NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html

Fun! ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming. But it certainly casts a light on how dynamic Earth's climate was and still is. *nod*

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html

Fun! ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming. But it certainly casts a light on how dynamic Earth's climate was and still is. *nod*

I'll keep that in mind, I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html

Fun! ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming. But it certainly casts a light on how dynamic Earth's climate was and still is. *nod*

But...but...Everything was the same until humans came along and ruined everything! Damn you LG, how dare you say that the Earth Climate was and still is dynamic! Damn you, you just....ugh, damn your impeccable logic!

:p

But...but...Everything was the same until humans came along and ruined everything! Damn you LG, how dare you say that the Earth Climate was and still is dynamic! Damn you, you just....ugh, damn your impeccable logic!

ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming.*

What is it with reactionaries and thinking that they're funny?

Nice try.

Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of the island. The vast majority of land not under the ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. How different could it have been just 1,000 years ago? Not much.

Check out this brief account of the Viking settlement there from a book by UCLA professor of geography and 1999 National Medal of Science winner Jared Diamond:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors -- climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, they farmed cattle, goats, and sheep -- despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year. It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. Grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over-production of pastures, erosion, and the need to go further and further afield to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates. After a couple of centuries, it led to such desperate measures as cutting precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.

When finally confronted with several severe winters in a row, they, along with the little remaining livestock, simply starved before spring arrived.

The moral of the story for the climate controversy? Much as you can not judge a book by its cover, you can't judge the climate of Greenland by its name.

A bit of related trivia, and further indication of the Vikings' stubborn reluctance to learn from the Inuit: there is no evidence of any trade whatsoever, despite centuries of cohabitation. In fact, the first of only three Norse accounts of encounters with the natives refers to them as "skraelings" (wretches), and describes matter of factly how strangely they bleed when stabbed. How's that for diplomacy?

Greenland's ice cap is [I]hundreds of thousands of years old

The article doesn't dispute that. Bless you for giving the reactionaries ammunition.

The article doesn't dispute that. Bless you for giving the reactionaries ammunition.

This is getting old.

Can you specify -- please -- how setting Mad Willy straight on the facts about Greenland's naming by someone who was lonely and using modern real estate tactics to encourage settlement in any way arms climate change deniers?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html

Fun! ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming. But it certainly casts a light on how dynamic Earth's climate was and still is. *nod*Well, you see, the thing is, I know the Vikings were compulsive liars. So all this leads me to believe is that either CNN or Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen or both are liars.

Nevermind that Eske is talking about 800,000 odd years ago and that the vikings were only in Greenland 1,000 years ago. Pah, why does everyone view time as such a linear thing.

And on reading about Greenland I found this (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20733). Apparently Greenland could be three islands instead of one, it's just that for so long the ice has completely obscured this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html

Fun! ANd no, this is NOT posted as an attempt to cast doubt on global warming. But it certainly casts a light on how dynamic Earth's climate was and still is. *nod*

Damn! and here I thought that "Greenland" was the first Real Estate marketing scam ever recorded!

This is getting old.

Can you specify -- please -- how setting Mad Willy straight on the facts about Greenland's naming by someone who was lonely and using modern real estate tactics to encourage settlement in any way arms climate change deniers?

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. THE FACTS ARE THERE. While there are coolings and thaws as part of the geoplogical cycle the chances that have occured over the last 200 years are NOT normal, they are extreme, and caused largely by fuel burning population growth and the practices of that populations. Industry is a huge danger, if you don't have poor air quaity in your area, there are those areas that do.

INDUSTRY REALLY IS MASSIVELY IMPACTING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH ON THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. The depletion of the ozone layer doesn't help.

See here for the real occurance of the ozone layer depletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12851210']GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. THE FACTS ARE THERE. While there are coolings and thaws as part of the geoplogical cycle the chances that have occured over the last 200 years are NOT normal, they are extreme, and caused largely by fuel burning population growth and the practices of that populations. Industry is a huge danger, if you don't have poor air quaity in your area, there are those areas that do.

INDUSTRY REALLY IS MASSIVELY IMPACTING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH ON THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. The depletion of the ozone layer doesn't help.

Yes, but 'CAPSLOCK' doesn't help matters...

Dammit, I just knew my spam would devolve into actual debate. :(

;)

I find details of Earth's past very interesting. Climate has been quite varied throughout the history of the planet. The easiest way to tell is to look at how flora and fauna changed over time...ice ages and warming periods have been the death of many species, and caused many others to flourish.

We don't even really know what we're doing to the Earth's climate, especially considering what a relatively brief time we've been on the planet, and the complexity of the system...but it can't be any good. Like a fine watch with a loose spring. Whats bad is that we may not be able to reverse some of what humans have done...whats worse is that there are things we don't even know about in terms of how climate varies and changes, and we've likely have had an effect on quite a few of them.

Significant climate change is inevitable, whether or not it's caused in whole or in part by humans. We've been around as a species for less than 1/100th of 1% of the history of the planet...we haven't seen even a fraction of what the planet can throw at us.

We'd better be ready to adapt, or leave...or we go the route of countless species before us.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12851210']GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. THE FACTS ARE THERE. While there are coolings and thaws as part of the geoplogical cycle the chances that have occured over the last 200 years are NOT normal, they are extreme, and caused largely by fuel burning population growth and the practices of that populations. Industry is a huge danger, if you don't have poor air quaity in your area, there are those areas that do.

INDUSTRY REALLY IS MASSIVELY IMPACTING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH ON THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. The depletion of the ozone layer doesn't help.

See here for the real occurance of the ozone layer depletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Just curious, why'd you post this in reply to me? I'm trying to dismiss the OP's conclusion that Greenland was ever, in the course of human existence, a green, welcoming, bountiful land. Now will you please clean up all this Gore you've gotten all over me in your haste to react?

I've said it before and I will say it again (probably so often that it will qualify as spam if I hang around on these boards long enough)...

Whether the current changes in our climate are part of a natural cycle, are due to pollutions caused by us since the Industrial Revolution or are (most likely, in my opinion) due to a combination of the two is completely moot.

We have one climate that we all have to live in, and it is changing. Things will go horribly wrong for us as a species if the changes are not addressed.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12851210']GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. THE FACTS ARE THERE. While there are coolings and thaws as part of the geoplogical cycle the chances that have occured over the last 200 years are NOT normal, they are extreme, and caused largely by fuel burning population growth and the practices of that populations. Industry is a huge danger, if you don't have poor air quaity in your area, there are those areas that do.

INDUSTRY REALLY IS MASSIVELY IMPACTING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH ON THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. The depletion of the ozone layer doesn't help.

See here for the real occurance of the ozone layer depletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Ozone hole now stable - full recovery expected by 2030 and 2060 for the Arctic and Antarctic respectively (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5276994.stm)

Dammit, I just knew my spam would devolve into actual debate. :(

;)I tried to go along with the spaminess, but in the end I couldn't help myself. My name is TID and I'm a serious debate addict. *phew* Feels good to get that off my shoulders. Maybe I can begin to make a recovery now.

I find details of Earth's past very interesting. Climate has been quite varied throughout the history of the planet. The easiest way to tell is to look at how flora and fauna changed over time...ice ages and warming periods have been the death of many species, and caused many others to flourish.

We don't even really know what we're doing to the Earth's climate, especially considering what a relatively brief time we've been on the planet, and the complexity of the system...but it can't be any good. Like a fine watch with a loose spring. Whats bad is that we may not be able to reverse some of what humans have done...whats worse is that there are things we don't even know about in terms of how climate varies and changes, and we've likely have had an effect on quite a few of them.

Significant climate change is inevitable, whether or not it's caused in whole or in part by humans. We've been around as a species for less than 1/100th of 1% of the history of the planet...we haven't seen even a fraction of what the planet can throw at us.

We'd better be ready to adapt, or leave...or we go the route of countless species before us.

Adaptation is good. Learning to live in tune with the environment is very good. What worries me is when scientists start throwing the 'control' word around. Considering the life sciences' record on attempting to control environment on any scale, I find myself making sure my underground bunker is well stocked when they start muttering about altering future global climate. :p

I think global warming as one Small aspect of environmental awareness is badly overhyped and we should take a broader view of environmental activism. Before somebody starts overestimating humanity's importance on this planet.

Ozone hole now stable - full recovery expected by 2030 and 2060 for the Arctic and Antarctic respectively (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5276994.stm)

And why? The curtailed use of CFCs, at least in part. Too much of that crap overwhelmed the ozone's ability to repair itself. CFCs gone, hole repairing.

Damn! and here I thought that "Greenland" was the first Real Estate marketing scam ever recorded!

Kinda like a subdevelopment named "Forest Hills", which has neither forests nor hills!

And why? The curtailed use of CFCs, at least in part. Too much of that crap overwhelmed the ozone's ability to repair itself. CFCs gone, hole repairing.

This indeed shows that not all environmental damage is irreversible, and that by acting timely, the more grim consequences of pollution are addressable.

Dammit, I just knew my spam would devolve into actual debate. :(

;)
Pssst... LG... I got some property in Nevada that has a perfect view of the Pacific ocean.... all for a steal! :D

Adaptation is good. Learning to live in tune with the environment is very good. What worries me is when scientists start throwing the 'control' word around. Considering the life sciences' record on attempting to control environment on any scale, I find myself making sure my underground bunker is well stocked when they start muttering about altering future global climate. :p

I think global warming as one Small aspect of environmental awareness is badly overhyped and we should take a broader view of environmental activism. Before somebody starts overestimating humanity's importance on this planet.
Just don't underestimate our ability to affect it either. As far as we know, we are the only species on this planet to have ever been able to unleash deposits of fossil fuels and burn them. We are the only species that has ever been able to construct millions of vehicles, both flying and ground-based, that burn those fuels and scatter the various gasses in to the atmosphere. We affect our environment so much further than any other species because unlike those other species we can adapt on the fly and create technologies far beyond the occasional tool used by them.

So, while sure, in terms of harming the planet itself permanently we've got no real chance of that yet, we can--and ARE--significantly altering the climate to a point where we may start finding it far more difficult to survive in. Climate change, whether accelerated by man or not, is extremely nasty towards species.

...

Of course, the very things that make us who we are that allows us to accelerate the natural processes of climate change also allow us to weather it and reverse it, so it's not as if we'd be helpless, but we wouldn't be able to get away with it as easily as some people may think.

Dammit, I just knew my spam would devolve into actual debate. :(

;)

Spam causes global warming. Don't ask me how but I watched a documentary with some guy saying it was so.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/06/oldest.dna.ap/index.html


look at the size of those butterfly's :eek:

And why? The curtailed use of CFCs, at least in part. Too much of that crap overwhelmed the ozone's ability to repair itself. CFCs gone, hole repairing.Please don't lecture me on the Ozone layer. My point was that yammering on about ozone depletion when the international community has done enough to reduce the problem is counter-productive. Otherwise you begin to sound like a panicked sheep that will cry 'the end is nigh' as the drop of a hat.

Dammit, I just knew my spam would devolve into actual debate. :(

;)

Yeah....but the dynamism thing and the warming thing....not subtle enough...mind you....wtf do I know about subtly? :headbang:

Please don't lecture me on the Ozone layer. My point was that yammering on about ozone depletion when the international community has done enough to reduce the problem is counter-productive. Otherwise you begin to sound like a panicked sheep that will cry 'the end is nigh' as the drop of a hat.

Whoa there -- defensive much? Who was lecturing? I was reinforcing the point that the international community actually did something and -- look! -- it worked!

When you lash out at people for no reason, you begin to sound like a paranoid reactionary.

Also, the Greenland thing mentioned in the OP says that it may have been like eastern Canada or Norway some -- wait for it -- 500,000+ years ago. Humanity as we know it has been around for only about 12,000 years, so what's the point?

Plate tectonics could account for anywhere from 5-15km of northward motion in that much time, which isn't itself enough to backtrack to the lower latitudes Greenland was probably at in the Pangaea stage, but what was global climate like back then, anyway?

Ozone hole now stable - full recovery expected by 2030 and 2060 for the Arctic and Antarctic respectively (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5276994.stm)

Bear in mind a stable hole is still a hole.

you'd think that but with carbon output still high and kyoto being ignored it could cause a cool... meaning the layer will be more suceptable.. if it weren't for photochemical smog around most cities would be much more effected.. but that is another health and carcinogenic issue completely.. it ain't good to say the least.

http://hk.geocities.com/xavier114fch/03/03b.htm

global warming is only part of it, with a screwing of our natural defences we make ourselves more suceptable to cancer and other health issues.