Newfie wrote:Yet the problem exists.
I’ve no answer either.
Now what?
vtsnowedin wrote:Newfie wrote:Yet the problem exists.
I’ve no answer either.
Now what?
Get ready to deal with the consequences I suppose. Start by sorting out what is likely to happen from all the hyperbole and exaggeration.
Ibon wrote:Stop the duplicitous hypocrisy of contributing to the problem in your day to day life while you spew the latest earnest proposals to solve the problem
asg70 wrote:Ibon wrote:Stop the duplicitous hypocrisy of contributing to the problem in your day to day life while you spew the latest earnest proposals to solve the problem
I think Plant with his jetsetting is the proper target of that zinger.
As a species, we humans tend to take it for granted that we are the only ones that live in sedentary communities, use tools, and alter our landscape to meet our needs. It is also a foregone conclusion that in the history of planet Earth, humans are the only species to develop machinery, automation, electricity, and mass communications – the hallmarks of industrial civilization.
But what if another industrial civilization existed on Earth millions of years ago? Would we be able to find evidence of it within the geological record today? By examining the impact human industrial civilization has had on Earth, a pair of researchers conducted a study that considers how such a civilization could be found and how this could have implications in the search for extra-terrestrial life.
The study, which recently appeared online under the title "The Silurian Hypothesis: Would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record", was conducted by Gavin A. Schmidt and Adam Frank – a climatologist with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) and an astronomer from the University of Rochester, respectively.
In what they deem the "Silurian Hypothesis," Frank and Schmidt define a civilization by its energy use.
Human beings are just entering a new geological era that many researchers refer to as the Anthropocene, the period in which human activity strongly influences the climate and environment. In the Anthropocene, fossil fuels have become central to the geological footprint humans will leave behind on Earth. By looking at the Anthropocene's imprint, Schmidt and Frank examine what kinds of clues future scientists might detect to determine that human beings existed. In doing so, they also lay out evidence of what might be left behind if industrial civilizations like ours existed millions of years in the past.
... they compare past extinction level events to determine how they would compare to a hypothetical event where human civilization collapsed. As they state:... "The clearest class of event with such similarities are the hyperthermals, most notably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (56 Ma), but this also includes smaller hyperthermal events, ocean anoxic events in the Cretaceous and Jurassic, and significant (if less well characterized) events of the Paleozoic."
According to the team, the events they did consider (known as "hyperthermals") show similarities to the Anthropocene fingerprint that they identified. In particular, according to research cited by the authors, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) shows signs that could be consistent with anthorpogenic climate change.
Schmidt points to an irony, however:... if a civilization is able to find a more sustainable way to produce energy without harming its host planet, it will leave behind less evidence that it was there.
- Video
vtsnowedin wrote:Newfie wrote:Yet the problem exists.
I’ve no answer either.
Now what?
Get ready to deal with the consequences I suppose. Start by sorting out what is likely to happen from all the hyperbole and exaggeration.
***allegedly*** Revelle in 1992 wrote:"Look before you leap - Drastic, precipitous—and, especially, unilateral—steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries..."
The great nutrient collapse
The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention.
...Goldenrod, a wildflower many consider a weed, is extremely important to bees. It flowers late in the season, and its pollen provides an important source of protein for bees as they head into the harshness of winter. Since goldenrod is wild and humans haven’t bred it into new strains, it hasn’t changed over time as much as, say, corn or wheat. And the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod, dating back to 1842, in its massive historical archive—which gave Ziska and his colleagues a chance to figure out how one plant has changed over time.
They found that the protein content of goldenrod pollen has declined by a third since the industrial revolution—and the change closely tracks with the rise in CO2. Scientists have been trying to figure out why bee populations around the world have been in decline, which threatens many crops that rely on bees for pollination. Ziska’s paper suggested that a decline in protein prior to winter could be an additional factor making it hard for bees to survive other stressors.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... ide-000511
Will Humans Survive the Sixth Great Extinction?
In the last half-billion years, life on Earth has been nearly wiped out five times—by such things as climate change, an intense ice age, volcanoes, and that space rock that smashed into the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago, obliterating the dinosaurs and a bunch of other species. These events are known as the Big Five mass extinctions, and all signs suggest we are now on the precipice of a sixth.
Except this time, we have no one but ourselves to blame. According to a study published last week in Science Advances, the current extinction rate could be more than 100 times higher than normal—and that’s only taking into account the kinds of animals we know the most about,...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... nce-world/
***allegedly*** Revelle in 1992 wrote:"Look before you leap - Drastic, precipitous—and, especially, unilateral—steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries..."
http://www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt
Without a strong global commitment to address the threat of climate change, the world could become uninhabitable, Dr Goodall warned hours before his death on May 10.
Many wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph).
The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England.
That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.
dohboi wrote:Can Humans Live Well without Pillaging the Planet?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-planet/Many wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph).
The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England.
That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.
Ibon wrote:Well how about an all around increase in the death rate globally. Here here Let's raise our glasses and toast to less humans on the planet !
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests