The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
Then your best was just not good enough,
There is nothing flaky about the greenhouse effect.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
You have that the wrong way round as well.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity has ever been extracted?
The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking with dinosaurs.
As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.
In message , Roger writes
You had a punch and judy show ?
cool
In message , Roger writes
There's an inconsistency here, isn't there, TV wise
a blind belief in Soultrean emigration vs total disbelief in climate wars
LOL
But it could be said, and doubtless has been, that "What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is CO2 driven global warming' is another agenda driven by people who have other ideas that are more about raising taxes. You have become their sock puppet."
Good game, this.
Well, perhaps it escaped your attention that, in a publication loaded with bright primary colours and infant-school pictures, a major government origanisation published a graph that said "there are twelve suspected forcing mechanisms, and we know next to nothing about eight of them. In the light of this profound lack of knowledge, this other mechanism is the only one of importance".
If you can't manage to grasp that, then your best is, well, just not up to it.
The US scientist who was following this showed the DNA traces, and again AFAIIA they have not been seriously challenged.
The programme was about the 'Clovis point spear', which was first discovered in North America. Later, it was related to the identical spear-point developed by the Salutrians, but 10,000 years previously.
The search was on for a connection between the Salutrians and North America, and it was some time before the scientist, who was working on other programs at the time, realised that he had not only the DNA from the Salutrians (or possible their descendents, I can't recall which), but that it was matched by that of a single tribe of NA Indians, the inplication being that the Salutrians took their spear-point design to North America.
But 20,000 years ago, the ice-cap stretched from France to NA, and gave rise to the speculation that the Salutrians, who lived in a style much like the Innuit, could have paddled along the edge of the ice-cap.
You've just shot down the BBC's programme shown last Sunday, that set out to show how fake the anti-global-warming debate is, and which was mentioned earlier in this thread.
The possibility of contamination wasn't mentioned in the programme, so I can't comment.
I think you miss the point of how this particular brand of science works.
It merely allows you to predict that, given common strands of DNA in tow populations, that there was a common ancestor, and roughly how many generations ago that was.
Doesnt work like that. That gives a different pattern altogether.
I totally agree Terry, but its babies and bathwater. Just because people are running cynical marketing campaigns on the back of ecology, doesn't mean the ecology itself is false.
If you look at my posts, you will find I have defined a word for it . Ecobollox. I.e. my position is that the problem exists all right, but the solutions on offer are just so much hot air and marketing fluff.
Thats because you were reading government ecobollox.
Don't mistake that for what the government actually knows or believes.
Government is not a monolithic organisation: it hasm, in these matters, at least tow faces - one of which is about selling itself - and that's using all the general ecobollox - and the other is about listening to sound but unpleasant advice from people who can Do Sums and don't need primary colours to read a document: hence buried deep in the boring reports pu find a radical shift towards nuclear power in the governments stated, but very much understated, policy.
Or even walked across it.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
All you see is a bludgeon with which to beat those who disagree with you and sneering at a site you are using to support your argument does nothing to advance it. The graph in question shows the extent of the warming or cooling effect of each factor. What is not well understood is the mechanism by which they act.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
See above. Where have I said that they have?
You are really getting very careless Terry. Hand made artifacts are never identical, even when made by the same hand. What seems convincing is the technique for making the spear points which was the same and more sophisticated than what followed on in Europe. The 10,000 years you use is also way out.
So the real Terry Field is coming out of the shadows regurgitating half remembered 'facts' gleaned from a TV program when a quick google would have shown how wrong said 'facts' are.
Solutrean BTW, not Salutrian. Sticking to your wrong spelling is a further demonstration of how impervious you are to reality.
Technically not contamination but I was looking for a short way of expressing a very minor element in the genetic make-up of modern native Americans.
From Wikipedia:
"In addition, certain mtDNA anomalies in pre-Columbian Amerind populations leave open the possibility of alternate migration patterns into the Americas. Geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University, studying the mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans, found an mtDNA type called X. Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer reports that X occurs 'only among Europeans and Native Americans, with a single report from southern Siberia, but the link between the Old and New Worlds is up to 30,000 years old'[3]. However, the most recent study of complete genomes suggests a single founding population, including type X, arriving via the Beringia route from Asia.[4]
In short, the idea of a Clovis-Solutrean link remains rather controversial and does not enjoy wide acceptance. The hypothesis is challenged by large gaps in time between the Clovis and Solutrean eras, a lack of evidence of Solutrean seafaring, lack of specific Solutrean features in Clovis technology, and other issues."
If they don't understand the mechanism how can they know its effect?
There is a lot of evidence that the warming measured a couple of decades ago was probably due to a drop in pollutants as power stations became cleaner and aircraft became more efficient. There was a measurable increase in temps after 9/11 grounded all aircraft and a drop when the flights restarted.
There may not be an actual warming of the entire system at all, just the bits we measure. Certainly urban temps have shot up far more than rural temps and far more than sea temps. There was a lot of early satellite data that showed land and sea temps didn't rise as much as the land based equipment said but it was decided to ignore it as it didn't fit the requirements.
Anyway the best thing to do is to reduce the water vapour as it is water that carries the energy to create storms, etc. The only way to do that is to stop them burning the rain forests and let them re-grow. You may have to fight a war to do this. Cutting CO2 is not going to fix the main problem.
How much water is transpired from rainforests (or any vegetation) compared with that from the oceans?
There seems to be some disagreement as to what the "main problem" is!
I've only just dipped into this thread but I gather:
1) the greenhouse effect is real, well known for 2 centuries and necessary to keep the earth's surface warm enough to sustain life as we know it. Many gases in the atmosphere will trap long wavelength re radiation from the surface, having passed the higher energy solar input, but absorption bands differ. Those wavelengths that atmospheric water absorbs on a clear day already get intercepted to a large degree. Those that CO2 absorbs don't all get caught whilst CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere. Catching re radiation should warm the atmosphere but measurements are uncertain?? 2) Whilst CO2 has formed a much larger proportion of the atmosphere and in the last 400, 000 years has cyclically tracked ice ages between levels of about 185 and 285 parts per million (according to ice core data which may be disputed) in the whole time hominids are known to have existed these limits have not been exceeded till iron age man started clearing forests. 3)Since the beginning of the industrial age CO2 atmospheric levels have risen from 300 parts per million (the level I was taught at school) to ~385 parts per million. This level is proportional to estimates of fossil carbon burned but is less than a direct relationship, indicating that the biosphere buffers some and I'm not sure where cement making fits in to this as a CO2 source. 4) rain falls as carbonic acid and the sea is measurably more acid, this inhibits the beasties that store CO2 as calcium carbonate. 5) Of the three major organs of the biosphere (land, oceans and atmosphere) we dump most CO2 into the smallest by mass, the atmosphere, such that its stock of CO2 has grown from 550,000 million tonnes to 700,000 million tonnes in 200 years and is rising by 6,000 million tonnes/annum increasing, this is 10% of the annual (natural) CO2 flux between land an atmosphere. Indicating the atmospheric CO2 is recycled every 3.5 years. 6) apart from trapping exhaust gases and storing them the only mechanisms for getting CO2 from the atmosphere are biological processes like photosynthesis and bugs directly creating carbonates.So the question I would like answered is does it matter if CO2 levels reach 500 parts per million?
The pundits seem to say yes but not necessarily because of warming, more because of changing patterns of rainfall which agricultural systems cannot adapt to. The causal link still needs to be explained to me a bit better. I can understand that, from life experience, that such a drastic change in CO2 isn't likely to have no effect and probably is likely to have a bad effect. We've seen a previous atmospheric pollution problem, loss of parts of the ozone layer, solved quite quickly (or is it??) by global agreement, I think the same is true of acid rain.
Having changed from a nation producing 75% of our own food in a benign temperate climate to one importing 50% of it's food and an agricultural system that cannot adapt...
Now I appreciate I have limited intellect, the very fact that I'm wasting my unwelcome additional free time looking at this box when I'm still capable of work proves that, so has anyone an actual solution or is it just an argument?
I attended a conference recently where a solution was put forward but it depends on global co operation, which I frankly do not believe will happen, it suits me because it relates to my trade. It also panders to rich nations as it seems to offer a buy out option.
AJH
I'm trying to say something similar, in that the solutions proposed deal with just one problem, that might turn out to be a minor perturbation caused by the other eight or so problems about which very little is known.
It used to be called 'putting all one's eggs in the basket', and I can't see that that is a good way of going forward.
ROFL. What a great name.
Quite.
That's how you choose to read it.
I read it as a confirmation of the great lack of knowledge in the area, and a reason not to jump on one bandwagon merely because it's fashoonable and amenable to taxation.
I don't suppose you noticed that the CO2 column in that graph also had two or three other effects added on top - just happening to give the whole thing a taller column than it would otherwise have had.
Why didn't they do that with the cooling mechanisms - is it because they look like outweighing the CO2 column? Nah, no-one would ever mislead people like that.
Also, o-one has yet answered, let alone respond to, several other points I made.
Roughly these were:
- Why the last ice age ended, and whether those mechanisms are in place and functioning
- Why the Global Wamers chose 1960 - 1980 for their baseline, knowing it covered an unusually cold period
- Why the modellers chose to knowingly tuned their models to get the same answer as the others
- Why we know so much about one forcing mechanism, and choose to pursue controlling that, when we know nothing about eight others, and a little more than nothing about a couple of others.
PS: the graph I referenced gave very little weight to the effect of clouds. I suggest you look up the research that was done of the days post 9/11, when no aircraft flew in the airspace over the US, and climatologists took the chance to measure something that would have been otherwise impossible. But this time, you can look it up yourself, and form your own opinion; I've given you enough to go on. Note I haven't said which side of the debate, if any, it supports.
It was a comment, not an accusation.
It was 'identical' in that no substantive differences could be found in shape or manner of shaping. Not being an expert on stone tool-working, I took an expert's view that the limited number of ways that the point could be made would have resulted in noticeable differences, of which there seemed to be none.
What make you believe that is worse that regurgitated 'facts' from Wikipedia?
Ah, Wikipedia again.
...which I mentioned.
I mentioned kayaking, for which 'seafaring' - a term you haven't defined - may not be necessary.
Apart from the striking similarity of the spear-points, and a time defference, mentioned by you above, that would have allowed the transfer to take place.
I'm bowled over.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.