Humanity's impact on Earth illustrated!

originally posted by: Indigo5
I think people enjoy a false satisfaction in taking a position opposed to science. Or somehow confuse the investigative and objective nature or science with lack of certainty.

Wrong. I'm making an informed opinion based on all science that I can find on the subject. I've weighed the two main sides and some sides in between, and I have come to my current conclusion based on that.

You do realize that there is verifiable, reproducable, peer-reviewed science that explains global warming without just saying that humans are causing it, right? That's still science, even if you disagree with it.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: stosh64

Basic Native knowledge would never have created this beast we cal modern civilization today .

Many years ago I read a book called Ishmael. It described modern civilization and it's parting course with the natural rules of the universe as an early experiment in flight. The man builds the wings and leaps from the cliff and does in fact fly...success...for a few blissful minutes...until impact. As a civilization, I sometimes think we are fooled into thinking that our way is working, the false sentiment that nature can be "conquered" or "ruled" by man...we are flying...only because we have not impacted the rocky ground below yet. There are rules of nature all around us and they are infinitely more powerful than us measly humans. The earth is not in trouble...it will recover and has survived much worse than humans...it is humans that are in trouble. It might be years, decades or centuries...but we will either recognize the omnipotence of nature and abide by its' rules or it will eliminate us like millions of extinct species before us both large and small. That is just the reality of it IMO.

Great visual, thanks for that. You're exactly correct. How arrogant we really are. We think we own this planet when we're actually just guests here. But, hey, it's in our nature to break the rules, so now we'll have to face the consequences.

a reply to: Rezlooper

The current theory is that the craters formerly were full of methane, but that changes in temperature caused the pressure to exceed the ground's ability to contain it.

Sort of like welding a tire, I suppose - the gas inside increases in pressure and expands; simultaneously, the heat is detrimental to the structural integrity of the wheel. This often results in an explosive force once the pressure surmounts the integrity of the wheel.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
But, hey, it's in our nature to break the rules, so now we'll have to face the consequences.

There is only one rule in nature, and it is unbreakable...so, I find it hard to believe that we have it "in our nature to break the rules".

Also, the current thinking on the Siberian holes is that they are not methane. Most likely natural gas.

Last summer, a German scientist had suggested that the craters formed after warming in Siberia had caused methane hydrates to thaw and explode. (Learn more about methane hydrates.)

But Ruppel says methane hydrates are found only in permafrost on land at about 740 feet (225 meters) or deeper, which is much deeper than any of the observed craters (which are around 50 feet, or 15 meters, deep).

New Theory Behind Dozens of Craters Found in Siberia

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Indigo5

True words .

Sometimes we fail to see the vastness of the earth and just how resilient and able it is to heal it's self

I have no doubt the earth will heal itself...I just worry that healing involves getting rid of a pesky growing swarm of furless apes.

Man will make it too .He is much more adaptable and creative not to ....peace

Maybe..we are tougher than rats...my concerns are more centered on what that survival looks like. We are going to see greater weather EXTREMES..."Global Warming" was always a poor description. We are annually breaking records for droughts, high temperatures and extended low temperatures, insane storms, wildfires, floods etc.

Whether you think all this is caused by man or natural cycles...it is a reality that we all need to prepare for. I am in the Midwest of the USA and thought myself rather safe from the changes...but my geography has just become the new path of the Polar Vortex in winter. The melting ice caps create ponds of water that create temperature inconsistencies in the swirling polar vortex causing it to riffle nd swoop down through the upper Midwest. The new normal. More of the great lakes froze this year than in recorded history. We have had unnatural drops in temperature the past few years...pipes freezing and bursting, pavement buckling...I walked outside this winter on one of the coldest days and heard a "clack" sound on my face...pulled off my glasses and they had cracked!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Indigo5
I think people enjoy a false satisfaction in taking a position opposed to science. Or somehow confuse the investigative and objective nature or science with lack of certainty.

Wrong. I'm making an informed opinion based on all science that I can find on the subject.

Yes...and 97% of the worlds ACTUAL SCIENTISTS...who have dedicated their life to the profession have come to a different conclusion than your hobby opinion, which I suspect is premised largely in the manufactured denial campaign.

originally posted by: peck420
Also, the current thinking on the Siberian holes is that they are not methane. Most likely natural gas.

Um... methane is the prime component of natural gas.

e: Aside from that, I do thank you for the updated theory.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Yup it is quite amazing.

Humans are given the time to clean up their act. I'm still waiting to see if humans can acomplish this on their own.

It's that or the shapeshifters will do it for Earth. And it's not going to be pretty

Funny to think of an alien version of HGTV...I know that planet looks like a lot of work, but it's a great neighborhood...you could always do a tear-down and start over?

originally posted by: Greven
Um... methane is the prime component of natural gas.

The difference is based on the impurities of the pocket. Generally, the closer to the surface, the higher the impurity content. The higher the impurity content, the less global effect these expulsions will have.

a reply to: Indigo5

Almost sounds like normal weather where I live .This polar vortex is probably nothing new but like many things we are becoming more aware because of the internet and the like . I was flored my first trip to Prince Rupert just 14 miles of the Alaskan panhandle .I was expecting it to be much colder and with lots of snow but because of the Japanese currents they have a mild system .

I am sure that even their system is subject to changes from time to time .Heck with evidence that the North was once tropical says that climate has and does change .Preparation is the key . The Mormons put up a building in my area a few years back and the specs were for a earthquake zone .I can only us ever having one once in my 60 years and in all likelihood it wont happen again ,at least not in my life time .Cold and lots of snow ,now that is a different story and it's pretty much standard to consider .

i plant trees on vancouver island. right in the action on that one...
while that pic is kind of misleading...
the size of trees that they remove is astonishing
i remember climbing on a stump with over 800 rings on it, easily. a crew member claims to have counted 1400 once. they've cut down over 90% of the old growth on the island. we go in there and the place is riddled with corpses of young redwoods. 4-5 foot diameter logs.

it's pretty tragic.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Indigo5
I think people enjoy a false satisfaction in taking a position opposed to science. Or somehow confuse the investigative and objective nature or science with lack of certainty.

Wrong. I'm making an informed opinion based on all science that I can find on the subject.

Yes...and 97% of the worlds ACTUAL SCIENTISTS...who have dedicated their life to the profession have come to a different conclusion than your hobby opinion, which I suspect is premised largely in the manufactured denial campaign.

You can suspect anything you want to, but it doesn't make it true--you seem to have a penchant for making assumptions.

As for the "consensus" of "ACTUAL SCIENTISTS" (btw, you can be a scientist and it not be your profession...just an FYI), that has been proven a fallacy a long time ago, yet those without much of an ability to form a scientific argument in defense of their position tend to constantly fall back on that, as if conforming to a "majority" opinion somehow adds credence to your argument.

It doesn't.

(and you'd do well to look into the "97%" of your scientists--the majority do NOT dedicate their lives to climate science)

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
(and you'd do well to look into the "97%" of your scientists--the majority do NOT dedicate their lives to climate science)

So, how many people opposed to AGW are climate scientists?

As I recall, every one that I have looked at that disagrees with the majority opinion is in a different field. Some examples:
Anthony Watts is meteorologist (close, but no cigar).
"Steven Goddard" aka Tony Heller is an electrical engineer.
Steven McIntyre holds degrees in mathematics, philosophy, politics, and economics.
Ross McKitrick is an economist.
Etc...

a reply to: Rezlooper

B. S.

a reply to: Rezlooper

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We do not deserve this planet. The sooner a comet can hit and wipe us out so that this planet can restart, the better.

a reply to: Greven

I'm not the one using the argument that the 97% dedicate their lives to the profession of climate science. I'm also not the one who believes that one must be a climate scientist to understand climate science, or to be able to speak on it intelligently. You're trying to go off on a tangent concerning my comment, but your tangent means nothing about the veracity of my reply to Indigo5.

a reply to: Greven

It is futile to argue with someone who essentially claims to be an armchair expert on the issue of human induced climate change. All you will get it worthless hearsay and hyperbole. Nothing factual, just the same rhetoric over and over.

We are indeed impacting this planet's climate.

a reply to: Rezlooper

That first photo seems to be wrong, as it is being said that global warming is big lie, proven lie.

It might retreat in the summers, but they say it has been gaining ground in the winters.

My greatest concern right now, is that the star Wormwood, has come upon 1/3 of the waters and made them bitter.

Humanity's impact on Earth illustrated!

the title of the thread is totally bogus. I see not one illustration, only photographs depicting the earth's struggle against what has been created by us and or possibly the natural universal cycle of things whichever your take may be on some of these photo's. I don't think we'll cause the complete destruction of this earths habitat unless nuclear bombs start flying around. There's still plenty of pretty places left in Australia come and throw a shrimp on the barbie.
They're a nice collection though whatever an individuals take might be. Thankyou for sharing (but no illustrations??)

Shanghai looks like something out of a movie.
I also know someone who went there for modeling, she said it was a wonderful city, but on the hot days it stunk and in some areas even hard to breath!

Humans sure are doing a big number on this planet, sure there is a earth cycle and the earth does change, but in some aspects were are simply speeding up the process with climate change.