Civilization Depends On A Stable Climate

If you were to able to travel back in time 50,000 years, abduct a paleolithic hunter from a river valley in southern France and haul him back to 21st century America, would he stand out in a crowd? Depends on the crowd. He probably wouldn't blend in very well at the New York Stock Exchange. But dress him in shorts and flip-flops, hand him a backpack and he could probably stroll across any college campus in the country without attracting attention.

Human beings who lived 500 centuries ago were fully modern, virtually indistinguishable from us in fundamental ways. Their brains and bodies were physically the same as ours. They created sophisticated art - murals, paintings, sculptures - and buried their dead in a fashion that suggests they possessed ceremonial or religious traditions. They had developed the technology and navigational skills required to travel across broad expanses of ocean.

Paleolithic hunter-gatherers did not, however, domesticate plants or animals on a large scale. Nor did they live in large, sedentary communities. No one did until about 10,000 years ago when, suddenly and in multiple locations around the globe, agriculture and cities appear in the archaeological record.

The relatively abrupt and simultaneous rise of farming and urban settlement patterns suggest that the capacity to develop such innovations had been part of humankind's intellectual and behavioral bag of tricks for a long time.

That capacity had lain dormant, however, awaiting some sort of catalyst to unleash it.

There's a pretty good theory as to what that catalyst might have been. If valid, it's potentially bad news for the well-groomed, suit-wearing descendants of paleolithic cave painters.

This was one of the secondary but intriguing points made last week during the penultimate in a series of global warming programs at UC Santa Barbara.

Thursday night's lecture and panel discussion featured journalist and author Elizabeth Kolbert, who turned her award-winning series of articles on climate change for the New Yorker into a book featured this spring in a campus-wide reading program.

At about the same time that agriculture and urbanization appear in the archaeological record, the Earth entered a period of climate stability not seen at any time in the preceding 400,000 years. That's the span of time for which scientists have the most detailed record of global temperatures and atmospheric conditions, derived from the isotopic signature of frozen water and the chemistry of trapped air bubbles in ice cores pulled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

What those ice cores reveal is a pattern of profound climatic instability during most of modern humanity's time on Earth. Every 100,000 years or so, the climate would begin to cool, probably the result of a recurring pattern in Earth's orbit around the sun. Ice sheets would grow, glaciers would advance and sea level would drop. Eventually, however, the climate would begin to heat up, at first slowly and then rapidly, the warming continuing until terminated by onset of another ice age.

Roughly 10,000 years ago, however, the pattern changed. Temperatures reached approximately the same high point that they had reached before each of the three previous ice ages, but then held fairly steady, with minor fluctuations.

And it is in that brief window of temperature stability that modern civilization was born and has flourished. It is entirely plausible that until then, human populations were forced to move so frequently to follow climate-driven shifts in food and water supplies that they could not develop social and technological systems requiring permanence.

About 150 years ago, modern humans began unintentionally tinkering with the climate system, setting in motion a trend toward warmer temperatures - higher than any in the experience of our species - that threatens to end this period of stability. The consequences may prove merely inconvenient for the richest nations, but for hundreds of millions of people in countries that lack the wealth and institutional capacity to adapt, the changes are likely to prove disastrous as food supplies collapse, fresh water becomes scarce and low-lying lands are inundated by rising seas.

There's a grim symmetry to this theory - that human beings had to wait for a period of climate stability before they could develop the technology to destabilize the climate. And it offers a rather dismal prognosis for the future, which Kolbert expressed this way:

"An organism that depends on stability, but produces instability, can only survive for so long."

“Today, the IPCC report is 20% science and 80% politics; the politics of socialism, mostly. The political arm of the global warming cabal makes all the press releases.
The actual unedited scientific portion no longer is made available unedited....Care to guess why?”

Neither you nor I need to “guess” why, but you and I need others to continuously point out the reason “why” at every possible turn.

blam, this guy is the "environmental" guru at our local paper, the Ventura County Star. He is hopelessly PC, as is the entire "news" operation. I have banned that dishonest, propagandist fishwrap from my home.

Whenever the paper really wants to put a gloss on its daily diet of liberal PC bilge, it hauls out Krist. For instance during the Lewis & Clark bicentennial he traced the explorers' entire journey, making sure Star readers were apprised of the very latest revisionist, anti-American "history" about how white barbarians destroyed peaceful noble savages, implying all people of European ancestry should be terminated -- except for Krist and his PC pals, of course.

This article is subversive because it uses the truth behind so-called "global warming aka climate change" to make its anti-human, anti-capitalist case. It makes the matter-of-fact charge that warming is human-caused out of the blue, with no facts or documentation, and drops it into the scientific recitation of natural climate change.

This seems to be the new environmentalist strategy (knowing they can't make their case honestly). I've seen it used in several documentaries on TV as well. Someone, somewhere, is carefully writing the script for this massive media campaign. I've never witnessed anything like it in my life except in the totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Well, she's correct that modern civilization could probably only evolve during an interglacial period.

Where she gets the idea that climate has been "stable" the last 10,000 years is . . . ? Sounds like she's talking about the discredited "hockey stick."

She'd better hope mankind has figured out a way to keep the warm going. A new ice age would wipe out European civilization. Canada would be a goner. And things wouldn't be very pleasant for the part of the U.S. not under the ice.

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.