Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pixophir

  1. Current ice loss (as projected from the trend 2000-2019) of the Greenland ice shield leads to almost 30cm of sea level rise (SLR), an equivalent of ~3.3% of mace loss of the Greenland ice sheet. Should the trend as shown in the extraordinary large loss of ice in 2012 continue, that would contribute almost 80cm of SLR, making 30cm the lower boundary. Source (open access): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2 Pop science: https://phys.org/news/2022-08-greenland-major-sea.html
  2. Adding accuracy removes bias, or the other way round, removing accuracy from an argument adds bias, and that's what's happening here. An emotional bias ("all simple") stands against evidence and observation (archaeology). This may be better explained by cognitive science as motivated reasoning, as opposed to critical thinking. The argument that everything is based on violence may be an outcome of regional political messaging, so that's out of bounds for me. But from observation, most people are peaceful. You can watch crowds move without anybody biting others ;-) Individuals, if they're not constantly staring at a small screen (a development of the past 1-2 decades), probably just ponder their lunch, their work, a hobby, a relationship, the release date of a computer game ...
  3. Yeah, but I value my privacy in a forum. And nothing Science or Nature. What you describe has nothing to do with domestication. Pls. take a look at the pop science links, or to be brief, domestication is not training. Domestication is the process of taking over control of the reproduction, isolate a population from its wild colleagues, feed and raise them, select individuals that are favourable for further reproduction (you know, a male goat can be quite challenging, and a grown-up Aurochs is uncontrollable. That's not a cow of today.) and use their products, be it hide, wool, milk, meat, or even dung. That is not taming, that is an ongoing process, and one generation may not even see the change, specifically with crop domestication. So, all those arguments along the line "I just pick an animal and then I have a civilization" are incorrect, and do not reflect an understanding of the process. I am not scoffing, I am saying you can understand, if you just want. No worries ;-)
  4. That's a lot of claims over people you don't know. But "snake charming" isn't domestication. It actually has nothing to do with it, it is more in the personal slight-of-hand field, how to distract people from what's actually happening. Neither is taming of an animal domestication. One could not even tell if such an animal was domesticated or wild if their bones were found in a prehistoric setting. But we can clearly distinguish between them, because they have developed different morphological features in the process of domestication. Here's some pop stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_animals https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/domesticated-animals https://projectarchaeology.org/2021/09/10/humans-and-animals-domestication/ and, to the different packages in the different centres of neolithisation. Why not all animals can be domesticated. https://www.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html Plants are slightly different, but let's ignore that. Point is, and that from my first post to the matter, these things don't happen in a backyard, and it took thousands of years until humans learned how to deal with domestication and domesticated animals, with many obstacles in the way. As I said various times, domestication is a process that takes a long time, many generations. Please don't confuse that. I admit, I have an agenda here. But that's not yet revealed until we agree on the science stuff.
  5. And I suggest studying geoscience and pre history and publish some stuff. I have actually been to Catal Hüyük and Cayönü. I could write about differences between indigenous groups all around the world, North American, circumpolar, African, Australian, ... Need some time, but the knowledge is there. Because, I mean, have that in mind when dealing out suggestions. Or, simpler put, don't tell people what to do. I don't tell you how to plan a some sort of action Marines could perform, because I have no idea of that. But when people write about their favourite subjects, maybe with some sources, one can assume there is something to it. If they are wrong (which can happen) then that can be discussed in a civilized manner. Guys, I am aware we have all kinds of people and educational levels in here. It shows on many occasions. I have no problem with that. I am probably in the upper middle. But I do have a problem with being scoffed, coloured liar and conspirator by climate change deniers, running against a wall when trying to call that to attention. It is not that I attack any body, I am telling that civilization is not an imperative development and a contact program should take that into account, for reasons I laid out. And then things like this happen (a reply to me saying I am confronted with whataboutism): How is this a useful, even intelligent remark ? What is the content, or base for discussion ? See what I mean ? How can we possibly make a progress with this ? Or do you just don't want to discuss Seti and contact with civilizations ?
  6. Well, I've tried. If people are just too stubborn and have such basic problems with science as to accuse all scientists of conspiracy, to keep the public out, to just copy from each other, and that in the face of evidence to the contrary all around, then any attempt of an explanation is just wasted. It'll always be counted with whataboutism and uneducated, devious claims, no matter what. Pity.
  7. There is, I think, the main confusion: Humans did not intentionally nor accidentally "discover" domestication of plants. For the n th time: it was a process of thousands of years. That phrase does not reflect reality. It makes no sense for a hunter and gatherer to plant anything because they won't be there when it germinates and grows. They simply have no use for that, it is not in their mindset. They did not even have vessels to collect, transport or store such things. What for ? They encounter more than enough on their travels long and far, from unlucky game to herbs and wild berries, depending on climate and region, they can afford to pick what they need in an opportunistic way. This should be understood to actually get behind the conundrum of why humans walked the earth for millions of years before just recently, after a glaciation, started to settle down. That's why I say such communication programs (whose scientific value is questionable) will have a hard time, because even if against all odds there is intelligent life out there, it may not have built a civilization, maybe not yet, maybe never will, because what for ? And if it has built one, there may be only a short window of actually catching it. Between the domestication (human controlled planting and harvesting) of crop like wheat and barley and that of fruits lie thousands of years and quite different principles. Can't just throw them together thoughtlessly.
  8. But the Vikings were no hunters/gatherers, quite the contrary. And not all of them were pirates. When we say hunter/gatherers, we mean those pre-Neolitihic societies of the Pleistocene, that gradually disappeared with the spread of the new lifestyle from 13,000BP on. Sure, hunting did contribute some to the diet at any time, it is still a sport today. Btw., domesticated horses were widely used in the iron age, that's >15,000 years after the hunter/gatherers of the ice age. Earlier domestication 5,000 BP possible. Still, it is before the Vikings, which where a medieval group of chaps.
  9. That makes no sense, I am sorry. There are several things in the timeline heavily confused here. Planting anything is not an initial achievement of the neolithic which is first observed around the fertile crescent (around 13000bp). It takes very long (~2000 years) from an initial pre-storage neolithic (search term "pre pottery neolithic") until the first domesticated grains appear. "Fruit" as in apples and the likes in their domesticated form aren't known until the early bronze age (~5500BP). Wild apples aren't edible. So there are 7-8000 years in between. Wild berries and nuts where of course plucked if found, there's quite some evidence, even in the palaeolithic (much earlier). When I say numbers, I refer to the Levant and Europe, Africa is very different. Back to the early neolithic (~13.000BP), they did not start farming because it was better than hunting/gathering in any way, it isn't. It is a gradual, slow development over thousands of years. One should also take into account for several intermediate stages, but this gets complicated. Suffice to say, modern humans coming into Europe ~50.000 BP also needed around 10.000 years to adapt and develop the full spectrum of an upper palaeolithic. But now it get's special, and I tend to pratter :-) Important is also, early modern humans in Eurpe (Cro Magnon) did not have better technology than late Neanderthals in Europe. In noerthern Africa and the Levant, they are indistinguishable in their tool making. And they did not outnumber each other, that came later, after Cro Magnon, and probably Neanderthals were already gone then, or married in :-) Both species met every now and then, and that for hundred thousands of years in the Levant and elsewhere, before early modern humans became endemic in Europe. The story still evolves, some read: https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/neandertal_interaction_with_cro-magnons.htm As to humans on earth, genus Homo since more than 3 million years, starting with Homo erectus and subspecies. Anatomically modern humans, oldest findings for now from 300.000 BP (Djebel Irhoud). Exactly (without the horses). There is no logical reason to do so, to say "Hey, I invented farming. It is cool !". In northern Hungary and farther to the north mesolithic hunter/gatherers and early neolithic groups lived side by side for more than a thousand years. There's evidence of intense trade between them, but also for some friction. Anyway, trying to find a way back to Seti. Early and middle stone age is not that interesting there, because there was only very slow progress for millions of years, but what could affectionately be called "dawn of civilization", which, based on different combinations of plants and animals, is not an abrupt emergence, but a long gradual process. A lot of skills must be developed by an aspiring intelligent species to actually become interesting for programs as Seti. Even if everything works out alright, and there is another planet nearby with a civilization of a level like earth post 100 years ago, the window of catching them right now may be open only for a short time.
  10. Around the world, and during the Holocene, several centres of what is called neolithisation formed (careful with terms like "neolithic revolution", they have historical sources, partly with political intentions, and are wrong in modern archaeology). In the fertile crescent (and from there into Europe and Africa) that was based on wild versions of wheat/barley and goat/sheep, in southern/central America on the alpaca/vicuna and maize, in east Asia on rice and the pig. Also the propagation of those "neolithic packages" is not uniform, but that's a story that does fill books, and many many papers :-) Btw., climate in northern sub-Saharan Africa was humid during the early/mid Holocene. Drainage systems (for instance Tamanrasset drainage system) are still visible on satellite images. Edit: a question nobody can answer atm is why did that happen ? Why did it take humans 3 million years, and why did modern humans (and apparently not Neanderthals) make the step from hunter and gatherer to agriculture and animal husbandry. It is not exactly desirable for the first to do so, because game comes for almost free and population control is something automatic, but animals must be raised and fed, it takes a long time until any benefit shows. So this process takes thousands of years to complete, gradually, not revolutionary, but after that there is no way back because of population growth and expansion. Climate played a role, the relaxation after the glacial maximum, mountain sides where crop gets ready for harvest from low to high, enabling smaller groups to actually bring it in. But then again, climate transitions into warm phases have happened before, for instance in what is called OIS-5 125 thousand years ago, but Neanderthals, despite having composite tools, did (for all we know) not develop any sedentary ambitions. For anyone pondering Seti or some such, they may want to take that into account, that even if intelligent(tm) life emerges, there is no guarantee they actually do that civilization thing, division of work, and all that what might be necessary for developing next tier technology, handling copper which is abundant in metallic form, mixing it with tin, discovering a process to obtain iron from ore (it rarely appears in metallic form because oxidization , meteorites mostly) and so on.
  11. Part of the explanation could lie in the declining bio-diversity of their diet during and after the last glacial maximum. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12921 Change of circulation patterns and distribution of moisture in the northern hemisphere could have played a role in that. The megafauna didn't really go extinct with a turn of a switch. It was a long process, that started much earlier. Some rather retreated and became island populations and survived into the Holocene, with reduced sizes and genetic variability. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27439-6 It is an ongoing discussion with several facets. A simple mind is always certain. Finding answers to complex questions is what makes some people's lives interesting. This can be quite demanding, and is stuffed with uncertainties, many of which can be modelled and put in numbers. But in the end leads to a better understanding of what happens around us.
  12. The damage is environmental, like poisoning of ground water and in extreme cases loss of land. It is not like it is fool proof, leaks in all variants, with or without contamination, may be rare but they happen. And waste is there to remain a problem for generations to come, and it is piling up quickly. Nobody wants it on the front door.
  13. That specific problem can be taken care of by sorting the waste and storing it with an appropriate spacing. I mean, a barrel popping because of simple overheat from decay would be a rather dumb error. There is though, the issue of corrosion through various physical effects, addressed in papers experiments and observed, that does cause problems that where not taken into account. This valid for waste storage as well as operation and maintenance of power plants, and currently the cause of France's problem with the majority it's nuclear power plants. For instance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022311508003218 and an example: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/21062374
  14. Well, I am also not quite without experience. Theoretically all nice and well. Practically, there's a human factor or simply greed and mismanagement, and like anything else, nuclear waste deposits are leaking: https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Leaking-tanks https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/100708-radioactive-nuclear-waste-science-salt-mine-dump-pictures-asse-ii-germany https://www.santafenewmexican.com/special_reports/from_lanl_to_leak/leak-confirmed-at-nuclear-waste-dump-in-carlsbad/article_85930315-701c-57ff-849d-7b42e61febfd.html The list goes on. Just like theoretically and by law, damaged valves in primary circulation systems must be exchanged, not repaired. Yet, because that stuff is extremely material intensive and expensive, they are being welded for repair. Personal observation, the plant (Grundremmingen in Germany) has been taken out of service after protests and deadly accidents. This is mostly the human factor, but it must be taken into account to judge if a technology is actually manageable or not. Fukushima was the wrong construction for that place. Btw., it was just luck, not planned error margin, that the decay basins were unharmed by the Tsunami. It is specifically reckless to just dump the waste into ocean now there. Of course it as all diluted won't do harm, but in principle it is a testimony of utter helplessness in the face of the uncontrollability of the technology. It'll certainly happen again.
  15. Storing radioactive waste on site at the plant is not a good idea, no matter the viewpoint. It is subject to weathering and corrosion when simply left alone, may be accessible to bad guys, needs constant supervision, etc. How long it poses a risk depends on the isotopes and their half life. There's really no good option what to do with waste, other from storing it in facilities, name them permanent storage, where it may rest until ... well something happens, in an ideal case enough time has passed. That's certainly not going to happen at least for the the most dangerous parts. But the people responsible have by then long gone.
  16. There is a python library for JWST data analysis freely available: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-post-pipeline-data-analysis/jwst-data-analysis-software-packages Accessing JWST data: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/accessing-jwst-data Maybe it tickles somebody to try (and report ;-)) I have no time right now.
  17. There were and are extensive technologies to chip or grind varieties of stone and bone into shape and combine them in composite tools with wood and tar to produce all kind of tools for all kinds of work you mention, and many more like scrapers, awls, various tools for engraving, chisels, hammer, adzes, hatchets, sickles, needles, knives, arrows, harpoons, javelins, and the list is much longer, in various shapes and forms to serve specific purposes through time and space. Even to do it in a reproducible manner, as to exchange and repair parts of tools when they break. Varieties of those raw materials trace back to deposits of a prior evolution. Nevertheless I see no reason not to assume and hypothesize that other folks with the ability to manipulate things develop a similar technology, if they have access to similar raw materials. But that's mostly guesswork, and leaves my field of expertise.
  18. Fins (of fish) in all their forms are extremely versatile and efficient instruments of propulsion and attitude control. But the density of the environment they work in is the same as the density of the bodies they are attached to. So that won't bring a fish to space. Mammals, maybe, if there's a Star Trek spaceship at hand motivated to save the earth, or Dolphin's urge to say good bye is strong enough.
  19. Got some more reading on the subject of spectrum of behaviour, very recently published, easy to read, and open access, for anybody interested: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-022-00286-y
  20. Let's put this into context, pls.: Killings on rare occasions are specific to chimps. Not every time they see each other, they would not make it long in evolution then. It is discussed if this is an adaptation specific to them, or if this happens because of human pressure: https://www.science.org/content/article/why-do-chimps-kill-each-other Other apes are more peaceful. Concerning humans, well, that leaves science and goes in socio dynamics and some pretty strong opinions. Better stay out of that field Suffice to say that most humans are peaceful, and few of us here in the forum have the whole overview over >3 million years of varying human species on earth. From anthropology it seems that intraspecies violence comes with settlement and division of work, with only very few and disputed earlier cases. Little if nothing can be deducted from a relation to other species. And modern human lineage is not only connected to chimps. A wide spectrum of behaviour is already in every individual, formed by the environment as well as experience. As an example, domesticated, or even tamed animals exhibit a different behaviour than their wild colleagues. That is very obvious in guinea pigs, which can be pretty aggressive in the wild, but rather peaceful in a cage. tl,dr, it is not that one-dimensional, or fatalistic to lay blame on our genes. There's always a choice. Peace.
  21. It's a weight thing. Leight weight (actually as light as reasonably possible) blades turn more efficiently specifically in lighter winds, the rotor hub doesn't need to support that much weight, so lasts longer, and they are easier to transport. A composite material is the best choice to make a blade in one piece for light weight and strength. Though the assembly of large turbines still need pretty impressive lifting equipment. Edit: ninja'd :-)
  22. Even running an aquarium needs some knowledge and dedication or the inhabitants are in danger of dying.
  23. JWST images as wallpapers for download: https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/08/22/webbs-jupiter-images-showcase-auroras-hazes/
  24. I'm speechless. 3 billion people could not afford a healthy diet in 2021. Source: https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-hunger-numbers-rose-to-as-many-as-828-million-in-2021
  25. Source pls., that 7/8th of humanity has 'ecologically optimized diet'. Just to give it a sciency touch, and because that's a rather cynical view.
  • Create New...