Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 112 of 112
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Doomsayers AND optimists both need to rethink approach to climate change.

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I was talking about c)....our species.

    But based on what we know, you have to go back nearly 20 million years to find the greenhouse gas forcing equal or greater than today (400 ppm CO2), and 10-15 million years to equal temperatures we'll be at by the middle of this century. All goes to the simple point that humans (regardless of how you define it), have never been around to experience the type of climate they'll be living in by the time our newborns hit retirement age.

    --
    Back then, any claim to humans in the americas before 10,000 ybp was considered to be from the "lunatic fringe of archaeology"(meadowcroft, calico hills, etc), and one of my professors congratulated me in that I had joined that fringe.(then gave the paper an A+) To date, nothing has proven the postulations presented in those papers false, and much more ancient dates for humans in the americas are accepted. I would go so far as to suggest that the comments about the monumantal archetecture of gobleki tepe(10kybp), that "the oldest of the 'temples' is the best executed" would support the concept of a displaced advanced civilization as postulated in those papers.
    Conjecture? For sure, but as yet not disproved.

    Interesting and rather obvious idea, but it's not required that we prove things false as you well know. On the other hand with the rather detailed sonar and other technology available it would seems we'd have turned up more evidence in likely places, such in in the Persian Gulf such as walls and berms marking old defensible cities and the like. I'll concede though, we're still very early in what I hope is a lot more underwater archaeology to come. There's probably a treasure trove of early settlements we've yet to discover.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    population was likely much smaller then, and defensibility may not have been an issue?

    (wild guess--well over 90% of the structures would have been of perishable materials(mudbrick, timber, etc)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    population was likely much smaller then, and defensibility may not have been an issue?

    (wild guess--well over 90% of the structures would have been of perishable materials(mudbrick, timber, etc)
    (at risk of turning this into an archeology thread)
    I thought you had in mind remains such as gobleki tepe, anything like that would be recognizable on the sea floor using modern sonar if buried in the mud (perhaps even a fishing kind to a keen observer).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    population was likely much smaller then, and defensibility may not have been an issue?
    That is sooo right. I'll try then to build on that fact to get back on the OP. Because were can infer clearly from the discussion here is why optimist definitely have to rethink, while it is much more unclear for doomsdayer (given my attempt have been crushed by Adelady (cf the Savory talk))

    Now, on Sculptor point, I would like to also remark that the fact that we would need "stability" to have some kind of resilience is too me totally upside down.

    As a mater of fact, doomsdayer like me cannot see how a civilization completely dependent on fixed decade to build infrastructure (no even counting the fact the the very material needed are exhausted (depleted from the crust and now flying around into the atmosphere)) could adapt to any kind of change.

    The fact that a "civilization" could be anything but a nomadic adaptive small scale agile tribe still have to be scientifically observed. Greek temple are in ruins, Aztec ones buried under trees, and we still try to figure out how on earth a bunch of Egyptians could have build those pyramids.

    Now, given the climate change that nobody in its right mind would deny (snow is forecast for this week-end in Belgium), I must give up one of the last hope that would by fleeing to Autralia, rendered green by Tree hugers, and an eventually fake mountain strip build on its western front, to make it rainy on the eastern side (see south america).

    So, again, here is my take on which lines the rethink process must follow: agility, and the total an utter rejection of the decadent and self assume arrogance that goes along with the technocopian fantasy (which is in fact the nail on our cofin).
    We need social engineering, and drop the pretense, and some science would be helpful too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The predictability that you cherish, as based on the previous few thousands of years will need to change along with it.
    I'm quite happy with that notion. What I'm not happy with is the folly of deliberately initiating huge uncontrolled changes at breakneck speed - which is what we're doing in geological, archaeological, meteorological terms.

    I also will be dead when the very worst of what we're unleashing begins to show up- though I'll probably see some things I'd rather not. I'm a bit concerned that far too many people blithely talk about things that happened many million years ago that took a few thousand or million years to get started as though that's relevant to our situation.

    We're not even giving ourselves a few centuries.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    There is no scientific debate. All the contrary and contrarian views you see reported are mainly political, sometimes religiously based
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by phonecover View Post
    There is no scientific debate. All the contrary and contrarian views you see reported are mainly political, sometimes religiously based
    If there is no debate it is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Scientific "debate" and political "debate" , though they share the same "word" are completely different animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Scientific "debate" and political "debate" , though they share the same "word" are completely different animals.
    You have stated that no objections to global warming theory are scientific in their nature. You stand by that assertion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Scientific "debate" and political "debate" , though they share the same "word" are completely different animals.
    You have stated that no objections to global warming theory are scientific in their nature. You stand by that assertion?
    OK
    Now I'm really confused.
    I seriously doubt that I would ever assert such a thing.

    My position is now and has always been that we, as a species, have forever changed our shared co-evolutionary biom and will continue to do so as long as we exist as a species.
    My main point of contention is now and has always been with those assumptions by the "global warming crowd" that the only possible outcome must needs be negative for our shared co-evolutionary biom. I dispute the "global warming" models as being too narrow in their scope, ignoring much of this biom's dampening and feedback mechanisms, as well as extraterrestrial inputs.

    We could go point by point, but that is the general outline of my views.
    .........................
    what i meant by contrasting the 2 forms of debate, is that one focuses on "talking points" while the other often refines postulations, hypotheses, and theorums. One can be constructive in nature, while the other seeks a different goal.

    .........
    Love the biom as though she were your mother, for, in a very real sense she is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Scientific "debate" and political "debate" , though they share the same "word" are completely different animals.
    You have stated that no objections to global warming theory are scientific in their nature. You stand by that assertion?
    OK
    Now I'm really confused.
    I seriously doubt that I would ever assert such a thing.
    .
    My apologies. I attributed phonecover's statement in post #106 to you. I had responded to that post and you responded to my response leading me to think the original comment was yours. Carelessness on my part. Apologies again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    cool john
    i kinda figured that, and
    maybe if i'd have responded differently, we could have gotten phonecover to substantiate his or her postulation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Mammoth climate change
    By Pong in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 16th, 2011, 06:48 PM
  2. Climate Change Debate
    By KIMCHIJJIGAE in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 17th, 2011, 10:17 AM
  3. Why nothing much gets done about climate change
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 10:59 PM
  4. Climate change
    By sak in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 03:28 AM
  5. A Different Approach to Solving Climate Change...!
    By Null Hypothesis in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 4th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •