"Someone else's land?" I have to believe they own the land there. Whether the natives recognize that or not, however...

Your comment has nothing to do with the original claim, that rapid changes does not happen. They do - and the cause is completely irrelevant when it comes to how those changes affect vegetation, animal life or humans. Neither is the paper limited to volcanic cooling events, which you claim, which makes me wonder if you've read it. If you didn't read it - then what is the point in writing a reply?

Additionally, if you claim that there's newer research the last 20 years which disproves the paper then please cite that research.

Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?

Cause it's around 40% today.

Your comment has nothing to do with the original claim, that rapid changes does not happen. They do - and the cause is completely irrelevant when it comes to how those changes affect vegetation, animal life or humans. Neither is the paper limited to volcanic cooling events, which you claim, which makes me wonder if you've read it. If you didn't read it - then what is the point in writing a reply?

Additionally, if you claim that there's newer research the last 20 years which disproves the paper then please cite that research.

I've never been able to figure out the original of those claims - do you know? I can't find any scientific sources for it - on the contrary:

Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...

This represents an earlier version of our text. Some changes have been made since we stopped modifying this web version: e.g. we have added a discussion of the role of volcanic aerosols in sudden climate changes...evidence suggests the rapid cooling at the end of the Eemian interglacial was due to a big explosive volcanic event. Other 'volcanic' cooling events occurred during the Holocene.

I'm sure it's the same down in Washington State as it is up here in coastal British Columbia. Low snow pack means lower river levels, which means potential problems for irrigation in areas under cultivation, harm to fish stocks, and the potential for severe water restrictions in some areas.

If your theory is so wonderfully complete, why can't you create a computer model that can start with conditions twenty years ago and work out a correct description of the present? Please note, I'm not denying that it's getting warmer. I simply don't subscribe to the current hubris that makes humanity responsible for all of it.

If you can't see the individual starlings, and can only see the flock, the flock behaves in a quantum manner. It jumps around, it can appear in two places at once, apparently traveling faster than light, it has probabilistic properties.

So the tipping point, depends on our detection technologies. If we can't zoom in to see the individual starling then quantum behavior is "flock of bird" sized!

Quantum physics does scale, you just need to realize that the 'flock' is the size that you can detect, and the reason you think it is one thing is because you can't detect half a thing. It's a function of the detector not the thing.

TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same.

They have a blank check to spend money on stuff with no proof it has any value.

Other than harassing everybody, the TSA has accomplished very little. It's become a money pit which pretends to be keeping us safe.

The TSA can point to very few incidents where they've actually stopped anything related to terrorism. Mostly they just serve to annoy everybody else.

Meanwhile, the baggage handlers are the ones who keep getting caught smuggling stuff.

The TSA is a pathetic joke, beefed up by reactionary politicians, and which utterly has failed to make anybody "safer" by any objective measure. In fact, everything they do seems to be devoid of "objective measure".

You're missing anti-GMO, anti-economic-reality, anti-free-markets, and other lunacy of the left.

I think I saw some research somewhere showing that the same people who believed this also bought thousand dollar specialty speaker cables, HDMI cables, and specially crafted wooden volume control knobs for their home stereos, 'because it improves sound quality'.

Well, "Learned" is absolutely a cute name for a professor.

Because now I know it's 151 digits. Had no idea before.

How can you know I didn't just guess?

Feel free to rant about this. Or to try and change it. Individually you are pretty powerless, though. But if indulgence in a false sense of self importance is what keeps you going to your job every day, they sure won't go out of their way to shut you down.

If antibiotic development wanes long enough, eventually some rich people will be threatened by new infections for which there are no cures.

Once that happens, antibiotic development will instantly become a top priority for governance and major industry players.