NASA admits climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit, not because of SUVs and fossil fuels
(www.sott.net)
🔍 Notable Narrative Buster
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
This is annoying.
I'm just confused by your logic. The Sahara formed into a desert type environment approximately 11000 years ago. Humanity was supposedly nomadic (not agricultural) stone implements and not much else technologically. Thinking animal skin clothing, possibly wooden spears with stone heads, etc. How exactly did they cut down all the trees and make the Sahara into desert from once lush fauna? The theory of anthropogenic climate change comes from the last 140 years or so from the beginning of the Industrial age. Which deserts have been formed in the last 140 years? All the ones that I am aware of were for far older than 140 years. Ancient manuscripts describe the big famous ones in excellent detail. I am just trying to figure out which ones are newly formed? The dust bowl in the 30's was completely recovered farmland within a decade or so. This was an object lesson about farming practices. The land recovered because rain kept coming and they stopped over utilizing the same farm land. They restarted rotational crop farming. I guess my point is that the land restores itself if the rain keeps coming. The changes in rain patterns are not manmade and the Earth is not warming in any unusual or alarming rate. We just happened to be in a warming cycle. When it turns toward another cooling cycle, will this also be because of human beings?
Grazing and hunting and fire. I already said that. I have said a number of things you keep ignoring. That is obnoxious. Anyone can look this shit up. For example:
Humans as Agents in the Termination of the African Humid Period
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00004/full
"This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
He has a theory, he finds data that may support this theory, however almost all the sources he cites have competing theories. This is a possibility with no way to resolve the question. If northern Africa was grassland, why did it not spread. The grazing animals would have moved further south into central africa. Herds that were this large would have dramatically changed the central African continent into more grassland. The theory is that grazing animals affect the area once the herd becomes large enough. They enter a more wooded area and begin damaging the forest ecosystem causing a recession in the wood line. This gives way to more grass and shrubs rather than trees whose primary methods of reproduction are destroyed by the grazing animals. Over time, the trees are reduced by changes in temperature, natural fires, disease and insect activity. Thus giving rise to more grass and shrubs that provide additional food resources to the grazing animals allowing the herd to expand and create more ecological changes. See, I can make up stuff that you can neither prove or disprove. I could find data to help corroborate my theory, but I honestly am not inclined, because it is simply a waste of time. Unless some rich person wants to fund me to sit around making up some science sounding stuff to promote my theory. This is how modern science works. Whomever is funding the work gets the conclusions they want or else there is no further funding to be had. If these theories were decades old and had no relation to furthering the agenda of anthropogenic climate change, I would view them less cynically, however these types of "scientific" theories have abounded of late and so they do not carry the same weight as less politically convenient theories. If this doesn't strike you as being overly convenient in tune with the current agenda, then I am sure you don't see it. I view almost all theories with equal skepticism until tangible and convincing proof is offered. Not one single resource you have provided had anything more than a theory. Theories are great, if they can be verified or disproven. If they cannot, then they are simply excercises of thought.
But you have been stating your own theory or belief or whatever it is as fact. I am telling you there is information to the contrary and you can improve your game by finding out what you can to educate yourself or you can not. I would want to find out more if I were you. If you were me you would want to put it that way. It's cool, dexter. No hard feelings, have a good night.
Early human impacts and ecosystem reorganization in southern-central Africa
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/did-humans-shape-landscape-fire-85000-years-ago-180977669/
Beginning in roughly 10,000 B.C., people around the world adopted large-scale farming as part of the Neolithic Revolution. But humans in need of resources have been shaping their surroundings for much, much longer than that. As a new study published in the journal Science Advances suggests, Stone Age people in southeastern Africa used fire to intentionally transform the landscape around Lake Malawi some 85,000 years ago.
“This is the earliest evidence I have seen of humans fundamentally transforming their ecosystem with fire,” says lead author Jessica Thompson, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University, in a statement. “It suggests that by the Late Pleistocene, humans were learning to use fire in truly novel ways. In this case, their burning caused replacement of the region’s forests with the open woodlands you see today.”
These are excellent displays of guess work. The data these people have composed is estimating human habitation and technology for 200k years ago? Seriously? I admit, most of the geologic terminology is beyond me. Geology has not been any area that I have researched. Considering that these very same scientists were in universal agreement that there were no communities of humans with enough free time to build permanent megalithic structures until the beginning of civilization in the lower region of modern day Iraq, approximately 5000 BC. However Goebeckli Tepe just threw that all out the window. No we are led to believe that they can determine arson 85k years ago. This is quite the leap for me to be able to take very seriously. This is guess work. Find some data, come up with a theory, but there is no way to confirm or dismiss the theory because we have no way of proving or disproving it. The scientific community also believed that the city of Troy was made up as a story by Homer, until they found the ruins of Troy. This was not anywhere close to as old as what these folks are proposing. This coincides in 2021 perfectly with the concept that humans are capable and even responsible for climate change. Is it not convenient to further the climate change theory? I don't know how old you are, but I remember the mongering about the coming of another Ice Age in the 70's. Then there was the depletion of the ozone in the early 80's, then it was Acid rain on the late 80's, then it was global warming in the 90's, then when the world wasn't getting warmer, they pointed to any change in weather and called it global climate change. They have been beating that drum ever since. This is questionable at best. You have obviously convinced yourself that this is fact, it is apparent that we are at an impasse. The only thing I can say at this point is that we will see. When the world doesn't become Mad Max, then I guess I am right. If it does, then I guess you are right.
Those are just some examples of information about this. Read Schauberger, please and understand how when the trees are removed by burning or otherwise the soil gets baked. Temperatures rise due to loss of shade causing increased evaporation. Too much evaporation predictably...dries out the new desert, killing the microbial life in the once living soil. There will be less rainfall due to the aridity. If there is rain then flooding occurs due to the relative impermeability of the ground.
Trees are the heatsinks of the planet. They cool the ground and help it retain moisture. Of course climate is going to change when you take so many away. It's hotter, more arid, it's harder to sustain life...They just wanted grasslands for their herds but it was done so much the land couldn't support the grasses anymore. I would think at the end of the ice age there would tend to be a lot of water freeing up globally but maybe not in the Sahara. They went in the opposite way and dried up.