The Big Smoke

It sometimes saddens me, to think that our planet is being pushed beyond tipping points where global warming continues until large parts of the world simply become too hot for vertebrates to survive during parts of the year. Consider the old 4 degree chart:

It’s kind of over for the elephants and the orangutans and the gorillas in this scenario. And I know what you’re thinking “how could four degree of warming cause such trouble”. Well consider this: Warming above land is almost double the average warming, because the ocean warms less rapidly.

At “4 degree” of warming that still happens so you get graphs like this:

If this was emphasized more, perhaps people would take it more seriously. Just 1.5 degree of warming doesn’t sound like a lot, but it means almost 3 degree Celsius of warming on land, which is a big problem if you live in places vulnerable to severe heatwaves.

We know it’s going to get worse, but I wish to propose to you, that there are some factors that we haven’t sufficiently considered: The collapse of civilization and the rapid melting of the ice sheets.

The massive forest fires in Australia hurled dust into the stratosphere, where it depleted the ozone layer. On the surface however, temperatures dropped in Australia throughout 2020, as sunlight was blocked. Now imagine what happens, when cities are bombed out of existence. After a limited nuclear war, it takes fifteen years for global temperatures to return to normal. The big smoke could make a nice dent that buys us some time.

And so, if we blow our major cities to smithereens in a nuclear war, we could buy our friends some time:

The big threat they face after all, are unprecedented heatwaves and deforestation. But the deforestation is a product of international logistical chains that would rapidly fall apart: Soybeans grown in Brazil are exported to the Netherlands to feed animals, the cattle pastures in Brazil are there to export meat to China. The heatwaves come to an end, when the sun is blocked.

And so you say “alright, we can blow ourselves to smithereens to block the sun, but eventually we run out of stuff to blow up right?” And you would be correct. But there is another factor that is going to save the day: Ice sheet melting. It’s possible that we completely underestimate how rapidly the ice sheets will melt. All this cold water entering the ocean would have the effect of also decreasing global surface temperatures. Take a look at this graph:

There are some scenarios here that could be quite useful. The pink one, with just ice melt in the North Atlantic, would translate into a pretty nice global breathing pause. Similarly, the blue one would translate into a bit of a global breathing pause in the latter half of this century.

It’s possible that the ice sheets are what allows Mother Nature to slam the breaks when humans screw things up too badly. Gaia is a tough bitch, she’s been through some nasty shit. I think she must have some tricks up her sleeve. Is she just going to sit there and let a bunch of apes run amok and screw everything up? No, I’m pretty sure she has a backup plan.

But ultimately of course, the humans need to go. And that’s a difficult one, because seven billion people will be reluctant to go quietly into that good night. People will go out, hunting bushmeat in the forests. How do you stop that? Well, you would need something that prohibits them from fleeing the cities. Perhaps something that catches them before they are aware of it.

I always get annoyed with the zero COVID wokies because they give me false hope, but let’s imagine for a moment they’re onto something: The Wuhan batsoupflu infects your body and then causes your immune system to attack your own brain, translating into accelerated Alzheimer’s disease. You continue to have the cognitive capacity to go through your daily routines, but you won’t have the mental flexibility, the physical stamina, to go out into the forest in search of monkeys to eat.

“Nice job Shi Zhengli!”

Of course once our civilization lies in shambles, there’s another problem that emerges: The spent fuel pools. You need to keep these constantly cool, or they start emitting large amounts of radioactivity. For most animals this is not a big problem. You have a litter of 10 piglets and one is deformed? Well sucks, but the other nine are fine. Your cells are progressively damaged by radiation? Well good thing you only have a life expectancy in the wild of ten years! Leave it up to the humans to worry about what this radiation will do to them when they’re seventy years old!

“Build some more of those nuclear power plants fam!”

With all this radiation, the pace of evolution would be increased temporarily, as the rate of mutations would be increased. It would also lead to widespread immune suppression, setting humans up for more pandemics.

“Change is coming, whether you like it, or not.”

The problem I experience, is that humans have the tools for co-existence. Co-existence with the non-human world is a possibility that humans have the ability to choose. They just don’t choose it. They would rather dominate each other and the non-human world and cause everything to die, than to co-exist. It’s really pretty simple:

-You need to shut down all the factory farms. It’s the human habit of eating pigs, chickens and cows, being fed soybeans and grains grown where we once had forests, that is mainly causing this global crisis.

-You need to reduce your species fertility rate. There will be 4 billion Africans by 2100, who can think this is a good idea?

-You need to clean the oceans. You can grow seaweed and oysters and mussels, which eat the algae that grow from the soil minerals leaching into the ocean. If you would eat the seaweed, the oysters and the mussels, then this would return balance to the world.

-You need to abandon the airplanes.

-You need to outlaw cryptocurrency mining.

If you do this most emissions would stop, the forests would regrow on the land where once the soybeans grew that are fed to the animals. This is the part I just can’t wrap my head around. You can have most of the stuff that you already have. You can have your Internet, you can have your bicycles, you can have trains, you can have delicious food in various forms. You can have a lot of good stuff.

You can even have all of the good drugs. Cannabis? You can grow it in your garden. Mescaline? All you need is some dry land to grow the San Pedro cactus. Mushrooms? All mushrooms are ecofriendly. We can even have DMT, there’s an invasive plant in Hawaii that has it in its root bark, it can be perfectly sustainable.

You just can’t have everything. No, you can’t have space tourism. No you can’t have two cars. No you can’t have megayachts. No you can’t eat cattle. And no you can’t fly to the other side of the world twice a year. Perhaps if we had used it sparingly we could have had some form of tourism. But humans will just accept no limits. It’s never enough. There is never a moment of gratitude.

And now you see the consequences.


  1. I really dont understand how humans put up with airports and mass tourism anyway. Sure i have travelled myself but most of the times i have come to the conclusion that i’d rather just stay at home. Ever been to Greece or Kroatia? All you do is walking around wainting for lunch, then dinner, all while the locals secretly hate you beeing there. I loved beeing in northern Thailand and Laos, probably left a huge carbon footprint. That was 16 yrs ago though.

  2. I see ourselves as being part of nature as well… in fact we are nature with tractors and machine guns. We will find a solution. Space is the only way forward. We have the possibilities now and we sould do it!
    because I have to ask, does nature really want to be stuck here forever?

  3. I would like to add that I find somewhat strange that people set their alarm clock for badly paying jobs, which more often than not are very detrimental to the climat and the biodiversity, whereas they stay in bed when it’s about saving the planet. Russians even get up and die like we are stuck in the early 20th century.
    Mankind has just constantly the wrong focus and that’s the only thing that must change. We could abolish every nation state, create many biological niches instead of destroying them and launch 10 capsules with frozen multicellular organisms to exoplanets every day. I.e. light up the whole galaxy with the will to live.

  4. >Looks at scaremongering graph
    > 2m of hypothetical rise means whole island chains and huge areas of land visible from space dissapearing… HAHAHAHAH (by the way, sea levels have risen 100m since the last glaciation, and have never stopped rising, and have NOT risen at any increased rates out of the usual since industrialisation, so if this happens, it has nothing to do with us)
    > Most of australias land mass given over to uranium mining and solar energy…
    > 7 million square kilometres of land for solar…ie 7 trillion square 7 petawatts of sunlight irradiance, or at least 10 PWH per day capturable sunlight…ie 20X the total energy consumption of the world at the moment…after a “global disaster”

    I think it will be camels and kangaroos, same as now, and a bit more greenery due to the higher CO2 leading to increased plant growth, and the lack of purported raised temperatures, since the two are not directly related and the solar cycles that actually drive climate aren’t looking to swing things in the higher, BETTER direction (warmer periods in the recent past include the golden age and the renaissance, sounds terrible, unlike those “fantastic” colder periods we only tend to know as dark ages.
    What a fucking huge pile of horseshit.

    Talk about real environmental problems, not this imaginary Globalist Problem-reaction-solution trying to guilt trip us about the very air we breathe out.

  5. I think your last article missed one of the top bullshit jobs of the last 3 decades: Global(ist) warming scaremongerer. Certainly a multi trillion dollar+ industry, both in money terms and in social/political power/control equivalence at this point.

    Demonstrate to me that CO2 going from 3% of known natural max levels, where plants are notably stunted, to 5 or 6% of known natural recorded levels, where plants are still stunted but less so, and the world gets greener (as it has been) is somehow an unprecedented disaster, keeping in mind that after the first few 10s of ppm, long since past, extra atmospheric CO2 adds sweet fuck all warming, since all relevant frequencies are long since absorbed…

  6. Before a minor scandal and the vax mandates got me put in some weird quasi legal suspension, I was a mid level analyst in my area’s climate change unit. RCP 8.5 was widely suspected to be the closest to what we will see though mine, and most other areas didn’t officially accept that. But people kept living, having kids, travelling (one was even an instagram travel thot when she was off work…) There are plenty of unknowns like ultra potent exotic greenhouse gases used in industry that are not measured and volcanic eruptions. I think that map is a bit extreme even for 8.5 scenarios.

    I guess I understand some of the skepticism readers here have, there is a climate change industry backed by some truly disgusting people doing disgusting things like renewables fraud, land grabbing, offsets, and so on.

    Sequestration is likely to be big in the coming years direct air capture probably can’t work but there is is interesting stuff being done with large surface area filters and melanizing endosymbiotic fungi.

    If I ever make it back in I am putting Greta the human sacrificer on my desk.

    • Oh God are we doing the weather stations urban heating effect thing again?

      You can see that the glaciers are retreating, you can see that the Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows. You can look at the satellite temperature record and see that we’re reaching new record highs. And yet with the evidence right in front of you, you arrive at the genius conclusion that “well maybe the weather stations are just placed incorrectly and so we’re actually just capturing the urban heating effect instead of something that’s genuinely happening”.

      How often are you people going to drag up these old arguments that have been debunked over and over again?

      Am I really going to have to sit there as an old man in a fallout shelter by 2055 or so after Pakistan and India fought a nuclear war over the latest drought, explaining that no, we really do have a global famine caused by multiple simultaneous droughts, rather than Bill Gates faking a nuclear war and blowing up all the food production stations and blocking the sun for no good reason other than him being evil?

      Are you going to keep coming up with new bullshit strawman arguments after the old bullshit strawman arguments were debunked? I get people here saying WHAT ABOUT VOLCANOES! (long debunked) and now I get the WHAT ABOUT THE URBAN HEATING FROM THE WEATHER STATIONS argument that has also been debunked.

      How hard is it for people to figure out that yes, burning fossil fuels that our Earth took millions of years to store beneath our feet and using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for the waste product (carbon dioxide) to the point where you’re replicating the atmosphere in which the dinosaurs walked around is going to cause bad things to happen?

      Why is it so hard to comprehend the simple fact that you can’t have your cake and eat it too, that the lifestyle you take for granted is incompatible with a planet that continues to be habitable?

      This is why I have the no-normie policy, because without the no-normie policy, the average post on my blog attracts ten comments like this, hit and run attacks by people who have no real desire to hold a meaningful discussion or open their minds to the possibility that there is in fact a real problem that’s going to ruin the lives of their children. And every hit-and-run attack takes twenty seconds worth of effort and a whole evening if I insist on going through it point by point to explain why it’s bullshit.

  7. You did really good with covid by asking the simple question: what if this is wrong, what would it look like? If this is lies or misdirection, what would be the clues? If this is a pretext for our “betters” to line their own pockets by impoverishing their “subjects” like some medieval church managing revealed knowledge to the laity, what would that imply?

    By asking questions you found a lot of truth there, and you found a lot of stupid passing as peer reviewed science.

    What if Anthropogenic Climate Change is wrong, what would that look like and what would that mean? What if the predictions are based on really bad and corrupted datasets and pushed to create pretext for societal change instead of being frank reading of physical changes, what would that look like?
    If it is wrong, what would the clues be?

    Please let me know, is AGCC science to you, or an article of faith, like Original Sin and Transubstantiation? Can it be questioned, or must it be accepted and obeyed as pronouncements from people who are more moral than you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.