Global Warming

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Vostok Ice Core Data, Antartica- Well, yes there could be another ice age coming again soon considering the last ice age was only 10,000 years ago, and the Earth is 4 billion years old. Back in the day, Folks use to sacrifice a virgin to volcano to stop it from erupting. Method must work since some of us are still living here and prospering. I suggest we throw Mitt Romney into a volcano tomorrow. It will appease the gods of fear-mongering, and the gods of bull-shi*t, and I'm sure we'll be just fine

i think the volcano would spit him right back out too full of ....!

[aishah]

i don't know enough about global warming to know. i've found the info on this thread really interesting because most people i know accept global warming and human involvement in it as fact, so it was really cool to hear a different perspective. it definitely made me stop and think.

i do think corporations are doing a lot of fucked up shit to the environment. i don't know if that's causing global warming, but it's causing enough other problems to scare me.

i'm curious for folks who know more about this than i do - what do you think about the theory that we're going through a great extinction that's driven partly by human actions? i heard this (and the idea that we might have another huge volcanic eruption sometime soon) only recently.

[Rockinonahigh]

I honestly beleave the earth has gone thrue many cyckes of cooling then warming in varying degrees and will contenue to do so.I'm not a scientis but I do read lots of earth/ cutural history and it says thay had happen a lot of times,onething for shure we best be mindful of how our ancestors got thrue the weather changes so we will be able to do the same by inproveing on the how and why they did as well as they did.the satistics of survival of the fitist will be inproved on but useing th technology we have at hand.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Rockinonahigh

I honestly beleave the earth has gone thrue many cyckes of cooling then warming in varying degrees and will contenue to do so.I'm not a scientis but I do read lots of earth/ cutural history and it says thay had happen a lot of times,onething for shure we best be mindful of how our ancestors got thrue the weather changes so we will be able to do the same by inproveing on the how and why they did as well as they did.the satistics of survival of the fitist will be inproved on but useing th technology we have at hand.

Do you rilly think we would do better? I don't believe they would, many would die only a very few could manage that enviroment. I'm not sure what the temperature would be but that brings all kinds of interesting questions (ie what would you burn for fuel?) Many would starve, society would disappear, disease would run rampant, people would do desperate things..

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Rockinonahigh

I honestly beleave the earth has gone thrue many cyckes of cooling then warming in varying degrees and will contenue to do so.I'm not a scientis but I do read lots of earth/ cutural history and it says thay had happen a lot of times,onething for shure we best be mindful of how our ancestors got thrue the weather changes so we will be able to do the same by inproveing on the how and why they did as well as they did.the satistics of survival of the fitist will be inproved on but useing th technology we have at hand.

We have some advantages they didn't have and they have some advantages we didn't have. We have better technology and so more of us could likely survive a harsher ice age than our paleolithic ancestors did. That said, our die-off would likely be *much* larger simply because we are so much more numerous. Keep in mind, though, that given the small genetic diversity of our species (I know we don't look like we are genetically relatively homogeneous but we are) we've had one very close brush with extinction. The current understanding is that all 7 billion of us are the descendants of, perhaps, no more than 10000 breeding pairs living ~75-100000 years ago. Yes, we bounced back and did so quite magnificently but as I said earlier, there's a lot of genetic diversity we lost during that time.

As far as how we might adapt as a species is anyone's guess. We are still evolving as a species but we've changed the rules of the game so much that it's just this side of impossible for us to know what kinds of traits are being selected for.

Cheers
Aj

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

We have some advantages they didn't have and they have some advantages we didn't have. We have better technology and so more of us could likely survive a harsher ice age than our paleolithic ancestors did.

Only those with access to that technology would survive. And they are outnumbered by a majority growing both proportionately and in quantity.

That said, our die-off would likely be *much* larger simply because we are so much more numerous.

Keep in mind, though, that given the small genetic diversity of our species (I know we don't look like we are genetically relatively homogeneous but we are) we've had one very close brush with extinction.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting the connection (why it's "Given" that (despite or because of?), our small generic diversity we've had one close brush with extinction. Can you explain again, please?

The current understanding is that all 7 billion of us are the descendants of, perhaps, no more than 10000 breeding pairs living ~75-100000 years ago. Yes, we bounced back and did so quite magnificently but as I said earlier, there's a lot of genetic diversity we lost during that time.

As far as how we might adapt as a species is anyone's guess. We are still evolving as a species but we've changed the rules of the game so much that it's just this side of impossible for us to know what kinds of traits are being selected for.

I wonder if we're selecting for traits enabling people to have more resistant to environmental toxins.

Cheers
Aj

Interesting.

[Toughy]

At the end of Bill Clinton's last term global climate change was accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in and out of the field across the world........so was evolution.

It's only in the US there is this denial of climate change and evolution. Frankly I don't give a shit...........what I can see with my own eyes is the ice caps melting, the glacier packs on all the moutains/volcanoes melting rapidly (look at pics of Mt Rainer....it's scarey).....and the pollution being churned out in India and China at alarming rates........there is a problem....a big one.

Let's not be more stupid and let's do everything we can to eliminate the human contribution to the problem.....in ALL countries particularly the newly industrialized countries..........

stop basing everything on oil as the provider of energy....we are way smarter than that

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

Interesting.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting the connection (why it's "Given" that (despite or because of?), our small generic diversity we've had one close brush with extinction. Can you explain again, please?[/quote]

Certainly. It's not that we had a brush with extinction *because* of our lack of genetic diversity. The small amount of genetic diversity among our species is an *effect* of that brush with extinction not the cause. A few of different things point toward this being the case. The first--and the one which, more or less, gives birth to the other two is that both the mitochondrial DNA variation (I'll refer to this as mtDNA from here on out) and the Y-chromosome variation is less than what we would expect given our numbers. All seven billion of us carry one of seven mtDNA variations. The roughly 49% of humans who care a Y-chromosome are all in some 15 groups. Again, this is smaller than one would expect. For example, chimpanzees have much more genetic diversity and worldwide they don't make up even 1% of human numbers but any two given chimps that are not closely related will share far fewer genes than any two non-related humans will.

This kind of anomaly cries out for explanation. Since mutations in all species accumulate at fairly predictable rates once you can work backward and start to see where those genes started and how they radiated out amongst existing human populations. What that work has shown is that every human being alive is related to a fairly small population, of ~10000 breeding pairs, that lived in sub-Saharan Africa in the range of 75 to 100K years ago.

The easiest way to think about this is the relationship between you and distant cousins. Somewhere out there are people whom you are distantly related to that you have no idea that you share genes with them. If, however, we sequenced your DNA and their DNA and, assuming we were lucky, had access to all the intermediary DNA we could work backward to where your shared genes come from. In much the same way, although obviously over a much longer time period, with a far larger sample and with lots of gaps in that sample, we can work back where various genes found in populations had their origins.

I won't bore you with the mathematics of it but there are certain things that just follow from certain observations. For example, since mtDNA is passed down, pretty much unchanged, from the mother it means that there must have been a mitochondrial Eve (in other words some woman or women who carried the copies of the mtDNA that all humans have). Even though evolution tends to homogenize a population because it favors those genes that work better in their environment, there's a *lot* of genetic diversity that is just missing in our species and the only real explanation for it--given that we know the mutation rate in the species--is that a lot of the diversity was wiped out and then bounced back.

As far as how we might adapt as a species is anyone's guess. We are still evolving as a species but we've changed the rules of the game so much that it's just this side of impossible for us to know what kinds of traits are being selected for.

I wonder if we're selecting for traits enabling people to have more resistant to environmental toxins.

We may be. It's hard to know. There's different levels of selection as well. For instance, purely by happenstance we likely *are* being selected for disease resistance because living in cities exposes you to far more pathogens than living in a low-density hunter-gathering-fishing village. The problem is that sometimes, we select for things that have no adaptive function *other* than that in a certain population certain traits may become 'fashionable'. For instance, if red-hair is considered to a mark of beauty within a population then, on average, more red-haired children will be born. Several hundred generations down the road, there's a a lot of red-haired people around. No one remembers *why* red-hair was considered popular 500 years ago, maybe it lasts in some folk story but it has no adaptive significance. It's another level of selection called sexual selection and it can have very profound but weird consequences. A couple of examples within our own species may be breast size in women (it isn't adaptive in the sense that women with larger breasts have more or healthier babies) or facial hair in men (which seems like an advertisement of virility). It may be that these are the kinds of traits that become 'fashionable' at some point in a species' evolutionary history and then become locked in. Both breast size and facial hair are perfect kinds of 'signals' for sexual selection because they are useless (and therefore costly) and hard to fake. The textbook example of this kind of selection is the tail of peacocks. They're big, expensive to build (in the sense of the calories that go into building that can't be used for building, say, better flight muscles) and make it very difficult for peacocks to fly. However, peahens prefer peacocks with large, brightly colored, garish plumage. It would be better for the peacocks to grow smaller tails that were still larger than their neighbors but then, that would mean that it would behoove a neighbor to have a slightly larger tail than that. Does it help the male survive? No. It does, however, help him spread more genes around because males with the best plumage have the best mating opportunities.

Because of medicine, with the exception of some disease resistance, I don't know that we are going to be selecting for physical traits as much as we are for mental traits. But it's hard to predict future evolution because nature is far more clever than we are and she knows what she likes.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

Interesting.

We have some advantages they didn't have and they have some advantages we didn't have. We have better technology and so more of us could likely survive a harsher ice age than our paleolithic ancestors did.

Only those with access to that technology would survive. And they are outnumbered by a majority growing both proportionately and in quantity.

Wanted to say one other thing about this. I wasn't really talking about *high* technology. I'm talking about technologies that are more recent than the HGF toolkit but are on the other side of the iPhone/computers/exotic materials science/etc. technologies. I'm talking about simple things like steel tools (something we've been making for 4000 years), bronze (which we've been doing the best part of 6000), writing, literacy, agriculture (which is a technology whether we realize it or not), printing, gunpowder, steam power, long-distance sailing technology, scientific method, etc. All of those predate the 20th century by a very comfortable, multi-thousand year margin and *none* of them were available to humans 50000 years ago. So the fact that we could work steel and bronze, preserve what we learn through writing things down, and the rest of the suite of tools humans had *fully* up and running before anyone even thought about the Industrial Revolution, would mean that we were far ahead of our long-forgotten ancestors.

We tend to underestimate the power of literacy, writing and scientific method, in particular, because they are so ubiquitous and they work so well that they've just become part of the infrastructure of life. Yet these are all very powerful technologies. We wouldn't have to, just to take three examples, reinvent agriculture, steel or bronze working because we've written down how to do those things. It means we can preserve knowledge across generations in a very durable form. Those are the kinds of technologies I was speaking of and should have been more specific about them.

Cheers
Aj

[kittygrrl]

Permafrost in Alaska is thawing..it contains mega amounts of carbon which can form into methane..not good