Again using words you don’t understand. Not a good way to make an argument.
No, having to modify the environment to survive is the opposite of adapting to it.
That is a matter of perspective.
I’m guessing you are the only one who had difficulty understanding it. I’ll try and do better next, just for you.
No, we aren’t adapting, we change the conditions of the physical space around us to allow us to survive and be comfortable.
As a species we remain essentially the same as we have been for hundreds of thousands of years. If anything our technology has made us even less well adapted to the environment.
Yes. That’s called adapting to the environment. We have adapted to a wide range of environments without significant change to our physiology. That’s why humans successfully live in almost every environment on the planet.
Science fiction.
Archaeology says otherwise.
The floods inundated the floodplains, lake and sea shores where over 90% of Humanity at the time was concentrated.
Whole cities have been found beneath what is today fifty to several hundred feet of water.
Wow. Just. Wow. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Completely uninformed. For just one thing, there were no cities. You’re just making this stuff up.
Don’t get hung up on words like “cities.” There is evidence that the entire area between the British Isles and Western Europe was well populated. (Google “doggerland.”) Low coastal area all over the world were populated. Today those areas are tens to hundreds of feet below sea level.
Speaking of “uninformed”.
Over 90% of humanity was concentrated along rivers, lakes and sea shores in that era so even a moderate flood could wipe out most or all of a given people overnight.
Sea levels have risen 300-550’ since the peak of the last ice age.
You know that none of those links back up what you’re saying, right?
So I’m trying to reconstruct how this little sub-thread was initiated. I believe I mentioned something regarding the elasticity of early human culture in the face of climate change.
Then somehow millions of humans fled oncoming glaciers or were later wiped out by floods when their cities were flooded. This is sloppy and silly and and the fact that portions of the North Sea basin were inundated during the early Holocene doesn’t make the argument less idiotic. Nor do the links that WildRose provided have any contextual relationship with the end of the last glaciation. They are chronologically challenged unrelated to each other.
I also feel an additional responsibility to those positing relationships between human culture and Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene geological events. I previously mentioned that I may be the only person on this board who has participated in research into past environments and climates. This was as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. However, my degree is actually in Anthropology and specifically prehistoric archaeology. Moreover my specialty was the Mesolithic in Northwestern Europe, where I worked for a number of years, but also on Paleolithic (Neanderthal) sites (caves) in France and Early Neolithic Sites in Belgium and Holland. Actually, the latter were buried landscapes that were later reclaimed from the ocean by farming projects. I worked on sites in Denmark that were previously submerged but now are above sea level due to isostatic rebound.
These sites essentially belong to nomadic hunter-gatherers, or at least seasonal occupants of coastal/inland settlements. No “culture” is going to be decimated by a slow rise in sea level. Just because an archaeological site is covered in water or sediment, doesn’t mean the people were likewise covered. Most archaeological sites, save your occasional Pompeii’s, were abandoned.
This is just all a lot of nonsense.
If you want to check the reality of my biography, perhaps there is a way to message privately.
You may be able to do a number of things, but you can’t out-archaeology me. And you can’t out-geology me. But please continue.
Good work, dantes. I dare say you’re a thinking man.
Hey WildRose,
Here’s something you may appreciate. My parents sent me to camp in Minnesota in 1966. I was really homesick and the only thing that relaxed me was shooting at the target range (shooting my parents?). I shot from repose and kneeling. I gained a sharpshooter award from the NRA. Then I got over it and went sailing. I’m a good at that now too.
Anyway,
Amadeus
They are all chronologically linked to the rapid melt off from the last glacial period.
I’ve done both and now you’re just floundering.
All it takes to wipe out an entire city in a low lying area is one large rain event or a period of well above average rainfall.
As for the rapid warming and melt off ending the last ice age.
But they also found something that required additional explanation: some climate change appeared to have occurred very rapidly. Because Milankovitch’s theory tied climate change to the slow and regular variations in Earth’s orbit, the scientific community expected that climate change would also be slow and gradual. But the ice cores showed that while it took nearly 10,000 years for the Earth to totally emerge from the last ice age and warm to today’s balmy climate, one-third to one-half of the warming—about 15 degrees Fahrenheit—occurred in about 10 years, at least in Greenland. A closer look at marine sediments confirmed this finding. Although the overall timing of the ice ages was clearly tied to variations in the Earth’s orbit, other factors must have contributed to climate change as well. Something else made temperatures change very quickly, but what?
Yes we know it happened and the result was massive flooding and rapidly rising oceans.
The same has occurred repeatedly during other periods.
Pink clay from Spitsbergen
Sediment cores the researchers have investigated contain pink marine sediments. This pink clay can be traced back to 400 million years old red sand stones at Svalbard, and was carried out to sea by melt water from the ice sheet.
“We can see that the red layers of the ocean floor were formed during the Ice Age’s warm periods, and that proves that every time the temperature rose, water from the melting ice was poured into the ocean”, says Rasmussen.
“We know from previous studies that in a few years the temperatures above Greenland could rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius, and during the Ice Age the ocean’s water level rose and fell several times by as much as 10 to 20 metres”, she adds.
The sediment cores also show that the number of icebergs fell dramatically during these heating periods, and that the ice retreated from the coast.
Note in both of these cases there was a much more rapid and much higher rise in temperatures long before man started using fossil fuels.
Neither of these can be attributed to orbital forcing.
So you’re the man of many links. Proving what? I disputed your ridiculous claim that millions of people were fleeing from advancing glaciers and that many (whatever that means) were then killed shortly thereafter by some kind of floodwaters. Words like “rapid” and “dramatic,” as used by geologists, do not mean overnight.
And, tracing back, still trying to figure out what you’re attempting to prove. That sea levels rose? OK. No dispute.
