st.patrick on 14/1/2010 at 14:29
Quote Posted by Fragony
Yeah kinda, it developed faster in the green crescent but not because of rain but because of the rivers overflowing,
you need a few mm of rain (0.3) for agriculture to be of any benefit otherwise, anything else?
0.3 mm per day? per month? per year? fyi 0.3 mm of average annual rainfall corresponds roughly to the Atacama Desert and I'm sure the agriculture there is doing just fine.
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 14:36
Quote Posted by st.patrick
0.3 mm per day? per month? per year? fyi 0.3 mm of average annual rainfall corresponds roughly to the Atacama Desert and I'm sure the agriculture there is doing just fine.
Irrigation, the green crescent is fueled by two rivers, they overflow each year. That is where agriculture & civilization began, look at the oldest settlements around the Nile, same thing. Where there wasn't sufficient water civilizations developed/emerged much slower.
jay pettitt on 14/1/2010 at 14:39
Let's all move there. Oh wait.
I'm not going to call you names here, because it's not obvious - but temperature changes in a climatic sense isn't about how nice and warm it is outside - that's weather. It's about how much energy (temperature is a measure of energy if you're a sciency kind of person) is available to drive the system along. More energy means less predictable and less assured environmental conditions. Not the conditions that allow you to reliably make prediction about whether land will flood each and every year or by how much.
Also averages (climate is average weather) tend to make numbers look smaller. The average of a huge number of dice rolls is going to be 3.5 as near as dammit. Rolling a few sixes or a few ones in a row is going to make bugger all difference. If you want to change the average by increasing it by say two you need to go from a six sided dice to a 10 sided dice with all the extra unpredictability that comes with it.
There's no guarantee that altering the climate will usher in conditions that allow human civilization to continue in the way it has done. And looking at Earths history it would seem a highly risky proposition.
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 14:50
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Let's all move there. Oh wait.
Sure you studied argeology, you should have said 'yes Fragony that is correct'
There's no guarantee that altering the climate will usher in conditions that allow human civilization to continue in the way it has done. And looking at Earths history it would seem a highly risky proposition.What do you mean, earth is doing fine. Why don't you compare that post with a preach from some redneck priest.
jay pettitt on 14/1/2010 at 14:59
Quote Posted by Fragony
Sure you studied argeology, you should have said 'yes Fragony that is correct'
Whether it's correct or not is beside the point. It's not much relevant to feeding, watering and housing upwards of 6.5 billion people spread all over the globe in the 21st century.
What you're not getting (along with just about everything) is a river flooding every year by just enough, not too little or too much, to allow for food to be grown in the surrounding wetlands is predictable, stable conditions - which with warming we are less assured of.
Quote:
Why don't you compare that post with a preach from some redneck priest.
Except I've got annual data stretching back 650,000 years to back up my statement and reconstructed environmental data from geological and fossil evidence stretching back 4 billion years. There lies the difference and why science is not a religion. It's faith in human intellect and ingenuity to investigate and solve problems with eyes open, not blind faith in human ignorance.
While we're talking odds, aside from the lessons from geological history, what percentage of planets support life? What the fuck makes you think your future existence is in any way assured? And you'd be so reckless and carefree with it.
Namdrol on 14/1/2010 at 15:13
Quote Posted by Namdrol
I know you are a historian so you surely must have some understanding of presenting data.
Sure you studied history, you should have said 'yes Namdrol that is correct'
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 15:18
Misunderstood post so I edited it
very good book by the way
Sure you studied historyoh that is all bluff
Matthew on 14/1/2010 at 15:21
Ah, gotcha.
