Wed 2 Dec 2009
John Wilson ‘64 notes this Washington Post story on William Ruddiman ‘64.
Has climate change been around as long as the pyramids?
It is an odd-sounding idea, because the problem is usually assumed to be a modern one, the product of a world created by the Industrial Revolution and powered by high-polluting fossil fuels.
But a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia has suggested that people began altering the climate thousands of years ago, as primitive farmers burned forests and built methane-bubbling rice paddies. The practices produced enough greenhouse gases, he says, to warm the world by a degree or more.
Other scientists, however, have said the idea is deeply flawed and might be used to dampen modern alarms over climate change.
Read the whole thing. Comments:
1) What other Ephs are prominently involved in the science and politics of climate change?
2) Anything that dampens “modern alarms over climate change” gets a thumbs up from me, although I place my non-Eph related climate posts at other blogs.
3) More info in Ruddiman’s book.
The impact on climate from 200 years of industrial development is an everyday fact of life, but did humankind’s active involvement in climate change really begin with the industrial revolution, as commonly believed? William Ruddiman’s provocative new book argues that humans have actually been changing the climate for some 8,000 years–as a result of the earlier discovery of agriculture.
The “Ruddiman Hypothesis” will spark intense debate. We learn that the impact of farming on greenhouse-gas levels, thousands of years before the industrial revolution, kept our planet notably warmer than if natural climate cycles had prevailed–quite possibly forestalling a new ice age.
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum is the first book to trace the full historical sweep of human interaction with Earth’s climate.
Interesting stuff. Environmental Science ought to invite Ruddiman to give a talk at Williams.
Print • Email| « The politics of Afghanistan/ Vietnam cont. | Homophobic Graffiti in Dennett » |
11 Responses to “Ruddiman ‘64 on Climate Change”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.





Glenn M. Heller says:
What hogwash.
As though mankind has had ANY impact on Earthly climate EVER!
LeftyEph says:
Responding to 2) above, if Ruddiman’s view gets a thumbs up from you then I guess you also agree that:
PareskyLawnBowler says:
John Kleiner is married to Elizabeth Kolbert. You might enjoy her rebuttal to the Superfreakonomics Climate Change arguments.
Ronit says:
@PareskyLawnBowler: I enjoyed that. Thanks.
Diana says:
There’s always Morgan Goodwin ‘08 …
Ronit says:
Morgan blogs here
Chad Orzel weighs in on the stolen climate change data
An earnest effort by some current Williams students to encourage conservation
Williams Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fiscal Year 2009
JeffZ says:
I didn’t know about Kleiner and Kolbert. I enjoy the Freakonomics guys and they highlight some really interesting research in both of their books (although, for anyone who has read Superfreakononmics, I am still very curious about the unrevealed banking variable that correlates with terrorist inclinations), but Kolbert eviscerated their environmental arguments. Their basic point (boiled down a bit) is, well, let’s not worry about screwing up the environment because eventually science will find a cheap, simple cure-all. Of course, we could say the same thing about ANY short-sighted policy (why worry about endangered species because we’ll be able to bio-engineer them! why worry about debt because some new technological advance will lead to an economic boom! why worry about health care when science will just cure every disease!).
'11 says:
They live in Williamstown, and Kolbert is personal friends with some of the faculty in Environmental Studies. I think she’s given a Log Lunch talk, and she’s sometimes seen at Center for Environmental Studies events.
kthomas says:
Wow. Ms. Kolbert is certainly… snarky and low in evidence or argumentation. (She could bother reading Dyson but, well.) (She could bother telling the horse shit story accurately, but, well, that might undermine her conclusions). (And, of course, the fact that Al Gore doesn’t like something, is strong evidence that it must be bad.)
kthomas says:
Ken Thomas '93 says:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494