Earth down the trash? (+case Easter Island)

Will we make it?

  • No doubt we will. "Global warming"...it's all a big lie!

    Votes: 9 20.0%
  • Sure, it doesn't take that much effort.

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • Hard times are on the way, but we'll make it.

    Votes: 28 62.2%
  • It's too late, apocalypse will occur relatively soon.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • Total voters
    45

Matrix

CFC Dinosaur
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 28, 2000
Messages
5,521
Location
Tampere, Finland
There's the case global warming, there's the case of resources running short, the decaying ozon layer, the growing world population, decaying soil (thus food production) and the ever growing human 'needs' for more resources per person. And perhaps some more.

What do you think? Is the world running towards the edge of a cliff, and if so, will we see it early enough to brake?

I start out with just this poll, but my next post will be the story of Easter Island. A story that one might extrapolate to the globe.
 
I think that there are 2 trains of thought of Global warming...
The first is that we are headed within the next 100 years to a point where the planet will heat up and cause major climatological changes.

The second is that we are about to go into a cooling down phase and that we wont see a warming up of the earths atmosphere but a cooling down.

The first one is mostly based on information gathered in the last 100 - 200 years and with occasional references to times past but not as a general rule.

The second one is based on Geological data that says that we are in a 400,000 year climate cycle that is due to cool down any time very soon (My old Geology teacher reckons in the next 100 years).

That said, there have been some significant climatological changes that are man made that have occured in the last 200 years. But whether these are enough to cause such widespread kaos as is reported in the papers, I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by Matrix
What do you think? Is the world running towards the edge of a cliff, and if so, will we see it early enough to brake?
We're running headlong towards the cliff edge with no intention of stopping but we may be able to build a hang glider before we get there.
 


Easter Island's name is derived from the date that it is first discovered by Europeans. On Easter Day 1722 the Dutch admiral Roggeveen landed on this island to explore. What he found was a desolate steep island with no trees except for a few bushes, a small population (approx. 100) of very primitive cannibalistic people, and numberous huge statues of big faces, called moai.



It was clear that these people weren't capable of building, let alone placing these statues on themselves, so they asked the people how they got there. The answer: they came walking on the island.

Roggeveen left the island without leaving the Dutch flag there. It wasn't worth it.

So...how did these statues get there? And how did those people get there? Just recently scientists figured it out after examining the entire island, especially garbage dumps.

The history
In the 5th century AD the Polynesians were busy populating all the islands in the pacific. One ship - they were great navigators in their time - landed on Easter Island, estimated with 20-30 people on board, and some vegetables and animals. What they found was an island completely covered by a thick tropical forest. After settlement they started to try out their vegetables, but nothing was really able to grow there, except sweet potatoes. Also only the chickens survived. And with wood, amply available, they made canoes for fishing.

The advantage of sweet potatoes is that they don't take much time to take care for. That gave them much spare time and the ability to develop a culture.

The population grew and clans were formed. One clan consisted of a handful of families (including grandparents, nephews, etc). It was a prestige for these clans clans to make these statues, moai, which was a form of cultural expression. They chopped them in the caves, and then moved them to the shore by chopping and knocking down trees and rolling them over the trunks.

At the peak of the society they population consisted of approximately 7000 people. But the rivalry grew. The clans made more and more effort to place more moai. And that of course costed a lot of wood. The crude fact is that once wood started to run out, it only became even more a prestige to place one moai more, so there was a big run for the last trees on the island until suddenly there wasn't a single tree left. Then the misery came.

With no trees the harvests of the sweet potatoes failed because of erosion by the rain. The also were not able to build more fishery boats and so the only thing left were the chickens. Famine stroke the island and the chickens became highly valuable. At present one can still find cages of stone on the island because they started to steel each others chickens, and when they figured out that wasn't enough, they enslaved members of other clans and eat them up.

As said in the beginning: then the Europeans came and what they found were only about a 100 people, ignorant of their own history! After all, they didn't know where the moai came from. A civilization lost.

Bottomline conclusion
This is a perfect example of mismanagement. And they weren't the only one: Babylon also went to rack and ruins because of depletion of resources. The Aral lake is currently about half it's original size. And mismanagements of soils in Africa are making the food shortage even bigger.

And now there is globalization: the entire world in interaction, and not a single other planet available to flee to. We're slurping oil and pumping up greenhouse gasses. Only some countries are able to do something about this, but whenever possible they try to let others cut down in environmental-destructive production so that they can continue a bit longer. Will we defeat egoism and save the planet together?
 
we have stepped off the edge of the cliff, we will have major climate changes soon, the ice age being to far away. We just haven't realized we have started falling because the downwards component of our movement is still tiny compared to the forward component we have left from the step. Wait a few years, maybe 30, and we will be falling fast!
 
Originally posted by Sir Eric
I think that there are 2 trains of thought of Global warming...
The first is that we are headed within the next 100 years to a point where the planet will heat up and cause major climatological changes.

The second is that we are about to go into a cooling down phase and that we wont see a warming up of the earths atmosphere but a cooling down.
There already is pretty certain data that the global temperature has risen about 5°C. I will scan a chart when I have the time that shows that (0 - 2000 AD, the most expected temperature, a five year average and a 95%-certainty area).

Anyway, my biggest fear is that effectively nothing will be done to prevent an ecological disaster, because IMO in order to do that all industrious countries should take action. Of course this is an indirect reverence to the USA not signing the Kyoto-treaty. :rolleyes: And indeed: as long as they don't do that, Europe will only cut themselves in the finger by do administrating rights of emission, and having to pay for it. If I were a Dutch heavy metal industry, I'd know what country to go to. :eek:
 
Matrix, you seem to know a lot about these things, as do I (though I specialized in a different part of our geology program) - so why do you think anybody would be willing to do what is necessary?

All models I have seen that have any smell of being 'right' indicate that a disastrous change will come even if we reduce CO2 production to 1960 standards RIGHT NOW! Not increasing is not an option! :eek: the system has a runthrough time of several decades IIRC, and nobody really knows if the treshhold for a self-intensifying precoess hasn't already been passed by now!
 
Poll: Will we make it?

What's this WE stuff? I'll make it, you guys figure it out for yourselves.

Seriously, who are WE? Do you mean preserving current ways of life? Do you mean all the world's current population? Do you mean mass extinction of humans? Or just a cataclysm for industrial societies?

Here's my answer - current knowledge states that for the next 25-30 years there will be a general abundance of resources, but regional shortages. Widespread famine and disaster will not happen, but local availability of some resources will create some real problems for those populations. That's about as far out as experts have looked.
After 25-30 years, my opinion is that some of the things that we take for granted will get VERY expensive. The class gap will widen, but finally there will be money to be made in alternative energy sources and practices. And that means that very quickly we will develop solutions to our problems. But again, they will be very expensive!!! The societies with the power at the top will make it through, quality of life will be low for many but we will persist. There will be no collapse or catastrophe. There will only be drudgery and persistence. Not happy, but we'll be here. Religion will be more important than ever.
 
don't know what to think, we just follow the desorganized seasons, hot summer then winter, then spring, and summer again. Autumn doesnt exist anymore...I live in switzerland, and we can see "live" the glaciers disappear and the moutains falling down. But apart from that nothing to mention:cry:
 
Originally posted by hawai_74
don't know what to think, we just follow the desorganized seasons, hot summer then winter, then spring, and summer again. Autumn doesnt exist anymore...I live in switzerland, and we can see "live" the glaciers disappear and the moutains falling down. But apart from that nothing to mention:cry:

yes, Europe has one of the best climates to tolerate changes, deep soils, very varied terrain -we are truely lucky (which, btw is the reason why agriculture is still fine here while the Fertile Crescent is already ruined and the Great Plains will alos not survive 1000 years of intensive agriculture).
 
Originally posted by carlosMM


yes, Europe has one of the best climates to tolerate changes, deep soils, very varied terrain -we are truely lucky (which, btw is the reason why agriculture is still fine here while the Fertile Crescent is already ruined and the Great Plains will alos not survive 1000 years of intensive agriculture).

Though having glaciers rolling down our streets could make things a little tricky :D

Some of you are going to die due the effects of Global Warming, but it isn't the end of the World, nor Humanity. Our planet is constantly changing, the necessity is that we can change with it and that we build societies capable of change (oh bugger, we haven't in Britain :p ).
 
Im so not buying that story about Easter Island, they apparently figured all that out by examining rubbish dumps? Yeah, ok then. I mean that bit about 'the last tree' I mean COME ON! its hackneyed, unsubstantiated waffle! Yeah there was clearly a more advanced society at least passed through but if they were resident and died out is it not a LOT more likely that something a bit more savage wiped them out like disease or weather conditions or whatever? I just dont buy this crap. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Kentonio
Im so not buying that story about Easter Island, they apparently figured all that out by examining rubbish dumps? Yeah, ok then. I mean that bit about 'the last tree' I mean COME ON! its hackneyed, unsubstantiated waffle! Yeah there was clearly a more advanced society at least passed through but if they were resident and died out is it not a LOT more likely that something a bit more savage wiped them out like disease or weather conditions or whatever? I just dont buy this crap. :rolleyes:

logic=waffle?

ahem :rolleyes:

and yes, garbage dumps are very good in showing who people lived before the use of dumpsters. lern a bit about archeology before you dismiss it so arrogantly.
 
Originally posted by Sir Eric
The second is that we are about to go into a cooling down phase and that we wont see a warming up of the earths atmosphere but a cooling down.

The second is based on more recent informations. During the 1960-70es they discovered a complex temperature controll mechanism that spans the World's oceans. Basically, heat from the Equator is driven north towards Scandinavia in the North Atlantic. It's how the port of Murmansk manages to stay ice-free year round.

So waters from the Equator move towards Scandinavia. Here, the water sinks (salty water is heavier), and travels back to the Equator, this time on the bottom of the Sea, completing a cycle. Now, if water can't sink (it's not salty enough) any more, the whole cycle stops.

If global warming continues, there's the danger of melting some of the polar ice (fresh water), which in turn will affect the salinity of the water in the North Atlantic. The water will no longer sink.

What happends? Another ice age.

Here's the Gulf Stream in action. Red is warm water, blue is cold.



And the complete mechanism.
 
AT: the big thing here is timescale: the Gulf Stream conveyor belt system provides for wet poles, too, bringing enough 'light' H2O norht to make snow fall. if you turn it off, indeed, it will be cooler, but also there will be far less moisture to fall as snow, thus the ice cap will probably not grow much.

So, the short temr effect would NOT be a fast ice age.

Actually, the heating we cause (5% of the entire greenhouse effect since 1961, which exactly is the 1,6 or so degrees K temp went up) will most certainly lead to vicious oscillations fo the climte in 'short term' it will go up, then down, then we simply do not know.

We DO know howevery what SHOULD happen if we hads not interfered: indeed another ice age.
 
Originally posted by carlosMM


logic=waffle?

ahem :rolleyes:

and yes, garbage dumps are very good in showing who people lived before the use of dumpsters. lern a bit about archeology before you dismiss it so arrogantly.

Actually I was speaking humorously rather than arrogantly. :rolleyes:

It doesnt alter the fact however that their entire theory is based strongly on conjecture and is not supported above by any real facts. Making up random theories without firm evidence would I suggest be considered waffle. That is not to say of course that the evidence for some aspect of their theory does not exist, just that it hasnt been presented here yet.
 
Originally posted by carlosMM
AT: the big thing here is timescale: the Gulf Stream conveyor belt system provides for wet poles, too, bringing enough 'light' H2O norht to make snow fall. if you turn it off, indeed, it will be cooler, but also there will be far less moisture to fall as snow, thus the ice cap will probably not grow much.

So, the short temr effect would NOT be a fast ice age.

Actually, the heating we cause (5% of the entire greenhouse effect since 1961, which exactly is the 1,6 or so degrees K temp went up) will most certainly lead to vicious oscillations fo the climte in 'short term' it will go up, then down, then we simply do not know.

We DO know howevery what SHOULD happen if we hads not interfered: indeed another ice age.

If the Gulf Stream slows down or stops it will most certainly mean an expansion of the ice caps. But the melting will be much slower.
 
I am quite sure that fossile fuels will be used until they are gone. Or at least until they are too expensive to mine, so that other options are economically more viable.

Do you really expect anyone to say:
hypothetical
Oh, oil is a real treasure, we should save it for better uses, that might arise in the future. Therefore we will not use it anymore.
Making fossile reservats has not even been discussed yet. The only initiative is trying to deminish the consumption.

So the available options are:
- burning it over 40 years
- burning it over 80 years

But burn it, we will.

Tell you what: only when oil is gone, or economically unsound to further use it, we will have a real motivation to use other technologies. So damnit, the sooner its gone, the better. :satan:

We will see, how nature handles the sudden reflux of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the meantime, let's hope, pray or drink tea, whatever you prefer.

About the development outside the so-called 1st World:

Can we really deny other countries/continents what esp. we europeans already have done: choping down all our woods and building up a population density second to none?
 
Originally posted by Aphex_Twin


If the Gulf Stream slows down or stops it will most certainly mean an expansion of the ice caps. But the melting will be much slower.

where would the snow come from????? this is a serious question, there is not too much evaporation left, there would be cold, heavy (salty) water all around the poles and there would be too low termperatures for snow in all models......

actually, there is no indication that the Gulf Stream stop (e.g. proven by planktic forminifera faunal changes) at the Heinrich event (I hope I am not mixing the name up, I am going from memory here) did in any ways result in greater precipitation or MUCH slower melting, rather, it resulted in decidedly LESS precipitation as far as we can tell. There must be many more factors, e.g. most model still use IR absorption rates of clear air for the athmosphere, while steam has ar different values...
 
Originally posted by Kentonio


Actually I was speaking humorously rather than arrogantly. :rolleyes:

It doesnt alter the fact however that their entire theory is based strongly on conjecture and is not supported above by any real facts. Making up random theories without firm evidence would I suggest be considered waffle. That is not to say of course that the evidence for some aspect of their theory does not exist, just that it hasnt been presented here yet.

sorry, I am a second language English speaker, and I did lack the right word, but there IS arrogance (i.e. 'I would NEVER be so stupid') in your statement.

and what about your own theories? 'something a bit more savage wiped them out like disease or weather conditions' - THAT is unsubstanciated right there!
 
Top Bottom