Greenland ice dome completely melted 7,000 years ago when temperatures were around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today

Amazing stuff! Climate changes all the time! What caused the global warming 7,000 years ago? Unfortunately, the article does not elaborate at all!

Anthropogenic climate change is largely demagoguery spread by some scientists like this (Professor Briner of this study) and others!

According to Google search: "Around 7,000 years ago (circa 5000 BCE), the global human population was likely in the millions, possibly reaching 5 million". Compare that to the current global human population of about 8 billion.

I bet, all current so called climate models have not been able to backcast this event correctly! Climate model forecasts up to 2100 are at best scenarios and simulations at worst propaganda and demagoguery!

These phony researchers behind this study even cite "projections of warming by 2100 CE". What a junk science! Which is reinforced by following quote "“It may only be a matter of time before [Prudhoe Dome] begins peeling back again from today’s human-induced climate change [???].” Jason Briner, professor and associate chair of Earth sciences"

"... The intensity of that glow revealed that the Prudhoe Dome sediment was last exposed to daylight sometime between 6,000 and 8,200 years ago. 

“This means Prudhoe Dome melted sometime before this period, likely during the early Holocene, when temperatures were around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. ..."

"In northwestern Greenland, researchers working on the GreenDrill project have cored through a 500-meter-thick ice dome. They found something startling: the dome completely disappeared 7,000 years ago. And it might do it again.

Nearly 80% of Greenland is covered in frozen water by the fittingly named Greenland Ice Sheet. This sheet comprises the second-largest body of water in the world, stretching over about 660,000 sq miles (1.7 million sq km), and containing roughly 0.7 million cubic miles (2.9 million cubic km) of ice, representing a significant portion of the Earth's freshwater supply. ..."

From the abstract:

"Projections of future sea-level rise benefit from understanding the response of past ice sheets to warming during past Quaternary interglacials. Constraints on the extent of inland Greenland Ice Sheet retreat during the Middle Holocene (~8–4 thousand years before present) are limited because geological records of a smaller-than-modern phase largely remain beneath the modern ice sheet.

We drilled through 509 metres of firn and ice at Prudhoe Dome, northwestern Greenland, to obtain sub-ice material yielding direct evidence for the response of the northwest Greenland ice sheet to Holocene warmth.

Here we present infrared stimulated luminescence measurements from sub-ice sediments that indicate that the ground below the summit was exposed to sunlight 7.1 ± 1.1 thousand years ago.

This proposed complete deglaciation of Prudhoe Dome, coeval to reduced extent at other ice caps across northern Greenland, is consistent with interglacial-only δ18O values from the Prudhoe Dome ice column and ice depth–age modelling. Our results point to a substantial response of the northwest Greenland ice sheet to early Holocene warming, estimated to be +3–5 °C from palaeoclimate data. This range of summer temperatures is similar to projections of warming by 2100 CE. [???]"

Greenland ice dome melted 7,000 years ago

Greenland’s Prudhoe Dome ice cap was completely gone only 7,000 years ago, first GreenDrill study finds (original news release) "Core samples pulled from beneath ice sheet suggest region is highly sensitive to the temperatures of our current interglacial period"

Deglaciation of the Prudhoe Dome in northwestern Greenland in response to Holocene warming (no public access)

Holocene deglaciation of Prudhoe Dome, northwest Greenland (preprint, open access)

Human Dominance Soars While Wild Biomass and Movement Decline. Really!

So what is the point of these two new studies? Biomass hysteria and alarmism? Exercises in futility?

In 1850, world human population was around 1.2 billion. In 2025, it is about 8.2 billion. So what! The population of China and Japan are already shrinking, while the population of India, Africa and Europe will follow soon.

Human Dominance Soars While Wild Biomass and Movement Decline - www.caltech.edu "Two new studies quantify key features of human and animal presence on Earth.

The first study finds that the movement of human biomass today is 40 times greater than that of all wild land mammals, birds, and arthropods combined. Another study reveals that the combined biomass of wild land and marine mammals has plummeted by about 70 percent since 1850, whereas the biomass of humans has soared by roughly 700 percent and that of domesticated animals by 400 percent; those two categories have a combined biomass approaching about 1.1 billion tons."

Nearly a quarter of the world's population no longer affiliates with a religion, new PEW report shows

Recommendable!

So few Buddhists? I have some very serious doubts!

Significant proportion of world's rural population missing from global estimates by as much as 50%

How good are actually our estimates of total world population?

What about the urban population? I bet it is not better than rural population.

They say demography is destiny! Maybe it is a guessing game too or anything but an exact science! 😊

From the abstract:

"Numerous initiatives towards sustainable development rely on global gridded population data. Such data have been calibrated [???] primarily for urban environments, but their accuracy in the rural domain remains largely unexplored. This study systematically validates global gridded population datasets in rural areas, based on reported human resettlement from 307 large dam construction projects in 35 countries. We find large discrepancies between the examined datasets, and, without exception, significant negative biases of −53%, −65%, −67%, −68%, and −84% for WorldPop, GWP, GRUMP, LandScan, and GHS-POP, respectively. This implies that rural population is, even in the most accurate dataset, underestimated by half compared to reported figures. To ensure equitable access to services and resources for rural communities, past and future applications of the datasets must undergo a critical discussion in light of the identified biases. Improvements in the datasets’ accuracies in rural areas can be attained through strengthened population censuses, alternative population counts, and a more balanced calibration of population models."

'Significant proportion' of world's rural population missing from global estimates, says study

Global gridded population datasets systematically underrepresent rural population

Fig. 2: Locations of the 307 rural areas analysed in this study.

Global suicides are down nearly 40% between 1990 and 2021

Good news! And again male suicides are much more frequent than female suicides.

"... Findings

Globally, 746 000 deaths ... from suicide occurred in 2021,

including 519 000 deaths (485 000–556 000) among males and 227 000 (200 000–255 000) among females.

The age-standardised mortality rate has declined over time, from 14,9 deaths per 100 000 population in 1990 to 9,0 per 100 000 in 2021. ..."

Weekly Progress Roundup - by Malcolm Cochran - Doomslayer

Global, regional, and national burden of suicide, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 (open access)

Figure 1 Age-standardised mortality rate from suicide per 100 000 population, males and females combined, 2021

The Global Fertility Crisis Is Worse Than You Think. Really!

This propaganda and demagoguery about population is sickening and so primitive! More alarmism and hysteria! Humbug!

Demography is destiny, but not by simplistic population growth! Demography has been abused so many times in history: more taxpayers, more recruitment of better soldiers, racism etc. etc.

Less world human population might not be so bad for out planet and natural environment after it surged beginning 1950 from under 3 billion to now 8 billion humans roaming Earth. 

Improved and further improving longevity will also contribute to slow down any population decline.

In the coming age of machine learning & artificial intelligence (AI) we depend less on extraordinary smart people to improve our future.

"... Last year was the first time in human history that the global fertility rate fell below the replacement level. ...
Ehrlich, like many others, got it wrong. What he needed to worry about was declining birth rates and population collapse. ..."

The Global Fertility Crisis Is Worse Than You Think

2024 could be the biggest global election year in history

Wow! Elections have consequences! Choose carefully!

"The coming year will be one of seismic political shifts. Over 4 billion people will head to the polls in countries including the United States, Taiwan, India, and Indonesia, making 2024 the biggest election year in history." (Source)

Levels and trends in child mortality - UNICEF DATA

This is a very sad statistics at the end of first quarter of he 21st century! Can we not do better!

Lower child mortality rates in combination with better availability and acceptance of contraceptives would probably reduce world population growth. Think about it!

"In total, more than 5.0 million children under age 5, including 2.3 million newborns, along with 2.1 million children and youth aged 5 to 24 years – 43 per cent of whom are adolescents – died in 2021. This tragic and massive loss of life, most of which was due to preventable or treatable causes, is a stark reminder of the urgent need to end preventable deaths of children and young people."

Levels and trends in child mortality - UNICEF DATA United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME), Report 2022

Do you know the square meters of global land surface area per human?

If I computed correctly, then 510 million square km in relation to 8 billion humans translates into 63,750 square meters per human. That is 252 meters by 252 meters for every human.

This does not seem like overpopulation? However, humans tend to concentrate in urban areas all around the world. It also means there is still plenty of nature on this planet!

Something to keep in the back of your head!

Peak World population at about 8 billion? Quite likely!

Unlike the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who recently proclaimed a 12 billion world population at his press conference of the G7 summit in his capacity as the head of the G7 meeting, I don't think human population will go this high!

There is a good chance that world population at 8 billion has or almost has peaked!

China's population is already shrinking. So is the population of Western Europe, the U.S. if you subtract immigration. As prosperity makes progress in Africa, its population will most likely also begin to shrink. Similar tendency can be expected for India as poverty is further reduced and the further middle class expands. 

Russia's population is also in decline and so on ...

Then there are other trends suggesting that world population growth is trending downward: Robotics (e.g. fewer workers needed, substitute for children), better health care (e.g. survival of children), artificial human like beings in the future ...

Counterfactuals: Improved longevity ...

"The global population is projected to reach 8 billion on 15 November 2022, and India is projected to surpass China as the world’s most populous country in 2023, according to World Population Prospects 2022, released today on World Population Day. ...
The global population is growing at its slowest rate since 1950, having fallen under 1 per cent in 2020. The latest projections by the United Nations suggest that the world’s population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion in 2050. It is projected to reach a peak of around 10.4 billion people during the 2080s and to remain at that level until 2100. ..."

World population to reach 8 billion on 15 November 2022 | United Nations

How far will global population rise? Researchers can’t agree

Recommendable! Will world population peek at 11 billion from current roughly 8 billion? 

Is government population size control necessary? Definitely not!

Is it necessary or desirable to maintain a fertility rate (about 2.1 births per woman) at population replacement level at the national or some other level? This is at least controversial.

They say demography is destiny! The size of the population has in the past featured prominently in power politics!

Fear mongering and alarmism still persists!

In the late 1960s, we were alarmed by the so called and mostly debunked  overpopulation time bomb hypothesis by Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor. His infamous book was published by the famous Sierra Club associated with the progressive movement! 

Recommendable!

Before that there was the population crisis described by Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798 stating that population growth could outpace agricultural production leading to starvation and worse. Well that did not happen!

There are at least two major trends at work that have influenced world population for the past 100 years or so:

1. Thanks to better living standards and medical treatments people live longer lives
2. For various voluntary and involuntary reasons people have less children per family or household than in previous times

How these two major trends work out nobody knows for sure. 

Will we have artificial wombs (ex utero embryos, see e.g. here, here, here) in the next 30 years or so. Quite possible that human reproduction will see dramatic changes going forward! 

Will there be humanoid robots or intelligent robots in the next 20 years or so. Quite possible!

"The UN says world population will plateau at 10.9 billion by the end of the century. The other groups forecast earlier and smaller peaks, with global population reaching 9.7 billion by 2070 and then declining."

How far will global population rise? Researchers can’t agree The United Nations forecasts that nearly 11 billion people will be living on Earth at the end of the century, but other demographic research groups project that population will peak earlier and at a much lower level.

Attention Grabbing Flawed New World Population Forecast

Posted: 9/20/2014 Updated: ditto

Trigger

There were several articles this week about a new published projection of world population, which claims that there would be around -9 -13 billion humans living by 2100. The U.N. Population Division was also involved in this projection. National Geographic reports that “The UN team estimates there's no more than a 5 percent chance of that rosier scenario coming to pass.” (emphasis added).

This projection contrasts with previous projections that claim a stabilization around 2050 and a possible decline thereafter.

List of a few, related articles:

1. “Experts be damned: World population will continue to rise”.
2. This appears to be the original study: “World population stabilization unlikely this century” (subscription required)
3. Here is a long article by National Geographic (NG) “A World With 11 Billion People? New Population Projections Shatter Earlier Estimates Dueling projections of population growth present different visions of the world's future.” (Surprise, this article also questions the new projections)

Just two days ago I have posted a blog on world population here.

Seriously Flawed

It is reported that this projection relied more on computer models, modern statistical methods etc. rather than on expert opinion. Humans can not even predict weather accurately for a few days. We also know from e.g. the intensive Global Warming discussion how flawed computer models can be especially if the modelers have an agenda. I would even suspect that Global Warming ideology has actually driven this population projection.

The forecasters of this new projection claim that the population of Africa will rise to about 4 billion from current 1.1 billion. This single, regional forecast alone explains probably most of the surprising outcome of this projection. It is anybody’s guess how birth rates on this continent will develop over the next 90 years or so. May I facetiously assume that the modelers have included a promiscuity factor in their model.

However, chances are good that many of those 50 countries comprising Africa will make fast progress in governance and economic prosperity. Why would African people want to be left behind? Only defeatists and fatalists would assume otherwise.

Apparently, the projection says about India: “... becoming the world's most populous country, with its numbers peaking around 2070 and declining to around 1.5 or 1.6 billion by 2100.”. This estimation is also seriously questionable. India’s middle class is rapidly expanding. Modi is a very different kind of political leaders than the Gandhi clan, which misruled the country for 60 years.

The Usual Gender Discrimination By U.N.

NG reports (emphasis added): “And finally, the IIASA model incorporates data on a crucial variable that's not contained in the UN or other demographic models: the level of education in a given population. Educating girls in particular has been found to be one of the best ways of bringing down fertility, at least in the long term.”

I am afraid both genders need more education, but perhaps not so much government indoctrination, but more private education.

Notes On World Population

Posted: 9/18/2014

Overpopulation

The specter of overpopulation and its consequences has been debated on and off at least since Thomas R. Malthus’s famous essay “An Essay on the Principle of Population” of 1798.

We have reached 7 billion inhabitants in 2013. In 2026 (or 12 years from now), we expect to reach 8 billion and so forth (source).

I do not doubt that human ingenuity would make it possible to sustain possibly 20 or 30 or more billion humans on this planet. However, what is the benefit? Just more humans for humans sake?

Fact is that humans do not have predators like other animals or are as sensitive to the environment as plants. There is apparently no natural check on the size of the human population unless e.g. the earth is struck by another large asteroid. Thus, each human, I would believe, is largely responsible for the overall world population size.

Brief Population Policy History

I would believe that over most of modern history, population policy had or still has a high precedence. The impetus of national population policy was simply to enlarge the population as much and as fast as is possible. The larger the head count, the larger the political power of a nation.

In particular, Western countries still subsidize families by the number of children.

Obviously, this pro growth policy can not go on any longer.

Environmentalism

I would argue that the environmentalism in most of its manifestations observed today and in recent decades boils down in essence to a tenet that too many humans roam the world. Thus, to slow down the growth of or even shrinking the world population would be beneficial to environment we share with landscapes, plants and animals.

Authoritarian Approach

A classical liberal approach is clearly distinct from leftist, authoritarian, or progressive approaches in which usually the government is coercing or incentivizing its citizens in some form to influence population size.

Many of the approaches taken in the past were authoritarian or totalitarian control measures undertaken by government like in China or India. The many negative and inhumane consequences are well known, e.g. forced abortion, severe penalties for having too many children, more ageing parents without children, a surplus of permanent male bachelors.

In conclusion, authoritarian approaches should be objected!

Classical Liberal Approach

First of all, parents should be free to choose how many children they want to raise. However, parents who choose to have children are fully responsible financially and otherwise.

Unleash free market economies and individual freedom and responsibility and population growth will be kept in check naturally through economic prosperity without requiring any significant government intervention.

It is high time to privatize the education of our children. Government in most countries has usurped way too much control over how our children are educated. Government directed education is a brainwash.

Any government subsidies of any kind that encourage citizens to have more children should be abolished and strictly avoided.

Government mandated Ponzi schemes like pay as you go retirement benefits systems are to be phased out and privatized as fast as possible.

Health care is first of all an individual responsibility. Any government run health care is to be completely phased out and privatized as fast as possible.

Exponential Technological Revolution

I have blogged here about this subject before.

For the past 10-20 years, we have been living in a time of extraordinary rapid technological progress across the board with ubiquitous effects on every living being. This progress is unprecedented in human history and in all likelihood this revolution will go on for decades to come.

Some of the foreseeable, near to medium term consequences are:

1. Life expectancy and individual health as well as well being is to increase significantly. Future babies will be born with customized capabilities and features we can only dream of today
2. Robots will take on more and more chores of everyday life and in businesses
3. Genetic engineering will greatly improve cognitive capabilities of human brains. Where in the past the probability of giving birth to or raise someone with the IQ of e.g. Albert Einstein was very small, in the future many children could be born with a similar IQ or even an higher IQ. Possibly, human intelligence will completely redefined.
4. Computers will be integrated with or linked to the human brain. The potential of this development are incredible

Overall, this revolution suggests, we do not need more than perhaps 8-10 billion people or less on this planet. This is not to be construed as a hard limit, but as something to think about.

Significant Fertility Decline In Muslim-Majority Countries

A New Paper By The Hoover Institution

I did not read the whole policy review paper no. 173 by the Hoover Institution titled “Fertility Decline in the Muslim World” by Nicholas Eberstadt and Apoorva Shah.

A few selected excerpts from this paper:

·         “Notably, four of the ten greatest fertility declines ever recorded in a 20-year period took place in the Arab world (Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, and Oman); adding in Iran, we see that five of these “top ten” unfolded in the greater Middle East.”

·         “Libya’s and Egypt’s fertility levels for 2011 would be roughly on par with fertility for America’s large domestic Hispanic population with a tfr [total fertility rate] of 2.91 as of 2008.”

Given the population explosion in pre-dominant Muslim countries over the past 60 years or so this is good news and as the two authors point out it appears yet little noticed.

Population Size As A Weapon

If my memory serves me correctly, I read a long time ago it was Gamel Abdel Nassar and/or the Pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism that promoted rapid population growth in Arab countries so these countries would be a counter-weight to imperialists and thereby increasing the influence of Arab countries in the world.

Implications

If true, these fertility declines cast serious doubts on any current or recent world population projections. Thus, we may reach peak world population much earlier than heretofore forecasted. Thus, the exaggerated alarmism or shall we say hysteria by environmentalists should be taken, as usual, with a big grain of salt.