So Long, Bugs....

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Red, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. idestroyedthetoilet

    idestroyedthetoilet Well-Known Member

    1,769
    815
    143
    Apr 20, 2018
    Did you see fake news reporting the "research" article "proving" the Little Ice Age was caused by global warming that was caused by the mass extinction of Native Americans? So many glaring holes, aside from the more technical ones, but seems like these chicken little CNN and MSN fans will lap up just about anything these days.

    Here, have your fun with this doozy:
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weat...change-in-climate-study/ar-BBT4JKZ?li=BBr5KbJ
     
    babe, NPC D4617 and TroutBum like this.
  2. NPC D4617

    NPC D4617 Well-Known Member

    20,398
    2,584
    263
    Aug 10, 2012

    Lol

    The level these people will go to to push their agenda and ideology is astounding.

    White people so racists and murderous that they caused global warming with how much murdering they do. SMH,....unreal
     
  3. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,444
    1,048
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    Global warming caused an ice age? I think you mean cooling, lol....

    The Little Ice Age implies global COOLING, not global warming. Think, for heaven's sake.

    And why are you even bringing up racism?? Do you know how much effect European diseases alone had on the population decline?? Lack of immunity from disease implies racism?? Really?? Are you really making such an asinine claim?? And germ theory of disease was well known in the 17th century? Lol, you are a riot. When the Puritans landed in Boston, they found nobody living at all in the immediate villages, due to the dying in the 1616-1620 time frame, due to European diseases, which affected all the tribes in southeastern New England. Again, you feel that unknowingly spreading disease is racism??

    Good grief, you guys are slow at times. You really examined that study closely I see.

    I will be less inclined, in the future, to take anything you say seriously, when you make such glaring mistakes, and don't know the difference between cooling and warming.

    I was unable to access the MSN article, so don't know if the mistake originated there. But, you both should still know better. A little thought goes a long way. You've given me far less reason to take you seriously on such climate related subjects in the future.

    Perhaps based on your rejection of global warming in our present era. Your bias is being broadcast in neon lights.

    I found this BBC article to be a good summary of the study's findings. Changes in land use has long been cited as one reason for the onset of what is known as the Little Ice Age. If we fail to look at the actual study, but instead reflexively plug it into our own political warfare involving "climate change", then we are not being very objective at all. Generally speaking, knee jerk reactions are the most biased. This study simply focused on one component of the causes behind the onset and duration of the Little Ice Age, namely the drop in atmospheric CO2. The study included examination of and estimation of agricultural use of land throughout the Americas, not just North America. (But, even here, in North America, there was agriculture on a larger scale then we might assume or imagine. When Verrazano spent 2 weeks anchored in Narragansett Bay, in 1524(he was an Italian explorer sailing for France), he reported the land was cleared from their western shore of Narragansett Bay all the way to at least the present border of Connecticut. Large scale clear cutting by use of fire was practiced by natives in my own region, in other words)

    (Unfortunately, this link posts as an audio available at the link, and not the text, so I've posted some of the text directly beneath the link.)



    "The team reviewed all the population data it could find on how many people were living in the Americas prior to first contact with Europeans in 1492.

    It then assessed how the numbers changed in following decades as the continents were ravaged by introduced disease (smallpox, measles, etc), warfare, slavery and societal collapse.

    It's the UCL group's estimate that 60 million people were living across the Americas at the end of the 15th Century (about 10% of the world's total population), and that this was reduced to just five or six million within a hundred years.

    The scientists calculated how much land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, and what the impact would be if this ground was then repossessed by forest and savannah.

    The area is in the order of 56 million hectares, close in size to a country like modern France.

    This scale of regrowth is figured to have drawn down sufficient CO₂ that the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere eventually fell by 7-10ppm (that is 7-10 molecules of CO₂ in every one million molecules in the air).

    "To put that in the modern context - we basically burn (fossil fuels) and produce about 3ppm per year. So, we're talking a large amount of carbon that's being sucked out of the atmosphere," explained co-author Prof Mark Maslin.

    "There is a marked cooling around that time (1500s/1600s) which is called the Little Ice Age, and what's interesting is that we can see natural processes giving a little bit of cooling, but actually to get the full cooling - double the natural processes - you have to have this genocide-generated drop in CO₂."

    The drop in CO₂ at the time of the Great Dying is evident in the ice core records from Antarctica.

    Air bubbles trapped in these frozen samples show a fall in their concentration of carbon dioxide.

    The atomic composition of the gas also suggests strongly that the decline is being driven by land processes somewhere on Earth.

    In addition, the UCL team says the story fits with the records of charcoal and pollen deposits in the Americas.

    These show the sort of perturbation expected from a decline in the use of fire to manage land, and a big grow-back of natural vegetation.

    Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, was not involved in the study. He commented: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.

    "This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation. It demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One cause among several, in other words, large volcanic eruptions and a decline in solar activity are also known to have played into the onset of the Little Ice Age. The study concentrated on land use changes leading to a drop in CO2. At least report the conclusions accurately, and not through knee jerk political lenses.

    And cooling is not the same as warming! The Little Ice Age involved cooling, for heaven's sake. You guys are not doing yourselves any favors mistaking cooling for warming!

    It's also recommended that the actual study be examined, and judged on its scientific merits. And this will happen, because it was published in a peer review format. If mistakes in the scientific methodology are evident, they will be highlighted in any rebuttals that may be published in response to the study. And, rather then indulge in our own well established political warfare over what we think the study is saying, we can actually simply read the study and be our own judge, to the best of our ability and our knowledge of the science involved. So, it's open access, and here is the actual study:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

    Abstract
    Human impacts prior to the Industrial Revolution are not well constrained. We investigate whether the decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C, were generated by natural forcing or were a result of the large-scale depopulation of the Americasafter European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession. We quantitatively review the evidence for (i) the pre-Columbian population size, (ii) their per capita land use, (iii) the post-1492 population loss, (iv) the resulting carbon uptake of the abandoned anthropogenic landscapes, and then compare these to potential natural drivers of global carbon declines of 7–10 ppm. From 119 published regional population estimates we calculate a pre-1492 CE population of 60.5 million (interquartile range, IQR 44.8–78.2 million), utilizing 1.04 ha land per capita (IQR 0.98–1.11). European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  4. idestroyedthetoilet

    idestroyedthetoilet Well-Known Member

    1,769
    815
    143
    Apr 20, 2018
    Even if this could be taken seriously it actually would refute global warming theory and pretty much the laws of physics.

    1. The Little Ice Age began about 200 years before Columbus was born and was nearly over before any alleged slaughter took place.

    2. No academic in their right mind would take the guesstimated death count or carbon removal assumptions in this article seriously.

    3. The authors are using a 56 million hectare vegetation carbon sink. There's 51 billion hectares of ocean surface, and that carbon sink is a whole lot deeper than a tree or weed is tall. The CO2 fixed by extra plants wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the extra carbon absorbed by the ocean due to lower temperature.

    4. They calculated (somehow, lol) 9.9 Pecagrams of C removed from the atmosphere by extra vegetation. In comparrison, that's about as much as we put out every year. Stop burning fossil fuels for 1 years and we'll induce another Little Ice Age guys.

    5. Atmospheric CO2 was pretty much unchanged for the 850 years preceding 1850. All that population growth did nothing but this did? Ok.

    6. Where is the Black Plague's Little Ice Age?

    7. 4 ppm (The authors claim 5 ppm, but math disagrees, sorry) caused the Little Ice Age? Yet we only get a couple degree bump from an increase 20 times that much? Sure.

    8. The Little Ice Age was a regional phenomenon. For CO2 to cause that, chemicals would no longer be coming into a state of equilibrium. The authors have broke science, we need to trash it all and start from scratch. Tear down all memorials of Einstein and burn paintings of Newton.

    That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more stupidity to be found. But, that's not going to stop the fake news lovers from lapping it up. I'm sure the ignored users folks are out trumpeting the article and calling us anti-science again.
     
    NPC D4617, Red and TroutBum like this.
  5. TroutBum

    TroutBum My Member's Premium Contributor

    11,852
    1,614
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Nothing is better than destroying a page long, boring, self absorbed post with a few facts.

    I can’t wait for Red’s next novella response.
     
    Red and babe like this.
  6. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,614
    858
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I have read some of Rod Meldrum's productions on the Hopewell(mound builders) civilization. Now there's some fuel for Red's pipe. Literally the whole states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and large adjacent areas were deforested during that era, and the sudden decline of that population, should surely have registered on the CO2 evidence accordingly, if Red's thesis is seriously "evidence".

    We should also see some bounce around the forest fire cycles we have, too.

    But I agree with IDT about the relative size of the carbon "sinks" in our system..... The largest is the fairly irreversible deposition of carbonate rock ongoing under warm shallow seas with light rainfall. Then changes in ocean temps effectively sucking in CO2 or outgassing it.

    The photosynthesis process worldwide has never been well-researched, and the figures "scientists" throw out are about as accurate as child fishing reports.

    None of all this "proves" the virtue of a political crusade to massively redistribute the world's wealth.

    The global warming scare is perhaps the snake oil racket of the ages.
     
  7. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,744
    1,743
    228
    May 26, 2010
    While the same people often support both, there is nothing specific to the notion of green energy that requires it to be part of a wealth redistribution program, nor does wealth redistribution require green energy.

    Global warming is a fact, and it's consequences have been real and will continue to get worse.
     
    TroutBum likes this.
  8. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,614
    858
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    lefties have overplayed their hand with "facts". Everyone knows science has gone political because of grant dependency and college staff politics.

    In order to intelligently discuss the "fact" of "global warming", you need a reference line. Do you mean we have gotten warmer due to rising CO2 since the Precambrian geological epoch?

    The data base can be disputed if anyone cares to..... how good were our thermometers, our measurements, the reasoned assumptions in all of our studies' extrapolations..... our ice core gas bubble samples, our sediment samples, etc etc. But even giving credulity.... call if credibility if you wish.... to the claimed 1.8 F rise across oh a hundred plus years..... how come nobody quickly adds the honestly necessary caveat line about the variance that is normal between temps of one century to the next. We have not gone off the charts for what is normal for interglacial warms so far as our evidence shows, yet.

    We might be having anthropogenic global warming from all of our industrial combustion deployments, and we might have enough unmelted ice, still, to raise sea levels. If that is what is happening.... if rainfall patterns change and farming is disrupted in large productive areas, it would be far better to be making infrastructure and investment decisions that will enable us to adjust. The ideas of "political" solutions will not do any of that..... and our political "solutions" as they stand are not actually addressing the problem..... we can't disrupt China and India and other developing economies their reliance for some time on combustion.

    Meanwhile, Brian Mudd (on the Mark Levin show) yesterday, in discussing AOC's green new deal, brought out some figures about how innovation has been making improvements in our ways.... how we have reduced our carbon use significantly. Some of it has been solar or other "clean" energy, but a lot has been in the improved designs of our appliances, heaters, cars.....a lot of individual decisions not to waste energy....

    I am an advocate for new technologies. I have no actual concern about our carbon fuels. I believe warm is good. I believe we're overdue for ice age climate changes, and anything we can do to deflect that "catastrophe" is all good. But we should save our fuel for when we really need it....

    We will have fusion energy within two decades. Hydrogen fuel, inert Helium product. We will not have any problem by then having competitive electric cars, which are mechanically simpler. The big thing there is to make them safe to sit in while travelling. I advocate a sort of suspended rail where you can dock onto a carrying unit, enter and exit like we do on freeways, undock and drive off. Long drives would be wonderful, relaxing, safe tours.... Such rails would be mounted above ground.... or run in tunnels as any level where needed, and be nearly as convenient as our freeways.

    We have a great future. It is just stupid to sit in your little tank of fear and play the dirges of fascist globalists of today's ilk and support their stupidity, bro.

    and, oh, how I hate to see our wonderful deserts turned into Chinese-owned seas of solar panels. To hell with that. Our environment should mean something better than that.
     
    NPC D4617 likes this.
  9. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,444
    1,048
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    This is great. Thank you for this detailed and cogent rebuttal of the study. I'm in no position to dispute what you say. If that's just off the top of your head, you should pick the study apart further, and get a rebuttal published. Somebody will, of course.

    I also have no doubt the popular press zeroed in on the study specifically because of the study's claims of human induced climate change.
     
  10. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,744
    1,743
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Conspiracy-mongers claim a many things, but have this tendency to take their distortions of the US scientific establishment and project them onto the rest of the world.

    Scientists on every continent, in every major country, in every type of financial and political system, acknowledge the reality of human-induced global warming.

    We weren't trying to grow enough food to feed 10 billion people in the Precambrian epoch. Global warming is not a threat to the continuation of life; while many/most population will die out, a few will evolve and life will continue. Global warming is a threat to human civilization as we know it, and possibly to continued human existence.
     
    TroutBum and fishonjazz like this.
  11. str8line

    str8line Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner

    7,125
    2,037
    263
    Nov 22, 2013

    Very cool post, Red. Love your informed views and it's cool that you have that appreciation for science and history.
     
    Red and fishonjazz like this.
  12. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,444
    1,048
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    Despite the several extinction events that are reflected in the geologic record, life itself has been nothing if not resilient. The greatest extinction event known is the one at the end of the Permian Period, roughly 250 million years ago. Some 96% of marine life(including all trilobites, perhaps the most popular fossils overall among collectors) and 70% of terrestrial life died out. Yet, the Age of Dinosaurs followed.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html

    At the end of the Cretaceous, an extinction event that has by many been attributed to a large asteroid impact, wiped out about 75% of marine and terrestrial life, including all dinosaurs, with the exception of avian dinosaurs, which are today's birds. Yet what followed was the Age of Mammals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event

    I believe global warming is real, but I admit I take it on faith, since I am not a climate scientist. I know politics exists within science. I know science advances one funeral at a time, reflective of the difficulty new findings and theories have in overturning received wisdom. I think historian of science Thomas Kuhn explained all this in his seminal 1962 work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". And I know having tenure is often necessary before a scientist can truly speak his mind. Best example of that most recently is Avi Loeb, the head of the astronomy department at Harvard's suggestion that the strange object known as Oumuamua, which entered our solar system recently, might be an alien probe. He's got tenure, and can say what he wants without fear. In fact, he sees thinking outside the box, outside the accepted paradigms, as an obligation of tenure:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-oumuamua-mystery-shook-search-space-aliens-ncna950991

    "One researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, disparaged the Bialy and Loeb paper as “irresponsible,” and said it was “just out to grab attention.”
    Loeb shrugs off the reflexive dismissals, but partly embraces that last critique, saying his lofty academic position actually obligates him to be a pot-stirrer: “I can say these things other people can’t because I have tenure at Harvard. The whole idea of getting tenure is to allow you to be free in your mind. I used the opportunity of Oumuamua to make a statement.”

    All this reflects the politics within science. But suggesting hundreds of scientists the world over are engaged in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the world where global warming is concerned is just too much for me to embrace. The belief that scientists are just one more class of elites we can dismiss is pretty strong among a percentage people right now. Including, apparently, our own president. It's a shame, and, in the long run, dangerous. If the scientists who keep track of Near Earth Objects announced there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, the science nihilists among us would cry "political agenda!!" right up to the moment the mile wide space rock landed on their head.
     
    babe likes this.
  13. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,444
    1,048
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    Well, thank you, that's very nice of you to say. But I made mistakes as well. I knew, from his previous posts relating to climate science, that idestroyedthetoilet would rip into the Little Ice Age theory. And make me look like a fool, lol. I don't know if all his points were valid, but it's only because I could never speak with the authority he does on the subject of climate science.

    That said, I do think we can speak of a 6th major extinction event, and not be laughed off the stage, so to speak, and I do not think global warming is a politically driven hoax. The decline of insects shown in recent studies should concern us. If studies have flaws, science is self correcting, or it ceases to be science. But even something as anecdotal as the "windshield phenomenon" is valuable and must be telling us something, I should think.
     
    str8line likes this.
  14. Ostertag>Duncan

    Ostertag>Duncan My Members Premium Contributor 2019 Award Winner

    3,653
    1,886
    238
    May 26, 2010
    How much of the population will die out? You have proof of this? Credible sources?
     
  15. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,744
    1,743
    228
    May 26, 2010
    That should have been a plural, "populations". There is no "the population", a population is a group of living things that, loosely speaking, have their genetic heritage mixed through breeding. Some populations cross the species line, and a species can have multiple populations.

    I have no good prediction on how many populations will die out; we lose thousands every year.
     
  16. dalamon

    dalamon Well-Known Member 2018 Prediction Contest Winner

    23,800
    2,821
    263
    Nov 5, 2010
    the dumbest ****ing thing ever is when opponents of climate change talk about scientists being biased because of their careers being dependent on it existing (lmao, such a reach) and conveniently ignore the much more immense bias of climate-denialism being in large part funded by the fossil fuel industry
     
    olden_undercover, Red and One Brow like this.
  17. TroutBum

    TroutBum My Member's Premium Contributor

    11,852
    1,614
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Haha, this.

    While I’ve changed my tune regarding GW over the years (it’s not as dire as I once thought it might be), the fact remains that it’s real, and even if it’s not “dire” right now, it potentially could/will be if nothing is done. I feel like we are making great headway, despite the opposition/deniers, and feel much less strongly about it these days. Do we still have miles to go before we sleep? Yup, but I’m far from worried.
     
    idestroyedthetoilet likes this.
  18. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    6,443
    863
    198
    May 26, 2010
    Give the devil their due. To be fair, the scientists are doing it for themselves...and their children, grand children, and further generations down the line.
     
    dalamon likes this.
  19. dalamon

    dalamon Well-Known Member 2018 Prediction Contest Winner

    23,800
    2,821
    263
    Nov 5, 2010
    did you read the articles on insects recently? I think different aspects of it will come in different waves, but ultimately we need to get our **** together and act now instead of pontificating when the *precise* point of no return is. Ya know?

    And I believe you-- I feel like you got that Prius back when no one cared about em.
     
  20. LogGrad98

    LogGrad98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    21,436
    4,187
    263
    Jul 7, 2010
    So you're saying native Americans caused global warming. Why bring race into this man?
     

Share This Page