Climate Change Poles

Will set the psychology part aside for now, and focus on the very interesting last statement.

If climate change caused people to emigrate from Africa, looks like it happened more than once. More than one different Homo species. There is a "Sahara pump" theory about that. I think that all remains vague, but by 74,000 years ago distributions were extensive across Asia.

Then a large volcanic eruption, Toba. Modern genetic analysis suggests that was followed by a nearly complete dy off, but I don't think the archeaologists are quite agreeing with that (yet). I suppose it would have led to technological innovations, such as were possible then.

Then as many as 7 glacial cycles (not all quite 'global'), the last being the one we most often talk about. Maybe you need to move, maybe your food moves. Talk about climate change! I would assert that the keys to success in such a world is mobility. Not permanent structures, not the concept that 'here is my place' (from which politics has developed...um, maybe).

OK now 15000-12000 years ago, interglacial, things are looking good, and then bang! the Younger Dryas (Y-D). Quickly, back into the freezer. This climate change stuff sux. Especially, I would argue (for these low-technology humans) on the cold side. Again and again and again. Just guessing as to why the fear of the next ice age resonates so well. That's all I have to say about psychology

Somehow, after Y-D, agriculture was developed in at least 8 places at about the same time. Amazing. Now permanence (and politics) starts to look like the way to go. Millions of humans, at local population densities never before possible. Pretty much more and more of that (discounting the wars), until fossil fuel technologies. Now, super amazing, a whole bunch of other technologies follow, and 'the billions' became a possibility.

In summary, at least 8000 generations of Homo sapiens, dodging climate change. Plant domestication ->250 generations wanting to stay in the same place. Coal 'domestication' -> 10 generations, now of such numbers that species-level mobility (which used to be feasible) looks impossible.

So let's be glad at least that 340 CO2 (and later it will exceed 500, I have no doubt) will probably prevent/delay the next ice age. Nobody wants that. But if warm-side climate change comes, requiring some of that good old-fashioned agility? What we'd need to do now bears no resemblance to how humans have successfully coped with climate changes, many times in the past.

++
All of that from one BobW sentence. Human-scale paleo is fascinating.

 

i thought it was already too late?

 

Its too late and its "worse than we thought"

 

Article doesnt address my position.
A leftist who leaves comfort zone because "the Science "
turns out to be BS.

 

I am an egalitarian.
What you and the author fail to consider,is that you believe in a theory which is BS.

 

It's (probably) too late to prevent Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from melting and raising sea level by 20 feet. It's (probably) not too late to prevent the East Antarctic Ice Sheet from melting and raising sea level by another 200 feet. Do the right thing.

 

i'm already doing the right thing, regardless of what's melting where or when. unless just by existing, i'm doing the wrong thing. if that's the case, all bets are off.

 

The key is to persuade others to "do the right thing" in spite of thier (perceived ) short term self interest(s).

Icarus

 

No offense intended, but that seems extremely unlikely (rather than just doing less of the wrong thing). Is your carbon footprint actually negative? (Including your portion of all public functions). If so, please start another thread with details on how you accomplished it. We could all benefit.

 

People that don't understand basic science will not be persuaded by science. Get enough sane people to push through the legislation that is needed to strongarm them and they can ride the wave of denial all the way through to the bright side.

The time for trying to persuade or convince idiots is over. Just get them out of the way.

 

I have read psych-type articles that exactly agree with Icarus@10. Peoples' attention to the own self interests is not modulated by politics or ideology.

I may have linked to this previously.
The Authoritarians

 

none taken, that's why my statement is much longer than your quote.

 

i try, but it's so difficult in a liberal state like mass. we need more policy to overcome individual selfishness. weak kneed politicians are useless tho.

 

I do explain and my coworkers and I regularly have political, environmental, and sociological arguments where we enlighten eachother to the other's point of view. It is healthy and it is a good discussion. Some things they have said resonate with me and I agree. Others I have said resonate with them. It could be for different reasons that the same fact makes a difference, but it works none-the-less.

However, my coworkers are highly intelligent and extremely logical, all engineers. Even if you have only done basic science, you should know why a theory is a theory and why a fact is a fact. Basic relations, equations, and progressions are all helpful in understanding why things are, how they came to be, and what will become of them.

This is not a sample accurate of the general american population. Bill Maher is exactly right when he says that america in general is stupid. Blunt, sad, and true.

As examples I give the same as he quoted:

70% of americans thought that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 before the war began. As of last year, over 30% still believe so...
More than 50% of americans cannot name a single branch of government.
Also they cannot explain what the bill of rights is.
24% cannot name the country the US fought in the revolutionary war.
2/3rds do not know what Roe vs. Wade is.
2/3rds don't know what the Food and Drug administration does.
More than 1/2 don't know that states have 2 senators.
Again half can't name one of their congressmen.

A poll of republicans showed than on average (total numbers given divided by responses) they thought 24% of the national budget went to foreign aid when in reality less than 1% did. Same sample, 1/3rd believe that Obama is not a citizen.

18% of all Americans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth...

These are not people that should be trusted in any form of power. But when everyone gets a vote and a fifth of them don't know that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around, sad and terrible things happen. You will never persuade people that are ignorant of fact and reason. Treat them as the uneducated children they are, and move on.

To bring it more back to topic, my coworkers (who all but 2 are heavy republicans, some even Tea Baggers) believe that climate change is happening. Every single one of them. Now, they do not agree it is man made. They believe it is a natural cycle to which I disagree. However putting aside the "why" we both have the same conclusion that it is happening. This is not radical and it is proven by the international community. The same people who are mocked and laughed by the idiots that scream the loudest against climate change legislation.

Because we agree the climate is changing we agree things should be done to mitigate it. Some have installed solar panels and are against coal. Their reasoning is not to reverse what man has done, but if man can do something to prevent or slow the natural change, it will be better than having crops die and extreme weather across the world.

But your average joe believes that when it snows or is cold, "global warming" obviously doesn't exist and it is fake. Just another "theory" like evolution.

The longer we take trying to persuade the unintelligent, the longer before we actually start doing something. When you want to stall action, you debate. What is better at indefinitely stalling action than debating with fools. This is the cycle we are caught in. Debate with fools until they understand before enacting change. This cycle needs to end and since there is no way to convince a fool, just stepping over them is the next logical step.

From the fairy tale book:

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

We've taken a break for 30 years debating something that shouldn't be debatable. No more breaks, action.

 

Droughts and floods occure all through the mythological record.

Maybe human's evolved big brains to cope with climate change The agility required may just be mental not physical. Irrigation was created to help deal with unpredictable rains. Without agriculture we would not have been able to stay in one place long enough to create alcohol.

 

Well, not exactly. Just about any fruit juice with sugar in it can be gotten
to ferment.

Thinking of hard apple cider, maybe the "truth" that was revealed by the
actions subsequent to the aguments of the Snake was how to make it!

 

Did a thirst for beer spark civilization? - History - Life & Style - The Independent

Ok, SO you are hunter gathering, and you what carry large amounts of unrefrigerated fruit juice with you? That isn't what the paleo data says. Then again the juice might have been in skins not jars and there might not be residue.