Climate Change(d)?

[bilby]

No wonder we are having severe storms and unpleasantly hot and humid weather.



Australia is sitting in a hot bath.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12...erstorms-from-brisbane-to-melbourne/104694702

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even assuming (big assumption) that we were FAR slower to change our phenotype in the next 250M years than we were in the last 250M, it is almost certain that we won't look a lot like we currently do - if we avoid extinction for that long.

Although vain to speculate on the future evolution of H. sapiens -- even the geopolitical situation a year from now is a big mystery -- it might be fun anyway!

Evolution works surprisingly quickly. Lactase persistence developed independently at least 2 or 3 times as dairy farming made it useful. Here are three claims I've encountered; I wonder which if any are true. In decreasing order of likelihood(?):

But to survive the coming heat requires a radical redesign of our biochemistry, not tweaking it.

• Human brains have gotten smaller over recent millennia: Savages need more intelligence than people nurtured by civilization.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if human brains have gotten smaller. The brain is very energy-intensive to run. The savage must devote a lot of his mental effort to detection and avoiding counter-detection. Plants don't attack the farmer and don't run from the farmer, they don't require the sensory effort and not maintaining the sensory effort means they can survive lean times better. Thus it's possible to have both a smaller brain and more intelligence.

• The Han Chinese succeeded in part due to an "altruism gene."

They don't strike me as very altruistic.

• Female labor was essential in sedentary farming cultures, but less important in the brutal hunting culture of Scandinavia. Blond Scandinavian women were selected for sexual attraction!

And I've heard the opposite--selection for sexual attraction occurs when a society no longer needs to devote all it's effort to survival.

Be grateful that I refrain from speculations about future human evolution. But I hope others indulge.

I would be very surprised if there will ever be much human evolution. We are approaching the final filter, either it destroys us (and there's nothing left to evolve) or we become masters of our genome, it's not left to chance mutations.

 

[bilby]

Female labor was essential in sedentary farming cultures, but less important in the brutal hunting culture of Scandinavia. Blond Scandinavian women were selected for sexual attraction!

There's no lack of sexual attraction to certain kinds of women that drives any kind of selection in humans. Male humans are extremely undiscriminating in their choice of mates; They don't even confine themselves to their own species.

A very pretty woman is not likely to have more surviving children than a very ugly one, in the absence of reliable contraception; And opinions amongst men regarding who is beautiful and who is ugly seem to be driven mostly by culture and media in the modern world - skinny blondes with big blue eyes and disproportionatly large breasts are the epitome of beauty as defined by Hollywood since the mid C20th. Even Hollywood had different standards in the early C20th, and standards have changed radically through recorded history, and between geographies before rapid communications became commonplace.

The skin pigmentation gradient with latitude is most easily understood as a conflict in selection pressures between Vitamin D synthesis, which requires low skin pigment levels to be effective in low sunlight environments; And the loss of Folate that occurs with low skin pigment levels in high sunlight environments.

Black people get ricketts in Sweden; White people get Spina-Bifida (and melanoma, and sunburn) in the tropics.

 

[Elixir]

But to survive the coming heat requires a radical redesign of our biochemistry, not tweaking it.

If computer emulations of evolutionary process is any indicator, we have no idea about stuff like that. Evolution only cares reproductive success, it’s not picky about how or why.

either it destroys us (and there's nothing left to evolve) or we become masters of our genome, it's not left to chance mutations.

We literally ARE masters of our own genome. Every individual has some unique mutations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Female labor was essential in sedentary farming cultures, but less important in the brutal hunting culture of Scandinavia. Blond Scandinavian women were selected for sexual attraction!

There's no lack of sexual attraction to certain kinds of women that drives any kind of selection in humans. Male humans are extremely undiscriminating in their choice of mates; They don't even confine themselves to their own species.

A very pretty woman is not likely to have more surviving children than a very ugly one, in the absence of reliable contraception; And opinions amongst men regarding who is beautiful and who is ugly seem to be driven mostly by culture and media in the modern world - skinny blondes with big blue eyes and disproportionatly large breasts are the epitome of beauty as defined by Hollywood since the mid C20th. Even Hollywood had different standards in the early C20th, and standards have changed radically through recorded history, and between geographies before rapid communications became commonplace.

Half right. The ugly woman will still find sex, but she won't find as good a partner and thus her children will be less likely to live.

The skin pigmentation gradient with latitude is most easily understood as a conflict in selection pressures between Vitamin D synthesis, which requires low skin pigment levels to be effective in low sunlight environments; And the loss of Folate that occurs with low skin pigment levels in high sunlight environments.

Black people get ricketts in Sweden; White people get Spina-Bifida (and melanoma, and sunburn) in the tropics.

Didn't know about the folate issue, but that doesn't change things. Just because preferences vary doesn't mean there are no preferences.

But to survive the coming heat requires a radical redesign of our biochemistry, not tweaking it.

If computer emulations of evolutionary process is any indicator, we have no idea about stuff like that. Evolution only cares reproductive success, it’s not picky about how or why.

either it destroys us (and there's nothing left to evolve) or we become masters of our genome, it's not left to chance mutations.

We literally ARE masters of our own genome. Every individual has some unique mutations.

Masters of, as in babies will be made in the lab with carefully chosen DNA, perhaps even synthetic DNA.

 

[pood]

This for an anthropogenic climate-change denialist here who likes to quote The Daily Mail and other barf-bag sources.

 

[Swammerdami]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

 

[thebeave]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

 

[Swammerdami]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

 

[thebeave]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about science.

 

[Swammerdami]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about science.

Well, then you'll have to clarify your remark. AFAIK our Santa Monican is noted here particularly for his rejection of science; and you proposed to celebrate his house burning down to make the forum more "left." Is there some other way that the Santa Monican is "right" that would lead you to celebrate his loss?

 

[thebeave]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about science.

Well, then you'll have to clarify your remark. AFAIK our Santa Monican is noted here particularly for his rejection of science; and you proposed to celebrate his house burning down to make the forum more "left." Is there some other way that the Santa Monican is "right" that would lead you to celebrate his loss?

My comment was a sarcastic response to your "dark humor" about a possible looming tragedy for TSwizzle. Which I think a lot of people would be fine with, because he doesn't share the same political orientation as themselves.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about science.

Well, then you'll have to clarify your remark. AFAIK our Santa Monican is noted here particularly for his rejection of science; and you proposed to celebrate his house burning down to make the forum more "left." Is there some other way that the Santa Monican is "right" that would lead you to celebrate his loss?

My comment was a sarcastic response to your "dark humor" about a possible looming tragedy for TSwizzle. Which I think a lot of people would be fine with, because he doesn't share the same political orientation as themselves.

You seem to be reading into Swammi’s post with your own bias. He did not refer to any “possible looming tragedy for TSwizzle” in his post. It appeared to me to just be a recognition of his absence from this thread and a renewed interest in having TSwizzle find out if other areas may be experiencing climate change, other than his dear Santa Monica.

Who here has expressed a desire for TSwizzle to experience a tragedy that would prevent him from posting? Also, it is the right wing primarily that has turned the science of climate change into a “political orientation”. The actual science, the references to which TSwizzle actively ignores, does not have a political orientation.

 

[Elixir]

A shame that these Santa Ana’s are going to waste feeding a fire… offshore warm breeze - PERFECT surf conditions.
Swiz is probably out there ripping it up.
If not, he should be. Even if his house is on fire - it’s too good to miss.

 

[steve_bank]

Listened to a BBC report from Pakistan on glacier melts in the Himalayas.

Towns and villages are being washed away. Melting ice forms a lake, lake breaks through ice, a sudden flood. Several hundred glaciers.

Pakistan does not have the resources to move people, they are stuck. They appear to have had a decent life until now. Sad, kids with an unknown future.

In other news expect coffee prices to spike. Work is being done to develop strains resistant to climate change.

We are relatively isolated from it now compared tom other places, but it will catch up to us. Food supplies and effect on global economies and trade.

Meanwhile Trump's mantra is Drill !!! Drill !!! Drill !!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We've not heard from Santa Monica recently. Might I ask our Santa Monican climatologist to drive up the coast a few miles and report on temperatures there?

My guess is its still on the warm side in Santa Monica. Maybe if his city and/or house burns down, he'll stop posting here and we can celebrate his misfortune and our gain with a little party. Making this forum as left as possible is always a plus. Whattaya think?

I think it interesting that you equate "believing in science" with "left."

??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about science.

Well, then you'll have to clarify your remark. AFAIK our Santa Monican is noted here particularly for his rejection of science; and you proposed to celebrate his house burning down to make the forum more "left." Is there some other way that the Santa Monican is "right" that would lead you to celebrate his loss?

My comment was a sarcastic response to your "dark humor" about a possible looming tragedy for TSwizzle. Which I think a lot of people would be fine with, because he doesn't share the same political orientation as themselves.

Actually, Ziprhead got a Credit Default Swap on TSwizzle's house, and if it burns down, the board is set financially for a century. So yes, there would be mixed feelings.

 

[TSwizzle]

{snip}Also, it is the right wing primarily that has turned the science of climate change into a “political orientation”.

The actual science, the references to which TSwizzle actively ignores, does not have a political orientation.

No I don't ignore "the actual science"

It will be a balmy 70f in Santa Monica later today. Oh the humanity!!! #PrayForTswizzle'sHouse

It really is a religion for you lot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

{snip}Also, it is the right wing primarily that has turned the science of climate change into a “political orientation”.

The actual science, the references to which TSwizzle actively ignores, does not have a political orientation.

No I don't ignore "the actual science"

It will be a balmy 70f in Santa Monica later today. Oh the humanity!!! #PrayForTswizzle'sHouse

It really is a religion for you lot.

If you consider observable cause and effect to be a religion... I suppose so.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The actual science, the references to which TSwizzle actively ignores, does not have a political orientation.

No I don't ignore "the actual science"

You do. I and others have posted actual science and you have ignored it. You respond primarily to the declarations of non-scientists like politicians and activists rather than currently practicing climate scientists.

I consider “sure Jan” and rolleye emojis to essentially be ignoring even if you consider it responding.

It will be a balmy 70f in Santa Monica later today

Who cares?

It really is a religion for you lot.

Repeating the same irrelevant facts as if they have meaning is more of a religious activity I would say. Or perhaps just simple trolling for self gratification.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The actual science, the references to which TSwizzle actively ignores, does not have a political orientation.

No I don't ignore "the actual science"

You do. I and others have posted actual science and you have ignored it. You respond primarily to the declarations of non-scientists like politicians and activists rather than currently practicing climate scientists.

I consider “sure Jan” and rolleye emojis to essentially be ignoring even if you consider it responding.

It will be a balmy 70f in Santa Monica later today

Who cares?

It really is a religion for you lot.

Repeating the same irrelevant facts statistic as if they have it has meaning is more of a religious activity I would say. Or perhaps just simple trolling for self gratification.

FIFY