What if the secret behind civilization is that we've had really good weather?

Cloudy With a Chance of Chaos: Climate change may bring more violent weather swings -- and sooner -- than experts had thought.

A disturbing consensus is emerging among the scientists who study global warming: Climate change may bring more violent swings than they ever thought, and it may set in sooner. Lately John Browne, the CEO of BP, has been jolting audiences with a list of proposed solutions that hint at the vastness of the challenge. It aims at stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about double the pre-industrial level while continuing economic growth. To do that, carbon emissions would have to be reduced ultimately by seven gigatons a year. A gigaton, or a billion tons, is even bigger than it sounds. Eliminating just one, argues Browne, would mean building 700 nuclear stations to replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants, or increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700, or stopping all deforestation and doubling present efforts at reforestation. Achieve all three of these, and pull off four more equally large-scale reallocations of capital and infrastructure, and the world would probably stabilize its carbon emissions.

There's just one catch: Even change on this vast scale might not stop global warming.

What if the secret behind civilization is that we've had really good weather? Humankind has prospered and multiplied during one of the most benign climate eras in the history of the planet. And the past two centuries -- which witnessed the great expansion of the Industrial Revolution, a sixfold increase in human population, the triumph of the consumer society, and the rise of the integrated global economy -- have been particularly stable. One would have to go back 115,000 years to find a time as tranquil and warm as the present.

This article goes under the uh-oh category. An excellent read. Will post more comments when I have some additional time.

I'll let you know if and when this planet ever gets civilized.

Even the relative stability of the Holocene has seen some erratic shifts in climate which have brought down civilisations. The Moche in Peru, the Incas, for example (arguably even Rome, albeit indirectly). The Sumerians and Egyptians suffered climatic changes that nearly brought them down too, but they just hung on...

The previous 100,000 saw much bigger shifts in climate so little wonder we never got a foothold on the civilisation ladder until relatively recently.

Originally posted by loam

Cloudy With a Chance of Chaos: Climate change may bring more violent weather swings -- and sooner -- than experts had thought.

A disturbing consensus is emerging among the scientists who study global warming: ..............
It aims at stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about double the pre-industrial level while continuing economic growth. To do that, carbon emissions would have to be reduced ultimately by seven gigatons a year. A gigaton, or a billion tons, is even bigger than it sounds. Eliminating just one, argues Browne, would mean building 700 nuclear stations to replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants, or increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700, .....


There's just one catch: Even change on this vast scale might not stop global warming.

What if the secret behind civilization is that we've had really good weather?

on the other hand, at the early stages of the IndustrialRevolution
mankind made a choice between AC electricity and DC electricity

If men would have opted for a "DC" social order & economy
there would not be a need for some 700 nuclear power generating plants to replace the fossil fuel generators of AC electricty...and the gigatonnes
of carbon & pollutants expelled into the biosphere.

environment friendly electricity can be produced...at a massive cost involved in re-engineering from AC to a DC civilization.
~~~~~~~~~~

even today people survive in hostile weather environments,
take the African Sahara or the Laplanders or other ice-bound societies,
...i do agree that much of their energy & resources are spent for just basic survival as opposed to fair weather peoples.
...temperate zone people have also squandered a lot of resources & energies on stuff like pyramids and stoneheges and colossal statues et al

viva the differences

And as soon as we get a foothold we get lost in money and BS. All these great weather events happening are up to par with my government. Sad

If men would have opted for a "DC" social order & economy
there would not be a need for some 700 nuclear power generating plants to replace the fossil fuel generators of AC electricty...and the gigatonnes
of carbon & pollutants expelled into the biosphere.

You do know why we opted for AC over DC right? AC can be transmitted much cheaper and farther then DC.

It depends on how you define "good" weather. Both the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe occured during the Little Ice Age, for example...

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
It depends on how you define "good" weather. Both the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe occured during the Little Ice Age, for example...

Im not that good with history, but I know that during either the 1700s or 1800s, they use to hold a fare on the frozen Thames river in London. When was the last time the Thames froze over?

lol
My guess is that civilization, or what we call living together as a large group, resulted by accretion. People began tolerating other people and were forced to grow food by effort because the naturally growing foodstufs would not support dormant large groups.
As a result of agriculture both government and religion were born as two competing methods of control.
Just my thoughts.
skep