lol, we had an ice age once too, but if we had another it would not be normal weather we are used too
From 2017: Scientists link California droughts and floods to distinctive atmospheric waves 2017 › 04 › 06 › scientists-link-california-droughts-and-floods-to-distinctive-atmospheric-waves to which the wave pattern influenced the California drought, Teng and Branstator used three specialized ... caused the wave pattern linked to the severe California drought to form. In the paper published in the Journal "Scientists link California droughts and floods to distinctive atmospheric waves"
I have no idea what you mean by that. The point is that changing patterns bring droughts and end them too.
the topic.... "Drought, what drought?" I agree, there was a Drought, now there are Floods, when the floods dry up, we won't say "Floods, what floods?"
That difference is mere semantics. The OP's larger point was that all this is exaggerated by population beyond the capacoty of the region to support it.
I believe man is contributing to climate change, what the long term effect will be is unknown... who knows, could push back the next ice age for all we know all I am saying is there was a drought, floods don't change that fact, but they do end the drought, at least temporarily
Technically, we are still in an ice age. And yes, they are cyclical and have been coming and going for the last 2 billion years. We have had 5 major glaciation cycles, and at least two dozen lesser glaciation cycles. Homo Sapiens themselves have survived through four of the lesser ones so far, two full glaciations that each had mid-glaciatiation rebounds then returned. And we have yet to come anywhere even close to what the climate was during an actual interglacial itself. And yes, technically we are in a minor glaciation cycle within the larger Quaternary cycle. One of the "benchmarks" that geologists have used has been an absence of a Polar Ice Cap, and the land masses returning to a viable and stable ecology. Much of Asia and North America is still tundra and permafrost, that is not such an ecosystem as it is still frozen for much of the year. And about 10 kya, that is what the Great Plains in North America were like. During the height of the last Ice Age when humans first reached North America, the climate and landscape would be more like North-Central Canada than what we see today. And Omaha was much closer to an area north of Yellowknife NWT than the open grasslands of today. And the flooding is going to increase. Another thing known from pact cycles is that as the planet warms, rainfall will only increase. And it will take time, thousands of years until we see a significant greening as the planet is still recovering from having so much of the surface frozen. And much of the flora and fauna we have evolved for an ice age climate. Other animals and plants will evolve to fill in the gaps, as has always happened. But one thing we do know, is that the planet is rarely in an interglacial for long, and they both start and end rather abruptly. And the very fact that new glaciers are still being created around the 45th parallel shows how cool the planet still is. Humans simply have a problem imagining the planet being any different than they know of it as being today. They look out at a landscape, and imagine it had always been like that. However, that is not true at all. The first humans on North America would have seen a giant lake larger than some of the Great Lakes sitting over Montana, and experienced the massive floods when it broke through the ice dam and flooded the NW all the way to the Ocean. They would not have ever seen a "San Francisco Bay", as that was just an inland valley then and the coast was another 20 miles to the west. And one could walk from Ireland to France, or from Wellington in NZ to New Caledonia. Now the "English Channel" was actually there already, that predates the current glacial cycle an was actually carved by a previous one. But at this time it would have been a dry canyon, and at about the time the first human settlements started at Jericho, one could still walk from Paris to London and only get wet crossing a few rivers. And it would have been a short boat ride from the tip of Florida to Yucatan, Mexico. Greenland and North America were tied together by dry land, as was North America and Asia. Humans are just not very good at imagining something to different than how things are today.
I did not say different what I said was "lol, we had an ice age once too, but if we had another it would not be normal weather we are used too" I also said "I believe man is contributing to climate change, what the long term effect will be is unknown... who knows, could push back the next ice age for all we know"
But no definition of "drought" includes the excessive amounts of water that humans are removing from a system. Yes, that devastates the local ecology, but it does not affect the climate at all. But people are constantly confusing the excessive draining of water from the ecosystem and equating it to drought. The "drought" is man-made, and has nothing to do with climate. It is the excessive removal of water by humans, and nothing else. That is what people just can't seem to grasp.
by that logic we never had a drought if the area eventually has a flood, that is not true, you can have one, then the other the flood cancels out the drought, but doesn't erase the history that the drought happened
And why should it remain the same? I find it hilarious that most of the climate pushers are the ultimate in Conservatism and are more Conservative than cats when it comes to any change. They literally can not imagine a time different than yesterday, and think today and every tomorrow should be the exact same thing. And I see that as the ultimate in unscientific thought. The planet always has changed, and always will change. And I am sure that those humans living on Doggerland were a bit pissed off when the area their great-great grandfathers settled suddenly saw the ocean creeping closer to their houses and had to pack up and move father inland. Only for their great-great grandchildren to have to repeat it a century later. And I wonder what our oldest ancestors thought when they realized that their distant cousins who they met every few years were suddenly on an island and not so easy to visit anymore. And to be honest, I think a lot of that myopic mindset is because most of the major changes had already happened by the time we started to use a written language. By that time, Doggerland was underwater, England was an island cut off from Europe, and the Black Sea had already refilled to close to what we know of it as today. But one thing known today is the concept of catastrophism, and that at around 10 kya, massive floods were happening almost globally. An interesting thing to consider when almost every single culture on the planet has at least some "global flood" myth. And almost all date to around the same era as the ice sheets were finally breaking up and retreating. This is the kind of thing I point out all the time. And I am when it comes to climate very much a "Catastrophist", and most of those that scream at any change of the climate are "Uniformitarianists". They see all the changes as already having been completed, but I very much see they are still ongoing even today and will continue to change. Of course, I also grew up in generally the same area as J. Harlan Bretz so seeing the evidence of such was normal for me.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. But "drought" is the cycle of water, not when humans are removing far more water from an ecosystem than it can sustain. Imagine I set up a system where 100 people live in an island, and provide each with 1 gallon of water per day. Then a hundred years later, there are now 500 people living on that island, but still only getting 1 gallon of water per day. That is the problem that places like the SW US is going through. The environment could never support so many people, and for over a century they have been going farther and farther to get the water they need. The water available 100 years ago, or even 500 or 1,000 years ago would not have been enough for the populations seen. The lack of water to humans is not a part of "drought" at all, that is simply supply and demand, nature only provides so much. I can take 1,000 people and throw them in the middle of the Gobi Desert and it will be the same problem. There is water there, but not enough to support any large concentrations of people. That is a major reason why the people living there had never "settled down" as those of say Europe or SE Asia where water was plentiful. Before Europeans arrived in the US, most of the Indian populations alternated between migrant, and small pastoral groupings. And they likely barely noticed the same variants that have people screaming today. Of course, they lived a lifestyle where 1 gallon of water per day was more than enough for their needs. Even in "drought stricken" California, that is almost 50 gallons of water per person per day. Excess consumption is not "drought", and has no part of the definition.
Yes, we do. Pumping out more than the environment can put back in, causing drought like problems with plants. Especially trees with deep root systems that can no longer access the water because the aquifers have been pumped so low. But the thing is, none of this has a thing to do with climate. In the same way, we know that urban areas are meccas for heat as almost everything we do including roads and buildings increases the ambient temperature in an area. And why leaving a large city like LA it can seem like the temperature drops 5-10 degrees simply by going to a rural area. That is actually many things, including higher humidity and lower temperatures as well as more airflow. This also impacts the environment around a city, but so long as things like excessive water is not removed from the environment it dissipates quickly. But even the heat sinks that surround our large urban centers are not enough to change the "climate" outside of a small area around them. Yes, LA is indeed a giant heatsink that is much warmer than the area around it. A storm moving in from the Pacific would not even recognize that temperature gradient as even a pebble on the freeway as it comes in though and will cause the local "climate" to conform to it, not the other way around. Akin to putting a small 500 watt space heater in a room the size of a basketball court, then opening a roll up door large enough to allow a semi truck to enter. Yes, right around the heater will remain warm(er), but the rest of the room is going to soon assume the temperature outside. People keep assuming the small changes we may do simply by living change the "climate", but that is not true at all. However, we are very much able to change the ecology of an area. We have been doing that for tens of thousands of years. Hunting animals we want for food, or eliminating those we see as a threat. Plowing out grasslands that are the home to herbivores and replacing it with crops we ourselves desire but the local fauna may not be able to use. Diverting water to support us and those crops, that is all ecological change and we are damned good at it. But that is not climate, even though building a large reservoir built next to a community will have an affect of cooling it (or removing a body of water will warm it). But this is on such a microscale over such a small area that the planet does not even notice. And heck, for all of those that say such changes occur slowly over long periods of time, they really do not know how it works at all. The Younger Dryas slammed the planet and within a couple of decades from a climate very much like we see today right back into a hard Ice Age. And things were finally recovering from that and in the Medieval Warm Period when it slammed right back again into the Little Ice Age. I just shake my head each time people try to claim it never happened before, when it has happened over and over again. Just not in their lifetime.
exactly, over population in an area can cause environmental issues the truth is, we will not change, if anything, science will have to solve the problem - course if the right think man can't affect the climate, then may as well let them try... right? I mean such a small change once a year could not have an effect
If I were to bet on anything, it would not be science. Nature has long had ways of "punishing" species that have an excessive population and use more resources than the area can provide. And that is generally death through starvation, or death through disease. If I was to bet on any single outcome, knowing the planet it would be one of the latter. The planet in general does not care about any species, and there are far more that have gone extinct and are no longer with us than are present today. All "science" has done is allowed more of us to exist than ever before, which in many ways is not a good thing.
Science informs us of what happens in these situations through observation and analysis of nature. Yes, medial science and engineering has improved our lives. But, it's hard to support the notion that modern medical science is the reason for our world population.
Science gave us the car, plane and other things causing the problem to begin with and we know people won't give them up, so science is our best bet if it comes to that and you're right... The planet don't care either way, it will keep on spinning
it's a big reason for the increased population though obviously other things like transport and such also play a role
Oh hell, of course you do not think so. Since 1942, it is believed that at least 200 million lives have been saved by penicillin alone. Conservative estimates are that as many as 20 million per year are saved due to vaccinations. It was not all that long ago that the largest killer of humans was infectious disease. Other than the recent pandemic, infectious disease has not even been in the top 10 for most of a century. But yes, I imagine that is not enough information for you to support the notion that modern medical science is the primary reason.
In the world, population growth rate tends to REDUCE as progress toward first world conditions is made. Part of that advance toward first world status is the availability of modern medicine. If someone wants to cite actual evidence of medicine leading to higher population, I'll read it.
Things like infrastructure allow it to continue, but the main reason for the exponential growth in the past century and a half is unquestionably from medicine. That is why our infant mortality rate is now around 5 per 1,000 as opposed to the 200 per 1,000 as it was before the US Civil War. And it really started to plummet in the 1940s when major vaccination campaigns started along with mandatory inoculation. And at the same time, the human population exploded. From an estimated 1.2 billion in 1850 to 2.5 billion in 1950. To 4.5 billion in 1980 and 7.8 billion today. Having more food and water has an impact on many things, but the reduction of infant mortality from a fifth to a quarter of all children to around 1% due to disease was the largest factor. And each of those then had more children. Et cetera.
