Climate Change – Page 7

Climate Science versus Pseudo Science

The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Important facts that we know to be true and yet they are surprising, shocking or disputed among non-experts. It is a type of myth busting. However, I also create posts that are not super facts but other interesting information, such as this book review and book recommendation.

Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics by Dana Nuccitelli

Climatology versus Pseudoscience by Dana Nuccitelli is a book about human-caused Climate Change, or global warming, and how we know that is happening and how we know that we are the cause of it. If you want to see more about why we know this click here.

The book pays a lot of attention to so called climate skeptics; more accurately called climate contrarians. They are not true skeptics but agenda driven contrarians. Even though their science is bad, and their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked. Large segments of the population in the United States, and to some extents elsewhere, have been bamboozled by the pseudo-science.

The good news is that people are waking up to the reality that they have been bamboozled. We know that global warming, or if you call it climate change, is not only real, but we also know that the current rapid warming is caused by us, primarily via our carbon emissions. I was bamboozled by the pseudo scientists myself, but then I took a serious look at the science, and I realized that that I had been bamboozled. This book will walk you through the faulty arguments of the climate contrarians, and it does so in a logical and convincing manner. It features hundreds of references. I bought the hardback version of this book.

Hardcover – Publisher – Praeger; Illustrated edition (March 3, 2015), ISBN-10 : 1440832013, ISBN-13 : 978-1440832017, 232 pages, item weight : 1.3 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 6.14 x 0.56 x 9.21 inches, it costs $11.96 – $53.00 on US Amazon. A new copy is $53.00. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher – Praeger; Illustrated edition (March 3, 2015), ASIN : B0C71FFTQT, 230 pages, it costs $50.35on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.

The front cover features the full title “Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics” and the author’s name, as well as a picture of a snow-covered car with the inscription it was 82 degrees yesterday | Climate Science versus Pseudo Science By Dana Nuccitelli — Front cover of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.

Amazon’s Description of Climatology versus Pseudoscience

This book explains the science of climate change in plain language and shows that the 2 to 4 percent of climate scientists who are skeptical that humans are the main cause of global warming are a fringe minority—and have a well-established history of being wrong.

Although some politicians, pundits, and members of the public do not believe it, global warming predictions by mainstream climate scientists have been remarkably accurate while those made by climate deniers have not. And if mainstream global warming predictions continue to prove correct, the window of opportunity to prevent a climate catastrophe is quickly closing. This book is the first to illustrate the accuracy—and inaccuracy—of global warming predictions made by mainstream climate scientists and by climate contrarians from the 1970s to the present day. Written in simple, non-technical language that provides an accessible explanation of key climate science concepts, the book will appeal to general audiences without previous knowledge about climate science.

This is my five-star review for Climatology versus Pseudoscience

A Journey into Climate Science and a Debunking of Climate Contrarianism

The author starts out by giving us an overview of climate science starting with the discovery of the greenhouse effect by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1820’s. He explains that the planet would be much colder than it is if it wasn’t for the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect acts like a blanket. He also explains why we know that the global warming that we have seen in recent decades is a greenhouse effect chiefly caused by our burning of fossil fuels, and not natural causes.

The warming is leaving behind various fingerprints, such as the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming (like a blanket would), which wouldn’t happen if it was the sun or an orbital cycle causing the warming. The conclusion is that we know that global warming is real, and we know that we are the ones causing it.

Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.

The author also discusses climate models, and he notes the astounding accuracy of the early climate models. He takes us on a journey through the development of modern climate science into the 1950’s, and the rapid growth of climate science in the 1960’s and 1970’s and then into the 1980’s, 1990’s and the 2000’s. He describes the increasingly advanced and increasingly accurate climate models. In addition, he discusses sulfate aerosols and global warmings forgotten evil twin ocean acidification.

This is all very interesting to any science nerd and it makes you understand why we know that we are causing the global warming we are seeing. It also makes it obvious why there is a consensus on the topic. Several studies have shown that at least 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and that we are the cause of it.

However, despite the scientific rigor of peer reviewed mainstream climate science, despite the impressive success of climate models, and despite the scientific consensus, the public is very confused about the topic. Enter a small group of so-called global warming skeptics, or more accurately, global warming contrarians. They are not true skeptics but agenda driven contrarians. Even though their science is bad (pseudoscience) and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have an outsized presence in the media and often a large enthusiastic following.

It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. As a journalist you should not feel that you must give equal time to evidence based science and nonsense.

The author also discusses various myths and false claims spread by climate science contrarians. He mentions that unfortunately most Republican congressmen stand with the contrarian pseudoscientists rather than with the science. Well, with the exception for a few brave souls. On average the American public believe that 55% of scientists agree that we are the cause behind the global warming while the consensus is more than 97% and growing stronger. The author refers to this as the consensus gap.

It is easy to be confused. I have a degree in physics and a PhD in electrical engineering / robotics and yet I was bamboozled by the climate science contrarians. I read books by the contrarians including some of the ones the author discusses, and I believed them. I also followed pretty much only rightwing media at the time and as a result I became misinformed. It was not until I took a deep dive into the subject and read what the actual science said that I realized that I had been bamboozled. Some of the science articles that initiated my change of heart were written by the author. That was back in 2012 and 2013.

This book is a great start if you want to take a serious look at climate science. The book is well organized, and the author is an expert on the subject, as well as a great communicator. Even though many of the things he discussed in the book were not new to me, I very much enjoyed reading the book and I learned some new things. If you don’t know much about climate science but are interested in science, then this book is a must read.

The back cover of Climate Science versus Pseudo Science by Dana Nuccitelli — Back cover of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the Kindle version of the book.

About the Author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience

Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist and climate blogger for The Guardian and SkepticalScience.com. He’s been researching and writing about climate science since 2006. He has a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley in astrophysics, and a master’s degree from UC Davis in physics.

To see the Super Facts click here

Environmental Benefits of Recycling Are Overestimated

Super fact 32: The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is an exaggeration. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive.

In general recycling is beneficial, because you conserve natural resources, reduce climate change, save energy and reduce waste and pollution. Battery recycling is particularly important since it reduces toxic waste and reduces the risk of a future shortage of certain minerals. Recycling is often viewed as a very important activity that everyone should participate in, and neighbors often shame those who fail to comply.

The shocking news is that even though recycling in general is good for the environment it may not be as beneficial as it is assumed. It turns out to be complicated. As you will see later, most people think that recycling is the most impactful action you can take as an individual to reduce carbon emissions, when in fact it is of very marginal importance. This is what made me consider this a super fact.

A company where a big green hand is depicted to symbolize the protection of the environment, where climate-friendly topics are also depicted, such as wind turbines or recycling | Environmental Benefits of Recycling Are Overestimated — This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331

Recycling and Greenhouse Gases

According to EPA recycling saves 193 million metric tons of carbon emissions, which sounds a lot until you consider that the US emit 6,343 million metric tons per year according to EPA making it 3%. According to this website consumers can save 732 kilograms of CO2 assuming they do the recycling correctly. This should be compared to the average carbon footprint for an American (US), which is 16 metric tons, making the savings for good recyclers 4.6%.

According to our World in Data (Not the End of the World page 114), based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5%. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Actions saving more greenhouse gases than recycling that we as consumers can take, are for example: give up SUV, go car free, have a plant-based diet, avoid transatlantic flights, buy green energy, switch to electric car, switch from electric car to no car, avoid medium flights, laundry in cold water, and hand dry clothing.

Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). Upgrading lightbulbs have an even smaller effect than recycling. It is of course still a good action to take.

However, what this data demonstrates is that we are bad at guessing which actions are impactful. We need to get better informed and not make assumptions. It should be noted that the efficiency of the recycling efforts varies from country to country. Among the 32 developed countries for which there is data the United States ranks 25.

Recycling and Plastic Waste

Greenhouse gas emissions is certainly not the only issue to consider. What about plastic waste? As it turns out plastic is very difficult to recycle (depending on the kind of plastic) and according to the EPA less than 9% of plastic is recycled. According to Our World in Data and the book “Not the End of the World” by Hannah Ritchie the US and Europe have well managed landfills and good waste management systems that make our plastic problem less of an issue. That’s good news.

But what about the awful problem with plastic in the ocean? Plastic ending up in the ocean is indeed a bad problem. However, 81% of all plastic in the ocean come from Asia, and the rest mostly comes from Latin America. Only 1% come from the United States and 1% from Europe and Oceania. According to Scientific American 93% of plastic in ocean come from just 10 rivers. Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong. Two are in Africa – the Nile and the Niger.

None of them are in North America or Europe. Therefore, if we in the developed world greatly improve our recycling of plastic, it would not make much of a difference with respect to the problem of plastic in the ocean. What we need to do is assist China, India and southeast Asia with improving their waste management systems.

Whale Shark swimming in the ocean about to swallow a plastic bag. — Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey

Another issue to keep in mind is that uneducated consumers can do a lot of damage to the recycling process. For example, throwing a greasy pizza box into the recycling bin can ruin the entire batch. You are not just recycling incorrectly you are ruining the recycling efforts of your neighbors too. There are many ways to ruin the recycling process, by throwing items in the recycling that don’t belong there. Recycling requires consumers to pay attention to the instructions. It should also be noted that some companies have been found to ignore the recycling process and throw all recycled items in with the trash. There are also neighborhoods that don’t have recycling.

Conclusion

In summary, recycling may not be as great as it is often made out to be. You should still do it if you care about the environment. Just be aware that there are actions that you can take and that your government can take that are much more impactful.

One of the conclusions you can draw from this discussion is that if you are driving a big SUV or eating red meat every day you should probably abstain from shaming your neighbor for not recycling.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Eating Organic is not Necessarily Ecological

Super fact 31: The common perception that organic food is by default better for the environment or is an ideal way to reduce environmental impact is a misconception. Across several metrics, organic agriculture proves to be more harmful for the world’s environment than conventional agriculture.

There are things you can do as an individual to reduce your carbon footprint, use public transportation instead of driving, fly less, eat less read meat, don’t waste food, reduce your energy usage. There are straightforward actions you can take to reduce your use of water and avoid adding harmful pollution to the environment. However, as with eating locally grown food, eating organic food is often viewed as an environmentally friendly choice even though it often is not.

Organic farming is a method of growing food without using synthetic chemicals or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Organic farming practices are intended to protect soil fertility, promote ecological balance, and reduce environmental impact. That’s all good. On the other hand, it should be noted that modern farming techniques, for example, using synthetic pesticides, have greatly increased cereal yield per acre and GMOs can reduce the use of toxic pesticides. It is complicated.

I consider this a super fact because it is often incorrectly assumed that eating organic food is the best choice for the environment.

Global Land Use

Before looking at the details of conventional farming versus organic farming lets look at global land use. In the figure below from Our World in Data you can see that agriculture already uses nearly half of all habitable land in the world. We cannot easily enlarge this percentage and therefore crop yield per acre is a very important factor to consider, and this is a great weakness for organic farming.

Also notice that 80% of agricultural land is used for livestock, meat, dairy and textile, but it only provides 17% global calorie supply. This second observation indicates that the type of food you eat may matter a lot more than whether it is produced via organic or conventional farming.

Earth’s surface is 29% land of which 76% is habitable land. Of that 45% is used for agriculture, of which 80% is used for livestock, meat, dairy and textiles and 16% is used for crops for food. livestock, meat, dairy and textiles provide 17% of the global calories supply and 38% of the global protein supply. — Global land-use graphics. Licensed under CC-BY by authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (September 2023).

As you can see in the graph below, again from Our World in Data, the land used for producing 100 grams of protein varies enormously between different food groups. 100 grams of protein from lamb and mutton require on average 52.8 times as much land as 100 grams of protein from groundnuts. This graph does not make a distinction between organic farming and conventional farming, but it highlights the huge difference between different food sources. I’ll get to the difference between organic farming and conventional farming with respect to land use later in the post.

The graph shows that for 100 grams of protein you need on average 184.8 square meters for Lamb & Mutton, 163.6 square meters for beef, 39.8 square meters for cheese, 27.1 square meters for milk, 7.9 square meters for nuts, 4.6 square meters for grains, and 3.5 square meters for groundnuts. There are a few more items listed in the graph | Eating Organic is not Necessarily Ecological — Additional calculations by Our World in Data. OurWorldinData.org/environmental-impacts-of-food | CC BY

Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The next two graphs focus on the greenhouse gas emissions including those from agriculture. Electricity and Transport dominate both globally and in the United States, but globally agriculture comes in at 6 billion of the 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions for 2021, which is 15%. For the United States agriculture comes in at 10.6% of greenhouse gas emissions for 2021. In other words, agriculture was not the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions but still an important factor.

The largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World is electricity and then comes Transport. After that comes manufacturing and construction, agriculture, industry, fugitive emissions, buildings, waste, land-use change and forestry, aviation and shipping, other fuel combustion | Eating Organic is not Necessarily Ecological — Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY

The largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US is electricity and heat but it has gone down. Transport is number two. Then comes buildings, manufacturing and construction, fugitive emissions, agriculture, industry, waste, aviation and shipping, other fuel combustion, land-use change and forestry | Eating Organic is not Necessarily Ecological — Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY

Finally, the contribution for different types of food. Notice that beef (beef herd) at 49.89kg is 188 times larger than the 0.26kg for nuts. 188 people eating nuts contribute as much to carbon emissions as one person eating beef.

The graphs show that beef (beef herd) generates 49.89 kilograms of carbon emissions per 100 gram of protein that it provides. For Lamb and mutton, it is 19.85 kilograms, for prawns 18.19 kilograms, for milk 9.5 kilograms, for eggs 4.21 kilograms, for grains 2.7 kilograms, for groundnuts 1.23 kilograms, for peas 0.44 kilograms and for nuts 0.26 kilograms | Eating Organic is not Necessarily Ecological — Greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein. Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (see below). Data source: Poore and Nemecek (2018). OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY

Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)

Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO2eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO2. To express all greenhouse gases in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq), each one is weighed by its global warming potential (GWP) value. GWP measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO2. CO2 is given a GWP value of one.

If a gas had a GWP of 10 then one kilogram of that gas would generate ten times the warming effect as one kilogram of CO2. Carbon dioxide equivalents are calculated for each gas by multiplying the mass of emissions of a specific gas by its GWP factor. This warming can be stated over different timescales. To calculate CO2eq over 100 years, we’d multiply each gas by its GWP over a 100-year timescale (GWP100). Total greenhouse gas emissions – measured in CO2eq – are then calculated by summing each gas’ CO2eq value.

Environmental Impact of Organic Versus Conventional Agriculture

At this point it should be clear that eating different types of food, nuts and vegetables versus red meat makes huge difference regarding the environment. How about organic versus conventional farming? Well, it is complicated. You have to take into account land use, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, pesticide application, energy use and more.

Clark and Tilman (2017) published a meta-analysis of results of published organic-conventional comparisons across 742 agricultural systems over 90 unique foods. The food groups consisted of cereals, pulses and oil crops, fruits, vegetables, dairy and eggs, and meats. As you can see in the resulting graph below organic agriculture is worse for the environment for most food groups with regards to land use, eutrophication potential, and acidification potential. The result is mixed with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

It appears that it is best to choose organic pulses and fruits and choose non-organic for all other food products (cereals, vegetables, dairy and eggs, and meat). However, if your primary concern is whether the potato accompanying your steak is conventionally or organically produced, then your focus is arguably misplaced. Whether you go organic or non-organic the steak is much worse for the environment.

The graph shows the six food groups and their impact across greenhouse gas emissions, land use, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and energy usage. — Shown is the relative environmental impact of organic and conventional agriculture across various ecological and resource indicators based on a meta-analysis of 164 published life-cycle analyses (LCAs) across 742 agricultural systems. Roughly, lower in the graph means organic is better and higher up in the graph means conventional farming is better. Data source: Clark & Tilman (2017) – Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. In Environmental Research Letters. The data visualization is available at OurWorldinData.org. There you can find research and more visualizations on this topic. Licensed under CC BY-SA by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.

Conclusion

In this post I present empirical evidence from reliable sources comparing organic to conventional agriculture in terms of environmental impact. Despite strong public perception of organic agriculture producing better environmental outcomes, conventional agriculture often performs better on environmental measures including land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of water bodies. There are, however, some contexts where organic agriculture may be better for the environment. In short it is complicated.

What really matters though is the type of food you eat, not whether it is organic or not. Another thing to note is that if you eat 300 steaks per year you will have a 100 times larger environmental impact compared to someone who eats 3 steaks per year. Quantity matters. This post was about environmental impacts. There are other considerations such as health, what you like, whom you want to support, etc.

To see the other Super Facts click here

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution

Super fact 29: EV Cars emit less pollution than Internal Combustion Engine Cars, even considering manufacturing, disposal and EV Cars being charged by dirty grids.

EV Cars emitting less carbon pollution is a Super Fact

At least here in Texas it is quite common to hear people say that EV cars do not reduce emissions. After all EV cars use electricity from the dirty grid. It is also frequently implied that environmentalists and people who care about fossil fuel emissions do not understand that the electricity for EV cars typically comes from the dirty grid. However, the environmentalists I know do know that. In fact, they typically know more and have sometimes done the math. This is why I consider it a super fact. We know that it is true that EV Cars emit less carbon pollution. This is a fact that matters, it is not trivia, and yet this fact is frequently disputed, argued over, or surprising to people.

EV Cars are more efficient than Internal Combustion Engines

For starters, EV cars are much more efficient than Internal Combustion Engine cars, or ICE, and even a coal-fired power plant is less wasteful than a car engine. The net result is that the emissions caused by EVs via the electrical grid are significantly less per mile. The miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) for electric vehicles (EVs) varies by state/grid and depends on the model of the car but in general it is much better than for an ICE . Replacing gasoline-powered cars with EVs saves energy, regardless of the energy source used to recharge the EVs. For an ICE 16-25% of the original energy goes to the wheels whereas for an EV 87-91% of the original energy goes to the wheels.

Image showing an ICE car and its various carbon losses | EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution — 16-25% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.

Image showing an EV car and its various carbon losses | EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution — 87-91% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.

The Manufacture and Disposal of EV Cars

It takes more energy to manufacture an EV battery for an EV car than it does to produce a combustion engine. So, the production of an electric vehicle does emit more carbon than a petrol car. However, the lower emissions resulting from driving an EV means that an electric car quickly pays back that debt, so to speak. It is typically paid back within two years, according to Hannah Richie, the research director at Our World in Data. The statistics show that switching from an average ICE to an equally sized EV will save 1.2 tons of carbon emissions per person and year. That is a lot considering that the average carbon footprint per year is 4 tons worldwide and 14.4 tons per year for an American.

So, are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? This article from MIT answers the question in the affirmative. The graph below includes construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal. It is taken from this government website and this article also answers the question above in the affirmative. This is an article from the Department of Energy is stating the same thing.

The histogram graph show that if you consider construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal the total average greenhouse gas emissions from EV cars is 52% less. — Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions comparison of average gasoline car and average EV.

Hannah Richie at Our World in Data also states that other environmental damages related to EVs such as mining for minerals are less than the damage from mining and extraction for fossil fuel cars, and she claims that the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 98% over the last three decades. It should be noted that EVs are becoming increasingly common. According to Our World in Data in 2022, 88% of all cars sold in Norway were EVs and 54% of all cars in Sweden were EVs.

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution — Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Other EV Myths

There are other EV myths that you may want to have debunked, such as Electric vehicle batteries are unreliable and need to be replaced every few years. In 2011 battery failures were common, 7.5%, but in 2023 battery failures were 0.1%. See this article for details and other myth debunking. A related post is my post on electrification.

I should add that there are some drawbacks with EVs such as the easy with which you can charge them, depending on your location. This post is not a promotion of EVs, and I do not drive an EV for various reasons. This post, like most posts in this blog, is about correcting misinformation and getting the facts correct.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Neanderthals Never Lived in Africa

Super fact 27: Neanderthals never lived in Africa. Neanderthals, or Homo Neanderthalensis, lived in Europe and Asia but never in Africa.

It is a common belief that humans originated in Africa. That is true but human ancestry is complicated, and in the past, there were many human species and subspecies. Starting with Homo Erectus, it is estimated that they lived between 1.6 million years ago until about 100,000 years ago.

Homo Erectus was the ancestor of Homo Heidelbergensis (between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago) as well as Homo Floresiensis (hobbit people – between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago). Homo Heidelbergensis in turn was the ancestor of (at least) three homo species, Homo Sapiens (between 300,000 until now), Homo Neanderthalensis (between 400,000 to 40,000 years ago), and Homo Denisova 300,000 to 25,000 years ago.

However, note that Homo Neanderthalensis is not an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. Homo Heidelbergensis was an ancestor to both. Homo Neanderthalensis originated in Europe and Asia and stayed there, whilst Homo Sapiens originated in Africa and ventured elsewhere (see picture below).

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens (or Homo Sapiens Sapiens) interbred, and so did Homo Denisova and Homo Sapiens, and Homo Neanderthalensis interbred with Homo Denisova. What a mess! I can add that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens were different species, so it may seem strange that they could interbreed.

However, species is a complex concept and at certain points in history you could consider Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens to be different subspecies rather than different species. That is why you sometimes hear the terms Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Now when you know how complicated it is, I suggest you take a look at the map below.

A world map showing portions of Africa being yellow and red, and portions of Asia being yellow and dark yellow with red arrows representing migrating Homo Sapiens. The map features several time markers representing the arrival of Homo Sapiens | Neanderthals Never Lived in Africa — The spread of Homo Erectus (yellow), Homo Sapiens (red) and Homo Neanderthalensis (dark yellow). NordNordWest, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

I can add that genetic testing can reveal how much Neanderthal DNA you have. I took a test with 23AndMe to find out about my ancestry (it was 98% Scandinavian and Finnish) and to find out about my risk for genetic illnesses. 23AndMe also told me that I was in the 99 percentiles with respect to carrying Neanderthal genes, meaning that I had unusually many Neanderthal genes (but not 99%). However, no one has called me a Neanderthal to my face yet.

The Extent of the Neanderthal Habitat

The map below indicates where skeleton remains of Neanderthals had been found as of 2017.

This map of Europe and West Asia shows the region where Neanderthals have been found | Neanderthals Never Lived in Africa — Known Neanderthal range in Europe (blue), Southwest Asia (orange), Uzbekistan (green), and the Altai mountains (violet), as inferred by their skeletal remains (not stone tools). There were 165 such places by 2017. Nilenbert, N. Perrault, auteur du guide complet du canotageI, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons

Other Neanderthal Facts

There are a lot of other interesting and surprising facts about Neanderthals, such as:

They lived in caves, but they also built shelters.
They had complex tools and skills, cooked and processed food and created art and jewelry, cooked glue, and had musical instruments (for example a bone flute).
Neanderthals not only used fire, they were able to control and maintain fire, and they used it to cook food, make tools, and for warmth and shelter.
Neanderthals were stockier and more muscular than modern humans, with broader rib cages and shorter limbs. This helped them conserve heat and survive in the cold environments in Europe and Asia during the ice ages.
They might have spoken language.
There’s evidence that they were seafaring as far back as 200,000 to 150,000 years ago.
Their brains were larger than ours. The braincases of Neanderthal men and women averaged about 1,600 cm3 and 1,300 cm3, respectively, which is considerably larger than the modern human average (1,260 cm3 and 1,130 cm3, respectively).
They had medical knowledge. They had knowledge of medicinal plants and well-healed fractures on many bones indicate the setting of splints. They also knew how to treat wounds.
They hunted big game.
They interbred with modern humans.

The Cause of the Ice Ages

Regarding the Ice Ages, which were a great challenge to Neanderthals, they are caused by earth’s orbital cycles. However, keep in mind that does not mean that orbital cycles are causing the current rapid global warming. NASA keeps track of the orbital cycles, and they should slowly be causing a cool down right now, not a rapid warming. In addition, if the warming was caused by orbital cycles (or the sun), the upper troposphere would be warming as well as the lower troposphere.

However, what we are seeing is a warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper troposphere consistent with greenhouse gas emissions causing the warming (the blanket effect). To read more about what is causing the current global warming, click here.

Three illustrated orbital cycles. On the left orbital eccentricity, in the middle is the axial tilt and on the right axial precession. — Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.

Above from PBS explanation and overview of earth’s three orbital cycles.

Endangered Species

When I was a teenager, I read a few of Jean M. Auels novels about pre-historic humans. I loved them and I saw the movie. Now I am reading Jacqui Murray’s novels about pre-historic humans. Jacqui Murray’s books are even more fascinating and very realistic and well researched.

The latest Jacqui Murray book I’ve read is Endangered Species, the first book in her new series Savage Lands. This book is set to take place 75,000 years ago among Neanderthals and ancient Homo sapiens. I love all her books, but especially Endangered Species. I was also happy that she included canines as heroes in the book (Ump, White Streak, etc.) I am a dog lover after all. I can add that at the end of the book there are a lot of interesting Neanderthal Facts.

You can read my Amazon review for Endangered Species by clicking here and you can read my Virtual Book Blast post for Endangered Species (promoting this book) by clicking here. All the Virtual Book Blasts for Endangered Species feature interesting Neanderthal facts. To see a few more Virtual Book Blasts for this book click on the links in the list below.

Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Darlene Foster – Click here
Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Liz Gauffreau – Click here
Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Carol Cooks – Click here
Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – John Howell – Click here
Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Booomcha, Kymber Hawke – Click here

Front cover of Endangered Species by Jacqui Murray — Front cover of Endangered Species. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.