmist climate science.
Alarmist climate science is made up solely of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and its interaction with the atmosphere.
There is no evidence CO2 is doing anything harmful to human beings. None whatsoever. Alarmist climate science is not based on established facts.
Yikes! It’s 62C in Rio-
Brazilian heatwave leaves Rio sweltering in 62C (msn.com)
Sort of via the usual drama Queens.
NO.. the actual temperature was only 42ºC.
They faked the rest using some AGW “heat index” calculation.
Just another AGW MASS MEDIA MISINFORMATION campaign
Wow! A whole 10 years.
62C?
That’s nothing!
PS Obvious mistakes made on the monitor on live TV. Kudos to the weather guy who “just rolled with it” and make the goofs funny on live TV.
Zero kudos to those who “roll with” obvious mistakes made in “Climate Change” cr@p by those who (theoretically) should know better.
You can also add to this list:
Without fossil fuels, whales, sea turtles and elephants would be extinct today.
The discovery of oil in the 1800s turned out to be a cheaper and better alternative than whale blubber for lighting homes, plastic materials obtained from the shell of sea turtles, and ivory used for piano keys and fancy decor from elephant tusks. Oil prevented these species from extiction!
That reminds me, I should wax my car.
Ronald Stein,
Thank you for the intelligence and reality of your perspective.
You could have been a top geologist if you had chosen that path, I suspect. Similar thought processes. That is meant as a top compliment. Geoff S
Over my lifetime, there have been many film recordings reminding us of the power of ‘mother nature’, smashing mighty engineered sea defences into pulp, as if they were constructed from matchsticks. Yet, our ruling classes, think, that they are somehow as powerful as gods, to alter the climate!
This explains climatards in a nutshell, the total insignificance of humans on any meaningful scale shows that THEY are insignificant. That shatters their tiny little egos and they lash out at everyone else to make themselves “feel” significant.
Minor quibble: Fairly sure that the Grand Canyon was formed over somewhat more than 12,000 years.
I await Mr. Greene’s input before know whether to disapprove of this article or not. /s
The temperature on the first day of spring in North America.
Woke up to snow today in southern Michigan. I thought there was global warming and springs would be warmer, not colder.
Ooops . . . 200 years out of 4.5 billion years = 0.000000044. Therefore humanity hasn’t affected climate change on Earth for 99.9999956 % of that duration.
Ronald Stein, author of the above article, was very conservative in rounding down to a lower claimed percentage of only 99.999 % of the last 4.5 billion years being absent human-influenced climate change. Using proper and accepted mathematical rounding to three decimal points, the correct stated value would be that humans haven’t influenced climate for 100.000 % of the last 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history.
Nicely put.
Bad math, we’ve been around for more than 200 years unless the author means petroleum using humanity. I he does he should have said so.
Sometimes what you meant doesn’t get written.