They focused on the water color, acidity, and the effect on the fishes, but they are not putting enough stress in the elephants in the room, the 2.4+ºC increase of average temperature northern regions over very few years (not since preindustrial times) and the massive permafrost thawing that is happening there.
Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a single framed picture.
They literally say exactly all of that at the start of the article:
> Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost, the layer of earth just under the topsoil that normally remains frozen year-round. McPhee wanted to protect the Salmon River because humans had “not yet begun to change it.” Now, less than 50 years later, we have done just that. The last great wilderness in America, which by law is supposed to be “untrammeled by man,” is being trammeled from afar by our global emissions.
As a sibling pointed out, they state that as the cause.
Further, right under the image at the top of the article: "Tukpahlearik Creek in northwestern Alaska's Brooks Range runs bright orange where permafrost is thawing".
It doesn't help climate's cause to be hysterical without actually reading things you want to critique.
Yep, climate change is coming very fast across the North. It's already very noticeably different up there since I lived there from 2011-2015. Way, way warmer temperatures in the winter, the glaciers have retreated and shrunk drastically to the point I don't recognize photos of places I've spent a lot of time.
Heck, I live 2000 miles south now, and we can see our local glacier retreating yearly with our own eyes. Also it's raining today. In the middle of winter. Not good.
Fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated but is increasing in China. I would say that the house is pretty tidy and waiting for major renovation - but the fact is - what ever pace of usage reduction does not counterbalance exponential usage increase.
US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.
10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.
Enabling exponential usage.
If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.
You are missing the forest behind the trees, I'm afraid of. The reason behind the increase of US fossil fuel production is geopolitical to suppress Russian profits and its ability to finance its genocidal war. Russia can't lower much of its production cost. Major part of the Russian state budget is based on profits from the fossil fuel sales - no profits, no war.
If US didn't increase its production then Russia could sell at higher price and many countries would be forced to buy it as there would be no alternative. This would allow it to continue the war longer and possibly attack more countries.
Unfortunately the formula of the problem is complex with many variables. There are no easy solutions.
The best strategy we have right now is to convince China to reduce its fossil fuel usage so everyone else could scale down.
All this is saying is countries will produce/consume fossil fuels according to self interest. US shale/oil export boomed years before RU/UKR war, same with planned LNG expansion. That kind of infra didn't get planned and built in the last 2 years. It just so happens the war validated US prior geostrategic goal of being fossil fuels exporter. Eitherway, why would PRC be convinced to reducing use when it's at 1/6 per capital of US. West has to ramp down per capital usage to PRC levels for that proposal to make sense.
e:
And the only effect of PRC consuming more energy for manufacturing is other countries can manufacture less. Why do we need to reshore / diversify / build redundant factories/supply chains. Clearly that's in jest, but the logic works both ways, why would PRC not harness energy to improve her geopolitic posture when US is using it to enhance hers. Long term demand also works on efficiency paradox, the more supply there is, the cheaper something becomes and the more it tends to be used. US ramping up more supply/reduces, or rather increase cost of green transition. Large reason why oil demand is set to plateau long term is PRC is using oil to make renewables with cheap RU and Iranian oil. The point is, as long as US benefits from being fossil exporter by playing up her geologic advantages, PRC is going to reap benefit from converting fossil to goods by playing up her manufacturing advantages.
I'm was talking about the recent increase. But in longer term global oil production depends on demand. You can't sell more than there is demand for. The only effect US production increase has is that other countries can sell less. Considering that Russia will use oil income directly for expansionist wars and Iran will finance global terrorism then it is only a positive outcome.
When it comes to wealth then nobody demanded China to participate in single party controlled economy experiments that crippled its economical growth for decades and kept large parts of its population poor. Lets remind that this is the (perhaps naive) goodwill of the West that has allowed China to prosper.
Another point when it comes to per capita usage: China has tripled its population by close to 3 times post WW2. While US population has also increased then it has been in large part by immigration (including Chinese immigrants). The same applies to EU - they are sinks for the population growth in other countries while their native population declines.
Yes, per capita primary energy consumption of China is 2.5 times less than that of US, but US consumption is already by itself incredibly high. The difference between China and Germany is only 1.3 times and China is using more energy per capita than is United Kingdom.
So it is by no degree justified for China to expect the same level per capita energy usage as United States.
The first step for China is to stop aggressive increase in fossil fuel usage. If it can signal that it can be cooperative then other countries can make further adjustments. If China does not play along, US will neither.
> China has tripled its population by close to 3 times post WW2.
...
> So it is by no degree justified for China to expect the same level per capita energy usage as United States.
Global policy coordination on Climate change focus on per capita goals post PRC population explosion, which is only metric countries can agreed. PRC absolutely has justification to expect same per capita energy usage, not just current, but historical, that is multiple times current because historical per capita actual factors in accumulation of wealth/capital/infra. Hence PRC emission rivalling developing EU countries, they're pouring centuries worth of concrete in a few years to catch up on infra, which is right of any nation behind on developing curve.
On topic of population flows, since PRC population decreasing, and US is increasing via immigration, and each US immigrant naturally adopts high per capita emissions, it's only "fair" that US also stops immigration. Of course that too is absurd. As is any proposal that that PRC would should limit fossil fuel usage to per capita levels below US and west. Ultimately, we both recognize neither US nor PRC has any interest in "playing along" because they benefit from increasing fossil usage.
The original comment was merely highlighting that US by virtue of becoming net exporter of crude + lng is increasing fossil fuel usage comparable to PRC. And that really EU is the only actor who has stagnated emission, but that's more due to policy failure than anything. US net contribution to fossil usage is anything but stagnate both in terms of industry and demographics. And unlike PRC trends which has peak/tipping points, US population increase + fuel exports will keep US as the largest per capita contributer to climate crisis. US is increasing ceiling for what is acceptable per capita for large country. And until that changes, no one else will be incentivized to settle at fraction of US per capita. If anything it would justify PRC start mass exporting coal once they're done their green transition.
I know what you are doing here and you will not change your talking points. So I repeat again. China has surpassed the threshold. It is now in the big boys club and should start acting accordingly.
China is hit by climate change too. Every side has to fix theirs first or how could you (rich west, that profited mostly from unsustainable economic growth) ever make demands to anyone else. Take it from the game theory perspective. Everyone or noone. And which side is the easiest to change?
To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.
Everybody took advantage. The West had stagnating population growth that made it possible to have wealth growth. Everybody else had exponentially exploding population (also unsustainable, but prohibited to become rich on the individual level) that from the evolutionary perceptive gave everyone much higher benefits.
Now the fossil fuel usage in the West is stagnating or even decreasing. If China will not play along then everybody will loose. Even when the West would stop its fossil fuel usage tomorrow, the total amount of fossil fuel usage will keep growing. Everybody will loose but until it happens, China will stay on top while everybody else will start suffering already today. Everyone who is smart will not play along in this game.
The only real solution is possible when China start cooperating.
It does not come for free. If China can at the same time use cheaper cost of production to compete against countries that have to increase their cost then other countries will loose. In both scenario everybody loses in the end but in the first scenario China will come out on top until then. The only winnable long term strategy is when China will play along all the time.
Let me repeat the main point. If China does not participate then everyone is doomed. If China does not participate then everyone else who will participate will start suffering right now and will be still doomed while China will stay on top until the end. Doing something while China does not participate is meaningless self delusion.
America with more stringent environmental laws will do more to combat carbon emissions, and manufacturing will move overseas. China makes more carbon. Is this your win?
Let's imagine in simple numbers that "our" usage is 10 right now and by "tons of improvements" we could reduce it to 8. In this example China has 10 too, but is increasing its usage 10% in year and would use close to 20 after 8 years. Now how much sense would these "tons of improvements" make?
This line of argument tends to be a delaying tactic by those that don't want the West to do anything substantial domestically. Also China's not the country that pulled out of global climate accords.
What nobody ever talks about is that some of the old organic stuff (roots, leaves) in the thawing permafrost did not grow there in recent times because that stuff won't grow in permafrost. This means the thawing of the permafrost is not new and that the area used to have more stuff growing there than it does now. We should expect a greening of parts of Alaska if the warming continues and growth resumes.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on.
Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Climate change in of itself is not the problem - it is the rate of change at which it will occur that is the problem such that we can't adapt to it (ie. stop populating Florida etc. etc.)
The earth was once a hot fireball, so if for any strange reason it would turn into one again we can all be relieved, say that isn't new and post funny "this is fine" dogs? What kind of logic is that.
Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.
You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?
> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?
You make two mistakes here which are very common in this topic. One, just because there have been plants where there is permafrost before, doesn't mean there is nothing new about this event. Everybody who studies a little bit about climate change will soon learn that the real problem isn't the change perse, its how fast it is happening. And that is also quite unprecedented.
Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.
There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.
So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.
The reason why melting permafrost is considered a global catastrophe is that it's a feedback loop that will accelerate warming. There is massive carbon that has been frozen in the permafrost. Permafrost melts > the organic matter decomposes > more CO2 released into atmosphere > warming happens faster.
I have no idea above this, but aren't there plants growing on permafrost? As permafrost only starts in a depth of a few inches, those plants may well enter permafrost if they are in the ground above and slowly get submerged more and more.
In almost all Spiritual/Religious teachings - they say "The only constant in the universe is change" - so Its kind of banal to say "Scientists who studied the rivers simply allot it to Climate Change" as if its the profundity of Science here...
I guess you missed I was pointing to that they put in a whole bunch of meat in the article about the apparent study and they boil it down to a very simple conclusion of "climate change"?
That's not banal? (im not being flippant - I just thought the conclusion was weak, and didnt feel like I learned much.
It might, but the first time I heard it (put differently) it blew my mind. The way I heard it was: There is no such thing as equilibrium in nature. It's more about constant imbalances.
It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
Agreed - I was going to write more about how the imbalances within nature and the ebb and flow between the current state is always changing, just at scales larger than a single human life's observance.
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
Nice philosophizing, but too simple. There definitely are constants in the universe, and dynamic things can stay pretty constant over looong time scales, think of stars, or something complicated as a solar system.. and then it is about rate of change at all levels.. what's nothing for me is the lifetime for a fruit fly, and I live merely a split seconds of our Earth's age.
And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.
I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.
Regarding stars and solar systems, over the lifespan of the universe those things are just blips.[2] In 110 trillion years the Milky Way will be down to about a hundred stars. That's a small fraction of the 10^10^120 years estimated to be the lifespan of the universe. So those aren't constants.
The only constant is decay (and C I guess). So I don't see what was too simple about what I said, or even how it was much different from what you said. There's no equilibrium to return to, and any environmental actions to try to restore that will have a problem.
That's not true over short-to-medium timeframes though.
There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.
But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).
And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.
That paper is about the often religious belief in a long-term, divinely ordained balance of nature, that is often considered "universal" or some kind of "law". And of course that's a myth.
I went out of my way to point out that equilibria can absolutely exist over the short and medium term. And I never used the term "balance of nature".
And the paper is even very clear that mathematically, equilibria absolutely do exist, obviously:
> ...it is still arbitrary just how much temporal variation can be accommodated within a process or phenomenon for it still to be termed equilibrial. Often the decision on whether to perceive an ecological process as equilibrial seems to be based on whether there is some sort of homeostatic regulation of the numbers, such as density-dependence, which A. J. Nicholson suggested as an argument against Elton's skepticism of the existence of a balance.
It merely points out that there is an "arbitrary" line that must be drawn between statistical fluctuation and the equilibrium. But if a population of a certain species in a certain area is always between, say, 400 and 600, while other species maintain their own ranges, I think we'd all agree that an equilibrium exists. It's a complete strawman to say that it has to be precisely 523 every year just because a range of 500 to 600 is "arbitrary".
The paper is describing that there is no long-term, worldwide, fixed balance of nature, which of course there's not. But nowhere does it suggest that a local ecosystem can't remain in a state of equilibrium over a short- and medium-term.
> Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park.
Holy shit. 10°C is currently the difference between NY and DC, or Ohio and the Gulf of Mexico, or Montana and Southern California...
This is what people don’t realize when we talk about “average” global temperature rise. 2 Celsius average doesn’t mean 2 Celsius everywhere - it means some regions are going to be much higher than that.
I suspect the borders will be very different. Much of Russia's population was taken from China. Siberia if warmed would probably be fought over. It's currently closer to china but the transportation was designed to only benefits the Russian government.
Before reading, iron dissolving due to higher reactivity (including bacterial action) because temperatures are higher
___
After reading:
> "Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost"
> "Some researchers think acid from minerals is leaching iron out of bedrock that has been exposed to water for the first time in millennia. Others think bacteria are mobilizing iron from the soil in thawing wetlands."
___
Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?
-
Things like this have surely happened before but not while there were so many people around
Extinctions have happened before too, but that doesn't make them good
> Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?
Could a significant amount of gold be extracted from the water that way? It would likely be a much more environmentally friendly way to mine gold given that there would be no digging required.
If they could make it work at scale, they'd have done it with ocean water by now.
That's the sci-fi dream: all the elements you could want end up dissolved in varying amounts in seawater. It's unfortunately a hard engineering problem.
84 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadhttps://web.archive.org/web/20240125064804/https://www.scien...
Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a single framed picture.
> Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost, the layer of earth just under the topsoil that normally remains frozen year-round. McPhee wanted to protect the Salmon River because humans had “not yet begun to change it.” Now, less than 50 years later, we have done just that. The last great wilderness in America, which by law is supposed to be “untrammeled by man,” is being trammeled from afar by our global emissions.
Further, right under the image at the top of the article: "Tukpahlearik Creek in northwestern Alaska's Brooks Range runs bright orange where permafrost is thawing".
It doesn't help climate's cause to be hysterical without actually reading things you want to critique.
Heck, I live 2000 miles south now, and we can see our local glacier retreating yearly with our own eyes. Also it's raining today. In the middle of winter. Not good.
Oh wait.
PRC fossil usage is tapering.
US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.
10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.
Enabling exponential usage.
If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.
If US didn't increase its production then Russia could sell at higher price and many countries would be forced to buy it as there would be no alternative. This would allow it to continue the war longer and possibly attack more countries.
Unfortunately the formula of the problem is complex with many variables. There are no easy solutions.
The best strategy we have right now is to convince China to reduce its fossil fuel usage so everyone else could scale down.
e:
And the only effect of PRC consuming more energy for manufacturing is other countries can manufacture less. Why do we need to reshore / diversify / build redundant factories/supply chains. Clearly that's in jest, but the logic works both ways, why would PRC not harness energy to improve her geopolitic posture when US is using it to enhance hers. Long term demand also works on efficiency paradox, the more supply there is, the cheaper something becomes and the more it tends to be used. US ramping up more supply/reduces, or rather increase cost of green transition. Large reason why oil demand is set to plateau long term is PRC is using oil to make renewables with cheap RU and Iranian oil. The point is, as long as US benefits from being fossil exporter by playing up her geologic advantages, PRC is going to reap benefit from converting fossil to goods by playing up her manufacturing advantages.
When it comes to wealth then nobody demanded China to participate in single party controlled economy experiments that crippled its economical growth for decades and kept large parts of its population poor. Lets remind that this is the (perhaps naive) goodwill of the West that has allowed China to prosper.
Another point when it comes to per capita usage: China has tripled its population by close to 3 times post WW2. While US population has also increased then it has been in large part by immigration (including Chinese immigrants). The same applies to EU - they are sinks for the population growth in other countries while their native population declines.
Yes, per capita primary energy consumption of China is 2.5 times less than that of US, but US consumption is already by itself incredibly high. The difference between China and Germany is only 1.3 times and China is using more energy per capita than is United Kingdom.
So it is by no degree justified for China to expect the same level per capita energy usage as United States.
The first step for China is to stop aggressive increase in fossil fuel usage. If it can signal that it can be cooperative then other countries can make further adjustments. If China does not play along, US will neither.
Global policy coordination on Climate change focus on per capita goals post PRC population explosion, which is only metric countries can agreed. PRC absolutely has justification to expect same per capita energy usage, not just current, but historical, that is multiple times current because historical per capita actual factors in accumulation of wealth/capital/infra. Hence PRC emission rivalling developing EU countries, they're pouring centuries worth of concrete in a few years to catch up on infra, which is right of any nation behind on developing curve.
On topic of population flows, since PRC population decreasing, and US is increasing via immigration, and each US immigrant naturally adopts high per capita emissions, it's only "fair" that US also stops immigration. Of course that too is absurd. As is any proposal that that PRC would should limit fossil fuel usage to per capita levels below US and west. Ultimately, we both recognize neither US nor PRC has any interest in "playing along" because they benefit from increasing fossil usage.
The original comment was merely highlighting that US by virtue of becoming net exporter of crude + lng is increasing fossil fuel usage comparable to PRC. And that really EU is the only actor who has stagnated emission, but that's more due to policy failure than anything. US net contribution to fossil usage is anything but stagnate both in terms of industry and demographics. And unlike PRC trends which has peak/tipping points, US population increase + fuel exports will keep US as the largest per capita contributer to climate crisis. US is increasing ceiling for what is acceptable per capita for large country. And until that changes, no one else will be incentivized to settle at fraction of US per capita. If anything it would justify PRC start mass exporting coal once they're done their green transition.
To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.
Now the fossil fuel usage in the West is stagnating or even decreasing. If China will not play along then everybody will loose. Even when the West would stop its fossil fuel usage tomorrow, the total amount of fossil fuel usage will keep growing. Everybody will loose but until it happens, China will stay on top while everybody else will start suffering already today. Everyone who is smart will not play along in this game.
The only real solution is possible when China start cooperating.
If everyone waits till all the rest take a step forward no one will. Until is too late, of course, then everyone loses.
You're welcome.
Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.
You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?
> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?
Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.
There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.
So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/cook-a-frozen-turkey-483280
quelle surprise
Seems obvious now, doesn't it.
That's not banal? (im not being flippant - I just thought the conclusion was weak, and didnt feel like I learned much.
It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
https://www.council-of-world-elders.de/en/members/hunbatz-me...
https://en.everybodywiki.com/Hunbatz_Men
And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.
I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.
Regarding stars and solar systems, over the lifespan of the universe those things are just blips.[2] In 110 trillion years the Milky Way will be down to about a hundred stars. That's a small fraction of the 10^10^120 years estimated to be the lifespan of the universe. So those aren't constants.
The only constant is decay (and C I guess). So I don't see what was too simple about what I said, or even how it was much different from what you said. There's no equilibrium to return to, and any environmental actions to try to restore that will have a problem.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.
But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).
And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.
Modern ecology would like a word: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
A natural balance is the actual myth.
That paper is about the often religious belief in a long-term, divinely ordained balance of nature, that is often considered "universal" or some kind of "law". And of course that's a myth.
I went out of my way to point out that equilibria can absolutely exist over the short and medium term. And I never used the term "balance of nature".
And the paper is even very clear that mathematically, equilibria absolutely do exist, obviously:
> ...it is still arbitrary just how much temporal variation can be accommodated within a process or phenomenon for it still to be termed equilibrial. Often the decision on whether to perceive an ecological process as equilibrial seems to be based on whether there is some sort of homeostatic regulation of the numbers, such as density-dependence, which A. J. Nicholson suggested as an argument against Elton's skepticism of the existence of a balance.
It merely points out that there is an "arbitrary" line that must be drawn between statistical fluctuation and the equilibrium. But if a population of a certain species in a certain area is always between, say, 400 and 600, while other species maintain their own ranges, I think we'd all agree that an equilibrium exists. It's a complete strawman to say that it has to be precisely 523 every year just because a range of 500 to 600 is "arbitrary".
The paper is describing that there is no long-term, worldwide, fixed balance of nature, which of course there's not. But nowhere does it suggest that a local ecosystem can't remain in a state of equilibrium over a short- and medium-term.
Holy shit. 10°C is currently the difference between NY and DC, or Ohio and the Gulf of Mexico, or Montana and Southern California...
___
After reading:
> "Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost"
> "Some researchers think acid from minerals is leaching iron out of bedrock that has been exposed to water for the first time in millennia. Others think bacteria are mobilizing iron from the soil in thawing wetlands."
___
Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?
-
Things like this have surely happened before but not while there were so many people around
Extinctions have happened before too, but that doesn't make them good
Could a significant amount of gold be extracted from the water that way? It would likely be a much more environmentally friendly way to mine gold given that there would be no digging required.
That's the sci-fi dream: all the elements you could want end up dissolved in varying amounts in seawater. It's unfortunately a hard engineering problem.