#anthropogenic activity

[whats-in-a-sentence]

In considering particular environmental subjects, we focus on the basic chemistry and to do this it is necessary to examine some or all of the three factors – composition, chemical process, and perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic activities – that we have discussed above (Fig. 1.7).

"Environmental Chemistry: A Global Perspective", 4e - Gary W. VanLoon & Stephen J. Duffy

[in-sightpublishing]

Ask A Genius 1068: Anthropogenic Climate Change

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/06 Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Climate change denial, I should specify anthropogenic climate change denial. Rick Rosner: Right. Since we’ve been talking for ten years, the evidence for climate change has grown a lot. What you used to see was straight-out people…

[in-sightjournal]

Ask A Genius 1068: Anthropogenic Climate Change

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Climate change denial, I should specify anthropogenic climate change denial. Rick Rosner: Right. Since we’ve been talking for ten years, the evidence for climate change has grown a lot. What you used to see was straight-out people saying, “Nah, it’s bullshit. It’s not happening. The Earth’s cooling,” or whatever. As evidence for climate change accumulates, you get a…

[pangur-and-grim]

I’m mostly good, but sometimes people will accidentally trigger my cat autism and then. and then they suffer.

like last weekend my aunt said she felt bad for cats whose owners didn’t let them freeroam, and I was like HOOOO HOO YOU HAVE ACTIVATED ME, YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO MY TRAP, here look at my phone this is the current state of the anthropogenic mass extinction event, here is its rate in comparison to previous mass extinctions, here is how many birds species have been wiped out by free roaming cats, here is the comparative lifespans of indoor vs outdoor cats, here is my fenced in catio, here are my cat wall shelves, here is my seven foot cat tree that is styled to look like an actual tree, here is my six foot cat tree, here is the special rug by the heating vent for them to sleep on, here is…..wait where are you going, come back……aunt martha………

[creature-wizard]

I just went to YouTube to try and search for "evidence against creationism." Halfway through the word "again," the site suggested "evidence against evolution."

When I searched for "evidence against creationism," let's just say the results were disappointing. Here's a list of the first fifteen videos that came up:

What’s the evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth? (pro-creationism)

The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 1: Cosmology/Planetary Science (anti-creationism)

Shortest Scientist vs Creationist debate ever. (stance unclear)

"Creation Scientist Shocks Joe Rogan with Mind-Blowing Evidence Against Evolution!" (presented as pro-creationism)

Why Evolution Is FALSE (pro-creationism)

SIX Biological Evidences for Creation - Pt.1 (pro-creationism)

Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism (anti-creationism)

Creationist Stumps Evolutionary Professors with ONE Question! (pro-creationism)

7 Scientific Reasons why Darwinian Evolution is a Myth (pro-creationism)

Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Atheism In Less Than 15 Minutes (BRILLIANT!) (clickbait title, video is of a theistic scientist talking about his beliefs)

6 Reasons Not to Believe in Evolution | Proof for God

How old is the Earth --- 6,000 years or 4.5 billion? (anti-young earth creationism, though the creator claims Egyptian mummies are 200,000 years old, so...)

Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Young Earth Creationist Arguments (anti-creationism)

This Is the Absolute BEST Evidence for Biblical Creation | Ken Ham (pro-creationism)

We Challenge All Evolutionists to Watch This Video! (pro-creationism)

So out of the first fifteen results for "evidence against creationism," only two of them have any actual relevance. Nine of the videos are straight up antiscience propaganda pushing young earth creationist pseudoscience.

The trend continued to hold after this, with some relevant videos here and there but most of the content promoting young earth creationism.

This is bad. Very bad. The purpose of young earth creationism is to turn people into Christofascists and to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

So what do we do?

We make noise.

We make a conscious effort to create and promote more pro-science content and educate people against this chicanery. We intensify any and all activism against Christofascist BS. We get up and kick this BS in the ass, that's what we do.

[technofeudalism]

one of the few conspiracy theories that i believe in without any hesitation or doubt is that the ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate change are accelerating at unthinkable rates and that the timeline has moved up considerably, but it is being actively and purposefully suppressed one news story at a time.

the only two major news publications to cover this story since it was published almost 72 hours ago now are ABC News and the Washington Post. both articles are very direct, succinct and to the point. contrast that to the 35+ news outlets that covered China supporting Iran in nuclear talks or the 20+ outlets that covered SpaceX planning an unmanned Mars mission, then consider the implications of runaway climate change vs. "Iran has a nuke for real this time: Year 41" or sending a Nazi rocket to Mars a year from now.

[herpsandbirds]

The seventh species of the newt genus Tylototriton in Thailand: a new species (Urodela, Salamandridae) from Tak Province, northwestern Thailand

Porrawee Pomchote, Parada Peerachidacho, Wichase Khonsue, Pitak Sapewisut, Axel Hernandez, Chitchol Phalaraksh, Parunchai Siriput, Kanto Nishikawa

Abstract

A new species of the crocodile newt genus Tylototriton from Doi Soi Malai located at Mae Tuen Wildlife Sanctuary, Tak Province, northwestern Thailand is described based on molecular and morphological evidence, and named as Tylototriton soimalai sp. nov.  The new species is the seventh recorded species of the genus Tylototriton reported in Thailand. It differs morphologically from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characteristics: head longer than wide; snout blunt or truncate; sagittal ridge on head narrow, short and distinct; dorsolateral bony ridges on head pronounced and rough; parotoids distinct; vertebral ridge prominent, wide and not segmented; 14–16 distinct, rounded and isolated rib nodules but posterior nodules connected; tips of fore- and hind limbs overlapping when adpressed along the body. The body background color is black, while the color markings are orange. Molecular analysis indicated that Tylototriton soimalai sp. nov. is a distinct lineage and sister to T. uyenoi with a 4.1% genetic sequence divergence based on the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 gene. The new species is currently restricted to the hill evergreen forests of Doi Soi Malai. The implementation of a strategic plan is recommended to protect both the species and its habitat from anthropogenic activities.

Read the paper here:

The seventh species of the newt genus Tylototriton in Thailand: a new species (Urodela, Salamandridae) from Tak Province, northwestern Thailand

[rebeccathenaturalist]

The short version of this article basically boils down to "protect and restore habitats, restore native species while removing invasive ones." These are very flexible plans that can be done on a wide variety of scales, even a small yard or garden. At a time when things seem dire for the planet and its many ecosystems, these deceptively simple solutions can have a major impact.

For example, removing invasive species can make an ecosystem much more resilient in the face of anthropogenic climate change. While this is sometimes easier said than done (ask me how much Scotch broom and autumn olive I've pulled over the years!) the sustained effort of habitat restoration is worth it.

Plus there are already people around the world engaged in restoration ecology. There might not be as many volunteer activities as there are here in the U.S., but that doesn't mean you can't do your own pulling up of invasive plants in your yard if you have one, for example, or along a local streambank. Each one removed means fewer in the local gene pool and competing with native plants.

Many small efforts add up, and while it won't solve all the ecological problems, it's a way to do something concrete that works.

[no-mere-mortals]

Reminder: whenever you recognize a strongly held belief of yours, ask yourself what it would take for you to change that belief. And then actively look for that information and see if the opposing side passes muster. If you can easily refute that side using your own evidence, feel free to hold onto your belief. Otherwise, reconsider.

If your response is “nothing could change my mind,” then congrats! You have failed Critical Thinking 101. There is no belief so deeply held that absolutely nothing could change your mind.

Christians, we’re not exempt - Paul says that “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor 15:14). If someone can produce the body of Christ or proof of a burial site, our faith should absolutely be abandoned.

If someone can show me reputable scientific data that proves that our carbon emissions don’t result in a greenhouse effect, I would be happy to reconsider my opinions on anthropogenic climate change. In fact, science as a practice is focused on constantly proving ourselves wrong and finding theories that help us understand our world better than we did before. If someone can find a better equation for gravity on Earth than ~9.81m/s2 they’d get a Nobel prize.

If someone could prove that my grandpa being hit with a switch in elementary school was what made him an incredible man (and that he isn’t just a complete statistical outlier), I would be willing to change my stance on corporal punishment.

If you cannot think of a single thing that can get you to change your mind, you are actively choosing the path of ignorance. You WILL become a victim of propaganda (if you aren’t already) and you will probably get yourself and others hurt. ALWAYS be willing to change your mind.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Paleoclimate and human activity shaped the Araucaria forest in Brazil

The study used advanced DNA sequencing techniques, machine learning and analysis of fossil pollen records to investigate the history of this forest formation.

The Araucaria forest in southern and southeastern Brazil has a complex history, influenced by climatic and human factors. Araucaria angustifolia, the dominant tree in this forest formation, provides food and shelter for various species, including humans. A study conducted by an international collaboration of researchers used advanced DNA sequencing techniques, machine learning and analysis of fossil pollen records to investigate the past expansions and contractions of the Araucaria forest and to identify the impact of past climate and the activity of ancestral human groups on this process. The results were published in the journal Ecography.

“Both climatic and human factors have played an important role in the dynamics of the Araucaria forest. However there are significant differences between the process that took place on the Southern Plateau of the Brazilian territory and the one that took place in the Mantiqueira Mountains, which stretches across the states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. And this could be related to the more intense human occupation in southern Brazil,” says Mariana Mira Vasconcellos, postdoctoral student at the Institute of Biosciences of the University of São Paulo (IB-USP) and first author of the study.

The researcher explains: “The expansion of the Araucaria population in the Southern Core began during the last Glacial Period, around 70,000 years ago, long before the presumed date of human arrival in South America, which contradicts the idea of an anthropogenic expansion. Instead, we interpret this initial expansion as a response to the climatic changes of the Upper Pleistocene. The wetter and colder climate of this period would also have caused the expansion of other Araucaria species in Australia and New Caledonia. The isolated Mantiqueira population, on the other hand, only expanded very recently, around 3,000 years ago. Although this may have occurred in response to a brief climate cooling event in the Holocene and increased summer monsoon rainfall in South America between 4,000 and 3,300 years ago, a possible impact of human settlements in southeastern Brazil cannot be ruled out.”

However, Vasconcellos points out that this should not be taken as a proven fact, since archaeological evidence of human settlements in the Mantiqueira is scarce compared to that of the Southern Plateau of Brazil.

Continue reading.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Sentient Media:

In a new paper, University of Miami Professor Jennifer Jacquet and a team of researchers argue that the industry-funded National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) knew about the harms of beef production on climate change as early as 1989 and worked to obfuscate the science. In a subsequent paper, Jacquet and post-doctoral associate Loredana Loy trace how trade groups worked to incite doubt that consumers could make a difference, by choosing to eat less meat, on global climate emissions. There is some evidence, albeit indirect, that these efforts have paid off — a 2023 public poll of 1,404 U.S. adults found 74 percent of them said not eating meat would have little or no impact on climate change.

“Meat and dairy does not want the individual or the consumer to think they have any power, or to think that their choices make a difference at all,” Jacquet tells Sentient. “They’re constantly saying what you do as a consumer will not make a difference. ‘Eating less meat and dairy will not make a difference.’”

Yet a large body of climate research from nonpartisan research groups like the World Resource Institute and EAT-Lancet have concluded that dietary change, in the form of reducing meat consumption, is a necessary component of reducing the anthropogenic effects of climate change.

In a parallel to Naomi Oreskes’s and Eric Conway’s Merchants of Doubt, which details how a group of scientists worked to incite doubt around scientific topics such as anthropogenic climate change and the harmful effects of tobacco, Jacquet’s and Loy’s research describes how the meat and dairy industry worked to create doubt that consumers can take action to address the harmful effects of beef on the environment. “I call them the moo-chants of doubt,” Jacquet says.

In their other paper, Jacquet and her fellow researchers trace how this stems from a history of recognizing, then downplaying, the effects of the beef industry on global warming.

“There is a long, well-documented history of industry attempts to downplay, discredit and even outright deny science that demonstrates the harms of its activities and products. This strategy was honed to a fine art by the tobacco industry; the beef industry now appears to be following the tobacco model,” Oreskes wrote to Sentient.

The question that underlies the research investigating the impacts of industry funding is just how much free will consumers have in their decision-making — especially if the information they receive is flawed. 

Trade groups like the NCBA are funded by industry checkoffs, which farmers who sell the commodity pay into on each unit they sell. The checkoff industry is a pot of money worth over $1 billion, and is used for researching and marketing the commodity. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that a commodity program would work to make its commodity look good. But the result, in this case, Jacquet argues, is a misinformed public.

[garbage-empress]

Trying to encourage my Mom to get an AC unit because climate change is turning it into a necessity but I think if I explain it as being related to climate change my Step Dad's Fox News brain worms might make her dismiss the idea. But it's really hard to be like "so there's this consistent pattern of summers being hotter and this isn't a one off fluke heat wave you can dodge once then not have to worry about another one for five years like you could in the 70s..." without accidentally saying some special phrase that activates the "ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX! THE EARTH HAS ALWAYS HAD CLIMATE CYCLES! PRAISE BE TO FOSSIL FUELS!" programming. But I am legitimately worried she's going to get fucking heat stroke at some point.

Being an American is fucking stupid.

[todropscience]

Vessel sound is temporarily causing hearing loss in squids

Globally, anthropogenic sounds have become louder and more persistent, however, little is known about how invertebrates detect and respond to human-made sound. Now, new research shown noise associated with boats causes  causes temporal hearing loss in squids across different stages of their life cycle.

The hummingbird bobtail squid (Euprymna berryi) has a short lifespan of at least 6 months, which make them a convenient animal for lab studies. Hearing and behavioural observations were made by researchers before, during and after 15 minutes of vessel sound playback, to test how these squids react to noise pollution, and noted that these squids decrease their hearing sensitivity after exposure to noise, and particularly noise affected juveniles. Juvenile squids experienced an important hearing loss sensitivity after noise exposure between 400 and 800 Hz, while adult and mature squids decreased their sensibility after 200 to 600 Hz exposure, showing more resistence. All squids recovered auditory sensitivity within two hours.

Researchers aim the inclusion of cephalopods within management and policy, because anthropogenic activities and associated sound levels in the ocean are increasing, while the role sound plays in cephalopod life history is only just beginning to be understood.

Photo by Pascal Girard

Reference ()  Putland et al. 2023. Vessel sound causes hearing loss for hummingbird bobtail squid (Euprymna berryi). Frontiers in Marine Science 

[botanicalbasilly]

Over the past couple months I've become more active on Instagram, and one of the things that has shocked me the most is how CONFIDENT people are saying untrue things about fields that they aren't even remotely involved with!

I follow a TON of conservation/wildlife education accounts, and under every post there are usually several people saying wildly false things about climate change/invasive species/uncharismatic species. I just saw someone compare defending mosquitoes to "all lives matter".

Tumblr of course has this problem, but what's mostly surprising to me is the amount of likes these comments receive. These comments appeal to our base desire to hate "scary" animals or to dismiss something as upsetting as anthropogenic climate change, and so thousands of people will agree without giving it any critical thought, therefore boosting an untrue statement to the very top where even MORE people can be fooled.

Maybe I've been pampered by this website. It's easy to curate what you see, and there's a high population of older scientists. It's just such a shock to me to see how ignorant so many people are. I thought these trains of thought were an outlier in the general population, but they're so much more common than that.