Anthropocene

[tungsten]

Originally Posted by Fast Orange

Give up hope, embrace the doom and live for today. It's actually quite liberating.

That's amoral.

[Oldfart]

Originally Posted by HIBuLlitT

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week317.html

Here's a question about those graphs. Where did the temperature data come for all those ice ages that occurred well before humans were around?

[HIBuLlitT]

Originally Posted by Oldfart

Here's a question about those graphs. Where did the temperature data come for all those ice ages that occurred well before humans were around?

I didn't look, but I'd go on the assumption a combination of ice core samples where they
can get co2 levels from air bubbles in the ice and by looking at geological layers to see
what types of plants were there at what that time and what kind of climate they had.

Thank you NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

[Fast Orange]

Originally Posted by tungsten

That's amoral.

The system of our lives and how we treat our world is so far gone that humans aren't even in control of it anymore. I'm not gonna waste my life and happiness fighting for a cause that is already completely lost.

[tungsten]

Originally Posted by Fast Orange

The system of our lives and how we treat our world is so far gone that humans aren't even in control of it anymore. I'm not gonna waste my life and happiness fighting for a cause that is already completely lost.

That's the attitude that got us to where we are today.

Fighting for a just cause, irrespective of the apparent odds, is never a "waste".

What would the world be like if people like, say, Gandhi, Dr. King or our own Tommy Douglas had copped your attitude?

[tungsten]

YouTube Video

[chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Fast Orange

I'm not trying to be a troll I just genuinely don't understand people who still think humans have a hope in hell of keeping ourselves alive for the long term.

Give up hope, embrace the doom and live for today. It's actually quite liberating.

What makes you think we won't? Humans are the most adaptable animal on the planet. Our current civilization may be tough to hold on to long term, but short of total nuclear annihilation I don't see anything wiping us out. Once we build a self sustaining colony off planet even that can't send us into extinction.

[tungsten]

YouTube Video

[tungsten]

5 times faster



Stranded by low water

[tungsten]

YouTube Video

[tungsten]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6112/1305

[HIBuLlitT]

^ There's more to that paper, I just can't seem to find it right now.
Edit:

Global Decline of Big, Old Trees Impacts Forest Ecosystems
RELATED ARTICLES

Rain-Forest Damage Much Worse Than Thought
October 21, 2005 12:00 AM
Cutting Christmas Trees in a National Forest - be sure you get a permit first!
November 29, 2012 10:52 AM
US Forest mortality declines due to lack of food for mountain pine beetle
September 19, 2012 10:55 AM
Yosemite's giant trees disappear
May 23, 2009 07:31 AM

Trees can live hundreds, even thousands of years. But the problem is that these trees aren’t making it to old age and according to a new study, big, old trees are in decline throughout the world which can have detrimental impacts to forest ecosystems.

Old trees are crucial organisms for many ecosystems: they provide homes for animals, provide space for other plants to grow, and they produce seeds, leaves, and nuts that serve as food. They also store large amounts of carbon and continue to sequester it as they grow, said study co-author David Lindenmayer, a researcher at Australian National University. One study published in PLoS ONE in May found that although big trees (with a diameter of more than 3 feet at chest height) made up only 1 percent of trees in a study plot in California's Yosemite National Park, they accounted for 50 percent of the area's biomass.

Another study found that huge mountain ash trees in southern Australia and Tasmania provide homes for more than 40 species of animals, Lindenmayer said.

"Large old trees are declining rapidly in all kinds of ecosystems worldwide — forests, rainforests, boreal forests, woodlands, agricultural areas, cities and savannahs," Lindenmayer told OurAmazingPlanet.

While forest fires or clear-cutting are often blamed for the loss of these trees, their disappearance is usually less apparent, said Nate Stephenson, an ecologist with the Western Ecological Research Center in Three Rivers, California. "Losses of big, old trees can take place over decades, generally too slowly for people to notice," said Stephenson. "The next generation may not know that big old trees were once common in the nearby forest."

Different regions around the world have different tree problems Lindenmayer said. "It might be elephants plus fire plus fungi in [South Africa's] Kruger National Park, versus fire plus logging plus climate change in the wet forests of Victoria," in Australia, he said.

From logging to clearing land for development or agriculture, to non-native insects or pathogens, trees are constantly being faced with potential threats. "But the problem manifests in broadly the same way in all systems: rapid loss of existing large old trees and often a failure to recruit new big trees, leading to a massive vacuum."

To prevent the loss of more forest giants, people need to protect these individuals and the places where they are more likely to grow, Lindenmayer said. It's also important that land managers realize the importance of big old trees. "Many managers have no idea about this," he said.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...-killing-trees

Studies on the impact of wireless radiation on humans are endlessly inconclusive, but a recent study on the effects of Wi-Fi radiation on trees--yes, trees--indicates that our woody friends may be much more vulnerable than we are. And trees can't even enjoy the benefits of Wi-Fi. It's all very unjust.

The study, conducted by Wageningen University, investigated findings that trees in areas with high Wi-Fi activity (urban areas, especially) were suffering from symptoms that couldn't be tied to typical bacterial or viral causes. The symptoms included bleeding (!), fissures in the bark, the death of parts of leaves, and abnormal growth.

To test the hypothesis that the mystery illness was caused by radiation poisoning, the researchers took 20 ash trees and exposed them to various kinds of radiation for three months. Sure enough, the ash trees exposed to Wi-Fi signals showed telltale signs of radiation sickness, including a "lead-like shine" on their leaves, indicating the oncoming death of those leaves. In the Netherlands, a whopping 70% of urban trees are suffering from radiation poisoning, up from only 10% five years ago--understandable, considering the explosion in Wi-Fi use in the past five years.

Of course, trees in rural or even simply non-urban environments are pretty much unaffected, but theoretically, all deciduous trees in the Western world could be affected.

The researchers are planning several more studies to figure out the precise effects of radiation on plant life. In the meantime, they don't really offer any preliminary solutions, but I'm sure they'd approve of wrapping every urban tree you see in tin foil, root to leaf. (Note: Wrapping public trees in tin foil may be illegal in your city, state, arrondissement, or prefecture. PopSci cannot be held responsible if you are arrested for such activities.)

[tungsten]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...reenland-video

[tungsten]

RIP

YouTube Video

[tungsten]

Temperatures off the charts as Australia turns deep purple