Given the option, would medieval people have rejected the use of free and plentiful energy that spewed carbon dioxide because they focused not on their present needs but rather on someone else’s future? Let’s imagine the scenario: A farmer walking behind his oxen rejects the option of having a tractor; a monk illuminating a Bible by flickering candlelight rejects a steadily shining electric light; a woman beating clothes in a stream or wooden barrel rejects a drop-them-in-come-back-they’re-done clothes washer—all because they see an atmosphere with unvarying carbon levels as an environmental panacea. “I’m not getting one of those new-fangled things because I’m worried about a change in atmospheric composition two or three centuries hence.”*
You’re probably thinking, “No way. People are generally motivated by the here-and-now or by hope for whatever they believe lies no farther than just a pinch over the temporal horizon. All three medieval people would have marveled at and sought the technology once they understood how it could change their lives—even if they understood that they were producing a greenhouse gas in the process.”
Is there some evidence that Earth is warming? Yes, though some might argue that a change of three quarters of a degree to one degree Celsius over a century might just as easily be ascribed to normal fluctuations in an atmosphere that has been much warmer and cooler. Should we be worried about the future—not ours but others’?
But I have to ask: Is there anything anyone can do to mitigate global warming or climate change? Ah! That’s the question for you to answer, and your answer involves choices. You can focus on your own present needs and desires; you can focus on someone else’s future needs and desires. You, regardless of the dire warnings of little Greta Thunberg who believes her childhood has been obliterated by climate change, will continue to live under the vicissitudes of weather and climate as you always have and you will at times say, “Gee, this summer is warm; this winter is cold; now, this is the weather I prefer.”
No doubt, someone out there is saying that I’ve given a false set of choices. “There’s gotta be something in between, some compromise; you can focus on the present in the context of an unknown future,” such a person might say. “We do it all the time according to the week’s weather predictions by the guy on TV who is right about half the time.”
Well, we could listen to Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles, who said during the 2020 heat wave, ““It’s almost 3 p.m.,” Garcetti’s tweet read. “Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead), turn off excess lights and unplug any appliances you’re not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part.”** I’m sure that if you live in L.A., you would have immediately run to comply, especially since you know that Garcetti opposes fossil fuels and nuclear power that could produce at will an oversupply of relatively cheap energy. (I don’t know his stand on gerbil-wheel power)
Or let’s say that California Governor Newsome is correct in saying that climate change is the reason for California’s 2020 summer heat and wildfires. Seems logical, doesn’t it? That is, logical unless one counts the fires arsonists and gender-reveal partygoers started. But, accidental and purposeful human actions aside, shouldn’t we all concentrate on climate because the planet is warming? So, let’s grant Newsome his analysis and his rage against so-called “climate deniers.” But then…
We’re always on the verge of entering an unknown future. Fortunately, as rational beings with a scientific bent, we have the ability to look back to see the way forward. We know, for example and on good evidence (e.g., O-16/O-18 in shells and CO2 in ice cores), that the planet has been warmer and colder at times and that the carbon in the atmosphere has fluctuated prior to the rise of our species. But we also know that atmospheric carbon hasn’t always aligned with those temperature fluctuations. Currently, we know from recorded quantities of carbon dioxide in Hawaii that the greenhouse gas has increased more or less steadily over the past half century, with noticeable lapses during events like the Arab Oil Embargo. We also have plenty of sound evidence through tree-ring analysis that periodic droughts and heat waves have plagued humans for centuries, particularly in regions like the American Southwest. (Just ask the pre-Colonial Pueblo whose civilization appears to have declined during such a drought)
And then, of course, we know that hurricanes provide hard evidence that the ocean holds a great deal of heat and might be gaining more. It’s that heat transferred from the atmosphere to the seas and back that energizes storms. So, “warmists” predict an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes. “Why, just look at the number of such storms in 2020.” But the past isn’t really a clue to the future here. There were, for example, 15 hurricanes in 1916 and 4 in 1917. There were 9 in 2009 and 19 in each of the following three years followed by a lower number per year. Of course, regardless of the number of hurricanes, “warmists” will contend that the severity of the storms has steadily increased though 2013 had no major hurricanes. But we all remember Katrina in 2005, which developed during a year with 28 hurricanes, seven of which were major. Hurricanes and fires. What’s this world coming to? Bigger hurricanes and bigger fires lie on the horizon…Heck! They’re here now. We are in deep climate doo-doo., and I have yet to mention the rapidly rising seas.
Look at what I just did. I picked out some hurricane data that, depending on a point of view, could support either side of the global warming argument. “Look at the number of tropical storms and hurricanes that plague coastlines during 2020!” can be countered with “But the number and strength fluctuates. And the number of fires has fluctuated, also. Aren’t we just more cognizant because we have built our homes where hurricanes and fires affect more of us?”
Gov. Newsome says, in the context of a self-imposed shortage of electrical power in California, that we must get off our dependence on fossil fuels because burning those increased carbon in the atmosphere and caused climate change. And that’s the point of departure for anyone today on the verge of entering an unknown future based on present decisions. What sacrifices are the people of the present willing to make in support of the unknown, but hoped for, future? In other words, what is anyone going to do short of a government takeover of individual lives and livelihoods? If Newsome had lived in medieval times, would he have readily foregone the development of fossil fuels? At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, would he have waged a political battle against technology? Would the Medieval Warm Period have affected his decision? Would the subsequent Little Ice Age that ended just before the Industrial Revolution have similarly affected his choice? If he lived through a thousand years of climate fluctuations, would his attitude be the same? Is he currently that “medieval farmer” who would plow with oxen instead of a tractor?
Lest you think I’m opposed to alternate energy sources and a reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I should note that I’m for such a reduction simply because I can’t see the future. In other words, I take the wary position that “it can’t hurt.” I say wary for a reason. It is possible that Canada, Scotland, and northern European countries have a future because the increase in atmospheric carbon has postponed the next advance of glacial ice. If we entered another glacial advance like the last one, ice sheets as thick as two miles would bulldoze Canadian cities into central and northeastern USA.
Again, the question isn’t just whether anyone can do anything to mitigate global warming, but also whether anyone has the will and foresight to mitigate without some governmental restrictions that reduce the level of “civilization” that developed after the Middle Ages. Are you really willing to make major changes in your lifestyle?
What motivates anyone more than the present? Who among Garcetti’s Angelenos ran to turn up the thermostat because cooled air jeopardized the future? Who ran to turn off their air conditioners because they were worried about the general welfare? And how many cursed a state whose government recently decided to close a fossil fuel power plant or two, leading to power outages that affected millions?
California experienced both drought and high summer temperatures this year (2020), and both environmental circumstances became the immediate focus. What happens if California undergoes an exceptionally cold winter and superabundant rainfall—like the periodic winter rainfall it gets when eastern Pacific semi-permanent pressure systems move northward or southward. Those Pacific pressure systems control the amount of maritime moist air that enters California. Can anyone alter El Niño or El Niña, two controls on those pressure systems? Will Californians get Peruvians and Ecuadorians to change the waters off their coasts?
When temperatures and rainfall change the comfort and needs of individual citizens, can the California Governor or Los Angeles Mayor make a valid argument that they, like some hypothetical knowledgeable and insightful medieval burgher or farmer concerned about the future, should alter the course of civilization? Do they make that argument while still maintaining their lifestyles? Whom do you know who is willing to abandon completely the free and easy access to relatively cheap energy on the promise of a “better future” for an unknown generation? Is ityou?
Yes? Did you say, “Yes, I would be willing to sacrifice my way of life for the people of the 22nd century”? Did I hear you say, “I’m turning my thermostat up in summer and down in winter. I’m going green energy exclusively. Fact, I already have an appointment to switch my house over to solar-wind-hydro-geothermal-gerbil power, and I’m covering my roof with soil and plants for added insulation. I’m going underground.”
Can anyone say “cave dweller”? By the way, good luck with that green power thing right now. I tried wind energy as my sole provider for a year but had to switch back to coal-fired energy because the price for a kilowatt hour with wind power dramatically increased in the second year.
Your actions might be more noble than mine since I wimped out after a year simply because it cost me twice as much for wind-electricity as opposed to coal-energy. I guess I’m selfish. I just can’t bring myself to spend twice as much as I need to spend for the sake of the 22nd century. I’m the medieval farmer who would have said, “Show me how to work this tractor thing.”
If you are more noble and altruistic than I, then that means you’ll probably be saying goodbye to this website and to every other website because accessing the web uses electricity, most of which comes from fossil fuels—if not on your end, then on my end. If you are more noble than I, you will make your financial decisions on the basis of Greta Thunberg’s future. Call me cruel and indifferent, but I believe Greta’s traveling around the world to spread her message probably involves emitting greenhouse gases.
California’s drought might be a century-long phenomenon, maybe even longer. Previous droughts in the Southwest have lasted more than a century, so there’s always the potential for similar droughts and heat waves. Forest fires are inevitable even in times of “normal” seasonal weather conditions. Prehistoric fires didn’t, however, burn through a land with tens of millions of people, so, yes, weather conditions affect real humans. But eliminating relatively cheap and abundant energy from the power grid also affects real humans. Ask any who lost their power during California’s recent blackouts. Were those whose freezers lost power content to say, “Sure, I might have lost some food, but look what changing over to green power is going to do for people in the 22nd century and beyond. My groceries are a small price to pay for a green future.”
*I thought hence was a nice touch; it seems to have originated in the late 13th century in the “High Middle Ages” right before the onset of modern technical thinking and devices.
**Garcetti’s comment elicited a number of mocking responses, including one that asked whether the “left-coast’s elites” who consider the middle of the country bumpkin-land, aren’t the backward bumpkins themselves since the country’s middle section seems to be electricity-rich.
You’re probably thinking, “No way. People are generally motivated by the here-and-now or by hope for whatever they believe lies no farther than just a pinch over the temporal horizon. All three medieval people would have marveled at and sought the technology once they understood how it could change their lives—even if they understood that they were producing a greenhouse gas in the process.”
Is there some evidence that Earth is warming? Yes, though some might argue that a change of three quarters of a degree to one degree Celsius over a century might just as easily be ascribed to normal fluctuations in an atmosphere that has been much warmer and cooler. Should we be worried about the future—not ours but others’?
But I have to ask: Is there anything anyone can do to mitigate global warming or climate change? Ah! That’s the question for you to answer, and your answer involves choices. You can focus on your own present needs and desires; you can focus on someone else’s future needs and desires. You, regardless of the dire warnings of little Greta Thunberg who believes her childhood has been obliterated by climate change, will continue to live under the vicissitudes of weather and climate as you always have and you will at times say, “Gee, this summer is warm; this winter is cold; now, this is the weather I prefer.”
No doubt, someone out there is saying that I’ve given a false set of choices. “There’s gotta be something in between, some compromise; you can focus on the present in the context of an unknown future,” such a person might say. “We do it all the time according to the week’s weather predictions by the guy on TV who is right about half the time.”
Well, we could listen to Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles, who said during the 2020 heat wave, ““It’s almost 3 p.m.,” Garcetti’s tweet read. “Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead), turn off excess lights and unplug any appliances you’re not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part.”** I’m sure that if you live in L.A., you would have immediately run to comply, especially since you know that Garcetti opposes fossil fuels and nuclear power that could produce at will an oversupply of relatively cheap energy. (I don’t know his stand on gerbil-wheel power)
Or let’s say that California Governor Newsome is correct in saying that climate change is the reason for California’s 2020 summer heat and wildfires. Seems logical, doesn’t it? That is, logical unless one counts the fires arsonists and gender-reveal partygoers started. But, accidental and purposeful human actions aside, shouldn’t we all concentrate on climate because the planet is warming? So, let’s grant Newsome his analysis and his rage against so-called “climate deniers.” But then…
We’re always on the verge of entering an unknown future. Fortunately, as rational beings with a scientific bent, we have the ability to look back to see the way forward. We know, for example and on good evidence (e.g., O-16/O-18 in shells and CO2 in ice cores), that the planet has been warmer and colder at times and that the carbon in the atmosphere has fluctuated prior to the rise of our species. But we also know that atmospheric carbon hasn’t always aligned with those temperature fluctuations. Currently, we know from recorded quantities of carbon dioxide in Hawaii that the greenhouse gas has increased more or less steadily over the past half century, with noticeable lapses during events like the Arab Oil Embargo. We also have plenty of sound evidence through tree-ring analysis that periodic droughts and heat waves have plagued humans for centuries, particularly in regions like the American Southwest. (Just ask the pre-Colonial Pueblo whose civilization appears to have declined during such a drought)
And then, of course, we know that hurricanes provide hard evidence that the ocean holds a great deal of heat and might be gaining more. It’s that heat transferred from the atmosphere to the seas and back that energizes storms. So, “warmists” predict an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes. “Why, just look at the number of such storms in 2020.” But the past isn’t really a clue to the future here. There were, for example, 15 hurricanes in 1916 and 4 in 1917. There were 9 in 2009 and 19 in each of the following three years followed by a lower number per year. Of course, regardless of the number of hurricanes, “warmists” will contend that the severity of the storms has steadily increased though 2013 had no major hurricanes. But we all remember Katrina in 2005, which developed during a year with 28 hurricanes, seven of which were major. Hurricanes and fires. What’s this world coming to? Bigger hurricanes and bigger fires lie on the horizon…Heck! They’re here now. We are in deep climate doo-doo., and I have yet to mention the rapidly rising seas.
Look at what I just did. I picked out some hurricane data that, depending on a point of view, could support either side of the global warming argument. “Look at the number of tropical storms and hurricanes that plague coastlines during 2020!” can be countered with “But the number and strength fluctuates. And the number of fires has fluctuated, also. Aren’t we just more cognizant because we have built our homes where hurricanes and fires affect more of us?”
Gov. Newsome says, in the context of a self-imposed shortage of electrical power in California, that we must get off our dependence on fossil fuels because burning those increased carbon in the atmosphere and caused climate change. And that’s the point of departure for anyone today on the verge of entering an unknown future based on present decisions. What sacrifices are the people of the present willing to make in support of the unknown, but hoped for, future? In other words, what is anyone going to do short of a government takeover of individual lives and livelihoods? If Newsome had lived in medieval times, would he have readily foregone the development of fossil fuels? At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, would he have waged a political battle against technology? Would the Medieval Warm Period have affected his decision? Would the subsequent Little Ice Age that ended just before the Industrial Revolution have similarly affected his choice? If he lived through a thousand years of climate fluctuations, would his attitude be the same? Is he currently that “medieval farmer” who would plow with oxen instead of a tractor?
Lest you think I’m opposed to alternate energy sources and a reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I should note that I’m for such a reduction simply because I can’t see the future. In other words, I take the wary position that “it can’t hurt.” I say wary for a reason. It is possible that Canada, Scotland, and northern European countries have a future because the increase in atmospheric carbon has postponed the next advance of glacial ice. If we entered another glacial advance like the last one, ice sheets as thick as two miles would bulldoze Canadian cities into central and northeastern USA.
Again, the question isn’t just whether anyone can do anything to mitigate global warming, but also whether anyone has the will and foresight to mitigate without some governmental restrictions that reduce the level of “civilization” that developed after the Middle Ages. Are you really willing to make major changes in your lifestyle?
What motivates anyone more than the present? Who among Garcetti’s Angelenos ran to turn up the thermostat because cooled air jeopardized the future? Who ran to turn off their air conditioners because they were worried about the general welfare? And how many cursed a state whose government recently decided to close a fossil fuel power plant or two, leading to power outages that affected millions?
California experienced both drought and high summer temperatures this year (2020), and both environmental circumstances became the immediate focus. What happens if California undergoes an exceptionally cold winter and superabundant rainfall—like the periodic winter rainfall it gets when eastern Pacific semi-permanent pressure systems move northward or southward. Those Pacific pressure systems control the amount of maritime moist air that enters California. Can anyone alter El Niño or El Niña, two controls on those pressure systems? Will Californians get Peruvians and Ecuadorians to change the waters off their coasts?
When temperatures and rainfall change the comfort and needs of individual citizens, can the California Governor or Los Angeles Mayor make a valid argument that they, like some hypothetical knowledgeable and insightful medieval burgher or farmer concerned about the future, should alter the course of civilization? Do they make that argument while still maintaining their lifestyles? Whom do you know who is willing to abandon completely the free and easy access to relatively cheap energy on the promise of a “better future” for an unknown generation? Is ityou?
Yes? Did you say, “Yes, I would be willing to sacrifice my way of life for the people of the 22nd century”? Did I hear you say, “I’m turning my thermostat up in summer and down in winter. I’m going green energy exclusively. Fact, I already have an appointment to switch my house over to solar-wind-hydro-geothermal-gerbil power, and I’m covering my roof with soil and plants for added insulation. I’m going underground.”
Can anyone say “cave dweller”? By the way, good luck with that green power thing right now. I tried wind energy as my sole provider for a year but had to switch back to coal-fired energy because the price for a kilowatt hour with wind power dramatically increased in the second year.
Your actions might be more noble than mine since I wimped out after a year simply because it cost me twice as much for wind-electricity as opposed to coal-energy. I guess I’m selfish. I just can’t bring myself to spend twice as much as I need to spend for the sake of the 22nd century. I’m the medieval farmer who would have said, “Show me how to work this tractor thing.”
If you are more noble and altruistic than I, then that means you’ll probably be saying goodbye to this website and to every other website because accessing the web uses electricity, most of which comes from fossil fuels—if not on your end, then on my end. If you are more noble than I, you will make your financial decisions on the basis of Greta Thunberg’s future. Call me cruel and indifferent, but I believe Greta’s traveling around the world to spread her message probably involves emitting greenhouse gases.
California’s drought might be a century-long phenomenon, maybe even longer. Previous droughts in the Southwest have lasted more than a century, so there’s always the potential for similar droughts and heat waves. Forest fires are inevitable even in times of “normal” seasonal weather conditions. Prehistoric fires didn’t, however, burn through a land with tens of millions of people, so, yes, weather conditions affect real humans. But eliminating relatively cheap and abundant energy from the power grid also affects real humans. Ask any who lost their power during California’s recent blackouts. Were those whose freezers lost power content to say, “Sure, I might have lost some food, but look what changing over to green power is going to do for people in the 22nd century and beyond. My groceries are a small price to pay for a green future.”
*I thought hence was a nice touch; it seems to have originated in the late 13th century in the “High Middle Ages” right before the onset of modern technical thinking and devices.
**Garcetti’s comment elicited a number of mocking responses, including one that asked whether the “left-coast’s elites” who consider the middle of the country bumpkin-land, aren’t the backward bumpkins themselves since the country’s middle section seems to be electricity-rich.
RSS Feed