UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 60164  
Subject: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
http://news.yahoo.com/drought-may-killed-sumerian-language-1...

A 200-year-long drought 4,200 years ago may have killed off the ancient Sumerian language, one geologist says.
Because no written accounts explicitly mention drought as the reason for the Sumerian demise, the conclusions rely on indirect clues. But several pieces of archaeological and geological evidence tie the gradual decline of the Sumerian civilization to a drought.
"This was not a single summer or winter, this was 200 to 300 years of drought," said Matt Konfirst, a geologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.
Around the same time, 74 percent of the ancient Mesopotamian settlements were abandoned, according to a 2006 study of an archaeological site called Tell Leilan in Syria. The populated area also shrank by 93 percent, he said.
"People still live in this region. It's not that the collapse of a civilization means that an area is completely abandoned," he said. "But that there's a sharp change in the population."
During the great drought, two waves of marauding nomads descended upon the region, sacking the capital city of Ur. After around 2000 B.C., ancient Sumerian gradually died off as a spoken language in the region. For the next 2,000 years, the tongue lingered on as a dead written language, similar to Latin in the Middle Ages, but has been completely extinct since then, Konfirst said.


3 thoughts
1)Wow climate change when there insignificant number of humans & no gasoline engines or utility or industrial plants.

2)We could be going thru a climate change. Just not influenced by human activity.

3)Even if climate change is occurring; there may be nothing we can do about it.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46617 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
3 thoughts
1)Wow climate change when there insignificant number of humans & no gasoline engines or utility or industrial plants.


Everyone is who has even a casual interest in this topic is aware of that already. If that's part of your argument, you don't have an argument.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46622 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If that's part of your argument, you don't have an argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just observations not an argument.

As I'm just always impressed with the hubris of human beings on the amount of control or the managing of climate.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46625 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 6:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
As I'm just always impressed with the hubris of human beings on the amount of control or the managing of climate.

We are definitely experimenting with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and what effects that will have on climate. Adding steroids doesn't mean you will hit a home run every time you are at bat, but it does increase the trend. Carbon in the atmosphere is weather steroids.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46629 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We are definitely experimenting with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and what effects that will have on climate. Adding steroids doesn't mean you will hit a home run every time you are at bat, but it does increase the trend. Carbon in the atmosphere is weather steroids.

And we shall see.

If it makes you feel any better; US CO2 emission are on the decline. But China & India will make up any decline.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/thanks-to-market-forces-...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rainphakir Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46637 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Let's just put the 'cause' aside for a moment.

If the article is correct, a 200 YEAR (that's not a typo) drought caused the local environment to change from a 'paradise'

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/dlottmesopotamia1.html

Most of Mesopotamia was located in the present day country of Iraq. The land of Mesopotamia was once dominated by floods, but today is mostly desert. The seasonal flooding was a challenge to the farmers of Mesopotamia. These farmers learned to control the flooding to some degree. The fertile land along the rivers produced such crops as wheat, barley, sesame, flax, and various fruits and vegetables.

The land that was once marshes and channels that provided food, protection, and life to the people there, no longer exists




... to what it is today - a desert environment.

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/weather-climate-iraq-50023.ht...
Rainfall is rare during an Iraq summer, with nearly no rain falling between June and September. November through April the country receives up to 90 percent of its annual rainfall, with the highest precipitation rates occurring December through March. While the average annual rainfall for most of Iraq is 4 to 7 inches, the mountainous areas of the country often see up to 2 feet of rain, enough to support the area's limited agriculture.



Sumeria is the archaic name for Iraq...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer


The Great Plains of North America have been called the 'bread basket' of the world. Grains grown on the Great Plains are still (the last?) a major export for the US.

Many of the climate change mongers claim that the 'bread basket' will move to Canada or the Russian Steppes.

Will the US continue to be able to feed ourselves let alone 'feed the world'? I guess we'll know for sure in a thousand years?

LOL
ralph

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46640 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Will the US continue to be able to feed ourselves let alone 'feed the world'? I guess we'll know for sure in a thousand years?

LOL
ralph


Man will know in a LOT less than 1000 years. I think our children or our grandchildren will know. Almost certainly man will know by the beginning of the 22nd Century that we cannot feed ourselves let along the world.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46641 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/5/2012 10:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
lindylib:"Man will know in a LOT less than 1000 years. I think our children or our grandchildren will know. Almost certainly man will know by the beginning of the 22nd Century that we cannot feed ourselves let along the world. "

More than likely, it is about 20 years out till we are over the peak in world oil production and on the way down.

Food = energy...... energy means food. Less energy means less food. Simple. Less fuel to run tractors and have trucks haul things Less energy for ships to haul grain across oceans...... less and less...and it drops year after year after year relentlessly but the population climbs.


Someone will have to invent 'artificial' food grown in the lab, then made in giant factories using magic solar beans for energy......but wait...food is 'calories' and they have to come from somewhere...now usually the sun as it converts minerals and stuff into material that we can digest for the 'calories' (energy) they contain. Food is just an inefficient way to deliver 'energy' to the human body. It's the only way right now.

Maybe in 1000 years you'll be a Cyborg.....running off mostly electricity...from fusion reactors....


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46645 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/6/2012 12:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"More than likely, it is about 20 years out till we are over the peak in world oil production and on the way down." - Tele


Whew! Thank goodness! I plan on being dead by then, or at least I hope I am.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46659 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/6/2012 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As I'm just always impressed with the hubris of human beings on the amount of control or the managing of climate.

And people were sure we could never pollute rivers and oceans because, well, you know, they are just so big.

And people denied that dumping smokestack effluent into the air would matter, at least until it went dark at noon in Pittsburgh. How could that be? "The air" is huge, isn't it?

Well now it isn't particulate matter, it's smaller than that, up higher, and causing effects that are entirely predictable, even if less visible to the naked eye. And people are sure it couldn't be so, because ... they were so wrong about all the other times when they were sure it couldn't be so.
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46661 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/6/2012 8:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As I'm just always impressed with the hubris of human beings on the amount of control or the managing of climate.

Goofyhoofy:
And people were sure we could never pollute rivers and oceans because, well, you know, they are just so big.
........................

For some reason Goofyhoofy's comment reminded me that this year is the 50th anniversary of Silent Spring. The environmental movement will never run out of causes because as Carson said, industry spreads disinformation and public officials accept industry claims uncritically. I truly believe that is as true today as it was in the middle of the 20th century.

wikipedia:
"Silent Spring...credited with helping launch the contemporary American environmental movement.
The New Yorker started serializing Silent Spring in June 1962, and it was published in book form (with illustrations by Lois and Louis Darling) by Houghton Mifflin on Sept. 27. When the book Silent Spring was published, Rachel Carson was already a well-known writer on natural history, but had not previously been a social critic. The book was widely read—especially after its selection by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the New York Times best-seller list—and inspired widespread public concerns with pesticides and pollution of the environment. Silent Spring facilitated the ban of the pesticide DDT in 1972 in the United States.

The book documented detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, particularly on birds. Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting industry claims uncritically.

Silent Spring has been featured in many lists of the best nonfiction books of the twentieth century. In the Modern Library List of Best 20th-Century Nonfiction it was at #5, and it was at No.78 in the conservative National Review. Most recently, Silent Spring was named one of the 25 greatest science books of all time by the editors of Discover Magazine.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46695 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/8/2012 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<As I'm just always impressed with the hubris of human beings on the amount of control or the managing of climate.

And people were sure we could never pollute rivers and oceans because, well, you know, they are just so big.

>>



As usual, Goofyhoofy accepts whatever someone spoon feeds hiom as long as it's called "science."


What Goofyhoofy ought to recognize is that anytime science and politics intersect, truth may be a csualty of that conflict.

Just as an example, environmentalists used the Spotted Owl to eliminate tens of thousands of family wage jobs in rural and small town Oregon and Washington, and gained control over millions of acres of public and private lands.

This was done on the evidence of scientists that the Spoted owl was declining because the only habitat it could live in was old growth timber, which was being cut.

Twenty years after the environmentalist solution destroyed a good deal of the rural economy, the Spotted Owl is still in decline. Scientists now know that the Spotted Owl nests fine in second growth timer, and that the Barred Owl is out competing the Spotted Owl for habitat.

Of course, environmentalists don't give a fig about that, and never did. The Spoted Owl was simply a useful tool to gain control over rural lands and scientists were the useful tools who helped give them that power.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46786 of 60164
Subject: Re: Climate Change Date: 12/14/2012 8:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just as an example, environmentalists used the Spotted Owl to eliminate tens of thousands of family wage jobs in rural and small town Oregon and Washington, and gained control over millions of acres of public and private lands.

Really? I never heard of that before!

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement