Mysterious Siberian crater attributed to methane(nature.com)
nature.com
Mysterious Siberian crater attributed to methane
http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649
5 comments
The concentration of methane cited is above the lower explosive limit of methane in air (4.4%). Let's hope no one throws a match down this crater without filming it.
I don't see how civilization as it is currently organized on this planet can exist if climate change accelerates due to positive feedback. It seems geoengineering, or rather ghoulishly, a massive die off of humans, are the only possibilities for preventing this. Antibiotic resistance may provide the latter, but I can hardly countenance it. We really need another planet.
And how would that exactly benefit the 6+ billion people in the receiving end of that cringing events?
Even assuming that a suitable planet is found in a time frame that matters, and the required space travel technology is developed in a time frame that matters... how many thousands of people would we be able to send in the Colonizing ships?
That might save Humanity-the-species... Humanity-the-Actual-population would remain just as screwed anyways...
Even assuming that a suitable planet is found in a time frame that matters, and the required space travel technology is developed in a time frame that matters... how many thousands of people would we be able to send in the Colonizing ships?
That might save Humanity-the-species... Humanity-the-Actual-population would remain just as screwed anyways...
Oh it wouldn't - and I think it's 7+ now too. The vast majority would be doomed.
Precisely!!!
More over Humanity-the-Species is most likely not at risk anyways. Our ancestors went through multiple, radical and relatively rapid climate shifts during the Ice Ages, so a plausible argument can be made that some remnant of our species will get through the current round no matter what.
If this is the case, deep space travel is at this time a pretty escapist fantasy. During times of economic expansion it is harmless enough, but right now it is a dangerous diversion of limited resources. We should be focusing in two things: Mitigating the worst effects of Climate Weirding in the short term (specially with an eye towards humanitarian crisis), and Arresting the long term climate disruption through bioremediation/geoengineering. I am not even sure which one of those has the most priority.
What is very clear is that building escape probes for the rich and well-connected to escape all consequences of their own actions ranks pretty low on the list.
More over Humanity-the-Species is most likely not at risk anyways. Our ancestors went through multiple, radical and relatively rapid climate shifts during the Ice Ages, so a plausible argument can be made that some remnant of our species will get through the current round no matter what.
If this is the case, deep space travel is at this time a pretty escapist fantasy. During times of economic expansion it is harmless enough, but right now it is a dangerous diversion of limited resources. We should be focusing in two things: Mitigating the worst effects of Climate Weirding in the short term (specially with an eye towards humanitarian crisis), and Arresting the long term climate disruption through bioremediation/geoengineering. I am not even sure which one of those has the most priority.
What is very clear is that building escape probes for the rich and well-connected to escape all consequences of their own actions ranks pretty low on the list.
For what it's worth I think we're largely having an agreement. Ensuring our planet remains reasonably habitable should be the highest priority. That part of me which desires to see humanity survive even if we fail in this endeavor would like to see a backup planet (presumably Mars) at the species' disposal.
Given that Mars would be orders of magnitude harder to terraform than, well... Terra. Why do we even have to consider it?
There's no plan B. Each of us is part of The Red Thin Line (href = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_%28Battle_of_... ), whether we like it or not. The only question worth asking is: Am I going to hold my ground or not?
There's no plan B. Each of us is part of The Red Thin Line (href = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_%28Battle_of_... ), whether we like it or not. The only question worth asking is: Am I going to hold my ground or not?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "civilization as it is currently organized?"
I'm far from being literate in climate science, but my understanding is that climate change wouldn't completely change civilization. I understand climate change as a shift in the parts of the earth that are inhabitable due to rising sea levels, wilder weather events, etc.
Another planet mightn't help with antibiotic resistance. We'll be taking the same bacteria with us wherever we go.
I'm far from being literate in climate science, but my understanding is that climate change wouldn't completely change civilization. I understand climate change as a shift in the parts of the earth that are inhabitable due to rising sea levels, wilder weather events, etc.
Another planet mightn't help with antibiotic resistance. We'll be taking the same bacteria with us wherever we go.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we currently rely on an abundance of cheap food, cheap transportation, and easy access to clean water in order to keep a higher percentage of the human species than ever before living comfortably. When these things become scarce (as former croplands fail and supplies of fresh water harder to find) the mass migration which results seems likely to create millions if not billions of refugees. This would be a major disruption to civilization in my view. Somewhat unjustly it seems many people in equatorial regions will bear the brunt of the impact of climate change - these are generally people who have contributed less to its root causes.
The reference to antibiotic resistance was dark humour of a sort, but clearly poorly executed. I was simply noting that if all the people are dead then we will emit far less CO2.
The reference to antibiotic resistance was dark humour of a sort, but clearly poorly executed. I was simply noting that if all the people are dead then we will emit far less CO2.
Url changed from http://www.iflscience.com/environment/scientists-think-they-..., which points to this.
Nothing to see here folks. Let's just keep on with the status quo, I'm sure we can build some epic structures to keep the ocean at bay and protect our coastal cities, keep supply chains moving, etc.
Right?
Right?
See http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-we-release-a-small-fract...