Humans Nearly Went Extinct 70,000 Years Ago

Josh Fink brings us a CNN story discussing evidence found by researchers which indicates that humans came close to extinction roughly 70,000 years ago. A similar study by Stanford scientists suggests that droughts reduced the population to as few as 2,000 humans, who were scattered in small, isolated groups. Quoting: "'This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history,' said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence. 'Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA.'"

Comments

The way things are going

[clonan]

we will actually reach that population level again.

Environmental damage here we come!

Re:The way things are going

[calebt3]

Biodomes ain't that bad.

Re:The way things are going

[shbazjinkens]

we will actually reach that population level again. Environmental damage here we come!

Hear that Kelly Kapowski? Not if I was the last man on Earth, eh?

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

that depends on if we allow Pauly Shore to go in

Re:The way things are going

[ArcherB]

I'm beginning to tire of global warming catastrophe claims. Here are just a few (follow the link for actual links to these claims:

fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late...

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

The problem with global warming is three fold....

#1 it is unequally balanced..the temp changes more at the poles where the ecosystem is more sensitive to temperature. Therefore a small global change will mean dramatic changes in isolated areas.

#2 if you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C for most of history. I hear that is an important temperature for something..... Anytime the temperature strays from freezing dramatic changes happen to the global environment.

#3 Consistency. So much of our modern society is based an the extremly mild conditions the earth has experienced over the last 20,000 years. Most of Europe is inhabitable ONLY because of the gulf stream and atlantic currents. Agriculture is ONLY possible because the temperature has been consistant year to year. We are in a sweet spot environmentally that is very unusual in earths history. screwing with the temperature is not going to help.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 201]

I'm beginning to tire of people who refuse to take global warming seriously as a threat to the well-being of the human species and the larger environment.

How about we make a deal - if global warming turns out not to cause widespread famine and damage, I'll give you $100 for being right. If it does turn out to be a problem, you commit suicide to spare resources for those of us who saw the problem coming.

Re:The way things are going

[Known Nutter]

that sounds/looks like a bad Billy Joel song.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

we will actually reach that population level again. Environmental damage here we come!

I knew someone would say this. Alright, I'll bite. Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction.

The most extreme predictions of global warming will hardly slow down human population growth, much less actually reduce populations, much less threaten us with extinction. (Of course, predictions are that human population growth will naturally slow and even stop over the next 50 years, but that's another subject).

Re:The way things are going

[gnuman99]

Good old fashion starvation and disease.

For reference, see the current food prices and how these are liked in the developing world. Biofuel mania has something to do with it, but increased consumption by people and animals people eat is the major problem.

Re:The way things are going

[Ethan Allison]

That's not necessarily too bad. Without precluding myself from caring about other people as individuals, the world's poorest will start to die out from overpopulation and subsequent famine, poverty may become less of a problem as there's more to go around per person.

Extrapolating even further, these neo-poor populations may have enough money to pull themselves out of poverty over the course of a few generations.

Remember, the less of us there are, the more each of us has. Let's shoot for less than two children per family (combined average), worldwide, so our kids will lead better lives than we do and so on.

Re:The way things are going

[abigor]

Maybe something like an airborne or mosquito-borne variant of HIV? In other words, if the virus mutated to be resistant to destruction outside of a warm fluid. I'm not sure how plausible this is though.

Re:The way things are going

[drakaan]

How about the people who busily insist that can't possibly be anything other than a wholly human-caused phenomenon, and that we can definitely stop it. What if we can't? Plans, anyone?

Seriously, I want my interstellar settler permit and associated vehicle already...oh, wait...we can't even go to the moon anymore.

Re:The way things are going

[maxume]

How many of the people who survive in that scenario would actually be Slashdotters, 0.5?

I'm not trying to say anything about Slashdotters either, I'm talking about the 1 million to 1 odds of being a survivor

Re:The way things are going

[timmarhy]

we tire of you because you refuse to acknowldge basic climate science and refuse to follow proper scientific methods.

1. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas

2. The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28% 3. The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution

4. There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one), and you simply resort to either the "your workin for big oil" or the "i'm more rightgous than you" defense, neither of which is a valid scientific defense.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Good old fashion starvation and disease. For reference, see the current food prices and how these are liked in the developing world. Biofuel mania has something to do with it, but increased consumption by people and animals people eat is the major problem.

Yes, it's entirely possible to get crop failures leading to starvation. But how many deaths? 1M? 10M? Not even a small dent in human population.

The flaw in your thinking is very common -- it assumes a static world that does not adjust. If people are dying by the millions, then things will adjust. Hunger is by far a distribution problem, not a food production problem.

Re:The way things are going

[dubbleenerd]

we will actually reach that population level again.

Environmental damage here we come! ..I've already been told by many women that they wouldn't sleep with me even if I was the last man on Earth. I wonder if they were serious.

Re:The way things are going

[sdnick]

"How about we make a deal - if global warming turns out not to cause widespread famine and damage, I'll give you $100 for being right. If it does turn out to be a problem, you commit suicide to spare resources for those of us who saw the problem coming."

The economic impact of the kind of changes global warming devotees are demanding far exceeds $100 per devotee. At minimum, the negative impact on developing economies and the resulting harm to the poor of the world should require that you kill yourself as well if you're wrong.

Re:The way things are going

[maxume]

Just don't let him back out.

Re:The way things are going

[ArcherB]

I'm beginning to tire of people who refuse to take global warming seriously as a threat to the well-being of the human species and the larger environment. How can I take it seriously when we supposed to be dead already, if you believed the predictions that have been made throughout recent history.

In the 1960's it was over population/starvation (and DDT!)
In the 1970's it was Global Cooling/Ice Age
In the 1980's in was Pollution/Smog
In the 1990's it was the Ozone Layer
Now, it's Global Warming.

Sorry, but I ain't buying it this time!

Re:The way things are going

[gEvil (beta)]

Uhhh, dude. You realize she wasn't real, right?

Re:The way things are going

[SpaceLifeForm]

Volcanism. With global warming, the melting of the polar ice will result in a major redistribution of mass. The planet will want to conserve angular momentum. Something will have to give.

It might not happen for over a thousand years, but a volcanically induced global winter could certainly be the result of global warming.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Maybe something like an airborne or mosquito-borne variant of HIV?

It's certainly possible to get killer diseases, but that's not an environmental damage scenario. That can happen anytime.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Volcanism. With global warming, the melting of the polar ice will result in a major redistribution of mass. The planet will want to conserve angular momentum. Something will have to give.

Huh? I suggest going to look up the mass of the earth, compared to the mass of all the water. The mass of ALL the water is proportionally tiny, much less the mass of just the ice. Then try and remember that the world goes through periodic ice ages that redistribute water mass all the time.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing with a religious nut. Like many religious nuts they are will use lies, deceit, trickery and murder to achieve their goals.

Re:The way things are going

[thomasw_lrd]

It don't matter most of europe will be going in about 6 more years. See giant asteroid is going to hit us. http://kh-mmk.blogspot.com/2008/02/london-england-reuters-giant-asteroid.html. I'm buying a bomb shelter and generator right now.

Re:The way things are going

[timmarhy]

sssshh, it's yet another link to global warming. if you disagree you MUST work for big oil.

Re:The way things are going

[cheater512]

Well if what we are doing right now is the best we can do, and we are causing global warming, then we are completely screwed.
Might as well give up now and save a few billion dollars.

I'm of the opinion that GW is natural and we are just giving it a teeny tiny push.
Next they'll blame the next ice age on human activity as well.

Re:The way things are going

[WindBourne]

In the 60's, greenies like myself fought against pollution from companies. If we had allowed the companies to continue, we would look FAR worse than parts of china or old USSR does today (and have significantly far worse health issues, akin to china's).
The global cooling issue was a 1 time tabloid issue. It was never in the science world other than 1 article. Only idiots point to that.
In the 80's, it was reagan trying to roll back the environmental changes (interestingly, the majority of the environmental laws esp EPA was from the pubs). It was the beginning of the ozone issue.
In the 90's, it was solving the Ozone issue. And just all the other ones was a problem. Fortunately, it is being saved because the freon was stopped. But we still have a hole in the south pole, that is slowly receding.

And since the 90's, global warming has been an issue. Back in the mid 90's, the neo-cons said that the earth is not warming. Now they say that man can not be behind the warming.

Do not buy it. Just quit polluting and forcing your shit on me and mine.

Re:The way things are going

[Chris Burke]

The DDT ban was one of the most successful examples of environmental policy in our history.

I presume that you love America? And perhaps by extension that you love our national symbol, the bald eagle? Well the only reason you can see them in the wild today is because of the DDT ban. They are one of the few species to ever come back after being placed on the endangered species list, and it's directly due to environmental action. So I'd hope you'd show a little gratitude.

I've heard convincing arguments that an outright ban on DDT went too far, and allowing small-scale controlled usage would have been beneficial. However the large scale cause-and-effect of spewing tremendous amounts of DDT everywhere -> bald eagle populations dropping, and banning DDT -> bald eagle populations recovering is indisputable. We know it was the DDT; we could measure it in the corpses of their prematurely dead young.

Other than that... Global Cooling was not actually a mainstream theory. Pollution/Smog was a serious problem, ask anyone who lived in L.A. in the 80s and now compared to now thanks to their emissions regulations. The ban of CFCs has had a demonstrably positive effect on the condition of the ozone layer.

So you're basing your decision to not believe in Global Warming based on a series of things which mostly turned out to be completely true?

Good job!

Re:The way things are going

[moseman]

... forcing your shit on me and mine. Right back at yeah jack.

Re:The way things are going

[gatzke]

The global cooling issue was a 1 time tabloid issue. It was never in the science world other than 1 article. Only idiots point to that. My middle school science text in the early 80s presented both global cooling igloo effect and global warming. I guess they were covering their bets...

I really don't think global cooling was a 1 time tabloid issue. Looking at the always reliable wikipedia, looks like more than a single 1970s article...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So I am a skeptic. Stick with some theory for more than a couple of decades and I will buy in.

Re:The way things are going

[ArcherB]

he global cooling issue was a 1 time tabloid issue. It was never in the science world other than 1 article. Only idiots point to that. Is Newsweek a tabloid? How about Time Magazine? How about the NY Times?

Do not buy it. Just quit polluting and forcing your shit on me and mine. The pollution from my four-banger car is not causing people in underdeveloped countries to starve to death. Over reactions from GW Doomsday predictions are.

Re:The way things are going

[icebike]

> #2 if you look through history,

History constitutes less than 2000 years. Thats the farthest back for which there are any usable records.

Nothing known to science allows temperature measurements with the kind of accuracy you claim for other than the last 200 years.

There is nothing to suggest current global temperatures are optimal.

Re:The way things are going

[c_jonescc]

Sorry, but I ain't buying it this time!
</quote>

But what if this time the predictions are correct, but you're just sore over mistaken hypotheses from the past?

I really don't understand when people of a science or tech background commit that particular fallacy - "I heard something before that turned out to be incorrect, so now I don't trust the entire field". I can see how the general population falls into that trap, but we're supposed to be more rational here.

Twins used to be considered evil in many cultures, so now I don't trust obstetricians?

Yes, there were incorrect hypotheses and predictions in the past. About everything. But, as new ideas/data/insight/observations (as well as thoughts on what failed in previous hypotheses) develop, what is left in common with the previous?

I'm not arguing that you have to listen blindly to the new predictions, simply because they are new - I'm simply saying that disregarding them on that basis is a fallacy.

And I don't mean this solely with respect to the climate - this absurd disregard based on previous scientific or technological failures is everywhere.

Re:The way things are going

[danbert8]

#2 if you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C for most of history. I hear that is an important temperature for something..... Anytime the temperature strays from freezing dramatic changes happen to the global environment. See there's my problem with global warming. You're talking about average temperatures for most of history, which is MAYBE 2000 years. Considering ice ages last between 40,000-100,000 years, that doesn't seem too significant to predict the climate. The problem with scientists is, they are not geologists. Ask most geologists if climate change is occurring, and they will tell you that climate is never constant. Quite frankly, I'd rather have it warmer rather than colder. More survivable area on the earth if the tropics expand as opposed to half the earth being covered in ice.

Re:The way things are going

[icebike]

If starvation kills off 50% there is twice as much food left for the remaining 50%. Starvation is a self limiting mechanism. You have a lot more homework to do to get down to 2000 remaining individuals.

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

I think you've been watching too much Science Fiction.

You are not legend.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Every heard of indirect measurements? You know, temperature effects how things develop, and how organisms grow, and through that we can find those older records. Are you perhaps a young earth cretin?

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 201]

Leaving aside the fact that none of these (apart from the ice age bit) has anything to do with global climate change, and you seem to be conflating any kind of environmental concern into one undifferentiated mass:

• Overpopulation and starvation is a problem - consider someone not in your cozy part of the developed world for a change.
• DDT ceased to be a problem once it was banned - it's effects on wild species are starting to go away now.
• Pollution and smog are still a problem, but environmental regulations have helped rein them in somewhat.
• The ozone layer, if you recall, was a problem (and still has a hole in it) and a ban was placed on CFCs, which stopped the problem from worsening and has reduced the size of the ozone hole.

That leaves the ice age thing. Yeah, that wasn't correct. On the other hand, climate science has had 30 years of scientific progress and technological advances to provide it better tools and models. There's satellites monitoring the weather now, oceanic temperature monitors, super computers running climatic models. And the vast majority of the scientists working in the field agree that global warming is a problem, and that it's likely caused by humans. There are people who legitimately don't agree with the popular models; there are also people who are mostly funded by oil companies who are essentially paid to create noise to confuse the public. Is it possible they're wrong? Of course. But since you're into conflating unrelated issues together into an undifferentiated mass, I say that things look they come out on the side of human generated global warming being a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Sorry, but I ain't buying it this time!

I'll make a wild guess and say that you probably never bought it, despite the fact that the environmentalists and scientists were right on 4 out of 5 of the things you cite. Kinda makes you a useless contrarian.

Re:The way things are going

[dreamchaser]

I agree but I would also add that there is absolutely no proof that we are contributing significantly to the warming trend. I'm sure we have some effect, *all* lifeforms affect their environment. I'm also sure it's a good thing to cut down on pollution, but it's NOT a good thing to play chicken little when we haven't a clue about the climate long term and have very little history to compare it to.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination You know what, sure, you're right, even volcanic activity can give off CO2, but just because our dogs piss out side our doors doesn't mean that we should as well. Dominionists may believe that God gave man dominion over the earth, and it gives each one of them the right to shit wherever you please, but there are many other Christians, who see our place as caretakers who need to tread carefully in this earthy eden.

Even if global warming is a false alarm, isn't it a good thing to handle the waste of our industrial civilization will better care. Before sewers and septic tanks, people used to wash their personal wastes into rivers. It took epidemics of massive proportions before most would come to realize that sanitation was worth the cost. However some fought sanitation tooth and nail, as it would 'hurt business', 'cost too much', 'won't solve anything', 'not the problem', and many other arguments similar to yours.

the "i'm more rightgous than you" defense You're obviously an expert on that topic.

Re:The way things are going

[ArcherB]

The DDT ban was one of the most successful examples of environmental policy in our history.

I presume that you love America? And perhaps by extension that you love our national symbol, the bald eagle? Well the only reason you can see them in the wild today is because of the DDT ban. They are one of the few species to ever come back after being placed on the endangered species list, and it's directly due to environmental action. So I'd hope you'd show a little gratitude. The worldwide DDT ban has caused the deaths of millions worldwide. Even if DDT were to make the bald eagle extinct, which is highly doubtful, the lives of millions of men, women, and children is more important to me.

Other than that... Global Cooling was not actually a mainstream theory. Pollution/Smog was a serious problem, ask anyone who lived in L.A. in the 80s and now compared to now thanks to their emissions regulations. The ban of CFCs has had a demonstrably positive effect on the condition of the ozone layer. The Global Cooling theory was actually fairly accurate. It just came at the end of a cold spell. But much like the GW theories of today, people look at a graph and see it going in a particular direction and draw a straight line in that same direction to predict the future. Today, it's called the "hockey stick" graph, because that's what it looks like.
Pollution/Smog was a problem in LA. Not so much in Raleigh NC. The problem is that people who never left LA assumed the whole country was like that made predictions based on what they saw. Many of the global cooling theories was based on this (smog blocks the sun and leads to GC). Pollution controls have helped LA. They've done nothing for Plano TX.
The Ozone layer was shown to be "growing back" even before any ban on CFC's could have an effect. Then it shrank again. Then it grew back again. It's a cycle. The problem is that we discovered it during the shrinking phase and freaked out, much like today.

So you're basing your decision to not believe in Global Warming based on a series of things which mostly turned out to be completely true? No. You have it all wrong. My decision not to freak out of global warming is due to an understanding of all the freaking out that has been done in the past when people discover something and over react, before the cyclical nature of the even is fully understood.

The climate changes... always. It is either going up or down 100% of the time. If it were going down, we'd be freaking out over global cooling and blaming pollution and smog and putting all kinds of limitations on "pollution contributing substances", like fossil fuels!

Re:The way things are going

[brunokummel]

Mother nature must have said:
"Darn it, that was close, I'll get them next time!"

Re:The way things are going

[WindBourne]

The pollution from my four-banger car is not causing people in underdeveloped countries to starve to death. Over reactions from GW Doomsday predictions are. Actually, it is. Their is no doubt that temps are going up. If GW is caused by man (and all the evidence says it is), then yes, you are contributing to the war in dafur (fighting over water/land) and numerous other issues. But, I agree with you about the overreaction. The idea of converting food to energy had to be one of the stupiest ideas that I have seen. W. only did his stunt on ethanol to try and buy farmers. Most of the farmers here in Colorado say that this is the dumbest idea that has come out of washington, but they are still going to take the money. Then you have indonesia that coverted items that were to be exported into energy. Most of the bio-fuels are going into cars, which even in indonesia is building geo-thermal power generators. They love that cheap power.
We need to get intelligent ppl into politics.

Re:The way things are going

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Do you have anything to back that up? Last I checked, hunting was the major reason for the drop in bald eagle population. The DDT ban did screw Africa - they used enough of the stuff that DDT resistant skeeters are around, but not enough to kill them all.

Re:The way things are going

[danbert8]

Based on that logic, do the tides cause volcanic eruptions? Because they move a shitload of water EVERY FREAKING DAY!!! Rather, it's more likely that the moon causes any associated volcanic activity, because it is a shitton more mass than anything else, and it sure isn't ripping the planet apart.

Re:The way things are going

[kklein]

Y'know, I've noticed over the years that there is a high degree of overlap between people who deny human-caused global warming and those who cannot spell.

Re:The way things are going

[dokhebi]

we will actually reach that population level again.

Environmental damage here we come! It's been 70,000 years and the evil oil companies are still ruining the environment! You would think that our ancient ancestors would have learned not to continue building SUV's...

(For those that don't get it, that's a joke!)

Just my $0.02 worth.

Re:The way things are going

[hansamurai]

gingerbread houses collapse That happened to me a few months ago and man did that take a long time to eat up afterwards.

Re:The way things are going

[Knara]

AFAIK things like ice cores can give us indirect (but very usable) evidence of temperatures for much longer time periods. Of course, with all the ice shelves/glaciers melting, that particular method might not be all that useful for much longer. However, I imagine that other geological methods can also give us indirect, usable evidence of climate over longer periods than, say, just using tree rings or the like.

Re:The way things are going

[sdnick]

"Do not buy it. Just quit polluting and forcing your shit on me and mine."

News flash - other people minding their own business and living their lives are not required to cater to your whims, whether you think they're polluting or not. A boundless desire to control the lives of others seems to underly a lot of environmentalist demands.

Re:The way things are going

[KnightNavro]

I'll take a pass on the 1960's because I don't deal with pesticides every day at work. I do, however, work on air emissions every day, so I'm more than happy to discuss your issues for the 70s onward.

Global cooling wasn't ever taken very seriously. By 1970, groups were listing global warming as a potential environmental disaster, but almost no major groups considered global cooling a serious threat. The few groups that did tended to temper their warnings of cooling with sentences like "we don't know if the cooling effect of aerosols or the warming effect of CO2 will dominate." Now that we've refined our climate models (it's nice when you don't have to write them on punch cards), nobody seriously thinks global cooling is a threat.

Pollution and smog are still an issue. They always will be. We've done lots to reduce the amount of smog, such as requiring catalytic converters. As it is, the EPA recently lowered the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) threshold for NOx, a smog precursor.

Don't kid yourself and think the plumes coming from large facilities will have no health effects. Due to bad city planning, residential areas are frequently located near facilities that emit tons of carcinogens each year.

Some of the most toxic compounds will take centuries to degrade. PCBs, dioxins, and dioxins have become so ubiquitous that few residents of the USA don't contain a measurable amount of the compounds in their body. All of those compounds are VERY potent carcinogens.

I'm not saying we're all going to die a horrible cancerous death, but pollution is a very real threat to human health.

The hole in the ozone layer is one of the best documented environmental problems ever. Halogens like chlorine and fluorine were reaching the upper atmosphere in CFCs. Once there, the molecules broke apart, and the molecular halogens acted as a catalyst to create O2 from O3. Fortunately, it's been one of the easiest global problems ever to reach a consensus on. Since the activation of the Montreal Protocol in 1991, global emissions of CFCs has dropped significantly. Damage to the ozone layer has slowed and may be reversing. It will still be decades before the ozone layer returns to its natural state, but the Montreal Protocol stands out as an example of global cooperation on an environmental issue.

Global warming is a lot more complicated to solve than the ozone layer. Replacements existed for CFCs that were nearly as good and nearly as cheap. We don't have a replacement for fossil fuels that's as cheap. CFC emissions are easy to calculate. GHG emissions aren't. Yes, tailpipe emissions from a car are easy enough, but enteric fermentation, rice paddy farming, and landfill emissions are entirely different beasts. throw in the fact that every industry wants credit for any GHG reduction, no matter how many degrees of separation, and you have a real mess.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the few striking things about The Matrix, is agent Smith's parallell between the human race and viruses; whatever happens to us, we'll just come out stronger and more vicious from it.

I've often said this to people when debating the climate problem: the last living thing to stand before this world is rendered completely sterile, will be us humans.
That statement splits the argument in two quite uncomfortable sides, doesn't it?
In the end, the question isn't about whether we'll make it or not, but rather what future we want to live in and leave to our coming generations.
(I'm not contesting your points, merely raising a thought for people to ponder upon. A little correction is needed on #3, though: Europe would still be hospitable without the gulf stream, it just wouldn't support as large a population as it currently does.)
But there are more than three problems with global warming.

More on topic:
When I first read about this, it just screamed of a project in need of more funding. ("Ooh, look at us, we've made a great discovery!")
It isn't such a great event, considering we're genetically 0,1% or so apart from rats or pigs (Cannot confirm this probably exhaggerated statement; point is, whatever the cause, we are what we are today, no matter what's written in the stones and bones).
While it may explain how and why we are so different from the other primates, and perhaps even why we have different physical appearances intra-species, I'm quite firm in my belief that there are better ways of evaluating genetics than looking in our past. Sure, it gives a clue to our evolution and the effects of it, but the key isn't in the past.
While it's interesting, please someone enlighten me why it's a "breakthrough", or even relevant. I have a feeling there's a point or something I've missed here.

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

I actually believe that GW is -- in part -- man-made, but the hordes of people refusing to believe it doesn't surprise me. That disbelief results from many years of the ecology movement believing just what you believe, that you can say anything, even if untrue, just to scare the average guy in a direction you want him to go.

Lying to get the result you want is never right, but the ecology movement forgot that long ago, and they're paying for it in the classic "boy who cried wolf" manner.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Considering ice ages last between 40,000-100,000 years, that doesn't seem too significant to predict the climate. They have ice core data that goes back over 100,000 years. I suppose it could be a coincidence that:

• The most dramatic CO2/Temperature increase in history just HAPPENS to coincide with mankind figuring out that they could burn shit from underground.
• Scientists have developed models that match this historic data quite well, and even when set to be as conservative as possible, STILL predict a warming trend based on CO2 input.

So yeah, maybe there is some input that we haven't yet discovered that explains the warming trend. Lord, that would be nice. But until some evidence of that is uncovered, I'm going to trust the nice, testable, repeatable climate models over people's thought experiments, untestable claims, and "what-ifs".

P.S. - why don't ordered and unordered lists work anymore?

Re:The way things are going

[ArcherB]

The pollution from my four-banger car is not causing people in underdeveloped countries to starve to death. Over reactions from GW Doomsday predictions are.
Actually, it is. Their is no doubt that temps are going up. If GW is caused by man (and all the evidence says it is), then yes, you are contributing to the war in dafur (fighting over water/land) and numerous other issues. But, I agree with you about the overreaction. The idea of converting food to energy had to be one of the stupiest ideas that I have seen. W. only did his stunt on ethanol to try and buy farmers. Most of the farmers here in Colorado say that this is the dumbest idea that has come out of washington, but they are still going to take the money. Then you have indonesia that coverted items that were to be exported into energy. Most of the bio-fuels are going into cars, which even in indonesia is building geo-thermal power generators. They love that cheap power.

We need to get intelligent ppl into politics. Well, I don't agree that my fourbanger is causing GW since GW happened before fourbangers were invented. However, it looks like we agree on the over reaction.
I don't have a problem driving a four-banger. I like the idea of saving money on gas and not giving money to those that want to kill me. I don't do it, however, because I think that NY is going to be under water in 10 years.

I guess what kills me the most is the refusal to allow for any oil exploration here in the US. At first, it was because it may harm caribou or some endangered grub worm. Now they've latched on to GW as the excuse. In the mean time, I'm spending $3.50 a gallon and I'm can't buy my little girl that playhouse my wife wants her to have. Why? I'm driving the four-banger. WTF more do they want?!!?

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

That's because if you could handle science class, English was probably a cakewalk.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you might as well give up.
Can I have your car?

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring How's this? Read the book for more.

Re:The way things are going

[NeutronCowboy]

They might not be optimal, but they sure are what we've optimized our agriculture for. Deviations from expected values will cost money.

Re:The way things are going

[NeutronCowboy]

Do you also ask a physicist to tell you about the black plague? You also miss the fact that changes in temperatures will also change where deserts occur. In other words, warmer temperature will not necessarily mean more arable land, and it certainly does not mean that it will be in similar places.

Re:The way things are going

[lyml]

Amusing you are mentioning the scientific method without using it. Allright I'll bite, even though slashdot groupthink seems to be global warming is a hoax.

Ponder that the gas, carbon dioxide, has light reflective properties that when amassed in the athmospere gets similar properties that of the glass in greenhouses. You don't deny the existance of greenhouses now do you?
If that is so, couldn't one set up a model of how an increase or decrease of that gas in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the hypothetical scenario.

Indeed someone did, in the late 17:th century, Svante Arrhenius set up a model where he predicted that a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase average temperature by 4-6 degrees Celsius (IPCC puts this number closer to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius).

By measurement one has found todays carbon dioxide levels to be 35% higher than thoose of 1835, and the carbon in the new carbondioxide are consisting of isotopes which is consistant with the kind of isotopes it would be of if it came from the burning of fossil fuels (but not from natural sources).

So here I have the scientific method, and what do you have?
Your #1 is a downright lie, CO2 is a very potent very common greenhouse gas, a mere increase by 0.28 percentiles in the atmosphere would increase our global temperature by several degrees celsius.
#2 is a strawman, you only require a very small amount cyanide to kill you aswell, that doesn't mean cyanide is harmless.
#3/#4 are appeals to ignore the science for what feels right, nothing in thoose statements disprove global warming, even assuming their validity. Secondly, there have been no increase in solar activity, so why bring it up?

Global warming is very real and it was predicted more than a hundred years ago, yet now that it is happening, people are throwing their hands up and saying conspiracy/hoax/coincidence. Global warming is very real, and it will cost the society alot of money, wheter you beleive in it or not.

Re:The way things are going

[pokerdad]

For reference, see the current food prices and how these are liked in the developing world. Biofuel mania has something to do with it, but increased consumption by people and animals people eat is the major problem.

I will not believe any explination I have read for the increase in food costs until one of the experts coming forth with explinations tells me how much of the rise is because of soaring fuel costs. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong sources, but not one article I have read on this topic has taken into account fuel costs. I refuse to belive that 0% of the increased cost of food has been from rising oil prices.

Ignoring oil prices just sets of my BS detector in a big way, and makes me think the "expert" has an agenda.

Re:The way things are going

[Planesdragon]

1. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas Link?

2: The amount of CO2 [we] release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases The relevant question is "amount we add to the atmosphere that was not there before." What other gases do we dig up and throw into the environment in a larger quantity?

3: The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution A: Link?

B: Yes. The era of planet formation was pretty hot. Your point?

C: The industrial revolution predated worldwide temperature monitoring. The "record", such as it goes, it incomplete.

4[a]. There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one) The sun isn't providing enough additional power to the Earth to explain the observed increase in temperature. Yes, we are watching the sun.

4[b]you simply resort to either the "your workin for big oil" or the "i'm more rightgous than you" defense, neither of which is a valid scientific defense. An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.

I'll have to beg your forgiveness; the "global warming isn't a threat / is not our fault" line has been embraced by the same slice of the body politic that claims DDT doesn't hurt baby eagles, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can cut taxes forever and still pay for a war.

If when you argue on the same side of an issue as those who have long since ceded any claims to credibility to the scientific method, you get associated with their tactics until argued otherwise. "Silence implies consent", and all.

Re:The way things are going

[ehrichweiss]

You're talking about *written* records and I suspect the GP is talking about other sources of information like geological, archaeological, etc.

Re:The way things are going

[NeutronCowboy]

we tire of you because you refuse to acknowldge basic climate science and refuse to follow proper scientific methods.

I'd really like you to have this argument with the scientists who actually published papers on your three topics. I'd be curious to find out how that would turn out. And for the record - solar activity has been investigated, and found to not fully account for the changes that have been seen. All that stuff is on the IPCC site. As for your other points, they are addressed there as well. Happy reading.

Re:The way things are going

[thedrx]

I'm waiting for that day =D

Re:The way things are going

[WindBourne]

I guess what kills me the most is the refusal to allow for any oil exploration here in the US. At first, it was because it may harm caribou or some endangered grub worm. Now they've latched on to GW as the excuse. In the mean time, I'm spending $3.50 a gallon and I'm can't buy my little girl that playhouse my wife wants her to have. Why? I'm driving the four-banger. WTF more do they want?!!?
Well, that is not entirely accurate either. Here in colorado, we have LOADS of wells going in. In addition, just in Dakota, they figured it out that there are at least 4BBL of easily recoverable oil, which makes that our single largest oil field bigger than ANWR or offshore of CA. Interestingly, though offshore of the east coast is thought to contain LOADS more, but ppl back east seem to love drilling here, not there. I would like to see it opened up in the same fashion that Colorado's roan is being opened.
The real problem is that the 4BBL of oil is just under what we import NOW. So, even if could get all of that oil out at one time, it would last only 1 year. Since the vast majority of imported oil goes towards transportation, I am hoping that the next president will push tax cuts for EV cars. Perhaps a couple of percent for EV and a couple more if x percent made in the USA. Hell, if we can give oil companies 8 % tax cuts, then we surely can do the same on items that lower our money going out of country (and to either terrorist groups and/or nations).

As to the small house, just rent a truck for an hour or so. $20.

Re:The way things are going

[NeutronCowboy]

Population is being addressed. What do you think the 1 Child policy is?
Global Cooling was never considered an actual problem.
Pollution/Smog is an issue, and is being addressed.
The Ozone layer (which was an 80s issue, btw) is an issue and is being addressed.

I find your choice of arguments interesting, as they're either considered threatening enough to have official alert systems built around them, or have never been the issue you made it out to be. According to you, it sounds like Climate Change will be a real issue that will be addressed. To some extent, your examples give hope that we can mitigate the impact. Nice.

Re:The way things are going

[AmberBlackCat]

Don't forget Y2K.

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...I'll give you $100 for being right. If it does turn out to be a problem...

Is it OK with you to wait 200 to 300 years to collect on that bet?

Re:The way things are going

[Planesdragon]

Is Newsweek [denisdutton.com] a tabloid? How about Time Magazine? [businessandmedia.org] How about the NY Times [newsbusters.org]? Actually, yes. All three are "town-crier" style publications, focused mostly on reporting what other people in the world say and do. None of them are a scientific journal.

The pollution from my four-banger car is not causing people in underdeveloped countries to starve to death. Over reactions from GW Doomsday predictions are. The $120 a barrel crude oil has little if anything to do with present-day reactions to Global Warming. And that's what's causing the widest and sharpest increase in the cost of food, not the redeployment of farmland to create biofuel.

And that's ignoring that the loudest reactions to Global Warming have never been ethanol, but conservation and pollution controls instead.

Re:The way things are going

[LithiumX]

I agree but I would also add that there is absolutely no proof that we are contributing significantly to the warming trend. I'm sure we have some effect, *all* lifeforms affect their environment. I'm also sure it's a good thing to cut down on pollution, but it's NOT a good thing to play chicken little when we haven't a clue about the climate long term and have very little history to compare it to.

Be careful saying that. You're likely to get yourself harassed, blacklisted, and shunned for such politically incorrect remarks.

I fully believe that the greenhouse effect is a simple matter of physics. I also believe that the effects, as we know them, do not occur rapidly. I also know that, historically, the climate is NOT stable - whoever said that it's been stable for most of history simply does not know history (Nineteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death being one example, the total environmental collapse of mesoamerica and the middle east, the sudden shift that made Europe more habitable and helped lead to the Rennaisance, etc etc etc).

In other words, yes our pollutants will have a very real effect on our climate. There is no free lunch. But, those effects belong to our children and grandchildren - what you see today is the normal cycle of change - but in a highly connected world prone to panic and fantasy, and overly willing to lay blame anywhere it can.

It may not be all bad though... it might scare us into actually controlling ourselves - before the bill actually shows up.

Re:The way things are going

[BiggerIsBetter]

Hunger is by far a distribution problem, not a food production problem.

I've read this sentiment many times, and although I agree with the latter statement, I can't agree with the former. In my view, it's not a distribution problem, it's an economic problem. We could distribute enormous amounts of food anywhere on the globe, but we don't. Why? It's too expensive. Hungry people are often poor people, and poor people can't pay enough to meet our expectations of a return (or even no loss) on labor, fuel, vehicles, storage, and other distribution resources. So, we make this choice: they're just not valuable enough to us to bear the cost of sending food (of course, aid agencies disagree and do exactly this).

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

HIV/AIDS. If the time between infection and death is long enough, a disease CAN kill 100% of its victims, finally dying with its last victim, no?

Re:The way things are going

[ehrichweiss]

"The most dramatic CO2/Temperature increase in history just HAPPENS to coincide with mankind figuring out that they could burn shit from underground."

Ever wonder why the word "coincidence" often has the phrase "just happens to" associated with it? Have you ever wondered why it matches when we *started* figuring this out and were barely using it versus when we were/are at peak usage? Seeing as how volcanoes have more of a measurable and directly observable impact than anything we've ever done, I'm not really buying the whole "mankind burning oil caused this" hypothesis; one good eruption and our global temp has the potential to drop by 1/2 degree or more, yet somehow we're supposed to have some form of effect that is (not so)surprisingly not so easy to observe and/or correlate.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be, that by using fossil fuels we release more of certain elements into the atmosphere and those increased warming activities are occurring because of that utilization? Let me know if you somehow still don't get that, unless you're just in denial.

Re:The way things are going

[KnightNavro]

The worldwide DDT ban has caused the deaths of millions worldwide. Even if DDT were to make the bald eagle extinct, which is highly doubtful, the lives of millions of men, women, and children is more important to me.

The global outright ban was an overreaction, but we were just spraying the stuff willy nilly and it was spreading throughout the environment. The stuff is carcinogenic. In the US, where a person is more likely to die of cancer than malaria, it doesn't make sense to use it.

The Global Cooling theory was actually fairly accurate. It just came at the end of a cold spell. But much like the GW theories of today, people look at a graph and see it going in a particular direction and draw a straight line in that same direction to predict the future. Today, it's called the "hockey stick" graph, because that's what it looks like. Global cooling was never mainstream. Yes, it merited some brief consideration, but even back in 1970, most people considered global warming a more serious threat than global cooling. Predictions today are based on much more sophisticated models of global climate that consider both the cooling effects of aerosols and the warming effects of greenhouse gasses.

Pollution/Smog was a problem in LA. Not so much in Raleigh NC. The problem is that people who never left LA assumed the whole country was like that made predictions based on what they saw. Many of the global cooling theories was based on this (smog blocks the sun and leads to GC). Pollution controls have helped LA. They've done nothing for Plano TX. Actually, they have reduces carbon monoxide, respirable particulate, ground level ozone, NOx, and diesel particulate throughout the nation. Not every area had concentrations that exceeded EPA standards, but reducing the concentrations further lessens health impacts from air pollution.

The Ozone layer was shown to be "growing back" even before any ban on CFC's could have an effect. Then it shrank again. Then it grew back again. It's a cycle. The problem is that we discovered it during the shrinking phase and freaked out, much like today. Yes, the ozone layer goes through seasonal fluctuations. It's much like the CO2 concentration in that way. However, the low, high, and average concentrations each year all showed downward trends.

Re:The way things are going

[morcego]

So yeah, maybe there is some input that we haven't yet discovered that explains the warming trend. Lord, that would be nice.

Do you really think that ? I don't.

Considering human acts the main cause of global warming (or whatever other catastrophe you want) is very comforting. Why ? Because we can do something about it.

On the other hand, if humans are not the cause, we have a really big problem. Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ?

These days, I take a great deal of comfort on the idea we are destroying out planet, our "natural" disaster are due to humans doing this or that.

Re:The way things are going

[orlanz]

Hey! Were you in New Orleans too?

Bad joke?... probably.

Re:The way things are going

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's terrible. The book itself is fine, but the massive overreaction is completely unsupported. The thinner eggshells mentioned in the blurb you cited are at best secondary causes.

Re:The way things are going

[Mistshadow2k4]

What's with this "2000 years" stuff you guys are talking about? We have written records from Egypt and Babylonia from over 4000 years ago. Look it up!

Re:The way things are going

[deimtee]

While higher food prices are bad for the people buying it they are good for the people selling.
Higher food prices have the potential to greatly improve the lives of many subsistance farmers (and their entire local economies) in many undeveloped areas.
Giving free/cheap food ruins local food providers, and long-term generally causes more problems than it solves. Higher fuel prices are also good for them, as it makes the local produce even more competitive. It may be bad for agribusiness in the US to have local farming/economies recover, but globally it is a good thing.

Re:The way things are going

[hemp]

The flaw in your thinking is very common -- it assumes a static world that does not adjust. If people are dying by the millions, then things will adjust.

War will be the adjustment. Competition for scarce resources will lead to disagreements between nations and war.

Re:The way things are going

[LithiumX]

Y'know, I've noticed over the years that there is a high degree of overlap between people who deny human-caused global warming and those who cannot spell.

The most common argument against any questioning of global warming is to claim that the questioner is somehow not intelligent enough to understand. It's second only to immediately accusing any questions of being paid for by Big Oil.

Disregarding GM-Hath-Come theories as preposterous isn't a wise move, but blind acceptance of what the media tells you to believe, in the absence of hard evidence (such as an impossible-to-hide global warming trend that can actually withstand scrutiny and debate), is just as foolish. There's plenty of suggestive evidence, but suggestive doesn't cut it when it comes to claims of absolutes.

The changes are suddenly coming very fast, and people want to know why - even though there's some pretty friggin scary things going on right now (such as marked increases in tectonic activity, unexplained changes in solar activity that violate 200 years of observation, and other observable items that have nothing to do with pollution).

(on a side note, while CO2 is the popular (and quite effective) greenhouse gas, it's not the one you have to worry about. Methane is far more effective at the job, and is put out in massive quantities - by agriculture.)

Re:The way things are going

[BiggerIsBetter]

But, those effects belong to our children and grandchildren

Are you a boomer?

Re:The way things are going

[MrMarket]

MOD PARENT FUNNY

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...You are arguing with a religious nut...

At least he is not a coward, an anonymous one at that is! Why don't you get an account and enlighten everyone here, since you appear to have an exclusive patent on truth.

Re:The way things are going

[SpaceLifeForm]

The mass of all of the ice in Antartica is the key. The sheer weight of it on the underlying rock will go away.

Re:The way things are going

[Shakrai]

History constitutes less than 2000 years. Thats the farthest back for which there are any usable records.

Uhh, dude, even if I don't mention ice cores and other geological evidence, you do realize that we have "usable records" older then 2,000 years, right?

Records survive from the Roman Kingdom -- which is over 2,500 years old. Ditto for records from the Roman Republic (2,000 - 2,500 years old). Some surviving artifacts and records from Babylon are at least as old (moreso in many cases). The Iliad is around 2,800 years old. The Torah is over 3,000 years old. The Egyptian pyramids and associated artifacts/records are even older than that. All of which have survived to the present day.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Ever wonder why the word "coincidence" often has the phrase "just happens to" associated with it? If, like you just did, that fact was stripped of context and taken alone - then yeah, I would probably be skeptical and write it off as a coincidence.

However, along with this big temperature increase we ALSO have an entire body of scientists with models that seem to describe past events really, really well - and even have a pretty decent track record over the last 10 years. These models ALSO implicate man-released CO2 in the warming.

So now the word "coincide" and the phrase "just happens to" look less and less applicable to the situation.

Volcanoes do not spew out as much CO2 as you seem to be implying. Their climate impart predominantly seems to come from ash. If volcanoes spewed out huge amounts of CO2, then the observed CO2 in the atmosphere would spike whenever there was an eruption, and this has not been observed.

Re:The way things are going

[Shakrai]

More survivable area on the earth if the tropics expand as opposed to half the earth being covered in ice.

I'm guessing you don't live in New York City, Amsterdam, London, Bangladesh or Southern Florida do you? You might want to think about what happens to coastal areas if all of that ice goes away.

Re:The way things are going

[Troed]

"Their is no doubt that temps are going up"

Actually there is. The stations we rely on for the temperature aren't exactly placed where they should be nowadays.

Good blog on the subject - that actually bothers to _check_ the station surroundings!

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Do you really think that ? I don't. Yeah, I do. It's depressing to know that we are going to just use up all of our resources until we starve ourselves like deer on a small island. Global warming is a constant reminder of this tendency. It's much nicer to think that we are all doomed because the sun is getting bigger and is going to engulf our planet :)

Re:The way things are going

[Evil Pete]

Minor quibble: Arrhenius did his work in the late 19th century. But yes it is fascinating how the "GW is a hoax" loonies ignore the fact that Arrhenius predicted this 112 years ago:

Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 ÂC and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 degrees Celsius [1]or 7 - 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

It is not hard to find pretty conclusive evidence that temperature is rising while we are pushing a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

I think the anti-GW group is mostly an ideological thing, very little science involved in their arguments. And by science I mean peer-reviewed stuff.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually believe that GW is -- in part -- man-made...Lying to get the result you want is never right, but the ecology movement forgot that long ago,

Lying and exaggeration is part of human nature, but claiming that the environmental movement consists solely or even primarily of those traits, is a falsehood as big as the hole in the ozone (whatever the cause). You, 'sir', belittle people you know nothing about. You even acknowledge that man is part of the problem, yet then use school yard bully language against those that wish to at least minimize the damage/changes. 'Cutting off your nose to spite you face', I think is an appropriate allegory.

and they're paying for it in the classic "boy who cried wolf" manner. If the woodsman doesn't look for the wolf, and insists that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean the wolf doesn't wait. In the story, the child is making fun of the woodsman, and gets a karma kickback. Unlike that boy, environmentalists as a group have never enjoyed their cause, as it's a painful undertaking filled with insults from those in part who would be benefit. Not long ago, property near rivers, lakes and streams downstream from industry were amongst the least desirable home locations, but thanks to environmental legislation waterfront property is quite valuable.

Re:The way things are going

[Evil Pete]

Changes in ice sheets does affect volcanism. Due to isostatic rebound. But you have to remember the time scale. The effects wont be noticeable for thousands of years, and it wont be catastrophic.

Re:The way things are going

[LithiumX]

Could it be, that by using fossil fuels we release more of certain elements into the atmosphere and those increased warming activities are occurring because of that utilization? Let me know if you somehow still don't get that, unless you're just in denial.

Oh, it's a distinct possibility. However, it requires two things:

* All solid models of global warming require a considerable amount of time, as the insulating effect of greenhouse gases is very small, and operate on a timescale of centuries. It's possible we were wrong, and if the temperature truly leaps, that becomes more likely.

* It also requires an actual warming trend, rather than the patchwork we see now. We see glaciers melting, as well as polar icecaps. We also see cooling trends in some of the hottest places on earth. We're seeing record high temperatures all over the world, but also record lows.

Logically, this suggests not warming, but instability. Did people think we lived in a magic time when the world we knew would remain the same forever - even though history shows that there is no "norm"? This can also be caused by human causes, and I assure you within the next hundred years that will be reality, but I'm honestly more afraid of the unusual tectonics and solar activity we started seeing at right around the same time than I am about CO2.

Also, one additional bit of info. Please feel free to verify. CO2 has increased by 31% since the start of the industrial revolution - and is projected to require far higher amounts to have any appreciable effect. Methane has a far higher GWP than CO2, meaning it's more damaging greenhouse-wise. It has increased by 150% - primarily due to agriculture (both plant growth and livestock). You don't hear much about methane because it serves no political motives to fight it.

In other words, while fossil fuels are a major factor in greenhouse gas emissions, it plays a very small role compared to the agricultural requirements of supporting 6+ billion people. That doesn't make for great news, though. In the short run, anyway. In the long run, CO2 has more lasting effects than any of the other GG's - so don't worry, Big Oil will be properly blameable for the next few centuries.

Again, please verify, then go watch An Inconvenient Truth, analyze it's logic (or lack thereof) and then go compare it to REAL ecology like Silent Spring (which has scared the living hell out of people for decades, and backed up it's assertions with verifiable evidence).

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anubis did it with Gilgamesh" somehow has even less credibility than the global warming advocates.

Re:The way things are going

[dreamchaser]

Yes, it could be contributing. Could is the operative word. As I said, I am sure we are making some contribution just as all lifeforms do. What I disagree with is the current panic and the false 'concensus' that people blather about.

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...I actually believe that GW is -- in part -- man-made, but the hordes of people refusing to believe ...

Don't you think that taking expensive action on global warming should be based on KNOWLEDGE, rather than yours or even the majority's BELIEF? Belief is for religion and philosophy, not for science. The problem is that NOBODY really KNOWS whether human are the cause of any warming, which in itself scientists are not entirely sure about.

Since most of the planet is covered with water, it seems that the best measure of over all warming should be the temperature of the ENTIRE ocean, not just the parts near the poles of the earth. By THAT measure, the temperature of the ocean is almost constant.

Re:The way things are going

[el_gato_borracho]

There will be even more than twice as much food for the survivors, because of... Soylent Green!

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget "erections lasting over 4 hours."

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

"School yard bully language?" Did you even read my comment? I said nothing incendiary. "If the woodsman doesn't look for the wolf, and insists that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean the wolf doesn't wait." I didn't say that I don't believe in GW. In fact, I said that I do. I was making a statement about human psychology and the repercussions of the environmental movement's interest in moving its cause forward instead of talking about facts.

When studies come out saying "Process A" uses more toxic chemicals or causes more total damage to the environment (or whatever) than "process B," the environmental movement will vilify process B if it doesn't match with the platform of change they want. That's historical fact.

For proof of my former point, you just need to look at the environmental movement's characterization of nuclear energy (particularly the breeder reactors). If we (the U.S.) had moved to nuclear energy in the 70's (like France), we wouldn't have serious emission problems now. On that point, at least, they care nothing about the facts. GM foods fall in the same category. There are many more.

This will fall on deaf ears, I predict.

Re:The way things are going

[Wonko the Sane]

On the other hand, if humans are not the cause, we have a really big problem. Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ? Adjustable mirror at the earth-sun L1 point. If you adjust the amount of light hitting the earth, then you can affect global temperatures no matter what the cause of warming is.

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

"Even if global warming is a false alarm, isn't it a good thing to handle the waste of our industrial civilization will[sic] better care."

I wasn't making a case for action (or otherwise) for the GW movement. I was commenting on people's tendency toward distrust of the environmental movement due to beliefs like the one expressed above. "Fuck the facts! If the uneducated masses move in the right direction, that's all that matters."

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. - why don't ordered and unordered lists work anymore? Global warming?

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that monolith sure arrived in the nick of time!

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

It might not happen for over a thousand years, but a volcanically induced global winter could certainly be the result of global warming.

I've been to Antarctica, our group has discovered volcanoes under the ice and yet I can't begin to think how your scenario is possible. The ice has very little effect on what happens below it. The only significant effect I can think of is it's weight. The crust basically floats on the mantel and the weight of the ice does push it down a bit. However, it's a very slow effect. The crust under Antarctica is still raising from when most of the ice melted off at the end of the last glacial period.

You could remove all the ice from Antarctica and not notice any significant change in the crust for 10K years.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Hungry people are often poor people, and poor people can't pay enough to meet our expectations of a return (or even no loss) on labor, fuel, vehicles, storage, and other distribution resources.

I think, in general, the problem is more political. In almost every case, countries with large food problems have huge political problems. If you look at the history of the big "food telethons" that try and solve immediate hunger issues, most of the food ends up getting confiscated by the corrupt government or organized crime (or both).

Really, it's pretty cheap to move massive amounts of food if you have a stable country. That's why most of the world has relatively cheap food.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

good for you, but i live near equator and if this got hotter my brains will melt.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

models that seem to describe past events really, really well

Name three, and point me to published papers detailing their internals.

I will guarantee certain things.

1) The models will have energy conservation imposed by hand, probably by adjusting the temperatures.

2) There will be large deviations in their predictions for some variables (tropical cyclone frequency, for example)

3) There will be crude parameterizations for important physical processes.

Anyone who believes that global climate models have any predictive value is talking moonshine. Although they are works of scientific art, it is simply false to claim that they are in any but the crudest sense physically realistic.

Have a look at "Taken By Storm", for example--co-written by a mathematical physicist--to get a layperson's sense of some of the problems. It is extremely unfortunately that climatologists didn't spend a few decades modelling much simpler systems before making strong pronouncements on the basis of their models. Computational physicists who look at GCMs all come away just a little bit queazy when they see how this particular sausage is being made.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunting was the major cause of decline of the condors. Either killed directly due to a mistaken idea that they killed livestock, or poisoned from lead bullets left in carcasses some hunters would leave in the field. Mostly people didn't intentionally kill the eagles. Perhaps you got the two confused?

Re:The way things are going

[evilviper]

Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ?

Cover everything in chrome...
Increase sulfur emissions to 19th century levels...
Orbital sun-shade...

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...Global warming is very real....

The theorized increase is a mathematical calculation, not a measured FACT. Furthermore, the temperature of the atmosphere is almost irrelevant, since the earth is covered three fourths with water, which has a MUCH higher heat capacity than air. If you take the average temperature of ALL oceans, not only in the polar areas, the temperature is remarkably constant. A little more ice melting at the poles or in the high mountains is not indicative of over all warming of the whole planet.

Even if whole northern sea ice melted, every cubic inch thereof, it would not raise the level of the ocean at all. The estimates of much the seas would rise if every bit of ice on the planet melted are all over the map from a few inches to hundreds of feet.

If the earth DID get warmer on average, if the ocean temperature did go up significantly, it would make the now icy empty northern wastelands habitable and let food be grown there. As oceans get warmer, if they did, more water would evaporate from them, resulting in more rain everywhere on land. That would mean large areas of present deserts would also become productive. Most people's heating bills would also decrease.

In short there is no evidence that 1) the average temperature of the oceans as a whole is increasing much, if at all. 2)Even if the earth would warm significantly, there are more indications that this would be beneficial for mankind than harmful.

Re:The way things are going

[Skreems]

You're talking about average temperatures for most of history, which is MAYBE 2000 years. Considering ice ages last between 40,000-100,000 years, that doesn't seem too significant to predict the climate.

*whooosh*

How do you think scientists got that information on the length of ice ages, but can't get a decent grasp on average temperature for more than 2000 years? Your sentences directly contradict each other.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

"The worldwide DDT ban has caused the deaths of millions worldwide. Even if DDT were to make the bald eagle extinct, which is highly doubtful, the lives of millions of men, women, and children is more important to me.

The global outright ban was an overreaction, but we were just spraying the stuff willy nilly and it was spreading throughout the environment. The stuff is carcinogenic. In the US, where a person is more likely to die of cancer than malaria, it doesn't make sense to use it."

DDT causes genetic damage. It's not just carcinogenic. The damaged genes can be passed from parent to child (assuming that your genetically-defected fetus lives long enough to be born).

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Tragedy of the commons. Look it up.

When the commons is the air and the water that everyone shares and pollution in those increases morbidity rates in environmentalists and everyone else, then the non-polluters sure as hell have a right to tell polluters where to stick their crap.

Are you happy with your neighbours walking their dogs on your lawn and leaving turds all over it for your kids to play in? Polluters do something equivalent but you just don't see it happening.

Many environmentalists trying to stop excessive pollution are not that different from homeowners protecting their back yard. Just because you might be cool with a yard full of dog shit doesn't mean that everybody else should put up with it even if they don't own a dog.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 201]

The worldwide DDT ban has caused the deaths of millions worldwide. Even if DDT were to make the bald eagle extinct, which is highly doubtful, the lives of millions of men, women, and children is more important to me.

Utter bullshit - a lie perpetuated by chemical manufacturers and anti-environmentalist conservatives. First, DDT use is not banned worldwide - and is still used in places where malaria is endemic; it's used in far smaller quantities than the previous agricultural use. Second, there are other, less dangerous compounds, that can be used to combat malaria carrying mosquitoes. Third, the ban on agricultural use (which was the most environmentally damaging use of the compound) may actually have improved the usefulness of DDT in a limited anti-malarial role, since it reduced the pressure on mosquitoes to evolve a resistance to the chemical.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, bullshit and a thousand times BULLSHIT. /.'ers are the most retarded people in the sci/tech world. Dumb as fuck

Re:The way things are going

[vbraga]

Even if whole northern sea ice melted, every cubic inch thereof, it would not raise the level of the ocean at all. The estimates of much the seas would rise if every bit of ice on the planet melted are all over the map from a few inches to hundreds of feet. [citation needed]

Re:The way things are going

[Fulcrum of Evil]

quite possibly. As i recall, the link between bird population decline and ddt is hardly a proven thing, and the DDT ban itself succeeded largely on hype and scare tactics.

Re:The way things are going

[moorewr]

Roman Kingdom? Kingdom?!

To coin a phrase: Rome has no kings, Rome needs no kings. The Romans threw out their last king around 500 BC, had an aristocratic Republic until Augustus made himself Princeps (he ruled roughly 17 BC- aD 14, I don't have the dates in front of me). After that it was an Empire, ruled by an emperor, with a senate.. but never a Kingdom again.

In any event our records are from ice cores, not the observations of any ancient observer. There was no way to gauge temperature until Fahrenheit invented his scale, anyway.

Re:The way things are going

[moorewr]

How nice for you. Unfortunately, your uninformed opinion does not agree with the results of a great deal of actual science.

Re:The way things are going

[Barraketh]

This actually brings up a question that not enough people seem to be asking: "Should we be trying to stop Global Warming or adapting to it?"

If it is in fact caused by the Sun, then stopping it is largely out of the question, and so we're forced to adapt. I suspect we will be able to do so, although I don't have any particular evidence to back this up. I would like to see some scientific projections on the costs of adapting to a 1C rise in global temperatures, and then compare these costs to the costs of changing to alternative energy sources.

Re:The way things are going

[TimSSG]

I would like to know why the IPCC did not look for causes not caused by man. I know it was part of their guidelines to only look for human causes, but why was it part of their guidelines. Tim S

Re:The way things are going

[Hal_Porter]

It is possible. Freeman Dyson wrote a paper on spraying particulates into the atmosphere. So did Edward Teller. Recently people have proposed a plan to stabilise the population in the Arctic

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/print

A real-life experiment in the Arctic was, of course, out of the question. But after some discussion, Caldeira and Wood decided to run some computer modeling to see if shooting particles into the stratosphere over the North Pole could help stabilize the region. How much sunlight, they wondered, would you have to reflect to stop the ice from melting? What effect would it have on the rest of the Earth's climate?

Scientists routinely use such computer models to test the effects of various climate-related scenarios, from rising CO2 levels to the impact of deforestation on global warming. After several weeks of running a climate simulation on Stanford's superfast computer network, Caldeira concluded that shading the sunlight directly over the polar ice cap by less than twenty-five percent would maintain the "natural" level of ice in the Arctic, even with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Push the shading up to fifty percent, and the ice grows. Even better, the restoration happens fast: Within five years, the temperature would drop by almost two degrees. 2 degrees Centigrade is a lot in global warming terms. Wikipedia says "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 degrees C (1.33 ± 0.32 degrees F) during the hundred years ending in 2005".

The modeling results interested Wood. He calculated that it would take roughly 300,000 metric tons of particles each year to shade the sunlight in the Arctic by twenty-five percent -- a tiny amount, on a planetary scale. As for how to get those particles up there, Wood thinks that a half-dozen 747s could do the job. Even better, you could build a Kevlar tube fifteen miles long, with a diameter slightly larger than a garden hose. The bottom of the hose would be connected to a combustor that created the aerosols, while the top would be held in place by high-tech kites or a high-altitude airship that the Defense Department is developing. "It's nothing more than a fancy blimp," Wood says.

In Wood's view, this was a no-brainer. You could stabilize the ice, save the polar bears and demonstrate the virtues of planetary engineering for less money than it takes to feed and clothe the soldiers in Iraq for a year. Because the aerosols are launched only over the Arctic, there is little danger of directly impacting humans. And best of all, you can try it for a few years and see if it works. If something goes wrong, you can quit, and within a year or so, all the particles will have dissipated, returning the region to its "natural" state. I like this quote too.

"Human beings are like cockroaches," Wood says with typical black humor. "It's fairly easy to kill the first ten percent of the population. And if you try really hard, you might even get the next ten percent. But no matter what you do, you'll never get that last ten percent. We will find a way to survive." That's the spirit.

Re:The way things are going

[Xyrus]

"CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas"

Incorrect. Aside from water vapor, carbon dioxide has the largest radiative forcing of the green house gases in our atmosphere. The others, in order, are methane, nitrous oxide, and CFC-12. To add to this, the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is quite long, unlike gases sucha as methane.

"The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28%"

Incorrect. CO2 currently makes up over 72% of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources.

"The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution."

Of course they do. How could they not, given the IR started 250 years ago? If you're going to bring up the argument of "natural cycle", you're still mssing the point. At best, we are merely contributing to change that, on the whole, we haven't really prepared for.

"There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one)"

And obviously you haven't even performed a rudimentary review of the (quite large) amount of data collected on the climate. You could start by reading the IPCC report, which summarily dismisses you claims.

As far as solar activity goes, again, you need to read more. NASA is currently collecting terabytes of solar data. If the sun so much as burps, we'd know about it. According to the IPCC report, solar activity levels have not contributed to the current climate change.

You are, of course, free to bury your head in the sand or ignore the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate. Frankly, I'm more inclined to listen the people who study climate than some idle slashdotter.

But to make you happy, I'll just say that all this climate crap is a worldwide group of scientists operating in collusion in a multi-national scheme to bilk world governments out of billions of dollars for their own personal profit.

Tin foil hats are available at the door.

~X~

Re:The way things are going

[Prune]

The DDT ban might have saved bald eagles, but it has killed millions of people from malaria that would have been otherwise prevented. This may seem strange to you, but some of us value human life more than bird life.

Re:The way things are going

[Endlisnis]

Global average temperature is approximately 15C, NOT ZERO! Even during ice-ages, it averages around 10C.

Re:The way things are going

[sootman]

Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that?

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:The way things are going

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

Long live.. NORTH DAKOTA!

Re:The way things are going

[RockModeNick]

If it's in any way comforting, we ARE all doomed(eventually, unless we colonize another solar system), as our star IS in fact going to slowly expand until it engulfs the plant.

Re:The way things are going

[maxume]

New supply would help with oil prices some, but it isn't clear that it would help very much. The problem is that there are a lot of people who want to buy oil(and a bunch of people speculating for profit). For instance, demand in the U.S. hasn't shrunk a whole lot since $2. I'm sure that people are more inclined to buy smaller cars, and that they will be for several years, even if oil prices go down, but demand isn't contracting a huge amount.

Hopefully, if oil gets gas back down under $2.50(or $2, or $1.80), the federal government decides to stick in some sort of price adjusting tax(oil goes up, tax goes down, oil goes down, tax goes up) and puts the proceeds towards energy research. It might not accomplish a whole lot on the research side, but it is pretty clear that people can deal with paying $2 for gas, and it would help keep efficiency decisions a little more long term.

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...isn't it a good thing to handle the waste of our industrial civilization will[sic] better care...

Most definitely! However policy should balance all needs of society. Economic, health and social needs must all be examined and rash decisions on anyone's agenda avoided.

Re:The way things are going

[Guppy]

I knew someone would say this. Alright, I'll bite. Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction. Hmm... Oceanic Anoxic Event. These events have been associated with warm climates and very high CO2 levels (~1000ppm). However, I should note that this type of extreme scenario has not been predicted to result result from human activity. Rather, some huge natural calamity would probably have to occur to trigger one.

Re:The way things are going

[ozmanjusri]

Adjustable mirror at the earth-sun L1 point.

And this is why we will face extinction.

The most complex homeostatic mechanism we have experienced. We don't understand all the feedback mechanisms. Our models are riddled with flaws and assumptions. All our lives depend on it.

And the solution is to turn a blowtorch onto it?

I suppose you fix your CPU with a pipe wrench and arc welder?

Re:The way things are going

[quantaman]

So yeah, maybe there is some input that we haven't yet discovered that explains the warming trend. Lord, that would be nice.

Do you really think that ? I don't.

Considering human acts the main cause of global warming (or whatever other catastrophe you want) is very comforting. Why ? Because we can do something about it.

On the other hand, if humans are not the cause, we have a really big problem. Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ?

These days, I take a great deal of comfort on the idea we are destroying out planet, our "natural" disaster are due to humans doing this or that.

Well the big worry with the scenario that we're the ones changing the temperature is the mechanism we're using to change it, CO2, is something we don't like we're going to slow down producing. If it's some natural cycle we have a few thousand years of evidence that it probably won't be that bad, and several million years of evidence that it probably won't be catastrophic. However, if we're the ones doing the warming all that prior evidence of non-disaster no longer applies.

That being said as a species we do have a tendency to procrastinate and if the situation does become obviously dire I think we have a good shot at panicking productively.

Re:The way things are going

[ppanon]

From what I've heard, it's a combination of a number of factors. Increasing fuel prices is one. Another is drought in a number of Asian rice-exporting countries that has seriously impacted supply. Substitution due to the re-targeting of corn crops to ethanol production is another. An increase in the price of (often petroleum-derived) fertilizers is yet another (without the fertilizers, yields are lower causing a shift in the supply curve).

How much of the price increase is attributable to each factor is unclear, although the price increase as a result of gas prices affecting transportation costs is probably the easiest to determine. Food is a good with a fairly inelastic demand curve and thus price can be significantly affected by shifts in the supply curve. So it's likely supply-related causes dominate the recent price increases in staple commodities like rice.

Re:The way things are going

[boyfaceddog]

I read that "GW" as George W. God, did I laugh. Don't worry so damned much about global warming. If it's our fault, the tipping point was probably during the sixties so its WAY too late to do anything now. How do I know that? Mankind as a whole is about as observant as any given five year old of its species. Given that we just noticed the weather is heating up, I figure this has been going on for at least forty years. Besides, our "science" just got its act together enough to take a really good look at the world. Its almost as though Mankind has awakened to find the house on fire. So don't worry. Either its Our fault and we're screwed or it isn't our fault and we're screwed. Betchya we nuke ourselves into oblivion over scarce food and oil WAAAY before global warming can do us in.

Re:The way things are going

[Gadget_Guy]

The Romans threw out their last king around 500 BC

Which might explain why the GP said that records from the Roman Kingdom were over 2500 years old and that after that they had the Roman Republic. You should have kept reading after you saw the phrase Roman Kingdom.

Re:The way things are going

[ishnaf]

The problem with scientists is, they are not geologists. Uhh.... geologists ARE scientists. Some scientists ARE geologists. It is true however some people like rocks and aren't scientists.

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...citation needed...

You don't need a citation for this! You can do an honest to goodness scientific experiment to convince yourself this is true.

Put a few ice cubes into a glass and then fill the rest with water until it is as full as you can make it, without overflow. Now just watch as the ice melts.

Much of the earth's ice, especially in the north, is already floating in the ocean, just as the ice cubes in your glass. If every bit of all that floating ice melted, it would affect the level of the ocean in the same way the ice cubes melting affected the water level in your glass.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

not really into this whole 'global climate change' thing or whatever the flavor of the month name its called now. why not call it what it really is, anti-pollution. i can jump on that bandwagon no problem. cleaner air and water advocation looks like a much more positive outlook. who cares it doing so makes it .1C warmer or colder from year to year.

Re:The way things are going

[Eighty7]

Why ? Because we can do something about it.

Or so you hope. Some of these events are so big you can't really stop them once you see them. Check out this book sometime.

Re:The way things are going

[quantaman]

we tire of you because you refuse to acknowldge basic climate science and refuse to follow proper scientific methods. Funny how you claim the mantle of "basic climate science" and "proper scientific methods" then proceed to establish a position contrary that to virtually every actual climate scientist out there.

1. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas

2. The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28%
3. The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution

The first two are correct, just ask any climate scientist, however that doesn't disprove AGW.

The 3rd point, depending on timeframe, I'd argue, if I recall the medieval warming period wasn't as warm as previously thought and warm only confined to Europe, but I'm not certain.

Besides the worrying thing isn't the current temperature, it's how fast they are rising, and how fast they may rise in the future.

4. There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one), and you simply resort to either the "your workin for big oil" or the "i'm more rightgous than you" defense, neither of which is a valid scientific defense. To my knowledge no one has a working climate model that can explain the current warming with any source other than CO2. However, I'm not an expert, or even a decent amateur, if you want to argue climate science take the arguments from climate scientists.

In my opinion the only line of argument you could take that has some validity of convincing me AGW is false is explaining why the entire community of climate scientists is so massively mistaken. I can't conceive of any scientific argument you could make on this forum that the scientists dedicating their lives to studying global warming haven't already gone through.

Re:The way things are going

[ppanon]

Based on that logic, do the tides cause volcanic eruptions? Yeah, they can under the right circumstances, like on Io.

Rather, it's more likely that the moon causes any associated volcanic activity, because it is a shitton more mass than anything else, and it sure isn't ripping the planet apart. Duh! What do you think causes tidal action? The gravitational attraction of the moon's mass and it's variance over the surface of the Earth due to gravitational force having an inverse square relationship to distance.

The energy conversion through tidal action has come from the moon's angular momentum and angular rotation around the Earth as well as from the Earth's rotation itself. Over billions of years, the moon has become tidally locked and its orbit continues to slowly decay.

Earth's rotation is also slowly decreasing. If I live long enough, the Earth's diurnal cycle might slow down enough to match my 25-26 hour natural circadian rhythm. I've probably got way better odds of winning on of the really big, long-shot lotteries though.

Re:The way things are going

[kklein]

Well-played! Well-played!

And I realized just now I got modded down for that comment. Pity. I thought it was pretty funny.

Re:The way things are going

[kklein]

I'm just sayin'. The overlap is remarkable. You can infer what you will from that. You, for example, have inferred that the poster is not intelligent enough to understand. Is that what I implied, or did you impose that reading on my comment of your own accord?

Of course, the implication of this post is that I didn't imply what you inferred, which may or may not be the case.

Vote for me!

Re:The way things are going

[jackbird]

OK, now try it with ice cubes sitting in a glass full of Greenland.

Re:The way things are going

[dkalley]

History constitutes less than 2000 years. Thats the farthest back for which there are any usable records. Historical sciences can go back much farther. Ice cores have been mentioned, prehistory can be documented with carbon dating, pollen analysis can recreate the flora of the past, and geology all of which help document climate change even on micro levels.

Nothing known to science allows temperature measurements with the kind of accuracy you claim for other than the last 200 years.
Sorry, but western American archaeology, among other regions, relies on a lot of evidence to document a prehistory which has been greatly effected by environmental changes, again as mentioned above we have an abundance of geological and biological data.

This link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoclimatology may help.

Re:The way things are going

[Swampash]

History constitutes less than 2000 years.

Hey, look everyone! We've got a postcard from IGNORANT WORLD.

Re:The way things are going

[Dr_Terminus]

You're correct that Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And water vapor is even more potent than either of those. But the reason we're focusing on CO2 is that it has a much longer atmospheric lifetime than water vapor or methane.

A parcel of air can hold only so much water vapor - once the air is saturated, the water tends to condense and form clouds or precipitate out.

Methane is a bit more complicated, but suffice it to say, if all methane production were to stop tomorrow, methane levels would return to their equilibrium point in 10-20 years.

With CO2, if all production were stopped tomorrow, it would take 100-1000 years for CO2 levels to reach their equilibrium point. This is why CO2 is the most worrying greenhouse gas. Anything we put into the atmosphere, we're stuck with for a long time.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read my comment? I said nothing incendiary

Lying to get the result you want is never right, but the ecology movement forgot that long ago

Yea, right, 'nothing incendiary'

When [blah, blah, blah] the environmental movement will vilify process B if it doesn't match with the platform of change they want...On that point, at least, they care nothing about the facts.

More general hatred for people who much more often than not are honestly trying to improve our world. The war on Science has many combatants, you sir, are on the red team.

Funny you should mention nuclear power, as I said when Bush the bridge burner, got himself installed as President, "well, at least we'll see some more work on nuclear power", and I am man enough to admit that boy was I wrong. He just used the many talking points which gets people such as yourself salivating, and all we have to show for it is a crappy war over oil contracts, $4/gallon gas, a Supreme Court which still considers Roe v Wade settled law, and a couple of trillion of debt.

This will fall on deaf ears, I predict. God listens to all, but even he doesn't acquiesce simply because one demands it with an imperious tone, I like his style.

Re:The way things are going

[MacDork]

Have you looked at the ice core data lately? Have a look at T minus 70000 years. Go ahead... try to rationalize this fact with your "warming is bad" religion.

Re:The way things are going

[TooMuchToDo]

My friend, the bill has already come due. We just haven't realized it yet.

Re:The way things are going

[Guppy]

History constitutes less than 2000 years. Thats the farthest back for which there are any usable records. Chinese records go back a bit further than that. While the oldest writings formally intended to serve as historiography are 2.1k years old, there are about 3k years of actually readable materials recorded by contemporaries of that time.

In addition, there are several thousand years worth of recorded events before that, but by historians living long after (although still ancient by our perspective) they supposedly occured. Many such cases can be considered the "historical" myths of their time, although in other cases historians mention the titles of prior works now unknown to us (thus indicating that these were written, rather than oral, legends).

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Despite any pessimistic forecasts, the human race has developed the means, and many have had the will for a long time, a long, long time, to prevent our demise. And then, there is God-after all is said- He WILL have the last say!

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...OK, now try it with ice cubes sitting in a glass full of Greenland...

I said FLOATING ice in the waters of the earth. There is evidence that Greenland was really once a "green land" filled with forests and fields in historical time. That's why it still has that name.

Re:The way things are going

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Your other examples seem about right, but...

Nineteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death being one example

That's eighteen-hundred-and...

That was more bad weather localized to a few years, due to a catastrophic incident on the other side of the world. Climate is a much longer view, of many decades, not just a few years.

As it is, I don't think it's just an environmental issue anymore. There's now more at stake, and other reasons for us to rethink our energy use. It's now more about national and global politics and economics. Disruptions in energy supplies and other issues mean that there should be more impetus to significantly diversify humanity's energy portfolio.

Re:The way things are going

[ralphdaugherty]

You don't need a citation for this!

  Your problem is you act like all the ice is already in the ocean. Greenland holds only 10% of glacier ice but if Greenland's ice melts it will raise the sea level 21 feet.

  In fact, as you point out, ice raises it just as much and it doesn't even have to melt. The glaciers just have to slide out to sea as icebergs. And scientists are watching that very thing accelerate.

  rd

Re:The way things are going

[Tablizer]

See there's my problem with global warming....Ask most geologists if climate change is occurring, and they will tell you that climate is never constant.

If we are changing the climate, many species may die out but many will survive. However, from a human standpoint, we may be in for a lot of headaches as people have to adjust to conditions they and their dwellings are not used to. People may have to abandon entire countries as they turn into desert. It will be very unpleasant to us, not just the animals. It will make conservation look cheap in comparison.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

1. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas

Wikipedia (citing GISS) claims that C02 accounts for around 9% of the greenhouse effect.

2. The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28%

See above.

3. The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution

I'm not sure this is true. This graph indicates that we now at or above the peak of the medieval warming period.

4. There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one), and you simply resort to either the "your workin for big oil" or the "i'm more rightgous than you" defense, neither of which is a valid scientific defense.

I'm pretty sure that climate scientist have a grasp on the effects of solar activity, and probably the other effects that you can think of but assume that they can't.

Re:The way things are going

[that this is not und]

Geological evidence isn't good for discerning fine-tuned things like the average temperature over a year's span.

'Science Channel' TV programming aside, there really is a lot we don't know. The geological record has immense value, but it's not what people make it out to be.

Re:The way things are going

[that this is not und]

You wouldn't have to hand deliver your postcards. You could just put a stamp on it, dude.

Re:The way things are going

[KnightNavro]

DDT causes genetic damage. It's not just carcinogenic. The damaged genes can be passed from parent to child (assuming that your genetically-defected fetus lives long enough to be born). From the EPA IRIS database:

Weight-of-Evidence Characterization B2 (Probable human carcinogen - based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)

Weight-of-Evidence Narrative: Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE. This may be a synopsis of the full weight-of-evidence narrative.

Bolding mine.

Likewise, California's Toxicicity Criteria Database lists it as a carcinogen, though it's based largely on the EPA assessment. If you're evaluating health risk in the US, those are the go-to sources for risk criteria.

Re:The way things are going

[lordofwhee]

Obviously you do not understand basic meteorology. Higher average temperatures, while bad in and of themselves, will also cause temperatures to drop in places they have previously been higher in. Also, most models I'm aware of put a catastrophic, possibly extinction-level event out between ten and one hundred years. In the lifetime of a planet, that's not very long at all. I fail to see how a time line that short should not scare anyone shitless.

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

Nothing incediary in the first post. The AC (you?) took the gloves off. Your non sequiturs just leave me O_o.

1. Not a Red Stater
2. Not a Republican
3. Not anti-environment
4. Am pro-science
5. Have not owned a car since I was 30
6. Still ride my bike to work (when weather permits) at 40 years old
7. Use public transportation otherwise.
8. Recycle and reuse wherever possible
9. Don't care about having material shit
10. STILL don't like the leaders of the environmental movement taking stances that trade the truth for "the greater good of humanity." That is against science.

Re:The way things are going

[bussdriver]

There is no natural disease that kills 100%. There are however man made biological weapons and the resulting panic that could knock out most people. Even then, likely some pockets would survive.

Re:The way things are going

[izelrenevato]

0C is way too low. It pretty much has been 10C during our current "ice house planet" and different from the 20C "greenhouse planet". If we had a little global warming it might be nice but a lot and a lot quickly probably would not be. Of course we have a planet on which the last ice age was about 20kya (20,000 years ago) ans we have been coming out of it. In fact it is amusing to look at the worries of people and scienctists in the 1970s worried about and it was "a new ice age is on its way". Of course computers weren't as powerful then and models were much simpler. It is pretty curious that almost all models depict some degree of warming but vary a lot in how much. Some it is rather modest and others it is a lot. It is the models of intermediate complexity that are used like CLIMBER-2. Some models like CLIMBER (sort of CLIMATE+BIOSPHERE) have some attempts at modeling the feedback mechanisms in the actual climatic system. Many are weak in modeling the cold parts of the planet called the cryosphere. Most do seem to point to the idea that "Global Warming is real" and that humans cause a goodly portion of it and that no serious scientist, if one trusts Jerry Mahlman of the NOAA that it is a no-brainer and the skeptics are just wrong. My big problem with this is presntation. Science should not presented like a Friday/Saturday/Sunday Sermon in church. If the evidence is so strong then just present it and let it stand on its own merits. Else it does sound like a matter of opinion. My big worry is that if in say the next 5 to 10 years global warming doesn't become very evident people will lose faith in the arguments for it. Then oh whoops it materializes seriously 20-30 years down the line and it is "Oh !" time. My suspicion is that there are as yet unmodeled feedback mechanisms of unknown strength that will hold things in reasonable check for some amount of time if we do not overwhelm them. I suspect we have some unspecified amount of time to get it right and develop new things but we don't have forever. I base much of this on the strengthening of the West WInd Drift or the Antartic Circumpolar Circulation and the fact that much of Antartica is stable, although some of it has melted much of it hasn't and some of it seems to be growing in thickness. The areas around Greenland are melting but there is indication that they did that in the past, and hence why Greenland is called Green Land. There was a period called the Sangamon Interglacial in North America the Eeemian elsewhere which was much warmer than it is now and the seas were meters higher. Although such a situation would not make the planet uninhabitable, I for example would have to move as my house would be under water. Anyway I am getting a bit carried away here. Really it seems to me we should be sensitive as to what we are doing or may be doing. I can understand why people might be skeptical but I must laugh when I here conservatives call it a Marxist conspiracy and engage in a lot of aad hominem attacks.

Re:The way things are going

[pclminion]

The DDT ban might have saved bald eagles, but it has killed millions of people from malaria that would have been otherwise prevented. This may seem strange to you, but some of us value human life more than bird life.

Wow -- I had not realized that there were millions of people dying from malaria in the same areas of the world where the bald eagle lives. Was there some mass malaria epidemic in the US in the 1960's that I haven't heard about?

Re:The way things are going

[timmarhy]

"Y'know, I've noticed over the years that there is a high degree of overlap between people who deny human-caused global warming and those who cannot spell."

don't talk about my spelling when you start a sentence with "Y'know".

oh and my poor gramma invalidates my points because.....?

Re:The way things are going

[jstott]

You're talking about average temperatures for most of history, which is MAYBE 2000 years.

Between tree rings, ice cores, and samples from lake and ocean beds, we have an excellent record going back a few tens of thousands of years and reasonable records going back over 100,000 years. And, as you so quickly point out, geologists have indirect indications of climate going back hundreds of millions of years (otherwise, they would just be talking out their ass, right?). Your 2000 years is just the written record.

-JS

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

I was commenting on people's tendency toward distrust of the environmental movement due to beliefs like the one expressed above.

So the world can 'go to hell in a hand basket' because you don't 'like' how some on the left presents its views.

"Fuck the facts! If the uneducated masses move in the right direction, that's all that matters."

My experience is that most (if not nearly every one) honestly believe in the early reports of climate change. characterizing them as dishonest is just propaganda, bully style. Trouble for you, and the rest of us, is that to prove them wrong we would need to poison the earth. I don't think that I'm breaking new ground in saying that 'it's the only one we have'.

I'm not sure where you got your facts from, as you didn't link anything, but this report shows steady increases in just CO2, and if you want a really good dose of CO2, just take a hike in the middle of a busy highway. Back in 1998 I was telling anyone who's ear I could grab, that the stock market was bubbling, did they listen, no, was I right, yes. More than two years ago I was saying that the housing market was crazy and about to burst (20% drop, I told them), I was right on that too. Am I ready to say that man is causing these increases, no, I'm not, but I think that we could eventually. Would you take the chance at passing such a world to our progenerate? I'm guessing that you are, mostly because you don't like those damn smelly hippies.

Re:The way things are going

[jstott]

Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction.

Depends how you define significant, of course, but the consequences of running out of oil, including the corresponding loss of fertilizer and industrial infrastructure, would seem to fit the bill. Starvation of even 15% of the "surplus population" (to pull a WAG) is still significant in my book.

-JS

Re:The way things are going

[LithiumX]

Obviously you do not understand basic meteorology. Higher average temperatures, while bad in and of themselves, will also cause temperatures to drop in places they have previously been higher in. Also, most models I'm aware of put a catastrophic, possibly extinction-level event out between ten and one hundred years. In the lifetime of a planet, that's not very long at all. I fail to see how a time line that short should not scare anyone shitless.

While I can easily see (as a layman) how an increase in temperatures could destabilize things enough to result in some drops, I have never seen the increasing ferocity of winter tied well to global warming - except from sources I wouldn't put any faith in. I also don't remember ever hearing that kind of idea bounced around in the mainstream until it after The Day After Tomorrow came out - which makes me extra skeptical (sort of like how bad Dinosaur science started showing up in the news after Jurassic Park came out).

As for extinction-level events... we're in one now. The spread of humans across the globe resulted in the (geologically instant) extinction of almost all large mammals across the face of the planet - leaving mosly the African species (which evolved to deal with predatory monkeys), bears (too badass for our ancestors), and mass-herd animals like buffalo (and most of those went as well). This was all before history even began. We're wiping out species so fast that it hurts to even think about it. We're very nearly finished with our closest relatives as it is. It's not a modern problem - though population growth and pollution are the main causes now (and pollution is less of a danger than we thought - go get your hair tested for mercury levels. According to 1950's medical knowledge, most of us shouldn't even be alive at this point).

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

Please read.

Re:The way things are going

[MacDork]

Nineteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death being one example, the total environmental collapse of mesoamerica and the middle east, the sudden shift that made Europe more habitable and helped lead to the Rennaisance

*SIGH* Not one event you cited was climate related!

1900? How is one year ever indicative of climate?

The collapse of the middle east and mesoamerica... Their cropland collapsed due to their irrigation practices...

The renaissance was only possible because of a population explosion that happened around the end of the medieval warm period. That happened because of a little invention call crop rotation. Human ingenuity... the warm weather was simply a bonus.

Be careful saying that. You're likely to get yourself harassed, blacklisted, and shunned for such politically incorrect remarks.

Oh noes!1 I'll be shunned by the cult of global warming. The unspeakable horror!

Re:The way things are going

[Chris Burke]

If you understood why the miner cares for the life of the canary, maybe you'd appreciate why I'm concerned about the life of the bald eagle with regard to a poison that accumulates up the food chain.

Re:The way things are going

[pclminion]

Volcanoes do not spew out as much CO2 as you seem to be implying.

Regardless of how much they may or may not be spewing, look at it this way. If you graph atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past several thousand years, there is an enormous upward trend in recent years. However, there is no matching enormous upward trend in global volcanic activity at that same time. The trend is occurring right now. If the volcanoes are causing it, please tell me which volcanoes they are. Have geologists found a corresponding huge upward trend in volcanism over the same time period? Nope.

It doesn't prove that man is the cause, but it certainly proves that the volcanoes AREN'T.

Re:The way things are going

[bumptehjambox]

#2 if you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C (sp?) for most of history. I hear that is an important temperature for something..... Anytime the temperature strays from freezing dramatic changes happen to the global environment.

I keep doing the calculations and I'm still getting 32 degrees. Are you sure you aren't making a mistake?

Re:The way things are going

[jafac]

People dying by the millions won't even put a dent in it.

People would have to die by the hundreds of millions.

No war in the history of mankind has ever come close to that. It will take a large-scale nuclear, or biological war. (I don't think chemical warfare would do it - we can't distribute a chemical that widely. - but maybe a self-replicating nanotech device would do it.)

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Depends how you define significant, of course, but the consequences of running out of oil...

We will NEVER "run out" of oil. It doesn't work like that. It just gets more and more expensive to pull out of the ground. When cheap fossil fuel gets more expensive than the alternatives, then we'll switch to the alternatives (of which there are many).

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

science + politics + fear mongering = global warming

Re:The way things are going

[pclminion]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

This is not even mathematically true, much less practically true. If the population of hosts grows at least at the same rate as the spread of the pathogen, then both can continue to survive even with a 100% fatality rate.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing incediary in the first post. Really, you still think that? For real? Honestly? You made sweeping statements about the environmental movement, and those involved in it. Like they were some kind of hive mind, who's evil hidden agenda of cleaning up the environment is backed by lies of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sorry, that was Bush, you know, that guy you didn't say that you didn't vote for, while making all of the other claims. I'm guessing that your biggest fear is they would force you to wear patchouli, and eat granola :)

The AC (you?) took the gloves off. Your non sequiturs just leave me O_o. So you get upset when a person makes sweeping statements about your beliefs, well at least I didn't call you a liar, or pretend that your efforts are only manipulation for some hidden agenda. Also, just because you live in a big city (an assumption of course) where owning a car is too expensive, it doesn't mean that aren't a tool of those who pervert science (and religion for that matter; unrelated). You certainly have the 'I hate all those environmental hippies' thing going on, which is right from their schoolyard bully playbook.

Re:The way things are going

[WarwickRyan]

P.S. - why don't ordered and unordered lists work anymore? Global warming.

Re:The way things are going

[rve]

They might not be optimal, but they sure are what we've optimized our agriculture for. Deviations from expected values will cost money. There is agriculture in climates ranging from the sub arctic to the equator. 'We' haven't optimized our agriculture for one specific temperature.

Generally, warmer climates are more productive. Just look at the difference in agricultural productivity between Britain and Germany (mild) and Canada (cold) at the same latitude.

Most of the USA has warmer summers and a longer growing season than most of Europe. Does this mean agriculture in the USA is comparatively sub-optimal?

The tropics also see more rainfall in warmer periods. The monsoon is usually in summer for example, and northern Africa often sees severe droughts in relatively cooler years.

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

Are you the movement? Probably not. "The Republican Party" doesn't often refer to all Republicans, but to the leadership. Same here.

Re:The way things are going

[Daengbo]

OK. I didn't vote for Bush. Does that make you happy now?.

Re:The way things are going

[XHIIHIIHX]

and the sooner the better.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-read the GP. He was suggesting vertical blinds, not a blow torch.

Re:The way things are going

[Alex Belits]

There is agriculture in climates ranging from the sub arctic to the equator. 'We' haven't optimized our agriculture for one specific temperature. Actually we did. The fact that SOME agriculture is practiced in suboptimal conditions does not mean that regions with those conditions sustain their population on a local food -- it's common to grow something rare but adapted to the local climate and trade it for something more nutritionally valuable (wheat/rice/corn/potatoes) grown elsewhere. If availability of wheat and rice will be reduced, world population is not going to survive on apples, tomatoes and cranberries.

Generally, warmer climates are more productive. Just look at the difference in agricultural productivity between Britain and Germany (mild) and Canada (cold) at the same latitude. Then Somalia should be swimming in food.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with global warming is three fold....

1. Its made up.
2. Its made up.
3. Its made up.

Re:The way things are going

[KnowledgeKeeper]

Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction.

What about Yellowstone?

Every 600 000 years, or so, this thing blows up and can potentially get pretty inconvenient for us bipedals :)

Re:The way things are going

[Paradigma11]

Why would it be nice if there were some other factors explaining it?
right now we know what's contributing, and we are potentially (tough not likely) able to change it. the alternatives seem less favorable...

Re:The way things are going

[icebike]

I reiterate:

"Nothing known to science allows temperature measurements with the kind of accuracy you claim for other than the last 200 years."

The post I replied to said this:
"if you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C for most of history"

Therefore, I stand by my statement. We have absolutely no tools that allow us to measure "average GLOBAL temperature" within plus/minus 1 degree, (or even 5 degrees) for any time period OTHER than the last 200 years, during which we had thermometers of passable quality.

You simply can not speculate on pre-historic global temperatures with enough accuracy to assert that "average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C".

Further, the statement is false upon its face. Even in the Ice Ages, the average global temperature was not 0 C. One can only assume the poster was referring to the deviation from the mean.

Re:The way things are going

[Anne Thwacks]

The DDT ban did screw Africa

A lot of Africa is still using DDT.

I suspect DDT in the UK of causing my diabetes.

Re:The way things are going

[baboonlogic]

4[a]. There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one) The sun isn't providing enough additional power to the Earth to explain the observed increase in temperature. Yes, we are watching the sun. . Stratosphere temperatures are decreasing and lower atmosphere temperatures are rising. That indicates increased absorption and feedback and not increased heating due to solar activity.

Re:The way things are going

[icebike]

And when was the thermometer invented ???

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a Saved by the Bell character?

Re:The way things are going

[tkw954]

But if there's a toxic gas in the mine, would you save ten of your fellow miners or one canary? Not to say that one shouldn't be concerned for the canary, but one must remember there was exactly one reason to bring canaries down the mine: to save *miners*.

The DDT ban was great for the birds and us where cancer is a bigger concern than malaria, but there are probably ten times more people directly effected by malaria, many of whom could have been saved by judicious use.

Re:The way things are going

[dmclap]

That's an oversimplification, really. Every year, governments set aside plenty of money (as do aid organizations) to give free food to people all over the world. However, as the other person to reply said, this doesn't do us much good if the food is then immediately taken by the corrupt government, so they can feed their own troops and use the food as a means of controlling the populace.

But there's more to it than that. Even in places where there isn't unrest but hunger, we do them a disservice in the long run by dumping free food on them. After all, consider a farmer in such a country. He works hard, probably has to take out a loan for seeds and farming materials, and tries to bring his food to market. Then the USA comes in and dumps a few tons of free grain on the people. Who is going to buy the farmer's food if they can just get it for free? By feeding them, we do a lot to keep them in a cycle of poverty and dependence. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help them, but we should also make sure we aren't stifling them and making them dependent upon us. They're only going to really stop being hungry when they can support themselves, and so we're stuck in a really awkward situation where helping them too much would make them worse off in the end.

Re:The way things are going

[rohan972]

C: The industrial revolution predated worldwide temperature monitoring. The "record", such as it goes, it incomplete.

So temperature records/estimates for those times is not complete enough to refute GW, but complete enough to confirm GW? I'm not arguing against GW here, just pointing out that you seem to be either making a claim consistent with saying that we don't know enought about temperature levels pre industrial revolution to know if warming actually exists, or revealing that you are biased against anti-GW arguments by something other than reason and evidence.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written or you meant something else. I'd be happy to be corrected.

Re:The way things are going

[hson]

Crayfish plague kills 100% in european crayfish

Re:The way things are going

[Cantus]

History constitutes less than 2000 years.

More like 6,000 if you're talking about written history. Think Sumerians.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

If starvation kills off 50% there is twice as much food left for the remaining 50%. Starvation is a self limiting mechanism. You have a lot more homework to do to get down to 2000 remaining individuals. This is assuming that famine only kills people that don't produce food.

I hear farmers are immune to hunger, even when their livestock is depleted and their crops don't come in.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very, very well known that the world was only created by G-d just prior to 0 AD.

All that "scientific evidence" from Greenland and Antarctica ice cores, Black Sea and Mediterranean mud cores, amberized plants and animals, zillions of fossils, etc., are hogwash.

Re:The way things are going

[crhylove]

You didn't even mention China, where there is a much longer history and historical record than any of Western Civ....

Of course, I'm also trying to boycott things made in China, but I think I'll keep the history where I can, thank you very much.

Re:The way things are going

[bytesex]

Tbe fact that mere agriculture was possible, and that it enabled civilizations to prosper, should give us at least a hunch about temperatures for the last 6000 years, shouldn't it ? I mean, what about those Mayans, Egyptians and Chinese ?

Re:The way things are going

[bytesex]

Can you explain this a bit, please ? I'm honestly curious: I would have thought that the plant-cycle would clear CO2 out of the atmosphere in no time at all. I was under the impression that planting trees could actually be offset against car-production in real time, if you know what I mean.

Re:The way things are going

[hairyfeet]

Let us not forget the Chinese, who had royal scholars who were very interested in astronomy and wanted to know how the stars and planets affected the world around them, and therefor kept very detailed records IIRC going back over 2800 years. And whether you believe in global warming or not, I'm sure that most of us would agree that dumping ton after ton of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere probably isn't the smartest thing.

Funny though,IIRC the worst polluter we have for greenhouse gasses ISN'T cars and factories,as one would guess,but instead it is the methane created by the millions of cows we have bred farting their little brains out all over the planet. Apparently their natural diet makes for seriously gassy cows whose farts are almost pure methane. There has even been talk of trying to alter them genetically so as to make them not as flatulent. Too bad there isn't an easy way to capture all that methane. Talk about a quick fix to the rising costs of fuel. We could just run everything on cow farts!

Re:The way things are going

[emilper]

records survive from the "Roman Kingdom" ? Oh, man, if you got them, make them public, for Jupiter's sake ... they will create a Nobel prise for archeology just for you, to celebrate the event.

Re:The way things are going

[Curtman]

There is agriculture in climates ranging from the sub arctic to the equator

In the sub-arctic the growing season is about 2 to 3 months of the year and very limited in what will grow there.

Re:The way things are going

[rxmd]

History constitutes less than 2000 years. Thats the farthest back for which there are any usable records. I don't know what you consider a "usable record". Even if you only refer to the written record and discount things like ice cores or C-14 dating of artifacts, you are missing about 2500 years in the least. Cuneiform writing in the Middle East appears to have been established by about 3000 B.C., and we have Sumerian monumental inscriptions which we can date to about 2600 B.C. This is the oldest historical record for which dating is uncontrocersial. There are all sorts of hypothesis regarding possible earlier forms of writing elsewhere, and some of these may actually hold water. Nationalism also plays a role here (I can understand Chinese archeologists looking to prove that Chinese writing is older than Sumerian writing, but I will take their results with a grain of salt). Anyway since these, if anything, would prove that the historical record is even older, it doesn't really disprove my point.

The first Sumerian king who is attested in inscriptions (other than the well-known semi-mythological Sumerian king list) is Enmebaragesi of Kish, who reigned in about 2600 B.C.

If you want more precise dating, we have clay tablets documenting the victory of Sargon of Akkad over Lugalzaggesi of Uruk, which marked the beginning of the Akkadian empire, in 2335 B.C. One of the earliest events which we can find documented precisely and uncontrocersially is the solar eclipse of June 15, 763 B.C. (again, there are lots of attempts to locate evidence for earlier eclipses, but they usually rely on much supposition).

Re:The way things are going

[Urkki]

If they died of malaria, then they or their children were probably saved from dying of starvation...

Above is stupid genralization of course, every area is different, but considering that people die of starvation today, then if there were more people because less deaths by malaria, more people would undboutly die of starvation today...

Re:The way things are going

[hairy_cake_lynam]

The earliest artefacts that constitute writing, which for me would be the beginnings of 'history' are over 4000 years old from Mesopotamia, used to be Iraq, now it's a hole in the ground. Thanks America. Sure most of this is difficult to interpret but does add knowledge to the archeological record. I would consider this the beginning of history. So I would double that initial 2000 year estimate, at least. There is a problem that most people consider the Bible to be the oldest available writings.

Re:The way things are going

[hairy_cake_lynam]

It was not an argument from the environment that saw DDT banned worldwide, it was infact banned when it had been found in the breastmilk of Guatemalan women sprayed vociferously with the stuff. I assume when you say the ban of DDT caused millions of deaths you are referring to malaria epidemics. Malaria is easily treated if gluttonous drug manufacturers would only dish out the right vaccines for free. I know it is afoolish thing to say in this greed centred world, but I believe it nonetheless.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Concerning your second point: global warming refers to the increasing mean temperature of the world's climate, not the variance of any local area. (this is, in fact, one reason why I support the PC term "global climate change"... It's less confusing to layman). As the mean temperature of the planet increases, the variance in local climate will, in general, increase. This means colder winters and warmer summers. However, there are undoubtably places where the inverse will occur--cooler summers and warmer winters--places where the variance will decrease, and everything in between

Re:The way things are going

[jollyreaper]

I knew someone would say this. Alright, I'll bite. Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction. It ain't the disaster that makes it happen, it's the human reaction that follows. Any sort of massive drop in resources will trigger resource wars which will certainly serve to depopulate the human race.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

The most dramatic CO2/Temperature increase in history just HAPPENS to coincide with mankind figuring out that they could burn shit from underground.

The most dramatic CO2 increase? Surely you mean the CO2 levels finally stopped dropping from the 90% or more back when the planet was a molten piece of lava. Which also HAPPENS to coincide with the CO2 levels getting very close to zero 0.28% at the lowest, around 0.32% now if I recall. Imagine if that hadn't happened... Imagine if CO2 levels had continued to drop. By now we would be into negative numbers...

And temperature increase? We had a great summer two years ago, and might get a good one this year. Last year was just the usual crappy weather. You know, "this summer might get better than last year" doesn't count as global warming, it's just some years being better than others. Wake me up when I get four months at the beach. Say "global warming" again when I get six months at the beach. WITHOUT needing a wetsuit.

Re:The way things are going

[Wonko the Sane]

I suppose you fix your CPU with a pipe wrench and arc welder?

I did once make a water cooling system with copper tubing instead of plastic. A pipe wrench was involved.

Re:The way things are going

[hicksw]

Snowball Earth?

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm and undergrad and took a Master's level class on atmospheric physics. The term paper I wrote was on the Global Cooling that occurred in the 1960-1970's. Global Cooling did occur, due to aerosols high in the atmosphere over highly populated and polluting countries, such as the US. However, in the Southern Hemisphere, temperature data during the same time showed that there was warming due to CO2. So pollution was reflecting sunlight back in highly populated areas, causing cooling. In fact, if there had not been con-current warming with the cooling in the 1970's - it would have been a lot cooler in places like the US. In 1990 with the Clean Air Act, such pollutants are gone now.

However, don't think that putting aerosols into the atmosphere again will help the situation. Sulfur aerosols are "rained out" of the atmosphere continuously as acid rain, which greatly affects trees - the only way of sequestering carbon that we have to date.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, where do you (GP) think the Greek classics came from? Or the records of the Romans?

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

So the scientific way to approach this is to improve upon the models, not to simply pooh-pooh them.

You also neglect the models' success over the last decade.

Re:The way things are going

[Insightfill]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

I can't verify it, but I understand that rabies is pretty darn close - six known human survivors. All a disease needs to be prolific is a host population that it CAN'T kill, and one it can. Or: a host population that it kills more slowly than others. Then: such a disease can bounce back and forth for a long time.

Alternatively, a disease that only strikes later in life (post reproduction age) and kills slowly. ALS might be a candidate. MS may be another.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I saw the opportunity to create a really bad disease and couldn't pass it up!

Re:The way things are going

[Attila Dimedici]

However, along with this big temperature increase we ALSO have an entire body of scientists with models that seem to describe past events really, really well - and even have a pretty decent track record over the last 10 years. These models ALSO implicate man-released CO2 in the warming. If these models do such a good job, how come every time I see a report about attempting to use one of these climate models to predict the climate of the second half of the 20th century does the report state that the model isn't even close to the actual record?

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Warming is neither bad nor good - rapid warming is bad for us humans, though. A lot of us live in very low areas, and migration takes time.

Re:The way things are going

[jedidiah]

The key problem with this whole wager is that widespread famine and damage is alredy
a common occurence. There's a very real problem of sorting out humanity's business
as usual for some other more interesting or more sinister cause. ...and as others have pointed out, if you are really so sure and so scared then
why isn't there being give serious public attention to the disaster planning side
of all of this? You all seem to be suffering under the delusion that humanity is
so powerful both in it's ability to drastically damage the natural world then to
suddenly repair it.

Re:The way things are going

[geminidomino]

Yes, but then how do you account for solar flares hitting the shadow square and knocking us out of our orbit? Huh? Huuuuuh? Didn't think of that one, did you, Louis?

Re:The way things are going

[geminidomino]

"Anubis did it with Gilgamesh" somehow has even less credibility than the global warming advocates. That has got to be the earliest known incident of slashfic...

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-oh, do you hear that siren in the distance? It's the Hyperbole Police, coming to take you to Exaggerationtraz!

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

And your lovely ban on DDT killed how many million people due to malaria(and other insect borne diseases) outbreaks?

Priorities, people.

Re:The way things are going

[kabocox]

Considering human acts the main cause of global warming (or whatever other catastrophe you want) is very comforting. Why ? Because we can do something about it.
On the other hand, if humans are not the cause, we have a really big problem. Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ?
These days, I take a great deal of comfort on the idea we are destroying out planet, our "natural" disaster are due to humans doing this or that.

This is kinda why I really hate all those that are into human caused climate change like a religion. I'm far more worried that all of humanity is only doing say 1-5% of the change. What the hell would we do than? Converting over 100% renewable power and having a 99% recycling rate in everything would be good, but what if that doesn't change a thing and the Earth's climate is still doing wacky anti-human changes?

Oh, well evolution will take over and who ever happens to survive will write the history/religious books.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

The most dramatic CO2 increase? Surely you mean the CO2 levels finally stopped dropping from the 90% or more back when the planet was a molten piece of lava. Hmmmm... I think that perhaps we are discussing different time frames. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of years and you are talking about billions. I'd argue that hundreds of thousands is more pertinent to our current discussion, though no more interesting.

Which also HAPPENS to coincide with the CO2 levels getting very close to zero 0.28% at the lowest, around 0.32% now if I recall. I see, you want to play with statistics. Okay, well it just so happens that YOUR numbers involve a shift of 0.04%, which is an INCREASE of 14%. So any effect that CO2 had on climate has now been increased by 14% - this is hardly insignificant as you play it off to be.

Say "global warming" again when I get six months at the beach. Yes, the "George Carlin" form of scientific debate. He's funny, but he's no scientist. You can go move to Florida, Hawaii, or the Caribbean right now if you want all-year beach time, so your argument is pretty weak. Not all things improve with higher temperatures. Sea level will almost certainly rise, which sucks if you live in a marginal area already. But even neglecting sea level, plant life is confined to certain climate regions, including our food crops.

If the changes happen over a long period, it's no big deal... farms, forests, etc, gradually migrate northward. People gradually migrate to higher ground or install protections. Wetlands have time to grow and adjust in higher ground.

But when changes occur over decades instead of centuries, it is harder and more expensive for us to adjust. The costs of capping CO2 emissions pale compared to the costs of moving everything.

Re:The way things are going

[kabocox]

Well if what we are doing right now is the best we can do, and we are causing global warming, then we are completely screwed.
Might as well give up now and save a few billion dollars.

I'm of the opinion that GW is natural and we are just giving it a teeny tiny push.
Next they'll blame the next ice age on human activity as well.

Remember evolution; the survivors write the history/religious books. If there is any natural event that wipes out major cities or causes massive political change, I'll bet my 2 cents that there will be some cult that is very successful blaming it all on us and our sins. It's not a natural thing. We are sinning against the planet and/or God/the Goddess/Mother Earth decided to punish us, which wiped out the ancient civilizations. The ancient civs lived in a sinful manor so of course our religious diety struck them down and then chose only the worthy to survive.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Are you, perhaps, reading this on anti-warming websites? Because the stories that I read contain text like this:

"We checked our model's performance by analyzing the period from 1961 to 1985 for which, of course, we do not need a prediction," Diffenbaugh said. "The model performed admirably, which tells us we've got a good understanding of how to represent the physical world in terms of computer code. It's certainly not perfect, but we'll need a computer at least 100 times as powerful as the cluster we used to really improve the accuracy. We would like to have access to such computing power in the future." If models didn't even fit our past data, you wouldn't have scientific consensus on this issue.

Re:The way things are going

[mpe]

If starvation kills off 50% there is twice as much food left for the remaining 50%. Starvation is a self limiting mechanism. You have a lot more homework to do to get down to 2000 remaining individuals.

Even if that did happen you'd need a population already reduced to 4,000 to get down to that number.

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

Also such a disease would probably only ever spread to a small proportion of possible victims. Both parasites and hosts tend to evolve towards hosts not being killed. Since a parasite which kills its host tends to die along with it.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail our cylon overlords.

Re:The way things are going

[Kentari]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct).

Rabies comes pretty close. Lucky for us it isn't very contagious (not through air/aerosols) and there are vaccins.

A virus can easily kill 100% of it's victims and survive because for most viruses the victims are not the carriers. For example plague is pretty good at killing humans but doesn't seem to eradicate rat populations...

Re:The way things are going

[Attila Dimedici]

Two points, what does "performed admirably" mean? That is not a statement that really tells me much about how accurate the model was. A statement like "predicted actual temperature variations to within x%" or "predicted average temperature variation in the US to within x% of actual average temperature variation" would be a statement that told me something about how well the model is at predicting temperature change. Second, there isn't a scientific consensus on Global Warming as a man caused phenomena, there are many scientists who question the GW orthodoxy.

Re:The way things are going

[Peter La Casse]

Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction.

Megascale engineering intended to fight global warming overshoots, leading to a worldwide ice age and mile-deep glaciers at the equator.

Re:The way things are going

[markass530]

the main problem being that it is not real (at least not as a pressing man made issue)

Re:The way things are going

[Kjella]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct). HIV/AIDS that jumped from monkeys is quite fatal for humans, though it takes ten years on avergae. Rabies from dogs too, there's about six people that have survived that ever. Ebola strains from monkeys kill 90%+. There's no reason why there couldn't be a 100% deadly one, not to mention one could be engineered. The only problem for a highly lethal, highly viral agent is that it takes so long to spread it could wipe itself out, not that the host population dies out. One freshly infected foreign aid person with an extrememly contagious strain travelling through some international airports on his way home could create major havoc because it can't be contained. Or for your basic fear mongering you can replace that with a bioterrorist and an aerosol can. Do that at a major international airport and it'll be WAY out of control before the first symptoms hit.

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

#3 Consistency. So much of our modern society is based an the extremly mild conditions the earth has experienced over the last 20,000 years. Most of Europe is inhabitable ONLY because of the gulf stream and atlantic currents. Agriculture is ONLY possible because the temperature has been consistant year to year. We are in a sweet spot environmentally that is very unusual in earths history. screwing with the temperature is not going to help.

I dunno. Seems to me that higher average temperatures would increase food production in already-productive areas, increasing food supply and reducing deforestation. (By subsistence farmers, who seem to be the main culprit there-- nothing against them, they gotta eat too.)

Even if I was sold on the whole Global Warming thing, I've yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's necessarily a *bad* thing. I'd love to see a detailed debate on both the negatives *and* positives of such a chance, instead of this annoying doomsaying, which is all we get now.

Re:The way things are going

[Technopaladin]

First your dismissal of human life disturbs me. Second there are a HORDE of diseases that 100% fatal. They are just arent 100% contagious or they take A LONG time to kill you(long enough to breed).

Remember disease covers Viral, Bacterial, Genetic, and odd health concerns(Heart disease). THere are several cancers that are 100% fatal(for now). There are several Viruses that are 100% fatal they just dont spread fast enough to kill everyone.

That all said welcome to science and the fact we dont know everything and the smart ones dont pretend to.

Re:The way things are going

[joeytmann]

Well you can't let him in if Stephen Baldwin is in already. And vice-versa.

Re:The way things are going

[DarkOx]

Maybe we have not optimized but we have specialized in optimal ways. We we grow different crops in different places where they grow best(there are exceptions for various reasons, rice in the desert). The trouble is if some of those places become less productive we get holes in our food output needs.

Re:The way things are going

[smellsofbikes]

You're making an incorrect assumption about diseases when you say "As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims": while it's true on its face, if humans are only a small part of the disease's range, it wouldn't bother the disease to kill all humans.
Leprosy is only carried by humans and armadillos so it's very unlikely to kill 100% of humans. However, a disease like ebola or anthrax, if it were more communicable, could easily wipe out all humans and half a dozen other species, while still maintaining plenty of biological reservoir for its continuation.
Past that, there are diseases that seem to come pretty close to 100% mortality -- rabies, tetanus, and HIV come to mind.

Re:The way things are going

[deanlandolt]

The $120 a barrel crude oil has little if anything to do with present-day reactions to Global Warming. And that's what's causing the widest and sharpest increase in the cost of food, not the redeployment of farmland to create biofuel. And you don't think the $120/barrel crude is incentivizing the redeployment of farmland to create biofuel?

Re:The way things are going

[swb]

No war in the history of mankind has ever come close to that.

But we've never seen modernized China and India slug it out for keeps, either. Both nations are capable of fielding mechanized conventional armies numbering in the tens of millions of soldiers, and both nations have enough technological sophistication to make the battle of Verdun look like a country picnic.

And that's just the battlefield numbers; what happens when they start hitting civilian targets ala Dresden/Tokyo/Hamburg? I'd imagine that a firebombing of Shanghai or Delhi would be particularly effective and might reach nuclear death rates without the nukes.

And that's just playing fair, more or less. What happens when they start playing dirty -- say, hitting the 3 Gorges Dam, or other more nefarious actions that lead to mass famine, disease, etc? Wiping out 3 Gorges could lead to outbeaks of cholera or plague or worse on a scale we haven't seen before.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

I don't know what "performed admirably" means - it's a news release, not the original paper. In the original paper, they don't specify the answers to your specific questions. Instead, they use the 1961-85 data along with the future data to run a T-test and look for significance. IMHO, this is proper - but it's all above my head as an engineer.

Second, there isn't a scientific consensus on Global Warming as a man caused phenomena, there are many scientists who question the GW orthodoxy. There may not be "scientific consensus" if you include all scientists, but there certainly is consensus within the field of study. Point to one serious climate researcher who is not on board. Most importantly, not one of the deniers that I found has a competing model which accurately describes past events AND points to no man-made global warming. They are denying without any science behind their denial.

Re:The way things are going

[deanlandolt]

They are one of the few species to ever come back after being placed on the endangered species list, and it's directly due to environmental action. So I presume you're suggesting the Endangered Species Act is not "one of the most successful examples of environmental policy in our history," correct? I would have to concur. Also, to play both sides, just because nobody bothers to take a rebounded species off the list doesn't mean species don't rebounded -- there is a lot of green-vs-green politics involved.

Re:The way things are going

[Just Some Guy]

My middle school science text in the early 80s presented both global cooling igloo effect and global warming. I guess they were covering their bets...

Don't bother. You and I know we were taught this stuff as kids, and I explicitly remember being terrified when the nightly news ran stories of our impending frigid death. No one will believe you, though - we're just repeating a lie told by oil companies, and too dumb to know the difference.

Re:The way things are going

[deanlandolt]

If you understood why the miner cares for the life of the canary, maybe you'd appreciate why I'm concerned about the life of the bald eagle with regard to a poison that accumulates up the food chain. Bald eagles have no natural predators. Unless you're suggesting you eat bald eagles. But you don't hate America that bad, do you?

Re:The way things are going

[Dare nMc]

I will add, having moved from Iowa to Arizona (not even the desert portion.) After 5 years of composting and watering (using some outside bio material), I now have a 30' x 6' garden where the dirt is about 70% as productive as any portion of my dads 120 Acre Iowa farm. With any luck, within another 10 years I'll have 4" of topsoil that is as every bit good as his 10" of top soil. The point being, if the sand that has not grown anything in 2000 years becomes the new arable material, short of moving thousands of barges full of soil from one location to another, it may take anywhere from 20 to 100 Years of attention to get it to decent production. (reminds me, he's driving a pickup down next month, I need to make some requests.)

Re:The way things are going

[nyri]

Link?

If you want references from other, why you do not hold you self to same standards?

An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.

I'll have to beg your forgiveness; the "global warming isn't a threat / is not our fault" line has been embraced by the same slice of the body politic that claims DDT doesn't hurt baby eagles, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can cut taxes forever and still pay for a war.

Yeah, speaking about Ad Hominem.

A piece of advice, to pepper you smearing next time. To insult those who discuss about matters regarding global warming, use one of following lines:

• The sceptics are like those who opposed abolition of slavery
• The sceptics are like the holocaust deniers

Re:The way things are going

[Doggabone]

d) All of the above.

Production, distribution, economics and politics are all bound together - we distribute to our political allies, we lack the resources to grow or share enough food, etc. etc. And I'm not pretending to understand the issues, all I'm certain of is the complexity and that I find it difficult to face up to it, while feeling compelled to by my sense that it's necessary for as many of us as possible to be aware of what's happening. Not despite that we don't all agree, but because we don't.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you actually seen those models, and seen how they describe history "really, really well", or are you just repeating something you've been told?

Re:The way things are going

[Chris Burke]

But if there's a toxic gas in the mine, would you save ten of your fellow miners or one canary? Not to say that one shouldn't be concerned for the canary, but one must remember there was exactly one reason to bring canaries down the mine: to save *miners*. Yes, exactly, now continue thinking. So the canary is in the mine for only one reason, to save the miners. How does the canary save the miners? By being more vulnerable to toxic gas, and thus being the first thing to die, indicating that the gas is present, so the miners know to bug the hell out of there. Or, in the case of birds of prey, when DDT becomes concentrated enough in their bodies that it kills their young, that's the sign to the rest of us that we need to stop spraying the poison before it accumulates enough to harm us.

Geddit? The eagle was a warning sign like the canary?

Judicious use of DDT can help prevent malaria outbreaks. "Judicious" does not in any way describe how it was being used, and in many places where malaria is a serious problem, they did continue to use it judiciously. What politics were involved where they could have used it judiciously and didn't, I don't know. What I do know is that the reasons for banning DDT in the states were sound, and if the science behind global warming turns out to be equally accurate, then in that case we will be saving billions of human lives.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

An assertion has value independently of the name attached to it. Even Twitter makes a good point from time to time. I'm not the original AC, just posting anonymous because I've already moderated in this discussion.

Re:The way things are going

[Chris Burke]

Bald eagles have no natural predators.

Neither do we.

We're both top of the food chain.

You'll have to figure the rest out on your own.

Re:The way things are going

[NeutronCowboy]

It was considered. For an article that deals just with solar forcing, check out http://www.springerlink.com/content/qv68245831n10271/
I have no idea why you think that it was part of their guidelines, as this is mentioned nowhere on the website. As for what mandate the IPCC has:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

If you have any support for your statement, I'd like to see it.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

Of course I have not "seen the models", and if I did I wouldn't have the faintest idea of what I was looking at.

What I have seen is peer-reviewed articles describing the methods they use to arrive at their conclusions. The methods they use seem to be scientific, and other people (albeit people with access to a supercomputer) can readily test them.

Re:The way things are going

[MoparMark]

Funny though,IIRC the worst polluter we have for greenhouse gasses ISN'T cars and factories,as one would guess,but instead it is the methane created by the millions of cows we have bred farting their little brains out all over the planet. Apparently their natural diet makes for seriously gassy cows whose farts are almost pure methane.

Guess I should eat more cows then.

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.

I'll have to beg your forgiveness; the "global warming isn't a threat / is not our fault" line has been embraced by the same slice of the body politic that claims DDT doesn't hurt baby eagles, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can cut taxes forever and still pay for a war.

Wow, you're a hypocrite.

In any case, the point isn't "does DDT hurt baby birds?" but "is the amount of harm done by DDT to bird eggs worth the amount of lives saved by the reduction in malaria levels?"

The question isn't "does smoking cause cancer," the question is whether smoking should be banned by the government.

You're completely dismissing the "is it worth it" part of the equation, and that's the most important part!

Sure, we could spend a quintillion trillion dollars and bankrupt the entire planet fighting global warming-- is that worth it? That's the important question. If the temperature rises at a slow rate that we can easily adjust to as it happens, then no it's, frankly, probably not worth it.

(Oh, and if you care:
1) in the first case, the DDT was quickly becoming ineffective at preventing malaria, and so banning its use was indeed worth it. In any case, the DDT ban was US-only, most other nations simply just stopped using it when it became to ineffective to be worth it.
2) in the second case, I firmly believe that everybody should be free to do whatever they want to their own body, including giving themselves lung cancer if they wish. As such, I'm definitely against any government bans on smoking, which equate to a reduction of freedom.)

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

Actually, it is. Their is no doubt that temps are going up. If GW is caused by man (and all the evidence says it is), then yes, you are contributing to the war in dafur (fighting over water/land) and numerous other issues.

Because droughts and ethnic cleansing never happened before the Industrial Revolution? I call BS on that.

But, I agree with you about the overreaction. The idea of converting food to energy had to be one of the stupiest ideas that I have seen.

I'm glad we agree on that. I think most of the anti-Global Warming stance is from people who are just sick of the propaganda and "the world's ending!" extremism. They sound like the religious zealot with the hand-drawn sign standing on the city street corner. Given, most of this is from the media, who make everything super-exaggerated scaremongoring, but that doesn't change people's reaction to it.

The idea of converting food to energy had to be one of the stupiest ideas that I have seen. W. only did his stunt on ethanol to try and buy farmers. Most of the farmers here in Colorado say that this is the dumbest idea that has come out of washington, but they are still going to take the money.

To be fair, W's first energy plan was to power hydrogen fuel cell cars using nuclear power. It was doomed to failure for three reasons:
1) Because of crazy scaremongoring environmentalists, it's nearly impossible to build a nuclear reactor in the US.
2) The technology for hydrogen fuel cell cars is more than 8 years away
3) ... and therefore the next President would have just canceled any programs Bush had started on anyway.

The hydrogen + nuclear power plan is not a bad plan. It's just impossible to implement with our current political structure in the US. (China could do it in 10 years if they wanted, since they can just force people to do things without endless debate.)

We need to get intelligent ppl into politics.

Yes, we can do a test: if they can't spell the word "people", they're out!

Re:The way things are going

[frogzilla]

I don't know about your point number two. It's certainly far from true for the last half million years. Vostok Ice Core

Re:The way things are going

[somersault]

There is nothing to suggest current global temperatures are optimal. Define.. optimal? There is plenty to suggest that lots of people would be seriously screwed if our climate changed significantly (for example if we lost the Gulf Stream as someone else mentioned.. or we lost the forest line around the north pole, or the deserts started growing at an increased rate..)

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

tough

take mine and get over it greenie

in 10 million years you come back and show me what i did wrong

Re:The way things are going

[arminw]

...And scientists are watching that very thing accelerate....

OK and exactly how much ice have we observed to have melted already and how much has the level of the Oceans gone up in the last 50 years or so? Not enough to measure? Well then, you and so many trust the fancy computer models trying to predict the future too much. Of all people, those here on /. know of the Garbage-in and Garbage-out principle of computing. If you don't KNOW the data and the variables that affect it, you have to assume (believe) a lot. Science is NOT based on assumptions or beliefs, but on KNOWN data. Beliefs are the domain of religion and philosophy.

If global warming of ALL oceans were observed, then there might be some truth to this whole GW religion. However the over all average ocean temperatures has not changed much since we have had the ability to measure these temperatures. A little ice melting in polar regions and high mountains doesn't make for GLOBAL warming.

Now if all the oceans of the earth truly DID get warmer, the land would also and since warmer water evaporates more, there would be more rain and where still cold enough more snow. If the rain were still distributed in proportion as today, (that's an unknown) many deserts and the now frozen regions would become habitable and productive. So now, what's wrong with that?

Those that propagandize the global warming myth have a socialistic agenda for the whole planet. We do however have to take care of the environment on orders of our Creator, since we are only caretakers thereof, not the owners, since we did not create it. We are allowed to properly use the resources He has provided, but not to squander or ruin them.

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

It is a "Bad" thing for several reasons.

If the average temperature goes up it will melt some of the northern latitudes however it will also trigger an advance in deserts in the tropical region.

If the temperature changes much that the average rainfall (which is strongly dependent on temperature) will also change. You will have greater extremes more droughts followed by floods. This will strain our current ability to manage water (dams and the like). It will lead water shortages

The current ocean currents shift heat around in a predictable manner and changing the overall temperature will weaken the flows. For instance the Atlantic current in my example brings warm water directly to orthern Europe making it more like new england rather than Nova Scotia or Northern Siberia (which is on the same latitude). At the same time it delivers cold water to the caribean making that are more temperate. With the fresh water glaciers (and all glaciers are essentially fresh water) starting to melt, they are dumping lots of fresh water into the top part of this atlantic current disrupting the flow (this is already measured)

The reason we haven't seen as much temperature increase as people originally expected is because the oceans are absorbing the heat. When things get warmer they expand. Current projects have the oceans rising about 30 meters. This will essentially wipe Florida off the map. Plus most of our favorite cities are near the ocean. Say good bye to NY, DC, San Fran, LA, New Orleans (already below sea level) etc. This is all assuming the glacier DON"T melt, which will add another 5-10 meters. We will lose significant portions of the arable land if the temperture rises much.

As far as the legitimecy, about two years ago we eliminated all reasonable explinations for the global rise in temperature EXCEPT human influence. It has been a long time since the temperature change could be considered a random fluctuation.

Globabl warming IS real and it IS our fault. The only question that remains is will the remaining environmental predictions come true?

Essentially, the reason you hear so much negativity is that there is actually very little positive about it.

Re:The way things are going

[icebike]

How many of these mentioned temperature measurements accurate enough to assert that there was zero temperature change per year?

None? I thought so.....

Now, if you are done being pedantic perhaps we can return to the discussion at hand.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

well you go explain this to the 40 million africans who died of malaria and such since the maniacal greeenies 'saved' the earth by banning ddt

of course if you are far gone as some greenies are your secret thought is 'great, less people is good', to which i say follow that line of thinking and go jump off a cliff. oh, don't hit any eagles on the way down......

Re:The way things are going

[TimSSG]

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php 2. "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The are studying climate change yes, but only human causes are being studied per above. Tim S

Re:The way things are going

[grep_rocks]

I feel so much better that it is your opinion that Global Warming is natural - never mind the people with informed opinions who disagree with you - like people who actually study and model the climate - thinking for yourself is one thing, but having an opinion is no subsitute for evidence.

Re:The way things are going

[geminidomino]

I thought the plague as transmitted by fleas carried by rats, not rats themselves?

Though, I guess the fleas were biting the rats same as they bite the humans... yeah... nevermind...

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 60's, greenies like myself fought against pollution from companies. If we had allowed the companies to continue, we would look FAR worse than parts of china or old USSR does today (and have significantly far worse health issues, akin to china's).

The global cooling issue was a 1 time tabloid issue. It was never in the science world other than 1 article. Only idiots point to that.

In the 80's, it was reagan trying to roll back the environmental changes (interestingly, the majority of the environmental laws esp EPA was from the pubs). It was the beginning of the ozone issue.

In the 90's, it was solving the Ozone issue. And just all the other ones was a problem. Fortunately, it is being saved because the freon was stopped. But we still have a hole in the south pole, that is slowly receding.

And since the 90's, global warming has been an issue. Back in the mid 90's, the neo-cons said that the earth is not warming. Now they say that man can not be behind the warming.

Do not buy it. Just quit polluting and forcing your shit on me and mine. Sounds like you are the one forcing your shit on us.

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

No, it's NOT true for most oh time...but it IS true for the entier length of human civilization.

True we may not go extinct but I still kinda like civilization.

Re:The way things are going

[srk2040]

In that case, I'd better start humping.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

As for diseases, there is no earthly disease that kills 100% of its victims, (because such a disease would then itself become extinct). Correction: there is no earthly SURVIVING disease that kills 100% of its victims.

Do not, for a moment, assume that all diseases have survived to the modern day. It's very possible that a evolutionarily-failed disease could have wiped the host species (and itself) clean off the face of the earth.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you intended to reply to the grandparent of your post. The parent you replied to points out that DDT is carcinogenic and merely states that an outright ban was an overreaction.

Also, there is no vaccine for malaria. Perhaps you mean that drug companies aren't developing one because there isn't enough financial incentive.

Finally, vociferously means "noisy and with vehement outcry." I don't think that's what you mean, unless the Guatemalans were screaming as they were sprayed, in which case I would have phrased it "voiciferous Guatemalan women." Perhaps "willy nilly" from the parent post is more what you're looking for.

Re:The way things are going

[zenyu]

Can you explain this a bit, please ? I'm honestly curious: I would have thought that the plant-cycle would clear CO2 out of the atmosphere in no time at all. I was under the impression that planting trees could actually be offset against car-production in real time, if you know what I mean.

The quote I've seen is that a car burns it's weight in ancient biomass each day. So you need to harvest a tree every week and make sure it never rots or gets eaten by termites each week. You've got to stop the plant-cycle, otherwise that carbon cycles back into the atmosphere, which we don't want. Cars are of course only a 1/4 of the problem, they burn a very clean fuel compared to the coal used in many electric power plants.

We are observing some neat responses in nature though. A lot of carbon leaves the air by absorption into the oceans. This makes the oceans more acidic, which decreases the shell building efficiency of shell building animals. This is a problem because those shells do remove lots of carbon from the oceans every day; allowing more to be absorbed from the air. However, we are seeing that some shell building critters are actually doing better. Maybe these will offset the ones that are doing worse, maybe not; time will tell.

The general assumption is that it will take about 1000 years to remove the excess carbon from the atmosphere we have emitted so far. But this is something where time will tell. Maybe it will only take 500 years, maybe 2000. It really depends on how the complex biological systems of the many species of life on earth respond to the changes. This compares to few days to 10 years for other green house gases of note.

And while cow farts are a powerful pollutant, the solution is higher quality feed and a meaningful pollution tax would eliminate this contributor to global warming within a decade. This is why it doesn't keep scientists up at night; our political systems have already shown they can respond to a threat were the benefits of the solution begin to accrue while a single set of politicians is still in office.

Re:The way things are going

[bark76]

Wouldn't that lead to Bovine Spontaneous Combustion?

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

You eat bald eagles?

Re:The way things are going

[amplt1337]

In my view, it's not a distribution problem, it's an economic problem.

Right -- an economy is a system for allocating/distributing scarce resources. A "distribution problem" is an economic problem. (It's not that we couldn't handle the logistics).

Re:The way things are going

[Atriqus]

The problem with scientists is, they are not geologists. In related news, rectangles are not squares, musicians are not drummers, and birds are not hawks.

Was the term 'scientist' a generic substitute for the term 'meteorologist' because saying that made the statement entirely counter-intuitive?

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

Essentially, the reason you hear so much negativity is that there is actually very little positive about it.

Maybe it bugs me because I have a well-developed bullshit filter.

The ocean levels are going to rise 30 meters at a minimum? From the expansion of water in the heat, without even counting melting ice? Do you seriously believe that, because it trips the hell out of my bullshit filter. Of course you don't give a timespan on when this is all going to occur; I'd believe 30 meters in a million years, maaaybe.

Then again, I'm actually taking a post about global warming written by a guy who can't spell the word "global" seriously... maybe I'm just being trolled.

Re:The way things are going

[ralphdaugherty]

That is correct. This is only a recent phenonomon. I supplied information about the mass of ice on Greenland and how much that ice would raise the sea level, and that the glaciers are starting to accelerate their slide into the sea.

      We also have pictures of larger areas of the Arctic seasonly melted than in recent history, and that the amount of carbon particles per million is higher than recent history and rising.

      A reasoned look at the information can be made, regardless of the cause or beliefs.

      Your socialist stuff (which has no basis) and Creator mentions designate your writings as from a very conservative right winger person. I don't agree with hardly anything you stand for, but I can answer a question or point out a mistaken contention regardless of the source, and I did.

  rd

Re:The way things are going

[BigJClark]

#2 if you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C for most of history. I hear that is an important temperature for something..... Anytime the temperature strays from freezing dramatic changes happen to the global environment.
This is an important fact. I live in Northern Alberta, Canada, and I want to punch people in the snoot who complain about global warming, melting ice-shelves, sea-levels rising, as we seem to be undergoing a second ice age. It just snowed 2 feet, and the temperature is below zero; caveat, its the end of April.

David Suzuki and Al Gore apparently have never visited Edmonton ;)

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail it. Even the most strict take-it-at-face-value bible readers believes Earth is 6,000 years old. If they are correct (which I'll note that they are not), the majority of Earth's existence was before 0 AD*. So to say "just prior" is dumb by even the dumbest people.

*By the way, there was no 0 AD. You have either 1 AD, or 1 BC, there is no 0 AD or 0 BC.

Re:The way things are going

[YttriumOxide]

I also don't remember ever hearing that kind of idea bounced around in the mainstream until it after The Day After Tomorrow came out

Where do you think that crappy movie got the idea for it? There were PLENTY of people talking about temperature drops caused by climate change before that movie, otherwise they wouldn't have made it!

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir need to go learn angular mechanics! The mass of the Earth is distributed spherically. The mass of the water is distributed in a spherical SHELL of rather large radius. It seems to me that when you increase the radius of an angular system the torque goes up.....

Re:The way things are going

[sfjoe]

I presume that you love America?

You can't really tell online because you can't see whether or not he's wearing an American flag lapel pin.

Re:The way things are going

[YttriumOxide]

but what if that doesn't change a thing and the Earth's climate is still doing wacky anti-human changes?

What if it doesn't change a thing? Well, then we've got cleaner air, cooler tech and quieter cars. And we should start finding ways to adapt... But, what if it DOES solve the problem?

If you're going to ponder "what ifs", then at least consider both possibilities!

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your poor gramma is ashamed of your spelling?

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

You sir need to go learn angular mechanics! The mass of the Earth is distributed spherically. The mass of the water is distributed in a spherical SHELL of rather large radius. It seems to me that when you increase the radius of an angular system the torque goes up.....

Okay, now calculate the percentage radius difference between the highest point on earth and the lowest point, then figure that the average ice versus water level is nowhere near that, then figure the tiny amount of mass we're talking about compared to the momentum of the earth.

Or to put it another way, the Earth is smooth to the same degree that a 1 foot sphere has a "Mount Everest" 0.0045 inches high. [On the other hand, the Earth is not perfectly spherical shape-wise, but it is very, very smooth].

Re:The way things are going

[RealGrouchy]

Seriously. If we sacrifice all our resources (financial and natural) by trying to "prevent" global warming, and it turns out that we can't--or even if we just couldn't do enough--we'll be fucked.

Sure, we should move toward sustainability, and reduce our consumption of resources, but investing craploads of money in projects whose sole benefit is a reduction in CO2 emissions is far too open to corruption.

- RG>

Re:The way things are going

[Reziac]

Also fails to note that 90% of the ice is already below sea level; ie. it is already PART of the ocean, merely in solid rather than liquid form.

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, except that if a lot of ice melts mass is shifted from the poles (along the axis of rotation, hence less angular effect) to the equator. This drastically changes the angular properties of the once frozen water.

Just because the distance from the center of gravity is the same doesn't mean squat. Its the rotational radius. Technically, at the poles the rotational radius can be zero for a small chunk of ice...

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

30 meters out of 2+ MILES depth over 70+% of the oceans surface. You have to remember how much water is out there. 30 meters amounts to less than .1% expansion.

Current projections are 50-100 years at CURRENT CO2 levels.

Now as far as spelling tips, I would apply the same filter as I ALWAYS apply to slashdot. "No fact on slashdot is confirmed...but it does provide pointers to get confirmed data."

Don't beleive me because I typed it. But using the info I provided you can look this up easily enough on your own.

The only question is, do YOU want to be intelectually curious OR do YOU want to decide you know everything and soly depend on your "bull shit" filter?

Re:The way things are going

[Anonymous Coward]

People in Africa are dieing en-masse in Africa thanks to the DDT ban. (From malaria.)

Are you going to take credit for that, too?

Mike

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

Remember that all the projections on GLOBABL warming predict that seasons will be more extreme and some areas will get significantly colder. Even if the GLOBAL temperature raises, Alberta may get much colder.

Re:The way things are going

[einhverfr]

Actually, I think that a lot of your post is wrong relating to massive effects on the human population. We know that there have been a number of global climate shifts is recorded history (current thinking is that a climate shift which cooled down Greenland may have been the main reason why the Norse abandoned their settlements there).

However global warming is a real threat for reasons which never get any press:

1) Most of our big cities are on coasts for reasons of commerce. Rising water levels would be a major threat to many of our largest cities around the world. Maybe it won't kill lots of people, but it *will* cause vast amounts of property loss. Some countries (like the Maldives) could be entirely submerged! Imagine what sea levels a few feet higher would do in Florida!

2) It *will* cause economic and short-term damage while things adjust. Also note that many ski areas in Europe are having trouble surviving now due to rising snow levels. This is just one small example of the sorts of things which will happen. We don't know what will happen with global weather patterns, but it is possible that the great agricultural power houses in the US and EU could be replaced by others elsewhere in the world (like South America, Africa, etc).

There are many other environmental threats which may cause a greater threat of mass death, but what surprises me about global warming is that the main damage which is threatened is economic and yet business interests oppose doing anything about the problem. This is a long-term threat to wealth, especially here in the US, and also in places like the Netherlands.

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

Don't beleive me because I typed it.

Cheers! I think I'll do just that.

The only question is, do YOU want to be intelectually curious OR do YOU want to decide you know everything and soly depend on your "bull shit" filter?

Bullshit filter's worked so far.

Re:The way things are going

[clonan]

Bullshit filter's worked so far. Has it? Or has it lied to you?

I guess you won't know until you look.

Re:The way things are going

[Chris Burke]

Yes, and miners eat canaries.

Re:The way things are going

[Reality Master 101]

Ok, except that if a lot of ice melts mass is shifted from the poles (along the axis of rotation, hence less angular effect) to the equator.

Fair point.

This drastically changes the angular properties of the once frozen water.

I don't think the word "drastic" means what you think it means. Let's go crazy and say the formerly frozen water raises the sea level by, say, 1,000 feet. That means the radius of the earth has increased by a factor of 0.0000236.

The Earth is much bigger and more massive than you think. I think you have a visual in your mind here of the shape of the Earth having this noticeable bulge from melting water. The truth is that all the stuff on the surface of the earth is as significant as dust on a soccer ball affecting it's behavior (except the dust is orders of magnitude more significant). I suggest doing a little math here.

Re:The way things are going

[nuttycom]

You used a pipe wrench on copper tubing? That seems a bit excessive.

Re:The way things are going

[Blakey Rat]

Has it? Or has it lied to you?

I guess you won't know until you look.

Guess not.

I do know that in my 30 years on this planet the ocean level hasn't raise a single centimeter, much less 30 meters. Somehow I don't think it'll rise 30 meters in the next 30 years.

Look, I'm sure you believe what you're saying. I don't.

Re:The way things are going

[skarphace]

Funny though,IIRC the worst polluter we have for greenhouse gasses ISN'T cars and factories,as one would guess,but instead it is the methane created by the millions of cows we have bred farting their little brains out all over the planet.

[citation needed]

Power generation is THE worst poluter out there.

Re:The way things are going

[ChocoBean]

If starvation kills off 50% there is twice as much food left for the remaining 50%.
[Fawnsworth] Bullpies!

That will only be true in the scenario where 50% of people simply disappear over night, leaving the ability for planet earth to produce food intact, and leaving the ability of human beings to harvest, distribute, store, metabolize exactly the same.

The most sensible scenario where a significant percentage of the population just STARVED to death is that there is something horribly, horribly wrong with one of the above. In nature, starving is not necessarily a self-limiting mechanism : baby puffins are starving to death, and there hasn't been way more of them because it's not that there have been too many sharing too little food: there is simply no more of what they can actually eat. Think about it, if we fudge up our food sources for good, or some disease make us unable to benefit from eating what is left, there's no self-limit. It's called extinction.

Re:The way things are going

[bytesex]

I don't think you understood my question; my question was more like this: what stands in between plants 'eating' CO2 and us (and cows, and cars, and volcanoes, and stuff) producing it ? So much so, that it'll take 1000 years to eat away the difference ? I mean, I know that CO2 is pretty low on the enery scale chemically, and that it's hard to break down. OTOH, plants must eat it like candy, because their whole sunlight/chlorophyle/energy cycle depends on it. So much of the surface facing creatures of the earth depend on it in fact, that in my mind, it would indeed be very /difficult/ to produce a meaningful CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. Does this figure of a 1000 years have a sound basis in science ? If so, how ?

Re:The way things are going

[zenyu]

Ah, I did indeed misunderstand your question.

I was trying to explain why the figure is so high, but you really want to know how it is in fact derived?

It's very simple. You take the rate CO2 is released into the atmosphere, then you look at the rate CO2 is actually growing, the difference is the CO2 that's being absorbed by the environment. You take the rate the CO2 is absorbed and divide that into the delta between now and a century ago to determine the time to get back to those levels.

Now this 1000 year figure assumes we stopped producing a net gain of CO2 five years ago; but it's a nice easy number to remember and revising it to 1254 or whatever it stands at today _exactly_ serves no real purpose. We could also hit a tipping point where CO2 is not absorbed but instead expelled by the environment in response to higher temperatures or just higher CO2 concentrations, and we may also not need to go back to early industrial revolution CO2 levels, but instead find 1950's levels are ok.

The figure doesn't tell the whole story, and over the last two decades we've been learning where that absorbed CO2 is going. Some of those sinks have reached their limit and others are improving with higher CO2 levels. If it weren't for this absorption, we'd be in much worse shape right now. And it's important to know that we can't with any certainty say how fast 2020 CO2 levels will be absorbed until we get there, we can only estimate how long it would take to get us back to an earlier date from current level and slightly higher, since the rate of absorption varies with CO2 level.

Re:The way things are going

[bagsc]

Not necessarily. For example, a large percentage of the Earth's land surface is in permafrost. Imagine if Siberia and Canada became useful for something. There may be crops requiring hotter temperatures that would increase the agricultural productivity of places like the US. Certainly, cold climate crops such as wheat have been bred for thousands of years to improve their characteristics.

This possible increased productivity will require change, but will increase the total output per cost. Thus, creating a profit.

Re:The way things are going

[bagsc]

In fact, we should be switching to these alternatives today. Coal to diesel/gasoline is an old, reliable technology, and rumor is that it creates wholesale gasoline for about $2 per gallon, as compared to oil which produces for almost $3 per gallon these days.

The problem is, building an efficient production facility means gambling on the price and use of gasoline for the next 30+ years. Big oil companies know this technology exists, but don't want to invest $5 billion if
a) the price of oil goes back under $50 in the next 30 years, or more likely
b) the demand for gasoline goes down because of a new technology in the next 30 years, or
c) the price of coal goes up relative to the price of oil.

My money is on (c) being the most likely, as gasoline is just way too good of a fuel to give up on it. Infrastructure, energy density, backward compatibility, and a new installed userbase in Asia...

Of course, that's what Kodak thought about film in the 1990's.

Re:The way things are going

[Raenex]

What you are missing is the source of the CO2. Basically you're dumping a bunch of carbon into the air that you dug from the ground. It's being released at a tremendous rate from sources that took millions of years to develop. You can't just dump this amount into the atmosphere and expect it all to be magically utilized by an explosion in plant life. CO2 is only one of many essential ingredients.

Re:The way things are going

[pipingguy]

Please mod parent up.

Re:The way things are going

[pipingguy]

Isn't it amazing how there are now so many "experts on everything" (especially those selling doom'n'gloom; there must be a profit motive and/or knee-jerk reaction to the Evils of Western Society in there somewhere)?

Re:The way things are going

[Fulcrum of Evil]

They used DDT a bit, but cut back before eradicating the mosquitos. This resulted in a population of resistant bugs, which are kept around by continued use. Of course, stopping would be even worse.

Re:The way things are going

[pipingguy]

But until some evidence of that is uncovered, I'm going to trust the nice, testable, repeatable climate models

[Here I'm assuming you are referring to computer/software models being accurate in their prediction of the scariness, inevitability and possible catastrophe of "the-science-is-settled" AGW]

You: why don't ordered and unordered lists work anymore?

Very amusing, was that intentional or irony or both?

Re:The way things are going

[pipingguy]

An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.

The words you replied to was not an ad hominem attack. You just dismissed his statement with a, "it's no fair calling me names"-type statement. You ARE right though, in that this is a political matter, not a scientific one.

Re:The way things are going

[danbert8]

Well to be quite honest, the way we get information about the duration of ice ages mostly comes from geological evidence, not ice cores. You see, I live in a place called Ohio, where there used to be glaciers. And now, underneath the ground, there are giant grooves and scratches in the bedrock where the ice sheets sheared rock from its foundations. These grooves can be dated by geological methods, as can the deposited material left when the glaciers retreated. I see much better evidence on radiological dating than shady relationships between CO2 and temperature.
 
As an aside, I don't think the ice cores present very good evidence either, because it only shows evidence for polar regions and surface atmospheric conditions. I was under the impression that greenhouse effects were more prominent in the upper atmosphere, and I also don't see the usefulness of arctic temperatures, seeing as how that doesn't represent the planet on the whole.

Re:The way things are going

[danbert8]

Perhaps I should have included scientists are not necissarily geologists. scientists are getting a nasty habit of politicians where they tend to use their title to give opinions that are outside of their expertise.

Re:The way things are going

[Lord Dreamshaper]

I'm not really buying the whole "mankind burning oil caused this" hypothesis
To paraphrase and expand on some earlier comments:

1)Assume a world w/o man and his fossil fuels
2)Assume (for the sake of illustration) that volcanic activity is relatively constant and therefore statistical background noise except for once a century when a Mt. Pinatubo erupts
3)Assume (again, for sake of illustration) that the significant effects of a Pinatubo event last 5 years

Statistically 95% of the time, climate is "normal" the other 5% is something to endure and its effects are almost forgotten by the time the next event rolls around.

Now reintroduce mankind, burning fossil fuels on a continuous basis, the effects of which would be felt 100-1000 more years if man left the planet tomorrow. The amount of pollutants is still increasing as China, India et al. join the club and there's no timeline for a decrease let alone a return to "normal" levels.

This is theoretically equivalent to an everincreasing number of Pinatubo events that never stop happening once they start

If we levelled out consumption now it would take 100-1000 years just for nature to find an equilibrium. Maybe the world climate improves; maybe it worsens, but is tolerable; but maybe, just maybe, it will be *completely unsustainable to human life*...maybe we should think things through a little more first?
We can always burn stuff later if it turns out to be a good idea, but at least we know we can survive as we are now, why change the rules of the game if we can't predict the outcome?

Re:The way things are going

[Prune]

The only thing he needs to figure out is the true agenda of you and the other enviro-nuts: you will never concede an argument because you people are driven by fanatical misanthropy.

Re:The way things are going

[BranMan]

I doubt cow farts are adding to greenhouse gases on a historical level. Less than a couple of hundred years ago there were tens of MILLIONS of buffalo roaming North America. I doubt their farts have any less methane in them.

Re:The way things are going

[ehrichweiss]

I actually never said that volcanoes spew ANY CO2. They spew sulfur dioxide that, when combined with moisture in the air, turns into sulfuric acid, that sulfuric acid then acts like a bunch of little tiny mirrors that reflects the light/heat from the sun back out into space which then causes a cooling effect. This HAS been observed.

Re:The way things are going

[ehrichweiss]

None of what you wrote proves that mankind's use of oil is the cause of the climate change. Your assertion requires that I pretend we didn't exist and then later that I pretend that I accept that we ARE the change. That's simply not going to convince me, or anyone else with common sense, sorry.

Re:The way things are going

[MightyYar]

You are right, but the sulfuric acid and other particulates go away after a while - so the volcanoes have no long-term effect on global warming.

Also, if volcanic activity is relatively constant over time, then it can be taken out of the equation altogether.

Re:The way things are going

[Slime-dogg]

Power generation is THE worst poluter out there. [citation needed] (and spelling)

Re:The way things are going

[ehrichweiss]

No, not over a single year's span, but it would be easy to determine over several years/decades/centuries.

Re:The way things are going

[Lord Dreamshaper]

then you're seriously missing the point: relatively isolated, relatively one-off event like a Pinatubo brings changes and then nature reasserts an equilibrium, unless the event is of the scale that killed the dinosaurs. That event overwhelmed nature's ability to reassert equilibrium to the system; at least in time to do the dinosaurs any good.

The big difference here is that, man burning fossil fuels is a continuous event. It continuously threatens to tip the scales into (relatively) permananent change. Whether it takes a decade or a generation or a century or an eon is not the point.

Our fuel burning habits may not be significant enough to ruin the environmental equilibrium (more or less the climate as we are accustomed to it); maybe our habits will even tip the scales enough to bring a better status quo (assuming the transition is survivable), but maybe our habits will scorch the earth or flood the earth or freeze the earth or poison the earth or whatever.

The point is that we are disrupting the equilibrium with no grasp of the consequences, no way to stop the freight train if it's heading down the wrong track, or no guarantee we can even know in time what a proper course of action should be.

Say it with me everybody: We only have one Earth, better be damn sure we don't fuck it up.

Re:The way things are going

[lawpoop]

Name one plausible environmental damage scenario (other than full-out nuclear war) that would cause a significant proportion of human extinction. Global crop failure due to lack of petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticides, due to peak oil.

Re:The way things are going

[lawpoop]

Certain people seem to be carriers of AIDS. They are HIV positive, but in 20 years, they haven't developed AIDS, nor do they take medication. Link

Timely

[Anonymous Coward]

Timely article. We're about to become nearly extinct again.

Re:Timely

[Digi-John]

Congratulations, you've discovered the lost philosophy of EXTINCTIONISM!
Practised widely following the invention of the atomic bomb and in lesser amounts throughout recorded history, this doctrine states that all humanity will utterly perish in a few short years due to X, where X is anything new.
It does give you cynic points, which are really important when trying to score with that Lit major chick at the Art House party, so that's a bonus.

Are we SO sure?

[erroneus]

Could it have been a cataclysmic flood and not a drought? Couldn't those 2000 have been the second, third and fourth generations of Noah?

No? Didn't think so... just checking. How many "Arks" have been found so far anyway?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[calebt3]

Honestly, it depends on how liberally you define "found".

Re:Are we SO sure?

[b100dian]

ArkLinux is one for sure. Arch comes close.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[BobMcD]

I have a whopping 10 mod points, but would rather participate in this discussion instead, so here goes:

I think that this is actually plausible. Things to mull over that could make this an interesting topic:

1) What evidence, 70000 years later, would decisively display the difference between a flood and a drought?

2) Could the Noah story be an allegory written after the fact to describe this event, with only the details mixed up? If so, what does that tell us about this story?

3) What remnants of an Ark would one expect to find 70000, or even 5000 years after the fact? Conversely, what evidence could be shown that would decisively PROVE OR DISPROVE that the event happened? And I'm talking about scientific evidence here. Not anecdotal faith-based cruft. Not even science-based faith-based cruft, if you please...

Love these topics. Go people, go!! :P

Re:Are we SO sure?

[taniwha]

actually the whole almost dieing out thing just reeks of a total lack of intelligent design

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Narpak]

Not to mention that 70.000 years ago is 63.988 years before God created the Earth.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[superyooser]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.

How does genetics indicate drought instead of flood (or something else)? Is this "analysis" or pure guessing?

Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions...

"These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their family records, in their nations. The nations on earth spread out from these after the flood." - Genesis 10:32

Further scattering: "So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth." - Genesis 11:8-9

Re:Are we SO sure?

[�berhund]

You're trying too hard. I can think of a couple things it could explain better:

Adam and Eve: there were a few other people around for their kids to marry. And a "Garden of Eden" would be especially appealing after a drought.

It could also explain the loss of ancient technology, like space travel. That's just too small a population to maintain that kind of advanced knowledge.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...Could it have been a cataclysmic flood and not a drought?...

The same book where we may read about the (almost) extinction of humanity by water, informs us that the next time God will use fire!

2Peter 3:6 ..through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished. 7 But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

According to that book, Universe was stretched out (Big Bang) at the Beginning

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man on it; I with My hands have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 48:13 My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.

And it will end up in "The Big Crunch" that follows "The Big Bang" that began it.

Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.

2Peter 3:10 But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that day the heavens will disappear with a roaring sound, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be burnt.

Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed like a scroll when it is rolled together. And every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Now you don't HAVE to believe the things written in the Bible, but what if the above and everything else therein is true after all? Something to think about.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[EnterDaMatrix]

So does the humans were around 70,000 years ago thing...

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is only that there are those who demand a special level of support only when something deduced through standard analysis and levels of support conflicts with revelation. It's pointless to raise the standard of support to 100%, but it's useful to keep the standard high, or to do what the parent did and continue creating an awareness that historical analysis and observation is never going to be 100% certain (or, since the Assyrian and Babylonian King Lists--recorded history--100% objective).

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the whole almost dieing out thing just reeks of a total lack of intelligent design One could look at this as intelligent design...

To see how we(life on Earth) would react to different ideas, over a life time of a star.

Warp your head around that!

Re:Are we SO sure?

[ichbineinneuben]

Answers: 1 - Geologic evidence. 2 - No. It tells us that the story's survival in ANY form after 65000 years of oral transmission defies probability? But we already knew that. 3 - None.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[icebike]

> 1) What evidence, 70000 years later, would
> decisively display the difference between a flood
> and a drought?

Why balk at the idea of precise specification of causation? You've already bought into the idea that genetics can make such a pronouncement in the first place, which seem extremely unlikely to me.

If you've bought the farm why not buy the horse too?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[naoursla]

Maybe it was a spaceship crash landing!

I think the 2000 were genetically different enough that evidence of 2000 people could be discerned several thousand years later. Had those 2000 been the descendants of one couple then genetic markers would show 2 descendants.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[BotnetZombie]

coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world Huh, and I read that as urinate and populate the world. Guess that with old age comes insanity. How intelligent is that design?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...would decisively display the difference between a flood and a drought...

Sedimentary rocks are evidence of water and the preservation of fine details of fossils preserved in these sediments is evidence of a sudden catastrophic death and burial. There are fossils of fish in the act of trying to swallow their just caught prey. There are also fossil footprints of dinosaurs and other creatures and fossil dinosaur eggs.

Today no fossils get made because living things simply decay almost immediately. Footprints in sand or mud are also rather transient and don't last long enough for any slow, gradual process over eons of time to preserve them in silt and mud turned to stone.

(..Could the Noah story be an allegory written after the fact..)

It is remarkable how consistent the flood legends are from cultures scattered all over the globe. Humans living on every continent, except Antarctica, have accounts of a water deluge and only a few people and animals saved in a boat. The details of these stories, passed by word of mouth for generations, have gotten a little muddled, but the essential elements of the waters and the boat holding only a few people to be saved are uncannily consistent. The old Chinese glyph for flood is a depiction of 8 people in a boat.

This forum would not be the place to go into more details, but there have been numerous books written on the evidence for a global flood. I'm sure that if you want to pursue this, you can find them on places like Amazon.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[BobMcD]

Because the debate over the price and features of the horse in entertaining...

In other words, why not discuss it?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[maxume]

Or maybe one of the tribes got some technology and they took over the world together.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

...Could it have been a cataclysmic flood and not a drought?...

Unlikely; there would be evidence of something like that.

Now you don't HAVE to believe the things written in the Bible, but what if the above and everything else therein is true after all? Something to think about.

And really, who in their right mind would treat the collected stories of a bunch of nomadic tribes as the literal word of god? I may as well go in for scientology...

Re:Are we SO sure?

[modmans2ndcoming]

Actually, there was a global flood 12000 years ago. The Laurentide Ice Sheet broke away and in the course of a few days the oceans rose over 100 feet.

Islands the size of those found in Indonesia disappeared in the Atlantic (the hoping points likely used by Clovis man to come to the Americas from Europe.) Entire groups of Flora and Fauna that lived on those Islands were wiped out as were any Human civilizations, unlikely to be found again due to their dept and location. The old coastal regions of the continents that were populated were wiped out as well. No wonder we have flood stories from all over the globe that are very similar.

There was a flood, but did God do it? no.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Daengbo]

It could also explain the loss of ancient technology, like space travel. That's just too small a population to maintain that kind of advanced knowledge. OMG! O_o

Re:Are we SO sure?

[nawcom]

Compare; Contrast:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

You know what made me decide? The lack of imperial evidence for a bunch of parts that the pro-flood people use. They think that all animals were herbivores back then. That's why the animals peacefully reproduced. No evidence needed. They simply make these "fit" statements and it's looked at as fact to some people. craziness. That's just one out of the many reasons why it's not believed as much, thanks to science. I don't even understand why christians get in an argument over this stuff, because with a supernatural god, empirical scientific evidence is no longer needed. Am I right with that one?

And out of the blue, here's a link to an organized debate on the richarddawkins.net forum; the creationist using everything that arminw just stated, and shown that it is all old theories, quick assumptions, and unlinkable evidence.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675
An interesting read to say the least. :)

Re:Are we SO sure?

[fyoder]

actually the whole almost dieing out thing just reeks of a total lack of intelligent design

Might have been just a bit of tweaking. You go for bipedalism and bigger brain with high hopes of something great emerging, and all you get is bipedal apes with big brains shrieking at each other and throwing feces. So you wipe out all but the brightest of them hoping to push the brainy thing, and lo, complex behaviours emerge shortly after, like art, and religion, and stuff, which seems like progress until you realize that now you have bipedal, big brained apes with art and religion and state level civilizations shrieking and throwing feces at one another.

I wonder what the next tweak will be.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you think He didn't step in and save (literally speaking, of course) those last 2000 H. Sapiens? Hmmm...

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Evil Pete]

In one sense this is not new. Geneticists have argued for some time that humans went through a population "bottle-neck" (less that 10,000 people) about 70,000 years ago. At the same time there was a super volcano eruption in the Pacific.

The interesting thing about this is that there is now 'evidence', obviously there will be continuing discussion about it, that humans almost split into two populations, but later merged again about 40,000 years ago. Though this isn't mentioned much in the linked article but you can find it here.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Shakrai]

Or maybe one of the tribes got some technology and they took over the world together.

Good theory, but the United States wasn't around back then ;)

(Yep, that's gonna piss some people off ;)

Re:Are we SO sure?

[sloepoke51]

Thank god that Cowboy Neal survived or who else could we pick on polls?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[dbIII]

Remember that the Bible was not written in modern english and that even in modern US sports world means the USA+Canada. What we read of a worldwide flood is unlikely to mean the entire planet in Sumerian (they had the flood story) or possibly an earlier language that wasn't written.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[maxume]

If your perspective is that the world is a couple weeks walking in either direction big, a large river flood is going to seem like quite the event and is going to be quite the tale to tell to the youngsters.

That doesn't invalidate consistent legends, but it raises the bar on the level of consistency needed to be interesting.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...If your perspective is that the world is a couple weeks walking in either direction big...

If you saying it was only a small local flood, explain the fact that sedimentary rock and fossils are found on every continent, including Antarctica. This is also the case for even the highest mountains on earth, such as Mt. Everest.

We also find coal and oil all over the planet, made from suddenly destroyed plants and animals. Why do you think these energy sources are called FOSSIL fuel?

Slowly buried life forms decay. They never produce coal or oil. To do that takes quick burial and lots of heat and pressure.

The Biblical flood account tells us that the fountains of the deep broke open. There is evidence for MUCH more water is bound in the mantle of the earth, still today, than in all the oceans. Get out a geology text that has a drawing of the layers of the earth and compare their thicknesses. Also, volcanic action would have supplied plenty of heat. There are sill the dead or dormant volcanoes all over the whole earth.

Since we KNOW that the mantle of the earth is still rather hot even today. The water that come up from there was very hot and saturated by minerals. Those minerals acted as the cement, just like in concrete, that bound the soft mud and sand into stone in about the same amount of time it takes concrete to harden. The jumbled graveyards of creatures we find entombed were mineralized, petrified and we still find them that way, well protected, as if cast in concrete. We find these fossils in sandstone thus cemented together and also in other types of stone, such as limestone.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are saying that God would never let almost all of humanity die? Read Genesis, and Revelation, you're in for a real suprise. In Exodus God almost kills the entire hebrew people, until Moses begs him not to.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is somewhat related to yor post, but also somewhat off topic. If there is some semblance of truth in the bible, and you don't have to give up atheism to believe this, then what has happened to the human lifespan? Almost everyone born before the flood lived to over 500 years, some 900. Later on, men whent to war at 80, and didn't blink at the idea of working 14 years to earn a bride.

Recently we've been expanding our lifespans to around 100 years with modern medicine and nutrition, but mightn't people from the middle ages lived even longer than us if they had access to the same technology as us? What I'm saying is, it's entirly possible that the the human genetic code is headed for trouble.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a geological survey would definitely show you the difference between a drought (land drying up) and a flood (washing away the topsoil and adding a new layer of sediment as the water lowers again)

My guess is that the cause (drought) of the near-extinction didn't come from the genetic survey but from geological events matching that time frame.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[CmdrGravy]

If you saying it was only a small local flood, explain the fact that sedimentary rock and fossils are found on every continent, including Antarctica. This is also the case for even the highest mountains on earth, such as Mt. Everest.

Hmmmm, almost all early human populations lived as near to water as they could, rivers, lakes, the sea etc and from time to time it can happen that rivers flood, lakes flood or natural dams break and at sea there can be large storms, storm surges and tsunamis so its entirely likely that almost all societies were affected by flooding to some degree at some time.

I wonder if there is an alternative explanation for widespread sedimentary rock and fossils, one thats more plausible than some evil sicko from space somehow building enough "fountains of the deep" to flood the entire world except for some lecherous old drunk for whom the evil sky sicko has fashioned a Tardis like raft and helped, in between Noahs whoring and boozing, round up all the animals on Earth and get them into this mystical Tardis Raft. I wonder if there is any theory more plausible or supported with evidence than that ?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

In so far as decisive evidence for a drought rather than a flood from 70 000 years after the scene, I can answer that one:

A world wide drought is a fairly simple thing to recreate, all that is necessary is a small increase in global temperature (cough) to devastate crops and cause the poor farmers to die out (generally food is allocated to the rich, the powerful, and the military over the people that produce food). With the farmers dead and the rest sucking at farming, the natural response is to find new farmers to preside over, but with a global drought occurring they are a very rare commodity - and the result is massive food, water, and slave (farmer) wars which kill off the armies. This leaves only the rich and powerful, and if we are assuming that the previous population was something like 200 000, and only 2 000 survived, those 2 000 are likely to be the warlords and the wealthy who ran out of food last - just long enough to figure out either how to sustain themselves or to outlast the drought itself.

By contrast, a global flood could occur only if enormous volumes of water magically appeared to submerge much of the land. Considering I've been watching The Next Generation for the past few hours I immediately suspect a faulty replicator being left here endlessly producing water until the Enterprise turned around and beamed it into orbit and then tractor beamed it into a slingshot around the Earth that launched it into our sun. Truthfully I just don't see many real ways for that volume of water to suddenly appear and the detour illustrates the absurdity of a global flood.

Floods are regional, typically caused by flash flooding of basins emptying or heavy rainfall in regions upstream, or by monsoon type weather, which requires pushing enormous amounts of precipitation up the Himalayas. These methods by definition can't occur on global scales.

If memory serves me correctly there is one example in earth history of a global 'flood' so to speak, more of a monsoon really, and that is literally billions of years prior, while the atmosphere was being forged due to geothermal precipitation: creating the oceans.

As for remnants of an Ark, there wouldn't be any evidence unless the Ark happened to land in some sort of deep marsh capable of preserving and depriving the wood of oxygen long enough for it to petrify.

As for the Noah story being an allegory for an event occurring 70 000 years ago, there are far better examples of very large floods which could explain the situation that are more recent. Alternately, if we recognize that early agricultural populations gravitated towards river tributaries - innately susceptible to massive (but regional) floods - and that these cultures if any are the only ones efficient enough to allow for specialists in records and oral traditions or flood capable boats for that matter - then it is far and away easier to assume The Great Flood myth that occurs across so many civilizations is the result of many seperate survivors of agricultural societies suffering many seperate, regional floods throughout history than a single flood that magically increased the volume of water on Earth and then decreased it afterwards (we are after all, essentially a closed system).

A great drought? We might know what that is in a few years ourselves at the present rate of global warming, but a great flood? Practically impossible.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

No I can explain it, Earth is Sim City for God, and his mother called him to help get groceries, and then he ate some food and saw Star Trek on TV (except his version is from the perspective of The Q, not humanity obviously) and he forgot he left the game running for a few hours and his society nearly died out.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[maxume]

Yeah, I don't know enough about fossilization to argue with you. My assumption is that you are defining conditions that are much more narrow than it actually takes. There is a boggy pond near here. It has the stink of anaerobic decay pretty much constantly(Sewer gas -- Hydrogen Sulfide). I don't pretend to understand what happens over thousands or millions of years in such a situation, but it amuses me to no end that there is a well head 100 feet off to the side of the pond.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[kabocox]

3) What remnants of an Ark would one expect to find 70000, or even 5000 years after the fact? Conversely, what evidence could be shown that would decisively PROVE OR DISPROVE that the event happened? And I'm talking about scientific evidence here. Not anecdotal faith-based cruft. Not even science-based faith-based cruft, if you please...

I thought the Noah legend was just that the Jews borrowed a preexisting actual story and adding in some morality to the story so there would be point in telling it. If I recall correctly, the current theory was that there was a guy that had a grain ship that he lived on with all his various livestock. Big flash flood/storm happened and washed them out to see. Big storm several days and when storm cleared/moved on. They were in the middle of the sea. What's the answer to where the land went? The entire earth must have flooded. O.k. the guy had a big ship so his concept of the entire earth was where he sailed his craft and who he normally traded with. Obviously, the guy made land fall traded with the natives and became local rich guy. Guy shows up with huge ship with grain/animals of course he is rich in the ancient sense. The guy lives somewhat happily ever after. The world hardly noticed that it was supposedly ended during a storm. Of course "the world" for the villages that the guy normally traded with where ended, but that was due to the damn river flooding and a storm. Oh, yeah the local survivors can blame it on the local deity being mad at them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

Remember POV in these stories is everything. "The World" as the town/village and everything that you are normally exposed to has ended millions of time in our history. It s just now that alot of people are actually being exposed to the concept of the actual entire world rather than the tiny portion of it that they live on be ravaged by war or something that we now have to worry about it. We love to expand what we worry about. 200 years ago we didn't worry about gaint rocks falling from the sky killing everyone.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...There is a boggy pond near here...

Good! Do some real, hands on science and see if you find some fossils in the making there or in any other bog you find. If you do, write a paper. I'm sure it'll be published by the most prestigious journals, if you find some fossils to be. You may even get a Nobel Prize.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...I wonder if there is an alternative explanation for widespread sedimentary rock and fossils...

No matter what explanation is tried, the evidence clearly reveals that whatever took place, was a sudden world wide catastrophe involving lots of water. The ONLY way to make fossils out of living creatures, is by sudden death and immediate burial under sterilizing heat, not the millions of years postulated by evolutionists.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[meringuoid]

If you saying it was only a small local flood, explain the fact that sedimentary rock and fossils are found on every continent, including Antarctica. This is also the case for even the highest mountains on earth, such as Mt. Everest.

Plate tectonics. Look it up.

Slowly buried life forms decay. They never produce coal or oil. To do that takes quick burial and lots of heat and pressure.

Citation needed.

There is evidence for MUCH more water is bound in the mantle of the earth, still today, than in all the oceans.

Citation needed.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[CmdrGravy]

Does it ? I suspect you are guilty of only paying heed to the opinions of those in whom believe rather than the evidence of those with whom you disagree.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[CmdrGravy]

I also meant to mention this...

Don't you think it's unlikely that it was only Noahs Ark which was able to survive this flood ? No doubt it will have occured to you that thousands of other communities across the globe possessed competent boat building skills and that they would surely have taken to these boats once the fountains of the deep began to fountain. What evidence have you found that proves this didn't happen and hundreds of thousands of accomplished sea farers and fishermen were killed in the flood when a lecherous and violent old drunk with no seamanship skills whatsoever was able to survive in a completely untested and unfeasibly large boat with the additional complications of keeping his mobile zoo in order ?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[maxume]

It's on private land that isn't mine.

Do you really think you understand 10,000 years so well?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[AeroIllini]

Here's a link to the study about this: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1864

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Alsee]

>flood vs drought, Noah story, And I'm talking about scientific evidence here.

One side is being rather less than honest and accurate on this subject. One side is shamelessly fudging the facts and warping the "science" to fraudulently push a model and worldview that is just plain wrong. And you don't need a PhD or any fancy science to spot which side is cooking their books.

If you go to the arctic and dig, there are visible yearly layers in the snowpack. In fact if you count down 1929 layers you can find faint traces of ash blown in from the 79 A.D. Pompeii volcano 1929 years ago. 1929 layers down = 1929 years ago. You can find every major volcano in history at the matching year layer.

If you keep digging, there are something like 123,000 layers visible in the arctic icepack. If you check the antarctic there are about 174,000 visible layers. So this clearly documents a minimum 174,000 year history, and thus a 174,000 absolutely minimum age for the earth.

It also documents there was no Global Flood, or to be precise it proves that if there was such a flood it had to be more than 174,000 years ago. Such a flood would have obviously melted the snow pack below it, and even if it only melted some off the top still leaving the icepack below it, such a flood would still leave a big fat layer of dirt and muck settled out. There's no layer of flood-dirt-and-muck in the arctic nor antarctic layers.

One side is totally cooking their "science" to say what they want it to say. It's call it "outright lying", except that most of the "scientists" involved are probably sincere, viewing reality though such intense distorting lenses that they are honestly unaware of how selective they are with the facts and how badly they are twisting them to manufacture the story they want. They search desperately for the faintest clue or anomaly that might point in the direction they seek, they seach desperately for a half-plausible explanation pointing in the direction they seek, and they just completely loose sight of anything that doesn't fit that narrow focus.

-

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Alsee]

So you wipe out all but the brightest of them hoping to push the brainy thing... which seems like progress until you realize that now you have bipedal, big brained apes with art and religion and state level civilizations shrieking and throwing feces at one another.
I wonder what the next tweak will be.

Wipe out all the assholes and hope they stop throwing feces at one another?

-

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Fishbulb]

You'll have to pay for it online (or find a print copy of the original issue) but this was speculated on in an article in Scientific American (Feb 1999): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=noahs-flood

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...Citation needed...

Your are on /., supposedly a computer whiz and don't know how to look up things on Google? Maybe you're just lazy? Well look at this.

http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

If you want more, google this: "water in the mantle"

Now that you know how to use Google, I'm sure you can find material on why living things decay rather quickly today, after they die. You can also learn what must be done to prevent this decay.

To turn a living creature into a fossil, it has to be killed quickly and the remains must be prevented from decaying. Tell me the process you propose to use that will make a fossil in a million years or even a week before decay destroys the remains or it gets eaten by some scavenger?

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

....No doubt it will have occured to you that thousands of other communities across the globe possessed competent boat building skills...

If one can prepare of a disaster ahead of time, then it might be possible to survive such a catastrophe. We read that Noah preached for 120 years to the people around him, while building the Ark, and about what God had said would happen. They no doubt thought he was crazy, building a huge boat miles from the ocean.

We read that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and collect them. Further we read that God told Noah when to enter the Ark and specifically that God shut the door of the Ark. Noah sat locked into that ark for a whole week wondering. Then the flood suddenly came and there was no more time for those outside to prepare. Anyone who had some kind of boat might have lived a few days, weeks or even months, but before it was all over, more than a year later, they would have all died, just as we read happened.

Since the Ark was not designed to go anywhere or transport anything to some other place, Noah would not have needed any seafaring or navigating skills. All the ark needed to do is stay afloat on the rising waters. It did not even have to have a particular boat like shape.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Alsee]

How does genetics indicate drought instead of flood (or something else)?

It doesn't.

First note that the article opens with:
Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests "
continues with:
apparently because of drought,
near the end
researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes,
in addition to a couple of other similar qualifications.

The media often blows limited or preliminary science work all out of proportion, but CNN appears to have done a reasonable job here.

What genetics evidence does indicate is the approximate size of the population bottleneck, about 2000 people, and the approximate date of that bottleneck, about 70,000 years ago.(*) Other evidence studied by other experts indicates severe drought conditions in Africa around the same time. It is not unusual for an expert in one area to note work in another area and comment on an "apparent" connection, but that falls WAY short of being well supported firmly established science. It's not a positive assertion, and even if it were, it takes more than the assertion of a single expert to constitute solid accepted science.

(*)Note that these results are subject to peer review and cross-confirmation. They should probably be considered relatively tentative or preliminary science. Science likes to see things verified and cross-verified six-ways-to-Sunday before moving it into the "established beyond any reasonable doubt" basket.

-

Re:Are we SO sure?

[CmdrGravy]

If this is what people actually believe then I really am amazed !

Why would Noah turn all the other people in boats away from his giant floating raft ? Why would they listen to what he had to say and not just turn pirates and capture his Ark and it's giant kilometres long food containment areas and the thousands of billions of mega litres of fresh water necessary for feeding and watering the billions of creatures on board. All the fishermen on the boats would surely have just attacked the ark and easily taken it over where they would have lived on the animals in lives of luxury until the year was up.

Also if you're saying that the on the one hand the flood is too stormy for professional fishermen to launch boats in how can you also claim that it's millpond calm so the ark doesn't have to be at all seaworthy. That just doesn't make sense and is clearly another massive hole in 'theory'.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have to look at the article as a whole here. Disregard the 70,000 years or the 2000 people. They have no idea, these are just estimates based fallible dating methods. What we need to look at here is that this article is consistent (in general and not specifics) with the flood account in the Bible. After God destroyed the earth with a flood, the world re-populated via Noah and his family (a small group). The 70,000 years and extinction talk all comes from the Darwinian world view which is assumed in the article. The biblical world view is the one that best describes the data and their findings. This article is not about intelligent design, it's about a Holy God who judged the wicked in the past and Who will judge the wicked again through the return of Jesus Christ.

Re:Are we SO sure?

[arminw]

...ark doesn't have to be at all seaworthy...

A craft can be very seaworthy and not have a sail, rudder or propeller if all it has to do is stay afloat.

If you would read the story yourself, and pay careful attention to the details given, rather than speculate, you would not make the comments you did.

We read that Noah did not close the door to the ark, but God did and Noah was locked in there for a whole WEEK before the flood actually began. This flood was not a gentle rain and rain was not the major source of the water. Also, the ark was built miles from the ocean and any possible other boats and fishermen. By the time the ark floated, the sea coasts were already well under water. There may have been other boats floating on the water, but the people in these boats were miles from the ark and soon died.

(..for feeding and watering the billions of creatures on board...)

Again if you would actually read the account for yourself, you learn that Noah was instructed to bring only two of each air breathing creatures. You would also learn that Noah did not have to hunt these up, but that they came on their own to Noah. Once God gets involved in a situation, nothing is impossible, even if you and others think so.

"Climate Change"...

[m4cph1sto]

Wow, a horrible drought and a near-extinction event 70,000 years ago? I guess those ancient humans should have kept their CO2 emission levels under control!

Re:"Climate Change"...

[saskboy]

Is this the new "Godwins law"?

What will make us nearly extinct the next time will be a lack of breeding due to an overuse of the Internet in the general population.

Re:"Climate Change"...

[Anonymous Coward]

What will make us nearly extinct the next time will be a lack of breeding due to an overuse of the Internet in the general population. LoL. U Want 2 cyber?
/I put on my wizard robe and hat

Global Warming ?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

There's nothing new under the sun..

Re:Global Warming ?

[Vectronic]

What about beside the sun?... and how the hell do we know which way is up?

In other news...

[shindrak]

Scientists have apparently learned how to send information backwards in time because somehow I had heard this some time ago.

Or it could be that maybe this story is not new, but I like the time travel theory. Time hopping deLoreans here we come!

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow I had heard this some time ago.

I'll assume the above part isn't sarcastic, it's a pain decoding sarcastic comments.

The article says, "Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago."

So you probably just heard about a different near extinction.

Damn those Cylons

[Dzimas]

I guess only 2,000 survivors made down to the planet's surface from the Battlestar Galactica. They should have listened to Starbuck earlier.

Re:Damn those Cylons

[ionix5891]

wait till they find out they were cylons all along

Re:Damn those Cylons

[Anonymous Coward]

You just spoiled the series for me!

Re:Damn those Cylons

[SOOPRcow]

I guess only 2,000 survivors made down to the planet's surface from the Battlestar Galactica. They should have listened to Starbuck earlier. Tisk Tisk, sounds like someone hasn't watched BSG: Razor :)

Re:Damn those Cylons

[HeavyDevelopment]

Exactly. And he could have started his coffee empire much much sooner.

Re:Damn those Cylons

[dprovine]

I was going to say "I guess the B Ark hit the ground a bit harder than anticipated."

Re:Damn those Cylons

[Anonymous Coward]

Cy will have to get him a "woo-man"

Why is this news?

[Beau6183]

We were down to eight 7,774 years ago! http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060625150315AA1zuHb

The flood!

[Kelz]

When I was in middle school (private, christian middle school), my science teacher loved to take stories like this and adapt it to the bible. He spent a whole lot of time trying to disprove the age of the earth, and after that it wouldn't be much of as jump to just say "Oh, that 70,000 years was actually only 5,000, and the population went down so much because of the flood!"

Wow, I'm pretty glad I got out of there.

Re:The flood!

[chmilar]

Or the other explanation:

God went to a lot of effort to manufacture the false DNA trail for us to discover. He did it all merely "to test our faith".

OMG, that God fella sure worked hard! How come he has become so complacent since then. I mean, what universes, creatures, or false evidence has he made lately. It's not like God is spending all of his time raising the kid - he's dead, for Christ's sake!

Re:The flood!

[jawtheshark]

Meaning, he was in reality not a science teacher but a religion teacher....

Re:The flood!

[QuantumG]

Floods typically do follow droughts.. so I wouldn't be surprised if an oral tradition was formed around how the global flood (which is a legend in most every culture) was passed on for 70,000 years or so.

Re:The flood!

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible, though I believe that most of the flood legends are supposed to trace to a series of severe floods in Mesopotamia between 4000 and 2000 BC. It strains credulity to believe that 70,000 year old floods would be the origin of these legends when they could just as easily have been developed in the wake of much more recent floods.

Re:The flood!

[maxume]

Yes. That is the correct comment. The story should have been "In my private, christian middle school, a liar..."

Re:The flood!

[VShael]

It's not in almost every culture. It's in a few cultures. The ones that were living / based in/near the Bospherous valley around 4000 years ago.

Re:The flood!

[QuantumG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

You too can do basic research in just minutes!

Re:The flood!

[Ian Alexander]

70,000 years of oral tradition? Stories about gods like Enki and Enlil barely survived 5,000 years and they had the benefit of written records.

I doubt any story would make it through 70,000 years of oral tradition recognizably.

Re:The flood!

[QuantumG]

It's two words dude, "global flood", and that's about the only thing common between the various myths that it has spawned.

Unless the myth is going to change from "flood of water" to "flood of cats" I think it's pretty easy.

Re:The flood!

[Tack]

That was one of the most gratifying slashdot smackdowns I've seen in a while.

Re:The flood!

[Sique]

But I always wondered: If God goes through all this effort just to conceal his workings and lead us to false conclusions, why shouldn't He be able to just wait for 4.6 billion years and have it develop for itself?

If I was God and if I knew that just sitting there for 4.6 billion years would turn a dusty cloud of stellar debris into a home for people adoring me and believing I had created the whole thing in six days, I would just sit there and play on my godly game console until the time is ripe, humanity has risen, and then drop some hints into the brains of some of the people that all they are sensing is just a big fake. It's so much easier than to actually fake it.

Re:The flood!

[Anonymous Coward]

A good number of societies around the world have a story of a global flood. There may be some truth to this.

Re:The flood!

[mark-t]

God, if his exists, wouldn't have to go to any great effort to conceal his workings... It could simply be a natural consequence of when something works exceptionally well, you usually don't notice that it is even there.

Re:The flood!

[Ian Alexander]

It's not hard to lose two words in 70,000 years of shit happening.

The concept of races

[PIPBoy3000]

This event probably ended up establishing the concept of "races", meaning small groups of geographically isolated humans ended up having a lot of genetically distinct features. As their populations grew, they seemed very foreign to each other and only in modern times those barriers to gene flow seem to be falling.

I look forward to the day when people stop saying "I'm X race" and instead say "I carry the genetic markers for A, B, and C." Well, perhaps it's unlikely, but an ex-biologist can dream, can't he?

Re:The concept of races

[Kelz]

Or perhaps instead of saying "I'm X race" just say "This is my speciality and these are my accomplishments!" Once you get to a certain average prosperity level worldwide, it eventually stops mattering.

Re:The concept of races

[Digi-John]

Speaking as an American, as long as dumbasses think they're special because some of their ancestors came from Ireland 8 generations ago before proceeding to mix with every other background in the US, we're going to hear a lot more "I'm Irish" or worse "I'm 1/16 Cherokee, 1/2 Irish, 2/7 Italian..." crap.

Re:The concept of races

[jd]

Oh, it would have taken more than one such event, but we know that more than one such event occured. There have been other reports of other droughts nearly killing off humanity and the bottlenecks showing up in the DNA. Once humanity fragmented globally, however, mutations would have stayed reasonably local, and this also created races. (The two African tribes mentioned in the article formed from the drought mentioned and the Australian aborigines formed from early geographic isolation, making the three very special examples of humanity, but that should not lead anyone to conclude they should be treated as ouside humanity - they've a greater right to the title than most extremists.)

The rest of humanity spread out across the globe, the Genography project has some nice maps of how the genetic markers show humanity to have moved. They do make one error when it comes to Europe. Europe was settled at least twice - once by a long-headed hunter-gatherer people and then later by a rounder-headed farming people. The long-headed people are the ones who developed lactose tolerence and anyone who can digest cheese or milk in any quantity is descended from the long-heads. In order for that to make sense, the long-heads must have migrated with cattle or goats, much as many nomadic tribes do today. The Iron age "Ice Man" (central Europeans give them such boring names - at least Britain's bogman was called Pete Marsh) was, if I remember the description correctly, one of the round-headed people. He was also left-handed, but that probably doesn't signify anything of interest. He was either a trader or a trapper and there can't have been many tools in either trade that were designed with a specific hand in mind.

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "I carry the genetic markers of primarily caucasian ancestors"?

Re:The concept of races

[Narpak]

Or perhaps it is just that people that stay put tend to have more children than the ones that travel about. Thus the influx of "new" gene material is insignificant compared to the continued spread of the current gene pool (the one contained within a geographical area, language or culture).

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

Current research, like the research wen you were active in the field, still fails to find genetic markers.

Re:The concept of races

[thomasw_lrd]

Now that's the best concept I've ever heard on slashdot. Makes the internet really nice. Nobody knows what race you are, or education, or even sex. And none of it really matters in the end.

Re:The concept of races

[flyingsquid]

I'm not entirely sure that I buy the reasoning behind their claims. OK, let's assume that they're right that all modern humans descend from a very small population, of about 2,000 people. It does not follow that the entire global population of H. sapiens was, at some time, 2,000 people. Perhaps there were 200,000 total, but only 1% of the people developed sophisticated technologies and cultures which allowed them to expand, eventually wiping out the remaining 99%. You still have a bottleneck, but your total population never goes below 200,000. For example, if the Neanderthals are considered a subspecies of H. sapiens, then you could have had 198,000 Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and slowly that 1% of the species which is Homo sapiens sapiens expands and wipes them out. Certain populations of the species may have gone through bottlenecks, but the species as a whole has a stable population. Did that happen? I don't know, but you'd have to address this possibility before you go around waving your arms about the species being on the brink of extinction.

Also, keep in mind that the genetic evidence is just one line of evidence, and that's it's difficult to interpret. If their conclusions are correct, then other lines of evidence should corroborate their story. In particular, if humans nearly went extinct 70,000 years ago, then shouldn't we expect to see that in the archeological evidence, with stone tools becoming less common for a period?

Re:The concept of races

[aaron_ds]

I wish I was 2/7th of anything. Sexual reproduction be damned!

Re:The concept of races

[lottameez]

I would agree with you were it not for my Scottish stubbornness.

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you move to Africa and help all those negroes do something besides shit in the same pool from which they drink.

You can impregnate a female wolf with yap dog semen, it doesn't mean the breeds share anything significant in common besides general physical appearance.

Re:The concept of races

[poached]

I'm 1/2 Irish and 1/2 Italian, you insensitive clod!

Re:The concept of races

[naoursla]

You are just jealous because you are not 3/8ths Norweigen like I am.

I don't think I'll ever get over how good looking we Norweigens are.

Re:The concept of races

[theheadlessrabbit]

I'm actually 4096th English, just in case you are interested.

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

"I listen to rap music and have a 43-inch vertical"

"I like computer programming and have a lvl 70 paladin in World of Warcraft"

yah, this could work!

Re:The concept of races

[jd]

You are correct to be suspicious. The other event I mentioned was much stronger - there was a definite genetic bottleneck, there was a geologically determinable drought, there was a reduction in human activity, and humans were still more-or-less in one region and thus much more likely to be affected by a drought. Numbers can be calculated directly from evidence of remains, but also by looking at what would have existed in the way of food and water, then calculating the maximum supportable population. You can do that with a single cluster.

This newer claim must be treated with caution, because it involves humans that have spread out (less likely to find remains, less likely the humans would have been affected catastrophically) and it's much harder to calculate numbers, because it's much harder to determine what would have been available to whom and what level of trade would have existed when levels of critical resources differed between human-inhabited areas.

DNA is also a dangerous thing to go by. We know there was a mitochondrial Eve, and we know a date but not whether it was the date of the event horizon (the point at which all surviving humans were descendents of Eve, within a timeframe in which differences in mtDNA would not yet be significant in the only regions we have really mapped for such purposes) or the point of singularity itself (when Eve lived). We also don't know why homogenious mtDNA occured - unless it conveyed such dramatic advantage as to be always selected (mtDNA handles energy conversion in cells), there's nothing that makes it obviously preferential, so all mtDNA lines should have survived on a completely random distribution.

Only twelve descendent lines exist in the whole of Europe and Asia. Another eight pretty much covers the rest of the planet. I say "only", but remember at least one actual catastrophic drought and this supposed one happened much later than mtDNA Eve. If a uniform, homogenous strain was preferential, we should not be getting such divergence now. It's not a simple picture.

(Also, dating an event by mutations is dangerous, since mutations can revert, not all markers mutate at the same rate, and all kinds of other factors make such calculations extremely messy. On the DNA mailing list, people often point out that the margins of error on last common ancestor calculations are so broad as to make the calculation worthless.)

It's a Douglas Adams kind of situation: even if we knew for certain, we wouldn't really know what it was we were certain about, or indeed that we were even certain about it.

Re:The concept of races

[maxume]

How did you stop being a biologist?

Re:The concept of races

[Hatta]

Well if you're on the internet, chances are you're not black, you are literate, and are male. Though I suppose some illiterate black lady is going to post to prove me wrong now.

Re:The concept of races

[CycoChuck]

I look forward to the day when people stop saying "I'm X race" and instead say "I carry the genetic markers for A, B, and C." Well, perhaps it's unlikely, but an ex-biologist can dream, can't he? The only way that day might happen is the day we come in contact with alien life. Then maybe we will stop seeing ourselves as these made up races and start seeing ourselves as the human race.

Re:The concept of races

[Feynman]

It's just so much easier to tell people I'm 2/7ths Swedish than to explain I'm really 299593/1048576ths.

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I actually am 1/16th Cherokee.

No, seriously, I am.

Re:The concept of races

[TimSSG]

I almost put Oneg as my group on the Census. I am O- blood type. Tim S

Re:The concept of races

[shbazjinkens]

Speaking as an American, as long as dumbasses think they're special because some of their ancestors came from Ireland 8 generations ago before proceeding to mix with every other background in the US, we're going to hear a lot more "I'm Irish" or worse "I'm 1/16 Cherokee, 1/2 Irish, 2/7 Italian..." crap.

1/16 Cherokee is enough for full tribal membership and almost all benefits.

I live in the Cherokee Nation, naturally a lot of my friends are part Cherokee (among others) and some have three digit fractions, but are still considered Cherokee by the tribe. Keeping track of those fractions means free health care, commodities, etc..

Re:The concept of races

[supernova_hq]

well, technically, it could simply be 4/14ths

Re:The concept of races

[Valdrax]

This event probably ended up establishing the concept of "races", meaning small groups of geographically isolated humans ended up having a lot of genetically distinct features. Not really. At most this established the divergence of the Khoisan peoples from the common ancestors of the rest of humanity. It didn't really do much to explain why all the rest of us diverged from one another.

Re:The concept of races

[brit74]

OK, let's assume that they're right that all modern humans descend from a very small population, of about 2,000 people. It does not follow that the entire global population of H. sapiens was, at some time, 2,000 people. Perhaps there were 200,000 total, but only 1% of the people developed sophisticated technologies and cultures which allowed them to expand, eventually wiping out the remaining 99%. You still have a bottleneck, but your total population never goes below 200,000.

That could, theoretically, be possible, but it sounds unlikely. Your scenario says that a group of 2,000 slowly expands over many, many generations to become 200,000 and - throughout that entire time - they are completely exclusive in mating only with people inside their group. That just doesn't seem very likely.

In particular, if humans nearly went extinct 70,000 years ago, then shouldn't we expect to see that in the archeological evidence, with stone tools becoming less common for a period?

Stone tools that old are bound to be scarce anyway. Getting enough data-points to make that determination would be difficult.

Re:The concept of races

[catmistake]

Actually, the concept of race begins and ends with our perceptions. There is no genetic basis for 'race.' None whatsoever.

Re:The concept of races

[avjt]

How does one get to be '2/7 Italian'?

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

It amuses me when 9th generation Americans say "I'm Irish", due to some tiny, tenutive link in there familys history.

I always imagine Neil Armstrongs kids saying "I'm from the moon you know" :-)

Re:The concept of races

[__aaltii7299]

How did this get modded Insightful? 1.) While the article's title sensationalized the findings, it does make it clear that this all supposedly happened in Africa to the the local branch of Homo sapiens sapiens, at no point are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mentioned, nor are the European and African Sapes. 2.) Even at their height, there were never much more than 10,000 Neanderthals. So where did you get your figure of 198,000? 3.) This all occurred before the Stone Age, so how exactly would this have shown up in the archaeological record from the Stone Age?

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

i m, u nsensitive claud!

Re:The concept of races

[Anonymous Coward]

This event probably ended up establishing the concept of "races", meaning small groups of geographically isolated humans ended up having a lot of genetically distinct features. I think it's funny how, in order to be politically-correct, people will put the word "races" in quotes (as if it doesn't exist)... and then go on to define the term!

Re:The concept of races

[dodobh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

Humans: Inbred?

[mveloso]

I thought the minimum number of individuals to avoid massive genetic problems was much larger than 2000. Interesting.

Re:Humans: Inbred?

[SilverEyes]

I don't think it's that high, and that would be in the short term. Over time variation is introduced into the gene pool from different combinations of sexual partners, 'genetic drift' / mutations. An extreme example would be northern elephant seals or cheetahs. Obligatory wikipedia reference; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Examples

Re:Humans: Inbred?

[Knuckles]

Did we avoid them?

Re:Humans: Inbred?

[maxume]

Not everyone necessarily ends up with massive genetic problems. If some survive, they may up with fewer genetic problems than the population started with.

Re:Humans: Inbred?

[supernova_hq]

So I guess the chance of that random chick being a distant cousin just got a little higher?

So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[dtjohnson]

Going back 70,000 years, then, there were only 2,000 of us...and...let's be honest...we were probably a skinny, not-too-bright, not-too-strong, disease-ridden, sorry-assed bunch of H. Sapiens. The Neanderthals obviously outnumbered us by many times over and could have rid the world of our kind. Thank you Neanderthals for sparing us...and we're sorry about anything we might have done to you...later.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[diablovision]

Actually the study can't support the statement that there were only 2,000 of us at that time. What it does say is that only 2,000 of us alive at that time managed to pass down their genes until today. There might have been a larger population whose genes we have lost in the intervening time (e.g. during the Bubonic plague).

The problem with these studies is that there isn't any DNA record of the humans that didn't make it. The only evidence we could hope to find of the humans that have died out is fossilized remains, which are few and far between.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Chris Burke]

Maybe. Don't sell your species short. We're a clever, sneaky, and potentially quite vicious bunch of apes. These few remaining humans, even if they got lucky (as they almost certainly did), demonstrated that they could survive when nearly all others of their species died. Whatever their physical fitness level, they probably had what it took upstairs.

Of course what I'm really saying is that in all probability we would have struck first, catching the Neanderthals by surprise. And without any concept of a nation-state to organize them, their overall superior numbers would have mattered little.

If I was a Neanderthal, and I knew what Humans were capable of, I probably would have been pretty worried over 2,000 of em running around.

Just sayin'.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Kenja]

And now we're an over-weight, not-too-bright, not-too-strong, disease-ridden, sorry-assed bunch of H. Sapiens.

What a difference 70,000 years makes!

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

um... Neanderthals had diminished and vanished from Asia approximately 50,000 years ago, then Europe around 30,000 years ago. Chances are anywhere they were alongside the reduced HSapiens population at 70,000 years ago, the Neanderthals weren't doing too good either.

You're falling into the classic and simplistic conflict argument for no reason. We don't have evidence for it, and really it requires density. Species will only compete violently when they have to, because injury is costly. Way back when the populations were low, there was a lot of room for avoidance.

Interesting modern version is with bears. You'll be hiking in the boondocks and come across a bear near the trail, and the bear will look the other way. The bear knows you're there, and knows you know it's there, but wants to avoid direct eye contact and thus confrontation, so it does that very neat avoidance behavior so you can continue along the trail and out of the bear's area. (Yes, it's nerve wracking.)

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[JK_the_Slacker]

You mean the Neanderthals that ended up being old men with rheumatism? Yup, big threat, that.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[tomtomtom777]

Important point. mod up.

A similar study by Stanford scientists suggests that droughts reduced the population to as few as 2,000 humans, who were scattered in small, isolated groups

This is exactly the kind of statement that make me wonder how many people read it and believe it.

I'm no expert and these scientists can probably make more accurate estimates than me, but they surely can't know how many people lives 2000 years ago. A handfull of teeth, some half-understood DNA-data and some theories simply don't give that kind of information.

2000 might be a nice "estimate" but maybe they should write 2000 (+/- 1 bilion).

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

And those people didn't intermingle with the descendants of the other 2000 in the last 70000 years? How did exactly the right people die of plague?

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[EllisDees]

I do seem to remember hearing that it was about 70,000 years ago when man made the leap to making tools and cave art. What their survival possibly related to developing abstract thought?

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Samgilljoy]

Actually the study can't support the statement that there were only 2,000 of us at that time. What it does say is that only 2,000 of us alive at that time managed to pass down their genes until today. There might have been a larger population whose genes we have lost in the intervening time (e.g. during the Bubonic plague). The problem with these studies is that there isn't any DNA record of the humans that didn't make it. The only evidence we could hope to find of the humans that have died out is fossilized remains, which are few and far between. Very true. Such DNA studies have a bad habit of ignoring the limits of their implications. Environmental studies do the same thing in different ways. In part, I think this is because scientists with very little experience analyzing human societies get some nice bit of scientific data and think it just explains everything. Isn't there supposed to be some subsection in the Big Book of Scientific Method about not grossly oversimplifying things you don't know a whole hell of a lot about? Even a little knowledge of history, in the absence of the logic that should have been employed from the start, would clue them in to the fact that a huge portion of humanity never achieved genetic immortality, so to speak.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[diablovision]

Because the inheritance graph of humans is a DAG flowing backward in time (thus cannot create cycles), with each individual having exactly two parents. These research results estimate the number of unique nodes of this graph at a specified point in time by essentially tracing backwards from who is alive today.

People don't "intermingle", they have children. If the children die, or all the children's children die (or all the children's children's children die, ad inifinitum), then your unique genetic code is erased (except the portion of your genetic code that you shared with other individuals who got it through a different path in the graph).

In fact, it's slightly more complicated than that because when you have children you only pass on (an essentially random) half of your genetic code. You might have the dumb luck that none of the unique mutations in your code gets passed on to your children because they never land in your children's 50%. You therefore might have had a unique mutation that cannot ever be detected in the future genetic record because by chance you passed on the "common" portion of your DNA code and not the unique mutation.

So yes, branches of this DAG can and do die off. Nothing "points" to them, so they die. In fact, this is the very mechanism by which natural selection and speciation occurs.

The arguments they use in the article are statistical and even though they account for many factors, in the end they can only work on information available from surviving DNA.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the Dutch.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but we're making up for it by offering them easy to purchase car insurance.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[HomoErectusDied4U]

Precisely. The journalist who wrote this article does not understand the difference between population census (gross size) & effective population size. 70,000 years ago, the scope of genetic variation of humans - who have living descendants today - was contained in approximately 2,000 individuals. It's a more sophisticated idea, but it's also a far cry from the more sensationalist 'only 2,000 people survived'. To put this idea into a modern perspective, there are over 6,500,000,000 people alive on the planet today, but our species' effective population size is only about 10,000. If human populations 70,000 years ago had the same amount of diversity as we do today, then there were about 1,300,000,000 people alive 70,000 years ago. Obviously this is an absurdly high figure; we know from historic records that there were not more than a billion people alive as recently as 1800. What it does imply, however, is that our species, over the course of the last 70,000 years, has become more genetically homogeneous. This can only be explained by gene flow & natural selection. Recent work by Greg Cochran & John Hawks has shown that adaptive evolution has been accelerating rapidly over the last 40,000 years; our comparatively low Fst value (a measure of population differences) indicates gene flow between regions has also been increasing.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Shakrai]

Whatever their physical fitness level, they probably had what it took upstairs.

That's pretty much the only reason we have survived. Physical fitness is helpful but let's face it -- even the most fit human being in the World isn't much of a match for a saber-toothed tiger (or any number of modern day predators) without the benefit of this. It's pretty amazing when you think about it -- in spite of all the negatives (how many other animals routinely die giving birth?) associated with the human brain we still survived and clawed our way up the food chain.

And without any concept of a nation-state to organize them

Did we really have a concept of the nation-state back in the time of the Neanderthals? That example is probably more applicable to the various conflicts between sects of homo sapiens -- i.e: the conquest of the New World, Roman conquests, etc, etc.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Chris Burke]

Did we really have a concept of the nation-state back in the time of the Neanderthals? That example is probably more applicable to the various conflicts between sects of homo sapiens -- i.e: the conquest of the New World, Roman conquests, etc, etc.

No, I seriously doubt it. I just meant that there being a bigger total Neanderthal population didn't matter on any particular meeting between the two species, since it was probably small band vs band or tribe or what have you.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it's slightly more complicated than that because when you have children you only pass on (an essentially random) half of your genetic code. the study is based on mitochondrial DNA and you get that from your mother

anyways, sensationalist CNN reporters are probably the blame for mis representation of

current living people are decendant of 2000 ancestors that lived 70.000 yrs ago

and as many brought up that doesn't mean only 2000 were alive then, but yeh CNN headlines, sales, yeey

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[dustmote]

Fair enough, a massive sterilization of some kind, or something which managed to interfere with the sex drive to such an extent that it rendered a huge swath of the population sexually incapable (are we still using "frigid", or am I slinging around terms from 50's sitcoms without a license?) would have a similar effect, I suppose. Sterilization seems more likely - sex stuff tends to be wired in fairly well usually. I used to work with severely retarded and deformed individuals in a very up-close-and-personal job, changing diapers and doing cleanup and in general learning to ignore my gross-out threshold, and over the course of my time at that facility one thing I did notice was that no matter what the deformity and combination of genetic problems, they all had normal genitalia. People can be missing internal organs, proper bone and skin closure, higher brain funtions altogether, and entire regions(!) of the body, and still have perfectly normal and apparently functional genitalia. Those genes must be *super* redundant...poor guys don't know what to do with the equipment exactly, but they are obviously motivated to make an attempt.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry-assed bunch of H. Sapiens that have put men on the moon and have the capablity of destroying the entire planet. Sorry-assed indeed.

Re:So...the Neanderthals could have wiped us out

[ChocoBean]

Honest Question Humbly Asked:

What, in layman's terms if possible, is effective population size?

Wikipedia definition quoting Sewall Wright: "the number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration".

I don't know enough about genetics to be able to understand that statement. Would welcome any help, thanks

Old News

[ROMRIX]

No, really. It's OLD news, really old news... really..

Re:Old News

[theurge14]

New news is almost extinct.

Re:Old News

[gEvil (beta)]

Maybe it's because I pay attention to genetics and genealogy (and I thought people were geekier than I am here) but I clearly remember this news from 2006. Why is it getting recycled now, two years later?

The end of this article seems to cover that. Basically, this is a completely independent set of data (taken from the Genographic Project) that further confirms a theory that's been kicking around for a while.

Re:Old News

[naoursla]

Compared to the timespans discussed in the article, it is still quite new.

Re:Old News

[Technician]

No, really. It's OLD news, really old news... really..

If you are into Christianity, they already knew about this, but it had something to do with a guy named Noah and his family. Other items of interest is most world religions have some story of a great flood. This drought, is this before or after the great flood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deucalion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

"In 1998, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BC"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Re:Old News

[ROMRIX]

If you are into Christianity, they already knew about this, but it had something to do with a guy named Noah and his family. Other items of interest is most world religions have some story of a great flood. This drought, is this before or after the great flood?

No, really. It's OLD news, really old news... really..
Oh never mind...

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the conclusion years ago was that a super-volcano erupted. This caused a dramatic change in climate, which was followed by a rapid population reduction.

I think this is much older than a couple of years.

Amazing.....

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an article in the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm) from 2003 that cites another article in the American Journal of Human Genetics that came to the same conclusion.

So yes, this theory and some evidence has been around for a while.

Supervolcanic event at Lake Toba, on Sumatra

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Re:Supervolcanic event at Lake Toba, on Sumatra

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, short summary below

According to the Toba catastrophe theory, 70,000 to 75,000 years ago a supervolcanic event at Lake Toba, on Sumatra, reduced the world's human population to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. The theory was proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[1][2]

The consequences of the massive volcanic eruption severely reduced the human population. The Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent an eruption of category 8 (or "mega-colossal") on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. This released energy equivalent to about one gigaton of TNT, which is equivalent to one billion tonnes, and three thousand times greater than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. According to scientists, this reduced the average global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius for several years and may have triggered an ice age.

Worse than that....

[Anonymous Coward]

...the human population was once chopped down to much less than 2000 survivors. Try only 8 survivors.

And some number of generations before that, it all started out with only two humans, and very shortly before that, there was only one, and before that, none.

Global warming

[ZDRuX]

Global warming religious fanatics will use this for more fear-mongering in the media and everywhere else in 4... 3... 2... 1...

Re:Global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming religious fanatics will use this for more fear-mongering in the media and everywhere else in 4... 3... 2... 1... As opposed to pollutionists like yourself? Give me global warming fanatics any day of the week, at least they don't advocate mass pollution as the american way of life.

Re:Global warming

[SoupGuru]

The thing with religion is that you have to believe things by faith. Faith is trusting something is right even if there is no evidence to back that up.

Climate change and evolution regularly get accused of being a new sort of religion... but that accusation doesn't work. There's no faith required to believe in climate change or the evolution of species via natural selection. There's a plenty of evidence to back those up.

The other thing I find odd about the "global warming is a religion" rant is that the term "religion" is used as an insult. It implies contempt that people are willing to believe something blindly whether they're right or wrong. The irony is that many people disparaging climate change and evolution believers as religious are good church-going Americans.

Re:Global warming

[NeutronCowboy]

Anti-Global-Warming religious fanatics will use this for more glib remarks about how Climate Change is a religion in.... ah, too late.

Re:Global warming

[ZDRuX]

I should have been more clear about what I was trying to say... climate is real. Climate change do to human-produced co2 levels is not.

Re:Global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have been more clear about what I was trying to say... No, you didn't need to be more clear. You're clearly a cock. Clarifying that you're a DUMB cock didn't help your position.

lies! damn lies

[ionix5891]

didn't you hear? that the world is only 6000 years old...

Re:lies! damn lies

[oodaloop]

I hope and pray you're joking. No, wait. Maybe it's just hope.

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

This is neither news nor particularly informing. The population bottleneck has been known for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Old News

[jr76]

Maybe it's because I pay attention to genetics and genealogy (and I thought people were geekier than I am here) but I clearly remember this news from 2006. Why is it getting recycled now, two years later?

global warming

[leoboiko]

That's why my great-great-great^{875}-grandmother kept telling her husband Ugh not to burn black-rock-oil to make campfires, but he didn't listen...

Supervolcanoes are bad, specifically in Sumatra

[Anonymous Coward]

Read up on the supervolcanic event at Lake Toba, on Sumatra - via wikipedia

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

The humans are dead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64

Population bottleneck, and his name is Noah

[tepples]

I thought the minimum number of individuals to avoid massive genetic problems was much larger than 2000. That's why man lives 70 years and not 700.

According to the Book

[retech]

They were all hairdressers and artists and the like. They probably banded together into groups that did specific useless functions: painters, hairdressers, designers, admins, short order cooks.

one arkload

[0WaitState]

Isn't 2000 people about the capacity of Golgafrinchan Ark Ship B?

Just saying...

should the glowbull warmongering religious zealot

[Anonymous Coward]

corepirate nazi execrable fail to be intervened upon, 'surviving' may not be as much fun as one might guess. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events th

Who's in the 2000?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every /.er would want to be a part of those 2000; that would phenomenally increase their chances of getting laid. Err, not every /.er, may be just 50%.

If by 70,000 years ago

[monoqlith]

you mean 6000 years ago, and if by a drought you mean a flood, and if by 2000 human beings, you mean one bad-ass yachtsman named Noah and his hot wife Jessica Alba, then I would be inclined to agree. Otherwise I'm afraid this is just another godless article passed off as 'science' by Lucifer-worshipping scientists and their ilk over at CNN.

Re:If by 70,000 years ago

[Samgilljoy]

you mean 6000 years ago, and if by a drought you mean a flood, and if by 2000 human beings, you mean one bad-ass yachtsman named Noah and his hot wife Jessica Alba, then I would be inclined to agree. Otherwise I'm afraid this is just another godless article passed off as 'science' by Lucifer-worshipping scientists and their ilk over at CNN.

Not Lucifer, my friend, Cthulhu.

Ia fhthagn

Re:If by 70,000 years ago

[CmdrGravy]

No Cthulhu my friend, oh no. The D-I - V - I-L, the divil. Bass.

Re:If by 70,000 years ago

[vaporland]

Actually, if it wasn't for that monolith that gave my great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather the knowledge to bash out the other tribe's brains with a femur, we'd never have made it to the moon in 2001...

Conversation with government clerk....

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversation with government clerk filling out official forms...

Clerk: Full name please?
Me: Allen Dale Douglas
Clerk: Date of Birth?
Me: June 12th, 1981
Clerk: Place of birth?
Me: In a hospital.
Clerk: Which city and state, Einstein?
Me: Oh, Dallas TX, Presbyterian Hospital
Clerk: Sex?
Me: Sometimes.
Clerk: (rolls eyes ) Sex?
Me: Male.
Clerk: Race?
Me: Human.
Clerk: No, I mean what ethnicity are you?
Me: Texan.
Clerk: (rolls eyes again, tosses pencil up into the air and walks away)

Seems a bit shaky to me

[NewsWatcher]

This whole article seems to rest on the premise that humans left Africa en masse about 60,000 years ago. This is likely, but still a hotly contested theory. A rival theory contends that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) originated about the same time from Homo erectus, whose bones have been found in Asia and Africa (the multiregional theory).

It stands to reason that the tests on mitochondrial DNA of a group in Africa is only useful if you assume everyone left Africa sometime after 60,000 years ago.

Given there are numerous sites in Australia that claim to have artefacts stretching back at least that far (and possibly 176,000 years ago) it is very likely there were pockets of humans in other parts of the world much earlier than 60,000 years.

This research actually only shows that there is evidence of a population crash in Africa. Not that homo sapiens across the world had a population crash.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[Danzigism]

Spencer Wells actually proves how Australia came to inhabit humans in his documentary "The Journey of Man". DNA tracking has indeed proven where we originated thanks to the genetic markings in the male's Y chromosone. in my opinion, it is quite feasible for humans to have migrated to Australia thanks to things like massive draughts in which uncover large amounts of land, making it easy for early humans to almost walk or swim from Asia Pacific Islands to Australia. (same goes for how Indians came to America) I think it is highly unlikely for the predecessors of humans to evolve in to human beings at the same time in other parts of the world. To me it makes more sense that our minds simply evolved thanks to language, the control of fire, strength and innovation.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[oolleq]

The research doesn't even show evidence of a population crash. What this story is doing is attempting to resurrect the Toba eruption myth of a few years ago. There was a supervolcano eruption at Toba, Indonesia, about 75 to 77 thousand years ago and Stanley Ambrose got Henry Harpending to publicly mutter that it was vaguely possible that there had been a population crash at that time, at which point the BBC immediately did a special on the Toba eruption and the near extinction of humanity. Harpending had had the chance to do the math by that time and found that there was no genetic evidence of a bottleneck, rather that there was geographic isolation of genetically homogeneous groups for a time.

He told that to the BBC.

Guess which version of the story they ran.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[Anonymous Coward]

176,000? There are remains that are dated back quite far, though certainly not that far, but their accurately debatable. Basically, there are no *reliable* dates to base that theory on. Instead, most proponents of the multi-regional theory point to the morphological features of human remains in Australia. For example, the remains found at Kow Swamp are typically very robust, leading some to believe they are homo erectus-homo sapien hybridization. I find this unlikely, and others have pointed out these outlier morphologies could be from cultural practices, like skull binding, etc.

Really, the multi-regional theory of human evolution is pretty far-fetched, and it is recognized as such by the scholarly community. Most of the people who cling to it are crypto-racists desperately trying to justify their irrational folk-biologies

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[abigor]

Multiregionalism is totally discredited, and has been for a couple of decades now.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[izelrenevato]

Yeah 60Kya (60,000 years ago) seems a little late to me. I will as I say have to check references. I remember all those maps that Cavilli-Sfoza did and they were interesting and he did a lot of study. I spoke to the guy breifly one point when I was working at Stanford some years ago now. But it isn't like I worked for him or anything. So this is an interesting start and that would have been a big blow to some parts of the human population. It has also been posited but it is controversial that between 80kya and 50kya speech evolved. Also it is also pretty widely held, again I should check refernces, that the human somotype or body form has been stable for the last 50,000 years and this is glossed/speculated? that after that point cultural forces exerted a lot of control on human mating and this stabalised the general human form. When one wanders into these areas one leaves the very strict "I can prove it like I can derive gas laws..." and enters into a more speculative realm, even the speculation if done carefully can be well guided and might actually give useful insight into nature and our place and relationship to it. However I don't think it can as itself be used as a platrform for erecting prescriptive formula of how to proceed.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-unite Gondwanaland!

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[maxume]

Social wars. Tribe A is slightly smarter than Tribe B(let's say 1 guy is 1% smarter). Tribe A invents and shares clubs. Tribe A needs more room. Tribe A kills Tribe B. Tribe A slowly splits into Tribe A and new Tribe B. This time, Tribe B is slightly smarter. Tribe B kills Tribe A and slowly splits again. Repeat.

Re:Seems a bit shaky to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It (the DNA analysis of today's human population) means that the world's population was reduced to 2,000 humans around 60,000 years ago.
The 176,000 year old stuff can be explained simply as being created by populations that were 'eliminated' over 60,000 years ago.
Today's human populations are clearly the result of several diasporas, the euro-asian one being one of them (that should piss off the rascist bigots, saying that the western Europeans are more closely related to the Indians than to any other group >;-> ).

That is Jew thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

You think like a Neo-con Jew.

Vote Obama!

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course humans were extinct 70,000 years ago, they were extinct just until 6000 years ago. :)

Thank goodness

[Haoie]

Thank goodness we recovered, and became the fine species we are today.

Not.

Slashdot should remain a purely technical site

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop perpetrating Godless, liberal left, illogical, unscientific ( based on fiction) agenda. Please keep it to technical/Computer/Electronic/Programming etc.

Not just environmental, but also political...

[shmlco]

Just in case you haven't noticed, the issues with gasoline and oil are not just environmental, but also political and economical.

With gas hitting $4 a gallon, a person's "choice" to drive, say, a Ford F-350 impacts everyone else. You can drive nearly five Priuses for the amount of fuel that one single vehicle consumes. I'm not too big on sending our children off to die halfway around the world in order find enough oil to support our current "way of life".

So if "global warming" also helps get people off the dime in terms of controlling pollution, considering and implementing alternative energy sources, energy conservation, and reducing our dependance on foreign oil, then "valid" science or not, I'm all for it. Especially as opposed to the "there's nothing wrong", "head in the sand" approach you seem to be advocating.

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[DeadChobi]

It would be awesome if I could actually afford a Hybrid. I'd drive one if I could. Would you be willing to pay for one since I've got other things to pay for like an education? Or would you prefer that I stop paying for that and instead buy a car?

And if we can't drive trucks anymore, then how will the builders move materials and equipment? Are you proposing that they all buy roof racks for their Geo Metros?

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[arminw]

...You can drive nearly five Priuses for the amount of fuel that one single vehicle consumes...

Before you spout off like that get your facts straight. We happen to have a Prius, which if you drive it nicely gets about 50MPG, not the "advertised" 70 or whatever. We also have a Ford 250 V8 truck, slightly smaller the the 350. It gets about 22MPG on the highway and roughly 18MPG in the city. Even when we pull a heavy horse trailer with 2 horses loaded, we still get 13-14MPG

I'll leave it to you to strain your brain to do the arithmetic.

I agree though that we should minimize the amount of environmental stress we create.

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[alfs boner]

Before you spout off like that get your facts straight. We happen to have a Prius, which if you drive it nicely gets about 50MPG, not the "advertised" 70 or whatever. We also have a Ford 250 V8 truck, slightly smaller the the 350. It gets about 22MPG on the highway and roughly 18MPG in the city. Even when we pull a heavy horse trailer with 2 horses loaded, we still get 13-14MPG

Fuck you, earth raper.

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[shmlco]

A friend has a F-350 used almost entirely to haul stuff around under real world city driving conditions, and he feels lucky if he averages 12MPG. Though I guess that only equals 4.16 Priuses. My bad. Then again, I said "nearly" five. (grin)

'Course, the 2010/2011 version with the new batteries is said to do 90-100MPG, which gets me to eight. Or we can go with the today's model and add the current solar or PHEV up-conversions...

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[CrazedWalrus]

So you're okay with the means, as long as it's justified by the ends? Careful there, because there's always collateral damage when people don't act in good faith.

If it's found that scientists pushed a scam on the scale of global warming solely to advance a political agenda or for money, power, whatever, the reputations of many individuals, companies, and scientists in general would be damaged for a long time. "If they lied about global warming, why wouldn't they lie about _____?"

The means can cause much more damage than the ends they're trying to meet -- no matter how noble those ends.

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[shmlco]

Hybrids have batteries rated for 200,000 to 300,000 miles. People will buy them, then replace those, which puts more of them on the used car market. Eventually, they'll work their way down the food chain. So will PHEVs and EVs.

And the trucking industry is already looking (and in some cases, implementing) hybrid technologies. And propane. And LNG. And hydrogen.

And it would help greatly if more people would stop whining and pointing out all of the reasons why something can't be done, and start focusing on solutions, and how it can...

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[shmlco]

Putting words into my mouth. No, I don't think it's okay to lie, and I believe that most, if not all, of the scientists involved are acting in good faith and according to the best of our knowledge. And much of the empirical evidence, like melting glaciers and reduced polar ice, is hard to refute. SOMETHING is happening.

So the real question comes down to greenhouse gasses and to what amount they play in the equation. And that's where most of the opinion is divided.

Which means that we can: 1) do nothing; 2) reduce greenhouse emissions, and see if that helps.

Personally, I vote for number 2. Especially when, as I said, that also takes us in the direction of a cleaner environment, spurs development of alternative energy sources, and eliminates dependence on foreign oil and the associated political problems we have because of it (e.g. war).

And it's also in our best interests, economically, not to be paying billions of dollars importing oil. Not to mention the price of goods which are climbing due to ever higher shipping costs. Or mentioning that if we develop solutions to these problems we can sell them and reduce our trade deficits.

It's all interrelated.

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[DeadChobi]

I'm not talking about the trucking industry. I'm talking about people in the light construction industry who drive light trucks like the 350 because they need to move lots of very heavy things like lumber and heavy construction equipment on demand and not on a schedule. Unless you're not a huge fan of housing, they still need to be able to move things. So what do you propose they drive? What kind of options are there for construction workers looking to improve their diesel consumption and environmental impact without reducing their ability to do their jobs?

Re:Not just environmental, but also political...

[shmlco]

I don't know, buy a Prius and only drag out the supertruck when it's needed? Better planning of deliveries? Buy a smaller vehicle and tow trailers? You might consider it hyperbole, but 9-times-out-of-10 when I see a F-350 driving down the street it's hauling nothing but one guy yacking on a cell phone.

What happened was that the automakers ran a bill through Congress that allowed small businesses to buy big trucks and effectively write off the cost of the entire vehicle tax-wise. Free truck. So now we have a ton of 12MPG monstrosities wandering around just because someday they might move something. Assuming, of course, that they're not too afraid of scratching their truck bed liners...

it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[EmbeddedJanitor]

2000 person orgy to save the species.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Artuir]

Sounds like a hit! I'll help make the soundtrack!

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Jason Levine]

Forget the soundtrack, I'll deliver the pizzas! ;-)

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[ozmanjusri]

You'll be fertilizer.

(One way or another.)

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Tablizer]

2000 person orgy to save the species.

Christian porno: "Adam & Eve Sweatily Multiply and Replenish Thy Earth."

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Foobar of Borg]

2000 person orgy to save the species

I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian porno: "Adam & Eve Sweatily Multiply and Replenish Thy Earth." "Gimme back that rib! You put it where?"

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[renegadesx]

I'll help make the soundtrack!
Just copy the "debbie does dallas" soundtrack, sounds fitting

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[projektdotnet]

They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[ncc74656]

2000 person orgy to save the species.

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[EdIII]

Why on EARTH that is not modded +5 Funny I don't fucking know! LOL!

It's the PERFECT beginning to a good high production porno flick.

Well Done Sir.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Skrynesaver]

Ahh youth, there is a wonderful black (& white) comedy your education missed, Dr. Strangelove or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Get it out and watch it, if you aren't rolling on the floor laughing at some point you have had a sense of humour bypass.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[docwatson223]

Bow to your Lizard Masters!!!

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I fucking love that bit.

I am trying with a ll my heart to come up with an inuendo involving "mineshaft gap" but can't, any suggestions?

Love all that film.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Anonymous Coward]

with all dudes? ill pass

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[StarfishOne]

Here's your pizza with extra sausage - Conan O'Brien :D

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Anonymous Coward]

How about giant atmospheric carbon dioxide scrubbers to split the C from the O2? Oxygen to breathe and carbon for your nanotubes. Is it easy to split CO2?

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on EARTH that is not modded +5 Funny I don't fucking know

you can't really expect it to hit +5 in the 21 minutes between his post and yours.... now you know. sometimes things take time.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[kurzweilfreak]

Soundtrack is done. Bow chicka wow wow!

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[somersault]

Is it easy to split CO2? It is if you are growing plants. Hint: Stop cutting down the fscking rainforests people!

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[somersault]

Watch out for scene five (where Adam comes back from trying to find a suitable mate among the animals, only to find Eve in a highly personal engagement with the serpent...).

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[somersault]

Get Arnie in there: "You will never be able to close in on mein shaft gap"?

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[mweather]

With our luck, we'd end up with CO and O.

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[2names]

What are the 2 sexiest animals on the farm?

Brown-chicken brown-cow

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[CelticWhisper]

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Re:it all sounds like a lame plot from a porno

[jamstar7]

21 minutes to play with the lube & load the cameras? Tankes longer than that to film a porno...

Look Around...

[einnar2000]

... who says we escaped inbreeding as a species??

Actually .....

[moseman]

Actually...the reduction in human population correlates nicely with the eruption of the super volcano Toba. This is fairly old news, even by /. standards. Wake me when something fresh hits.

Is that like saying...

[einnar2000]

Global warming religious fanatics will use this for more fear-mongering in the media and everywhere else in 4... 3... 2... 1... Is that like saying "nuke a gay whale for jesus" ?

One theory of the cause

[ThanatosMinor]

One theory has that it was an eruption of the Toba supervolcano in Sumatra. that caused it.

There's also a good look at the event at http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/textr.htm
with a discussion of the genetic bottleneck effect in chapter 5.

That's definitely a problem I have

[Sycraft-fu]

This idea that we can prevent it, and then everything will be fine. Well there's two big problems with that:

1) What if even though we are the source, we can't stop it? What if it turns out there's just no way now to turn things around, we are too far down the road? What then?

2) Assuming historical extrapolations are right, the world has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Thus it is likely that will happen again. Thus no matter what we do, we are probably in for a big temperature change at some point.

So then if we assume it is true that a temperature shift of a few degrees will really screw us over, then we need to be preparing for it and figuring out how to deal with it. It really seems like a case of not if but when. Even if we are the cause and have the power to prevent this current change, a change that we can't will happen at some point. Also, just because we are the cause, doesn't mean we can prevent it.

Either way, the most sensible thing would seem to be to figure out what we need to do to be able to survive a temperature shift, not concern ourselves with what the cause is because unless we are extremely incorrect about past temperature, it is not a static function over any time period, and thus is not likely to remain so, regardless of what we do or don't do.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[danbert8]

This is the most insightful post I've ever read about global warming. Humans are quite arrogant to believe that we have that much power over nature. Let's face it folks, if we disappeared today, in 1000 years, all that would be left would be fossils...
 
So let's figure out how to not become fossils and make living in a warmer climate a reality, because we are sure going to have a harder time fighting an ice sheet if we actually can make the planet colder and it gets out of control.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's another approach: action A will cost $10 billion. Action B will cost $100 billion. Both result in a similar standard of living after adjustment periods. Which one should we take?

The idea is that if we are the source, and if we can stop it, it costs less to try and mitigate the change than to deal with the change. Whether it is possible to stop at this point is indeed up in the air. But I'd rather try and fail than not try at all.

And btw - I'm glad to see my sig is spreading. :)

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What if even though we are the source, we can't stop it? What if it turns out there's just no way now to turn things around, we are too far down the road? What then?

That is certainly a possibility, but not the only one. The vast majority of scientists agree that it can be reversed, if we take action soon enough. That means not delaying or giving up while there is still a window of opportunity.

Assuming historical extrapolations are right, the world has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Thus it is likely that will happen again. Thus no matter what we do, we are probably in for a big temperature change at some point.

True.

So then if we assume it is true that a temperature shift of a few degrees will really screw us over, then we need to be preparing for it and figuring out how to deal with it.

We know how to deal with it, the problem is it will cost trillions and result in enormous loss of life.

Either way, the most sensible thing would seem to be to figure out what we need to do to be able to survive a temperature shift, not concern ourselves with what the cause is because unless we are extremely incorrect about past temperature

Your logic is a bit flawed. Sure the temperature will change, but without human intervention that is likely to be tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the future. It's like saying that the sun will go out in a few million years so worrying about problems on the earth is pointless so we should concentrate on moving out of the solar system.

How about if we concentrate on stopping the extremely rapid global warming from known, human causes before it escalates into unpredictable climate change disasters, and put off worrying about major climate changes in the future for five thousand years or so at which point our technology will probably have advanced enough to take care of it.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[evanbd]

If we can put it off for a few thousand years by not screwing up right now, that's a big plus. I doubt we can even imagine where technology will be then, and that's a relatively short time frame for natural climate change. Maybe not manmade change, though...

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[arminw]

...vast majority of scientists agree...

And since when has the vast majority of scientists or even people in general been right? Truth is an independent variable. It has no relationship to how many believe or disbelieve a given theory.

The number of things that the majority of people, even scientists, have believed throughout history, that were dismally and totally wrong can fill books.

Need evidence? Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change and the media hype surrounding it:

In the Feb. 24, 1895 issue of the NY times the headline was: "GEOLOGISTS THINK THAT THE WORLD MAY BE FROZEN UP AGAIN". The same paper on May 15, 1932 headlined: "EARTH IS STEADILY GROWING WARMER". Again on May 21, 1975, in the Times, "MAJOR COOLING IS WIDELY CONSIDERED INEVITABLE" and also on the cover of TIME magazine of Dec 3, 1973, "THE BIG FREEZE". Finally recently, again on the front of TIME, April 3, 2006, "SPECIAL REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING

Scientists today have fancier computer models and a little better data gathering capability than back in 1895, but are likely just as wrong as their ancestor scientists were over time. Those guys back then just as sincerely thought THEY were right as today's chicken little "scientists" think they must warn us that the temperature sky is REALLY going to fall THIS time.

So if you believe them, get out of your SUV now and WALK! If the gasoline prices keep going up at the pace they have recently, that problem will be solved, since everybody will be walking, or at least riding a bicycle.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Troed]

Umm no, vice versa. Read "Cool it" (Bjorn Lomborg) - it deals with those kinds of economic calculations.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And since when has the vast majority of scientists or even people in general been right?

It's called the scientific method... it works.

Truth is an independent variable. It has no relationship to how many believe or disbelieve a given theory.

You're right, but that's irrelevant. There is a method for determining what the most likely thing to be the truth is. This is called the scientific method. It is what rational people use to determine facts.

Need evidence? Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change and the media hype surrounding it:

I don't think you understand the articles you mention. We are undergoing climate change. It is getting warmer, rapidly. This may well lead to rapid climate change in the opposite direction. Take the time to actually understand the articles and their ramifications if you're planning on commenting.

Scientists today have fancier computer models and a little better data gathering capability than back in 1895, but are likely just as wrong as their ancestor scientists were over time.

So your idea is that scientists might be wrong based upon their research... so you'll ignore the data and the best models and make a random decision and hope what you want to be right is. That is called "being irrational."

So if you believe them, get out of your SUV now and WALK!

Individual action helps very little. We need global policy changes. We need a commitment to stop giving oil and coal companies tax subsidies and start giving them to clean energy sources. We need to start charging companies the real cost of their business, including the cost to clean up any pollution they release into the environment. What we don't need is people buying into the huge media campaign run by those companies and what we don't need are people like you who are willfully ignorant, but feel the need to express their ignorant opinions anyway.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[ppanon]

This idea that we can prevent it, and then everything will be fine. Well there's two big problems with that:

1) What if even though we are the source, we can't stop it? What if it turns out there's just no way now to turn things around, we are too far down the road? What then? Well then the people who have been naysaying global warming to protect their polluting industries will probably be used for entertainment by everyone else in the last few years we have left. And I mean unpleasant forms of entertainment for the subjects; people who have been screwed over in fatal ways can be very unforgiving. There's good reason to believe that in such desperate situations, the rule of law would break down.

While that happens, the US will probably have hundreds of millions coming north across the Mexican border not looking for work but looking for food. They probably won't be checking to see if you're driving an Escalade or a Prius. Think Darfur on a continental scale.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[jbengt]

Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change . . .

First, you are not quoting science, but headlines of popular newspapers and magazines that need to grab your attention to sell

In 1895, quotes from geologists describing the relatively recently (at the time) discovered geological record that suggest past cycles of ice ages and supposing that it will happen again is not in the same category as predicting climate change from models considering man-made inputs

Besdies the fact that '30s headlines stating that the earth is steadily growing warmer are correct (at least for some suitable length of time-averaging), that period in the US was known as the dustbowl for the lengthy droughts, so such headlines were understandable

Also, that major cooling was seen in the early '70s as widely inevitable should be no shock, as the cycles of ice ages IS widely seen as inevitable, in the geological sense of 100,000 year, 41,000 year, and 23,000 year cycles in the light of evidence that was just becoming understood in the '50s and '60s. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml/

Same for the sensationalist TIME headline in the middle of a cold snap.

Of course, you think that the above makes current warnings about global warming probably "just as worng", even though the "science" referred to in your quotes was NOT wrong and does not contradict current theories with "better" computer models (were any of the headlines before the last one based on theory from computer models?) and a "little better" (in the sense of "much greater") data gathering capability.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[arminw]

...So your idea is that scientists might be wrong based upon their research....

So the scientists of 1895, 1932, 1975, 1973 and 2006 all never did any research and were all idiots? Maybe it was the media of their day that were spouting that stuff and were proven wrong by history? The media today are of course sooooo much more objective than they were back then!

(..There is a method for determining what the most likely thing to be the truth is..)

Yes and the truth of the matter is that the overall ocean temperature of ALL the oceans is not changing beyond our ability to measure. Ice melting in polar regions and high mountains and warmer air does NOT make for GLOBAL warming. Whatever is making that ice melt has nothing to do with human activity.

(..So your idea is that scientists might be wrong based upon their research..)

Exactly! What makes you think that todays scientists are so much better and/or more honest than their forefathers? Are today's scientists any less prone to being wrong just because they have a little better technology and fancy computer models?

I know, for example, that the weather forecasts here on the west coast were more accurate in the 1950s than today. The reason is that back then they had weather ships out there on the Pacific with real live meteorologists on board. They could lick their finger to learn which way the wind was blowing (facetious) and stick their bald head out and see how many rain drops were REALLY falling on their head. Based on that and some higher tech, such as an occasional weather balloon, they were more accurate most of the time than their descendant weathermen of today, with their fancy computers and satellites. I can't even count how many times I've shoveled some "partly cloudy" in the winter, around here.

(..We need global policy changes..)

Maybe, if the Chicken Little GW agenda were based on scientific facts, not a socialistic goal for the whole planet.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Lershac]

Control.... WE DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THE EARTH A coupl eof Volcano eruptions and poof, our carefully laid control plans are scrapped.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Pentagram]

Scientists today have fancier computer models and a little better data gathering capability than back in 1895, but are likely just as wrong as their ancestor scientists were over time. Allow me to paraphrase your argument.

"Eratosthenes calculation of the diameter of the Earth around 200BC was out by 20%. Sure, scientists nowadays have fancier instruments and better measurements, but their estimate of the diameter of the Earth is likely to be just as wrong as Eratosthenes'!"

Do you have the slightest idea about how science works?

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Anonymous Coward]

Are today's scientists any less prone to being wrong just because they have a little better technology and fancy computer models? Uh... yes! That's the whole fucking idea, you idiot. Science progresses.

Oh hang on, you're a troll, aren't you? No one is really that stupid.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[NeutronCowboy]

Bjorn Lomborg doesn't understand the difference between an old-growth forest and trees planted for harvesting in a tree farm. He also doesn't understand that when measuring standards change, the different numbers can't be used in a straight comparison. He's the last one I'd turn to for insight on this matter.

I don't know how accurate the British economic impact report is, but considering that it can't be worse than anything Lomborg has brought out, I'd rather use its numbers than his.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Blakey Rat]

We have the technology now. There's a magical device called an "air conditioner" in my house-- hell, it's so compact I even have one in my car! There's dozens if not hundreds of safely running nuclear reactors to power all those air conditions.

To say we don't have technology to cope with extreme weather is just daft. Unless you're envisioning some kind of Day After Tomorrow situation where the climate changes in like 3 days, I think we'll do just fine.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Exactly! What makes you think that todays scientists are so much better and/or more honest than their forefathers? Are today's scientists any less prone to being wrong just because they have a little better technology and fancy computer models?

Your entire post is trying to compare the accuracy of given scientists in the past with the consensus of scientists today. That is not even relevant. The relevant question is, who is more likely to be right, scientists who have performed formal studies... or you who have no evidence, but just don't want them to be right?

If you don't think the climate is changing, fine where is the data and reason to back up your hypothesis? All your posturing aside, you haven't answered that basic question and until you do, you have offered no rational person a reason to believe you.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[arminw]

....or you who have no evidence....

Find the evidence that shows that the over all average ocean temperatures have risen appreciably, since scientists were first able to measure them. Show me satellite data that shows that even since we had such technology, a significant change in the ocean temperatures. A little more ice melting in the polar regions and high mountains doesn't make for global warming. THAT is an inconvenient truth you have face.

It is you that has to provide data that shows the climate IS changing. You and your GW friends are asserting that the whole earth is getting hotter, so you have the burden of showing evidence for that. If the oceans are not getting significantly warmer, then the earth as a whole isn't either.

The measurements don't support GW. An even if it were getting warmer, that doesn't mean that human activity is to blame, nor that warming would necessarily be bad. Would you object to a lower heating bill each winter? Probably not.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Find the evidence that shows that the over all average ocean temperatures have risen appreciably, since scientists were first able to measure them.

Why? Ocean temperatures are more stable than overall temperature because of their mass, evaporation, and ice melt. Why look at a less reactive measure for change, when their are more reactive trends easily visible? There are a few pilot projects to measure the overall ocean temperature, but not enough sensors to measure more than a fraction of the surface in use today.

A little more ice melting in the polar regions and high mountains doesn't make for global warming.

No, rapidly increasing atmospheric temperatures over the last 40 years does.

It is you that has to provide data that shows the climate IS changing.

Me? I read two peer reviewed journals on science and technology, Scientific American and New Scientist. They have regular, peer reviewed studies on climate change and ongoing science. Care to show me any peer reviewed journals that have a consensus against global climate change or even that cast it in doubt? Sure there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, "soft science" opinion pieces in the media (guess who funds them). But the scientific consensus is quite clear and has been for a long time.

You and your GW friends are asserting that the whole earth is getting hotter, so you have the burden of showing evidence for that.

Show me any respectable scientist who denies it. Even the oil company paid shills have given up trying to argue that and are working on the "there is nothing we can do" and "it must be caused by something other than people" speaking points.

If the oceans are not getting significantly warmer, then the earth as a whole isn't either.

The oceans won't get significantly warmer until after all the significant expanses of ice are gone. Of course at that point we'll have had such a large and rapid change in environmental factors we'll almost certainly be too late to maintain current climate.

The measurements don't support GW.

Yes they do.

An even if it were getting warmer, that doesn't mean that human activity is to blame....

True, but the drastic correlation between greenhouse gas levels and atmospheric temperatures is a very good indicator of a potential causation, better than any other phenomenon proposed or examined in any formal study to date. If you have an alternative causation to forward, do so.

...nor that warming would necessarily be bad. Would you object to a lower heating bill each winter? Probably not.

I think you're missing the point of the problem. The climate is a system we don't fully understand. We do know that rapid changes have cascaded into drastic overall changes in the past. Right now there are rapid changes taking place and the most likely reason is certain human activities.

If we do nothing, the polar ice will probably go away. There will probably be a lot of flooding and storms for years that will cost a lot more to deal with that stopping said human activities in the first place. Beyond that, there is the potential for huge climate change in either direction. With the balance upset, we might go into a cycle of increasing temperatures. We almost certainly will see water moving to different locations, making much habitable land uninhabitable and vice versus. There is the potential that the gulf stream will redirect as it has in the past, leading to lowering temperatures in Europe. There is also the potential of salinity issues leading to rapid climate change snowballing in the other direction, including a new mini ice age.

An analogy is, you found a way to make money. You poke a bear in the face with a stick and people throw coins at you. So far he's been ignoring you, but the last two times he growled. Do you:

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[arminw]

...Why look at a less reactive measure for change,...

If you want to warm up the earth as a whole, you have to warm the water. The temperature of the air doesn't mean diddly-squat on a global scale. Air temperature varies greatly from the hottest to the coldest places on earth.

Look up the heat capacity of water, as compared to air and the mass of the earth's water compared to the total mass of the entire atmosphere. If the water temperature doesn't change, the overall climate won't either.

The very reason that Europe stays nice and habitable is because of the warm waters of the gulf stream. Even a person that doesn't know anything about climate change or weather can look at a globe and reasonably come to the conclusion that the water of the earth control the climate. All other factors are tiny in comparison. Even a small body of water, relative to the oceans, such as the Great Lakes, has a large effect on the climate around those bodies of water.

All those computer models simulating the atmosphere are worthless and a big waste of CPU time, when it comes to predicting even the short time weather. Accurate models of the seas, input with enough accurate temperature data, may be more likely to show any long term trends of the whole planet's climate.

There are many caves in various parts of the earth. Another way to gauge the average temperature of the planet may be to track the temperatures of caves, such as Carlsbad Caverns or the Oregon Caves. We live close to the latter. Even though it get very cold outside in the winter with lots of snow and very hot in the summer, the temperature inside is essentially constant, about 50F. If there is a GLOBAL warming trend, it ought to be also reflected in the average temperature of the world's caverns.

(...The climate is a system we don't fully understand...)

So then are you advocating that we should make major social and economic changes based on ignorance or at least partial ignorance?

(..Right now there are rapid changes taking place..)

Changes of what? The air temperature and some melting ice? So what!

(..most likely reason is certain human activities..)

Humans are certainly the most arrogant life form on this rock! A rock we did not make, don't understand the workings of its weather, enough to predict it even for a week! So here are some members of homo sapiens that presume to be able to predict the long term climate and even more arrogantly think they have an effect on it!

I think your growling bear knows more about the weather than people do. He knows when it is time to stop growling and go to hibernate, because he understands that winter is coming.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[et764]

Scientists today have fancier computer models and a little better data gathering capability than back in 1895, but are likely just as wrong as their ancestor scientists were over time.

One of the things that scientists have discovered with these fancy computer models and improved data gathering is chaos. This was discovered by studying, of all things, weather. If just simply rounding your numbers differently can cause your model to predict the complete opposite of what it did previously, I wonder why we are so confident in today's computer models and better data gathering.

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[arminw]

....current warnings about global warming probably "just as wrong"...

Exactly, they are wrong when they measure and model the atmosphere to ascertain long term climate. You have to model the oceans. It is they, predominately, that determine the global climate. Just look at a globe to see that. It is flat wrong to observe the melting of ice in the polar regions and on the high mountains and then conclude from that there is global warming. What is the heat capacity of the whole atmosphere, when compared to that of the oceans?

Please show the data that indicates a significant change in the average temperature of the oceans as a whole, or at at least measured and averaged over a depth of the upper 300-400 meters or so. Then, if you show the oceans have warmed appreciably in the last 50 years or so, we'll talk again about GLOBAL warming.

(..but headlines of popular newspapers and magazines ..)

Do you suppose the the media of that day pulled those headlines out of their a$$es or they got that from some "scientists" of that day? Where do the media of today get their screaming headlines about global warming? Do they invent them out of thin air or are there also some "scientists" today that feed the media the same sort of crap?

Re:That's definitely a problem I have

[Mattsson]

If I don't remember incorrectly, we should soon be moving towards the next periodical ice-age and so the temperature should gradually decrease over the next few hundred years.
Maybe we can negate the next ice-age by releasing greenhouse gases. =-)
But then we'll have one hell of a warm period afterward... ;-)

It bothers me

[mosb1000]

It bothers me that people keep talking about the hypothetical effects of global warming without any real data. CO2 levels have risen by 30%, and surface temperature have not shown enough of a trend that we can really say the temperature is even rising. Sure, there's less sea-ice than there was 30 years ago, but ocen levels have not risen.

Where's the beef? Why are people saying that we're going to see cataclysmic changes in our environment, when no appreciable changes have occured so far. What is the basis for all these predictions?

Re:It bothers me

[NeutronCowboy]

Urm? This is a new one. See pretty pictures here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. You also missed the time frame on the extreme predictions - about 50 to 100 years out. So far, what little predictions have been made have turned out to be too conservative.

Re:It bothers me

[Hojima]

Even if you were right about ocean levels not rising, (just Google sea level rise and you'll see the data gathered by satellites on Wikipedia). or the temperature not changing over time (also data for that), your missing two things. One, CO2 is a trace gas, with less than .06% of it in the atmosphere by mass. That means a 30% increase only takes it to less than .08%. Second, were also worried about the "canoe effect" (the boat can rock quite a bit, but it only tips over after a heavy change). The canoe tipping over is the equivalent of mother nature going ape shit. And if there is one thing that natural disasters have taught us, it's don't fuck with mother nature. Though I personally believe we'll still end ourselves before nature does (over population is so much more of a threat).

Re:It bothers me

[Aelcyx]

There's also the possibility of human-based global dimming:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

This can *possibly* mitigate global warming effects. Jury's still out, afaict. I agree with the sentiment of not fretting about the cause - let's just focus on realistic solutions!

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the basis for all these predictions? MONEY! Cold hard cash.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

There is plenty of evidence of global warming. The best evidence comes from the end of the Cretaceous period when an asteroid six miles wide hit the earth and released a large amount of C02 into the atmosphere, raising the temperature between 10 - 30 C. All this is found in the rock records. The problem with global warming today is that the temperature has only risen about .5 C.

Throughout the geologic history the we have had numerous ice ages and hot spells that have made the sea levels over 200meters deeper than they are today and most of the inner plains of the US was once covered by a shallow ocean. The climate change is normal. At the very most our impact from global warming is accelerating that change slightly.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's what everyone subconsciously wants. society becomes unsustainable = no more going to stupid jobs and paying stupid bills and sucking stupid corporate dick for a place to live and things to eat and clothes to wear and cars to drive and commercials to watch.

Re:It bothers me

[mosb1000]

The problem is that the temperature change over the last 100 years has been so small, you can't really say that it's unusual. It also does not correlate well to CO2 concentration. Sea-level rises have been negligible.

"(over population is so much more of a threat)"

It is impossible to go extinct due to overpopulation. It is the secondary effects of overpopulation (such as global warming) that cause problems.

Re:It bothers me

[mosb1000]

That's another thing that bothers me. People are talking about solving it by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions only. Wouldn't be cheaper, easier, and more effective to mitigate the effects. If sea-levels rise, move cities or build dikes. If glaciers melt, build dams to store the rainfall in their place. It seems like we should take these measures regardless of global warming anyway.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, 90% of sea ice is already in the water, therefore melting that ice doesn't change the overall sea level by very much. HOWEVER, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are very much ON DRY LAND, and if THEY melt then the ocean level goes up by quite a few meters.

As far as "no appreciable changes" taking place, you need to spend more time outside, during July and August, in the Deep South. I've lived here all my life and it is definitely warmer now than it was in the 1970s. I realize that's a local effect, but you would expect to see something like that in an already-warm climate, given the change that has been measured so far.

Re:It bothers me

[MetalPhalanx]

I'm giving up modding to point this out, but perhaps you might want to consider that many systems in nature tend to be a kind of check-and-balance. There are effects in the system which dampen the issue, things which remove carbon from the air and bind it. If we continue to increase the CO2 levels, we will overwhelm those checks and then all hell will break loose.*

The other thing I'd like to mention is that there really are more things to consider than just CO2 levels in terms of global warming. I don't think that human carbon dioxide emissions will be the end of us, but it could trigger the chain of events that leaves our planet much less hospitable to us. Have you heard of the methane hydrates in the cold sea bed?** It's possible that a small shift caused by our increasing carbon dioxide emissions - even if they have to increase by another 30% or maybe more - will push the temperature over a critical threshold and trigger a cascade which will again cause all hell to break loose.

So in a way, you are right. Except in climates which are around a sensitive temperature (e.g. Those areas where the temperature hovers near 0 degrees C) there is very little change right now. That could be that CO2 emissions are having a very minimal effect on the temperature, or more likely IMO, that's just that we haven't quite overwhelmed the checks that are in place. /rant

* (IANA Environmental Scientist, so there may be a margin of error in the direness of my predictions)
** http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/26/methane-global-warming.html

Re:It bothers me

[Shakrai]

Though I personally believe we'll still end ourselves before nature does (over population is so much more of a threat)

How would overpopulation end us? Even if you aren't optimistic enough to assume that technology will provide a solution (it always has in the past -- think you could support modern day population density with the agricultural technology of ancient Rome? Hint: You couldn't), how will overpopulation end the human race?

The absolute worst case scenario that I could envision is a global war for resources that the poorer/less-well-armed nations would lose. Even in that scenario I don't see the end of the human race -- it's unlikely that even a global nuclear exchange would end the human race, though it would certainly set us back a few centuries.

Re:It bothers me

[mosb1000]

What I'm saying is: if we're already half way there, where are the effects we should be seeing today? Where are the droughts and famines and floods that everyone is talking about? Is there some reason to believe that there's a threshold value, and once we cross it the problems will begin. It seems to me that if the CO2 if trapping heat, we should see the temperature rise with CO2. That would mean that we can expect another 1/2 degree rise at the most in the next 50 years.

Re:It bothers me

[mosb1000]

The problem with the checks theory is that it would have to be CO2 sensitive, since we know that the earth has been hotter in the past. While I can't say for sure that there isn't a system that will be overwhelmed, there's no reason to believe that one exists unless you can identify it.

The problem with methane is that even though it's a greenhouse gas, it is not persistent in the atmosphere (it has a half-life of 7 years). So even though it could cause a temporary spike in temperatures if it were all released at once, it could not sustain it.

Re:It bothers me

[maxume]

I'm concerned about global warming. I look for ways to live efficiently(I live in the US but consume energy more on par with Europeans, and I don't even have my ground source heat pump or superinsulated house yet). That said, the predictions haven't turned out yet. Climatic data for 20 years doesn't mean anything outside the context of that 20 years.

Re:It bothers me

[ppanon]

It bothers me that people keep talking about the hypothetical effects of global warming without any real data. CO2 levels have risen by 30%, and surface temperature have not shown enough of a trend that we can really say the temperature is even rising. Um, remember phase changes, heat of liquefaction and heat of vapourization? What is happening to glaciers and arctic ice again? Are the specific heats of water and ice relatively high or low compared to most materials?

If you put some cold water with some ice cubes in a glass, how fast does the temperature of the water change while the ice is melting? How fast does the temperature change after all the ice is melted?

Re:It bothers me

[Xyrus]

You're not seeing ocean level rise because most of the ice is still land-locked. Even worst case scenarios only have ocean levels rising catastrophically over the course of centuries. The ice at the north pole has almost no impact on ocean levels as it's already in the ocean.

The biggest short term impact of northern cap melting away is albedo. The caps radiate away a far amount of energy because of the snow and ice. Less snow and ice, means more darker surfaces which means more energy is retained. This becomes a feedback loop that rapidly (relatively speaking) ends up warming the northern hemisphere.

You're writing like you don't understand how significant even small changes in global temperatures can have large impacts. Do yourself a favor and read the IPCC reports. Better yet, go enroll yourself in a university and major in climatology. Then you will understand exactly how much energy a 1 degree rise in temperature world-wide can have, and why it should be a concern.

And stop confusing climatology with meteorology. The climate doesn't shift over the course of a week. The changes people are concerned about will be happening over the coming decades and centuries. We only have a hope of preparing for it if we start early.

~X~

Re:It bothers me

[Hojima]

Over population creates a staggering amount of waste, and a war for resources would most likely be nuclear, so there wouldn't be a win/loose situation.

Re:It bothers me

[dbIII]

What is the basis for all these predictions?

Science.

Unfortunately politicians, economists, cult leaders and various others have got involved and are actively trying to state things in absolutes, confuse the issue or make money out of confusion on the issue. Cutting CO2 is difficult and it's only one part of a complex system so there is a very strong resistance to doing anything apart from making money in the simplest way possible. We also have a major problem in that the value of education is being questioned in a lot of places which leaves people unable to distinguish between crackpots or actors and people that know what they are talking about. It doesn't help that crackpots are happy to present lies as absolutes and experts are seen as flawed because they will talk about exceptions - in the end the crackpots look more credible to many until they fall.

Re:It bothers me

[moorewr]

Have you read the report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Or any of the reams of reports issued by the US and EU? No real data?

A la Phil Rizzuto I wish I had a nickel for every time I hear a fellow American bloviate about climate change without knowing the facts.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

I am really relieved to see that I am not the only geek questioning claims of global warming.

This makes me almost hopeful.

Re:It bothers me

[antirelic]

I think scientists are simply trying to get a grip on what happens when the composition of the atmosphere changes. Imagine if you put yourself in a room, and gradually change the composition of the air around you, lets say by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in that room and see what happens. Actually, this experiment is pretty easy. Just put a plastic bag over your head, and start breathing in and out... atmospheric change you will appreciate rather quickly.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The most disturbing trend that I have seen with global warming is that this rise in CO2 (which I know all of you learned in grade school feeds plants -- which in turn produce O2 for us to breathe), supposedly corresponds with a rise in temperature and according to grandpa-Al is going to burn up our planet..... however if my memory serves me correct, and I'm pretty sure it does, there was a similar "problem" back in the 70's & 80's, where there was "global cooling" and they were saying that we were pushing the planet into the next ice age with all of our industrialization. Now, you tell me.... are we warming the planet that it is going to burn up, or are we cooling the planet that it is going into the next ice age???

I could go on and on with all these environmental issues.... people invent tools to measure things and then when they get the reading that they want, they publish it as truth. Boy, I guess I need to invent a way to measure all of these "findings" and publish my results where everyone can read them.... Oh wait, grandpa-Al already invented that.... it's called the internet!!

I'd like to proposed that instead of it having anything to do with humans, that is it a natural cycle -- such as these darn sun spots and solar flares which interfere with our radio communications.... they come and go on cycles as well.

Enough ranting for now.

Re:It bothers me

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm no expert in climatology, but I've done enough hobbyist research to understand the amount of joules it requires to raise the average temperature of a planet 1 degree Fahrenheit. Suffice it to say, I'm terrified of things to come.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, there's less sea-ice than there was 30 years ago, but ocen levels have not risen. If the ice melts in a glass of ice water, the glass doesn't run over. The ice melt that has people concerned is from glacial ice resting on land, i.e. Greenland or vast tracts of Antarctica.

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether what you've said is right or not (which I believe is spot on) the 2nd part of your post is anecdotal bullshit. You're comparing 30 years of "it feels hotter" to climate. You're going to have to do better than that.

Re:It bothers me

[verayh]

What I'm saying is: if we're already half way there, where are the effects we should be seeing today? Where are the droughts and famines and floods that everyone is talking about? Is there some reason to believe that there's a threshold value, and once we cross it the problems will begin. It seems to me that if the CO2 if trapping heat, we should see the temperature rise with CO2. That would mean that we can expect another 1/2 degree rise at the most in the next 50 years. Droughts: You ask any Australian, and particularly, Melbournians, if they've had any drought!

Famine: Well, there's a lot of Africans who still don't get enough to eat.

Floods: Might as well include storms, so think about the number of hurricanes in the last couple of years, and many people in Europe have been experiencing SOME flooding.

Rising water: that's a really slow effect. Mind you, eroding shore lines are a sure sign of this phenomena.

Just because you don't see it happen instanteously doesn't mean its not happening.

AND you should be GLAD its not happening instanteously!

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that technology always saves us doesn't look back very far -- yes, we invented nitrogen fertilizer early last century to prevent massive starvation. But come on, it's saved us only for the last 150-200 years. I agree it's the best hope, but it's not in any way guaranteed.

Re:It bothers me

[richie2000]

Sure, there's less sea-ice than there was 30 years ago, but ocen levels have not risen. "The leaders of Tuvalu - a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia - have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland." http://www.truehealth.org/climnw05.html

Re:It bothers me

[HetMes]

What's IANA?

Re:It bothers me

[LaskoVortex]

are we warming the planet that it is going to burn upor are we cooling the planet that it is going into the next ice age???

I certainly hope it cools off. I'm not one for hot weather. On the other hand, I'm only getting older and I suspect I'll turn into an old-person lizard in due time. So maybe I am luckier than I think. Also, if we fry the planet, we probably won't be able to do it before I'm dead, so big whoop. We could fry every last living organism on the surface, but we'll probably kill ourselves before we pollute the ocean enough to kill that stuff that lives off the sulfur coming out of deep sea vents. This is the planet's saving grace in my opinion. This stuff will serve as the seeds for the next great rise of organic life on earth. And even if we manage to kill those off with dioxin or PCBs, there are still organisms that live in deep oil deposits and similar foreboding habitats. The fortitude of life amazes me sometimes. I have to change out my ethidium bromide stock every now and then because it grows some filamentous culture. So the devastation of the planet is not so bad when you look at the big picture. But don't have kids so you don't feel guilty, just in case.

Re:It bothers me

[TobascoKid]

The argument that technology always saves us doesn't look back very far

But agriculture is technology. From the original tools used to dig up the earth, the first plow attached to an animal, the first irrigation system, etc. All technology.

Humans wouldn't be here if it wasn't for technology.

Re:It bothers me

[TobascoKid]

a war for resources would most likely be nuclear

No, it wouldn't. There'd be little point nuking your enemy, as you'd be nuking the very resources you're fighting for. At worst, you might get a suicide nuke, where the loosing side nukes itself the keep their enemy getting their resources, but I don't see that happening either.

Re:It bothers me

[cherokee158]

Been paying attention to the global rice shortage? Because restaurants have. Rice has doubled in price already.

Re:It bothers me

[hairy_cake_lynam]

Waiting for a technological quick-fix is really foolish in my opinion. It may require a couple of billion people dying before technology catches up. Sure that is overpopulation sorted for a while, nonetheless the climate will still be fucked. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is humans who are impacting the climate. These changes can happen faster than most would think. The area known as Daggerland that used to connect Britian and Europe disappeared under the ocean within a single generation during the Mesolitihc period. That is by the way a Mesolithic generation, which constitutes about 20-30 years. People returned to resource rich land they had harvested (not agriculturally obviously) only to find that this land was gone.

Re:It bothers me

[Shakrai]

Waiting for a technological quick-fix is really foolish in my opinion

I didn't say I was "waiting for" a technological fix. I said that throughout history technology has continually improved and allowed this planet to support a higher population of human beings than might otherwise be possible.

With regards to the specific issue of overpopulation (which is what I was responding to -- I don't see how you brought the climate into this discussion) I'm optimistic enough to assume that there will be some sort of technological solution. And as many people already pointed out -- hunger is mainly caused by distribution problems, not production problems. There are more than enough calories going around to support the human race -- some parts of the human race can't afford to buy them. That's an economic issue -- not a capacity issue.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is humans who are impacting the climate

Where did I say that we weren't? I know it seems popular around here to dispute climate change (which I find odd given the number of people around here that also bemoan the War on Science, but there you go) but I'm not part of that group of people. I think that climate change is the biggest challenge our generation is going to face and we desperately need leadership that is both aware of this and able to make fixing it a top priority.

Re:It bothers me

[WmLGann]

Do you partake of news materials at all? Have you ever?

Let's see...
Drought: Northern Georgia USA has been out of fresh water for months. Their current drought surpasses any on record for the area--don't know what tree rings etc. might say, but that's the historic record. The areas to the north and east, in the Carolinas have also experienced severe drought in the last decade. Eastern Texas has as well. Lake Mead in Nevada/Arizona, the lake behind Hoover Dam, is something like 9 feet low; if you've flown over it lately it's like looking at a half-empty bath tub with a big ring around it where the water level used to be. Droughts in the Horn of Africa have been so long-standing and well-publicized you should be embarrassed to have brought it up.

Famine: Famine is usually a human issue not an environmental issue, thanks to modern global food distribution channels. If nobody in Georgia can grow food, it won't lead to starvation because food can be trucked in from elsewhere. That said, there are still places in the world without much of a food distribution infrastructure. Again in the Horn of Africa it's practically impossible to deliver food from outside the area, and now impossible to grow it there, so people have been starving there for 20 years.

Flood: Great Britain, Central Europe and the Upper Midwestern USA have all experienced "500-year" floods within the last decade. However, once again (as always with climate change discussions) someone has managed to confuse "weather" with "climate." A flood, caused by a few days of heavy rain, is weather. A drought, caused by months or years of low precipitation, is climate. That said, three extremely severe floods in three far-flung areas in such a short time gives me pause.

Re:It bothers me

[iamhigh]

Droughts: Have happend forever, and will continue. Texas/Mexico is in one right now. Last year we were soaked with the most rain in years.

Famine: Blame that on political issues. It has little to do with the climate.

Floods: TX had tremendous rain last year... no major floods. Storms don't count. The unusual hurricane season was just that, unusual. The next year was back to normal.

Rising Water: You can't even come up with a BS answer for this?

The GP was asking why haven't we seen any real changes yet. You didn't answer but were miraculously modded up.

Re:It bothers me

[Just Some Guy]

Droughts: You ask any Australian, and particularly, Melbournians, if they've had any drought!

We didn't have droughts before now? See also: Oklahoma, 1930.

Famine: Well, there's a lot of Africans who still don't get enough to eat.

Robert Mugabe turned the breadbasket of Africa into the killing fields. Global Jackass is not the same as Global Warming.

Floods: Might as well include storms, so think about the number of hurricanes in the last couple of years, and many people in Europe have been experiencing SOME flooding.

The last couple of years have been relatively calm. Lots of places in Europe are built on Really Bad Ideas. New Orleans won't have anything on what The Netherlands would look like if the ocean decides to resume its rightful level there.

Rising water: that's a really slow effect. Mind you, eroding shore lines are a sure sign of this phenomena.

Erosion is a new phenomenon?

I believe in Global Warming, but honestly, you can't go around blaming everything on it. After a while, people will stop believing you when you have a real complaint.

Re:It bothers me

[ducomputergeek]

Famine: Well, there's a lot of Africans who still don't get enough to eat.

And that is a result more of political unrest and NGO's as a lack of food or inablity to grow food due to climate.

Floods: Might as well include storms, so think about the number of hurricanes in the last couple of years, and many people in Europe have been experiencing SOME flooding.

Last time I checked the number of Hurricanes, to make landfall at least, has been way below the "predictions" the past two years. The one that hit New Orleans was a big storm. While it sticks out in the mind because of the complete and total devistation it caused, that part of the US does get hit by hurricanes and sometimes they are extremely devistating. Think Hugo and Andrew before that. Is it climate change, or global warming, or choose your term, or just luck of the draw that 2005 happen to be a bad year for Atlantic storms. Only time will tell.

As far as floods, they've been known to happen from time to time in a lot of places. Question is, have there been periods like this before in history? I'm not sure, I've not had the time to look it up.

Eroding shorelines happen over long periods of time. No argument there. Look at the number of settlements that are found today 100 - 200 underwater that at one time used to be at the shoreline a 1000 years ago.

Droughts: You ask any Australian, and particularly, Melbournians, if they've had any drought!

Now that is a problem. But is it global warming, the Asian Brown Cloud effecting changes in weather patterns, cyclical...some combination of all the above? Don't know. As before, havn't had the time to look it up.

Re:It bothers me

[tick-tock-atona]

Do you *ever* read the news?? http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/agflation

Re:It bothers me

[hairy_cake_lynam]

Sorry for bringing in discussion from other streams, thought they were all relevant to this discussion. It is absolutely true that we could quite easily feed every person on the planet should Wetsern leaders feel so inclined; I reserve little hope of this happening. We could infact feed, cloth and educate every person on the planet with a fraction of the United States' ridiculously out of proportion military budget. I misunderstood your comment as meaning that you were waiting on a technological fix to the climate change issue, quite embaressing for a so-called native English speaker. I don't think fixing it is really an option, I fear all we can do at this point is adapt to the change and hope that technology continues facilitating our ability to feed ourselves. Perhaps if we put an equal amount of resources or possibly more of the resources we have at our disposal for killing people into feeding, clothing and educating people we can be happier in our technological achievements.

Re:It bothers me

[geminidomino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority

Re:It bothers me

[mosb1000]

There's always a drought or a fammine or a flood or a storm somewhere in the world, you can't blame every one of them on global warming (well you can, but that would be crazy). What I'm complaining about is that there hasn't been (as far as we can tell) any kind of increase in these events. If they become more common and more severe with global warming, we should be seeing them.

Re:It bothers me

[Shakrai]

I don't think fixing it is really an option, I fear all we can do at this point is adapt to the change and hope that technology continues facilitating our ability to feed ourselves

I disagree. We'll have to endure some level of climate change (even if we could completely cut off C02 emissions today this would still be the case) but I think an aggressive move away from carbon based energy sources will moderate some of the worst impacts of climate change and put us on the road to recovery that much sooner.

If I was the benevolent dictator for life of planet Earth I would start by embracing nuclear power. There is no reason why we couldn't completely replace coal fired power plants with nuclear plants in a decade or so. Nuclear power is a wonderful resource for base load applications -- other power sources (renewables, hydro, etc) could take over peak power production.

Once you have a carbon neutral source of electrical production then you can start looking into 'energy storage' schemes for mobile/transportation applications (the hydrogen economy, fuel cells, etc, etc) that aren't currently as useful since they require energy input, the main source of which is currently carbon based.

All that said I have very little faith in the ability of our various political systems to make any of that happen. *sigh*

Re:It bothers me

[ShiNoKaze]

That reminds me, I always wondered why no terrorist organisation ever just went to a pole and dropped a few tons of black dye all over the ice. I mean if you want to freak people out...

Re:It bothers me

[MetalPhalanx]

I Am Not A ________

Re:It bothers me

[hairy_cake_lynam]

I agree. You are perhaps right that an aggressive move away from the carbon economy is essential and could possibly fix the problem but it would need to be immediate. I unfortunately share your lack of faith also. You seem to be aware of our various energy options for future consumption. I beleieve that from mining to decommisioning the nuclear cycle as a whole causes far greater toxic emissions than the oil cycle, uyp to 70 per cent. Do you know if these emissions are offset by the gretaer efficiensy or safety of the nuclear option?

Re:It bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use the IPCC reports as your source of information, you ain't too bright. That's a report created by POLITICIANS, not scientists.

I suggest you learn a little history. People have been predicting the end of the world for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are always wrong.

Modern day GW alarmists are just the modern day incarnation of the religious nut with the sandwich board reading "Repent, the end is near!"

Except they bow at the alter of Marxism instead of Christianity.

Re:It bothers me

[Shakrai]

I beleieve that from mining to decommisioning the nuclear cycle as a whole causes far greater toxic emissions than the oil cycle, uyp to 70 per cent

Toxic emissions of what exactly?

Do you know if these emissions are offset by the gretaer efficiensy or safety of the nuclear option?

Well, if you are talking about the energy required to dig uranium out of the ground, then I could point out that you'd have those same energy requirements (presumably carbon-based fuels run all of that mining equipment) digging coal out of the ground.

Re:It bothers me

[bagsc]

You couldn't support modern population density with the agricultural technology of the 1930's.

Re:It bothers me

[pipingguy]

We only have a hope of preparing for it if we start early.

Which of course means that trillions of dollars must be spent (or committed to be spent) now, to stave-off a possible catastrophic future which may or may not occur in 50 or so years, all the while relying on iffy, vague empirical data collection methods to track our "progress" during the project.

Surely the cost of gasoline these days is encouraging and welcome, as it will eventually wean people off oil dependence and even higher taxes on polluting power sources should be implemented. So what if it impacts the economy of the western world for a few generations, we have to SAVE THE PLANET even though emerging industrial societies with much larger populations don't go along with the effort.

Re:It bothers me

[hairy_cake_lynam]

Yes I was talking about the indirect consequences of nuclear power during the entire cycle of its life. I guess this is going to exist even with renewable sources of energy, there will always be some toxic emissions, either radioactive or direct and indirect carbon emissions. Do you feel there is an issue with safety, I doubt that you considering that technology has purportedly made the nuclear cycle a much safer process. Have you any concerns regarding safety?

Re:It bothers me

[DarkEmpath]

Screw the Melbournians! Here in Canberra we're still under heavy water restrictions, and every time I have friends come to visit from the coast they're shocked at how dry things are inland. Goulburn's water supply was down to single digit percentages, while my parents in northern NSW were getting floods.

The dust blowing in from further inland is shocking. We aren't getting any significant rain, but we'll get a small drizzle every now and then, just enough to turn the dust in the air to mud.

The grandparent poster can go fuck himself, no doubt in the back of his SUV.

Re:It bothers me

[Mattsson]

The problem is that things aren't linear, nor instant, since we have gigantic temporary buffers.

Re:It bothers me

[Mattsson]

Unless that spike is high and long enough to kickstart other processes.
Melting permafrost releasing CO2 and more methane.
Warmer oceans releasing more CO2, methane, water-vapor, etc.
Less ice-covers leading to less reflection leading to more heat...

Problem is, we don't know what will happen.

70,000 is co-incidental with another event...

[puppetman]

the explosion of the Toba volcano, in Indonesia, that was believed to take humans to the brink of extinction:

Across the world the last eruption of a super volcano was the Toba volcano in Indonesia. This erupted around 75,000 years ago spewing out tremendous quantities of rock and ash and is thought to have reduced global temperatures by up to 21 degrees centigrade.

Re:70,000 is co-incidental with another event...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my thinking too: didn't I hear about this 70,000 bottleneck YEARS ago? Yeah I did, Mike Rampino and his supervolcano population bottleneck theory.

I don't think his claim is at odds with this new one. Maybe the volcano caused the drought these new people are talking about. But I wish the media would A) realize this is not the first claim about a human bottleneck, and B) it might not be right anyway.

Re:70,000 is co-incidental with another event...

[drewtheman]

I read about that a couple of years ago and it seems quite probable that a (super) volcano that covered most of the US territory with close to one meter of ashes can take humans to the brink of extinction. Many animals were found stuck in that layer of ashes, and if you add the nuclear winter that came along, you can really bet on that event to explain the near-extinction of humanity. Now the next threat is the yellowstone super-volcano that could erupt at any time from now to a couple of thousand years. This bulging monster has my attention more than any meteorite, as we know for sure that it will erupt. But I agree that it could take very long until it happens.

That's not the only time it happened

[mschuyler]

Here's a cute little rendition: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ which includes the 70K reduction along with a few others.

Real story being "Human line nearly split in two"

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting spin on that story, the BBC reports "Human line 'nearly split in two'" and only mentions "that modern humans had a close brush with extinction in the evolutionary past" as a footnote, something which I read before somewhere anyhow.

The finding that Eastern and Southen African populations might have diverged is the true news here, though much less eye catching.

Where can I get more information about this?

[CrazyJim1]

I want to learn more than just a short article. Anyone know where I can read the scientific papers on this?

Does intelligence have survival value?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The most intelligent land animal almost went extinct, the second most intelligent land animal is an endangered species now, and a lot of the great apes are in trouble. Dolphins are doing OK, whales would be fine except for us, but neither is likely to develop technology.

Are we going to find life on other planets but discover that high intelligence is rare?

Re:Does intelligence have survival value?

[aztektum]

Are we going to find life on other planets but discover that high intelligence is rare? By high intelligence, you're talking about the dolphins right??

Re:Does intelligence have survival value?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know very well that we are the third most intelligent creature on this planet.

And from what I see in NYC, the mice seem to be doing alright.

Re:Does intelligence have survival value?

[Dracophile]

I think that intelligence does have some survival value, but as they saying goes there's more than one way to skin a cat. Intelligence is merely one way to solve the general problem of survival. I suspect, however, that it may be a self-limiting solution. For one thing, it has given us the ability to do ourselves in both by deliberate action and by unintended consequence. For another, I think that it has given us the room to develop the luxury of compassion -- if I can put it that way -- in which we devote resources to the task of preserving otherwise less-than-ideal survival characteristics.

Re:Does intelligence have survival value?

[drew]

Well, the second (and third) most intelligent land animals and many of the great apes are all in trouble primarily due to the relatively recent activities of the most intelligent one. All of them were getting along just fine without us. And even assuming it's true, saying that humans nearly went extinct 70,000 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot, because 1) humans still weren't all that developed back then, and our intelligence was offset by a number of other factors, and 2) how many even less developed species didn't survive the event? Any species with a limited range, regardless of how advanced they are, is going to be much more susceptible to environmental factors, and the assumption in this study appears to be that modern humans (or at least the direct precursors of modern humans) were at the time still limited to parts of Africa. Plus, if modern humans had died out 70,000 years ago, it should have left room for one of the other intelligent species to displace us, such as the Neanderthals, which at that point should have occupied much of Europe, or one of the great apes.

Boom! Boom!

[shmlco]

Boom! Two booms, in fact. Though in fact they're environmental damage scenarios caused by specific events.

One being a major meteor or asteroid strike similar to the present theory held regarding the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (Chicxulub). The second being a super-volcano erruption on the scale of the first Yellowstone event. Both of which could throw enough dirt, ash, and assorted junk into the atmosphere to cause serious climate change.

In fact, the 70,000 year old "near-extinction event" discussed in the article ties rather neatly into the massive Toba erruption that occurred in Sumatra, Indonesia right around 67,500 to 75,500 years ago.

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Reality Master 101]

Though in fact they're environmental damage scenarios caused by specific events.

Well, I was talking of human-caused environmental damage. I mean, the sun could go Nova, or we could get hit with the killer burst of gamma rays, too. But that's not what the original poster was referring to. :)

Re:Boom! Boom!

[shmlco]

Still, going back to the original article, and assuming the DNA evidence is correct, my money's on Toba. Picture a single erruption over 2,800 times as violent at Mt. St. Helens.

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're speculating on random causes of human die offs, I'm betting on a spontaneous worldwide heart attack.

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Shakrai]

In fact, the 70,000 year old "near-extinction event" discussed in the article ties rather neatly into the massive Toba erruption [wikipedia.org] that occurred in Sumatra, Indonesia right around 67,500 to 75,500 years ago.

What makes you think that a super-volcano could wipe out the human race? If you accept the link between Toba and the population bottleneck than obviously the human race was able to (barely) survive. If we were able to survive it without the benefit of modern technology then why wouldn't be able to survive a similar event today?

Millions (billions?) would die but the whole human race? That seems like a stretch to me. Notwithstanding technology, we have at least two things the dinosaurs didn't.....

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Shakrai]

or we could get hit with the killer burst of gamma rays, too

That's why I've stocked up on tin-foil hats ;)

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Ex-MislTech]

Toba, exactly ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Re:Boom! Boom!

[shmlco]

How serious is the event? How long is the aftermath? Decades? Longer? How long can you live without food? With the vast majority of the human race extinct and with no support structure, just how much technology will you really have?

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Shakrai]

How serious is the event? How long is the aftermath? Decades? Longer? How long can you live without food?

Valid points, still:

With the vast majority of the human race extinct and with no support structure, just how much technology will you really have?

I'll go out on a limb and say "more than our ancestors did 75,000 years ago". You don't need a huge technological/population base to build basic tools (the knife comes to mind) or weapons (guns). Even if the event was serious enough to push us back into a pre-industrial state we'd still be light-years ahead of where our ancestors were 75,000 years ago.

Consider that there are many concepts that were unknown until fairly recently (random example: infection control) that don't require a technological base to be completely effective. Consider the fact that basic medicines and vaccines (the smallpox vaccine has been around for over 200 years) don't require a modern technological base to produce either. Sanitation is another concept that works without modern technology. All of these are things that our stone-age ancestors had no access to and no concept of, yet they still managed to survive such an event (super volcanic eruption).

Re:Boom! Boom!

[shmlco]

Just as a consideration, you should try to find the History Channel's documentary on Life After People. It shows, rather dramatically, just how quickly technology fails when there's no one around to maintain it.

Also, while we would have guns and knives, what are we using them on? Each other? With a major eruption, thousands of square kilometers of material is thrown into the atmosphere, including ash and nasty sulfurs (think acid rain). Skys darken. Plants die. Animals that eat plants die. Plankton in the ocean, which also needs light, dies. Fish that eat plankton die. With no food, billions of humans die.

And with no one to maintain it, so does our massive technology base. No power, water, sanitation.

Unless, as the original article indicates, you're able to find some area that's less affected, or unless we can put together some nuclear-powered underground complex with a massive hydroponics garden in an EXTREMELY short period of time, the human race is screwed.

Re:Boom! Boom!

[Shakrai]

Just as a consideration, you should try to find the History Channel's documentary on Life After People [history.com]. It shows, rather dramatically, just how quickly technology fails when there's no one around to maintain it.

I saw it but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. It was an interesting show but the premise that all human beings instantly disappeared whilst leaving behind EVERYTHING seemed a bit stupid to me. Where did we go? Did everybody get raptured or something?

Some of the ideas seemed kind of far-fetched -- like the theory that we'd have "flying cats" (like flying squirrels) evolve as an adaptation to live in abandoned skyscrapers -- skyscrapers they admitted would be coming down within 100-200 years (200 years is enough time for natural selection to produce a flying cat and enough time for that cat to pass his genes on???).

Still, I'll grant you that it was kind of interesting to see how quickly nature reasserts itself and swallows up our civilization without us around to beat it back.

Also, while we would have guns and knives, what are we using them on? Each other?

My point was that we'd have access to tools that our ancestors lacked -- ancestors who somehow managed to survive the last super-volcanic eruption. A knife has a lot more uses then killing things -- why do you think that a decent knife is always included in survival kits?

Unless, as the original article indicates, you're able to find some area that's less affected, or unless we can put together some nuclear-powered underground complex with a massive hydroponics garden in an EXTREMELY short period of time, the human race is screwed.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. I've you accepted the link between Toba and this population bottleneck then obviously humanity did survive the last super-volcanic eruption. If you accept that then I don't see how you can make the claim that we wouldn't be able to survive a similar eruption. I don't think the survivors would be listening to iPods but I really don't think it's unreasonable to assume that any of the things I mentioned would survive. Is a super-volcanic eruption somehow going to wipe out our knowledge of germs and how to avoid spreading them (infection control) or the formula for gunpowder?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to bet against the most adaptable species that's ever walked on this planet. We are pretty scrappy resourceful little mammals.

Re:Boom! Boom!

[mfrank]

Sun's not gonna go nova. And unless your gamma ray burst lasts longer than 12 hours, it's not going to kill everybody. 8000 miles of rock will stop most gamma rays.

..and we're sorry...

[hanakj]

Thank you Neanderthals for sparing us...and we're sorry about anything we might have done to you...later. Well, at least we made it easy for them to buy insurance.

Accomplishment bigot

[symbolset]

"This is my speciality and these are my accomplishments!"

What, now all the "differently accomplished" should just hang their heads in shame? What did the slackers ever do to you? Bigot.

famine historically

[sentientbrendan]

>Hunger is by far a distribution problem,
>not a food production problem.

This has only been true for a limited span of time, since the green revolution, which started in 1943, massively increased farming output, which had been only increasing at a steady linear pace in the past. Since then, populations have surged to meet the new level of food supply.

Historically (before 1943) population was kept in check by a limited supply of food. A large number of people would be born to each generation, more than could possibly be fed, and a certain percentage at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder would just starve to death.

Read Thomas Malthus' "The Principle of Population" to see how economics, agriculture, and famine worked in the 18th century.

In recent times, the massive increase in food raised the cap on the population, and birth rates skyrocketed. Between 1900 and now, the population moved from 1.6 billion to 6 billion, multiplying by 3.75 in only 100 years. In comparison, over the prior 100 years, the population only multiplied by 1.6.

Unfortunately, instead of food production growth, in many places food output is actually shrinking as populations displace prime farm land. The geometic growth rates of food production are nearing and end.

The question now is, do we go back to being the way we used to be, with society relatively impoverished and the bottom parts of society constantly starving to death?

Some people are hopeful that birth control and education will put a check on population growth, independent of food supply. Indeed, the united states, japan, and europe are all below replacement rates while at the same time being awash in food. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has yet to follow suit, so who knows?

Re:famine historically

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ Thomas Malthus

Re:famine historically

[Shakrai]

Indeed, the united states, japan, and europe are all below replacement rates while at the same time being awash in food

Uhh, where'd you hear that about the United States?

Re:famine historically

[ppanon]

I think you're ignoring factors like improvements in health care, in particular vaccinations and antibiotics, that have caused a huge drop in infant mortality, as well as lowered maternal deaths from delivery. Better fed babies do have stronger immune systems as well, which also would improve infant mortality rates, but I'm pretty sure that worldwide availability of medical improvements had a more significant role in increasing that rate of population increase than greater food availability did.

In many third world nations, people still have kids at close to the same rate as they did when infant mortality rates were around 50%. Now the mortality rates are a small fraction of that, but couples still attempt to have close to the same number of births without the same level of attrition.

Re:famine historically

[PRC Banker]

Malthus was debunked by Ricardo centuries ago. I really don't understand why he is referenced, other than a simplistic message is well received by the stupid.

Re:famine historically

[mpe]

This has only been true for a limited span of time, since the green revolution, which started in 1943, massively increased farming output, which had been only increasing at a steady linear pace in the past. Since then, populations have surged to meet the new level of food supply.
Historically (before 1943) population was kept in check by a limited supply of food.


IIRC late Iron age agriculture produced yields comparable with that in Europe and North America in the 1950's. It isn't simply that agriculture suddenly getting better in the 20th century. Somewhere in a period of two thousand years agriculture had become less productive.

Re:famine historically

[geminidomino]

Indeed, the united states, japan, and europe are all below replacement rates while at the same time being awash in food. Untrue, at least as far as the US goes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725_pf.html

Re:famine historically

[LunaticTippy]

US fertility rate has just hit the highest since the early 70s. We're now just barely above replacement rate. Of course, if you count net immigration we are well above replacement rate.

For over 20 years the US had a negative population growth looking at fertility alone.

Re:famine historically

[sentientbrendan]

How can he be debunked? His primary contribution is the observation that unconstrained population grows exponentially. He then observed, that for his time the primary constraint on population growth was food supply.

There's really not much to debunk there.

There are other points that he makes that you can attack, but those are not points I relied on.

It was the flood, you godless assholes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Noah saw it all.

CNN article is a complete mischaracterization

[raaum]

And I have to wonder if the author even read the original peer-reviewed article - which can be found at:

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00255-3

The actual study contrasts two complex hypotheses on early human populations in Africa. The major points are:

1. (Presented as the current consensus). Early humans lived in a one population in eastern or southern Africa. Around 90,000 years ago, this population splits. One of the daughter groups is the primary source of the Khoisan (a South African ethnic group with many "early" maternal lineages). The other is the source of the out-of-Africa migration 60-70,000 years ago. After the out-of-Africans leave, there is renewed migration between the two African groups.

2. (The new hypothesis proposed in this paper). Early humans split into two largely separate African groups starting around 150,000 years ago. Again, one of these is the primary source of the Khoisan and the other is the source of the out-of-Africans. Again, there is renewed migration between these groups after the out-of-Africans leave. (Also, this second hypothesis requires some limited migration from the Khoisan ancestors to the other group around 90,000 years ago to make the patterning of genetic variation work out).

The data which these hypotheses are trying to account for - in part - is that there is significantly more diversity in maternal lineages in Africa than out. In fact, all of the maternal lineages outside of Africa are a subset of *one* of the African lineages. So any explanation of this has to somehow derive a non-diverse population (the rest of the world) from a very diverse source population (Africans). Both of these hypotheses try to do this in fundamentally the same way (population splits in Africa), but the new paper argues that in order for the pattern to be as it is, a longer time of separation of populations in Africa is required.

There are no new population size estimates in the paper whatsoever. There is no discussion (other than an off-hand mention or two) of population sizes in the paper.

The CNN/Associated Press article is sensationalistic at best and misleading at worst.

And as an aside, whatever the "separate study by researchers at Stanford University" is - I couldn't figure out which one it was in the reference list - it is certainly about *effective* population size, which is _very_ different than census population size. For instance, the long-term effective population size of the entire human species is generally estimated to be around 10,000 *effective* individuals.

Re:CNN article is a complete mischaracterization

[rob1980]

The CNN/Associated Press article is sensationalistic at best and misleading at worst.

That's pretty much their forte anyway, so...

Garbage magazine

[CustomDesigned]

I used to get a very honest and insightful ecology magazine called "Garbage" edited by Patricia Poore. It did well for a year or so, then started getting angry letter campaign and boycotts because they didn't follow the party line on various issues. For instance, they actually did a life cycle analysis of disposable vs cloth diapers, and found that life cycle costs were less for cloth in areas with hydro power (New England) and plentiful water, less for disposable in arid areas (Arizona, California), and about the same everywhere else. That didn't sit well.

Re:Garbage magazine

[arminw]

...That didn't sit well...

I know that the GW alarmists are very vocal and can and often do get very vitriolic in their attacks with those who don't agree with their agenda. This especially true when facts and figures are brought to the public's attention that contradict their loudly trumpeted propaganda.

Re:Garbage magazine

[maxume]

Soiled plastic diapers seem like they would be just fine in one of those garbage to oil machines or an incinerator.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before all the landfills are gone, once they become cheaper than natural ores on an energy basis.

Here we go again...

[Neanderthal Ninny]

We are going down that path fast the way we are destroying our world. Global warming is one symptom of many that could cause the extinction of the human race or at least the majority of humans. Living things have can take much punishment from many environmental and genetic factors but there is point where anything will be destroyed... cockroaches included.

It is better question what caused the first "die-off" of the human race?

Where's the paper?

[Hatta]

I wanted to read up on this one, so I tried to track down the paper. The CNN article says it was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. There is an article by Stephen Wells in Am. J. Hum. Gen. this month, but it doesn't seem to be the one in the article. The CNN article says the research was done on the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San in Africa. The article in Aprils Am. J. Hum. Gen. was done on Y chromosome DNA of Lebanese.

Logical Fallacy Alert!

[singularityguy]

The fact that modern humans can be traced to a small group of ancestors does NOT imply that the race nearly went extinct. It just means that a small group of mutants 70,000 years ago went on to dominate the world. There were plenty of hominids that were driven to extinction not by a harsh environment but by these 2,000 and their descendants.

My favorite theory...

[rajafarian]

is that if it weren't for Global Warming we'd be getting fucked by the upcoming Ice Age!

... and that for the first time in many cyclic Ice Ages, we may have a chance to escape the planet (which couldn't possibly hold ALL of us, right?).

It sure would seem smarter to spend our resources towards building a space ark than building more and more and more military jets and ships.

As Fleetwood Mac sang, "Oh well."

Did anyone else read...

[gravis777]

Did anyone else read this as "Hamas nearly went extenct"?

They don't really know what forced them apart

[CustomDesigned]

They are just guessing about "harsh environmental factors". The DNA evidence just says they split up and came back together. In fact, there is a story in Genesis about a similar scenario. Population is reduced to 8 via global catastrophe. Increases to several thousand near Tigris and Euphrates. God then changes the language into 70 different variants, and these language groups then scatter over the earth, and gradually come together again. Even if you regard the story as Myth, Myth comes from racial memory.

If you don't like Genesis, there is a Hungarian Myth that tells the story of the Huns (one of the language groups) beginning with the tower of Babel (the Genesis story above). The best telling, IMO, is The White Stag, by Kate Seredy.

How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

You walk into a room and see a burning candle. You can measure the rate of burn, etc.

#1: How long has the candle been burning?
#2: How long was it originally?

I think these guys are mixing some facts with lots of conjecture. By looking at the DNA, we know that humans almost went extinct 70,000 years ago?

Personals ads will cause extinction

[LM741N]

Anyone who uses Personals Ads services and sits in front of a computer all day hoping for their Knight In Shining Armor to come rescue them is contributing to the next possible extinction of the human race. It used to be that people met at Church, through school, through the extended family, and through REAL neighborhoods where people knew each other. Other than school, much of that inter-social infrastructure is gone. Couples move out of the city and into sterile suburbs where there is little social contact at all. They they get divorced and the woman is at home in front of her computer all day looking for Mr. Right all over again so the process can repeat itself.

Try this science experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill a glass with ice water, like all ice up to the top and fill the rest with cold water. It'll be 32.1 degrees or so, just above freezing.

Now drop a shotglass of boiling water into it. What happens? A bunch of the ice melts, and the water's still 32.1 degrees.

Re:Try this science experiment

[bagsc]

Offtopic? AC is correct, and spot on topic. You increase energy without increasing temperature in a phase change. Melting all the world's ice won't necessarily show an increase in temperature, just less ice. Thus, we could be putting a LOT of energy into the system and see very little change in temperature because of the phase change. That is how you have limited temperature change at first, then major temperature change later.

Could explain the Old Stories.

[jellomizer]

This could roughly explain the story of Adam and Eve. Considering before the drought the world would have seemed like a large garden, vs during the drought which could seem like an expulsion from paradise. As well in this new tougher world the smartest needed to survive (the fruit of knowledge) as well a limited human population. And over many thousands of years of spoken stories they have changed into the bibles creation story.

The Cylons!

[GlobalEcho]

Those Cylons didn't finish us off 70000 years ago, and they will fail again.

So say we all.

Re:The Cylons!

[Oktober Sunset]

With the population down to only 2000, looks like we can expect plenty of deaths in series 4.

Who would have thought paleontologists are stupid

[Gkyluig]

This is my point exactly. 'Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction."' There were successful bands of human relatives all over Europe and Asia, who this one lineage would eventually replace. To imagine that the Earth would be have been depeopled by the extinction of one regionally-isolated subpopulation is idiotic.

Humanity will be reduced to 500 Million People

[gd23ka]

So you might want to take a look at the Georgia Guidestones
# Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature

# Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
# Unite humanity with a living new language.
# Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
# Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
# Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a one world court
# Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
# Balance personal rights with social duties.
# Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
# Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.


A lot of maintaining, guiding, uniting, ruling, protecting and balancing to be going on, hope you're all up for it.

Doesnt anyone watch National Geographic channel?

[stoneOfScone]

Or the Science Channel or the History Channel? Can you say Toba? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_eruption The show, which has been on several times on one of these channels, associates this narrowing of our species genetic lineage with this super volcanic event. Forget asteroids, it is Yellowstone or something like Toba that is going to do us in.

Life on earth... Pth....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this article is just stupid. Everyone knows that only 4000 years ago there were only two people on the planet, oh... and one talking snake.

Re:Life on earth... Pth....

[geminidomino]

Now this article is just stupid. Everyone knows that only 4000 years ago there were only two people on the planet, oh... and one talking snake. World history as a Disney Feature... no thanks.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm....this article from 2003 looks familiar....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

Mt Toba explosion 70,000 years ago...

[ignavus]

Isn't this genetic bottleneck already credited to the Mt Toba explosion (Indonesia) which happened about 70,000 years ago?

The Mt Toba explosion is believed to have been so huge (vastly larger than Krakatoa) that it plunged the whole earth into a "nuclear winter"-like period (just look up "Mount Toba" or "Toba catastrophe theory" in Wikipedia).

In any event, we already knew that there was a genetic bottleneck about 70,000 years ago, as those Wikipedia articles indicate. What's the real genetics news here?

Mitochondrial DNA

[CrimsonAvenger]

This study is based on Mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited through the female line. It's less than useful for determining the actual population, since the only population detectable through this technique is women who've not failed to have daughters. Note that my grandmother's mitochondrial DNA is going to be gone from the world after this generation, since she had only one daughter (plus two sons), that daughter had only two daughters (plus four sons), and those two daughters have only sons (two, last I counted). So, 60-odd descendents still living, but as far as this test is concerned, her entire family line is gone, or never was.

Interesting ....that area is very drought sensitiv

[izelrenevato]

So it is good we humans have dispersed as we are not as tied to one area. Although it is clear that once humans entered the Middle East and the figurative "Middle of the Earth" they were onto something good. I will also have to check my references because it seems to me that all humans were not confined to Africa C. 70,000. Also one should be careful as one or two studies on the Mitochondrial DNA of some group in Africa might not the whole story tell. If it were say 200,000 years ago this happened then I'd have been really worried. Still it might be argued that any thing that gets the humans to tread a little more lightly on the planet might be a good thing.So this might be a good thing to think about as we persue our lives as sentient beings.

Ok...

[Xs1t0ry]

We already knew this. Watched a NG doc on it in school last year.

Darfur

[Valdrax]

If starvation kills off 50% there is twice as much food left for the remaining 50%. Starvation is a self limiting mechanism. You have a lot more homework to do to get down to 2000 remaining individuals. Unfortunately, humanity is really good at that kind of homework. Take a look at the conflict in Darfur right now.

Beneath all the sectarian and racial tensions is a very real survival pressure for the people involved -- Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change. Population pressures are helping to push people to kill each other for access to water and usable farmland.

I mean, you didn't think that half of the world's population is just going to sit there and let the other half live while they die, did you?

Re:Darfur

[icebike]

What ever you say, big guy.

Let me know when Darfur gets down to 2000 people.

You will still be WRONG, by, say, the rest of the known world, but just to make it easy on you, I'll confine the argument to Darfur. The area will NEVER again see a population of less than 2000 individuals.

Re:Darfur

[mpe]

Unfortunately, humanity is really good at that kind of homework. Take a look at the conflict in Darfur right now.

However there are plenty of people in parts of the world where nothing like this is happening.

Beneath all the sectarian and racial tensions is a very real survival pressure for the people involved -- Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change. Population pressures are helping to push people to kill each other for access to water and usable farmland.

The population of Sudan would probably be well above 2,000 even if people there were to kill enough of each other to render "population pressure" meaningless.

Re:Darfur

[Blakey Rat]

Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change.

Uh... duh? How could a drought *not* be a result of climate change? Out of curiosity. "We have a drought, we believe it was caused by a high crime rate."

I mean, you didn't think that half of the world's population is just going to sit there and let the other half live while they die, did you?

Look, Darfur has been a major disaster on every level. But this article says there were 2,000 humans left in the entire world. Darfur has 6 million residents, of which 2.2 million have been "affected by violence" according to this (somewhat out-of-date) US Department of State page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm

Even if we assume that every single one of those 2.2 million were killed, and even if we assume the 6 million residents of Darfur represented the entire population of the Earth, there'd still be 3.8 million humans around, which is far, far, far above "extinction danger" levels.

Consistency?

[MacDork]

#3 Consistency. So much of our modern society is based an the extremly mild conditions the earth has experienced over the last 20,000 years.

The only thing consistent about the last 20000 years is warming. While you're there, take note of T minus 70000 years. ROCK BOTTOM temperatures. The problem with global warming is that it won't last forever.

Neanderthals

[1u3hr]

Aside from our ancestors in Africa, there were other humans in the world at the time of this die off. For instance the Neanderthals were in Europe and the Mid East. Interesting to speculate if they could have survived if us Cro Magnon types hadn't come out of Africa and wiped them out. I guess they might have evolved to be pretty similar to us after the Ice Age, though might have taken longer to get there.

And as for this Slashdot discussion, how I'd love to mod all the crap from global warming deniers and creationists down to -1. They dominate so many threads here and provoke tedious debates on the same subjects over and over and over and over. Stay on topic or go somewhere else.

Re:Neanderthals

[CmdrGravy]

I second that, it has been really frustrating wading through 3 pages of the generic crap we have all heard hundreds of times before before getting to any interesting comments on the actual subject.

In Related News...

[Tablizer]

...they discovered a mini black-hole producing lab dated 70,000 years old.

I have

[mosb1000]

I have read it. The evidence is flimsy. I work as an environmental engineer for god sake. I think I know a thing or two about the environment.

Re: Fox News gets mod points?

[Ox0065]

Seriously! Who gave the Fox News crew mod points?

You got it all wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cylons *are* our ancestors. We kicked those pesky humans with their stupid language ('frack' ?) from the face of the earth.

We should have kept the Centurions though, now the Japanese are reinventing the wheel.

They should have sited their reference

[Time_Ngler]

To read more on this subject, see the text referencing "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", particularly the section regarding the Golgafrinchan civilization.

Have you ever actually talked to a geologist?

[snowwrestler]

I have. I talked to a lot of them when I was getting my geology degree in college. You're right that the climate is constantly changing. You're wrong if you think that implies that humans cannot change the climate.

You're also wrong if you think that recorded human history is the only record of past climate that we can reference. There are numerous natural records of past climate that go back much further into the past. And by the way, the best estimate for an average global surface temp is actually about 14 degrees C, not 0. I have no idea where the grandparent got that number. Maybe they mistook temp anamoly for absolute temp.

Finally, it may surprise you to learn that many researchers of past and current climate do in fact hold geology degrees.

Is HE so sure?

[woolio]

The Laurentide Ice Sheet broke away and in the course of a few days the oceans rose over 100 feet.... There was a flood, but did God do it? no.

Oh yeah? Well who broke the ice sheet? Perhaps "HE" didn't want to own up to it!!

Lol!

Truth -- Ask John McCain

[coren2000]

If you want the truth about this story, you should ask John McCain.

too many poeple with cotton in their ears....

[i_b_don]

Welcome to the religion-ization of science.

Brought to you by the "you-can-pry-my-SUV-from-my-cold-dead-fingers" institute for the preservation of the status quo.

Wake me when an actual conversation starts...

d

slight corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

[I]f you look through history, the average GLOBAL temperature over a one year period has typically hovered around 0 deg C for most of history. Not quite the correct number. The average global surface temperature of Earth is and has been 15 deg C, not 0. It is a critical point in climatology and geophysics that at no time in Earth's history has its average surface temperature dropped below the freezing point of water. The Bond and geometric albedo calculations from which the concepts of the KT extinction "winter" and "nuclear winter" stem involve this.

We are in a sweet spot environmentally that is very unusual in earths history. This is inaccurate. The spot we're in climatologically (which you seem to mean by "environmentally") is only "sweet" to the beholders is because it is the one during which our civilization has formed. There were no city-states to be inconvenienced the last time the glaciers advanced.

Which segues to the other problem with that statement: this "sweet" spot is not at all unusual. First, it is cyclical, and second, the warm and cold periods are symmetric. The relative "sweet" climate is no more or less common than the colder parts.

BBC News Take on it.

[TimSSG]

BBC Take on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm Tim S

you can't be serious

[Anonymous Coward]

think about one problem: ocean acidification.

this alone, of all the problems we're looking at, has the potential to severely disrupt human civilization.

this whole "productive northern wastelands" concept is completely uncritical and painfully ignorant. higher average humidity levels in no way imply higher moisture levels in current deserts. by your style of "logic," if heating bills decrease, cooling bills increase.

there is in fact evidence that oceans are being affected by climate change, though not in all cases in the painfully simplistic way you seem to expect. your understanding of ice dynamics is retarded - see a few other posts in this thread. consider for a moment the albedo change caused by the melting of the highly reflective arctic ice into the highly absorbent arctic ocean. and try to educate yourself about what a model actually is (hint: it's the best way we have to integrate knowledge from multiple scientific disciplines).

ugh. sorry i couldn't be more diplomatic about this. you're just terribly, terribly wrong. i hope all you're missing is enough information to develop an informed decision. please, please do some actual research. try journals in, oh, maybe half the geoscience-related disciplines... this stuff is showing up all over the scientific map.

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[Kidbro]

Clerk: Race?

Call me naive, but is this a question that is actually asked? In what situations? For what purpose?

I'm not from the US and do not know all your local customs, but I find the idea quite absurd (bordering on offensive).

+5 insightful?

[phossie]

How about +5... ...sounds good if you want to believe it?

i mean, seriously. even dept of commerce branch NOAA *completely* disagrees with you.
please note this *peer-reviewed* info (yes, this entire site is a published study):
    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/indicators.shtml

and yes, this is merely the most digestible and easily accessible of the info out there.

This is in a NGC TV episode

[FredThompson]

National Geographic Channel has a show title Naked Science. One of the episodes, Super Volcanoes, discusses this. It specifically talks about the particulate matter from a massive volcano and how it blocks so much of the sun's light or covers so much of the surface that almost all the people died. FWIW, volcano "ash" isn't really ash like that from a fire. It's more like very small particles of sharp glass.

There are some Biblical passages which some people take to be describing dinosaurs and very early people-like creatures. I don't remember the reference but it's translated as "leviathan" in some translations. I've wondered for quite a while if this starvation/drought period for humans is what those passages are describing. Maybe there are similar stories in various mythologies about a similar time, similar to the common theme of an all-world flood. There might also be a common thread to a Phoenix-like cycle of existence.

reality beats fiction

[Tom]

The more we learn about ourselves and our planet, the more Dawkins is right: What really happened is just so much more interesting and fantastic than the fiction our ancestors put into their holy books.

This (hi-)story definitely beats the whole "flood and Noah's Ark" bullshit. Evolution is a lot more thrilling than creation. And quite frankly, being distantly related to the other animals creates a lot more emotional connection than being told "here, rule over them" by a fictional daddy-of-all.

Not to mention that even a short look into outer space beats the entire bible in amazement.

We need more science like this, and less funding for the outdated liars.

So THAT'S Our Problem

[DynaSoar]

No wonder humans are such oddly behaving animals:

> as few as 2,000 humans, who were scattered in small, isolated groups.

2000 total, in small isolated groups? There was a whole lot of inbreeding going on. The groups wouldn't have survived long enough to get back together if they hadn't. Sure, we may think we're the bee's knees, but we, as a species, are sitting on the porch, playing banjo against the rest of the planet's more reasonable but food-chain inferior guitar playing.

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[LaskoVortex]

Call me naive, but is this a question that is actually asked? In what situations? For what purpose?

Some people here believe in "affirmative action" which intends to grant special privilege to those who answer that question correctly. In college I accidentally made myself eligible for untold scholarships when I applied for some financial aid, read too fast, and put a check in the box next to "American". It turns out that the form was not so well formatted and the next line of the form started "Indian". After I got enough scholarship offers, I realized what had happened and how I remembered that "American" seemed a bit unusual for an answer to "Race" but that it seemed the most correct at the time.

2000 you're kidding!

[Anonymous Coward]

2000, could 2000 people reproduce fast enough to get to our current population? 70,000 years ago, Australia was isolated. For the Aboriginal population to survive here, you would need at least 1000 people to repopulate. Something's wrong with the 2000 number...

Re:2000 you're kidding!

[maxume]

Given enough food, population can easily double in 20 years. Use 40 for a doubling, just to be conservative. 70,000/40 = 1750. 2000 * 2**1750 = A number with 531 digits.

Or use 1000 years for a doubling. That's 70 times(note that the global population more than doubled in the last 100 years). 2000 * 2**70 = 2,361,183,241,434,822,606,848,000.

I'm pretty sure that my numbers are correct within a factor of 1 billion or so, so it seems pretty plausible.

Blame it on Bush

[eyendall]

"droughts reduced the population to as few as 2,000 humans"

Damn those Republicans. Was Iraq not enough?

Old News

[Tisha_AH]

This has been around for several years. http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/ch5_bottleneck/textr5.htm

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[shadowcabbit]

I find it absurd that the clerk asked that and the gender question.

If you can see the person, odds are good you do not need to ask those questions.

lame plot from the bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it reminds me a lot more of the noah's ark myth/legend/passed-down-and-mutilated-account.

Is it such a big stretch to imagine such a tough time in history being passed on through stories until it ended up in one of the main spiritual books around today?

Re:lame plot from the bible

[somersault]

It's called Genesis Chapter 6, not "the noah's ark myth/legend/passed-down-and-mutilated-account", though I think you could maybe make a bit of cash as a headline-thinker-upper/journalist-type/crazy-writing-man-person.

Re:lame plot from the bible

[vajaradakini]

The flood in the old testament is likely a result of the black sea filling in and people who lived there being displaced by the water. It was also written in the Epic of Gilgamesh before it was borrowed for the old testament.

A drought tens of thousands of years before writing was developed is a very unlikely source for a story about a flood.

Re:lame plot from the bible

[jamstar7]

No copyright lawyers back then, eh?

How is this a troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be a response to a troll, but that doesn't automatically make this a troll. Parent just points out that the "global warming = religion" comparison doesn't work, and to do this he needs to say why not. Perhaps this was a predictable response (the parent *was* a troll after all) and perhaps he needn't have stated this (most of us would have recognized that troll even if parent didn't), but that doesn't make it a troll itself.

noah?

[hesaigo999ca]

Sounds very similar to that thing that happened in the bible, where someone had to build an arc....
seems like this could give us better insight into timelines for humans, as the actual AWARENESS
of time relative to ours from the past might be hard for the people who wrote the bible to
guess. I imagine we are trying to reference the bible with other works from those eras, but,
I have yet to hear about someone discovering the real Arc used by Noah, and even then it would have to be proven that it was that perticular one...so I am right now almost ready to accept the stoy of Noah dates back to this age... and that some of the carbon dating done is faulty.

What is the evidence? mtDNA is not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

in recent years more and more outrageoous claims concerning human history are publicized often without scrutinty of the original articles: to me this is a good example of that. A single trait (mtDNA) is very unlikely to reveal very detailed historical patterns.
For me this falls into the catgory: "good data, lousy statistics".

Subject of Disinformation

[microbox]

I spent some time examining "skeptic" websites - and found some pretty convincing arguments - or so I thought. The problem is, that when you try to look for the proof that skeptics base their assertions on, you find nothing. zip. nada.

Further investigation reveals that a few well funded individuals (such as Steve Milloy) and a few "scientists" are creating a lot of noise, and publishing information that treads a fine line between outright lying and fraud.

Try it out for yourself. Get a skeptic website - an impressive one - and then try to find the evidence with which they base their conclusions on. If you need some help pulling apart a site, then feel free to contact me (reply to this post), and I'll give you a hand.

Sunshine

[street struttin']

Imagine it is some kind of change on the sun. How do we handle that ? A darkmatter bomb, flown out by a bunch of scientists in a suicide mission to the Sun?

Squirrel Nut Zippers

[Hillgiant]

the D and the A and the M and the N and the A and the T and the I O N.

have you ever tasted them

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Im glad for the DDT ban and the bald eagle being back in the wild in large numbers. I average 2 a year, and if i really tried could probably bag 6 or 7. They are delicious. They are great with an apple cider glaze over them and make an excellent dinner for 2. Great thanksgiving feast for me and the wife, as theyre abundant that time of year due to migration patterns.

Yeah, but

[LittleGuy]

they only had to deal with drought, not Cylons.

if 2K can grow to 6B, 40K isn't a bad seed, then.

We we are us

[sm62704]

I read TFA and the comments and was astounded that nobody pointed out that without this drought, humans may well not have advanced at all and migt have become extinct at a later date, or without the species-killing drought 70,000 year ago we might still be stone age savages (rather than the sophisticated savages we have become).

It's survival of the fittest. Species evolve under pressure.

If only we've gone to Mars sooner...

[nicodoggie]

If instead of focusing our efforts toward the arms race, we had been pushing toward the space race, we could've begun trying to terraform our planetary neighbors, Mars or Venus. The data we could've received from manipulating climates in those planets could have and still could help in our efforts to stabilize Earth's climate to sustain our existence on this planet.

Plus, if we succeed, we could just dump this place and move.

Whoops... that was meant for another topic

[nicodoggie]

Mods, feel free to remove it... crap all that time for nothing

Cant comment on it

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really comment on it because I wasnt even born back then!

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[mdielmann]

I find it absurd that the clerk asked that and the gender question.
If you can see the person, odds are good you do not need to ask those questions. My ex qualified for metis status, and had blue eyes, blonde hair, and fair skin. How's that for visible minority?

He did say "government" clerk...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it absurd that the clerk asked that and the gender question.

He did say government clerk... or did you miss that part?

Maybe you've never visited the local drivers license office, or you'd know what he was talking about.

You do not have sufficient surplus food...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 1960's and 1970's there were actually studies about redistributing the world's food wealth, and the executive summary is there ain't enough to go around and probably never will be even in the best of times. Much of the human population is going to have to subsist at 1100-1200 calorie levels.

Even scarier were some of the sideline studies: if the Indian monsoon were to move just 100 miles north or south, there would be a general crop shortfall of stupendous magnitude, and we would get to watch 100 million people starve to death live on TV. If you reduced the American population to 1200 calories and exported all the surplus this produced (in a bumper crop year), that would only delay the 100 million deaths from starvation by about 3 months. Somewhere around 3500 BC, in southern China there was a weather anomaly and in a region with 3 crops of rice per year there were 7 consecutive crop failures: they have a name for this that is something like the year of the jackal.

A lot of people assume that because of a few popular books (what most of us have time to read) and some science suggesting global warming is the result of human activity that this is so and scientifically proven. There is in fact much evidence contra, many plausible physical mechanisms which have no human input whatsoever. E.g., 6000 years ago northern Sweden and Norway had a climate (and tree species) similar to England today. When the unit of magnetic field strength was adopted around 1850, the strength of the earth's magnetic field was defined to be 1 gauss; today it is about 1/200th of a gauss. The earth's magnetic field traps solar particle radiation in the van Allen belts and steers these particles to the poles, where to a definite effect (of debated magnitude in all circumstances) the particles tend to form seed nuclei for storms in the Arctic. Thus, after a solar storm in a few days a terrestrial storm tends to form in the Gulf of Alaska, and this in a bit over a week becomes a cold front in the US. Ergo: weaker earth's magnetic field means fewer days of cloud in the Arctic and fewer strong cold fronts in the US.

If you are open minded, the debate on the human contributions to global warming is undecided, political correctness notwithstanding. There just isn't sufficient data to say definitely, which is exactly what you would expect with the weather - which is where we discovered mathematical chaos in the 1960's. Weather, and climate, is a chaotic system and inherently unpredictable, but there will always be a simple explanation viewed after the fact. Understand this mathematical truth: there can be no prediction of the future evolution of a chaotic system, which weather/climate is. All predictions are dubious! The arcane mathematics of solving nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations can give you accuracy estimates only if you know all the variables - every stinking one, with perfect precision in their inter-relationships. If you read and understand the Gilmore catastrophy theory book, now a Dover paperback, and otherwise understand chaos theory, you will see that there can really be no possibility of prediction in natural systems, but quite often there can be a simple retrodiction.

The reasons for following the recommendations of the the advocates of global warning (at least by and large) are
1. We ought to do it anyway. It cannot be beneficial to humans to live in a hazardous waste filled environment.
2. Even slight changes to global climate can have enormous consequences. Imagine 100 million deaths in India which could be traced scientifically after the fact to industrial pollution in the US, China, Europe, etc. There is no scientific basis for any prediction in chaotic systems, but there is perfectly sound retrodiction, and the explanations will always be fairly simple (this is a mathematical truth, see the Gilmore book on catastrophy theory).
3. We do have hard science in understanding many mechanisms attributable to human behavior which possibly can individually contribute to global warning. So

Pity the CO2 rises AFTER the climate change...

[Garwulf]

"They have ice core data that goes back over 100,000 years. I suppose it could be a coincidence that:

        * The most dramatic CO2/Temperature increase in history just HAPPENS to coincide with mankind figuring out that they could burn shit from underground.
        * Scientists have developed models that match this historic data quite well, and even when set to be as conservative as possible, STILL predict a warming trend based on CO2 input."

All of which is a wonderful waste of time, considering that in those ice core samples the CO2 content rises about 400-500 years AFTER the temperature rises - unless I miss my guess, that means that the rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around.

Frankly, I find the man-made global warming theory to be extremely arrogant for two reasons:

1. It assumes that climate change is not normal, and that it should be fixed in place for our benefit - I think a couple of ice ages and the periods in between might disagree with that.

2. That human beings with our industrialism are somehow powerful enough to impact the planet on a global level in a fundamental way, rewriting environmental laws (such as higher CO2 levels being caused by higher temperatures) in the process, when the sun and volcanoes are far more impressive and likely candidates for effecting climate change.

Seriously, the global warming nuts need to get over themselves in a really big way. All this arrogant fearmongering is drawing attention away from real environmental problems that need fixing, such as rivers becoming toxic, etc.

Re:Pity the CO2 rises AFTER the climate change...

[MightyYar]

the CO2 content rises about 400-500 years AFTER the temperature rises - unless I miss my guess, that means that the rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around. That is true, and has been true in the past, but what the models suggest is that CO2 can also trigger warming. It never has in the past because there isn't a significant natural mechanism for this to happen.

It assumes that climate change is not normal, and that it should be fixed in place for our benefit I think that people are mostly concerned because of the word "rapid". As you pointed out indirectly, ice core data seems to indicate CO2 levels rising over several centuries. We have seen the same rate of change in a period still measured in decades. I agree that it is arrogant to think that we will never have to abandon cities again or bow to nature, but it will be quite expensive (in terms of our economy and our lives) to experience such a quick change.

That human beings with our industrialism are somehow powerful enough to impact the planet on a global level in a fundamental way Yes, I read this 15 years ago in Rush Limbaugh's book. It seemed reasonable then, but science has proved that, at least on this point, Rush Is Wrong. :) The models seem to indicate that we actually can change the climate, no matter how preposterous that sounds.

All this arrogant fearmongering is drawing attention away from real environmental problems that need fixing, such as rivers becoming toxic, etc. I happen to agree with you here. It really annoys me to see Al Gore preaching about CO2, using more of it than any 300 middle-class Americans, and then justifying it by buying "carbon credits". Meanwhile, they are damaging the environment to drill for the oil and dig for the coal to power his mansion. Concentrating on CO2 definitely detracts from the larger issue of reckless consumption and exploitation of our natural resources.

Re:Pity the CO2 rises AFTER the climate change...

[Garwulf]

Well, that was...

Intelligent, well spoken, pointing out issues without ignoring the facts at hand, and presenting a reasonable reply that both addressed my own points and maintained yours as well, without starting a flame war in the process.

So...what is this place, and where is the real Slashdot?

Re:Pity the CO2 rises AFTER the climate change...

[MightyYar]

Hey, thanks!

I try to keep the tone the same as if I were sitting next to the person in a bar. Most people are quite reasonable, and have very good rationale for their opinions... even people that I disagree with :)

The third most intelligent animal

[mario_grgic]

which is Elephant, is also an endangered species. Interesting.

Only humans, apes, dolphins and elephants are self aware and can recognize themselves in the mirror and know it is them. But it seems all are ill adapted to deal with human technology as enemy #1. But on the other hand we have been superior for relatively short period of time.

That's nothing

[geekoid]

in the 1980s, Reagan almost made us extinct! The bombers are on the way, indeed.

Clarification

[Valdrax]

Yeah, okay, after reading the last three comments which all pounce of the same thing, I realize that I should've mentioned that I agree that we don't get down to 2,000 people.

I was just commenting on the concept that having half the food means only losing half the people isn't well grounded in reality.

Not if I can help it!

[Dareth]

My wife is expecting our first, and possibly only, child next Tuesday! A girl!

While I might enjoy the caveman life, modern society is not all that bad. What would life be like after a Steven King The Stand sort of plague that wiped out about 90+% of the people on the planet? Would you really want to be a survivor of that, or any other ecological disaster?

You know, having a kid makes thinking about wild and crazy scenarios no where near as interesting.

Here's my perspective

[Master of Transhuman]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

When Transhumans come into the picture, you chimps are history.

And Transhumans don't care about history.

real flood maybe, but 70kya is too far back

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think there's a good chance that the Noah flood is loosely based on a real event. But it would be much more recent than 70,000 BCE.

Flood stories appear to be a pretty universal feature of the ancient world. For example, the Gilgamesh epic, which predates the Torah by some centuries, contains a divine worldwide flood that looks enough like the biblical one that the latter was likely inspired/influenced by the former (or they are both descendents of a 3rd story).

Given the universality of that kind of story, there's a decent chance there was some actual, awful flood in the middle east around say 3000 or 4000 BCE that eventually became embellished into all these stories.

However, 70,000 years ago seems far too early to me. By most accounts, that long predates the development of any kind of oral tradition, or symbolic record-keeping. By some accounts, that even predates the development of spoken language.

What bothers me...

[HetMes]

...are all the look-at-me abbreviations here on slashdot. Just making you type it out full was entirely worth my time.

Re:What bothers me...

[MetalPhalanx]

And what bothers me is that an apparently "grown up" person is petty enough to feel validated by such a stunt.

If I didn't put it in the post, someone would call me on some minor detail that I don't care about, and by putting it in, I get told I'm pulling a "Look at me" stunt.

If you want to "waste" my Slashdot posting down time at work, then feel free. I wasn't doing anything productive at that point anyways. But now, I'm going to stop posting replies in this dead-end thread after this point. Feel free to add other petty comments after this.

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[TempeTerra]

I've been tangentially involved with data collection for the health system in New Zealand. The 'race' issue is really very complicated, even if you're just collecting it for statistical purposes. Official forms in New Zealand never refer to race, the question is "What is your ethnicity? (select up to three)". Ethnicity is considered as a social group which you identify with, and is specifically not related to genetics. It is collected for such reasons as correlating illnesses with demographic groups, and I've never seen it used in a case where the ethnicity you selected would make any difference to your treatment.

Of course there are plenty of people who get snotty that there is a distinction between Pakeha/New Zealand European and Maori, and dutifully write in "I am a New Zealander!!1!"

It is a useful question to ask for statistical purposes, although I couldn't comment on how the data is treated in America.

Oh, and speaking of complicated questions, don't get me started on the problems of asking what sex a person is. If you think it's easy, you've never had a job where it mattered.

Re:Conversation with government clerk....

[Kidbro]

Yes, health care seems like an place where such a questions are actually warranted. Thank you for a good reply.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to the start. How on Earth (or anywhere else) can one be an Explorer in Residence? It's a contradiction in terms!

reread that article

[sentientbrendan]

that "35 year high" for fertility is only 2.1 for each woman. That is extremely low by global standards. It is *only* a high for industrialized countries.

It's like saying that Anchorage is warm *compared to the rest of alaska* and concluding from that, that anchorage must be a tropical tourist resort.

Re:reread that article

[geminidomino]

that "35 year high" for fertility is only 2.1 for each woman. That is extremely low by global standards. It is *only* a high for industrialized countries. It is high enough to be above the "maintenance" level, which contradicts GGPs claim that the US was at a point of "negative growth" (gods I hate that term...)