Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last 120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the climate.
Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, but only left the continent about 70,000 years ago. After that our species rapidly went global, colonising first Europe and Asia, and then Australasia and the Americas.
But why did early humans linger so long in Africa, and what spurred them to finally move? Several theories have been proposed, but according to a large effort to reconstruct the last 120,000 years of human history including the climate we lived in and the vegetation we fed on the current population spread around the planet would not be as it is without key changes in the climate.
...
Wrong, RichTravsky wrote:
> Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big > helping hand from climate change.
This is deceptive. The driving force
is the ice age.
Present tense. We're still in this ice
age.
The ice age was the engine of human evolution.
One SIDE EFFECT of the ice age is a shifting
climate, a changing environment.
As soon as the ice age ends the only force
changing the environment will be plate tectonics.
The continents will continue moving, as they
always have, and this will effect everything: Ocean and wind currents, local temperatures
(as a land mass moves towards/away from the
equator), etc.
Our ice age, the one we are now in, is what
is causing any "Climate Change" at the present.
This climate change is a result, a symptom if
you will. It's the ice age at work that's doing it.
Yes, I can see why truth &
accuracy would upset you so
much, you being so mentally
ill and refusing your meds..
Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:
[---Insane rant---]
We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.
This is a fact. We both know it.
Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.
...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!
New Scientist is a touch fuzzy. Best to stick with Science and Nature for serious discussion. It is not bad. It simply does not have the caution and rigor of the others.
Notice the out of Africa map http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn22277/dn22277-2_834.jpg is dated not reflecting the modern size of the Red Sea not the size during the ice age. In fact all of it is modern coast lines instead of ice age ones. The obvious misrepresentation is the brown patch showing travel to Australia. That Brown patch was dry land all the way to about the last 50 miles to the Australian coast. But the words in the brown patch call it island hopping.
The problem with the modern coast line is showing the route out going all the way down the Nile and crossing through the Sinai and without explanation not heading north up the east coast of the Med. The arrowhead of that path does show the established branching into Europe and Northern Asia and the Americas. Redraw that path as directly across the southern end of the Red Sea and not up the Nile and the rest of what we know makes perfect sense including the re-entry of Caucasians into northern Africa to become Egyptians.
To repeat, be careful with New Scientist. Read the author's name and credentials first. This author has no credentials, just a science writer.
> Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big
> helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last
> 120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are
> adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the
> climate.
> Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, but
> only left the continent about 70,000 years ago. After that
> our species rapidly went global, colonising first Europe and
> Asia, and then Australasia and the Americas.
> But why did early humans linger so long in Africa, and what
> spurred them to finally move? Several theories have been
> proposed, but according to a large effort to reconstruct
> the last 120,000 years of human history including the
> climate we lived in and the vegetation we fed on the
> current population spread around the planet would not be
> as it is without key changes in the climate.
> ...
Climate change, yes, but not in the modern political sense. There was an Ice Age. The Red Sea was much smaller and possibly landlocked with a land bridge connecting what is now east Africa with Arabia which would not have been called a Peninsula back then. In the worst case people could have migrated quickly up the west coast of the much small Red Sea and back down the east coast.
As to why so long, good question however the "so long" is growing by arbitrarily dating the first HSS earlier and fighting against moving the exit date back. In the last decade I have watched the date of the "first" HHS pushed from 120kya to 200 kya without the least supporting evidence. I have found no papers discussing the push back of the date which I would expect to be many papers debating the evidence but nothing. Similarly I have read several papers discussing evidence of being well into Arabia 80kya or so but all the mentions appear to begrudge even 65 vice 60kya.
But even in the best case 120 to 80 that is still 40 ky before leaving. The most obvious answer is population growth was slow and there was competition from other hominids who, if we are any indication, were nasty SOBs. Further we know next to nothing about their reproduction rate or social organization which may have been more survival prone than ours and only better weapons or something turned the tide.
In addition there was plenty of land in southern Africa to absorb a growing population. Despite a popular mythology there is really no evidence of people naturally exploring or heading off into the unknown for the fun of it. People would not naturally expand until there was more food for more people at the outer edge of expansion.
Beyond that there is much we do not know about the details of climate and geography during the ice age which was not a constant but had minor advanced and retreats. The glaciers would have largely remained but the conditions for advancing and retreating would have had major impacts on Africa and Arabia. It is just speculation but perhaps there was an east African desert blocking northward travel, i.e. the Sahara was much further south. Only with its retreat did people leave.
-- Anyone who thinks Amadinejad is a new Hitler
thinks Chaplin made a documentary.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4413
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 4:25:32 PM
> New Scientist is a touch fuzzy. Best to stick with Science and Nature
> for serious discussion. It is not bad. It simply does not have the
> caution and rigor of the others.
The extent to which past climate change has dictated the pattern and timing of the out-of-Africa expansion by anatomically modern humans is currently unclear [Stewart JR, Stringer CB (2012) Science 335:13171321]. In particular, the incompleteness of the fossil record makes it difficult to quantify the effect of climate. Here, we take a different approach to this problem; rather than relying on the appearance of fossils or archaeological evidence to determine arrival times in different parts of the world, we use patterns of genetic variation in modern human populations to determine the plausibility of past demographic parameters. We develop a spatially explicit model of the expansion of anatomically modern humans and use climate reconstructions over the past 120 ky based on the Hadley Centre global climate model HadCM3 to quantify the possible effects of climate on human demography. The combinations of demographic parameters compatible with the current genetic makeup of worldwide populations indicate a clear effect of climate on past population densities. Our estimates of this effect, based on population genetics, capture the observed relationship between current climate and population density in modern huntergatherers worldwide, providing supporting evidence for the realism of our approach. Furthermore, although we did not use any archaeological and anthropological data to inform the model, the arrival times in different continents predicted by our model are also broadly consistent with the fossil and archaeological records. Our framework provides the most accurate spatiotemporal reconstruction of human demographic history available at present and will allow for a greater integration of genetic and archaeological evidence.
> Notice the out of Africa map
> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn22277/dn22277-2_834.jpg > is dated not reflecting the modern size of the Red Sea not the size
> during the ice age. In fact all of it is modern coast lines instead of
> ice age ones. The obvious misrepresentation is the brown patch showing
> travel to Australia. That Brown patch was dry land all the way to about
> the last 50 miles to the Australian coast. But the words in the brown
> patch call it island hopping.
There is nothing really wrong with their map. The actual coastallines are
not necessary given the broad sale of this map and long timeline.
> The problem with the modern coast line is showing the route out going
> all the way down the Nile and crossing through the Sinai and without
> explanation not heading north up the east coast of the Med. The
> arrowhead of that path does show the established branching into Europe
> and Northern Asia and the Americas. Redraw that path as directly across
> the southern end of the Red Sea and not up the Nile and the rest of what
> we know makes perfect sense including the re-entry of Caucasians into
> northern Africa to become Egyptians.
> To repeat, be careful with New Scientist. Read the author's name and
> credentials first. This author has no credentials, just a science writer.
How would you represent, in one map, coastlines from 70kya to 15kya?
> > Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big
> > helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last
> > 120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are
> > adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the
> > climate.
> > Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, but
> > only left the continent about 70,000 years ago. After that
> > our species rapidly went global, colonising first Europe and
> > Asia, and then Australasia and the Americas.
> > But why did early humans linger so long in Africa, and what
> > spurred them to finally move? Several theories have been
> > proposed, but according to a large effort to reconstruct
> > the last 120,000 years of human history including the
> > climate we lived in and the vegetation we fed on the
> > current population spread around the planet would not be
> > as it is without key changes in the climate.
> > ...
> Climate change, yes, but not in the modern political sense. There was
> an Ice Age. The Red Sea was much smaller and possibly landlocked with a
> land bridge connecting what is now east Africa with Arabia which would
> not have been called a Peninsula back then. In the worst case people
> could have migrated quickly up the west coast of the much small Red Sea
> and back down the east coast.
> As to why so long, good question however the "so long" is growing by
> arbitrarily dating the first HSS earlier and fighting against moving the
> exit date back. In the last decade I have watched the date of the
> "first" HHS pushed from 120kya to 200 kya without the least supporting
> evidence. I have found no papers discussing the push back of the date
> which I would expect to be many papers debating the evidence but
> nothing. Similarly I have read several papers discussing evidence of
> being well into Arabia 80kya or so but all the mentions appear to
> begrudge even 65 vice 60kya.
> But even in the best case 120 to 80 that is still 40 ky before leaving.
> The most obvious answer is population growth was slow and there was
> competition from other hominids who, if we are any indication, were
> nasty SOBs. Further we know next to nothing about their reproduction
> rate or social organization which may have been more survival prone than
> ours and only better weapons or something turned the tide.
> In addition there was plenty of land in southern Africa to absorb a
> growing population. Despite a popular mythology there is really no
> evidence of people naturally exploring or heading off into the unknown
> for the fun of it. People would not naturally expand until there was
> more food for more people at the outer edge of expansion.
> Beyond that there is much we do not know about the details of climate
> and geography during the ice age which was not a constant but had minor
> advanced and retreats. The glaciers would have largely remained but the
> conditions for advancing and retreating would have had major impacts on
> Africa and Arabia. It is just speculation but perhaps there was an east
> African desert blocking northward travel, i.e. the Sahara was much
> further south. Only with its retreat did people leave.
> --
> Anyone who thinks Amadinejad is a new Hitler
> thinks Chaplin made a documentary.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4413
> http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
> Fri, Sep 28, 2012 4:25:32 PM
We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.
This is a fact. We both know it.
Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.
...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!
On Sep 30, 12:16 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
>Sick fuck
Says the moron who thinks one follows a coast to get to an island.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:01:38 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 39
Message-ID:
<aab8f3f1-41f3-486e-91da-9671dfabc...@c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
JTEM: "Two issues: No Homo reached Flores stepping over Crocs,
they had to do it following the coast...."
Hey moron, if you followed a coast, you would never cross the water.
Geez, you are so dumb.
We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.
This is a fact. We both know it.
Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.
...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!
On Sep 30, 11:18 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> you keep posting were mine (and they
> are not),
So what? That has some meaning in the real world where anyone can use
multiple IPs?
> that couldn't change a thing.
Says the compulsive liar...
> ...every last one of them a goddamn
> idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
> out this much on your own!
Oh really?
Watch JTEM forget that he posted using one of his many sock puppets
(in this case Seth Dwight) , then answers my reply using the usual
pseud JTEM, forgetting to morph back into sock puppet Seth:
We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.
This is a fact. We both know it.
Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.
...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 1, 10:14 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> you keep posting were mine (and they
> are not)
Anyone can use multiple IPs, even sock puppets.
> that couldn't change a thing.
> ...every last one of them a goddamn
> idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
> out this much on your own!
Oh really?
Watch JTEM forget that he posted using one of his many sock puppets
(in this case Seth Dwight) , then answers my reply using the usual
pseud JTEM, forgetting to morph back into sock puppet Seth:
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!
Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.
JTEM replies with this classic Freudian slip (forgetting to use his
'Seth' handle and using "I" instead):
On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?
Everything "I" say? What happened to sock puppet 'Seth' who made the
post?
JTEM has proven himself to be the dumbest sock puppet on the planet.
JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."
Multiple IPs, multiple emails, multiple-personality disorder.
Get some help, sicko.
We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.
This is a fact. We both know it.
Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.
...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!
On Oct 2, 11:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>we both know
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22277-climate-change-determined...
"Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big
helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last
120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are
adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the
climate.
Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, but
only left the continent about 70,000 years ago. After that
our species rapidly went global, colonising first Europe and
Asia, and then Australasia and the Americas."
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 4, 1:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All the so-called "Fluctuations" we see are the
> result of the ice age.
Fluctuations in the climate caused the ice age. Try to get your facts
straight.
> On 9/28/2012 11:33 PM, RichTravsky wrote:...
> > There is nothing really wrong with their map. The actual coastallines are
> > not necessary given the broad sale of this map and long timeline.
> I have prepared a series of comparative incorrect and correct maps at
> this URL.
> The additional land areas were created by simply coloring the light
> blue 100 meter depth contours green to show they are land not water.
Scientific sources please.
> --
> Jews are so stupid they do not understand keeping
> Jerusalem is a precondition.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4407
> http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
> Sat, Sep 29, 2012 10:14:48 PM
RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > The additional land areas were created by simply coloring the light
> > blue 100 meter depth contours green to show they are land not water.
> Scientific sources please.
Wait a minute. You want a "Scientific Cite" to prove
that sea level was lower during glacial maximums?
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 6, 10:29 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Man, that's dumb...
Sept 23, 10:20 pm
"We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
according to all the data."
On Oct 8, 12:08 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Our species
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22277-climate-change-determined...
"Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big
helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last
120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are
adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the
climate.
Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, but
only left the continent about 70,000 years ago. After that
our species rapidly went global, colonising first Europe and
Asia, and then Australasia and the Americas."
Keywords: climate change, Africa
Actually, hominids were evolving long before the ice age.
Jtem is right, you dumb spazz. Climate fluctuations are
the symptom, the cause is the ice are, and you're too
stupid to figure this out even after he told you.
On Oct 5, 4:14 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
