Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression

Sep 09, 2008 By Lisa Zyga feature

Wars are costly in terms of lives and resources – so why have we fought them throughout human history? In modern times, states may fight wars for a number of complex reasons. But in the past, most tribal wars were fought for the most basic resources: goods, territory, and women.

These reproduction-enhancing resources prompted our ancestors to fight in order to pass down their family genes. With war as a driving force for survival, an interesting pattern occurred, according to a new study. People with certain warrior-like traits were more likely to engage in and win wars, and then passed their warrior genes down to their children, which – on an evolutionary timescale – made their tribe even more warrior-like. In short, humans seem to have become more aggressive over time due to war’s essential benefits.

In their study, Stanford University scientists Laurent Lehmann and Marcus Feldman have presented a model showing that aggressive traits in males may have evolved as an adaptation to limited reproductive resources. Because tribal war serves as a method for appropriating territory and women, war may have driven the evolution of these traits.

The scientists use the term “belligerence” to refer to a trait that increases the probability that the person’s tribe will attack another tribe. Likewise, “bravery” refers to a trait that increases the probability that the person’s tribe will win a war, whether they have attacked or are being attacked.

Lehmann and Feldman demonstrate in their model that belligerence and bravery continue to genetically evolve through the male line. When one tribe conquers another, males in the conquering group mate with females in the conquered group, and pass the warrior traits to their male offspring.

“Suppose that for some reason or another each individual in a population is committed through genetic or cultural influence to go to war with probability 0.5,” Lehmann told PhysOrg.com. “Now in one group, an individual appears that is willing to go to war with probability 0.6, which, statistically, will increase his group to go to war. The genes or cultural variants causing individuals to go to war with probability 0.6 may then invade the population (because their bearer and their group members will produce more offspring and send more genetic or cultural variants in the next generation than individuals expressing the probability 0.5 to go war, and on average they will transmit to their offspring the tendency 0.6 to go to war), but this will take several generations, especially if belligerence or bravery is genetically determined.

“Once the probability 0.6 is fixed in the population, a value of 0.7 is more likely to invade than a decrease to 0.5. So it is true that there is gradual, step-by-step evolutionary process causing the increment in the tendency to go to war, but this might take a long time. Our model is a bit less idealized than this, but it works approximately like that.”

However, as you might expect, there is a downside to belligerence and bravery. While both these traits offer advantages during war for a tribe, both traits are also considered high-risk social behaviors. An individual possessing the traits has a greater chance of dying, which means the tribe not only loses a warrior, but the death also opens a spot for another male to appropriate the first male’s reproduction-enhancing resources.

This trade-off leads to another question: if an individual himself does not benefit from belligerence and bravery, but only his tribe, why would humans evolve this altruistic trait? The scientists explain that the answer is kinship: a human will take the risk of dying for close relatives since they carry very similar genetic material, and will pass that genetic material on for him.

“The mathematical analysis in fact shows that the selective pressure on belligerence and bravery is substantially driven by the benefits of conquest that accrue on the relatives of the belligerent and/or brave males within their group, showing that kinship ties shape warfare in our model,” Lehmann said. “Evolutionary biologists refers to this as ‘indirect’ transmission of genes because the individual expressing the trait does not reproduce (it's in fact costly for him), but other individuals from the group who survive may indirectly benefit from the behavior of the possibly dead brave male.”

Lehmann added that the genetic relatedness concept stems from the late Bill Hamilton of Oxford University, one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. Prior to Hamilton, the British geneticist J. B. S Haldane also hit upon the idea in a famous anecdote. When asked by a friend at a pub whether he would risk his life to save a drowning man, Haldane scribbled some notes on a napkin and answered, “No, but I would do it for two brothers or eight cousins."

The same idea holds true for the altruistic traits of belligerence and bravery, but Lehmann and Feldman were surprised to find just how large a group could show the kinship connection.

“[The greatest significance of this study is] showing that the selective pressure on belligerence and bravery may remain substantial even in groups of large size (approximately 50 males and 50 females),” Lehmann said. “This is interesting because it is usually assumed that individually costly, altruistic traits (of which belligerence and bravery are only particular examples) would only be able to evolve in very small-sized groups, like the nuclear family or something only slightly bigger. The demographics behind warfare may explain the evolution of altruism in larger groups than have usually been assumed in more standard biological scenarios aimed at understanding the evolution of altruism.”

Among other interesting results of the model is the finding that bravery is even more highly desired than belligerence, since bravery has advantages when tribes are on both the offensive and defensive sides. On a different note, even though the model describes genetic inheritance, the scientists say that these traits could also be inherited culturally (through nurture rather than nature).

Today’s modern wars between large states, as opposed to tribal wars, don’t follow the same model. Rather, one of the most common explanations is that modern wars are fought when the benefits outweigh the costs, in a fairly rational way. But do the results of this study, showing that we are all offspring of conquerors, suggest an underlying primitive explanation for why we fight “rational” modern wars? Though it may be an intriguing idea, Lehmann doesn’t think so.

“I don't think that our study helps in one way or another to understand war between states, but there are many interesting and relevant theories for understanding such wars that have been developed by economists and political scientists,” he said.

More information: Lehmann, Laurent and Feldman, Marcus W. “War and the evolution of belligerence and bravery.” Proceedings of The Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0842.

Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Researchers outline recommendations to improve scientific decision-making

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Up in arms

Jan 28, 2014

In December 2012, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., with a rifle and killed 20 children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Keys1337
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2008
Wow, I wonder if this has anything to do with that Darwin stuff I hear about? I'm just kidding. It just seems like presenting results like these as being novel only reveals that they didn't have a full grasp of what many many people have understood for a long long time.
__o
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2008
publish or perish models may explain that... if anyone cares to study it.

evolution of altruism? jajajaja jajejejeje
photojack
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2008
This is the 21st century now and tribalism no longer applies. It's time for a paradigm shift in human behavior toward other, more beneficial altruistic traits that could be incorporated into the gene pool of the future! Think globally, act locally, NOT tribally! Cooperation on a global scale is needed to avert the threats from global warming, other environmental concerns and the imminent threat from the rise in radical Islam. Those are the issues of paramount concern facing mankind now.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2008
Environmentalism is tribalism. So is pretty much every other ism. Except of course individualism.
Velanarris
3.1 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2008
This is the 21st century now and tribalism no longer applies. It's time for a paradigm shift in human behavior toward other, more beneficial altruistic traits that could be incorporated into the gene pool of the future! Think globally, act locally, NOT tribally! Cooperation on a global scale is needed to avert the threats from global warming, other environmental concerns and the imminent threat from the rise in radical Islam. Those are the issues of paramount concern facing mankind now.


If you look at societies not much has changed, they've simply grown in size.

So instead of having a small tribe of my surname or the location we're from, I have a huge tribe of "Americans." So instead of tribalism you have nationalism. Same thing, larger group.

And as for your global warming, lol, prove it's man made before you say it's our fault.

Peanuts
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2008
Nearest relative in DNA to humans is the Chimp!
Chimp Olympics! (Actually I don't think that chimps fight as much against one another.)
MikeB
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2008
Hmmmmm see this site on chimp war:

http://www.world-...rfrm.htm
x646d63
not rated yet Sep 09, 2008
We may be forever inclined towards war and conflict thanks to the "fourth law" of thermodynamics.

Whoever can most efficiently consume energy is going to win. The key, of course (and this is where the wars are) is that to consume energy, you have to control it.
gmurphy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2008
Velanarris. CO2 traps heat. mankind produces CO2 in vast quantities. Global warming. 8 of the hottest years since records began are in the last 10. This is a trend observed since the 70s. The ice caps are melting (and this year was supposed to be cold because of la nina). Furthermore, solar radiation cannot account for the increased temperatures and is actually decreasing due to the current solar minimum. What you have to do, is provide evidence that the observed temperature increases are not due to man made CO2.
Aloken
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2008
And as for your global warming, lol, prove it's man made before you say it's our fault.


Does it really matter if its our fault or not? I think the consequences are enough reason for us to start taking action.
MikeB
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2008
There is not one shred of evidence that vaccinations cause autism. However, we must stop all vaccinations of our poor children. It is the only way that we can insure that autism is stamped out. Action at any and all costs.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2008
Velanarris. CO2 traps heat. mankind produces CO2 in vast quantities. Global warming. 8 of the hottest years since records began are in the last 10. This is a trend observed since the 70s. The ice caps are melting (and this year was supposed to be cold because of la nina). Furthermore, solar radiation cannot account for the increased temperatures and is actually decreasing due to the current solar minimum. What you have to do, is provide evidence that the observed temperature increases are not due to man made CO2.
What you have to do, is provide evidence that the observed temperature increases are not due to man made CO2.


So the IPCC is a religious organization now.

I thought they were scientists, you know, the people who turn their hypothesis into a theory and then into a law through science.

And as for proving it isn't CO2 maximum entrapment is limited to 0.0038ppm which is far less than the 280 ppm we live in only 0.03% of which is man made.

__o
2 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2008
The ancient Incas had a ritual called "tying back the sun" they did it to prevent the eventuality of the earth spinning closer and closer to the sun over the next millions of years. they thought they could effect a change for the better and save the earth a few years, without any thought to whether it was their fault that it was slowly being sucked into the suns gravitational pull. who really cares if it is warming, cooling, our fault or natural? why not just clean up the mess? surely everyone can agree that pollution is a bad thing. not one person has ever tried stopping me from mopping the floor - not my scientist husband or my religious mom. lets all agree to less mess.
curious511
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2008
Nearest relative in DNA to humans is the Chimp!
Chimp Olympics! (Actually I don't think that chimps fight as much against one another.)


Actually, the only species other than homo-sapiens that wages war against other groups of the same species is the chimp.
fishy
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2008
whoever said that tribalism no longer applies because this is the 21st century should really get out more, or even just look further than the view from his bedroom window.
superhuman
4 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2008
And as for proving it isn't CO2 maximum entrapment is limited to 0.0038ppm which is far less than the 280 ppm we live in only 0.03% of which is man made.


What do those numbers represent? Can you provide source?
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2008
And as for proving it isn't CO2 maximum entrapment is limited to 0.0038ppm which is far less than the 280 ppm we live in only 0.03% of which is man made.


What do those numbers represent? Can you provide source?


Do the math. CO2 is at max absorption of IR within 10 meters of it's source at a concentration of 280 ppm.

The distance from the earth to the tropopause is 16km at the equator and about 8km at the poles.

Since CO2 has a logarithmic relationship you can double the amount of CO2 and it will only absorb 50% more IR per concentration. Conversely if you half the amount of CO2 it will travel twice the distance before being absorbed.

So for IR to be able to orginate at the earth and escape the troposphere without being absorbed, the concentration at the equator would have to be less than 0.0038 ppm. At the poles less than 0.0076ppm.

You get these numbers by dividing the amout of CO2 by 2 until you reach a distance of absorption of 16km at the equator or 8km at the poles. Since human kind can only be attributed with 0.3% of the total CO2 in the environment then removing the 0.3% will reduce absorption by about 3 dm, that's it.
Velanarris
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2008
And that's without bringing convection or supra IR conversion into the equation.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2008
Nearest relative in DNA to humans is the Chimp!
Chimp Olympics! (Actually I don't think that chimps fight as much against one another.)


Actually, the only species other than homo-sapiens that wages war against other groups of the same species is the chimp.


That's not really true, most apes do it as well, some dogs, and some fish will also wage wars to some extent.
Rute
not rated yet Sep 10, 2008
Do the math. CO2 is at max absorption of IR within 10 meters of it's source at a concentration of 280 ppm.
...
So for IR to be able to orginate at the earth and escape the troposphere without being absorbed, the concentration at the equator would have to be less than 0.0038 ppm. At the poles less than 0.0076ppm.

You said 'do the math'. Would you care to mention what exactly are the physical tehories and mathematical equations behind your assertion? I have hard time understanding what you mean, but that may well be because english is not my first language.

According to satellite observations of outgoing IR radiation, the greenhouse effect has intensified: http://archives.c...dex.html

As for this news, I would assume environmental conditions have a marked effect on how much the belligerence and bravery of an individual benefit a group. In a harsh environment war drains a lot more resources than in a favorable environment.
Rute
not rated yet Sep 10, 2008
Actually, the only species other than homo-sapiens that wages war against other groups of the same species is the chimp.


That's not really true, most apes do it as well, some dogs, and some fish will also wage wars to some extent.

What exactly are the ape (non-chimp), dog and fish species/breeds that wage war? I would like to see descriptions of these wars in addition to receiving examples of the species.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2008
All this humans v.s. animals fighting wars debate is pretty silly. Don't try to impose human morals on animals, you might not like what you find. Cannibalism of the young (even in "higher" creatures). Preference for killing the old, sick, and the young over the healthy strong males able to fight back and run fast.

Nature is incredibly vicious and HAS NO SENSE OF MORALITY. It doesn't make any judgements, or hold any war crimes trials, or care about genocide. It simply is what it is.
gmurphy
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2008
Velanarris. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by at least one third since the 60s. This is man made pollution. Where did you get this figure of .03%?. Your observation w.r.t the logarithmic relationship between CO2 absorption of IR and its density in the atmosphere is correct, but nonetheless, more energy will remain in the atmosphere, warming up the planet. Our observational record indicates that small temperature fluctuations can cause abrupt changes in global climate patterns. This unambiguous finding was made in 1978 before the whole subject was dragged into the quagmire by morons, politicians and celebrities. Do you contest this?
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2008
Oh and as someone living close to Yellowstone park I can tell you that wolves don't tolerate competition. Within two years of the Gray Wolf introduction into the park the coyote population was down at least 50%, this was due to competition AND predation. In fact there were dens of coyotes found with all the pups dead but NOT eaten. A clear case of killing for a reason other than wanting a meal if I've ever heard of one.
Velanarris
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2008
Velanarris. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by at least one third since the 60s. This is man made pollution. Where did you get this figure of .03%?. Your observation w.r.t the logarithmic relationship between CO2 absorption of IR and its density in the atmosphere is correct, but nonetheless, more energy will remain in the atmosphere, warming up the planet. Our observational record indicates that small temperature fluctuations can cause abrupt changes in global climate patterns. This unambiguous finding was made in 1978 before the whole subject was dragged into the quagmire by morons, politicians and celebrities. Do you contest this?


Gmurphy: CO2 levels in the 70's were 260ppm. CO2 levels now are 280ppm. That is not 1/3. Man made CO2 has a 1/3 of a percent contribution to the total atmostpheric co2. 99.7 % of CO2 is created by rotting plant matter, volcanic eruption, and other normal Earth processes.

Rute: The math above follows the laws of IR absorption as measured by the UN IPCC and confirmed by infrared spectometrists according to the laws of IR energy absorption lain out in Chemistry, Spectomotry, and Physics.

Also your article doesn't measure the whole equation. If the Earth's visible light albedo rose then you would see a marked decrease in IR due to the fact it is not being produced. You're also discounting the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb IR across all ranges, only across 3 small increments. So your article is not in-depth enough to prove anything as it doesn't find a cause for the lack of IR detected. It creates the supposition that it must be CO2 and it must be man-made with no underlying reason. That makes it opinion, not fact.

Rute again: Every territorial pack animal in existance wages war agaist it's competition. All predators do for the most part as long as the cost is not high enough to preclude the fight.

Fighting the CO2 global warming fight is a losing battle for you guys, the science doesn't support CO2 as the perpetrator of AGW.

Now do I believe that the planet is warming, yes I do. Do I believe humanity is responsible, no I don't. We're too small to make that great a change on an environment that has endured far greater stress and duress than the human race could create.
Rute
4 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2008
Gmurphy: CO2 levels in the 70's were 260ppm. CO2 levels now are 280ppm. That is not 1/3. Man made CO2 has a 1/3 of a percent contribution to the total atmostpheric co2. 99.7 % of CO2 is created by rotting plant matter, volcanic eruption, and other normal Earth processes.

You don't seem to understand that all of the fossil CO2 humans produce is outside of the natural cycle, which means it is the only non-geological process which increases the CO2 in the biosphere. Yes, rotting plants exhale CO2, but without that process we wouldn't have practically any CO2 in the atmosphere, because all of the plant CO2 would form deposits in the ground.

Volcanos produce fossil CO2, but there haven't been enough large eruptions lately which would explain the steady cumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Actually there have been relatively few volcanic eruptions in the 20th century.

Rute: The math above follows the laws of IR absorption as measured by the UN IPCC and confirmed by infrared spectometrists according to the laws of IR energy absorption lain out in Chemistry, Spectomotry, and Physics.

You haven't shown any math yet, just some separate numbers. Tell me about the mathematic formula of a theory which you base your assertions on.

You're also discounting the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb IR across all ranges, only across 3 small increments. So your article is not in-depth enough to prove anything as it doesn't find a cause for the lack of IR detected.

That's not true. The article clearly states that the decrease of IR radiation has specifically been observed on the wavelengths which the anthropogenic greenhouse gases absorb it.

From the article: "An Imperial College of London team looked at readings of infrared light from the Earth's surface, specifically in the wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone."

Every territorial pack animal in existance wages war agaist it's competition. All predators do for the most part as long as the cost is not high enough to preclude the fight.

I repeat my question: "What exactly are the ape (non-chimp), dog and fish species/breeds that wage war? I would like to see descriptions of these wars in addition to receiving examples of the species."
Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2008
You don't seem to understand that all of the fossil CO2 humans produce is outside of the natural cycle, which means it is the only non-geological process which increases the CO2 in the biosphere. Yes, rotting plants exhale CO2, but without that process we wouldn't have practically any CO2 in the atmosphere, because all of the plant CO2 would form deposits in the ground.
You don't seem to understand that the amount of CO2 that humans produce is far and away inconsequential in regard to the perceived warming of the planet. That and the fact the ocean is one of the greatest CO2 sinks of the world.

Considering past CO2 concentration levels were around 512ppm or greater in recorded history and Co2 levels have breached the 1000ppm mark with no ill effects to the environment, present CO2 levels don't alarm me what so ever.

Volcanos produce fossil CO2, but there haven't been enough large eruptions lately which would explain the steady cumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You're joking right?
Actually there have been relatively few volcanic eruptions in the 20th century.
http://www.infopl...388.html

You haven't shown any math yet, just some separate numbers. Tell me about the mathematic formula of a theory which you base your assertions on.
Ok so I'll do the math for you then:

280 ppm = 10 m/absorption.
The relation ship between CO2 levels and absorption is logarithmic so as you double co2, it reduces distance by 50%. Conversely if you cut CO2 in half you double the distance of absorption saturation. So cut co2 in half
140ppm=20m
70ppm=40m
35ppm=80m
17.5ppm=160m
continue the trend until you reach 16km and that is the CO2ppm you need at the equator for IR to escape the tropopause without being absorbed.

You're also discounting the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb IR across all ranges, only across 3 small increments. So your article is not in-depth enough to prove anything as it doesn't find a cause for the lack of IR detected.

That's not true. The article clearly states that the decrease of IR radiation has specifically been observed on the wavelengths which the anthropogenic greenhouse gases absorb it.
Right, but it doesn't include past cloud cover, past landscape albedo, concentration increase, concentration increase of the supposed AGW components and the relationship to the IR.

They are observations without experimentation. Our atmosphere is far more complex that "Hey we see more IR it must be AGW."

From the article: "An Imperial College of London team looked at readings of infrared light from the Earth's surface, specifically in the wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone."

Where did they measure it, from inside the atmosphere? From a satellite located on the exterior of the tropopause? What was the ionizing solar activity like during the measurements? There is no substance to their statement.
Every territorial pack animal in existance wages war agaist it's competition. All predators do for the most part as long as the cost is not high enough to preclude the fight.

I repeat my question: "What exactly are the ape (non-chimp), dog and fish species/breeds that wage war? I would like to see descriptions of these wars in addition to receiving examples of the species."


Austrailian Dingos: combat for territory. Lions: pack vss pack combat for territory and mating rights, Grey Wolves: kill all competition smaller than a bear cub when encountered and do not eat their enemies. Gorillas: mating rights and territory as well as food and water sources. All Betta species and subspecies, Oscars and other Cichilids, Catfish, All species of eel, how many more do you want?
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2008
Relinked due to the editing link death woes:

http://www.infopl...388.html

and that's just the past decade or so.
SgntZim
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2008
Velanarris, you forgot Meerkats LoL
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2008
You can also look up "grey wolf" on wikipedia too and look at the interspecific predatory relationships section.
superhuman
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2008
Do the math. CO2 is at max absorption of IR within 10 meters of it's source at a concentration of 280 ppm.

The distance from the earth to the tropopause is 16km at the equator and about 8km at the poles.

Since CO2 has a logarithmic relationship you can double the amount of CO2 and it will only absorb 50% more IR per concentration. Conversely if you half the amount of CO2 it will travel twice the distance before being absorbed.

So for IR to be able to orginate at the earth and escape the troposphere without being absorbed, the concentration at the equator would have to be less than 0.0038 ppm. At the poles less than 0.0076ppm.

You get these numbers by dividing the amout of CO2 by 2 until you reach a distance of absorption of 16km at the equator or 8km at the poles. Since human kind can only be attributed with 0.3% of the total CO2 in the environment then removing the 0.3% will reduce absorption by about 3 dm, that's it.


You don't understand the issue, yes the level of CO2 is such that all IR radiation emitted on Earth's surface is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere before it reaches the space.

Thats true but that doesn't mean that increasing CO2 does not increase Earth's temperature.

The mechanism of greenhouse effect of CO2 is that increasing CO2 concentration leads to infrared energy (=heat, emitted by black body radiation of objects on Earth's surface) being absorbed closer to Earth's surface, and the closer absorption occurs the longer (more cycles of reemission and absorption) it will take that energy to escape into space.
The longer it takes, the less effective Earth's cooling and the higher its temperature.

Seriously if you want to debunk something make sure you first understand it, otherwise you only spread disinformation and theres too much of that already.

Here it is explained in more detail:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Rute
3 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2008
You don't seem to understand that the amount of CO2 that humans produce is far and away inconsequential in regard to the perceived warming of the planet.

Not true. From the Volcano Hazards Program of US Geological Survey:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes....ndex.php


Considering past CO2 concentration levels were around 512ppm or greater in recorded history

Where was this measurement made? In your car's exhaust pipe?



Volcanos produce fossil CO2, but there haven't been enough large eruptions lately which would explain the steady cumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You're joking right?

No I'm not. As the US Geological Survey page points out, there would need to be about 8000 additional Kilauea volcanoes to produce the amount of CO2 humans do per year.


You haven't shown any math yet, just some separate numbers. Tell me about the mathematic formula of a theory which you base your assertions on.
Ok so I'll do the math for you then:

280 ppm = 10 m/absorption.
The relation ship between CO2 levels and absorption is logarithmic so as you double co2, it reduces distance by 50%. Conversely if you cut CO2 in half you double the distance of absorption saturation. So cut co2 in half
140ppm=20m
70ppm=40m
35ppm=80m
17.5ppm=160m
continue the trend until you reach 16km and that is the CO2ppm you need at the equator for IR to escape the tropopause without being absorbed.

I repeat my question: what is the physical theory and exact formula that you use to make that assertion?

You're also discounting the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb IR across all ranges, only across 3 small increments. So your article is not in-depth enough to prove anything as it doesn't find a cause for the lack of IR detected.

That's not true. The article clearly states that the decrease of IR radiation has specifically been observed on the wavelengths which the anthropogenic greenhouse gases absorb it.
Right, but it doesn't include past cloud cover, past landscape albedo, concentration increase, concentration increase of the supposed AGW components and the relationship to the IR.

Are you saying that changes in ground use and cloud cover would produce similar changes in the wavelength of outgoing IR radiation as increased levels of CO2, methane and ozone?


They are observations without experimentation. Our atmosphere is far more complex that "Hey we see more IR it must be AGW."

That's not what they say at all. The peak IR absorption wavelengths of CO2 have been measured in laboratory.


I repeat my question: "What exactly are the ape (non-chimp), dog and fish species/breeds that wage war? I would like to see descriptions of these wars in addition to receiving examples of the species."


Austrailian Dingos: combat for territory.
...
Gorillas: mating rights and territory as well as food and water sources.
...
All Betta species and subspecies, Oscars and other Cichilids, Catfish, All species of eel, how many more do you want?

War essentially means killing members of the same species in large amounts. Would you now give detailed examples (observations) of this happening with your aforementioned species?
Rute
not rated yet Sep 11, 2008
The link died as with Velanarris because of the editing system. Here's the proper link:
http://volcanoes....ndex.php
(-> effects)
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2008
War essentially means killing members of the same species in large amounts. Would you now give detailed examples (observations) of this happening with your aforementioned species?


Do you think chimps make war on each other? If you do then your definition is flawed...they don't kill each other in large numbers with respect to us. This issue by it's very nature is relative, thus you're treading very closely to a strawman argument here.
visispace
1 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2008
[09:47] VS: whereT[heck] do these people get their world view? some ignor-anus macho thick-head with flintstone notion of human history and who had never heard of anthropology could have come up with that [dung]
[09:50] SR: so you're a proponent of intelligent design? ;-)
[09:50] VS: how would these fools' thesis is any way describe the tribe(?s) that have accurately mapped out a star we cannot see with our naked eye
[09:56] VS: even framing an argument in terms of intelligent design is a paradigm trap
[10:07] SR: perhaps you missed the emoticon?
[10:08] VS: ok...
[10:08] VS: still... this piece is being published by a website calling themselves PhysOrg??? blah.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2008
Oh and Rute here's an article that states that wolf on wolf violence is responsible for up to 44% of their deaths in Yellowstone park. I'd say that's a pretty high percentage and qualifies as warfare within the context we're talking about.


Article: http://www.jhguid..._id=1551
Rute
not rated yet Sep 11, 2008
Oh and Rute here's an article that states that wolf on wolf violence is responsible for up to 44% of their deaths in Yellowstone park. I'd say that's a pretty high percentage and qualifies as warfare within the context we're talking about.

Article: http://www.jhguid..._id=1551

That pretty much fits the definition I have of animal war, thanks. However, I haven't heard of dingos, fishes or gorillas behaving similarily (has to do with the original claim of Velanarris). That is not to claim they don't 'wage war', it's just that I'd like to see some documented cases of it.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2008
Do the math. CO2 is at max absorption of IR within 10 meters of it's source at a concentration of 280 ppm.

The distance from the earth to the tropopause is 16km at the equator and about 8km at the poles.

Since CO2 has a logarithmic relationship you can double the amount of CO2 and it will only absorb 50% more IR per concentration. Conversely if you half the amount of CO2 it will travel twice the distance before being absorbed.

So for IR to be able to orginate at the earth and escape the troposphere without being absorbed, the concentration at the equator would have to be less than 0.0038 ppm. At the poles less than 0.0076ppm.

You get these numbers by dividing the amout of CO2 by 2 until you reach a distance of absorption of 16km at the equator or 8km at the poles. Since human kind can only be attributed with 0.3% of the total CO2 in the environment then removing the 0.3% will reduce absorption by about 3 dm, that's it.


You don't understand the issue, yes the level of CO2 is such that all IR radiation emitted on Earth's surface is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere before it reaches the space.

Thats true but that doesn't mean that increasing CO2 does not increase Earth's temperature.

The mechanism of greenhouse effect of CO2 is that increasing CO2 concentration leads to infrared energy (=heat, emitted by black body radiation of objects on Earth's surface) being absorbed closer to Earth's surface, and the closer absorption occurs the longer (more cycles of reemission and absorption) it will take that energy to escape into space.
The longer it takes, the less effective Earth's cooling and the higher its temperature.

Seriously if you want to debunk something make sure you first understand it, otherwise you only spread disinformation and theres too much of that already.

Here it is explained in more detail:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html


Considering the main mechanism of heat loss for the planet is convection and precipitation, make sure you understand all aspects of the system before you speak on the subject.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2008
You don't seem to understand that the amount of CO2 that humans produce is far and away inconsequential in regard to the perceived warming of the planet.

Not true. From the Volcano Hazards Program of US Geological Survey:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes....ndex.php
Considering I said "of the planet" and not "of volcanoes" you're treading into straw man territory. Human contribution to the total CO2 released into the atmosphere by all sources is 0.03%.

Considering past CO2 concentration levels were around 512ppm or greater in recorded history

Where was this measurement made? In your car's exhaust pipe?
Look up what the past CO2 levels were according to geology. They are considered the gold standard for actual CO2 measurement.


Volcanos produce fossil CO2, but there haven't been enough large eruptions lately which would explain the steady cumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You're joking right?

No I'm not. As the US Geological Survey page points out, there would need to be about 8000 additional Kilauea volcanoes to produce the amount of CO2 humans do per year.


You haven't shown any math yet, just some separate numbers. Tell me about the mathematic formula of a theory which you base your assertions on.
Ok so I'll do the math for you then:

280 ppm = 10 m/absorption.
The relation ship between CO2 levels and absorption is logarithmic so as you double co2, it reduces distance by 50%. Conversely if you cut CO2 in half you double the distance of absorption saturation. So cut co2 in half
140ppm=20m
70ppm=40m
35ppm=80m
17.5ppm=160m
continue the trend until you reach 16km and that is the CO2ppm you need at the equator for IR to escape the tropopause without being absorbed.

I repeat my question: what is the physical theory and exact formula that you use to make that assertion?
Now you're being silly. Chemistry and physics determine the saturation levels and Earth observation presents the distance.

You're also discounting the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb IR across all ranges, only across 3 small increments. So your article is not in-depth enough to prove anything as it doesn't find a cause for the lack of IR detected.

That's not true. The article clearly states that the decrease of IR radiation has specifically been observed on the wavelengths which the anthropogenic greenhouse gases absorb it.
Right, but it doesn't include past cloud cover, past landscape albedo, concentration increase, concentration increase of the supposed AGW components and the relationship to the IR.

Are you saying that changes in ground use and cloud cover would produce similar changes in the wavelength of outgoing IR radiation as increased levels of CO2, methane and ozone?
Absolutely. If the sun's rays aren't able to contact the Earth then the "black body" radiation output will vary greatly. IR will have huge difference between winter and summer in areas that receive heavy cloud or snow cover.


They are observations without experimentation. Our atmosphere is far more complex that "Hey we see more IR it must be AGW."

That's not what they say at all. The peak IR absorption wavelengths of CO2 have been measured in laboratory.
Pertinence to my statement?


I repeat my question: "What exactly are the ape (non-chimp), dog and fish species/breeds that wage war? I would like to see descriptions of these wars in addition to receiving examples of the species."


Austrailian Dingos: combat for territory.
...
Gorillas: mating rights and territory as well as food and water sources.
...
All Betta species and subspecies, Oscars and other Cichilids, Catfish, All species of eel, how many more do you want?

War essentially means killing members of the same species in large amounts. Would you now give detailed examples (observations) of this happening with your aforementioned species?
That's a poor definition.

War is classically defined as a contest of force between 2 or more groups. Typically over resources or territory. Two groups of 5 would constitute two tribes. If they engage in skirmishes to control territory or mating rights that is a war, which all of the listed species engage in regularly.

As for documented cases, flip on Animal Planet.
superhuman
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2008
Considering the main mechanism of heat loss for the planet is convection and precipitation, make sure you understand all aspects of the system before you speak on the subject.


Haha! First rule of holes: If you are in one stop digging!

First it was you who brought the argument with IR radiation and absorption, I only pointed out that you misunderstood it.

Second, now you made even more obvious mistake - a planet can never lose heat by precipitation or convection! A planet is surrounded by vacuum and neither of this mechanisms operates in vacuum!
Precipitation and convection can only redistribute heat ON the planet.

http://en.wikiped...orology)
http://en.wikiped...nvection

The only means of transporting heat out of the planet is by radiation!

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and before you invoke yet another phenomena at least google it first and read its wiki page - you can learn a lot.
mountain_team_guy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2008
Global warming..... break.
Otherwise this is a very interesting article. Particularly for a professional warrior such as myself and the millions of past and present combat servicemen around the world. If this article somehow pisses you off, you probably spend much of your intellect rationalizing your intuitive values. So, get a life.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2008
Haha! First rule of holes: If you are in one stop digging!
no hole here, just a well baited trap.

First it was you who brought the argument with IR radiation and absorption, I only pointed out that you misunderstood it.
and you were incorrect. IR will escape at the same rate regardless of opacity due to a few factors.

One of which is, the heated gas will have to find a lower energy environment in order to re-radiate, which means it must rise through convection or being displaced by condensing water vapor, meaning....

Second, now you made even more obvious mistake - a planet can never lose heat by precipitation or convection! A planet is surrounded by vacuum and neither of this mechanisms operates in vacuum!
As the gas rises and re-radiates the energy it will approach the tropopause meaning the excess energy will escape to the stratosphere and ionosphere where it will...

Precipitation and convection can only redistribute heat ON the planet.

Highly charge the particles of the ionosphere to the point that they reach escape velocity or exchange energy with the low powered low weight particles left behind by solar wind collision.

http://en.wikiped...orology)
http://en.wikiped...nvection

The only means of transporting heat out of the planet is by radiation!
Or mass displacement of ionized gas, which is ever present in the near earth atmosphere.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and before you invoke yet another phenomena at least google it first and read its wiki page - you can learn a lot.


Because wikipedia is super accurate.


By the way, excess heat in the system would create more cloud cover and in turn lower the Earth's albedo in addition to completely crowding out CO2's absorption bands.

Rute
not rated yet Sep 13, 2008
Considering I said "of the planet" and not "of volcanoes" you're treading into straw man territory. Human contribution to the total CO2 released into the atmosphere by all sources is 0.03%.

Even if that were true, the rest is not outside of the natural cycle!

The proportion of carbon isotopes 12C and 13C are rising in the atmosphere because of the fossil carbon emissions. Rotting leaves can't be responsible of that. Saprotrophs just recycle the carbon available in the biosphere. They are unable to add or substract carbon from the mantle and abiotic crust.

Considering past CO2 concentration levels were around 512ppm or greater in recorded history

Where was this measurement made? In your car's exhaust pipe?
Look up what the past CO2 levels were according to geology. They are considered the gold standard for actual CO2 measurement.

There have not been 512 ppm concentrations globally in the recorded history. The prehistorical geological reconstructions of CO2 concentration are another matter.

Now you're being silly. Chemistry and physics determine the saturation levels and Earth observation presents the distance.

That there means you have no clue of the physical formulae behind greenhouse effect.
Rute
not rated yet Sep 13, 2008
To clarify things up: The saprotrophs like some bacteria and heterotrophs like humans secrete CO2 continuosly, whereas the autotrophs like plants absorb it. That's a super-large cycle and the amount of CO2 secreted and absorbed daily is enormous, but it doesn't change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

To make the difference of the biological processes vs. fossil fuel burning clear: the former can NOT make CO2 concentration in the atmosphere go up, but the latter can and does so.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2008
To clarify things up: The saprotrophs like some bacteria and heterotrophs like humans secrete CO2 continuosly, whereas the autotrophs like plants absorb it. That's a super-large cycle and the amount of CO2 secreted and absorbed daily is enormous, but it doesn't change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

To make the difference of the biological processes vs. fossil fuel burning clear: the former can NOT make CO2 concentration in the atmosphere go up, but the latter can and does so.


You are incredibly ignorant of the processes involved and are just spewing the AGW rhetoric you've been fed by the miscellaneous publications seeking financial gain for said publishing.

You realize during their night cycle plants release CO2 as well? Or that rotting plant matter releases c12 c13 and c14?

Or prefacing your statements that there have not been concentrations of CO2 at 512ppm or higher in recorded history, of course there haven't been "known" concentrations, we didn't start measuring it until the 60's. Which means we have 48 years of data, some of which is highly questionable. We don't know what is causing global warming, we don't know if it's man made, we don't know if this is part of the natural cycles we've seen documented in the past, and we certainly shouldn't be doing anything without a knowledge of whether we're helping or hurting the situation by interfering.

That you cannot deny logically.
Rute
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2008
You are incredibly ignorant of the processes involved and are just spewing the AGW rhetoric you've been fed by the miscellaneous publications seeking financial gain for said publishing.

I'm not basing my facts on "AGW rhetoric". I just happen to know some basic things of Earth science. As I already mentioned, the biological processes are unable to add or substract CO2 from the mantle and abiotic crust (nearly free of 14C). Are you denying that?

You realize during their night cycle plants release CO2 as well?

Yes, but the CO2 balance of plants is negative, that is, they take up more CO2 than they release into the atmosphere.


Or that rotting plant matter releases c12 c13 and c14?

Of course, but rotting plant material is unable to change the relative amounts of the mentioned isotopes. You need CO2 which hasn't been a part of the biosphere for thousands of years to make the 12C/13C concentration rise relative to 14C as observed. That's because 14C, which is formed in the upper atmosphere, is an unstable isotope and decays over the course of thousands of years and is therefore not present in high amounts in the fossil fuel reserves and Earth's mantle.


Or prefacing your statements that there have not been concentrations of CO2 at 512ppm or higher in recorded history, of course there haven't been "known" concentrations

Then why did you say there have been?

We don't know what is causing global warming, we don't know if it's man made

What kind of evidence would convince you that global warming is mostly man made?
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2008
Lehmann and Feldman have gone out with preconceived ideas and manipulated the data to prove their preconception.
Their results are bullshit.
One of the oldest surviving cultures on earth is the Kalahari Bushmen.
Theirs is a most non-aggressive culture.
Then you look at the stone age New Guinea natives. Some of these are still cannabalistic.
Most of their "wars" are more ritual than real.
They will put on a very noisy and showy performance and the most impressive wins the less impressive yields.
Occasionally a few are killed. If it was a real war as we "civilised" societies know war there would be hundreds of dead.
Their wars are more like the confrontations between animals for superiority. Rarely is an opponent seriously injured and even less often is an opponent killed.
The animal or what we term the uncivilised way relies more on posturing and or a show of force or power and far less on actual killing.
We do not appear to acquire the lust for killing until we become "civilised".
Leaving thousands or even millions dead is a measure of our degree of civilisation, the more we kill the more advanced we are.
These half-witted academics should stop making excuses for our barbarism.
In what we term as primitive societies and animal groupings we find that adults protect the young, yet we have to protect our young from our own species.
I think Lehmann and Feldman need to rethink their whole approach and to reassess their starting values.
Of course there are, as there always will be the odd exception to this norm, i.e. Siamese Fighting Fish and of course Modern Civilised Man, i.e. Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Churchill, Mugabe, Stalin, Mao, and the list goes on. Apart from the Siamese Fighting Fish all of these others seem to be us.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2008
You are incredibly ignorant of the processes involved and are just spewing the AGW rhetoric you've been fed by the miscellaneous publications seeking financial gain for said publishing.

I'm not basing my facts on "AGW rhetoric". I just happen to know some basic things of Earth science. As I already mentioned, the biological processes are unable to add or substract CO2 from the mantle and abiotic crust (nearly free of 14C). Are you denying that?
No I'm not, but how exactly would c14 in the mantle cause global warming?


You realize during their night cycle plants release CO2 as well?

Yes, but the CO2 balance of plants is negative, that is, they take up more CO2 than they release into the atmosphere.
Source?


We don't know what is causing global warming, we don't know if it's man made

What kind of evidence would convince you that global warming is mostly man made?


Hard data and research.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2008
Their wars are more like the confrontations between animals for superiority. Rarely is an opponent seriously injured and even less often is an opponent killed.


Patently false, Grey Wolf territorial wars leave the population down by 44% in yellowstone park. This population of wolves is perhaps the best studied in the world.

I challenge you to produce an example of modern human warfare where the end result was the death of 44% of the population of the opposing sides.
nfamous
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2008
I think this is just white people that follow this pattern because they evolved in colder climates. Whites see everything and everyone as enemies or things to be exploited. Other races generally are not wired this way. The aggression of whites is clearly demonstrated by the violent culture of the US, where whites still comprise 60% of the population. Whites have not evolved as much as other races because they have not existed as long as other races. Will race-mixing temper this aggression of whites enough over time to prevent nuclear holocaust? I doubt it. Why? Because the most aggressive people no longer have to kill themselves for their kin to survive. They have all the money in the world and can make sure their genes are passed directly on to their offspring. The masses of people over time mellow out but the elite get worse and worse for the reasons stated in this article. If we are to save humanity we must destroy the elite. Drastic times call for drastic measures. If we don't they will continue manipulating and poisoning us from afar while we argue over whether Democrats or Republicans are right, when they are both owned by the sick elite. The elite are doing things this very second to destroy your mind and your physical well-being. It's like the wind. You can't see it but you know it's there because you can feel it and you can see its effects.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
Wow that was perhaps the most ignorant, bigoted/racist thing I've ever read on any forum on the internet. Congrats you get the award nfamous.

Obviously you've never heard the news of the violence in Africa, the Middle East, Imperial Japan (just one of many historical examples), or basically EVERY (including North America) place on Earth where there are people.