Posted on 03/06/2005 3:02:28 PM PST by blam
What stupid tripe!!!!!
What does this yoyo think the earth's population was 8,000 years ago?
New question for these idiots: "How many cavemen with stone axes does it take to cause global warming?" ...or... "How many trees a year can a caveman cut down working 8 hours a day?"
I don't know what the human population was 8000 years ago but it could not have been large enough to alter the weather with wheat fields. This is just silly, nearly as silly as the present argument
I can see the foaming at the mouth Gaia worshippers going off on this one. The ones who spout off "Humanity is a virus infecring the earth mother goddess Gaia".
I wonder how many PhD's it took to come up with this theory.
YEH! And we gotta stop those darn Indians and Chinese from buying the next 500,000,000 motor scooters!(Or WORSE--Automobiles) Where is the Sierra Club when U needum?
Current atmospheric CH4 accounts for 25% of current warming enhancement.
I'm going to make a wild guess and say that we are still creating more CH4 today (with a population of 5 billion +) than we were 8,000 years ago with a total population of between 5 and 10 million.
The amount of land diverted to agricultural use from roughly 8000 BC to 1000 AD must be tiny by today's standards. I would wager that the landfills in the US alone produce more CH4 than all human activities of the newly agrarian world.
If our total current methane/greenhouse enhancement accounts for about a quarter of one degree celsius, than we must assume that the simple and primitive agricultural doings of about 10 million people account for a methane output 8 times greater than of today.
Yes-- methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but the numbers don't pass the smell test, so to speak. I want cooroboration.
Big Time.
What sucks, is this study was probably paid for with tax dollars.
It was the Chicxulub Impact 65 million years ago that killed the dinosaurs.
Greenhouse gas bump
This is just so much jive. There were not enough of these farmers to impact climate change. Do scientists actually get Federal grant money for such dumb work? I fear they do.
Pre-Columbian North American Indians worked to maximize deer habitats, in order to improve their hunting prospects. Deer inhabit the interface between forest and meadow. The Indians maximised this habitat by deliberately setting fires from time to time to clear out forests
| Humans began altering global climate thousands of years ago Ruddiman questions accepted ideas and challenges believed truths |
 |
|
Photo by Andrew Shurtleff
|
| In his study, William Ruddiman says, “Humans got in the way of what nature was going to do. The climate is stable only because [we] have kept it that way.” |
By Fariss Samarrai
Before humans built cities, developed writing or founded religions, they began altering the global climate. Populations grew, struggled to survive in a brutal world, and developed agriculture. The earth and climate responded. Heat-trapping gasses — carbon dioxide and methane — increased as forests were cleared and crops planted. The climate went into a long stable period of relative warmth that has continued to the present day.
Without early and continued alterations of the land by humans, the Earth could instead be in a naturally occurring ice age now.
But there is no large glaciation because humans inadvertently changed the direction of nature thousands of years ago, according to a new study by William Ruddiman, U.Va. professor emeritus of environmental sciences.
According to Ruddiman, civilization has flourished because the climate for the past 8,000 or so years has been relatively stable and moderate. This, he said, did not occur naturally, but happened because humans cut down enormous tracts of forest in Europe, China and India to make room for crops and pastures. This loss of forestlands greatly increased the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Humans also irrigated lands for rice fields, increasing the release of methane over the past 5,000 years. Instead of cooling naturally, the climate stabilized. An ice age that should have begun 4,000 to 5,000 years ago never happened, Ruddiman said.
The study was published in the December issue of the journal Climatic Change. Ruddiman also presented his findings at the December meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The study has gained international media coverage, with stories in The New York Times, The Economist, The Guardian and numerous other publications.
“We humans got in the way of what nature was going to do,” Ruddiman said. “The climate is stable only because humans have kept it that way.”
Ruddiman said his method was to look at what should be natural climate trends, and then to take notice of “things that are going the wrong way.”
“We should be in a natural period of glaciation, but we are not,” he said. “I got suspicious that humans were the explanation.”
He discovered that an increase in greenhouse gasses, and the resulting warming trend, coincides with the advent of agriculture.
“The world would look very different than it does now if it wasn’t for the human activity that has been altering the global climate for thousands of years,” he said.
Only about half of the human-caused alteration of greenhouse gasses and global climate occurred during the last 150 years, Ruddiman said. The other half occurred during the 5,000- to 8,500-year period of population growth and agriculture prior to industrialization.
Ruddiman’s broad but highly detailed study is unique because it draws from numerous unrelated studies from disparate fields of inquiry. He examined studies of early human history and agricultural practices, population fluctuations (including epidemics that killed off populations), atmospheric chemistry from ice core samples — every piece of the puzzle that he could pull together to get the big picture of why the climate had gone in a direction different than it was inclined.
“Investigators in the various disciplines don’t talk much to each other,” he said. “For this reason, some findings and ideas fall through the cracks. It’s rare for people to step back from the details of what they are doing to look at what others are doing and see the broader implications of all these findings.”
Ruddiman said he was able to do this because he is “retired.” He has the time to question ideas that are taken as fact in the busy academic world of teaching, publishing and service.
“I have found continuity in retirement,” he said. “I’m focusing my efforts on bigger studies with broader implications. I’m able to spend more time trying to answer the scientific questions that have intrigued me throughout my career.”
He said he sometimes feels like Lt. Columbo, the inquisitive and masterful TV detective. He pauses often, thinks carefully and says, “There’s something bothering me. Just one more question...”
|
Highlights of Ruddiman’s study include: • Beginning 8,000 years ago, humans reversed an expected decrease in carbon dioxide by clearing forests in Europe, China and India for croplands and pasture. • Beginning 5,000 years ago, humans reversed an • In the last few thousand years, the size of the climatic warming caused by these early greenhouse emissions may have grown large enough to prevent a glaciation that climate models predict should have begun in northeast Canada. • Abrupt reversals of the slow carbon-dioxide rise caused by deforestation correlate with bubonic plague and other pandemics near 200-600, 1300-1400 and 1500-1700 A.D. Historical records show that high mortality rates caused by plague led to massive abandonment of farms. Forest re-growth on the untended farms pulled carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and caused carbon dioxide levels to fall. In time, the plagues abated, the farms were reoccupied and the newly re-grown forests were cut, returning the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Ruddiman’s complete study is available online |
These in the south were already farming 11K years ago.
Rainforest Researchers Hit Paydirt(Farming 11K Years Ago In South America)
How to write a global warming article:
Man made global warming is causing _______. That is the startling conclusion of climate researchers who say man-made global warming is _____________. __________ triggered major alterations to levels of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they say.
As a result, global temperatures are (insert falling or rising). The theory, based on studies of carbon dioxide and methane samples taken from Antarctic ice cores, is highly controversial - a point acknowledged by Dr.______ at the ______ Institute. 'This proves global warming is real' he states in the current issue of ___________.
(Insert paragraph about deforestation or SUVs here)
Computer models of the climate made by scientists at the University of __________ suggest this rise in carbon dioxide and methane have had a profound effect on Earth: our planet will be ____ derees C (insert cooler or warmer here) than it is now, and ice caps and glaciers would affect much of the world.
'This is a very interesting idea,' he told _________. 'However, there are other good alternative explanations to explain the fluctuations that we see in temperature and greenhouse gas levels at this time. Our models are highly speculative and additional funding is needed to refine their accuracy.'
Uh Huh............................................sure...............................1234567890123456789...........................................nope.
An Origin Of New Word Agriculture In Coastal Ecuador (12,000 BP)
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.