4 ms·
Amazing article, and science. We are poor long-term planners true, but I tend to be a rational optimist here. I believe in man's effect on the climate, no denie
by eggy 11y ago
Amazing article, and science. We are poor long-term planners true, but I tend to be a rational optimist here. I believe in man's effect on the climate, no denier here, although I do not like the way terms in language become simplistic polarizers in politics on both sides to the point with those trying to work on issues have to deal with the politics.
The fact is with ice ages and mountain forming, the change to the rotational center of gravity was always there, and careful measurement was not taken up until 1989 per the cited article. It's amazing to see we can shift dirt, water and melt ice and affect it this way, although, I am not entirely convinced it is just those factors. I am eager to see their follow up on land water in this exciting area of research.
If you want long term thinking, you should be thinking 'off earth'. Many are aware the sun swallows the earth when it goes through the natural stages of a star's life in about 4 billion years. Regardless of whether we go 100% clean energy tomorrow (yet even electric cars need power generation plants to charge their batteries: gas, nuclear, coal or otherwise), what a lot of people are unaware of is that the sun is expected to keep growing in brightness and have catastrophic effects on the earth's atmosphere in 1 billion years (we lost 3 billion years there ;) ), boiling off the oceans and climate change will be measured in the hundreds of degrees until the oceans boil off and life on earth ceases to exist. I had a button in the early 80s from OMNI magazine that read: "The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, the Rest of Us Will Go To The Stars!". Presaging and teasing the I.D. vs. Evolutionary theory.
I am not saying give up on earth, simply adjust your 'long-term' thinking to real long-term. We need space exploration and colonization to survive ultimately as a species. Frankenstein was one of my favorite reads as a child, and the novel gets cited as a moral of 'man should not play with Mother Nature, or God' parable, but the same people who tow that line, are leading up programs to save one of each species, circumventing evolution, in hopes of preventing 'man-made' extinctions. I wonder if they might save a species that ironically turns out to be a carrier of disease that wipes man off the planet: good intentions, poor foresight. In the same way, if we can shift the earth's rotational axis, or North pole, we can study how to VERY slowly and over much time compensate with moving water and mass, a gargantuan task I am sure. And in the meantime, and in light of SpaceX's success yesterday, I am hoping to go to the stars, but they better hurry, since I probably only have 20 to 25 years left, and I might be meek by then ;)
- ezequiel-garzon 11y agoYes, in billions of years we'll have a problem with our expanding star, and in quintillions of years the whole universe may completely run out of fuel, or suffer a Big Crunch... Clearly we're talking about different timescales and priorities. Space exploration is reasonably a low-priority quest for now. If we manage to control our most pressing (short-term) problems for, say, a mere thousand years, technology will presumably take care of a lot of that. And a thousand years is a blip in that kind of timescale.