A cycle of extinction..wolly mammoths frozen solid with food still in their mouths. Itl be us this time but with double cheeseburgers in our gobs
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online.
Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.
Extinction Rebellion
- Thread starter pnematic
- Start date
Karcist
Club Legend
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2019
- Messages
- 715
A few pollen grains and seeds in a partially rotted corpse, wasn`t it?
But cool story, bro.
Narrrrrr larrrrrr
In ice condition: Amazingly preserved woolly mammoth found frozen in Siberia after 39,000 YEARS goes on display in Tokyo
The mammoth, which was found frozen in Siberia in May, was the first ever well-preserved sample of blood from a woolly mammoth and could be used to recreate the extinct species.
Frozen solid bruvski
Karcist
Club Legend
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2019
- Messages
- 715
Narrrrrr larrrrrr
In ice condition: Amazingly preserved woolly mammoth found frozen in Siberia after 39,000 YEARS goes on display in Tokyo
The mammoth, which was found frozen in Siberia in May, was the first ever well-preserved sample of blood from a woolly mammoth and could be used to recreate the extinct species.www.dailymail.co.uk
Frozen solid bruvski
Ah....presumed you were referring to the common ( and erroneous) narrative that the mammoths were flash frozen in some kind of extreme event.
Though my point stands..which is that the future of the planet is not really something you should base on a Daily Mail story about a hairy elephant falling into a swamp millenia ago
I heard about it off my mate graham Hancock.. I don't read the papers... I glance at daily sport with corner of eye as I walk into garage's but that's about it.. didn't have food still in it's mouth when it was frozen to death ? Seems like a flash freeze to me.. the point of my first post was that we ain't significant or intelligent enough to prevent any extinction events imo(human one's). We might be able to get Wil Smith to smash an asteroid for us but that's about it.... Where are the dinosaur's ? Dead that's where !!!! Dead !!! Extinct!!! Dominated the planet and now dead !!! Now your shitting it aren't you ? It will be okAh....presumed you were referring to the common ( and erroneous) narrative that the mammoths were flash frozen in some kind of extreme event.
Though my point stands..which is that the future of the planet is not really something you should base on a Daily Mail story about a hairy elephant falling into a swamp millenia ago
Karcist
Club Legend
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2019
- Messages
- 715
You got me there, bud!
And no, it wasn`t a flash freeze. Bit of a myth that one.
Ah....presumed you were referring to the common ( and erroneous) narrative that the mammoths were flash frozen in some kind of extreme event.
Though my point stands..which is that the future of the planet is not really something you should base on a Daily Mail story about a hairy elephant falling into a swamp millenia ago
I think you'll find it was pushed in the swamp by Meghan Markle and Kate tried to save it with ropes and stuff
Mate what are you on about , I've watched a few YouTube videos. That constitutes research. I'm holding myself back from posting all the science behind it all because I don't want to make you feel uneasy because your in the presence of brillianceYou got me there, bud!
And no, it wasn`t a flash freeze. Bit of a myth that one.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 7,527
Not my words below. I copied a post from another forum. Thought it was an excellent explainer for how the privatised water companies have got us into such a mess and how they are incapable of getting us out of it.
"When I did my Human Ecology Degree back in 1991 to 1995, I discovered why Thatcher privatized water in England and Wales.
Her government had signed up to an EC directive to improve water quality across the then European Community in 1987.
However she then discovered that to do so in the UK at the time, would have meant serious investment by the public water boards and thus in turn would have meant raising income tax by around 2 pence in the pound to pay for it.
This was an anathema to Thatcher, so the water boards in England and Wales were sold off.
Now every Merchant bank in London were more than happy to lend these new water companies low interest loans to do the infrastructure work as they would be selling a commodity everybody needs
However the new private companies refused as it would have reduced shareholder dividens. Instead water bills for customers were increased on average by 200%, in some places in England by 400%. This was much higher than paying an extra 2 pence in the pound in tax.
At the some time, Thatcher's government introduced the environmental rivers authority, a watchdog, but of course with no real legislative teeth.
This set the benchmark for the water industry in England and Wales for the past 30 plus years.
The Private water companies know they have little to fear from government.
I remember in the summer of 1992, Yorkshire water cheerfully paying an increase in wages to it's board of directors at the sane time having to tanker in water that summer from other regions as it hadn't even started to deal with the leaks in the system.
The Private water companies have for the past three decades been breaking the rules on the anount of raw sewage dumped into our rivers and seas in England and Wales.
It's only now however during the pandemic that it has become blatant.
In Scotland, people voted to retain a publicly owned water and sewage body. This means two things, Scottish parliamentary scrutiny of what it's doing, cheaper water bills as there are no shareholders to keep happy.
I found this out when I moved back to Scotland in 2013 from Yorkshire. My water bill is almost £200 a year cheaper than when I lived in West Yorkshire.
The reality is, climate change will mean we need to make strategic decisions about water use and water quality, not only for ourselves, but in agricultural systems, river ecosystems and estuaries.
The only way that can be done in England and Wales is by either, bringing in a watchdog with real legislative powers and teeth to oversee the private water companies, or better still, nationalizing those companies.
The latter idea will be scorned by a Tory government, but I predict, as the consequences of climate change really begins to bite.
When we see more droughts and extreme flooding. When arable crop and fruit yields fall, not only in the UK, but in Europe as a whole. Oh and remember 6000 farmers retired here in the UK in 2016, we we now have to import over 40% of our essential foodstuffs.
Government is going to be forced to take a closer control on all aspects of water and sewage and probably re-nationalize the water industry because of the real threat to the security of water supply, agriculture, ecosystems and sewage.
A shortage of water, or bad floods, directly effects agriculture, which feeds through to prices in supermarkets.
I'm old enough to remember the summers of 1975 and 1976. In the latter year, people were being forced to get water from stand pipes in some areas because of severe drought.
Fish died in rivers because of a combination heat and low river levels and sewage.
Climate change is only going to increase the possibility that we will see such times again.
The United General Secretary warned this year that wars may start over water in the coming years.
We need to get on top of the potential problems now to our water and sewage systems. We cannot rely upon private water companies to do it as they have proven recently.
The trouble is, with a government as corrupt as ours, I don't see anything will happen until we reach crisis point and that is getting closer every year."
"When I did my Human Ecology Degree back in 1991 to 1995, I discovered why Thatcher privatized water in England and Wales.
Her government had signed up to an EC directive to improve water quality across the then European Community in 1987.
However she then discovered that to do so in the UK at the time, would have meant serious investment by the public water boards and thus in turn would have meant raising income tax by around 2 pence in the pound to pay for it.
This was an anathema to Thatcher, so the water boards in England and Wales were sold off.
Now every Merchant bank in London were more than happy to lend these new water companies low interest loans to do the infrastructure work as they would be selling a commodity everybody needs
However the new private companies refused as it would have reduced shareholder dividens. Instead water bills for customers were increased on average by 200%, in some places in England by 400%. This was much higher than paying an extra 2 pence in the pound in tax.
At the some time, Thatcher's government introduced the environmental rivers authority, a watchdog, but of course with no real legislative teeth.
This set the benchmark for the water industry in England and Wales for the past 30 plus years.
The Private water companies know they have little to fear from government.
I remember in the summer of 1992, Yorkshire water cheerfully paying an increase in wages to it's board of directors at the sane time having to tanker in water that summer from other regions as it hadn't even started to deal with the leaks in the system.
The Private water companies have for the past three decades been breaking the rules on the anount of raw sewage dumped into our rivers and seas in England and Wales.
It's only now however during the pandemic that it has become blatant.
In Scotland, people voted to retain a publicly owned water and sewage body. This means two things, Scottish parliamentary scrutiny of what it's doing, cheaper water bills as there are no shareholders to keep happy.
I found this out when I moved back to Scotland in 2013 from Yorkshire. My water bill is almost £200 a year cheaper than when I lived in West Yorkshire.
The reality is, climate change will mean we need to make strategic decisions about water use and water quality, not only for ourselves, but in agricultural systems, river ecosystems and estuaries.
The only way that can be done in England and Wales is by either, bringing in a watchdog with real legislative powers and teeth to oversee the private water companies, or better still, nationalizing those companies.
The latter idea will be scorned by a Tory government, but I predict, as the consequences of climate change really begins to bite.
When we see more droughts and extreme flooding. When arable crop and fruit yields fall, not only in the UK, but in Europe as a whole. Oh and remember 6000 farmers retired here in the UK in 2016, we we now have to import over 40% of our essential foodstuffs.
Government is going to be forced to take a closer control on all aspects of water and sewage and probably re-nationalize the water industry because of the real threat to the security of water supply, agriculture, ecosystems and sewage.
A shortage of water, or bad floods, directly effects agriculture, which feeds through to prices in supermarkets.
I'm old enough to remember the summers of 1975 and 1976. In the latter year, people were being forced to get water from stand pipes in some areas because of severe drought.
Fish died in rivers because of a combination heat and low river levels and sewage.
Climate change is only going to increase the possibility that we will see such times again.
The United General Secretary warned this year that wars may start over water in the coming years.
We need to get on top of the potential problems now to our water and sewage systems. We cannot rely upon private water companies to do it as they have proven recently.
The trouble is, with a government as corrupt as ours, I don't see anything will happen until we reach crisis point and that is getting closer every year."
This is the most ridiculous plan I have ever heard for tackling climate change. They can't be serious?
https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ying-sulphur-dioxide-into-atmosphere-12697769
https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ying-sulphur-dioxide-into-atmosphere-12697769
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,295
What do you object to outy? The idea of atmospheric solar shading is, in principle, a very good one. The use of aeroplanes seems a bit crazy- but people have been fannying about with other ideas - if this is ready to go, it’s got to be worth a serious look.
I don’t know the fundamental reason why the balloon-release idea (instead of using planes) was scrapped (as per the article).
A couple of years ago, somewhere on this forum, I remember highlighting an article about proposals for ships that can create salt crystals from seawater and get them up into the air to do the same sort of job. I recall it stated that that was just needing (big) funding to launch it. But don’t know what happened since.
The melting is down to heating of the sea and the atmosphere. The only way to tackle it is to stop drilling, chopping down rain forests, and prevention. The article states it's a sticking plaster solution. The damage is done and continues to be done.
There are lots of articles about it now, from different sources, the costs are prohibitive, who is going to pay for it. It isn't the solution, the changing climate and temperatures are rising faster than predicted in 2015. How much would it cost to insulate everyone's home, the costs don't compare. If usage continues as it is, without simple measures such as insulation, then it's pointless., in my opinion. A couple of articles below from 2017/20. Just appears to be last gasp drastic measures, while the causes continue and are increasing, with ever more fracking, drilling and deforestation.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200923-could-geoengineering-save-the-arctic-sea-ice
Edit for above:
To implement this, the costs of the project should be footed by the countries who pollute the most, on a sliding scale, percentage based.
To implement this, the costs of the project should be footed by the countries who pollute the most, on a sliding scale, percentage based.
- China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
- United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
- India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
- Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
- Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
- Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
- Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
- South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
- Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
- Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,295
Of course it would be treating a symptom rather than a cause and I agree about energy efficiency measures- but if it’s seawater and atmosphere that’s melting the ice, surely solar shading would help stop the dark ocean and the atmosphere from picking up a proportion of heat?
Clearly, preference #1 is for world politicians to agree on tackling the root causes. And I see the danger in giving politicians a “get-out” by applying this sticking plaster. But it’s a high risk gamble to ignore the opportunity to stop heat from being absorbed by the earth. IMO, certainly not the most ridiculous suggestion ever!
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,295
Thank goodness we burnt off all our coal in the last two centuries- and contracted out all out manufacturing. That’ll save us a fortune
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,295
That was my first thought- my niece’s Facebook page will be going into meltdown!!
Looks like one of those projects that would work in theory but is completely impractical in the real world. Reminds me of a plan they devised years ago - the middle of the Pacific Ocean (and others) is a desert because there isn't enough iron for algae and phytoplankton to grow. The idea was to ship out loads of iron to fertilise these areas.
It was impractical, would have a very limited effect, and risked causing unforeseen consequences elsewhere.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 7,527
Expect the fossil fuel lobby will all be getting pilots licenses for that 1!
There is something wrong on this planet, I have been looking at population growth on three areas.
China, Europe, and India.
In 1943 the populations were as follows (may not be exact, but differences are negligible).
1943 Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia. 450-500 million. (Russia 140 million, included).
2020 Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia, 675–700 million. (Russia 146 million included).
1943 India, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 440 million.
2020 India, Including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1.9 Billion.
1943 China, 441 million.
2020 China, 1.43 billion.
Not looked at the rest of the world, but was looking at a programme about the population growth, and how the world is changing to accommodate humans, whilst wildlife is becoming extinct.
China, Europe, and India.
In 1943 the populations were as follows (may not be exact, but differences are negligible).
1943 Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia. 450-500 million. (Russia 140 million, included).
2020 Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia, 675–700 million. (Russia 146 million included).
1943 India, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 440 million.
2020 India, Including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1.9 Billion.
1943 China, 441 million.
2020 China, 1.43 billion.
Not looked at the rest of the world, but was looking at a programme about the population growth, and how the world is changing to accommodate humans, whilst wildlife is becoming extinct.