"Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask

[nanning]

<snip>
hunted with a bounty because people actively try to eliminate other predators. We don't like the competition . I have a feeling the practice is very old and deep seated.

Bruce,
I think it is more out of fear than eliminating the competition. Use of mighty technology (kill from a distance) was likely very tempting and gave them 'ideas'.
We are not predators! That's magic (technological) thinking.

@Tom_Mazanec
I agree.
-----------------------
I don't understand how e.g. elephants evolved with the growing technology of human hunters. Aren't they also vulnerable to being killed with spears and traps, just like other megafauna up north?
To me it looks like Africans had a different mentality. Perhaps because they stayed close to their roots?

[binntho]

<snip>
hunted with a bounty because people actively try to eliminate other predators. We don't like the competition . I have a feeling the practice is very old and deep seated.

Bruce,
I think it is more out of fear than eliminating the competition. Use of mighty technology (kill from a distance) was likely very tempting and gave them 'ideas'.
We are not predators! That's magic (technological) thinking.

We most certainly are predators. The various Homo species were technological species from the start, using technology to gain access to animal fat that is essential for the development of our big brains.

@Tom_Mazanec
I agree.
-----------------------
I don't understand how e.g. elephants evolved with the growing technology of human hunters. Aren't they also vulnerable to being killed with spears and traps, just like other megafauna up north?
To me it looks like Africans had a different mentality. Perhaps because they stayed close to their roots?

What is this rubbish?

[jdallen]

The climate changed wildly throughout the Pleistocene and they did fine.

NOPE

El Cid:
There were about two dozen ice age cycles in the Pleistocene similar in speed and amplitude. When humans reached Australia there was an extinction event. When they reached the Western Hemisphere there was an extinction event. But in Africa where they had the most time to adapt to our hunting they did relatively well, and somewhat so in Eurasia.

There is still a lot of debate around the topic.  While H. Sapiens no doubt had an effect, they aren't the universal answer, and even in "new" territory like the Western Hemisphere and Australia, there are species for which that answer doesn't make sense.

It also doesn't make sense for many of the extinctions in Asia and Europe, where humanity and the megafauna *did* co-evolve.

Climate played a role as well.

[binntho]

<snip>
Climate played a role as well.

Homo Sapiens arrives in the Americas at the end of the last glacial - so yes, the climate was changing at the time.

But not when Homo S. arrived in Australia.

[binntho]

Being a megafauna hunter is not really a reliable long-term strategy, but some human societies have adapted lifestyles that include megafauna hunting (such as the Inuit).

Megafauna has survived in those areas where neither normal hunting nor agriculture could maintain groups of humans large enough to hunt (or push out) megafauna.

[Human Habitat Index]

Can the amount of soot from the fires landing on the surviving ice be quantified ?

What effect will it have on the freezing season ?

[oren]

Can the amount of soot from the fires landing on the surviving ice be quantified ?

What effect will it have on the freezing season ?

As the sea ice (surviving and newly frozen) is covered by snow in autumn and often in winter too, the soot  won't necessarily have a large effect. But once the top snow melts, and if the soot survives on top of the ice next spring, it could decrease albedo and hasten top melting.

[crandles]

Can the amount of soot from the fires landing on the surviving ice be quantified ?

What effect will it have on the freezing season ?

As the sea ice (surviving and newly frozen) is covered by snow in autumn and often in winter too, the soot  won't necessarily have a large effect. But once the top snow melts, and if the soot survives on top of the ice next spring, it could decrease albedo and hasten top melting.

Contaminates reduce melting/freezing point of water but I have no idea whether any significance versus salt.

[nanning]

<snip>
I don't understand how e.g. elephants evolved with the growing technology of human hunters. Aren't they also vulnerable to being killed with spears and traps, just like other megafauna up north?
To me it looks like Africans had a different mentality. Perhaps because they stayed close to their roots?

Pleistocene African humans didn't need warm watertight clothes so they didn't have the perverse incentive to kill for non-nourishment. I call it perverse because no real predator behaves this way to my knowledge.

Human are predators? I think not. Just remove all technology and see what's left. We can't even survive outside of the tropics and we have no predator specifics such as claws, talons, predator teeth or other killing attributes.
Furthermore, a predator has a specific function in ecosystems. What is our function then?

@binntho
I think there was no farming in the pleistocene. That is a holocene human characteristic.
Please be kind in the wording of your possible reply. For some it is hard to be kind.

p.s. I am going to try at home to eat meat without salt. I think humans had no salt in the pleistocene.

[binntho]

<snip>
I don't understand how e.g. elephants evolved with the growing technology of human hunters. Aren't they also vulnerable to being killed with spears and traps, just like other megafauna up north?
To me it looks like Africans had a different mentality. Perhaps because they stayed close to their roots?

Pleistocene African humans didn't need warm watertight clothes so they didn't have the perverse incentive to kill for non-nourishment. I call it perverse because no real predator behaves this way to my knowledge.

Human are predators? I think not. Just remove all technology and see what's left. We can't even survive outside of the tropics and we have no predator specifics such as claws, talons, predator teeth or other killing attributes.
Furthermore, a predator has a specific function in ecosystems. What is our function then?

@binntho
I think there was no farming in the pleistocene. That is a holocene human characteristic.
Please be kind in the wording of your possible reply. For some it is hard to be kind.

p.s. I am going to try at home to eat meat without salt. I think humans had no salt in the pleistocene.

Humans have evolved as a technological species (the first and only such) and as a predator using technology. So, yes, removing technology from a human turns him into prey. Same happens if you cripple a lion.

And who said anything about farming in the pleistocene!

As for spouting colonial-era pseudoscience with racist overtones, it is likely to raise hackles. If you felt hurt by my remark then perhaps you should consider why.

[binntho]

Since when has survival become perverse?

[nanning]

binntho, my initial question was about pleistocene humans, therefore no farming. I thought you made an argument with farming but I'm not sure, I can't find it. Sorry, mistake from me.

"A technological species". You mean such as robots? What does it mean?
Are humans able to make their own technology? I think no and that means we're not a 'technological species'.

I don't know how to point out confirmation bias. Anyway it'll be TLTR. I've tried and failed in the "is man the unnatural animal" thread. To think about this you need to put all your culture of normals, how you believe things must be, aside and start with information from (evolutionary) biology, ecology, archeology and anthropology without too much interpretation, from clear definitions, logic; inferences and probabilities. Start with: Humans are nothing special, Humans are primates. Humans are not predators. Look at our teeth and our capabilities without technology. Look at peaceful nature tribes and see where they're different from civilisation to try to get your reasoning outside it. Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound like a clear recipe.
I expect that you won't like this post.

Many times when I start a discussion on a new topic I get disappointed fast because in stead of focussing and getting closer, the arguments tend to scatter the subject in other directions. The center topic gets out of sight fast.

[binntho]

binntho, my initial question was about pleistocene humans, therefore no farming. I thought you made an argument with farming but I'm not sure, I can't find it. Sorry, mistake from me.

My thoughts on farming were more a form of general musings about the human impact on various fauna. Anyway, this is what seems to happen: Somebody's post starts a discussion, and then the same Somebody comes back and says "no that's not what I asked about, please stick to the subject" which is fair enough.

"A technological species". You mean such as robots? What does it mean?
Are humans able to make their own technology? I think no and that means we're not a 'technological species'.

Where do you think technology comes from? Who makes our technology?

Anyway, the various Homo species have been using tools (including weapons) and fire for at least the last couple of million years. This, in anthropology, counts as being "technological". Our evolution is in fact unique amongst the world's species, as so many have pointed out: As an animal we are more or less useless, and that's because we have never been without technology. We are literally the first technological species.

I don't know how to point out confirmation bias. Anyway it'll be TLTR. I've tried and failed in the "is man the unnatural animal" thread. To think about this you need to put all your culture of normals, how you believe things must be, aside and start with information from (evolutionary) biology, ecology, archeology and anthropology without too much interpretation, from clear definitions, logic; inferences and probabilities. Start with: Humans are nothing special, Humans are primates.

Humans are "nothing special" except for being the only technological species.

Humans are not predators. Look at our teeth and our capabilities without technology.

Exactly. Humans have evolved as a technological predator (or rather opportunistic omnivore) but like wolves and bears (other opportunistic omnivores) we prefer meat.

Look at peaceful nature tribes and see where they're different from civilisation to try to get your reasoning outside it. Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound like a clear recipe.
I expect that you won't like this post.

Here we go with the 19th century romantic pseudo-science. "Peaceful nature tribes" bollocks.

Many times when I start a discussion on a new topic I get disappointed fast because in stead of focussing and getting closer, the arguments tend to scatter the subject in other directions. The center topic gets out of sight fast.

As I said earlier - anyway, does the discussion belong to the questioner or is it a free-for-all?

Your original question seems to have been answered surprisingly well - but perhaps not to your liking.

[Human Habitat Index]

[/quote]

Here we go with the 19th century romantic pseudo-science. "Peaceful nature tribes" bollocks.

Environmentally sustainable therefore peaceful tribes.

[oren]

Human are predators? I think not. Just remove all technology and see what's left. We can't even survive outside of the tropics and we have no predator specifics such as claws, talons, predator teeth or other killing attributes.

Nanning, I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but best stick to facts while.you are doing it. Humans have spread all over the world before technology, unless you call stone chip tools and log boats technology. So the tropics limit is simply false.
Homo Sapiens came out of Africa more than 100k years ago, and Homo Erectus about a million years ago.
Humans are natural predatory animals, they will hunt when they can, it's an energy equation, if it's worth their while they'll do it. If there's enough food at hand, why bother hunt that elephant? Modern civilization has added a moral code to it, realizing that humans are far superior in their evolved capabilities compared to the other animals. But that's a whole different discussion.
BTW, if I am not mistaken other animals can use sort-of tools too, primates and beavers come to kind.

[gerontocrat]

One hypothesis I am attracted to is that modern man "happened" when imagination happened. And the first evidence of this is images painted on cave walls. I think the anthropologists have got back to about 70,000 years for the first evidence.

ps: All predators (except man) always go for the easy meat, including fresh (and not so fresh) carrion. To survive man does as well. But surely there is no reason not to suppose that ancient modern man behaved as he does today - i.e. the macho thing. A Masai warrior proving his manhood by killing a lion with a spear. Or a modern man from Western "civilisation", killing his lion with an assault rifle and a fence between him and it.

[nanning]

As I said earlier - anyway, does the discussion belong to the questioner or is it a free-for-all?

Well, it was my question originally but I don't really understand what that has to do with 'belong' and 'free for all'. If my reactions are in a certain direction that's because I try to fit things into my worldview, my understanding. I don't want to restrict others at all. Do you think it is bad to try to put the discussion on the rails again in the context of the question? I am not perfect but are well meaning and open.

Your original question seems to have been answered surprisingly well - but perhaps not to your liking.

I think people should not have a need/want for 'liking it' when searching for truth. I don't.
Thank you for your explanation binntho but I don't see it that way and I think it is not the right or full answer.

Here we go with the 19th century romantic pseudo-science. "Peaceful nature tribes" bollocks.

I don't like it when you use those words binntho. Why do you do it?
I haven't read many books. The "peaceful nature tribe" is a clear distinction from the "violent conquering tribe" in to me important musings and truth-finding.

We didn't evolve with technology as a 'technological species'. After we were no longer natural because of using technology outside of ecosystem balances, we didn't evolve anymore in the sense of natural selection and bounds and limits of ecosystems. Do you understand that when you're not constrained by living natures systems, you are not natural? I know very well that 'natural' is prone to misinterpretation but that is not a reason to discard it.
Wolfs and bears and anything else in living nature, are all within ecosystems constraints. A clear distinction.

[nanning]

<snip>
 unless you call stone chip tools and log boats technology.

Yes, those are technology. As are clothes and the ability to make fire.

[nanning]

One hypothesis I am attracted to is that modern man "happened" when imagination happened.
<snip>

Good observation I think.
But be careful with 'modern man'. Are those humans from civilisation or are the uncontacted nature tribes also 'modern'?

[oren]

Nanning, again I am not sure what you are driving at, but I suspect you could use more scientific information. Why not read this for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals
Humans are not as special as you might think.
And eco-systems are not as harmonious and well-balanced as you might think. Or else, why were there past extinctions, before humans decided they want to wear clothes?

[petm]

You can't remove technology from H. sapiens. Drop someone naked and possessionless in the wilderness and they'll immediately start making technology. It's one of the defining characteristics of human nature.

If you want clues about our pre-modern nature, have a look at chimps and bonobos, our closest extant relatives. (E.g., H. sapiens aren't the only ones who make war.)

[binntho]

Here we go with the 19th century romantic pseudo-science. "Peaceful nature tribes" bollocks.

I don't like it when you use those words binntho. Why do you do it?
I haven't read many books. The "peaceful nature tribe" is a clear distinction from the "violent conquering tribe" in to me important musings and truth-finding.

We didn't evolve with technology as a 'technological species'.

There are no "peaceful nature tribes" or "violent conquering tribes" - there are just people. Your use of these concepts were much in vogue in the 19th century, amongst romaticists and pseudo-scientists.

And most definitely yes, Homo Sapiens is a technological species, evolved from other technological species. There is no doubt about this - HS cannot survive and would never have survived without technology.

[binntho]

One hypothesis I am attracted to is that modern man "happened" when imagination happened.
<snip>

Good observation I think.
But be careful with 'modern man'. Are those humans from civilisation or are the uncontacted nature tribes also 'modern'?

Be careful with your use of words, Manning. "Uncontacted" tribes are exactly as modern as we are and have their own civilisations.

And are anyway not really "uncontacted".

This false dichotomy between "civilised" and "uncivilised" is pure pseudoscience.

[binntho]

One hypothesis I am attracted to is that modern man "happened" when imagination happened. And the first evidence of this is images painted on cave walls. I think the anthropologists have got back to about 70,000 years for the first evidence.

As is put very well by Yuvel Noah Harari in his famous book "Sapiens". It's an intriguing theory, imagition is perhaps not the right word here, but "capable of abstract thought" would probably cover it.

Whether 70.000 years is old enough is another, separate, question.

[cognitivebias2]

This is not specific to the posts above.

Thinking about the lack of/loss of civility on the forum.  Is there a way to help raise awareness without derailing other threads, especially the important ones?  I was thinking of something like the Razzies: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Awards


In the first few days of the <time period> snipets from posts in the previous <time period> can be nominated as exemplifying bad manner/bad logic/etc.  Then a poll for that top few, and the voting brings awareness to the poster outside the actual thread.  It gives people an outlet to respond, without detracting from the thread where the faux pas was committed.


I see this as a partially formed idea.  Just wondering if there's anything useful there. 

[binntho]

Sort of like an internal ostracism? Might be worth a try.

[oren]

I think it will cause more acrimony than it will save. You could have 95% of users agreeing that a certain poster's posts are irrelevant/over-long/off-topic/inappropriate/offensive, but that poster could easily still think otherwise, be insulted, and post even more of the same type of posts. Those posters who are repeat offenders will also usually take offense, as they lack self-criticism.

Light problems - best ignore
Medium problems - make a short gentle post about it (unless involved poster is a repeat offender, in which case best ignore)
Big problems - make a short harsh post about it, report to moderator (unless Neven already said it's okay with him. Then wait for involved poster to quit, luckily it does happen).

[petm]

Too bad theres no up/down thumbs on posts...

[blumenkraft]

I was thinking of something like the Razzies: 

I like the idea.

Could be done on an external site - no need to modify the forum software.

[kassy]

So today there was a mention of lightning near the north pole which does not happen there normally.

It does not happen there normally because the right type of clouds (cumulonimus) usually don´t form there or is there another reason?

And while we are at it what cloud types are common in the arctic?

[nanning]

binntho, I leave it at this and will not be engaging further in this thread. I think we are both better of that way because we irritate each other I think. No offence intended of course.

<snip>
Be careful with your use of words, Manning. "Uncontacted" tribes are exactly as modern as we are and have their own civilisations.

And are anyway not really "uncontacted".

If they're not uncontacted then that's not a tribe I mean. Don't you see what the meaning is of the words you wrote?

Referring to your earlier 'survival' statement:
When trekking birds or trekking other herds get cold, they move to warmer latitudes. Why didn't we? It was NOT for survival. We should have gone with the seasons.

Individual humans don't make their technology. Nobody can make her/his own technology (anything containing metal or plastic). We just use it. In living nature when an animal uses technology, they can make it themselves. That's the distinction with modern humans.

@oren
I have arguments and explanations for the things you wrote and will respond tomorrow.


Thank you all for your patience and suggestions.
I see this is not coming to a conclusion so this is my second to last post in this context. I have taken enough of your time and attention. I'm an expert on this subject. Not an academic. You may laugh now .

[Neven]

Maybe we need an 'endless discussions thread'? 

[binntho]

Maybe we need an 'endless discussions thread'? 

Me like it!

[crandles]

Maybe we need an 'endless discussions thread'? 

Me like it!

Would Gompertz vs exponential curve fits have to go there?

I suggest we don't want want everything to go into one thread 

[Stephen]

My response to Happy Bee's idea in the 2019 melt thread.

Hello, I am lurking for several years now.  .....
....
....
There is only one solution to this if we want, as a species, to have time the positive feedback.  Dear Russian and Americans forum members, please try to convince your respective Presidents to build a dam across the Berring strait.  It could generate enormous quantities of clean electricity and it would help to save the world.  Call it the Esperanza dam.

Happy bee,  the amount of energy required to build such a dam could be much more efficiently used building 100,000 solar power plants across the deserts and sunny regions of the world.  The power would then be more easily distributed to the end-users.  Tidal dams rank up there with Fusion power as a promising source of energy that never quite materializes.  I've lost count of the number of reports I have read of failed tidal power plants.  It just never delivers on a significant scale.

Also, the Bering Straits are way too far from the site of end-user consumption. We would need a world wide power grid. It just doesn't stack up.  Solar, Wind and GBB (Great Big Batteries) have already proven themselves as an affordable solution.

[oren]

I'm against the idea of course, but here's a thread where this was discussed actively (180 responses!)
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1545.0.html

[RoxTheGeologist]

Hmm -- question about late season bottom melt.

Assuming that the ice isn't moving over water heated by insolation.
And assuming the surface of the ice isn't being covered in seawater.

Where is the heat stored to create bottom melt? Is it in the ice itself, and by the slow transfer of heat through the ice from the 0°C surface?

Bottom melt continues until the whole of the ice thickness is at -1.8°C (or whatever the interface melting temperature is at the base of the ice), as that heat will gradually be used to melt the base (if its not lost to the atmosphere).

1) If that is the case, does it make sense that until the average surface temperature drops below -1.8°C (on average, as the daily variations are damped as they propagate through the ice), bottom melt will continue? A meter of ice at 0°C contains enough heat to melt around 2.16cm (enthalpy of fusion is 83x the specific heat capacity) of the base. If we see 0°C on the map, that is promoting bottom melt, but it takes a while for that heat to move through the ice, depending on it's thickness, thicker ice has more insulation between the 0°C surface and the -1.8°C base.

2) Does it also means that thin ice has the most capacity to refreeze? The seawater has little insulation when the temperature above the ice falls. Open water has all that mixing going on, probably causing conviction as the surface chills and bringing warmer saltier water to the surface

3) Snowfall on ice will insulate the top of the ice, preventing the ice from losing heat. Early and heavier freeze season snowfall will trap more heat, perhaps prolonging bottom melt and slowing down heat loss. As a note I'd guess that heavier snowfalls are therefore really bad news for cooling the planet. It's a bit like putting a blanket over the heat exchanger of your fridge.

[binntho]

Apropos an earlier question: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cave-bears-extinction-study-europe-early-man-scientific-reports-a9062446.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2dXdMtTx9xfU53uGF7-YV_OghDBVMVP9LgtTcvKLH1S6bPVSB0B888MiQ#Echobox=1565982618

[blumenkraft]

RE: Esperanza dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa

Happy bee, huge projects like that are predetermined to fail.

Also, what Stephen said.

[uniquorn]

Is the reaction between methane and ocean water endothermic?

[binntho]

Is the reaction between methane and ocean water endothermic?

I found this, "Hydrate dissociation is an endothermic process" in file:///C:/Users/Pc/Downloads/Methane2009_Session5_3_Hydrates_ElwoodMaden.pdf

As far as I can see, methane and water do not react as such, but methane can be included in water "cages", so called clathrates. What that .pdf seems to be saying is that the dissociation of the water cage (the clathrate) is an endothermic process, which would lead one to think that the creation of clathrates was exothermic.

[nanning]

I think there is no simple answer to that question because there are many types of reaction. Also biological.
Maybe this is of use? https://www.ess.uci.edu/~reeburgh/cr050362v.pdf

[Klondike Kat]

Is the reaction between methane and ocean water endothermic?

The direct reaction between methane and water, producing CO2 and hydrogen, is highly exothermic.    Other reactions, both chemical and biological, may occur in the open ocean.

[johnm33]

Not the question you asked but "Hydrate breakdown is an endothermic process, absorbing heat while the surrounding sediment cools. Because the specific heat of methane hydrates is about half that of water, hydrate-bearing sediment stores less heat which can then be made available to help fuel dissociation. When estimating the efficiency of hydrate dissociation, neglecting the reduced contribution of methane hydrates to the host sedi-ment’s specific heat results in an overestimate of the dissocia-tion rate and, hence, the methane production rate." from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3041/pdf/FS-2007-3041.pdf

[binntho]

Is the reaction between methane and ocean water endothermic?

The direct reaction between methane and water, producing CO2 and hydrogen, is highly exothermic.    Other reactions, both chemical and biological, may occur in the open ocean.

I think that should have been "between methane and oxygen" - I think it would be difficult to get methane to burn in water!

CH4 + 2 x H20 => CO2 + 4 x H2 ... doesn't really work does it? The right hand side seems to contain more energy in the 4 H2 molecules than the left hand in the one CH4 molecule.

[uniquorn]

Thanks everyone. I was thinking about slow melt in the ESS.

[icefisher]

Newly published study indicates we need more ocean measurement tools.  My stupid question is, Where is the money to make this a reality?

[oren]

Cut 0.001% out of the "defense" budget.

[binntho]

Thanks everyone. I was thinking about slow melt in the ESS.

I think it might have some relation to the general dissolution of gases in water, which I understand to be exothermic at "normal" temperatures.

- Gas molecules are always in the state of random motion. When gas is dissolved in water, the randomness of molecules decreases.
- Thus the kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas after dissolving in liquid decreases.
- This decrease in kinetic energy results in the evolution of heat. Thus dissolution of a gas in liquid is an exothermic process.

[petm]

Is the reaction between methane and ocean water endothermic?

The direct reaction between methane and water, producing CO2 and hydrogen, is highly exothermic.   

I think that should have been "between methane and oxygen"

Yeah -- must be a typo. Methane certainly does not have an exothermic reaction with water. If it did, there couldn't be methane hydrates (or a livable climate)...

I don't think CH4 and H2O react at all. Methane hydrates entering the water column can either become dissolved methane, bubbles of methane gas, or can remain solid bits of methane hydrate, floating in the water, depending on conditions. There is a recent review by Natalia Shakhova here (maybe too detailed): https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9060251 .

Thanks everyone. I was thinking about slow melt in the ESS.

I think it might have some relation to the general dissolution of gases in water, which I understand to be exothermic at "normal" temperatures.

Wait, is the question about the dissolution of methane gas or solid methane hydrates? Hydrate dissociation is an endothermic process.