It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Humanity's impact on Earth illustrated!

page: 4
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Rezlooper

Glancing at your post I had to take a double look and chuckle . At first I thought you name your thread



Hannity's impact on Earth illustrated!


Then I cried when I realized that could equally been as accurate.

Now if we could only get the Aliens to show up and fix all our problems.

On a more serious note , we as Humanity need to find alternative incentive methods other than greed and monetary gains to advance to a type 1 civilization.

However, I don't see that happening and like Michio Kaku says the jump from a type 0 to type 1 is the most difficult where most civilizations don't survive. I'm afraid without changing our values and the incentives that drive us as a society we are doomed for extinction.

Seriously where are the Aliens, what a bunch of jerks watching from the sideline.


Afraid some things never change!




posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Rezlooper

Instead of using great minds to create weapons of mass destruction, we need to put all that brain power into innovating ways to recycle the massive amount of waste humanity is producing all around the world. Not only are we killing ourselves with weapons, we're killing the rock that sustains us.


Unfortunately, it's supply and demand. There's a massive demand for weapons and not enough demand for innovative ways to recycle. War thrives while, despite the obvious, too many deny that man has any impact at all. And that's because they would rather roll the dice and see what happens than to change our habits.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Great shots. Thanks so much. ....Wish we had "before" and "afters" for comparison.

F&S&



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Sure, we have an impact on a very thin layer of the planet, and a lot of the stuff we throw around is inert and doesn't really interact much with the ecosystem, but for the most part we're just along for the ride. Our impact is nothing compared to a tiny little shift in the Sun's output, a few sunspots, or the amount of material an average volcano pumps into the air.


Not my fault - back to business as usual.

That, my friends, is the problem in a nutshell. "I've got mine, don't care about the cost to others or the future, so F-off."



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
when will people realize this world is overpopulated? This disgusts me and humans are disgraces to life period! All I can do is pray an asteroid hits the planet and evaporates everything ever existed before the human race gets out of control a couple hundred years from now. No doubt we're heading for destruction, the nuclear power plants alone is enough to # this planet up for all life. #ING DISGUSTING! humans r literally retarded, selfish pleasure seeking ignorant monkeys!



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I am a consumer, although I don't own a car, don't go abroad for holidays, I like beef, I like cereals, fruit, well made clothing and footwear, I like big TV's, I am using a PC now, I love my shower and flush toilet, my sprung mattress, wool carpets, stainless steel coking pots, my freezer is a godsend when food is cheap, I like collecting and reading books, I appreciate electric heating when its cold, and light at the press of a switch, and I really don't want to give it all up!



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Razlooper

You are being deeply discourteous to me.

I provided research to balance the picture of clear cutting on Vancouver Island, Canada to provide perspective and balance. The research showed that there is more forests in North America now, then there was 100 years ago.

Despite the picture being taken in North America - you challenged my committment to the environment and demanded research on forests in the whole globe.

I provided this research (although it certainly wasn't on my shoulders to do so) and provided research that, despite the picture, only 7 % of the world's forests have ever been harvested and the strides that are being made in other countries.

I guess I shouldn't have bothered. Your "evironmentalism" is about a mm thick and is worth nothing. You have deliberately posted pictures that are entirely misleading as to the state of the environment. The only thing missing is your plea for funding to "save the environment".

Cry baby cry - in the meantime, I will continue doing what I do and actually helping resolve the issue.

You have lost all respect on my part.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Rezlooper

The picture of deforestration that you showed was in Canada. Obviously the link I provided shows that there are more trees in North America now than 100 years ago.

So you deforestration picture is the one that is mis-represented.

So is that what environmentalism means to you - the one who can shed the most tears over a fake picture?

You made the statement with the picture that deforestration was devestating North America - should the burden of the research be on your shoulders?

Tired of Control Freaks


In your post you stated that there are more trees in the United States and that's what I responded to, but now you changed it to say that the Canadian picture is fake and that all of North America is up. Are there more or less trees in Canada, or has the US improved enough to pull up numbers for the whole continent. And then even by your own stats, you show that deforestation is still a major problem.



Forests cover 31 percent of the world’s land surface, just over 4 billion hectares. (One hectare = 2.47 acres.) This is down from the pre-industrial area of 5.9 billion hectares. According to data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, deforestation was at its highest rate in the 1990s, when each year the world lost on average 16 million hectares of forest—roughly the size of the state of Michigan. At the same time, forest area expanded in some places, either through planting or natural processes, bringing the global net loss of forest to 8.3 million hectares per year. In the first decade of this century, the rate of deforestation was slightly lower, but still, a disturbingly high 13 million hectares were destroyed annually. As forest expansion remained stable, the global net forest loss between 2000 and 2010 was 5.2 million hectares per year. (See data.)


On a global scale, we've only improved slightly.

And BTW, sorry for not answering you soon enough but I've been working a lot and trying to post a series of threads as well, so I just have a hard time getting to it. My bad.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper
There is currently less forest in Canada than our estimates of the original (pre-European) forest size. Approx 91% of Canada's original forest size remains (2010 data, current actual is estimated at 93%).

The irony of the picture? BC doesn't really account for any of it. Well, some of it, but such a small fraction that it is laughable. They are ILM wizards on that side of the mountains, and their silvaculture is some of the best on the planet.

Most of the deforestation in Canada occurs in the prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba), and is driven by food production. Even that has dropped drastically, and the prairie ILM's are starting to show dividends.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The difference lies at ground level. Fires often facilitate new growth from seeds hidden in the ground. Fires do not usually leave stumps that are waist-high.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Rezlooper
There is currently less forest in Canada than our estimates of the original (pre-European) forest size. Approx 91% of Canada's original forest size remains (2010 data, current actual is estimated at 93%).

The irony of the picture? BC doesn't really account for any of it. Well, some of it, but such a small fraction that it is laughable. They are ILM wizards on that side of the mountains, and their silvaculture is some of the best on the planet.

Most of the deforestation in Canada occurs in the prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba), and is driven by food production. Even that has dropped drastically, and the prairie ILM's are starting to show dividends.


Thanks for sharing Peck. So, then Freak was changing his post to try to include Canada where tree counts haven't actually increased.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The difference lies at ground level. Fires often facilitate new growth from seeds hidden in the ground. Fires do not usually leave stumps that are waist-high.



Great point!



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Thanks for sharing Peck. So, then Freak was changing his post to try to include Canada where tree counts haven't actually increased.

Yes and no.

Compared to pre-European levels, no, it has not increased, and it never will. Well, unless a little more global warming unlocks some more tundra area.

Compared to where it was in 1990? Than yes, the counts have gone up substantially.

Edit to add:

One thing that should be pointed out. Urban land is never counted as forested. Most private homes in Alberta meet the requirements to be called 'forested', but can not be labelled as forested because they are 'urban'.

Requirements to be called 'forested': Canopy covers more than 10% of the given area. Trees (at maturity) are over 5m in height.

edit on 11-3-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Not my fault - back to business as usual. That, my friends, is the problem in a nutshell. "I've got mine, don't care about the cost to others or the future, so F-off."

Yeah? Other than post a comment on the Internet, what did you physically do today to improve the situation you care so deeply about? Recycle a beer can? Way to go!



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

We pretty much have a net loss of trees every where except the United States where regrowth has been slow and steadily outpacing deforestation. It has improved since the 1990's but we are still losing trees. That's the bottom line.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: aboutface

waist high stumps provide habitat for insects and birds and rodents. When the wood rots, it feeds the soil.

So again, there is little difference.

with clear cutting, animals do not die from smoke inhalation

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
i do believe the earth is warming but i still dont believe mankind caused it to warm. its the suns fault for being so darn hot.

even though those images are disturbing i fear we are too far gone to do anything worthwhile.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
This thread reminds me of this clip from the BBC show Utopia where the blue eyed guy is a member of The Network (illuminati). It really hits home when you read about their agenda of culling the population even though everyone in the entire world would fit in a small part of Florida with ample room.




posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Rezlooper

The picture of deforestration that you showed was in Canada. Obviously the link I provided shows that there are more trees in North America now than 100 years ago.

So you deforestration picture is the one that is mis-represented.

So is that what environmentalism means to you - the one who can shed the most tears over a fake picture?

You made the statement with the picture that deforestration was devestating North America - should the burden of the research be on your shoulders?

Tired of Control Freaks


Perhaps you are correct but the number of trees now may not equal the square footage of lumber nor the canopy's that older trees provided.
We live in the last section of an area that once was a great big forest of Oaks and some ash, all were huge and the ones that remain are hundreds of years old.
Link for your pleasure.....en.wikipedia.org...

What I am trying to point out is that you can replace all the trees you cut down two to one but how long will it be before you get to enjoy a 100 foot oak?
I can say this that it won't be in your life time nor your childrens.

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 11-3-2015 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
i do believe the earth is warming but i still dont believe mankind caused it to warm. its the suns fault for being so darn hot.

even though those images are disturbing i fear we are too far gone to do anything worthwhile.


Thing is this last solar cycle was very mild compared to others. Some scientists even speculate that were heading into another maunder minimum which last occurred from 1645 to 1715 when the sun had very few sun spots. Through those years, the planet was a bit cooler than average. We have low sun spot activity right now but yet the planet is warming which is in direct contrast with the last prolonged low sun activity period.




top topics



 
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join