| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
8 |
DouglasP
Nomad
Posts: 320
Registered: 6-23-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: Goat hunter.
|
|
This forum has an extraordinarily high rate of doosh nozzles. ;-)
I like beer, better than most people.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
That's amazing.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17295
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
40,000 years is an extremely dubious number! The science does not support humans in the Americas much earlier than about 16,000 years ago. The
40,000 years claim for humans in South America is not well supported.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17295
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
I suspect these fish traps are less than 1,000 years old. Storms and natural processes would have wiped out older shoreline structures. Shorelines
are high energy environment, things don’t last long on shoreline.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
most recent settlement history was from around 10,000 years ago until missionary times
http://www.baja101.com/Nomad/Proceedings.28Fujita1.pdf
The author Harumi Fujita is a renowned archeologist (working with Dr. Ritter a lot - ask David for confirmation)
Here is an excerpt from a paper (CONCHA COMO IMPORTANTE MATERIA PRIMA PARA HERRAMIENTAS, UTENCILIOS Y ORNAMENTOS EN LA COVACHA BABISURI, ISLA ESPIRITU
SANTO, B.C.S.) about shells used by the Indians. They carbon date the shells in a large pile on Espiritu Santo:
"The early stage is characterized by the presence of large and thick shells, mainly of Glycymeris gigantea and some of Ponderosa Dosinia, Lyropecten
subnodosus, Ostrea fisheri, Spondylus princeps, Codakia distinguenda, Anadara multicostata, Laevicardium elatum, Pecten vogdesi and Pinctada
mazatlanica associated with the large and medium lithic, such as flakes, retouched flakes, cores, scrapers, scrapers, basalt and rhyolite knives found
in the lower layer of the covacha. Sixteen shell samples (13 Glycymeris gigantea, 2 Dosinia ponderosa and one Pecten vogdesi) were dated by C14 around
40,000 years ago. Some skeletal remains of fish and other animals were found. Some species or specimens of these old shells may have been collected
after the mollusk's death, so the dates of these shells do not necessarily correspond to the date of human occupation and were not consumed. In that
case, these shells were collected for another purpose. The shells Glycymeris gigantea and Dosinia ponderosa were used as scrapers. In the case of
Glycymeris gigantea, its original shape was not modified, although some specimens are observed retouching in the dorsal margin or marks of use. In
contrast, the Ponderosa Dosinia was modified by removing the laterals in such a way that the central part is conserved with the wide hinge which
serves to grip well and this form somewhat resembles Glycymeris gigantea. No complete ponderosa Dosinia was found (Fujita, in process). The column
part of the snail Fusinus dupetitthouarsi was modified to obtain a long, thin and resistant punzun. This artifact may be related to the capture of
fish, using the tip of a person as a mooring stick. It is likely that the large, flat and hard shells such as Lyropecten subnodosus, Ostrea fisheri,
Spondylus princeps, Codakia distinguenda and Laevicardium elatum have been used as a dish, since they are complete or almost complete without showing
modification marks. It is necessary to determine if some shells of this stage were results of human consumption to estimate human occupation
approximately 40,000 years ago or that were collected for tools and / or raw material to make tools between 10,000 and 21,000 years ago when the sea
level was very high. low (Fujita, Tellez and Bate, 2004)."
The site publishing that paper is no longer online, but I have it saved if anyone cares to read the whole thing.
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
I appreciate the reference and paper Harald. My interpretation is that Fujita was looking for more "data" . while she had some shells that dated
to 40K years old, none of those showed characteristics consistent with human consumption. shells found in "higher" levelss and associated tools do
show positive human altering and use, but those are estimated to between 10 - 20 K years, which puts it in alignment with most common accepted
number of 13,000 - 15,500 years ago.
[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
scientist have a hard time to generate interest
they also have a hard time to find research money
40,000 years cries for more research money
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  | scientist have a hard time to generate interest
they also have a hard time to find research money
40,000 years cries for more research money |
Indeed...  Almost the same as saying the sea is rising?  $$$
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
David: speaking as a scientist who has gotten research money (over 17 million in the past 30 years) for the past 30 years (DARPA, ISSNL, NSF,
USFS, Pacific Corp, the list goes on and on) . I can say to you - and all of your ilk who think that scientists gin up data and information to get
grants
- sorry mate - you are completely wrong! You have no idea of the process, of the rigorous review your proposal goes through, of the huge
rejection rate of proposals, of the competitive nature. Let alone the review of your results and careful monitoring .
Now - if you want to look for psuedoscientists milking sugar daddies - that's the climate denier clowns who get money from the oil companies, or
those that got money from big tobacco .
Those researchers who get their project funded by credible organizations looking for answers not propaganda- have improved your life in so many ways
it's not countable - and yet you, with absolutely no training, no science, no facts, no credible information, you want to put yourself on the
level of the people who dedicate their careers, the top minds in the country - and you think you saying "Nope - Not True because my buddy has a
blog that says so". That doesn't Negate the research David, it doesn't make it wrong - just because you declare it to be wrong! All that your
denying means - is: you self identify as being unable, incapable and unwilling to look at the facts and figures!
interesting that you cry out for recognition - to the point of begging for it as an "expert". but when you are faced with real experts doing
fantastic science, producing overwhelming amounts of data, facts information, verification etc - you try and denigrate these people because it
doesn't fit your agenda.
I get it David - your political bias will not allow you to accept climate change. That doesn't mean its not happening David - It means you have
made a choice. instead of looking at an evaluating those data, you choose to try and kill the messenger!
why is that David? Do you think being willfully ignorant is a badge of Honor?
[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
I accept it just fine... Don't you read any of my replies or is it too important to disparage me with your populist theories?
Climate does change.
It always has and always will... with or without humans.
The sea level has not risen any amount the past hundred or more years that would cause anyone to have an issue or even notice.
It is just another scare tactic to raise funds and make government have more power over the citizens.
If the sea had risen any significant amount then beach houses would be in the water, boat launch ramps would be useless underwater, Alfonsina's runway
would never be dry again, and that palm tree at El Coyote would not have a dry trunk and there wouldn't be a hundred Canadians camped next to it every
winter! LOL
Oh, and using photos past to present at the sea is not something only I use to prove a scientific point...
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bahahahahaa! Thats it? all you have is Steve Goddard, a disgrundled geologist who got fired from a series of jobs because of his incompetence? and
what is it that makes his "information" superior to those true climate scientists who have the actual training, experience, equipment computing power
- peer review etc etc etc?
so how does this genius Goddard explain the 300 foot rise in sea levels in the past 18,000 years david?
Next time you need brain surgery David - why not have your car mechanic do it - I'm sure his opinions and knowledge base and tools are fine for the
job!
same issue on the photos as always david! - give me a time and a date david - lets check the tide tables. without that baseline - they mean
absolutely nothing - completely meaningless, No value at all to anyone - (other than a denier looking desperately for anything that will allow them
to cling to their ridiculous beliefs) .
[Edited on 7-16-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 7-16-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
RnR
Senior Nomad
Posts: 836
Registered: 5-1-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
The tide is a HUGE variable in any photo.
Case in point - our nearby harbor has an 18 FOOT variation in sea level every six hours. That's 3 ft per hour, or 36 inches per 60 minutes, or
slightly more than a HALF INCH PER MINUTE !!!
Take two photos five minutes apart and you can absolutely PROVE that sea levels are rising (or falling)…
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
that's why we leave it to NASA and its satellites to measure ocean levels
Laser, radar - who knows.
But it is damn accurate
Levels are rising
not much yet because there is not that much water/ice in Antarctica, Greenland and the glaciers.
but an additional factor is that warmer water expands
so the warmer oceans will rise when warmer even if no melting ice from the mentioned sources would be added
is that bad?
I don't know
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RnR |
The tide is a HUGE variable in any photo.
Case in point - our nearby harbor has an 18 FOOT variation in sea level every six hours. That's 3 ft per hour, or 36 inches per 60 minutes, or
slightly more than a HALF INCH PER MINUTE !!!
Take two photos five minutes apart and you can absolutely PROVE that sea levels are rising (or falling)… |
My point exactly. But David has been ignoring, poo pooing, and trying to deflect from that point. after all, that would prove his "data - AKA
the magic palm tree photos, are useless as data points!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen
just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at
Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at
the coast but the ocean is not higher.
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen
just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at
Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at
the coast but the ocean is not higher. |
so how do you explain the sea level being 300 feet lower 18000 years ago David? Is that Erosion? Your issue is you are trying to cling to your
beliefs by limiting time scales to minute geological time frames. Expand your mind David, let go of your ignorance laced dogma spouted out of the
right side of your mouth without any critical thought behind that verbal vomitus!
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
it is impossible to argue with any believer
but here are a few points for the ones among us who still weigh data
this one will help the Palmistas:
Baja California is not only drifting away from mainland Mexico - its eastern coast is rising while the western coast is slowly diving into the Pacific
so the date palms at Playa el Coyote are actually lifted up
hard to say whether sea level rise or tectonic uplifting are winning at Baja's east coast
recorded sea level rise (yes it has been recorded for a few hundred years in countries like the Netherlands) has been a slow 8 inches since 1880
there is another thing that makes the evaluation of palm/water relations difficult:
gravity
it is not equally distributed around the globe
that means the oceans actually have valleys and mountains
meaning the sea level is not at the same distance from the center of the planet in all places.
to make it more complicated, the valleys and mountains are shifting around
there are some islands in the Indian Ocean that should have been almost under water by now
they are not
because in the area a valley of water has formed
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/buac16-912-sci-ess...
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
in a way I am with David
sticking to your belief (palms, Jesus etc) provides safety
the safety from dealing with change around you
humans don't like change
dealing with negative effects of change is unsettling
so, you just ignore it and have a peaceful life
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Several of these on the Hawaiian island of Moloka'i
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | | The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen
just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at
Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at
the coast but the ocean is not higher. |
so how do you explain the sea level being 300 feet lower 18000 years ago David? Is that Erosion? Your issue is you are trying to cling to your
beliefs by limiting time scales to minute geological time frames. Expand your mind David, let go of your ignorance laced dogma spouted out of the
right side of your mouth without any critical thought behind that verbal vomitus! |
I have explained only that in our lifetime and a few generations before and after, there is not enough change to warrant the hysteria that your side
likes to promote. To give you my guess about why it was that much lower, it would be that we may have been in an ice age. Our ancestors did cross over
from Siberia to Alaska back then or maybe a bit after, right?
I never said there is or was no change.
I have seen fossils of seashells, several hundred feet above sea level. The ocean was once much higher and much lower... It is simply returning to an
old place, but ever so slowly.
There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens. One day, that palm will be in the water... It
just hasn't gotten any closer since the 1930s. You would think with all the industrial pollution and automotive smog and nuclear explosions above
ground that would have really accelerated the sea level rise.. BUT NO, it didn't change with our dirty ways. We are cleaner now, and no more bomb
tests, either. So, what can we do for sea level if all the mess of the 1940's to the 2000's couldn't?
Harald makes a good point about tectonics, too. When Shari said that the Lagoon was getting bigger from rising sea level (but is unchanged on the gulf
side of Baja) I suggested the land was possibly sinking or twisting down. Some Pacific Islands are sinking as the volcanic or coral material
compresses over time. It would look like the sea is rising from their point of view! There was a great Gilligan's Island episode where the professor's
measure stick in the lagoon showed him the island was sinking. It turned out Gilligan was simply moving the stick. IF the professor had used a palm
tree by the water for reference, he would see the sea level and island level were unchanged!
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
8 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
