What would 25 feet of sea-level change actually look like? According to worst-case climate models (meaning “what would happen if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the rate we do today”), our grandchildren and great-grandchildren could experience a world with remarkably higher sea levels. Up to 25 feet higher.  Using data from a New York Times interactive feature, Nickolay Lamm made a collection of photos showing us just what that might look do to tourist destinations. io9 has even more, including Miami Beach and the Washington Monument. The saddest part of these future-shock photos is that tourist destinations will be the last of our worries. This means entire cities could be at risk, from New Orleans to Los Angeles to London. And outside of industrialized nations, with their levees and engineers, more than 40% of the world’s population lives in coastal regions at risk of Earth-changing floods. 
Pop-upView Separately

What would 25 feet of sea-level change actually look like?

According to worst-case climate models (meaning “what would happen if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the rate we do today”), our grandchildren and great-grandchildren could experience a world with remarkably higher sea levels. Up to 25 feet higher. 

Using data from a New York Times interactive feature, Nickolay Lamm made a collection of photos showing us just what that might look do to tourist destinations. io9 has even more, including Miami Beach and the Washington Monument.

The saddest part of these future-shock photos is that tourist destinations will be the last of our worries. This means entire cities could be at risk, from New Orleans to Los Angeles to London. And outside of industrialized nations, with their levees and engineers, more than 40% of the world’s population lives in coastal regions at risk of Earth-changing floods. 

Water/World Earth contains over 10 million cubic kilometers of liquid fresh water. Most of that water, whose approximate volume compared to Earth is represented by the large water droplet at the top, is buried groundwater, much of which isn’t accessible by humans. Instead of flowing in our rivers and lakes or out of our wells, it’s buried deep inside the rocky nooks and crannies of Earth’s crust. Our ice caps, permafrost and permanent snows hold much more, although it’s equally inaccessible. That smaller water droplet represents all the liquid fresh water that can be accessed by the world’s 7+ billion people. That droplet represents less than 100,000 cubic kilometers, and we have to share, recycle and conserve all that we can. Nearly a billion people don’t have access to clean water, and 2.5 billion don’t have anything resembling modern sanitation. Learn more about how we can all help at the UN’s World Water Day website. More about where to find Earth’s water from the USGS. We live on a blue planet, but only a tiny speck of that blue is available to us. Water, water everywhere but nary a drop to drink/irrigate/wash with. Important to remember how precious that wet stuff flowing out of your faucet is. (image remixed via MarcelClemens/Shutterstock)
Pop-upView Separately

Water/World

Earth contains over 10 million cubic kilometers of liquid fresh water. Most of that water, whose approximate volume compared to Earth is represented by the large water droplet at the top, is buried groundwater, much of which isn’t accessible by humans. Instead of flowing in our rivers and lakes or out of our wells, it’s buried deep inside the rocky nooks and crannies of Earth’s crust. Our ice caps, permafrost and permanent snows hold much more, although it’s equally inaccessible.

That smaller water droplet represents all the liquid fresh water that can be accessed by the world’s 7+ billion people. That droplet represents less than 100,000 cubic kilometers, and we have to share, recycle and conserve all that we can. Nearly a billion people don’t have access to clean water, and 2.5 billion don’t have anything resembling modern sanitation. Learn more about how we can all help at the UN’s World Water Day website. More about where to find Earth’s water from the USGS.

We live on a blue planet, but only a tiny speck of that blue is available to us. Water, water everywhere but nary a drop to drink/irrigate/wash with. Important to remember how precious that wet stuff flowing out of your faucet is.

(image remixed via MarcelClemens/Shutterstock)

dendroica: Litter found in deepsea survey of one of Earth’s final unexplored realms At the time that our great-great-grandparents were dumping clinker, however, they only had hazy notions about the depth of the oceans, let alone what was going on down there. Just starting to map the depth of the ocean, let alone visit it, required two technological advances. One was the ability to fix a ship’s position accurately far from land, solved by inventions such as John Harrison’s longitude-determining chronometer. The other was steam-powered winches, which helped early survey ships to pay out and haul in the miles of cable required to plumb the ocean depths. Today we can gauge the large-scale landscape of the ocean floor from satellites, map it in far greater detail using sonar, and visit its most extreme depths with deep-diving vehicles. Plastic, meanwhile, has replaced clinker as a common contaminant of the deep ocean. During our present expedition, we plan to collect sediment cores around the world’s deepest known undersea vents to see if there are any microplastics here: tiny ground-down remnants of plastic that may now be quite ubiquitous in the oceans. (via guardian.co.uk) Ocean explorers of the future are going to think we were slobs. Because we are.
Zoom Info
dendroica: Litter found in deepsea survey of one of Earth’s final unexplored realms At the time that our great-great-grandparents were dumping clinker, however, they only had hazy notions about the depth of the oceans, let alone what was going on down there. Just starting to map the depth of the ocean, let alone visit it, required two technological advances. One was the ability to fix a ship’s position accurately far from land, solved by inventions such as John Harrison’s longitude-determining chronometer. The other was steam-powered winches, which helped early survey ships to pay out and haul in the miles of cable required to plumb the ocean depths. Today we can gauge the large-scale landscape of the ocean floor from satellites, map it in far greater detail using sonar, and visit its most extreme depths with deep-diving vehicles. Plastic, meanwhile, has replaced clinker as a common contaminant of the deep ocean. During our present expedition, we plan to collect sediment cores around the world’s deepest known undersea vents to see if there are any microplastics here: tiny ground-down remnants of plastic that may now be quite ubiquitous in the oceans. (via guardian.co.uk) Ocean explorers of the future are going to think we were slobs. Because we are.
Zoom Info

dendroica:

Litter found in deepsea survey of one of Earth’s final unexplored realms

At the time that our great-great-grandparents were dumping clinker, however, they only had hazy notions about the depth of the oceans, let alone what was going on down there. Just starting to map the depth of the ocean, let alone visit it, required two technological advances. One was the ability to fix a ship’s position accurately far from land, solved by inventions such as John Harrison’s longitude-determining chronometer. The other was steam-powered winches, which helped early survey ships to pay out and haul in the miles of cable required to plumb the ocean depths.

Today we can gauge the large-scale landscape of the ocean floor from satellites, map it in far greater detail using sonar, and visit its most extreme depths with deep-diving vehicles. Plastic, meanwhile, has replaced clinker as a common contaminant of the deep ocean. During our present expedition, we plan to collect sediment cores around the world’s deepest known undersea vents to see if there are any microplastics here: tiny ground-down remnants of plastic that may now be quite ubiquitous in the oceans.

(via guardian.co.uk)

Ocean explorers of the future are going to think we were slobs. Because we are.

(via crownedrose)

Source: Guardian

One Cubic Foot How humans’ choice to grow just one crop can affect nature’s balance. A typical terrestrial ecosystem is a living mosaic of hundreds or even thousands of species, balanced on one another’s existence like a biological house of cards. From plants and bugs down to microscopic fungi and bacteria, there’s a world of life in just a cubic meter. That’s what David Liitschwager’s new book One Cubic Foot set out to capture. Anything that came through a plastic cube one foot on each side was photographed and catalogued. It’s stunning just how much life there is right under our feet, or above our heads, at any moment. Move the cube just a few feet away? You may see a completely different slice of the biodiversity pie. However, there are tales of caution within those pages. See those two photos at top? The top photo shows the biodiversity present in a typical slice of shrub land. Cooperative populations of over 100 plants and insects. The bottom? It’s from an Iowa cornfield, home to less than an actual handful. That cornfield is the victim of the modern agricultural practice of monoculture. Where there were once hundreds of species, living together on the richest soil in the midwest, there remain a sparse few. In manipulating nature to grow only one crop on a piece of land, we have created an almost alien world. It’s beyond a debate between organic vs. conventional (neither of which are perfect). It’s a question of simple biology, and I don’t like the answer. Be sure to read Robert Krulwich’s review of One Cubic Foot. And then check out Michael Pollan talking about the danger of monocultures to nature and our diets.
Zoom Info
One Cubic Foot How humans’ choice to grow just one crop can affect nature’s balance. A typical terrestrial ecosystem is a living mosaic of hundreds or even thousands of species, balanced on one another’s existence like a biological house of cards. From plants and bugs down to microscopic fungi and bacteria, there’s a world of life in just a cubic meter. That’s what David Liitschwager’s new book One Cubic Foot set out to capture. Anything that came through a plastic cube one foot on each side was photographed and catalogued. It’s stunning just how much life there is right under our feet, or above our heads, at any moment. Move the cube just a few feet away? You may see a completely different slice of the biodiversity pie. However, there are tales of caution within those pages. See those two photos at top? The top photo shows the biodiversity present in a typical slice of shrub land. Cooperative populations of over 100 plants and insects. The bottom? It’s from an Iowa cornfield, home to less than an actual handful. That cornfield is the victim of the modern agricultural practice of monoculture. Where there were once hundreds of species, living together on the richest soil in the midwest, there remain a sparse few. In manipulating nature to grow only one crop on a piece of land, we have created an almost alien world. It’s beyond a debate between organic vs. conventional (neither of which are perfect). It’s a question of simple biology, and I don’t like the answer. Be sure to read Robert Krulwich’s review of One Cubic Foot. And then check out Michael Pollan talking about the danger of monocultures to nature and our diets.
Zoom Info

One Cubic Foot

How humans’ choice to grow just one crop can affect nature’s balance.

A typical terrestrial ecosystem is a living mosaic of hundreds or even thousands of species, balanced on one another’s existence like a biological house of cards. From plants and bugs down to microscopic fungi and bacteria, there’s a world of life in just a cubic meter.

That’s what David Liitschwager’s new book One Cubic Foot set out to capture. Anything that came through a plastic cube one foot on each side was photographed and catalogued. It’s stunning just how much life there is right under our feet, or above our heads, at any moment. Move the cube just a few feet away? You may see a completely different slice of the biodiversity pie.

However, there are tales of caution within those pages. See those two photos at top? The top photo shows the biodiversity present in a typical slice of shrub land. Cooperative populations of over 100 plants and insects. The bottom? It’s from an Iowa cornfield, home to less than an actual handful.

That cornfield is the victim of the modern agricultural practice of monoculture.

Where there were once hundreds of species, living together on the richest soil in the midwest, there remain a sparse few. In manipulating nature to grow only one crop on a piece of land, we have created an almost alien world. It’s beyond a debate between organic vs. conventional (neither of which are perfect). It’s a question of simple biology, and I don’t like the answer.

Be sure to read Robert Krulwich’s review of One Cubic Foot. And then check out Michael Pollan talking about the danger of monocultures to nature and our diets.

skeptv:

Instant Egghead - Are We Facing the Sixth Mass Extinction?

According to the United Nations, we are losing about 200 species per day—a thousand times the normal background rate of extinction. How does this stack up to previous mass extinctions? Scientific American editor Fred Guterl explains.

by Scientific American.

We’re losing species at an alarming rate. Here’s a look at how that compares to previous mass extinctions. Unlike those extinctions of the past, we have evolved enough to do something about species conservation today.

climateadaptation: Click to embiggen. At UMass-Amherst, I recall a professor (a one Mr. Dr. Jack Ahern) showing us Massachusetts was deforested not once or twice, but four times in its near 400 year history. Now it’s one of the most forested states (yep!). karlis: ryanpanos: Amazing photos of vintage logging industry in the Redwood Forests of California via U of C Any image of deforestation is synonymous with the construction of contemporary metropolises. What’s most profound about the industrial moguls of the 19th century is that even though they were fierce in the utilization of natural resources that led to a catastrophic decline, they recognized the need for conservation practices and restorative developments. The Pinchots, millionaires from the wallpaper industry, pushed their son Gifford into forestry. What started as an investment in an industry led to conservation of natural resources, support for academic programs, and further development of infrastructure in the United States. The US Forest Service gave us telephone poles, railroad ties, land for grazing livestock, and timber to fuel construction for modern life. Yes, it is a tragedy that natural history was destroyed by old logging practices. But we’re lucky enough to be living in an age where more people are understanding the limitations of our landscape. The thing we need to work on now is our frivolous consumption (ie: disposable goods). Seeing a living organism of this size is just flabbergasting. As Richard Feynman reminded us recently, trees big and small grow out of the air. That’s about 98% right (they do need water and nutrients from the ground to complete their photosynthetic reactions). But think about the sheer volume of carbon dioxide that a tree like this takes in over its lifetime! Think about the effect these have in balancing the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere! A 25-inch redwood can hold the equivalent of ONE TON of carbon dioxide. These trees are at least six times that diameter, and would have held orders of magnitude more than that. It’s called a “carbon sink”, and these would have been gold-medal winners in that event. On one hand, it’s amazing to see an immobile living thing capable of growing to this size, over hundreds of years, felled by the humble tools of man. On the other hand, it’s tragic to see these Fort Knoxes of the carbon cycle laying useless on their side. Let’s keep this in the history books, and not in the current events pages.
Zoom Info
climateadaptation: Click to embiggen. At UMass-Amherst, I recall a professor (a one Mr. Dr. Jack Ahern) showing us Massachusetts was deforested not once or twice, but four times in its near 400 year history. Now it’s one of the most forested states (yep!). karlis: ryanpanos: Amazing photos of vintage logging industry in the Redwood Forests of California via U of C Any image of deforestation is synonymous with the construction of contemporary metropolises. What’s most profound about the industrial moguls of the 19th century is that even though they were fierce in the utilization of natural resources that led to a catastrophic decline, they recognized the need for conservation practices and restorative developments. The Pinchots, millionaires from the wallpaper industry, pushed their son Gifford into forestry. What started as an investment in an industry led to conservation of natural resources, support for academic programs, and further development of infrastructure in the United States. The US Forest Service gave us telephone poles, railroad ties, land for grazing livestock, and timber to fuel construction for modern life. Yes, it is a tragedy that natural history was destroyed by old logging practices. But we’re lucky enough to be living in an age where more people are understanding the limitations of our landscape. The thing we need to work on now is our frivolous consumption (ie: disposable goods). Seeing a living organism of this size is just flabbergasting. As Richard Feynman reminded us recently, trees big and small grow out of the air. That’s about 98% right (they do need water and nutrients from the ground to complete their photosynthetic reactions). But think about the sheer volume of carbon dioxide that a tree like this takes in over its lifetime! Think about the effect these have in balancing the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere! A 25-inch redwood can hold the equivalent of ONE TON of carbon dioxide. These trees are at least six times that diameter, and would have held orders of magnitude more than that. It’s called a “carbon sink”, and these would have been gold-medal winners in that event. On one hand, it’s amazing to see an immobile living thing capable of growing to this size, over hundreds of years, felled by the humble tools of man. On the other hand, it’s tragic to see these Fort Knoxes of the carbon cycle laying useless on their side. Let’s keep this in the history books, and not in the current events pages.
Zoom Info

climateadaptation:

Click to embiggen. At UMass-Amherst, I recall a professor (a one Mr. Dr. Jack Ahern) showing us Massachusetts was deforested not once or twice, but four times in its near 400 year history. Now it’s one of the most forested states (yep!).

karlis:

ryanpanos:

Amazing photos of vintage logging industry in the Redwood Forests of California via U of C

Any image of deforestation is synonymous with the construction of contemporary metropolises. What’s most profound about the industrial moguls of the 19th century is that even though they were fierce in the utilization of natural resources that led to a catastrophic decline, they recognized the need for conservation practices and restorative developments.

The Pinchots, millionaires from the wallpaper industry, pushed their son Gifford into forestry. What started as an investment in an industry led to conservation of natural resources, support for academic programs, and further development of infrastructure in the United States. The US Forest Service gave us telephone poles, railroad ties, land for grazing livestock, and timber to fuel construction for modern life.

Yes, it is a tragedy that natural history was destroyed by old logging practices. But we’re lucky enough to be living in an age where more people are understanding the limitations of our landscape. The thing we need to work on now is our frivolous consumption (ie: disposable goods).

Seeing a living organism of this size is just flabbergasting. As Richard Feynman reminded us recently, trees big and small grow out of the air. That’s about 98% right (they do need water and nutrients from the ground to complete their photosynthetic reactions).

But think about the sheer volume of carbon dioxide that a tree like this takes in over its lifetime! Think about the effect these have in balancing the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere! A 25-inch redwood can hold the equivalent of ONE TON of carbon dioxide. These trees are at least six times that diameter, and would have held orders of magnitude more than that. It’s called a “carbon sink”, and these would have been gold-medal winners in that event.

On one hand, it’s amazing to see an immobile living thing capable of growing to this size, over hundreds of years, felled by the humble tools of man. On the other hand, it’s tragic to see these Fort Knoxes of the carbon cycle laying useless on their side. Let’s keep this in the history books, and not in the current events pages.

Source: ryanpanos

Don’t Worry, Drive On: Some Real Talk About “Peak Oil”

I’ve received a couple of questions from you fine folks about whether it’s true that new technologies have opened up access to untapped oil resources, and that “peak oil” is no longer something we need to worry about.

It’s wonderful news when innovative science and new technologies improve how we harness and use energy, but only when it’s based in reality. So yes, technology has provided new ways of accessing hard-to-reach oil and fossil fuels, and there’s a lot of oil left in the ground. That is true.

But when cost, environmental policies and climate change are added to the equation, just because we can get at it doesn’t make it good, or right, or worth it. We can’t afford it, financially or scientifically. Let’s keep moving forward and come up with a way to stop pumping the biomass of the Jurassic into our gas tanks and power plants.

Enjoy this video from the Post-Carbon Institute.

Source: youtube.com

Beyond the ‘OMG’ Reaction to GMOs

A rap exploring the pros and cons of GMOs when it comes to feeding a growing planet! This comes from David Holmes, a grad of NYU’s Studio 20 digital journalism program, the same folks behind “My Water’s On Fire: The Fracking Song”.

We’ve got legal concerns, and some unknown effects, but we gotta weigh the impacts so we can come correct.

That little flow was mine. I’m a natural.

(via NY Times)

Source: The New York Times

Massive City Growth as Seen From Space As captured from the Landsat 3 satellite, this infrared-range image shows the loss of vegetation due to urban growth around China’s Pearl River Delta over a 30 year period. What’s with the colors? Vegetation shows up as red in images like these thanks to the expanded infrared spectrum, and urban areas as gray. You can even see a completely new man-made island pop up in the bottom center! Today this region is home to over 36 million people. More shots of urban growth from space at Wired Science. (ᔥ Matthias Rascher)
Pop-upView Separately

Massive City Growth as Seen From Space

As captured from the Landsat 3 satellite, this infrared-range image shows the loss of vegetation due to urban growth around China’s Pearl River Delta over a 30 year period.

What’s with the colors? Vegetation shows up as red in images like these thanks to the expanded infrared spectrum, and urban areas as gray. You can even see a completely new man-made island pop up in the bottom center! Today this region is home to over 36 million people.

More shots of urban growth from space at Wired Science.

(ᔥ Matthias Rascher)

Source: Wired