Climate change, doomsday and the ‘inevitable’ extinction of humankind

okamido

Forum Staff
Jun 2009
29,885
land of Califia
#4
The odds have shifted to such a degree that we may now be, with or without climate change, extinction-proof.
I think that I have to agree with this, at least as it pertains to the climate change argument.
 

unclefred

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,731
Oregon coastal mountains
#5
This is always ignored or downplayed by the chicken-little coalition:


The last half million years or so in particular represent an episode of especially severe climate fluctuation, with intensely cold periods followed by warm phases, flip-flopping between the two on timescales of hundreds or thousands of years – in short, the worst bit of the 2.6 million-year Ice Age or Pleistocene Epoch.

The archaeological record of Europe suggests that vast areas were largely emptied of hominins during cold phases only to be recolonised during warm periods.

Hominins, pre-dating our own species, were living in Europe at latitudes as high as 53° north by 700,000 years ago.
 
Jun 2010
401
Rhondda, South Wales
#6
I'd have to agree, as has been previously said, that as a species we're pretty much safe from the threat of extinction...short of wiping ourselves out, anyway. As a species we're unique in that we're capable of adapting our environment to suit us by building home and wearing clothes etc., rather than being forced to adapt to it. Chances are that even in the face of a mass extinction event, humanity would survive even if it's in nuclear bunkers somewhere.
 

davu

Ad Honorem
Jun 2010
4,078
Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
#7
question is -- where will the most "survivers" be -- it will have to be an "isolated" cell as the "rampaging" herds of starving humans will be around the corner (don't believe that for a sec) -- starving humans don't "rampage" -- we have that proof in Africa -- they just go to common areas and starve --
 

unclefred

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,731
Oregon coastal mountains
#8
question is -- where will the most "survivers" be -- it will have to be an "isolated" cell as the "rampaging" herds of starving humans will be around the corner (don't believe that for a sec) -- starving humans don't "rampage" -- we have that proof in Africa -- they just go to common areas and starve --
That's an interesting observation about the starvation events in Africa. The major violent events are mostly triggered by ideology and tribal friction.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,502
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#9
This is always ignored or downplayed by the chicken-little coalition:


The last half million years or so in particular represent an episode of especially severe climate fluctuation, with intensely cold periods followed by warm phases, flip-flopping between the two on timescales of hundreds or thousands of years – in short, the worst bit of the 2.6 million-year Ice Age or Pleistocene Epoch.

The archaeological record of Europe suggests that vast areas were largely emptied of hominins during cold phases only to be recolonised during warm periods.

Hominins, pre-dating our own species, were living in Europe at latitudes as high as 53° north by 700,000 years ago.
I agree, and argue this very point many times. I find it irrational that some seem to think that our current climate is "normal" and somehow must be kept where it is. We really don't know what drives climate change, why the last 2 million years have been an "ice age", why there have been so many rapid fluctuations over the last 500,00 years, and how this latest warming trend fits in. Obviously climate warms and cools without humans, and even over the last 2 million years the ice has occasionally disappeared entirely. In fact if anything is "normal" it is a far warmer Earth devoid of ice caps.
I understand the fact of warming, I understand the possible ramifications of rising sea levels and shifting weather patterns. I just wish I saw a greater effort to explain what we see now in terms of recent geological history. It can't be isolated from the past, I should think it is clearly and obviously related.
20,000 years is a geologic eye blink, the time of the latest glacial maximum. 200 years is virtually no time at all, and 20 years is utterly useless for predicting things on a geologic scale. It's like looking at 1/10 of a second of your life, and extrapolating the events of an entire year.
 
Jun 2010
401
Rhondda, South Wales
#10
What I find astonishing about this "climate change" business is not that it's happening (I'd be more surprised if it didn't), but the sheer human arrogance that assumes it must be something we did that caused it. Certainly the amount of CO2 we pump into the air could help matters along, but the planetary climate has been fluctuating between ice age and warm periods for billions of years without human interaction...and it will continue to do so long after we've faded into a distant memory. It's all very laudable to campaign for cleaner air (who wants a face full of smoke, after all) but I somehow feel that environmentalists have missed the bigger picture, and have the blinkers on to avoid seeing anything that contradicts their narrow view of things.
 

Similar History Discussions