Easter Island Theories

I thought that was the generally held belief.

Their demise is regularly sited as an example of how short sighted we as humans are, because they cut down all the trees which they depended on, without attempting to grow new ones or to at least leave enough so that they could replenish themselves.

I have heard never of a person that denies climate change.

In fact today it's quite nice outside compared to yesterday or 10K years ago.

Are you referring to the real cycles of changes in climate or "man made climate change"?

There are certainly cycles of warming, cooling, less rainfall, more rainfall, etc. That is the way the laws of nature work.

Man impacts local condition such as air pollution, ground contamination, etc. but we don't impact global conditions.

What is happening in the world's climate today, is caused by man. Looking through the historical data you can easily see that what is occurring on a global scale today has never happened in such a short period of time. The process is accelerating, not slowing down.

I'm sure as the Easter Islanders were merrily burning the last tree on that Island the majority of them also thought that nature would come to their rescue.

Who is to say what the normal cycles are; their duration, span between them, swings in temps or rainfall, etc.? Just because things change doesn't mean they aren't normal for that cycle. Mankind isn't that big that we are going to effect the Universe. This Earth is but a blip on the screen of the Universe and what happens here is a result of those laws of nature. To put it another way, "we are a pimple on the ass of an elephant, and that pimple has no impact on what the elephant does or doesn't do."

Please spread your fears and propaganda elsewhere! This is an engineering forum! Ta!

For a person who lives in Kansas, the heart of the US dust bowl, to deny that humans do not affect their environment is incredible. You obviously do not understand your own history or how many of your own forefathers starved or were displaced in the 1930s. Not only did humans create the dust bowl, the US government solved it by buying up vast tracts of land and replanting course grass to stabilise the soil and prevent further erosion. Yes drought played its part, but there were more severe droughts before and there have been more severe droughts since that did not create dust bowls. Over cropping created the dust bowl as a direct consequence of our farming methods. Natural weather cycles will play their part in how global warming pans out, but we have created the conditions for that to be catastrophic in a way that it has never been in the past, just as we did in the 1930s. Only this time it will be on a world wide basis not just a few states in one nation, and planting some course grass will not solve it.

The planet is a local environment. Just because you can't see the polar ice caps that we are melting, does not mean we are not impacting them. If we changed the way we farm to prevent dust bowls, why is it beyond our imaginations to believe that we wouldn't have to change the way we pollute to prevent global warming.

As engineers we have to look at the facts and determine what needs to be done to prevent a catastrophe from happening. We can't ignore what is occurring and say we have no affect on that.

"As engineers we have to look at the facts and determine what needs to be done to prevent a catastrophe from happening. We can't ignore what is occurring and say we have no affect on that."

That is the problem, people are assuming "facts" that aren't so and then drawing conclusions and hypotheses' from them. Often we assume that what we see is not as it should be. Who knows what cycles seen in nature are supposed to be either the same as always, different, or how much different? For instance, you say "the polar caps that we are melting". Who is to say that, accepting the statement that it is even happening at all, the melting isn't part of a cycle and our existence and actions on this earth has anything at all to do with it?

Here is a so called "assumption". Taken from the website below. I guess the local Greenlanders are really affecting their local environment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/greenland-melt-1.3367833

The new study also shows exactly where ice has disappeared from. Generally, the places that were melting during the 20th century are the same ones that are still melting now, Kjeldsen said.

"The pattern agreed so much going back in time."

Overall, from 2003 to 2010, Greenland dumped 186 billion tonnes of meltwater a year into the world's oceans, the researchers estimated.

From 1900 to 1983, the rate averaged 75 billion tonnes a year - much lower, but still significant, Kjeldsen said.

"That was a little bit surprising, that it was so consistent and so high," he said.

Still, he said, "The mass loss has really increased quite a bit going into the 21st century."

Well said!

By that math each person on the earth is responsible for an additional 15 tons of ice melting each year in greenland alone. Is that possible?

If we try, we can put more carbon in the air than there used to be. It looks like we are trying to do just that because they are pumping and digging carbon (hydrocarbons) faster than ever.

But when I think about it, periods of time when there was more carbon in the environment we had animals bigger than anything alive today. They evolved and grew into massive sizes that consumed vast quantities of resources every day just to breathe and eat, much less reproduce and fight.

I used to say what do humans do with unlimited energy? We use it without limit until it is gone. Well, nature does the same thing.

If we can't find a way to use energy efficiently we will put much of the carbon that is sequestered in oil and coal back into the environment and it might cause changes. But my question has always been how much pollutants do we put out when compared to volcanic eruptions?

Drew K

Are we talking climate change or global warming? If it cycles it also cools. So many keywords and naught said!

I want to ask a question. On an island with limited resources in a year of unprecedented drought what would happen to the civilisation?

Maybe say hello to your Irish neighbor to find out!

BTW, mine are a funny folks and enjoy their lives.

all in the name of religion... those pesky aliens...they come and check on their science fair project, and we get all clingy...

Jared Diamond espouses the resource-depletion theory in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005). Fascinating book but not without its detractors. One might argue that since Easter Island's isolation is at least in part responsible its society's demise.

At least there was still some people there when western world arrived!

I heard rats had something to do with it also. They ate the seeds of the trees before they could have a chance to grow.

Drew K

Inbreeding has certain disadvantages....

Talk about a change in climate!

Goooood Morning Easter Island! Looking out into vast expanse of ocean and noticing a rise in the water to the north I say we can expect clear skies and a wall of water very soon. Hold onto your Moai.. It's gonna be a wet one.

Hey nalu i ke kanaka !!

E maliu mai oe (have compassion), speak English!