What do you think?
Rate this book
La charrue, la peste et le climat
The impact on climate from 200 years of industrial development is an everyday fact of life, but did humankind's active involvement in climate change really begin with the industrial revolution, as commonly believed? William Ruddiman's provocative new book argues that humans have actually been changing the climate for some 8,000 years--as a result of the earlier discovery of agriculture.
The "Ruddiman Hypothesis" will spark intense debate. We learn that the impact of farming on greenhouse-gas levels, thousands of years before the industrial revolution, kept our planet notably warmer than if natural climate cycles had prevailed--quite possibly forestalling a new ice age.
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum is the first book to trace the full historical sweep of human interaction with Earth's climate. Ruddiman takes us through three broad stages of human history: when nature was in control; when humans began to take control, discovering agriculture and affecting climate through carbon dioxide and methane emissions; and, finally, the more recent human impact on climate change. Along the way he raises the fascinating possibility that plagues, by depleting human populations, also affected reforestation and thus climate--as suggested by dips in greenhouse gases when major pandemics have occurred. The book concludes by looking to the future and critiquing the impact of special interest money on the global warming debate.
Eminently readable and far-reaching in argument, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum shows us that even as civilization developed, we were already changing the climate in which we lived.
262 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
23 people are currently reading
711 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
January 7, 2023
Interesting book by a well-regarded climatologist who writes well. 4.4 stars.
A very cool book, highly recommended. Plus, it's short! Some of his conclusions are speculative (even highly speculative), but the tide is running in his direction, I think. I'm a geologist who has followed paleoclimate research pretty closely over the years. I had fun with this one.
A very cool book, highly recommended. Plus, it's short! Some of his conclusions are speculative (even highly speculative), but the tide is running in his direction, I think. I'm a geologist who has followed paleoclimate research pretty closely over the years. I had fun with this one.
June 10, 2013
great book on climate history.
The author not only presents his theory and background information in a way easy to understand even for people with no background, but also shares his intellectual journey - how he started noticing unusual developments, explored various explanations, eliminated some of them and finally developed his thesis. He also shows readers how climate historians work and what kind of evidence they use. Prof Ruddiman is part of the book - he shares not only his knowledge, but also his perspective and a view of his life as a climate scientist, which greatly enriches this book.
Orbital changes is the key word in our planet's climate history. The earth's orbit is not perfectly circular. Distance to the sun varies slightly (affected by a range of factors such Jupiter's gravitation), which is reflected in changes in sun radiation. The earth's tilt is not constant either, which affects the distribution of radiation on the northern and southern hemispheres. These orbital and radiation changes have determined climate, monsoons, and through vegetation and wildlife also gas levels in the atmosphere, which in turn affected climate. Levels of CO2 and methane could be fully explained by orbital changes and radiation for most of the earth's history. Radiation has gradually been decreasing over the last few million years, resulting in a cooling trend.
At the same time, early humanoids had a lifestyle with no lasting effect on the environment and climate. Small-scale burning of grass, for example, was neutral. However, fire allowed humans to hunt much more effectively, because it could be used to make animals panic and have a whole group of them jump down a cliff, thus killing many more animals than was necessary. This may explain why there have been massive extinctions of large mammals in Australia and America just after humans first arrived there.
Gas levels followed the trend dictated by orbital changes until around 8000 years ago, when CO2 levels increased when they should have continued to decrease. The author's explanation is the rise of agriculture, which required large-scale deforestation, usually through slash-and-burn. This process emitted CO2 through burnings and then permanently reduced the ecosystems capacity to reduce CO2 levels. According to a survey, England was almost completely deforested by AD 1000, China probably since around 3000 years ago. At the same time, people started using fossil fuels.
Methane levels have been rising for the last 5000 years. This coincided with a new technology that spread rapidly especially in Asian agriculture: irrigation. Plants inundated in irrigated fields die and produce methane in the process of rotting.
These two developments increased gas levels over the last few thousand years and countered the trend of gradual cooling. Without it, a glacier may have formed in northern Canada. There have been several mini ice ages over the last few centuries that seemed to be the beginning of this long overdue glaciation. These drops in temperature are probably the result of huge plagues that killed millions and left many towns and villages depopulated, allowing nature to take over again and reforest former farmland. This led to a drop in CO2 levels and in turn temperatures.
The author's take on the current climate change debate is also very interesting. Public debate is dominated by extremes that are attractive to the press, and the author shows how both of them exaggerate things and misinterpret his theory. He argues that a more worrying development is the unsustainable use of 'earth's gifts': oil, gas, coal, fertile top-soil, water.
The author not only presents his theory and background information in a way easy to understand even for people with no background, but also shares his intellectual journey - how he started noticing unusual developments, explored various explanations, eliminated some of them and finally developed his thesis. He also shows readers how climate historians work and what kind of evidence they use. Prof Ruddiman is part of the book - he shares not only his knowledge, but also his perspective and a view of his life as a climate scientist, which greatly enriches this book.
Orbital changes is the key word in our planet's climate history. The earth's orbit is not perfectly circular. Distance to the sun varies slightly (affected by a range of factors such Jupiter's gravitation), which is reflected in changes in sun radiation. The earth's tilt is not constant either, which affects the distribution of radiation on the northern and southern hemispheres. These orbital and radiation changes have determined climate, monsoons, and through vegetation and wildlife also gas levels in the atmosphere, which in turn affected climate. Levels of CO2 and methane could be fully explained by orbital changes and radiation for most of the earth's history. Radiation has gradually been decreasing over the last few million years, resulting in a cooling trend.
At the same time, early humanoids had a lifestyle with no lasting effect on the environment and climate. Small-scale burning of grass, for example, was neutral. However, fire allowed humans to hunt much more effectively, because it could be used to make animals panic and have a whole group of them jump down a cliff, thus killing many more animals than was necessary. This may explain why there have been massive extinctions of large mammals in Australia and America just after humans first arrived there.
Gas levels followed the trend dictated by orbital changes until around 8000 years ago, when CO2 levels increased when they should have continued to decrease. The author's explanation is the rise of agriculture, which required large-scale deforestation, usually through slash-and-burn. This process emitted CO2 through burnings and then permanently reduced the ecosystems capacity to reduce CO2 levels. According to a survey, England was almost completely deforested by AD 1000, China probably since around 3000 years ago. At the same time, people started using fossil fuels.
Methane levels have been rising for the last 5000 years. This coincided with a new technology that spread rapidly especially in Asian agriculture: irrigation. Plants inundated in irrigated fields die and produce methane in the process of rotting.
These two developments increased gas levels over the last few thousand years and countered the trend of gradual cooling. Without it, a glacier may have formed in northern Canada. There have been several mini ice ages over the last few centuries that seemed to be the beginning of this long overdue glaciation. These drops in temperature are probably the result of huge plagues that killed millions and left many towns and villages depopulated, allowing nature to take over again and reforest former farmland. This led to a drop in CO2 levels and in turn temperatures.
The author's take on the current climate change debate is also very interesting. Public debate is dominated by extremes that are attractive to the press, and the author shows how both of them exaggerate things and misinterpret his theory. He argues that a more worrying development is the unsustainable use of 'earth's gifts': oil, gas, coal, fertile top-soil, water.
March 30, 2013
A climatologist, Ruddiman in the early noughts observed that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere started deviating from their expected paths about 7,000 years. What follows is a detective story - the story of how Ruddiman came to the conclusion that one factor, and one factor only, could explain the discrepancy: the human factor. Forest clearance and wet rice agriculture started around that time, realised carbon dioxide and methane, and compensating for the natural cooling that would have seen the earth start to glaciate again by now. The Ruddiman hypothesis, as it is know, is still far from being accepted, but has survived the objections thrown at it to date.
Ruddiman writes clearly, and structures his story well. His book is that rarest of examples: a book that nonspecialists will find fascinating, but that nevertheless changed the course of science. In that sense, "Plows, plagues and petroleum" is a direct descendant of Galileo's "Dialogues".
Ruddiman writes clearly, and structures his story well. His book is that rarest of examples: a book that nonspecialists will find fascinating, but that nevertheless changed the course of science. In that sense, "Plows, plagues and petroleum" is a direct descendant of Galileo's "Dialogues".
November 11, 2015
This is a great book with a really interesting, well thought out, and lucidly explained idea about climate -- that human-caused climate change had already begun well before the start of the industrial revolution. In terms of writing, Ruddiman does a good job of explaining both basic science and his own theory. He hasn't made his thesis really "sexy," but that's OK.
Jared Diamond he’s not, but he’s better than Paul Martin’s spotty writing in Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America. He does, however, endorse Martin’s thesis about prehistoric human extinction of megafauna. Martin's book is an example of a well thought out and lucidly explained idea, but Martin tries to address too many audiences, both the specialist and nonspecialist. Ruddiman explains everything for the literate nonspecialist. That's me! and that's why I like this book.
We normally associate climate change with the industrial revolution, and measure climate change by comparing greenhouse gases to “pre-industrial levels.” But according to Ruddiman, human activity was already altering the climate well before the Industrial Revolution through agriculture and the clearing of land and burning of trees (which released CO2). Had it not been for human activity, we would be heading gradually into a new “ice age,” but human influence not only counteracted this direction but reversed it entirely. Then, with the industrial revolution, human influence really took off.
Here are some more details about what he says, if you're interested:
The first six chapters introduce his thesis and some basic science, which I found quite illuminating. The control of earth’s long-term weather cycles is influenced by a number of things, but a number of them have to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun. For the past 5 million years or so, the earth has gradually cooled, because of falling CO2 levels. India (recently detached from Antarctica) has been slamming into Asia, resulting in the churning up of rocks, creation of fine dust, and then monsoon rains absorb this dust and incorporate it into the soil, in the process absorbing small quantities of CO2 and sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. Read the book to find out more.
Within this longer cycle, three aspects of the earth’s orbit affects things: the tilt of the earth (from 22 to 24 degrees), the eccentricity of the orbit (more round, or more elliptical), and the precession or “wobble” of the earth’s axis as it rotates. All of this may put the northern hemisphere, with more land mass and thus more susceptible to changes in exposure to the sun, exposed more to the sun than the southern hemisphere.
This is the origin of the “Milankovitch cycles” which many have been discussed. Milankovitch theorized that the growth of ice sheets was dependent on summer radiation, and would tend to grow when summer sun was low and melt when summer sun was high. Ruddiman discusses ice-age cycles and monsoon cycles in this context.
in chapters 7 through 19, he discusses prehistoric and historic human influences. Bottom line, when you understand all these cycles, without human influence we should be headed into an ice age right now (although we wouldn’t quite be there). The Milankovitch cycles indicate that we should be heading into global cooling, and eventually an ice age. Yet CH4 and CO2 slowly started to increase about 5000 and 7000 years ago. “Natural” CO2 levels should be about 240 ppm today, but were at 280 ppm at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Even before the industrial revolution, we delayed a glaciation event by clearing land for agriculture. It's very interesting how he tracks the growth of agricultural land. In the beginning, even with just 100 or 200 million people a couple of thousand years ago, humans practiced a very land-intensive form of agriculture, a lot of it slash-and-burn. But as time progress, the per capita land use of each human decreased, as agriculture settled into a pattern of more intensive use of less land, so the total clearing of land actually tended to level off even as population gradually increased leading up to the industrial revolution.
Ruddiman discusses three types of agricultural influences: conventional clearing of land for any agriculture (increases CO2), cattle raising (increases CH4), and rice production (increases CH4).
There are some “blips” in this chart though, in that CO2 and CH4 levels inexplicably dipped from 200–600 and from about 1300–1900 CE. That’s because of the plagues, which caused a decline in human agricultural activity and many areas reverted back to forest. In Europe there was the black death, with a mortality of 40%, but in the Americas after 1500, there was a mortality of probably 80–90% among native people. As a result, a lot of agricultural land reverted to forest from 1300 to 1900. Until about 1800 Europeans really still hadn’t settled the New World in great numbers. Finally, with the advent of fossil fuels, CO2 and CH4 have really taken off.
Ruddiman is definitely not a climate change denier, but he doesn't think of climate change in the same apocalyptic terms that some of us do. In his view, the use of fossil fuels is a temporary thing; even if we burn every last drop of oil, over hundreds of years the natural cycles will re-establish themselves. He notes that many both pro and con on the global warming debate, which he generally deplores, interpreted his book as supporting their views. Can't we like, just stick to the science? He doesn’t think that long-term (hundreds of years, or thousands of years) that global warming is that big of a threat.
Resource depletion, however, is a much more serious problem, and he wonders about peak oil, water, and topsoil. He clearly understands the problem with peak oil and predicts that oil will peak in the next decade or two (this book was written in 2005, so I assume this means by 2025). Long-term, there may be no solutions to the resource depletion problem.
Jared Diamond he’s not, but he’s better than Paul Martin’s spotty writing in Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America. He does, however, endorse Martin’s thesis about prehistoric human extinction of megafauna. Martin's book is an example of a well thought out and lucidly explained idea, but Martin tries to address too many audiences, both the specialist and nonspecialist. Ruddiman explains everything for the literate nonspecialist. That's me! and that's why I like this book.
We normally associate climate change with the industrial revolution, and measure climate change by comparing greenhouse gases to “pre-industrial levels.” But according to Ruddiman, human activity was already altering the climate well before the Industrial Revolution through agriculture and the clearing of land and burning of trees (which released CO2). Had it not been for human activity, we would be heading gradually into a new “ice age,” but human influence not only counteracted this direction but reversed it entirely. Then, with the industrial revolution, human influence really took off.
Here are some more details about what he says, if you're interested:
The first six chapters introduce his thesis and some basic science, which I found quite illuminating. The control of earth’s long-term weather cycles is influenced by a number of things, but a number of them have to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun. For the past 5 million years or so, the earth has gradually cooled, because of falling CO2 levels. India (recently detached from Antarctica) has been slamming into Asia, resulting in the churning up of rocks, creation of fine dust, and then monsoon rains absorb this dust and incorporate it into the soil, in the process absorbing small quantities of CO2 and sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. Read the book to find out more.
Within this longer cycle, three aspects of the earth’s orbit affects things: the tilt of the earth (from 22 to 24 degrees), the eccentricity of the orbit (more round, or more elliptical), and the precession or “wobble” of the earth’s axis as it rotates. All of this may put the northern hemisphere, with more land mass and thus more susceptible to changes in exposure to the sun, exposed more to the sun than the southern hemisphere.
This is the origin of the “Milankovitch cycles” which many have been discussed. Milankovitch theorized that the growth of ice sheets was dependent on summer radiation, and would tend to grow when summer sun was low and melt when summer sun was high. Ruddiman discusses ice-age cycles and monsoon cycles in this context.
in chapters 7 through 19, he discusses prehistoric and historic human influences. Bottom line, when you understand all these cycles, without human influence we should be headed into an ice age right now (although we wouldn’t quite be there). The Milankovitch cycles indicate that we should be heading into global cooling, and eventually an ice age. Yet CH4 and CO2 slowly started to increase about 5000 and 7000 years ago. “Natural” CO2 levels should be about 240 ppm today, but were at 280 ppm at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Even before the industrial revolution, we delayed a glaciation event by clearing land for agriculture. It's very interesting how he tracks the growth of agricultural land. In the beginning, even with just 100 or 200 million people a couple of thousand years ago, humans practiced a very land-intensive form of agriculture, a lot of it slash-and-burn. But as time progress, the per capita land use of each human decreased, as agriculture settled into a pattern of more intensive use of less land, so the total clearing of land actually tended to level off even as population gradually increased leading up to the industrial revolution.
Ruddiman discusses three types of agricultural influences: conventional clearing of land for any agriculture (increases CO2), cattle raising (increases CH4), and rice production (increases CH4).
There are some “blips” in this chart though, in that CO2 and CH4 levels inexplicably dipped from 200–600 and from about 1300–1900 CE. That’s because of the plagues, which caused a decline in human agricultural activity and many areas reverted back to forest. In Europe there was the black death, with a mortality of 40%, but in the Americas after 1500, there was a mortality of probably 80–90% among native people. As a result, a lot of agricultural land reverted to forest from 1300 to 1900. Until about 1800 Europeans really still hadn’t settled the New World in great numbers. Finally, with the advent of fossil fuels, CO2 and CH4 have really taken off.
Ruddiman is definitely not a climate change denier, but he doesn't think of climate change in the same apocalyptic terms that some of us do. In his view, the use of fossil fuels is a temporary thing; even if we burn every last drop of oil, over hundreds of years the natural cycles will re-establish themselves. He notes that many both pro and con on the global warming debate, which he generally deplores, interpreted his book as supporting their views. Can't we like, just stick to the science? He doesn’t think that long-term (hundreds of years, or thousands of years) that global warming is that big of a threat.
Resource depletion, however, is a much more serious problem, and he wonders about peak oil, water, and topsoil. He clearly understands the problem with peak oil and predicts that oil will peak in the next decade or two (this book was written in 2005, so I assume this means by 2025). Long-term, there may be no solutions to the resource depletion problem.
September 7, 2020
Interessante percorso sull'impatto climatico dell'uomo, con le sue oscillazioni, dalla comparsa fino all'uomo moderno.
Read
September 30, 2008My father is the author of this book. It's a bit technical, but it gives a non-alarmist look into how humans have impacted the earth's climate.
August 14, 2023
Il terzo, ed ultimo libro, che ho letto ( seppur assai dilazionato ) per l’esame di Geografia della mia università magistrale. È stata una lettura estremamente complessa, fatta di ragionamenti scientifici, supportati da numerosi schemi, e grafici, ben spiegati, sia nel testo, che nella didascalia. L’impatto dell’uomo sul clima è stato un percorso lungo ( nonostante il libro, invece, non lo sia ), che ha davvero ben spiegato il modo in cui l’essere umano ha manipolato, e modificato il territorio, immettendo enormi quantità di CO2 nell’atmosfera, in un processo che inizia dalla rivoluzione industriale. L’autore, Ruddiman, è sempre stato chiaro, ed esplicativo,
ed in più, un dettaglio che ho decisamente apprezzato, non ha creato allarmismi. Si è limitato a scrivere, nero su bianco, il puro fatto scientifico, e se durante la lettura mi è salita l’ansia, ed un senso di ineluttabilità per il destino del nostro pianeta, è solo perché il dato scientifico è proprio quello che appare, nudo e crudo. L’autore, poi, verso la fine, si scaglia, in maniera elegante e pacata, contro quegli scienziati delle newsletter, pagati dalle lobby industriali, e da quelli, per contro, pagati dalle fazioni ambientaliste, sostenendo che non fanno altro che allarmismo, e che deformano il dato scientifico a seconda del mulino su cui vogliono tirar acqua. È scandaloso vedere tutto ciò, con uno scienziato che, pur non schierandosi, mostra lui stesso gli effetti che tali linee di pensiero possono creare nella mente del cittadino medio. È una lettura che consiglio, per prendere consapevolezza, e per avere sotto gli occhi qualcosa che, per la prima volta, non è finanziato né dall’una, né dall’altra parte.
ed in più, un dettaglio che ho decisamente apprezzato, non ha creato allarmismi. Si è limitato a scrivere, nero su bianco, il puro fatto scientifico, e se durante la lettura mi è salita l’ansia, ed un senso di ineluttabilità per il destino del nostro pianeta, è solo perché il dato scientifico è proprio quello che appare, nudo e crudo. L’autore, poi, verso la fine, si scaglia, in maniera elegante e pacata, contro quegli scienziati delle newsletter, pagati dalle lobby industriali, e da quelli, per contro, pagati dalle fazioni ambientaliste, sostenendo che non fanno altro che allarmismo, e che deformano il dato scientifico a seconda del mulino su cui vogliono tirar acqua. È scandaloso vedere tutto ciò, con uno scienziato che, pur non schierandosi, mostra lui stesso gli effetti che tali linee di pensiero possono creare nella mente del cittadino medio. È una lettura che consiglio, per prendere consapevolezza, e per avere sotto gli occhi qualcosa che, per la prima volta, non è finanziato né dall’una, né dall’altra parte.
August 30, 2019
Best book about climate change (that’s neither a textbook nor an activist pamphlet) I’ve read so far.
September 1, 2017
Fino a poco tempo fa vi era l'opinione diffusa che l'impatto dell'uomo sul clima fosse iniziato nel XVIII secolo, in concomitanza con la prima grande rivoluzione industriale. William Ruddiman, esperto paleoclimatologo, nel suo saggio che riprende lo stile di Armi, acciaio e malattie di Jared Diamond, propone una tesi estremamente interessante nota come "ipotesi di Ruddiman": l'uomo ha iniziato ad essere una forzante climatica a partire da 11.000 anni fa in seguito all'introduzione dell'agricoltura. La scoperta dell'agricoltura è stata uno dei più importanti punti di svolta dell'evoluzione umana. Il passaggio da uno stile di vita nomade a una stanziale legato ai cicli della terra ha portato ad una serie di conseguenze inevitabili, condizionando fortemente il nostro futuro. In particolare, il surplus alimentare che ne è derivato ha permesso di svincolare buona parte della popolazione dall'onere della ricerca del cibo permettendo una progressiva specializzazione verso nuovi e diversi compiti. Questo passaggio però oltre ad aver portato ad un'incredibile esplosione culturale ha determinato un crescente impatto sulla biosfera. L'uomo, in seguito all'incremento del disboscamento e al progressivo allagamento di vaste aree del sud-est asiatico per la coltivazione del riso ha alterato il ciclo biogeochimico del carbonio immettendo in atmosfera ingenti quantità di metano e anidride carbonica con i noti effetti climalteranti. 10.000 anni fa il pianeta terra si era progressivamente avviato verso una nuova fase glaciale in seguito alla progressiva riduzione della radiazione solare dovuta ai cicli orbitali scoperti da Milankovitch. Questa glaciazione non è sopraggiunta a causa del crescente impatto dell'uomo sul clima. Questa tendenza all'incremento della CO2 ha avuto solamente una riduzione in tre periodi distinti, dal 200 al 600 d.c., verso il 1330-1400 e tra il 1500 e il 1750. L'autore propone una lettura inedita a queste variazioni inaspettate sottolineando e argomentando che questi tre periodi coincidono perfettamente con le tre più grande pandemie avvenute sul pianeta terra causate dalla peste. Durante le epidemie quasi il 50% della popolazione di vastissime aree del mondo periva di fronte al morbo causando un progressivo abbandono delle terre coltivate. La naturale riforestazione e la fortissima riduzione del disboscamento secondo Ruddiman, sono la causa di queste anomale riduzioni di anidride carbonica in atmosfera. Infine nel saggio viene affrontata l'ultima fase di incremento dell'anidride carbonica e altri gas serra che ha preso il via con la rivoluzione industriale ma che ha avuto una rapida accelerazione negli ultimi decenni. Un libro molto interessante su una tematica inedita. Sebbene sia noto come la correlazione non provi la casualità credo che le argomentazioni proposte dall'autore siano convincenti e che provino come la nascita dell'agricoltura abbia sancito l'ingresso al vero e propio antropocene, l'era proposta da Cruitzer, in cui una specie, la nostra, è diventata una potenza geofisica senza eguali nella storia della vita sulla terra.
March 28, 2024
Leggendolo nel 2024 si nota che è un po’ datato, anche perché tratta di tematiche oggi molto studiate e piene di parti in continuo movimento.
Tutta la parte di influenza umana fino all’era industriale rimane comunque molto interessante e presenta spunti nuovi e stimolanti nella riflessione riguardo l’influenza umana sul clima e del clima sull’uomo.
Tutta la parte di influenza umana fino all’era industriale rimane comunque molto interessante e presenta spunti nuovi e stimolanti nella riflessione riguardo l’influenza umana sul clima e del clima sull’uomo.
August 23, 2022
Very interesting and well-written book on the possible impacts that humans had on the climate in pre-industrial times.
The book argues that impacts from agriculture from ~8000 years ago until 1850 have had a cumalitive effect of ~+0.8K over time, counteracting the ‘natural’ cooling trend. Hence, this might actually have stabilized the Holocene climate.
The relatively large temperature change of 0.8K is possible despite much lower population levels, because the timescales are large (compared to the anthropogenic climate change since the industrial revolution).
Specifically, past deforestation increased CO2, and cattle grazing + rice cultivation increased CH4. Most of the impacts of CH4 are probably from irrigation for rice cultivation, because that was probably much less efficient than today.
A later chapter explores the effect of widespread diseases on populations and climate.
Note: this book is from 2005 and I'm unsure what the current consensus on this topic is.
The book argues that impacts from agriculture from ~8000 years ago until 1850 have had a cumalitive effect of ~+0.8K over time, counteracting the ‘natural’ cooling trend. Hence, this might actually have stabilized the Holocene climate.
The relatively large temperature change of 0.8K is possible despite much lower population levels, because the timescales are large (compared to the anthropogenic climate change since the industrial revolution).
Specifically, past deforestation increased CO2, and cattle grazing + rice cultivation increased CH4. Most of the impacts of CH4 are probably from irrigation for rice cultivation, because that was probably much less efficient than today.
A later chapter explores the effect of widespread diseases on populations and climate.
Note: this book is from 2005 and I'm unsure what the current consensus on this topic is.
October 4, 2019
Climate Change outcomes
This was an interesting book and one of the only ones that mentions climate change from 8,000 years ago to the beginning of the industrial era. It points out that prehistoric agricultural development caused CO2 and methane increases. It actual caused temperatures to not decrease.
This was an interesting book and one of the only ones that mentions climate change from 8,000 years ago to the beginning of the industrial era. It points out that prehistoric agricultural development caused CO2 and methane increases. It actual caused temperatures to not decrease.
January 5, 2023
Read this because I’ll be using it for a class I’m teaching this spring. Excellent summary of human impact on climate, it’s a little out of date because it was written in 2005 but still an excellent foundation.
August 22, 2025
very good summary of the argument for human involvement in climate change, very detailed but also very easy to read. also avoids being too alarmist. a very measured and useful exploration of the topic
December 8, 2025
Read for school. Easy content to grasp. Absolutely loved it
March 5, 2010
The author's thesis is that the onset of agriculture around 6000 BC slowed and then reversed the onset of an ice age that would otherwise be upon us now. The argument is logical and cogent, and in the area of the author's expertise, but I remain unconvinced for two reasons: (1) The primary argument is the very weak one that he can't think of any other reason an ice age hasn't happened; and (2) He posits an immediate and very strong effect from agriculture on atmospheric CO2 (e.g. in fig. 9.2), and it seems to me that the effect would be very gradual as the practice of agriculture spread.
In the last few chapters he gives his opinions of the current Anthropogenic Global Warming controversy. He believes it is occurring, and believes it is likely to be moderately severe. However, he makes the cogent point that it can't go on too long because we will run out of fossil fuel, and as soon as we do the extra CO2 will start leaving the atmosphere. In particular, there will not be enough time to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, even if we do nothing, so Florida is safe. He decries the politicization of the controversy, but he seems to blame it mostly on industry shills. I would like to hear his opinion of the recent revelations of scientific misconduct on the part of AGW advocates.
In the last few chapters he gives his opinions of the current Anthropogenic Global Warming controversy. He believes it is occurring, and believes it is likely to be moderately severe. However, he makes the cogent point that it can't go on too long because we will run out of fossil fuel, and as soon as we do the extra CO2 will start leaving the atmosphere. In particular, there will not be enough time to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, even if we do nothing, so Florida is safe. He decries the politicization of the controversy, but he seems to blame it mostly on industry shills. I would like to hear his opinion of the recent revelations of scientific misconduct on the part of AGW advocates.
January 1, 2011
This book takes one more deeply into the science of climate change than most current popular writing and looks at the effect humans have had over thousnads of years, not just the last century or so. The subtitle "How Humans Took Control of Climate" summarizes what this book is about, although "affect" perhaps should replace "control" as control suggests a more purposeful activity. The author is a scientist who is describing his own work as well as that of others; his views are by no means extreme in any sense. It is interesting that he does not feel that climate change is necessarily the biggest environmental problem we face, although it clearly affects many of these problems.
January 1, 2012
The basic thesis of this book is that humans have been controlling climate for much longer than anyone has thought. For about 6000 years humans have been clearing forests and emitting CO2. The current climate would be approaching an ice age if not for human modification of the climate. He also talks about disease outbreaks and how they have affected the emissions of CO2 over the years. It's a scientific book, with some figures and numbers to go along with it.
February 12, 2014
This was required for a class and I was hesitant that I would enjoy it because a few people that had read it before said it was dry- however I completely disagree. As a fellow scientist with strong interest in climate science I felt that this book was VERY easy to read and very informative. Ruddiman's theory is one of the better and well thought out theories I've read on the subject and I would highly recommend anyone interested in climate science and its past, to read this book.
September 15, 2015
Ruddiman is a gifted science writer, especially pertaining to the earth and climate sciences. However, some of his ideas are a little bit out there and seem to be leaps in the direction of answering unanswered questions. For example, his hypothesis connecting ancient warming with the flood myth(s) is a nice answer to a long unanswered question but it lacks real substance.
November 3, 2008
A different perspective on global warming. The author presents a pretty good case that we've impacted climate for a long time, and while the warming isn't necessarily good, its probably better than the alternative.
February 1, 2009
Excellent book, well written for the general science audience. Presents a very interesting theory about the effects of humans on climate, without any of the politically-tainted alarmism or anti-alarmism so prevalent in this general field these days.
September 8, 2011
Fascinating to find out that human causes of climate change started long ago, and today is just an acceleration of what started in prehistoric times. Might be a tough read for non-science types. Lots of astronomy at the beginning to establish the normal pattern of hot and cold spells.
March 18, 2012
I don't know about the changes of 8,000 years ago, but it's a great argument no matter how you slice it. I read this as a required reading for a class several years ago. I found it intellectually stimulating yet accessible while always written.
December 3, 2012
I really liked Ruddiman's examination and hypothesis for climate change. It's sensible, well researched and very, very pleasurable to read. It has a few holes that he doesn't really cover, but on the whole it's a great book that is pretty thought provoking.
July 11, 2007
Fascinating, if dry look at how people affect global warming.
January 7, 2009
reading this for my climate change class, but very pleased with both the content and format of this book. Way to make learning fun, Ruddiman.
December 15, 2009
An interesting history of how man has affectedthe earth's climate starting 5,000 years ago with the invention of agriculture.
February 7, 2017
Really interesting work about climate history. It shows quite fascinating perspective on anthropogenic influence of climate change. I would recommend this book to everyone.
Read
May 26, 2018Incredibly clear and intriguing review of humanity, climate, and how climate has and is changing.
I am a layman, but after reading this book felt that I understood the broad themes of climate change over many millenia. I actually took notes while reading. It is a fabulous expository book.
I am a layman, but after reading this book felt that I understood the broad themes of climate change over many millenia. I actually took notes while reading. It is a fabulous expository book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews