Surprising fact – Page 9

Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective

Super fact 33: Actions such as eating locally, buying organic produce, using paper straws, and recycling can be good for the environment but can also be worse for the environment and these actions often have a much smaller positive impact than alternative rarely considered actions. What are popular actions for the environment is often different from what is effective.

I consider this a super fact because the beliefs regarding what is good for the environment and what is bad for the environment and what has a significant impact and what has not, are often based on popular trends and culture rather than knowledge. We need to educate ourselves. Following trends is not the answer to good stewardship of the planet.

A big green hand is depicted to symbolize the protection of the environment, where climate-friendly topics are also depicted, such as wind turbines and recycling symbols | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective — This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331

Is Locally Grown Food Really Better for the Environment?

As I explained in this post eating locally is not necessarily ecological. Agricultural products that are grown off season or in non-native environments are often grown in greenhouses, which require a lot of energy and generate significantly more emissions than shipping the produce across oceans would. This is especially true for crops like tomatoes, cucumbers, mangoes and bananas, that require warmer climates to be grown in open fields.

Red cherry tomatoes | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective — From pexels.com by Julia Nagy.

In some cases, the crop requires significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive and may not be suitable for warmer climates, for example, apples. Some crops, like avocados or almonds require a lot of water but despite that they are grown in dry places like California (80% of California’s freshwater is used for agriculture). From an environmental perspective it would be better to grow these crops in a suitable environment and then transport them.

Is Eating Organic Really Good for the Environment?

As explained in this post eating organic is not necessarily ecological. 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.

The graph below gives an overview of the environmental impact of various types of crops grown organically and conventionally. As you can see organic crop often require double as much land compared to conventionally grown crops. It is complicated.

The graph shows the six food groups and their impact across greenhouse gas emissions, land use, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and energy usage | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective — 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<<Link-10>>. There you can find research and more visualizations on this topic. Licensed under CC BY-SA by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.

What really matters though is the type of food you eat, not whether it is organic or not. For example, beef (from beef herd) causes emissions 188 times larger than nuts do for the same amount of protein provided. Another thing to note is that if you eat 300 steaks per year you will have a 100 times larger environmental impact from your meat eating compared to someone who eats 3 steaks per year. You don’t have to become a vegetarian to have a smaller environmental impact but quantity matters.

Is Recycling Important?

The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is not correct. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive. If you throw a greasy pizza box in the recycling, you can ruin the entire batch.

Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions among twelve that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). As it turns out, those two saved the least greenhouse gases among the twelve options. The option saving the most greenhouse gases among the 12 was giving up an SUV, which saved 18 times as much greenhouse gases as recycling. 17% of respondents picked that one.

A filled recycling bag — Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

According to Our World in Data (and the book Not the End of the World page 114<<Link-6>>), which is based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5% of the carbon emissions for the average American. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Recycling comes in at a savings of 0.2 metric tons according to the same data. EPAs estimates are slightly higher but still low in comparison.

Plastic straws versus paper straws

Producing a plastic straw requires 39 kilojoules of energy and produces 1.5 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. However, producing a paper straw requires 96 kilojoules of energy and produces 4.1 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. So, plastic straws are better for the environment from that perspective. However, this could be compared to a typical passenger vehicle, which emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year according to EPA. That corresponds to more than 3 million plastic straws and more than one million paper straws.

According to the same article the average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile. So, driving just one mile corresponds to hundreds of plastic straws and paper straws.

Plastic straws — Photo by Christopher on Pexels.com

One advantage of paper straws is that they are easier to recycle, at least under ideal circumstances. Unfortunately, they often get soggy, and recycling plants don’t want that so they often throw them out. Another advantage is that paper straws decompose and don’t end up in our ocean.

However, not only are straws very small items, most of the plastic pollution in the ocean does not come from north America(1%) or Europe (1%). Paper straws versus plastic straws seem like a complex riddle but it may not be an important one. Whether you drive more or drive less is probably a lot more important.

Plastic bags versus paper bags

As with plastic straws versus paper straws plastic bags versus paper bags is a complicated question. From an environmental perspective they both have advantages and disadvantages. Plastic bags are less carbon intensive to produce, are easier to reuse several times, and the production of plastic bags require on average four times less energy than the production of paper bags.

On the other hand, paper bags are decomposable and easier to recycle. However, the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment. It is a complicated question.

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

Having a Significant and Positive Impact on the Environment

Some of the allegedly sustainable practices and actions mentioned above are counter productive and others have a very small effect, for example, carbon emissions savings that are a few grams. According to the “Our World Data” and the book “Not the End of the World” page 114, a compilation of data research, some actions that you can take that will significantly reduce carbon emissions are (savings in metric tons per year, for flight it is per trip):

Giving up an SUV 3.6 tons
Go car free (average car) 2.4 tons
Switch to plant-based diet 2.2 tons
Avoid transatlantic flights 1.6 tons
Buy green energy 1.5 tons
Switch to electric car (from average sedan) 1.2 tons
Switch from electric car to none 1.2 tons
Avoid medium flight 0.6 tons (1,700 miles each way going and returning)
Laundry in cold water 0.25 tons
Hand-dry clothing 0.2 tons
Recycle 0.2 tons
Upgrade light bulbs 0.1 tons

As you can see in the graphs below, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World and in the United States is electricity and heat. Unfortunately, the composition of the electric grid is something we as consumers have very little control over. We can save energy, get solar panels for our roof, or buy our electricity from green energy companies, but we cannot easily change the composition of the grid. Energy companies and politicians must do that.

However, we can make our voices heard by calling and writing to our representatives. This might be the single most impactful action that you as an individual can take. Your congressman, senator, or state legislator will probably not read your letter. They have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents and get lots of letters every day. What is likely to happen is that a staff member will skim the letter and note the concern in a database.

Just make sure that your letter is politely written so it does not go in the wastebasket. Also make sure that you are a constituent. Writing to Ted Cruz when you live in Florida is not going to have an impact. They are interested in finding out what the concerns of their constituents are and according to staff members and other information I have come across, this really has an impact.

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 | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective — 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 | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective — Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY

Conclusion

The survey mentioned above showed that among the twelve environmental actions an individual could take, the one with the second to smallest positive impact was the one that the majority thought had the biggest positive impact, despite it having a relatively tiny impact. The actions that could really make a huge difference were hardly considered.

We, the public, are very bad at determining what is good or bad for the environment and what has a significant and positive impact or not, even though the data is out there and we easily can look it up. Maybe the biggest positive impact one could have on the environment is to look up the facts and get better educated.

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.

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.

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

Eating Locally is not Necessarily Ecological

Super fact 30: Eating locally is often promoted as an environmentally friendly choice, but that is not always the case.

Whether the food you eat is sustainable and environmentally friendly or not depends on a lot of factors including agricultural methods, whether greenhouse farming or monocropping was used, and whether the crop is natural to its environment. In addition, inefficient local transportation can result in higher emissions than faraway transport by ships and trains. If a crop is grown locally in greenhouses, the extra energy that is needed, and the resulting extra carbon emissions are often much larger than the emissions from the transport.

Cargo ship at sunset. Emissions from the transport of produce is not the main factor for emissions. — Photo by aries nha on Pexels.com

I consider this a super fact because it is often assumed that buying locally is the best choice for the environment. After all, transporting something across the world causes a lot of emissions, right? It turns out not to be that simple.

Articles on Transportation of Food in my French Book

The first time this issue was brought to my attention was in my French class. I am learning French, just as a hobby. There was an article in our French book on the transportation of food around the world “Notre planète ne tourne pas rond!”.

We read that cashews were grown in the Ivory Coast in Africa and then sent for peeling and cleaning in Brazil and then sent to France to be sold. The cashews travelled 10,000 kilometers or 6.250 miles. We read about cod that was caught in Norway then sent to China to be cut into filets and then sent to France to be sold. That cod travelled 15,000 kilometers. We all thought it was crazy, and very bad for the environment, so much unnecessary emissions from transportation. But we all learned a few new French words.

Then at our next class, we turned the page “Consommer local, vraiment bon pour la planète?” / “Consuming locally, really good for the planet?”. Wait what? The next article confused us since it stated that in many cases eating locally was bad for the environment, not good for the environment. Transporting the food around the globe might be good for the environment.

Incidentally, at the time I was reading “Not the End of the World, How we can be the first generation to build a sustainable planet” by Hannah Richie, the research director for “Our World in Data”. “Our World in Data” is a highly regarded free and open-source website that collects and analysis vetted statistics on a large range of topics. In that book she stated that the data showed that tomatoes imported to Sweden from Spain caused less carbon emission than tomatoes grown locally in Sweden.

The Problem with Locally Grown Tomatoes

This article from University of Southern Denmark claim that importing tomatoes from warm countries are better for the environment than buying locally. The reason being that when tomatoes are grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton, but if the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In northern countries it is common to grow tomatoes in greenhouses, especially when they are out of season. The long transport of the tomatoes causes much less emissions than that.

This scientific article analyses the issue a bit deeper and concludes that “that the distance travelled by the tomatoes is not the most important environmental burden”. Whether the tomatoes were grown in greenhouses or not matters a lot, but there are many other factors. In short, it is complicated.

Lots of fresh red tomatoes | Eating Locally is not Necessarily Ecological — Photo by Julia Nagy on Pexels.com

This study of local vs. imported tomato production in Canada concludes that locally grown tomatoes grown in greenhouses on average cause 1,070 grams of carbon emissions per kilo of tomatoes grown and tomatoes grown open field in Mexico cause 775 grams of carbon emissions per kilo of tomatoes, despite the 3,800-kilometer journey from Mexico to Ontario, Canada. The reason for the higher emissions for locally grown tomatoes is again that greenhouses use a lot of energy.

Naturally, this would change if you grew the tomatoes in season without using greenhouses. The article also notes that carbon emissions are not the only issue for sustainability. Water usage is another important factor.

The Problem with Locally Grown Vegetables and Fruits

Tomatoes are just one example. The same hold true for cucumbers, lettuce and salad greens, potatoes, bell peppers, hot peppers, green beans and other bean varieties, berries, pineapples, bananas, mangoes, other tropical fruits. In addition, some of these crops can deplete the soil and require large amounts of water, which can be bad if they are being cultivated in areas where water resources are already scarce such as growing avocados in California. In general, growing vegetables and fruits in their natural environment tends to be the most sustainable.

Fresh yellow bananas | Eating Locally is not Necessarily Ecological — Photo by Dom J on Pexels.com

The Problem with Locally Grown Apples

The problem with apples tends to be the opposite, geography wise. In warmer areas, they might require significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive. Apples from cooler climates need less water and fewer chemicals, reducing their ecological impact.

Lots of apples | Eating Locally is not Necessarily Ecological — Photo by Pierpaolo Riondato on Pexels.com

Local versus Imported It’s Complicated

I should point out that growing locally sometimes being worse for the environment than importing does not mean that importing produce is better for the environment. It just means that it is complicated and that you need to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. The environment is also not the only concern. Another consideration is the protection of local farmers and the local economy.

My opinion is, instead of worrying a lot about local versus imported produce, it is better to focus on things that we know cause a lot of emissions. A dirty grid, coal power stations, a non-hybrid SUV with an internal combustion engine, unnecessary business trips, eating a lot of red meat, basically start with the low hanging fruit.

Eating Locally is not Necessarily Ecological — Photo by Janusz Walczak on Pexels.com

To see the other Super Facts click here

That Earth is round was well known long before Columbus

Image above by Kevin from The Beginning at Last

Super fact 28: That Earth is round, or spherical (or closely spherical) had been known for at least a couple of thousand years by the time Columbus set sail. Columbus did not set sail to prove that earth was round, and he knew it was round.

Old wooden ship on stormy waters | That Earth is round was well known long before Columbus — How I imagine one of Columbus’ ships. This is a submission for Kevin’s No Theme Thursday

The ancient Greeks, particularly philosophers like Pythagoras and Aristotle knew that earth was round from observing how ships disappeared over the horizon hull first, while their masts were still visible. They noticed the earth’s round shadow cast on the moon during lunar eclipses.

If earth was flat, earth’s shadow would not appear round, especially not all the time. They also noticed that different constellations were visible depending on the location (on earth). So, noticing that earth was round was a simple and obvious observation that easily could be made thousands of years ago.

A photo of spherical earth | That Earth is round was well known long before Columbus — Earth is a sphere, or closely spherical. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com.

According to historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, “no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat.” In 240 BC (2,260 years ago) the Greek mathematician and philosopher Eratosthenes calculated the radius and circumference of earth within an error of 2%. So why did Columbus want to sail west?

Columbus thought that the earth’s circumference was smaller than what Eratosthenes calculation had shown because he relied on maps created by Ptolemy instead of the calculations made by Eratosthenes. When he landed in the New World it seemed like Columbus had been vindicated but that did not last long. Essentially, Columbus sailed west and discovered America because he miscalculated the earth’s circumference.

The earth globe showing the side with the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean covers most of this side. — Columbus thought earth was smaller. He did not know about the Pacific Ocean. Earth Pacific Ocean view Stock Illustration ID: 1617553012 by Matis75

It should be noted that even though the earth is very close to being a sphere, it is more correctly an ellipsoid because it is slightly bulging at the equator due to centrifugal forces. You sometimes hear people say that Copernicus or Galileo proposed that earth was round. This is of course false.

Copernicus’s theory of the solar system, the heliocentric model, proposed that the Sun is at the center of the solar system and the Earth, along with other planets, revolve around it. This was not a well-known fact at the time, unlike the fact that the earth is round. Galileo defended Copernicus theory. The famous alleged quote “And yet it moves” / “E pur si muove” is said to have originated from his argument with the church (however, this is not certain).

So, we know that people knew that earth was round thousands of years before Columbus, and thousands of years before the renaissance, and we know that Columbus did not sail west to prove that earth was round, and he certainly did not prove it. Yet I’ve heard this claim quite often, which is why I consider that earth being round being well known long before Columbus a super fact. Too few people believe earth to be flat like a pancake for me to consider earth being round a super fact.

Eratosthenes Calculates the Circumference of Earth

Around 500 BC (2,500 years ago) most Greeks believed that the Earth was round, but they did not know how big it was. The Greek philosopher and mathematician Eratosthenes devised a clever method of estimating its circumference and he got very close. He had heard from travelers about a well in Syene (now Aswan) that at noon on the summer solstice, about June 21 every year, the sun illuminated the entire bottom of a well, without casting any shadows, indicating that the sun was directly overhead. He had also heard that perfectly vertical poles had no shadows at this time.

The reason for this was that Syene/Aswan is located very close to the tropic of Cancer (23.5 degrees versus 24 degrees, or about 60 miles).

In Alexandria, north of Syene, the sun was not directly overhead on the summer solstice. Eratosthenes measured the angle of a shadow cast by a stick at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria and found it to be 7.2 degrees. Using the distance from Alexandria to Syene and this angle Eratosthenes calculated earth’s circumference to be between 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers. Earth’s circumference is 40,075 kilometers.

On the left a wheel with spokes. On the right there is a sphere and sun rays that hit in two places. One without a shadow and one with a shadow. — Illustration of the measurement of the Earth circumference by Eratosthenes. On June 21^st there is no shadow in Syene/Aswan but there is one in Alexandria. Asset id: 2319651251 by Javier Jaime

Resurgence in Flat Earth Beliefs

While very few people believed the Earth was flat 50 years ago, there has been a recent rise in Flat Earth conspiracy theories, largely fueled by online misinformation. Now a day 2% of Americans aged 18-24 years old firmly believe it is flat. That is despite the fact that it is easy to directly observe earth’s round shape. That is a small minority but why would anyone believe such a thing today.

For example, on a flat Earth, a Sun that shines in all directions would illuminate the entire surface at the same time, and all places would experience sunrise and sunset at the horizon at about the same time. With a spherical Earth, half the planet is in daylight at any given time and the other half experiences nighttime. Well just give someone overseas a phone call and you’ll see what the case is. In addition, different places have different amounts of daylight at the same time, which wouldn’t happen with a flat earth.

You can observe the round shape from an airplane. If you stand on a hill by the coast, you can see ships disappearing over the horizon hull first, and you can see earth’s round shadow cast on the moon during lunar eclipses. If you travel far, you can see the constellations and the stars being in different positions in the sky. The southern and northern hemisphere have completely different constellations.

Never mind Eratosthenes, gravity, the Coriolis force, other celestial bodies being round, eyewitness accounts by astronauts, ring-laser gyroscopes, and Foucault pendulums. The moon shows the same face to everyone on earth, which would not be possible if earth was flat. Also never mind NASA photos and the fact that no one has found the earth’s edge.

Below is a youTube video showing an animation composed of actual satellite photos by NASA. Earth is obviously round in this video.

In this video the near side of the moon is dark and what you see is the far side. The far side looks a little bit different from the near side of the moon. It is a new moon and the people on earth don’t see the moon. The sun is behind us and lights up both earth and the far side of the moon (this side people on earth do not see). Also, since there is daylight, the camera does not capture faint objects such as stars.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us

Superfact 25: Global warming is happening. Or if you call it Climate Change or Climate Disruption is happening. And it is happening very fast. We also know that it is caused by us primarily as a result of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Check the evidence below.

This is a long post. However, I summarized this somewhat complex issue in a post I hope is both comprehensive and easy to read at the same time. I believe you can learn a lot from reading it. Note in this post, Global Warming Is Happening And Is Caused By Us, I will use the terms climate change, climate disruption and global warming interchangeably, or nearly interchangeably. I am doing that on purpose.

A lot of people would like to dispute this fact. Including large segments of the public, politicians, and political organizations. I was once a so-called skeptic myself. However, climate scientists very rarely dispute this because of the large amount of compelling evidence. This is a good summary from NASA. We know it’s true, it is important, yet disputed, which makes it a super fact in my opinion.

Below I created a top 10 list of evidence for the fact that climate change / global warming is happening. As well as a top 10 list of evidence for the fact that we are the cause for it. Primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels.

Evidence that Global Warning is Happening

(1) The temperature records collected by numerous organizations show that global warming is happening. Organizations such as NASA, NOAA, the Hadley Centre, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the World Meteorological Organization, and many more, use data from land-based weather stations, ocean buoys, satellite measurements, and other sources to monitor Earth’s climate. Comparison with the palaeoclimatological record shows that the rise in average global temperatures is extremely fast. This is the smoking gun. However, for those who question the data from all of these organizations there are other simpler types of evidence (see below).
(2) Global sea levels has increased by 20–25 cm (8–10 in) since 1900, with half of that increase occurring since 1980. Sea level rise occurs from a combination of thermal expansion and the melting of land ice, both which happen as a result of warming. This sea level rise has been the fastest in “at least the last 3000 years”.
(3) Arctic ice is melting. See the video from NASA below.
(4) Glaciers are retreating.
(5) The Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice at a rate of about 100–200 billion tons per year, which has increased in the past two decades.
(6) Eco zones are generally shifting northward and to higher elevations, meaning that plant and animal habitats are moving towards cooler regions as temperatures rise in previously suitable areas.
(7) Snow seasons are getting shorter
(8) Extreme events are increasing in frequency showing that climate is changing
(9) After extensive research and scientific debates in the past there is now a long-standing scientific consensus that Global Warming is happening. This is not physical evidence itself, but it does not an appeal to authority fallacy either. Think about it in terms of probability.
(10) Old guys originating from northern climates like me, have noticed that the seasons are changing. Even if you dismiss all the evidence from NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and all the world’s meteorological institutions, and you claim that all the world’s climate scientists are all in a massive conspiracy, you cannot convince me of something that is contrary to what I can see with my own eyes.

Graphs and Videos Showing Global Warming

To see the NASA web page from where the YouTube video of the shrinking arctic ice is taken click here .

Graph showing global temperature rise since 1850 to 2022. There are five nearly identical graphs shown in different colors. Temperature anomaly graphs from NASA GISS – orange. HadCRUT – green. NOAA – purple, Japan Meteorological Agency – blue, Berkley Earth – red. The jagged curves show more than a 1.2 degrees Celsius increase | Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us — Temperature anomaly graphs from NASA, Hedley Center, Japan Meteorological Agency, NOAA, and Berkley. Wikimedia commons << https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>.

Hockey stick curve going back 1,000 years. The recent uptick in global temperature is very sharp and very sudden | Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us — The so-called hockey stick curve depicting the last 1,000 years. The blue line is the first hockey stick curve ever created (by Michael Mann). He used proxy measurements such as tree rings, green-dots 30-year average, red temperature measurements. Wikimedia commons <<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>. This graph is taken from this page

The graph shows wild swings over the last 150,000 years and then a very sharp uptick at the end | Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us — Temperature record for the last 150,000 years. Notice the sharp uptick towards the end. This picture is taken from this article.

Confusion About Climate Change

Before continuing I would like to address a couple of issues that sometimes trip up people. And prevent them from learning about this topic.

The question “climate has always been changing, why would we be the cause now?”, is a good question. If asked honestly. However, it is a bad question if it is asked like a gotcha or a dismissive statement. In this case it is a bad question. Because the paleoclimatologists and the climate scientists, in other words the experts on past climate, are the ones telling us that the current climate change / global warming is caused by us, it is not “natural”. They obviously say that because they know something that the dismissive laymen don’t. All everyone needs is a tiny bit of reflection to realize that you’ve got something to learn from them.

Sometimes you come across people who have a hangup over the fact that we use a few different terms interchangeably, global warming, climate change, climate disruption, inadvertent climate modification, etc. The people who have a hangup about this jump to the incorrect conclusion that there is some sort of deception or backtrack going on. If I talk about my dog and my mini-Australian Shepherd, I am not confused or deceptive or backtracking anything. It is the same family member. Whether you call it global warming or climate change or something else is a distracting non-issue, a red herring if you will.

To add some information about it. Climate change has become the more popular term recently, but the terms climate change and inadvertent climate modification predates the term global warming, which became popular in the 1980’s largely because climate scientist James Hansen likes to use it. Climate change is a broader term since it could include global warming and global cooling, but in the current context, global warming is a good term as well since that is what is happening now.

One advantage of the term climate change is that the average warming trend is in itself not the major issue. The effects on the overall climate that warming has is the more important issue. You could say that you want some global warming when the weather is cold and it would make sense. But you don’t want the destruction of eco systems, oceanic and atmospheric circulation changes, sea level rise, worse storms, draughts, floods, wildfires, etc., that it causes.

Natural Causes of Climate Change

There are many different kinds of natural causes of climate change. Two billion years ago cyanobacteria developed a form of photosynthesis that absorbed carbon dioxide and emitted oxygen, as well as a way of extracting nitrogen using a process called nitrogen fixation. This made cyanobacteria extremely successful. One consequence of this was that the carbon dioxide was largely removed from the atmosphere, and the earth got very cold, but the oxygen that was now present in the atmosphere paved the way for the existence of multicellular life and animals. To find out more about this, read this book.

The planet changed but it took millions of years. The emergence of land plants did something similar. Examples of other slow-moving drivers of climate change are continental drift and the fact that the light from the sun has gotten 6% stronger over the last one billion years (0.006% per million years).

Green algae sludge in water. — Cyanobacteria caused a global cooling two billion years ago while paving the way for the existence of multicellular life and animals. Stock Photo ID: 2197045895 by Andre Engelhardt.

65 million years ago an asteroid struck earth, which caused earth’s climate to change, which is probably what killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Another example of a past climate change driver is unusual volcanic activity. Volcanoes emit greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor, during eruptions.

However, their contribution to the total CO₂ emissions in modern times is very small compared to human activities. Annual volcanic CO₂ emissions are estimated to be around 200-500 million tons while humans add 37-40 billion tons, or 100 times as much. Therefore, it is unlikely that volcanoes contribute much to the current warming, but the fine sulfate aerosols emitted by volcanoes can cause a significant cooling effect for a few years.

Two carnivorous dinosaurs and a flaming hot asteroid crashing through the atmosphere in the background. — Dinosaur and asteroids during extinction day Stock Illustration ID: 1438260563 by serpeblu

A black and orange colorful illustration of an erupting volcano. — Volcano – An active volcano that erupts lava. Stock Illustration ID: 2497156167 by MERT1995

One type of important type of climate forcing that’s been the cause behind the multiple ice ages that we’ve had over the last two million years are earth’s orbital cycles, or the Milankovitch cycles. There are three of them, orbital eccentricity, change in axial tilt, and axial precession. Could they explain the current warming? No, they can’t because we are currently in a cycle that should be cooling the planet. And it was until now. Below I have included a video from PBS that explains these orbital cycles.

Three illustrated orbital cycles. On the left orbital eccentricity, in the middle is the axial tilt and on the right axial precession | Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us — Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.<< Link-22>>.

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

There are also short-term solar irradiance cycles. There is an 11-year cycle and an 80-year cycle, but these correspond to small changes. The 11-year cycle corresponds to a temperature change of 0.05 degrees Celsius.

In addition, the Sun’s irradiance has been slightly decreasing over the past few decades. Changes in the sun’s irradiance cannot explain the sharp warming we are witnessing. As you’ve seen above, neither can volcanic activity nor any known orbital cycles, slow moving climate drivers such as continental drift cannot explain it and we did not get hit by an asteroid recently. However, what fits the bill almost perfectly is our greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a brief overview from MIT.

What Does Climate Models Say About Climate Change

Unlike weather, the climate is not particularly sensitive to initial conditions (chaos). For example, we can be pretty certain that July will be warmer than January in Minnesota. We use climate models to try to predict future climate. All climate models rely on the laws of thermodynamics. But they vary in regard to the different understandings of the best ways to incorporate those laws in a representation of all of Earth. They do not come up with identical results. But they all get the average temperature of each region of the world right.

In addition, the various old climate models from the 1990’s do a very good job of what has happened during the last 30 years. They aren’t perfect but they are useful and more importantly for our context they serve as powerful evidence that the current warming is caused by our emissions. You remove our emissions from the models and none of what we measure will happen. Climate models are therefore the smoking gun with respect to what is causing global warming, just like the temperature record is for the fact that it is happening in the first place.

Unfortunately, the climate models have been maligned and misrepresented by those who wish that the public do not pay attention to them. That’s why we need to mention additional types of evidence (see below).

Evidence that Global Warming is Caused by US

(1) Climate models – as we have seen above, climate models are the smoking gun evidence that we humans are causing global warming / climate change. In addition, both simplistic and complex climate models show that 100% of global warming is caused by humans.
(2) Greenhouse gases will make the planet warmer, and we are emitting a lot of them.
(3) The upper troposphere is cooling, which shows that the heating is from greenhouse gases and not the sun or orbital cycles. To understand how the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper is cooling, think of the greenhouse gases as a blanket.
(4) winters and nights are generally warming faster than other seasons and times of day due to the increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which trap heat more effectively during colder periods. This is considered a key indicator of human-induced climate change.
(5) The speed of the warming, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade is extremely fast. Known natural climate forcing tends to be slower.
(6) Human activities is the only known explanation for the current global warming. One way that we know that the current warming is caused by human activity is because we are currently in a cycle that should be cooling the planet. The same is true for the sun’s irradiance. It is not volcanoes or any other known cause. See the section above called “Natural Causes of Climate Change”.
(7) Isotope studies show that the origin of the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are from burning fossil fuels. This is referred to as the isotopic footprint.
(8) The observed temperature rise mirrors industrialization.
(9) More than 90% of excess heat from global warming is absorbed by the oceans, causing significant increases in ocean temperatures. Oceans absorb about a quarter of human CO₂ emissions, leading to lower pH levels. This is unprecedented in at least 26,000 years and is directly linked to anthropogenic CO₂. These effects have been carefully studied and observed.
(10) Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. This is not physical evidence itself, but it does not appeal to authority fallacy either. Think about it in terms of probability.