Rediscovery of Technology

The truth (global warming) only came to light when their secure email server was hacked. These scientists did not go to jail and most are still teach at their respective universities. Instead of global warming...we have climate change. The global warming phenomenon was created or conceived in 1971. The problem is that people with political power throughout this world used this for power to project their own agendas. The truth is 1 major eruption produces more gases within the atmosphere than all of man combined pollution for a year. Second, the sun goes through phases of outputting more energy and phases of less energy output. When the sun is outputting more energy, we have higher global temperatures and when the sun is producing less energy, we have cooler temperatures. Add in the fact that we seem to be going through a pole flip or a pole shift. If we go through a pole flip...we do not have to worry about tomorrow. A pole shift can very dangerous within a local environment but civilization will continue for the most part on this planet.

For the environment, we (man) need to learn to treat our world much better. We (man) have forgotten to protect our land, water, and air for the future generations!

Tenshinai wrote:

smr wrote:@TheE
Why should I trust Science and the Peer Review system?

We had global warming and set of scientists that were proclaiming that all the ice sheets would melt...etc...etc...etc...

Over time, noone said it was going to happen in the next decade.

And the last 10 years has had the most open water per year in the Arctic as far back there is ANY knowledge about it.
Even icecores dating from the Medieval warm period suggests the polar ice had a continously greater extent than now.

In case you missed it, the mainline predictions about warming is actually being outrun by realworld events. The melting on Greenland is a decade or even two ahead of what was expected 20 years ago.

smr wrote:They were caught red-handed falsifying the results to protect their funding and to create a global carbon tax for a global government. They were destroying other scientists in the supposedly unbiased scientific peer review systems.

Barely a handful of people. Among several thousands. And they were unable to get away with it exactly because of peer review caught them.

smr wrote:The world has documented instances where science has failed to live up to their own standards. I apply that to archeology, history, and myriad of other subjects. Maybe, the known history of Earth could or can be different than what the average person is led to believe.

Yes, but do you really expect guessing or wishful thinking is going to be better at predicting how things work? Yeah right!

Tenshinai wrote:

viciokie wrote:

For now, but with the way archaeology is finally advancing that may only be a short time. However assuming something like that does happen then my posits will be proven correct in that instance. This article does prove that doggerland did exist because there was likely no way for pre humans to have gotten to there without making a float or walking which is more likely.

Hmm? I think you misunderstood. Your statements are not in any way AFFECTED at all by that find.

Earlier migrations of hominids, pre-modern humans or pre-humans is nothing new, the surprise was where they were found ( or may have been found ).

The evidence that exists is also quite heavily weighted towards a fairly recent "out of Africa" explanation, but there are some indications, as yet uncertain, that may suggest anything up to about 150k years ago, more likely around 100k.

400k years ago would mean something is very weird with the DNA tracking that has been done, even there, there are possible solutions, but there should be tracks found in modern population which isn´t being found, for those to be realistic.

Of course, there´s also the potential for there to be additional pre-modern humans that have mated into the general population before dying out, like the Neanderthal(which just about everyone except Africans have some traces from) and Denisovans(the traces of which are mostly found on New Guinea and a few other places in small amounts).

Tenshinai, we have actual DNA evidence that modern humans interbred with other human species, including both the Neanderthals and the Denisovians.

There were several hominid migrations out of Africa, including that of Homo Habilis, which is thought to have taken place anything up to a million years ago.

The thing is that we're a rather arrogant species. We find it extremely difficult to accept that at one point we were neither the only nor the most advanced human species around. The main reason why we are still around and the others are not, is that we were the most adaptable species. We were all-rounders, which enabled us to survive sudden and drastic ecological changes and disasters, whereas ALL the other human species were so specialised for their environment that they were unable to flourish in the face of such disasters and ecological changes.

A difference of 1 watt per metre output from the sun changing, is insignificant when you realise the average output is around 1366 watts a metre. And being as the cycle hit bottom in 2010 for the sun spot cycle, you are suggesting that a drop in energy from the sun, and a miniscule one at that, leads to an increase in temperature of the earth.
Its called climate change because people realised they needed to stop being so first world centric about it, because otherwise deniers would note that in some places outside of the first world, some places would also become colder due to climatic changes, and would use this to claim that all climate change was a fraud. It was global warming because it was a rise in the average overall temperature of the globe.
It was named in the 1970's becasue thats when we really started realising it was real, and becoming a problem. Its just a normal headache, until it lasts and turns out to be cancer, to use the human body as a reference point.
Yes, it is a problem that people are using this for short term political benefit as opposed to long term gains, but those who oppoose accepting it is real are the ones more likely to be the ones using it for political gain, by sandbagging opponents attempts to do something, as "a waste of money on something that doesn't exist".
Yes an eruption may cause more gas then we do, but how often do they occur? there has been one volcanic eruption since 2000, with a volcanic explosivity score of 5 or more, which means it put out a cubic kilometre of ejecta , plus gas. Thiis works out to approx 3500 Mt st Helens annually to meet the current output of human civilisation per year, which grows each year. For a more realistic eruption number, try having a supervolcano like Yellowstone or Taupo erupt. that only requires 8 eruptions a year to meet human output. Except they only erupt on average every 150,000 years or so.
As for a pole flip of the geomagnetic field, that takes approx 1000 to 10000 years on average to occur, so if it was to start now, we're safe until 3010 or so at minimum, as opposed to the current climate change which is already happening, and expected to have effects even more major than those we are currently experiencing begin within the next 2 decades.
Sources: 5 mins in reputable science journals available through any university catalogue access.

smr wrote:The truth (global warming) only came to light when their secure email server was hacked. These scientists did not go to jail and most are still teach at their respective universities. Instead of global warming...we have climate change. The global warming phenomenon was created or conceived in 1971. The problem is that people with political power throughout this world used this for power to project their own agendas. The truth is 1 major eruption produces more gases within the atmosphere than all of man combined pollution for a year. Second, the sun goes through phases of outputting more energy and phases of less energy output. When the sun is outputting more energy, we have higher global temperatures and when the sun is producing less energy, we have cooler temperatures. Add in the fact that we seem to be going through a pole flip or a pole shift. If we go through a pole flip...we do not have to worry about tomorrow. A pole shift can very dangerous within a local environment but civilization will continue for the most part on this planet.

For the environment, we (man) need to learn to treat our world much better. We (man) have forgotten to protect our land, water, and air for the future generations!
\

hanuman wrote:Tenshinai, we have actual DNA evidence that modern humans interbred with other human species, including both the Neanderthals and the Denisovians.

Eh, yes? I already said that, i even specified where those DNA traces are generally found, requoting myself:

like the Neanderthal(which just about everyone except Africans have some traces from) and Denisovans(the traces of which are mostly found on New Guinea and a few other places in small amounts)

hanuman wrote:The main reason why we are still around and the others are not, is that we were the most adaptable species.

Or possibly by mere chance.

hanuman wrote:whereas ALL the other human species were so specialised for their environment that they were unable to flourish in the face of such disasters and ecological changes.

ALL others were not overly specialised. And it is quite disputed just why some died out.

The Kyoto treaty has destroyed America. I carbon output
is below 1980 levels but America just sent its Manufacturing to China. Global warming was an excuse to economically destroy America and Europe. To govern the world, America and Europe must be destroyed economically first. Then after the Great Global Crash we can have www3. 2008 housing crash was started by China and Russia selling their securities at a deliberate loss. Currently, America is being prepared for the Great Crash. We have billionaire's writing about the upcoming crash and how it will not be like the Great Depression.
After we fall, the EU is next target. I suspect at this point in the game we are unable to stop the fall! I look at my family and hope I am delusional and wrong.

Spacekiwi wrote:A difference of 1 watt per metre output from the sun changing, is insignificant when you realise the average output is around 1366 watts a metre. And being as the cycle hit bottom in 2010 for the sun spot cycle, you are suggesting that a drop in energy from the sun, and a miniscule one at that, leads to an increase in temperature of the earth.
Its called climate change because people realised they needed to stop being so first world centric about it, because otherwise deniers would note that in some places outside of the first world, some places would also become colder due to climatic changes, and would use this to claim that all climate change was a fraud. It was global warming because it was a rise in the average overall temperature of the globe.
It was named in the 1970's becasue thats when we really started realising it was real, and becoming a problem. Its just a normal headache, until it lasts and turns out to be cancer, to use the human body as a reference point.
Yes, it is a problem that people are using this for short term political benefit as opposed to long term gains, but those who oppoose accepting it is real are the ones more likely to be the ones using it for political gain, by sandbagging opponents attempts to do something, as "a waste of money on something that doesn't exist".
Yes an eruption may cause more gas then we do, but how often do they occur? there has been one volcanic eruption since 2000, with a volcanic explosivity score of 5 or more, which means it put out a cubic kilometre of ejecta , plus gas. Thiis works out to approx 3500 Mt st Helens annually to meet the current output of human civilisation per year, which grows each year. For a more realistic eruption number, try having a supervolcano like Yellowstone or Taupo erupt. that only requires 8 eruptions a year to meet human output. Except they only erupt on average every 150,000 years or so.
As for a pole flip of the geomagnetic field, that takes approx 1000 to 10000 years on average to occur, so if it was to start now, we're safe until 3010 or so at minimum, as opposed to the current climate change which is already happening, and expected to have effects even more major than those we are currently experiencing begin within the next 2 decades.
Sources: 5 mins in reputable science journals available through any university catalogue access.

smr wrote:The truth (global warming) only came to light when their secure email server was hacked. These scientists did not go to jail and most are still teach at their respective universities. Instead of global warming...we have climate change. The global warming phenomenon was created or conceived in 1971. The problem is that people with political power throughout this world used this for power to project their own agendas. The truth is 1 major eruption produces more gases within the atmosphere than all of man combined pollution for a year. Second, the sun goes through phases of outputting more energy and phases of less energy output. When the sun is outputting more energy, we have higher global temperatures and when the sun is producing less energy, we have cooler temperatures. Add in the fact that we seem to be going through a pole flip or a pole shift. If we go through a pole flip...we do not have to worry about tomorrow. A pole shift can very dangerous within a local environment but civilization will continue for the most part on this planet.

For the environment, we (man) need to learn to treat our world much better. We (man) have forgotten to protect our land, water, and air for the future generations!
\

NO, short sightedness led to The USA's problems. Well, that plus Americas pursuit of consumerism and credit.
Preventing climate change doesnt require economic destruction, it just requires long term thinking and a change in thinking of we are the masters of everything, to actions have consequences. Non renewables and the american mindset have you burning money.

Good coal costs $60 US a ton.You burn 85 million tons a month according to some googling. that means you burn 5,100 million / 5.1 Billion dollars of money a month, just in coal, because you arent using semi-renewable nuclear, or wind, hydro, geo or solar power. At 450 million people in the states, you each throw away around $150, per person, per year. A family of 4 has $600 burnt for them every year. Just in Coal. You use 26 Million million cubic feet of gas, at an average price of $4,500 per million cubic feet. Add another 9.75 Billion a month in gas burnt. SO the US burns around $14.9 Billion dollars a month, because you cant take the short term pain of building advanced new replacement power facilities to replace coal and gas. And thats only the burning price. Whats the cost of the downstream effects on health from coal dust, and the environmental damage of mining it?

Elon Musk has the right of it, with his Electric cars, and his factories whihc he plans to power renewably as much as possible. SHort term he will lose, long term expect to see tesla as one of the most common cars on your roads.

The damage you claim is from the outside is fanciful. The damage you are causing yourself is going to be incalculable. The smoker isnt ignored because others are plotting against him, he is ignored because he stinks.

smr wrote:The Kyoto treaty has destroyed America. I carbon output
is below 1980 levels but America just sent its Manufacturing to China. Global warming was an excuse to economically destroy America and Europe. To govern the world, America and Europe must be destroyed economically first. Then after the Great Global Crash we can have www3. 2008 housing crash was started by China and Russia selling their securities at a deliberate loss. Currently, America is being prepared for the Great Crash. We have billionaire's writing about the upcoming crash and how it will not be like the Great Depression.
After we fall, the EU is next target. I suspect at this point in the game we are unable to stop the fall! I look at my family and hope I am delusional and wrong.

smr wrote:The Kyoto treaty has destroyed America. I carbon output
is below 1980 levels but America just sent its Manufacturing to China. Global warming was an excuse to economically destroy America and Europe.

Seriously man, USA has been living on credit for half a century, adores shortterm profits so much that most of your industry selfdestructed by not upgrading, decade after decade, and then you set up free trade agreements first with countries that runs on wages a fraction of yours, and now you blame others?



Sheesh, look at Europe, which actually has a worse situation than USA, the nations in Europe that comes even remotely close to the kind of ripoff tactics that USA has been running on for decades(Germany and the Euro effect), their industry is currently doing excellent.

Quit whining and do something about it.

This bickering is pointless.

Climate changes all the time. The Vikings migrated across the Atlantic, and built settlements in Iceland and Greenland and the eastern edge of North America during the Medieval Warm Period, croft farming and raising cattle in Greenland. Archeology shows the Vikings stopped croft farming in the 1300's and abandoned Greenland in the 1400's as the temperature dropped and their settlements were being covered in glaciers. It is still too cold to do croft farming in Greenland today. Since the Vikings were not big users of SUV's or coal fired power plants, the swings in temperature must have other, natural explanations.

The temperatures of Mars track the same trend lines as those of Earth, not because of all the idling NASA rovers on Mars, but because of the changes in solar activity and output.

Looking at a spreadsheet that was published on the Atomic Rockets website years ago, I notice that the energy output of the Sun received on Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than the energy output of human civilization (the Earth receives 128 Petawatts of solar energy at the surface per year).

In fact the worst possible outcome is another round of global cooling (AKA the Little Ice Age), since agricultural output will seriously decline as the temperature cools, leading to shortages of food, mass starvation and probably wars and revolutions as people fight over the failing food resources.

Thucydides wrote:Climate changes all the time. The Vikings migrated across the Atlantic, and built settlements in Iceland and Greenland and the eastern edge of North America during the Medieval Warm Period, croft farming and raising cattle in Greenland.

My friend who just spent 4 weeks on Greenland, noted that the largest problem with getting where you wanted there on foot, was the thick undergrowth. His comparison of choice was "jungle". 2-3 steps away and he was unable to see a stream.

There´s talk about maybe setting up farming on Greenland now.

Farming with special means is already 100% realistic, and if current warming continues, it´s expected that regular(convenient) farming will be realistic within less than 10 years.

And there´s plenty of fish there now, thanks to the warmer ocean.

Thucydides wrote:Climate changes all the time.

Yes it does. And if we followed the natural cycles, we would currently be in the middle of a cooling period.

Thucydides wrote:In fact the worst possible outcome is another round of global cooling (AKA the Little Ice Age), since agricultural output will seriously decline as the temperature cools, leading to shortages of food, mass starvation and probably wars and revolutions as people fight over the failing food resources.

And now that humans have affected matters enough that we probably wont have another "little ice age", what do you think is going to happen when we hit the next "warm period" instead?

Since global temperatures have been level or declining for the last 15 years, I'd say we are already in another natural cooling cycle.

Since the Little Ice Age lasted about 300 years, I'd say waiting for the next natural warming period is going to take a lot of patience.

We should start learning greenhouse agriculture.