Humans Altered Climate 10,000 Years Ago, Study Claims

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I've often agreed with the mindset of "did humans have factories or pollution or cut down rain forests 10,000 years ago?". That suggests that climate change is a natural cyclic event that's not attributed to humans. I'm definitely on the bandwagon that it is a natural reoccurring event here on earth and in our solar system and probably in the universe.

Although, I think it's also ignorant to think we don't have any involvement in altering the environment. I don't think it has to be one or the other but probably a combination of the two and probably other factors too. It just seems like common sense to me. We simply don't have enough long term, accurate data in any area to conclusively prove otherwise, in my opinion. We're still in kindergarten, maybe elementary school, in understanding what has actually occurred through the vastness of time.

We're adding to our knowledge daily which is positively good but not conclusive to understand what's really going on. I don't know what's going on as there's information to suggest a variety of scenarios to explain current and past occurrences. This is just one more possibility to add to the discussion which I don't recall seeing here and didn't show up in various searching methods. I'm open minded and logical enough to know that we're not all knowing and that there's a lot to still be learned and explained.



Forget auto emissions and power plants. Humans may have contributed to climate change more than 10,000 years ago, according to a new study.

"Some people say that people are unable to affect the climate, that it's just too big...That's obviously not the case. People started to affect global climate much earlier than we thought."

The research...revealed that the extinction of woolly mammoths — driven in part by human hunting — may have caused changes in vegetation that, in turn, warmed Siberia and neighboring Beringia by about 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit
source


There's some information in the article that you can draw your own conclusions towards. This clearly doesn't attribute anything solely to humans but suggests that it is a factor involved in the greater scheme of things. It fits well with my beliefs that not one single thing is attributable to anything in particular but rather there's a variety of factors involved in everything. It's another piece added to the puzzle, in my mind, of understanding the world we live in to understand how we affect it.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


warmed Siberia and neighboring Beringia by about 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit

How on earth do they know that?
That is a miniscule amount. I don't see how they could attribute that to humans without knowing what else was going on at the time, solar flares etc...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


And another scam some environlunatics are trying to put forth to claim "evil mankind is destroying nature so we shouldn't exist"...


I swear it, the world would be a better place if these people would just commit Seppuku...but no...instead they want everyone else except themselves to die in order to save nature...


BTW, there was a research paper posted in these forums from a scientist claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people...

There have been different kind of research trying to support the biased opinions of different people and groups just to further their agendas, and this is exactly one of those "research papers"...


You know what the fault of this paper is?... Using "Climate modeling"...

It has been proven many times that climate models are flawed, and flat out wrong...

This fact has been shown time..


Cirrus Disappearance: Warming Might Thin Heat-Trapping Clouds

ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2007) — The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.




"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

www.sciencedaily.com...

After time....



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe.



The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

After time....


Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...



[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons

"Some people say that people are unable to affect the climate, that it's just too big...That's obviously not the case. People started to affect global climate much earlier than we thought."

The research...revealed that the extinction of woolly mammoths — driven in part by human hunting — may have caused changes in vegetation that, in turn, warmed Siberia and neighboring Beringia by about 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit.


This is misleading. It says People started to effect climate change then it says the woolly mammoths extinction was the cause.

They do not say if they have any proof that man caused these animals to become extinct. Sure man may have hunted them but that's no proof man wiped them out. Also it says " may have caused changes in vegetation that, in turn, warmed Siberia" - they are not even sure about that. They admittedly do not know anything. The whole theory is very weak indeed. Makes all of the above absolutely meaningless.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I guess if they can convince the sheeple of MMGW 10,000 years ago then cap&trade is an easy sell.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Climates around the world are always changing as part of a natural process over timeframes that we don't experience.

This climate system was working at 100%, naturally going about doing it's thing. We evolve to a point where we can add more greenhouse gases to that already 100% system. Even 10% added to it will create a noticeable difference in the rate of change, yes?

So, to the supporters and the sceptics... the change is happening all aruond us naturally, and, we have altered the system to some degree, so we can expect to see things speed up a bit compared to other timeframes in the past.

Well, that's about as logical as I can be under my present brain-fade status.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 



Not really, what you are claiming is the same as claiming that adding 20,000 barrels (of normal size) of water to the Atlantic will dramatically increase it's volume, which it won't.

There is no such thing as "climate working at 100% and us adding 10%" that is as illogical as it can be. More so when the climate is affected by changes that occur in the Solar System dynamics, and our Solar System has been entering a new region of space that is the reason for the "speed up" in Climate Change.

To put it in perspective, I will quote how another member put it a few years back...


Originally posted by Outland
The image below illustrates to scale all of the GHGs in the atmosphere rounded up to 400PPM (0.04%) -not including water vapor- as indicated by the red area.


Compare that with atmospheric oxygen for perspective...


Compare that to nitrogen for perspective...


Of that 0.04% of GHGs, the gray part of the magnified red area is human based...


I hope you're all feeling really guilty now.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
To the debunkers, I really don't see what is to be gained by constantly arguing against this phenomenon. Does it make you feel like a bigger men/women to be right?

Who cares if it's man-made or natural. You'd have to be a total ignoramus to act like NOTHING is going on. Unfortunately, the majority of the population easily fits into that box, fed only by the insane rantings of Glenn Beck.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

I was just providing a symbolic illustration to show how much we have effected the natural climate... so I don't care that it is not scientific or a correct statement of fact.. it was simply as stated for ease of understanding.

What it meant was that the ecosystem of our world is already working at maximum efficiency, Yes? Humans come along and begin to add man made pollutants to that.. I estimate to be around 10% additonal input to the norm.

Fill a glass with water, then try to add 10% more to it... what happens? The "world" for microbial life in that glass of water is forced into chaos, yes?

I'm also well aware of the natural course of change for our world as it moves through space.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Tayesin]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


Could it be that the climate is what killed the mammoths? Isn't that the conventional wisdom? How many humans were actually in the frigid back then"? How much vegetation were the mammoths eating? Therefore, how many mammoths were there to cause such large scale warming?

I'm sure plenty more questions could arise. But the question here is did the study answer and empirically demonstrate all of those questions?

This reminds me of the claim that flowers will lose their smell because of AGW.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Yep, and man made whole islands out of crushed mammoths...
Ancient man was quite a guy.

Entire Islands Composed of the Bones of Frozen Animals

www.s8int.com...

According to Velicovski this is just one evidence of a major earth stopping event described by peoples around the world as "the flood".



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Who cares if it's man-made or natural.


Well if its man-made (which I dont believe) we need to do something about stopping it..

If its natural (which I believe) then we need to learn how to live with it...

Either way, we DON'T need scum taxing us and making millions from the problem.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin

What it meant was that the ecosystem of our world is already working at maximum efficiency, Yes? Humans come along and begin to add man made pollutants to that.. I estimate to be around 10% additonal input to the norm.
...


Sorry but it is not. This is the sort of nonsense that keeps people confused.

The Earth has had to deal with higher amounts of atmospheric CO2 than at present, and animal life on land and in the oceans was fine.

There is no "the Earth is working at maximum efficiency"...

The climate of Earth is ALWAYS changing, and there is not one thing mankind can do.

All the bleaching is occurring because of other toxic chemicals being spilled yet the environlunatics instead just want to blame atmospheric CO2, when the oceans have had to deal with more atmospheric CO2 than at present and there were no massive die offs because of the small levels of atmospheric CO2 we have right now...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


wow...so somehow we are trying to prove the truth because we wnt to show we are better men/women?... Get off that freaking high horse, we are showing the truth because the truth is MANKIND CANNOT CHANGE THE GLOBAL CLIMATE OF EARTH... It is controlled by factors which we have no control over, and atmospheric CO2 is NOT one of those factors...

Yes the truth is important, but if you want to believe in lies, well you might as well believe Santa Claus lives in the North Pole and he is the one that brings presents to children....



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Sheesh, now I understand..

Santa Clause is Chinese and set up a HUGE factory at the North Pole.

Its powered by coal fired generators and thats why the poles are melting!!!!

Now I know why some religions don't do xmas...



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
Sheesh, now I understand..

Santa Clause is Chinese and set up a HUGE factory at the North Pole.

Its powered by coal fired generators and thats why the poles are melting!!!!

Now I know why some religions don't do xmas...


Sheesh, perhaps if you actually used your brain, knowing that most of the past warming was mainly in areas FAR AWAY from large cities, and in remote locations away from civilization, and if you could put this together you would realize that the past warming was not caused by pollution, or even atmospheric CO2.... If atmospheric CO2 was the culprit then temperatures would have been warmer at the source of pollution and the source of anthropogenic CO2...

But hey, now i see why people like you can't put two and two together...





new topics
 
0

log in

join