Searching \ for '[OT]:: Neanderthals down to 28,000 years and closi' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=neanderthals+down
Search entire site for: ': Neanderthals down to 28,000 years and closi'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: Neanderthals down to 28,000 years and closi'
2006\09\14@080438 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>From the very inner sanctum of received scientific truth - There's
such a fascinating mix of modern science bizzarities here that it's
well worth a look.

   Making things move by observing them.
   Making things cool by observing them.
       Heisenberg would do well at Steorn :-)

   Neanderthals now down to 24000 (not 28000) years from estimates
   of 100,000 +++ years ago not too long ago.
   HOWEVER, these were the very last. When the died there were no
more. No
   more recently surviving Neanderthals will ever be discovered.
   Hookey Walker.

   Evidence that makes it essentially certain that naturally
increasing output of
   the sun is a or the major contributor to global warming.
   Stay tuned.

   More

___________

Latest revision of age of most recent known Neanderthals is now
altered to 28,000 years ago, 2000 years more recent than previously
believed.

Quite apart from directly related issues, anyone who thinks they can
date ANYTHING at 28,000 years +/- 2000 years has my nomination for
starry eyed optimist of the decade.

       http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6069739

Interestingly, and not at all surprisingly, the estimate seems to have
dropped to 24,000 years in the last day. 4000 years in a day is pretty
good - Bishop Usher would have certainly have had something to say
about that unfortunate coincidence :-).

This 24,000 estimate comes from the site of "Nature" which can be
considered the horses vocal cords for such things.

       http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html

Tucked tantalisingly away in the heading it said " ... evidence
against solar warming ... ". Ah bliss. Multiple heresies in one subset
:-).

Part of there Nature 'podcast' for September 14

       http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v443/n7108/nature-2006-09-14.html

Not having and or desiring podcast ability I've had to access the
provided transcript.

Hooray. 3 for the price of 1 - re Heisenberg uncertainty principle and
larger objects - they've just developed telekinesis (actually
visikinesis) and not an April 1st in sight.

       " Keith Schwab: In our experiments that we're working on now,
we're actually
       at this limit where we can start to make something move just
by staring at it."





2006\09\14@112028 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

Neanderthals...

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:15:17 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
>...
> Interestingly, and not at all surprisingly, the estimate seems to have
> dropped to 24,000 years in the last day. 4000 years in a day is pretty
> good

At this rate they'll be running the World by next week!

This assumes that they aren't already, of course...  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\14@114123 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

Russel,

That last one peaked my interest, but after reading through the transcript "Hank Spruit" seems to be saying that it's "rather unlikely" that the sun's output has varied enough to account for global warning.  Did I miss something?

"We're trying to address one of the possibilities that have been suggested as the cause of the global warming we've seen over the past, basically the past century. There are three possible causes; one is the climate is just what it is, it varies, weather is more variable than we'd like it to be, the second possibility is that it's us; we're the cause of it, and the third is, well, maybe the sun has increased in brightness. Can we exclude this? And in this review we basically argue that we can, for all practical purposes, exclude that last possibility. The sun really hasn't changed that much to have such an effect."

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\14@221545 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Evidence that makes it essentially certain that naturally
>> increasing output of the sun is a or the major contributor
>> to global warming.

> That last one peaked my interest, but after reading through the
> transcript "Hank Spruit" seems to be saying that it's "rather
> unlikely" that the sun's output has varied enough to account for
> global warning.  Did I miss something?

I think so. He's a careful scientist who knows that hard declarations
of fact are not the scientific way. He knows he can only deal in
probabilities. BUT my reading overall is that he is very clearly
saying that as far as he is concerned personally it's a done deal -
the sun ISN'T the cause of any of the delta heating we are seeing.

This was a very important statement to me as I have until now been
fairly convinced by the arguments I've seen, with supporting data,
that we are actually on the back of a regular cycle whose existence
has been carefully or fortuitously suppressed from publicly displayed
and discussed data. The "data" that I've seen to support that view
seemed reasonably convincing AND I'd never seen it rebutted.

Now I hear a man who is dealing in precisely that area specifically
rebutting the concept after having specifically studied it. I just
looked at the transcript again

       http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v443/n7108/nature-2006-09-14.html

and I'm convinced that he's careful but convinced. He does caution
great care due to political and other issues which tend to confuse
matters.


       Russell

2006\09\16@122711 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
I read the article too, Mike, and agree with the way that you read it.
Russell's original post was incorrect, but Russell's last post corrects his
original.  The sad thing is that our government (US) has a propaganda group
that will promote a contradictory paper of questionable science so the water
will remain muddy.

Ed
>{Original Message removed}

2006\09\16@173001 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>I read the article too, Mike, and agree with the way that you read
>it.
> Russell's original post was incorrect, but Russell's last post
> corrects his
> original.  The sad thing is that our government (US) has a
> propaganda group
> that will promote a contradictory paper of questionable science so
> the water
> will remain muddy.


Fancy that.

There was a typo in my original which I hadn't noticed and even when I
read Mike's query and "expanded" on my original I didn't realise that
my original said the opposite of what I intended it to. My apologies.

ie "The sun is essentially not to blame" is what he's saying.

FWIW, I am uncomfortable with the probability that his answer is
correct, notwithstanding the obvious bona-fides of those involved and
the fact that the question has at last been directly addressed
publicly without obfuscation. Much prior material treated available
data in such a way that their conclusions were suspect.

But, I am pleased to hear that this is a well researched and
scientifically based conclusion and look forward to hearing more about
the basis for their conclusions.


       Russell

2006\09\16@213554 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> ie "The sun is essentially not to blame" is what he's saying.
>
> FWIW, I am uncomfortable with the probability that his answer is
> correct, notwithstanding the obvious bona-fides of those involved and
> the fact that the question has at last been directly addressed
> publicly without obfuscation. Much prior material treated available
> data in such a way that their conclusions were suspect.
>
> But, I am pleased to hear that this is a well researched and
> scientifically based conclusion and look forward to hearing more about
> the basis for their conclusions.
>
>         Russell

There was an interesting article in this months' Scientific America which
presented a hypothesis for most of the extinction events that ties into
global warming.

In a nutshell:

       - The oceans get warmer and can't hold as much oxygen.
       - The aerobic bacteria in the top part of the ocean start to die off.
       - This allows the anerobic sulfa-cycle bacteria that live near the bottom
               of the ocean to gain in population.
       - This cycle continues until the anerobic bacteria reach the surface and
               hydrogen-sulfides become a major part of our atmosphere.
       - This destroys the ozone layer, causing widespread problems among the
               remaining life that can stand the atmospheric changes

Eventually things get worse before they get better.

The author believes that the atmospheric CO2 level is the key, and this
is going up by 2-3ppm per year. Assuming he's right and this doesn't
change, we go over the edge in a couple hundred years or so.

And I am not arguing why the atmospheric CO2 is going up; mankind, vulcanos,
being teleported in by aliens from the 8th dimension, it doesn't really
matter. If mankind gets its act together the level will at least go up
more slowly, which will mean that even with major medical improvements,
I won't be around to see it. :)

And people wonder why I like nuclear power.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
.....jayKILLspamspam@spam@sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !    "A backward poet writes inverse."

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...