Jun 24, 1999 - Ice loss is the definitive measure of long-term trends in global climate change. ... 30%, and supported very large animal life forms such as the .... of the Earth's oceans is 140 million square miles. ..... showed the largest signal of ice loss. .... Over the past 100 years, global mean (average) sea level has been ...
1 SNOWBALL EARTH The Holocene Global Mass Extinction It is important to note that ‘Climate Change’ is not monitored via surface and air temperatures or even water temperatures for long-term trends in Chaotic data. Ice loss is the definitive measure of long-term trends in global climate change. Thus, the arguments you hear going back and forth on the news about which way the air temperature trends have wandered this or that way are useless pandering to distract you. This typically comes from individuals ignorant of planetary climate models, in this case, Earth, which has been well broken down into various systems all of which are interdependent. The most important of these is the thermohaline system, which includes the Gulf Stream for instance. The Gulf Stream rides for thousands of miles atop the surface of the ocean carrying warm current to Western Europe, deposits warm air, submerges to thousands of meters, and takes several decades as very dense cold water to makes its way back to the Gulf. Thus, there is a delay of nearly half a century in the Gulf Stream alone if there is a significant change to the thermohaline system. As I edit this, keeping in mind this text was originally written as a lecture for the DOI back in 2001, from data I collected and deconstructed from Chaotic Fractal Analysis in the mid 90’s, I am looking at an article, Chris Mooney, July 11 Washington Post. “Scientists may have solved a huge riddle in Earth’s climate past. It doesn’t bode well for the future.” In this article, it describes how scientists are just now (2018, over two decades later) catching up to the fact that the thermohaline, also called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) system is collapsing. Let me clarify, they are not saying, the AMOC system will collapse, they say it is now collapsing. This point was put forth to the DOI in 1993, and the result is now observed. Even sea temperature isn’t considered until you map out the differential between the surface and the bottom, thousands of meters below the surface, which is not done to date. A thermometer on a buoy is insufficient. In climate change, we monitor ice, its recession, and/or relocation. When ice melts, the albedo, the reflectivity of Earth changes, causing a runaway effect, which is sudden, drastic, and changes Earth’s currents of hot and cool flows. This has happened before, 650 million years ago, and caused a Snowball Earth effect leading to a complete freezing of the entire planet. This will all be discussed as the Marinoan Extinction. Most sources will cite the Ordovician Extinction as the first Global Extinction event. However, the Marinoan Extinction is commonly overlooked because it was primarily single celled life. Later, I will discuss the Theia Extinction, as it is now known that single celled life was forming 4.2 billion years ago when Theia impacted Earth. In addition, we have the Cambrian and Precambrian events, multicellular but simple life forms. In all, about 26 Mass Extinction Events are listed, ironically, my most unfavored source of information, Wikipedia, lists our Current Holocene Extinction as occurring and ongoing. The Marinoan Extinction is typical referred to as the Marinoan Glaciation rather than a global extinction event. However, as discussed later, single celled life had formed by this time, and much of it was lost in the glaciation. This will be detailed in the section, Total Ice Loss (TIL). TIL is how Climatologists measure climate change, NOT air and surface water temperatures, which lag the thermohaline system (described later) by about three decades. As a result, dis-informing you is merely a matter of providing air and surface water temperature. Second, naming CO2 as the culprit, when its contribution is a mere 1% is factor number two. By maintaining this Uncertainty, your natural survival instinct will choose to dismiss the information altogether, as a means of control. Oxygen First, let’s have a look at our total sources of oxygen.
That figure for photosynthesis in the ocean is via phytoplankton, which is highly sensitive to factors such as water temperature, nutrient conditions, and so on. The phytoplankton contribution to atmospheric oxygen, as you can see, is nearly half, about 45%. [1]
2 Currently, the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and about 21% oxygen, the remaining 1% is a mixture of trace gases, including CO2, which is currently at 0.039%, or 390 parts per million (ppm). Keep that 390 ppm level of CO2 in mind. 280 million years ago the oxygen content peaked at about 30%, and supported very large animal life forms such as the dinosaurs, and remained at about 30% until 66 million years ago. [2] Now let us break the land sources into rainforest and other land sources…
X 100 Billion kg O2/yr 16000 13500
14000
11880
12000 10000 8000 6000 4000
4620
2000 0 Photosynthesis Rainforest
Photosynthesis land other
Photosynthesis ocean
Two things become obvious, the contribution of oxygen from plankton is the primary source of atmospheric oxygen, and 28% of the land production of oxygen comes from the tropical rainforests. [3] It is noteworthy that the rainforest is being cleared artificially at a rate of 1 acre per second, at 1 billion acres, will result in complete deletion of the world’s rainforests in 32 years. At the end of this deletion of just the rainforests in 32 years, this will result in atmospheric oxygen at 17.8%. Now we will figure in the loss of viable land to livestock. The land livestock uses has a very short life span, perhaps ten to twenty years depending on the soil conditions. Livestock graze the land, and/or the land is used for particular genetically engineered high protein crops that deplete the soil rapidly to make up that protein production. This high protein production cannot be the result of photosynthesis and therefore draws resources directly from the soil, leaving the soil as a ‘dead zone’ when depleted. We will figure in twenty years or so. 45% of the total land coverage on Earth is devoted to livestock and/or these genetically engineered plants to feed them.[4,5] We’ll label the livestock and feed land as Animal Agriculture (AA).
The first two columns are going to disappear, photosynthesis in the rainforests and land occupied by Animal Agriculture. They will be deleted in just a few decades. The numbers are referenced above in the peer reviewed scientific literature and United Nations FAO reports, also referenced above. The deletion of both the first and second columns leaves the atmospheric oxygen at 12%, when figuring in the rainforest loss. Unconsciousness typically occurs at about 10% oxygen for the average sea level acclimated adult at sea level partial pressure (partial pressure for
3 an oxygen/nitrogen mixture figures in to the equations). At 5% ‘brain live coma’ occurs, where everything but the brain shuts down, but the body will die in hours because the vital organs have shut down. By my calculations, 12% oxygen is equivalent to being at an altitude of about 15,000 feet. At 10,000 feet the brain begins to shut down, that is where high altitude mountain climbers start wearing oxygen masks. At 15,000 feet a high altitude climber requires a sealed mask, without which he could survive for only a few minutes before unconsciousness, coma, then death would occur. Of course, partial pressure differential for oxygen/nitrogen mixture figures in to high altitude climbing, but the numbers do not shift that wildly. Sky divers can only jump below 20,000 feet, this is where oxygen is at 10%, but the partial pressure is high because of their velocity through it (like a liquid) is high, and only lasts less than a minute before pushing through into higher oxygen lower altitudes. Now let’s look at ‘ocean dead zones.’ Ocean Dead Zones (ODZ) are: “ hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world's oceans and large lakes, caused by "excessive nutrient pollution from human activities coupled with other factors that deplete the oxygen required to support most marine life in bottom and near-bottom water.” (This includes plankton). [6] Keep in mind that eutrophication of these waters resulting in algal blooms is short lived, lasting months, at which point all of the available phytoplankton dies off in a major kill resulting from the toxins produced by the algal blooms. The algal blooms, in fact, contribute to the ODZ as the single celled organisms die off and decompose in the water. ODZs range in size from half of a square mile to the largest at 27,000 square miles (West Virginia is 24,000 square miles). There are 405 ODZs worldwide. In 2008, the total size was 95,000 square miles (about the size of Michigan). [7,8] ODZs will increase in number, square mileage, and rate due to Global Climate Change.[9]
It is noteworthy here that the logarithmic appearance of the curve means that there is more than one factor contributing to the increase, an increase in an increase. Therefore, we have the increases in industrialization, which means an increase in commerce, China being a good example and contributor, plus the contributions of this commerce and industrialization to total Global Warming trends. As we saw above in our references, Total Global Warming Trends (TGWT) contributes to the ‘kill,’ increase Ocean Dead Zone frequency and size. In this case I have adjusted the tempering to an equation of n2=n1 x 31/3.
4
Moreover, we can see that we get very numerically similar results. Therefore, the equation is good. A Scientific American paper reports that the phytoplankton content of the world’s oceans has dropped 40% since 1950. Therefore, the number of dead zones and the square mileage of dead zones do not correlate exactly 1:1, but we can get a vague idea from these numbers. [10] Now we apply the formula to square mileage based on recent surveys and values in order to make a projection. The total estimated square mileage of the Earth’s oceans is 140 million square miles.
At about the year 2200, the Earth’s oceans will be completely void of all life, and fail to produce oxygen altogether. Therefore, we drop our 12% by the 45% oxygen produced by Earth’s oceans to a value of 5.4% atmospheric oxygen. Homo sapiens cannot live in an atmosphere of 5.4% oxygen. Homo sapiens will be extinct. However, it is highly unlikely that given the conditions leading up to this point in the year 2200 that Homo sapiens will have survived to the year 2200 in any case. Regardless of the small remaining remnant of statistical survivors by whatever means, the [human] species will be extinct by the year 2200. But ‘turning off the machine,’ as is suggested, that is, if we turned off the machine and stopped burning fossil fuel altogether right now, today, it will not stop the immanent catastrophic ecological failure. The production and use of fossil fuel as the primary or solitary cause of the problem is urban myth. Fossil fuel production and use is only a fraction of what is happening. Here is what is happening… It is important to note here that the common television documentary thesis presented regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs claims a large asteroid hit Earth and wiped the dinosaurs out. However, fossil evidence is extremely clear and completely mainstream accepted that the dinosaurs survived at least six mass extinctions, where in each case roughly 99% of all living animal species went extinct. In each case, what we call the dinosaurs, came back in the form of other dinosaur species, and were generally large, requiring that high 30% oxygen to survive. The final was the Cretaceous– Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, which occurred about 66 million years ago. [11,12,13] The following two references indicate clearly that, regardless of whether the extinction event was triggered by an extraterrestrial object, the ecological impact resulted in an impact winter (like the term, nuclear winter) that left plant and plankton life to be incapable of maintaining that 30% oxygen level. This resulted in a depletion of atmospheric oxygen from 30% to its current 21%. Although the massive dinosaurs had survived at least six known mass extinctions, in this case the atmospheric oxygen level dropped to a level incapable of supporting such large animal life, and as a result the dinosaurs did not make a seventh come-back. Smaller animals, such as mammals, small reptiles, birds, and so on, replaced them. [14,15] A Global Mass Extinction Event, where only a small fraction of a percent (much less than 1%, perhaps one in a million) of all animal and plant life survived is validated, has already happened six times, and is not a theory. In the case of the dinosaurs that thrived for over 250,000,000 years, and survived at least six known Global Mass Extinction Events, were completely wiped out altogether, this time with no comeback, because of photosynthesis of plant and plankton. The life on Earth recovered, taking millions of years to do so, other species developed, and Earth is not shedding a tear for the dinosaurs. It is also important to note, that current models predict what is referred to as a ‘Snowball Earth’ scenario, where this type of ‘particle winter’ causes a paradoxical shift in temperatures to the extreme negative. The temperature drops such that nothing, not even extremophiles can survive, freezing over the entire planet in a solid block of ice, similar to Jupiter’s moon, Europa, but with absolutely no liquid water. This exact scenario occurred in a previous mass extinction event that happened once before, known as the Marinoan Extinction, 650 million years ago. [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23] The reason for the recovery from this glaciation is only hypothesized, and there is no supportive evidence to support any hypothesis. If you look up the word or term ‘Holocene Extinction,’ you will find that every pertinent field of science has already labeled today, the day you are living in, as the Holocene Extinction. The peer reviewed sources and estimates vary, but the average seems to be about 30,000 species of plant and
5 animal (sea and land) going extinct every year. Given an approximated 9 million species, that leaves about 300 years to a lifeless planet, by sea and land; called the Holocene Extinction. Not a theory or hypothesis, it is the name given to today, where your children live; a period of extinction of all life, a dying planet, as agreed upon by every pertinent field of science. Moreover, most of all, every pertinent field of science is in 100% agreement that humans are responsible for the Holocene extinction. Albeit, there is a very strong presence of ‘climate denial,’ the term in itself defines the human psyche of the stages of grief, the first of which is denial. I am not going to get into a dissertation on human psycho-sociology in this paper. In short, the simple answer is that the ‘millennial’ generation has this bizarre worldview that knowledge and belief, two things that have no overlap whatsoever, are synonyms. Lacking knowledge, the tendency is toward cognitive belief, and the idea that ‘opinion’ is the key to said belief, and thus knowledge. The international organization PIAAC has determined that 95% of adults in the USA, UK, Europe, and so on, read at a 6th grade level, with numeracy skills roughly equivalent to an 8th grade level of pre-algebra. Of those 5% in the modernized nations who possess literacy and numeracy skills above a 6th grade level of education, there is a skewed slope favoring the bottom. This strange soup of lack of literacy, numeracy, knowledge, favoring cognitive belief by way of ‘opinion’ deserves another paper unto itself. However, ‘climate denial’ is a stage of grief, e.g., ‘denial.’ The cherry picking of elements to suit one’s worldview and construct a cognitive ‘belief’ system that supplants knowledge, in particular the knowledge of imminent extinction is one of validation and comfort. This paper ignores the individual’s need for such comfort and validation, and simply explains how and why the Holocene Extinction is proceeding and the timelines involved. The problem is not CO2 The commonly presented ideology is that it is atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel production and use that is causing a greenhouse effect that is slowly raising the atmospheric temperature, AKA, Global Warming. In fact, as providence would have it, as I write this edit, the EPA director has had to bash Trump’s ‘Climate Change Denial’ program by pulling on the resources of the scientific community, who are in agreement that man-made carbon dioxide is the problem.
350 ppm is the maximum tolerable CO2 level our atmosphere can support due to the load on photosynthesis by plant and plankton. Current levels are already at 390 ppm. [24]
Since Homo sapiens appeared the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm. At 350 ppm the carbon dioxide begins shielding the long wavelengths of light, heat transfer, from escaping back into space as rapidly as heat is being transferred into the atmosphere by sunlight. Thus, more heat is being transferred via sunlight into the atmosphere than is escaping back out into space. Typically, the wide range of light frequencies from sunlight interact with all of the ‘solid stuff,’ causing the solid stuff to ‘jiggle,’ which is the definition for heat. That solid stuff reemits longer wavelengths of light that ordinarily would radiate back into space, but these longer wavelengths of light cannot pass through carbon dioxide gas, and thus the long wavelength light, which is heat, is trapped. That is the global Warming mechanism. Other gases also block this long wavelength light that is trying to bleed back off into space, the primary culprits are methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 turns out, as we will look at in detail, to be less than 1% of the greenhouse problem.
20C is the maximum sustainable increase in temperature change the ecosystem can support. Currently that value is about 1.90C. This maximum temperature tolerance has taken two decades for scientists from many disciplines to collect data and agree upon. The number is solid, and so far, the predictions of these various disciplines have been correct, and the changes are presently being observed. According to the United Nations News Center, livestock produces more greenhouse gas than all transportation (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.) combined. [25] Animal Agriculture is the number one source of greenhouse gases on a global scale. [26] Methane’s effect as a greenhouse gas is 86 times that of carbon dioxide. [27] Livestock is the number one cause of fresh water depletion and pollution on a global scale. [28] The FAO and other sources have determined that Animal Agriculture (AA) is the number one environmental degradant on a global scale, including species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. (Ocean ‘dead zones’ are areas where fish and plankton life cannot live due to degraded environmental factors).[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,3637,38,39,40,41,42,43] I strongly encourage looking into these.
Legal
ECO web sites and documentaries that discuss Global Warming and so on do not discuss these topics for the major following reason: The “Food Disparagement Law” under the current “Patriot Act” makes it illegal to discuss this topic because of “any potential yet unproven negative impact on Animal Agriculture profit,” a multi-trillion dollar industry. Any such discussion of this topic under the “Patriot Act” (such as by myself) places one on the FBI potential terrorist list – that is a fact. This is described clearly under the Food Disparagement Law and also described on the FBI web site. This is not conspiracy theory, follow the references and go to the FBI web site. It is illegal to discuss to the extent that you can be ‘disappeared’ into a Supermax prison facility without trial, indefinitely.[44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54] See these official legal notices.
6 TOTAL ICE LOSS For reasons that will become clearer as we proceed, Climate Change is not derived via monitoring air or surface water temperature. Global Climate Change, such as is causing the current Global Holocene Extinction, is measured by total ice loss. The effect of that ice loss can take decades to affect actual air and surface water temperatures. Thus, any change we are monitoring is a, perhaps 30 year lag of what happened three decades ago. This will all be explained. The bottom line is, you can fudge data by measuring and reporting air and surface water temperatures. In addition, by steering your attention towards CO2, which is not the cause, the intentional misinformation can keep you suspended in uncertainty. Because of uncertainty, your natural survival mentality will select to dismiss the information altogether. Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas. The Arctic has lost 40% of its year round ice. The Antarctic, which represents 91% of the Earth’s ice, has lost 20% of its ice. That figure, however, is still in debate as the overall shape of Antarctica has shifted, representing a shift in the ice pattern. The Earth’s surface ice on land can be divided into two categories, excluding seasonal snow: These are the three large ice sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica and the aggregate of all other glaciers and ice caps, including those surrounding the ice sheets but not connected to them. The Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets are by far the largest category, containing 12 per cent and 87 per cent of land ice volume, respectively. Glaciers and ice caps contain only about 1 per cent of global land ice volume. In sea level equivalent terms, if completely melted, Antarctica, Greenland, and the category of glaciers and ice caps would raise sea level by approximately 57 meters, 8 meters, and 0.7 meters, respectively. However, while the glaciers and ice caps are a very small source of potential sea-level rise, their rate of contribution to sea level currently exceeds the rates of both Antarctica and Greenland. The volume of glaciers and ice caps is poorly constrained by observations, with a range of estimates of total volume varying by more than a factor of five. [55] From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (last updated November 2015) InSAR observations from 1992 to 2006 mapped the ice flow for most of the Antarctic coastline, and detected different patterns of ice flux into the ocean in East and West Antarctica. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses led to a near-zero loss of 4 ± 61 gigatons per year. In West Antarctica, more widespread glacier losses increased ice sheet loss by 59 percent over a decade. In 2006, the estimated loss was 132 ± 60 gigatons. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, losses increased by 140 percent, to 60 ± 46 gigatons in 2006. [56] Rignot and colleagues published a high-resolution digital mosaic of Antarctic ice flow speed in 2011 [57]. Based in InSAR measurements acquired between 2007 and 2009 the mosaic was compiled from 900 satellite tracks and more than 3,000 radar data orbits. The map of ice flow speed revealed a complex pattern where fast glacier flow near the coast extended well inland in narrow tributary bands. The next year, Rignot and Mouginot published another comprehensive, high-resolution map of Greenland based in radar interferometry data from 2008 and 2009 showing that Greenland's 100 fastest glaciers drain 66 percent of the ice sheet area, and marine-terminating glaciers drain 88 percent of the ice sheet area. [58] West Antarctica has three major drainage basins where glaciers reach the ocean: the Ross Sea Embayment, the Weddell Sea Embayment, and the Amundsen Sea Embayment. A study of ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment used ice-velocity measurements derived from Landsat and radar interferometry, and previously documented ice thickness to estimate the total discharge from 1973 to 2013. The study found that ice discharge increased by 77 percent since 1973, half of that occurring from 2003 to 2009. [59] From 1997 to 2003, volumetric methods showed that average loss of ice in Greenland was 80 ± 12 cubic kilometers per year. This is compared to roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year for 1993 through 1994. About half the increased ice loss was from higher summer melt. The rest of the loss resulted from the velocities of some glaciers outstripping those needed to balance upstream snow accumulation.[60] Later research showed Antarctica and Greenland have both lost overall mass at about 120 gigatons of ice per year. The suspected triggers for accelerated ice discharge on both continents include surface warning and melt runoff, ocean warming, and circulation changes. Over the 21st century, the team predicted, ice loss would counteract snowfall gains predicted by some climate models. [61] Recently an improved radar altimetry study confirms and extends earlier measurements. [62] The European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 mission has enhanced Antarctic ice sheet monitoring by including areas closer to the poles than earlier satellites, and by acquiring better data in moderately sloping areas, including ice sheet margins where most of the ice loss occurs. CryoSat-2 observations taken between November 2010 and September 2013 indicate annual ice sheet mass losses of 134 ± 27 gigatons in West Antarctica, 3 ± 36 gigatons in East Antarctica, and 23 ± 18 gigatons on the Antarctic Peninsula. The Amundsen Sea showed the largest signal of ice loss. [63] Here, where 50% of Greenland normally experiences a quick melt and refreeze, in July 2012 97% of Greenland experienced a long term thaw:
7
Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory We will look into the causes of these trends and the outcomes. The sum Greenland loss is approximately 30%. The global total sum current loss of permanent ice is approximately 50% between Antarctica and Greenland of the 99% global scale and irreversible. If you can comprehend one fact, just focus on 50% of the Global Permanent Ice has irreversibly melted. As more melts, the albedo of Earth changes, and the melting becomes even more rapid. It will not nor shall it ever be an issue of how high the water gets. It is an issue that the Global AMOC Thermohaline System will be pushed to lower, colder, regions, and shut the Thermohaline System down on a global scale. The first sign will be that the cold Arctic air will be at high pressure and push deep into the south, below the 45th parallel. This will make it seem like it is not a ‘global warming.’ The following phase is where the heated currents below the 45th parallel fail to make it north. This is the onset of Chaos. Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on. Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) described later on. The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice. The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth. This track of decades for the thermohaline system to circulate is why the air temperature takes decades to follow ice trends, and why those ignorant of Chaotic systems such as Global weather phenomenon debate air temperatures and cry hoax. If you read the gigatons of lost ice measured over the past 15 years of the largest ice reserves on Earth you will begin to understand the grave condition we are in. On a smaller scale:
Arctic Sea Ice Arctic Ocean
Has shrunk by 6 percent since 1978, with a 14 percent loss of thicker, year-round ice. Has thinned by 40 percent in less than 30 years.
8
Greenland Greenland
Has thinned by more than a meter a year on its southern and eastern edges since 1993.
Ice Sheet
Columbia
Glacier
Alaska,
United States
Has retreated nearly 13 kilometers since 1982. In 1999, retreat rate increased from 25 meters per day to 35 meters per day.
Glacier Rocky Mtns., United States
Since 1850, the number of glaciers has dropped from 150 to fewer than 50. Remaining glaciers could disappear completely in 30 years.
Southern Ocean
Ice to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula decreased by some 20 percent between 1973 and 1993, and continues to decline.
West Antarctica
Grounding line (where glacier hits ocean and floats) retreated 1.2 kilometers a year between 1992 and 1996. Ice thinned at a rate of 3.5 meters per year.
Antarctic Peninsula
Calved a 200 km2 iceberg in early 1998. Lost an additional 1,714 km2 during the 1998-1999 season, and 300 km2 so far during the 1999-2000 season.
New Zealand
Terminus has retreated 3 kilometers since 1971, and main front has retreated 1.5 kilometers since 1982. Has thinned by up to 200 meters on average since the 1971-82 period. Icebergs began to break off in 1991, accelerating the collapse.
National Park
Antarctic
Sea Ice
Pine Island Glacier
Larsen B
Ice Shelf
Tasman Glacier
9
Meren, Carstenz, and Northwall Firn Glaciers
Irian Jaya, Indonesia
Rate of retreat increased to 45 meters a year in 1995, up from only 30 meters a year in 1936. Glacial area shrank by some 84 percent between 1936 and 1995. Meren Glacier is now close to disappearing altogether.
Dokriani Bamak Glacier
Himalayas, India
Retreated by 20 meters in 1998, compared with an average retreat of 16.5 meters over the previous 5 years.
Duosuogang Peak
Ulan Ula Mtns., China
Glaciers have shrunk by some 60 percent since the early 1970s.
Tien Shan Mountains
Central Asia
Twenty-two percent of glacial ice volume has disappeared in the past 40 years.
Russia
Glacial volume has declined by 50 percent in the past century.
Caucasus
Mountains
Western Alps
Glacial area has shrunk by 35 to 40 percent and volume has declined by more than 50 percent since 1850. Glaciers could be reduced to only a small fraction of their present mass within decades.
Europe
Mt. Kenya
Kenya
Largest glacier has lost 92 percent of its mass since the late 1800s.
10
Speka Glacier
Uganda
Retreated by more than 150 meters between 1977 and 1990, compared with only 35-45 meters between 1958 and 1977.
Argentina
Has retreated 60 meters a year on average over the last 60 years, and rate is accelerating.
Andes, Peru
Rate of retreat increased to 30 meters a year in the 1990s, up from only 3 meters a year between the 1970s and 1990.
Upsala Glacier
Quelccaya Glacier
Two thirds (2/3) of the world’s fresh water supply is used to grow food. [64] The major source of fresh water on Earth is glaciers, which are receding. From: Natural Resources Defense Council Report, “The Consequences of Global Warming On Glaciers and Sea Levels.” [65] 1.
Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2040, and sea levels could rise as much as 23 inches by 2100 if current warming patterns continue.
2.
After existing for many millennia, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995, the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.
3.
According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.
4.
Arctic sea ice extent set an all-time record low in September 2007, with almost half a million square miles less ice than the previous record set in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Over the past 3 decades, more than a million square miles of perennial sea ice -- an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined -- has disappeared.
5.
Multiple climate models indicate that sea ice will increasingly retreat as the earth warms. Scientists at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research predict that if the current rate of global warming continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.
6.
At the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.
7.
Global sea level has already risen by 4 to 8 inches in the past century, and the pace of sea level rise appears to be accelerating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100, but in recent years, sea levels have been rising faster than the upper end of the range predicted.
8.
In the 1990s, the Greenland ice mass remained stable, but the ice sheet has increasingly declined in recent years. This melting currently contributes an estimated one-hundredth of an inch per year to global sea level rise.
9.
Greenland holds 10 percent of the total global ice mass. If it melts, sea levels could increase by up to 21 feet.
From: Water Encyclopedia Report, “Global Warming and Glaciers.” [66] 1.
Over the past 100 years, global mean (average) sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 millimeters per year. A possible
11 contributor to sea-level rise is increased meltwater from the snow and ice of glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, icebergs, and sea ice. 2.
Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada, with a combined area of approximately 90,000 square kilometers (roughly 35,000 square miles), and accounting for about 13 percent of mountain glaciers on Earth, have thinned substantially. Over the last 40 years, thinning has been on the order of 50 to 100 meters (several hundred feet) at lower elevations of glacier occurrence, and about 18 meters (60 feet) at higher elevations.
3.
Many glaciers in South America's Andes are melting so fast that, if the current rate continues, they could disappear by 2020. The Quelccava glacier in Peru retreated 32 times faster during the period 1983–2000 than in the 20 years from 1963 to 1983. In the Patagonian ice fields of Argentina, glaciers have receded 1.5 kilometers since 1990.
‘Calving’ is when one of those long vertical sections of ice ‘peel off’ and come crashing down into the ocean below. The ice and snow of glaciers tell an environmental story the way tree rings do. Periods of glacier melting (shown here) will be discernible from periods of growth (i.e., snow and ice build-up) by physical differences in the snow and ice layers. The horizontal "stripes" of sediment within the glacier indicate seasonal patterns of snow and ice accumulation and melting. 1.
In Africa, Mount Kilamanjaro's ice fields have shrunk by a least 80 percent since 1912. Mount Kenya's ice cap has shrunk by 40 percent since the 1960s.
2.
The 15,000 glaciers of the Himalayas, which collectively constitute the largest body of ice outside the polar caps, are reported to be receding faster than anywhere on Earth. Some 2,000 have melted since the 1950s. Instead of snow accumulation in winter, Himalayan glaciers are being hit by summer monsoon rains. The Dokriani Barnak glacier has receded about 0.8 kilometer since 1990. If Himalayan glaciers recede at this rapid rate, they will be gone by 2035.
3.
In the European Alps, several glaciers have disappeared entirely since the 1960s.
4.
Permanent sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is shrinking by an area the size of the Netherlands each year. The Arctic ice cap thinned from 3 meters (10 feet) in 1970 to 2 meters (nearly 7 feet) in 2000. In the Antarctic, rising temperatures have resulted in the collapse of massive ice shelves, some of which have been there for 20,000 years.
5. 6.
In Glacier National Park in Montana, the number of glaciers has dropped from an estimated 150 in 1850 to only 50 in 2000. At this rate of decline, all of the glaciers in the park will be gone by 2030. Read more: [68]
And: In addition to the loss of ice and potential threat of a rising sea level, there are other ecological and environmental concerns posed by the melting of snow and ice. For example, increased iceberg calving [the breaking off of large chunks] can bring changes to the Antarctic ecosystem by blocking sunlight needed for the growth of microscopic phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain. In addition to the increased presence of icebergs, smaller icebergs that break off from a larger mass can form dams along the coast, preventing some of the pack ice from drifting out to sea in summer. This increased ice cover can cause a decline in plankton productivity [67] due to reduced sunlight penetration.
When the glaciers melt under normal conditions, the water is carried off into reservoirs, lakes, rivers, and so on to be viable sources of fresh water. However, at this elevated rate the water falls directly into the surrounding seas and oceans and becomes unusable salt water, hence the elevated rise in sea levels. Thus, the Earth’s fresh water supply is melting into the salty oceans at a high rate, making it useless. Desalinization of such huge
12 quantities (at least a thousand trillion gallons of water per year) of seawater to be used as a fresh water supply is currently beyond our means and technology.
WATER
Fossil fuel production and industrial use requires approximately 100 billion gallons of water per year. Animal Agriculture requires 34 (to 76) TRILLION gallons of water (1,000 times as much) per year, including usage from both livestock and water to produce feed, just in the USA. [69,70]
This bar chart is reasonably tall enough to fairly represent the contribution of fossil fuels. The figure for all usage of fossil fuels combined is not even visible. Why is discussing fresh water in relationship to fossil fuel even relevant? Most industrial processes that consume fossil fuels also require large amounts of water. That is why our river edges are covered along their entire length in industrial sites, not along the ocean beaches where we have salt water, along the fresh water river edges and great lakes.
13
Humans consume about 1,500 gallons of water per day, each, half of which is the weight of meat and dairy consumption. [71]
This value is actually much higher than presented, but agrees with the source of information referenced. The actual number is roughly twice that amount, the hidden costs of water consumption coming from a vast variety of everyday sources, essentially nickel and diming us to death into a number twice that value.
A ¼ pound hamburger requires 660 gallons of water to produce. {See following references regarding meat production and water usage.}
Again, the number presented agrees with the reference, but the agreed upon number is roughly 800 gallons of water, over 1,000 gallons if you add in the hidden water costs of human handling and preparation, and so on.
5% of total water consumption in the USA is human use and consumption, 55% is directed to Animal Agriculture. That is, AA requires 11X the amount of water as humans do. That’s the number that figures our 1,000 gallon hamburgers. [72] 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce 1 pound of beef. This number is actually the average from all of the list references, some of which present a significantly higher number by figuring in a lot of hidden water costs that add up significantly. [73,74,75,76,77,78,79] 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1 pound of eggs (a dozen large eggs weighs about 1 ½ pounds), 900 gallons are required to produce 1 pound of cheese.[80]
Why a Snowball? This has to do with something called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, otherwise known as the Gulf Stream in common parlance. The Gulf Stream is actually a cycle that encompasses the globe, but was named by Ben Franklin who didn’t have such vision available to him at the time. As that warm water flows northeast from the Gulf region, it gradually cools, and in cooling, compresses and sinks. Eventually, in the Labrador and Greenland Seas, it becomes dense enough that it plunges down thousands of meters into the deep ocean. There it becomes a new current, running back south. It can remain in this deep-ocean current for many decades until it eventually upwells at the equator or in the Southern Ocean. This global conveyor belt of water is AMOC, and it is critical to the world’s climate. Crucially, the entire AMOC system depends on cool, dense water “overturning” in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Without cooled water plunging into the deep ocean near Greenland, and turning back south, the entire conveyor belt will stop. What happens is that salt water is denser than fresh water. Therefore, the warm currents, such as the Gulf Stream, instead of floating on top and carrying warm current, sink underneath the cold, fresh water, because it is denser. The Gulf water cools as it sinks, because it is cold down there. The Gulf Stream has been effectively shut down. Therefore, it will be with the entire thermohaline system on the planet. The cold, fresh water will dominate by floating on top. Moreover, what is worse, it has a higher freezing point than salt water by 15 degree Fahrenheit. Fresh water freezes at 32 degree Fahrenheit. Salt water freezes at 17 degrees Fahrenheit. This has nothing to do with the reason Antarctica and Greenland are freshwater ice shelves. They are freshwater because of millennia of accumulated snow and ice storms. In a report by Thomas Delworth [82] describes ‘huge injections of freshwater have historically destabilized AMOC, essentially by flooding the Atlantic with cold water and screwing up its finely tuned density cycle. Hansen and his colleagues argued that as the Greenland ice sheet melts, it would be able to provide exactly such a pulse—and that, crucially, climate models failed to account for this physical process.’
14 In my current way of modelling, it isn’t the global surface temperature, it is the amount if surface ice loss that determines the fate of the planet’s ecosystem. At first, the loss of ice decreases the planets albedo (makes it reflect less light, absorb more light and heat). Right now our albedo is about 0.30, and has been so since we first measured it in the 70’s. That figure is across all visible wavelengths and generalized over the entire sphere. The number waxes and wanes but shows no trend:
This, however, can be deceiving as it does not show a trend of the albedo shifting from the North Pole to the South over just 11 years for a total of 16% change: North Pole
South Pole
[83,84,85,86,87,88,89] The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice. Thus, the waxing waning figures we see in the first graph are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not ‘noise’). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice. The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7 th global extinction. At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic (the blue gain in albedo in the diagram above) takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now, the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen. There is no shortage of Authors (scientists) who have published papers pointing out that the AMOC is much more unstable than even Delworth gives it credit, and a multitude of scenarios for AMOC collapse leading to Snowball Earth. [90-117] Again, I very strongly encourage looking these references up and reading them.
15 The Greenhouse Effect of Various Greenhouse Gases.
Animal Agriculture is responsible for 65% of the global nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide has 298 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 and requires 150 years to clear from the atmosphere. [118]
If you go to the EPA web site [119] you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. At 298 times the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%, as a conservative figure. That is, 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7% by my calculations in my head) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2. This means, with Animal Agriculture, all of the CO2 contribution to Global Warming of all of the fossil fuel usage on Earth combined contributes about 1% of the Global Warming effect. If we turned off the world fossil fuel machine today we would observe no effect. Furthermore, the damage already done by nitrous oxide will require 150 years to recover. Carbon dioxide is turned over back into oxygen by plants and plankton, nitrous oxide has no such mechanism built into nature for repair, but takes 1,000 years for this cycle to occur. That is, CO2 requires 1,000 years to clear. That is one of the reasons ‘turning off the global machine’ will have no effect, and I use the word ‘immanent.’
Industrial CO2 is projected to increase by 20% by the year 2040. [120] Animal Agriculture emissions are expected to increase by 80% by the year 2050.
[121]
At this rate, the nitrous oxide contribution of AA will exceed the current 100% total global output and increase the total global output by about 15% of its current total value, both industrial and AA combined. The industrial contribution will be negligible, perhaps as low as 5% to 10% at best, taking into account the 20% increase in industrial contribution in that time frame. Thus, the CO2 contribution to total Global Warming becomes a non-issue in the wake of mega production of nitrous oxide by Animal Agriculture, assuming there is any fresh water left for AA. Therefore, empowering you by changing your light bulbs is a bizarre misdirection in focus.
51% of Global Greenhouse Emissions are Animal Agriculture. However, this number is only based on primarily CO2 production and does not include methane or nitrous oxide on a global basis but uses unreferenced local data, and therefore the value is grossly incorrect. Since nitrous oxide accounts for almost all of the Total Greenhouse Effect, nitrous oxide becomes the only relevant number worth reporting, methane and CO 2 just making up, together, just a few percent of the problem. Although the film reports methane has 100 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, the actual methane load is a smaller number than carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide. The nitrous oxide emissions on a global basis. This 65% value is based on one source, which upon careful examination does not report the means by which the 35% ‘human activities’ has been determined. In addition, the paper in itself is not well referenced, so the sources of all of the information presented in the paper come into question. [122] I am therefore dismissing this value of 51% and although finding the actual human contribution of methane and nitrous oxide is exhaustive, I am confident the Animal Agriculture contribution to the Total Global Warming Greenhouse Effect is significantly higher than 65% of the FAO’s reported, albeit unreferenced number. In general, when scientists can’t get an exact figure, we use the most conservative values available and make an educated guess. That appears to be the case in the listed FAO report.
Animal Agriculture occupies 45% of the Earth’s total land. In addition, another reported value in the film is that AA occupies 1/3 of the Earth’s ice free land. Obviously, although the values are referenced they are incorrect. AA cannot occupy ½ of the total land but 1/3 of the ice free land unless the Earth is more than 100% ice. Therefore, I have to dismiss these values and conclude that the referenced papers, which upon close examination it is clear were thrown together without referencing the source of their hard numbers, are incorrect. Suffice it to say, AA occupies a lot of our ice free land, probably roughly half.
It is also important to note here what occupation of that land means. Something on the order of 1/3 of the ice free land on Earth is becoming desert, right now in real time. Cattle graze and consume high protein crop that exhausts the soil rapidly, and then move on like locusts to the next patch of land. So AA can be seen as a progressing wave that exhausts the ice-free land and leaves it as a land dead zone, a desert, like locusts stripping a field and moving on to the next. Our infatuation with hamburgers is leaving this planet as dead and barren as Mars. Extinction
AA is responsible for 91% of rainforest deforestation.
[123,124,125,126]
We discussed rainforest deforestation at a rate of 1 acre per second resulting in complete depletion in 32 years. Without AA and not making any other changes to industry, this value would be 320 years. 320 years is significant time to deal with the problem and possibly, given improvements in technology, replete the rainforests. As we discussed, 28% of the oxygen comes from the rainforests, which means that recovery from CO2 is 1/3 rainforest turnover. 32 years is probably in your lifetime.
16
AA is directly responsible for the greatest real time extinction of species, right now, than has been observed since the last Global Mass Extinction event 65 million years ago. [127,128,129]
The first short paper, although not well referenced, describes five prior extinction events, but does not include the ‘Theia Event,’ where a mars sized object (named Theia) collided with Earth about 4 to 4.5 billion years ago. It is generally accepted that, since this is the hypothetical source of the moon, and given the trace gases found in moon rock samples, that microbial life, extremophiles, may have begun on Earth just prior to this ‘Theia’ collision. The impact ripped off the outer crust of Earth and eventually formed the moon, albeit causing earth’s earliest mass extinction event, bringing the total mass extinction events to six, not five. And as providence would have it, just as I am writing this edit, a paper was published in the scientific journal, Nature: Matthew S. Dodd1,2, Dominic Papineau1,2, Tor Grenne3, John F. Slack4, Martin Rittner2, Franco Pirajno5, Jonathan O’Neil6 & Crispin T. S. Little Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates. Nature, 60 | NATURE | VOL 543 | 2 MARCH 2017 Abstract Although it is not known when or where life on Earth began, some of the earliest habitable environments may have been submarinehydrothermal vents. Here we describe putative fossilized microorganisms that are at least 3,770 billion and possibly 4,280 billion years old in ferruginous sedimentary rocks, interpreted as seafloor-hydrothermal vent-related precipitates, from the Nuvvuagittuq belt in Quebec, Canada. These structures occur as micrometre-scale haematite tubes and filaments with morphologies and mineral assemblages similar to those of filamentous microorganisms from modern hydrothermal vent precipitates and analogous microfossils in younger rocks. The Nuvvuagittuq rocks contain isotopically light carbon in carbonate and carbonaceous material, which occurs as graphitic inclusions in diagenetic carbonate rosettes, apatite blades intergrown among carbonate rosettes and magnetite–haematite granules, and is associated with carbonate in direct contact with the putative microfossils. Collectively, these observations are consistent with an oxidized biomass and provide evidence for biological activity in submarine-hydrothermal environments more than 3,770 billion years ago. At 4.288 billion years ago, this is about the time of the Theia collision, the Earth was still not solid. It is a valid conclusion that these fossilized microorganisms were churned up from the collision, or otherwise remained near the surface. This validates that microorganic life began prior to the Theia collision, making the total prior extinctions 6, not 5. Characterizing the other five: (Ma means million years ago) 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-Pg extinction, or formerly K-T extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)-Paleogene (Danian) transition interval. The event formerly called the Cretaceous-Tertiary or K–T extinction or K-T boundary is now officially named the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of all species became extinct. In the seas all the ammonites, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs disappeared and the percentage of sessile animals (those unable to move about) was reduced to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[10] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds, the latter descended from theropod dinosaurs, emerged as dominant large land animals. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 201.3 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species became extinct. Most nondinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus). Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 252 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects). The highly successful marine arthropod, the trilobite became extinct. The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction. The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years, but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying". Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera and at least 70% of all species. This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 million years, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period. Ordovician–Silurian extinction events (End Ordovician or O-S): 450–440 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species. Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that became extinct.
The Marinoan extinction (650 Ma) is not listed as such because it was another microorganism extinction. However, since the Theia extinction marks the very beginning of life on Earth, I consider it a valid entry.
17 Just FYI, as for the Theia extinction, the formation of the moon resulting from coalesced Earth crust material explains the bizarre nature of a circular, rather than elliptical orbit (like Saturn’s rings are circular, not elliptical), and since the heaviest material coalesced first, leaving the smaller powder like material to gather last, explains why one face always faces Earth. The moon has two sides, the heaviest side faces downward, toward us, and the backside is made up of light powdery material. Thus, we always see the heavy side of the moon facing us. See ‘Giant Impact Hypothesis.’ These papers in general agree on a number probably on the order of 30,000 species are becoming extinct each year, but focus on land with little attention given to the oceans or the biologically important ice extremophiles. Nonetheless, that is about three species per hour. Extremophiles are important because if, after life is extinct on Earth again, another generation of life is to develop on Earth, it will be the extremophiles that are the source of that original soup. However, the conditions extremophiles live under are changing. For instance, ice extremophiles which can live at temperatures far below 100 degrees below zero (yes, there is no liquid water at that point) are becoming extinct because the Antarctic ice shelfs they live in are melting. No one has a clue what the extinction rate of species per year or hour was 65 million years ago, so the rate comparison is arbitrary. In fact, we have no clue how many species existed 65 million years ago, we have only a miniscule fraction of fossil remains. The key number is that there are estimated 9 million species on Earth. At 30,000 species per year, that means all life will be extinct in 300 years. Earlier we discussed Homo sapiens extinction in about 200 years due to oxygen depletion, but will likely occur before that. Humans are not the most robust species, mostly plants and microbes surpass our survivability. Therefore, the well-referenced 30,000 species per year current real time extinction rate certainly places Homo sapiens extinction in about 200 years, with all life becoming extinct in about 300 years.
Dr. Kirk Smith from University of Berkley states that if we eliminate AA, the methane savings, methane having 25 to 100 times the greenhouse effect (the wide variation is due to whether you’re measuring the value in the heated tropics or the frozen poles, methane being a viola tile hydrocarbon) – methane clears rapidly where CO 2 does not. We would thus see a rapid recovery in Total Global Warming trends. Rather than reference his statement I will just direct you to the EPA’s site [130] and list the numbers here.
These ‘recovery rates’ are based on several factors. As I have stated before, CO2 has a natural source of recovery, photosynthesis, whereas the rates at which methane and nitrous oxide are eliminated from the atmosphere are dependent on the properties of the gas and their interaction with atmospheric and other environmental factors in order to deplete them from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, CO2 has other problems with elimination due to its chemistry, giving it a massive turnover time. I have made a brief table based on the EPA information. You have to research carbon dioxide’s life cycle because it is complex, ranging from 100 to 1000 years due to its binding nature with other materials. In general, the effect of CO2 is considered irreversible as a greenhouse gas. That is actually outwardly stated on the EPA web site – “The effect of CO 2 as a greenhouse gas is considered irreversible.” See the site. As I have stated, turning off the global fossil fuel machine at this point will make no difference.
The ‘x’ values are the Total Greenhouse Effect Contribution Factors taken from various sources and averaged together. Therefore, we see methane, with 100X the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide clearing in just 12 years. However, the quantity of each gas is important to determine how much each is contributing to Global Warming:
18
This graph takes into account only the Greenhouse Effect Factor, not including the contribution of the quantity of gas present in the atmosphere. As you can see, the CO 2 contribution which is the current focus appears insignificant. The quantity is obviously important as well. [131] Furthermore, since CO2 will take 1,000 years to clear, whereas methane and nitrous oxide can be eliminated in a decade, makes chasing CO2 futile. Meanwhile, 99% of the greenhouse effect is escaping attention. This is deliberate. Simply put, the methane and nitrous oxide make up a global $20 trillion per year, whereas the industry of CO2 represents multi-billions.
Therefore, CO2 is 8 times as abundant as methane, 16 times as abundant as nitrous oxide. Therefore, we will adjust the graph, taking both abundance and Greenhouse Effect Contribution Factor:
19
This is all still from the EPA data. This graph takes into account both the individual gases Greenhouse Effect and the quantity being dumped into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is still by comparison a non-issue, which is good because it takes 1,000 years to clear carbon dioxide, which is why turning off the machine is a useless approach. Methane takes only 12 years to clear and makes up 2/3 of the Greenhouse gases. Shutting off methane, as we will see, simply means shutting down the cows, which requires no technology or anything else we do not already have other than the will to do so. In short, the total contribution of carbon dioxide is about 3%, where 97% of the greenhouse effect is the result of nitrous oxide and methane. If we eliminate every source of CO2 today, in 1,000 years it will have a positive impact of a maximum 3%. However, if we shut down nitrous oxide and methane at the source, the entire greenhouse effect will be cut in half in just over a decade. The idea that carbon dioxide has anything to do with our current dilemma is what I refer to as a ‘creatively selective worldview,’ validated by ‘creatively selective data,’ and then applying ‘creative mathematics’ to produce ‘creative results.’ Coleridge referred to the process the rest of the world engages in while taking in this ‘creative information’ as the willful suspension of disbelief. Cognitive estrangement in fiction involves using a person's ignorance to promote suspension of disbelief. [226] Now we will look at how much of each of these gases is Animal Agriculture and how much is the big fossil fuel machine. [132,133,134,135,136,137] Taking all factors into consideration:
This takes into account the percent contribution by Animal Agriculture, the Greenhouse Contribution Factor for each gas, and the quantity of each gas produced, to cover all bases. The ‘%other’ is everything combined, fossil fuel use, industrial processes not directly related to fossil fuels, and so on. Keep in mind the values we discussed, CO 2 takes 1,000 years to clear, but that is apparently the least of the total greenhouse problem. Methane takes just 12 years to clear, nitrous oxide 114 years to clear. Therefore, if we look at the individual greenhouse gases normalized as fossil fuel and Animal Agriculture combined, in a decade we can eliminate this amount of methane:
20
This is not a license to say that CO2 is not a problem now. This is merely stating that almost half of our greenhouse problem can be resolved in a decade. The CO2 problem, if we solve it by turning off all of the sources of CO2 today, will not have been cut in half until the year 2500; too little too late. Thus, targeting a failed option is a failed plan from the drawing board. We need a plan that will work fast, because the problem is obviously spiraling out of control faster than we anticipated. We can eliminate 67% of the total greenhouse problem in 12 years by turning off AA and fossil fuels today. That number is 40% of our total greenhouse problem on Earth can be eliminated in 12 years if we turn off just Animal Agriculture today. Keep in mind that turning off AA requires no money, no tax, no new technology, no refit for industrial processes, no nothing we don’t already have, just the will and agreement to do so. The focus at every turn is CO 2 , but literally, 99% of our greenhouse problem is not CO2 , so the focus is unwarranted and misdirected. The good news (for a change) is that carbon dioxide, although it has a 1,000 year recovery, as we’ve examined, is such a tiny contribution it can be considered insignificant and dismissed. The other good news is that nitrous oxide, although the heaviest contributor, can be eliminated in sufficient time to reduce the imminent catastrophic ecological failure significantly (salvage). In just 50 years the N 2 O level would drop to a value where its greenhouse potential would be roughly equivalent to nearly a century ago. The BEST news is that if we eliminate Animal Agriculture today, in 12 years, methane, which has the highest tonnage rate and 100x the Total Greenhouse Effect of CO 2 would be gone. Summarizing that graph: If we shut off every machine on Earth today, it would do nothing. If we eliminated meat from our diets today, right now, the damage would not exceed much beyond what we are currently observing, and nature could and would recover in our lifetimes. A global mass extinction event would be eluded; Homo sapiens would not go extinct, along with millions of other species. If we continue to be omnivorous, all life will be extinct in 300 years.
According to Dr. Will Tuttle, 10,000 years ago Homo sapiens and all of our life support as hunter-gatherers accounted for 1% of the total biomass on Earth. Today, man and our cattle make up 98% of the total biomass on Earth. [138,139,140]
The other 2% is all other life combined. A modern term ‘sustainability’ needs to be addressed here. Where once it took 99% of the biomass to sustain 1% of the Homo sapiens population, the shift to 2% of the biomass sustaining 98% of a Homo sapiens biomass is beyond irrational, and far into the need for medication. In this case, we see the willful suspension of disbelief evading all cognitive processes altogether, into what Zeno referred to as ‘reducto adusrdium,’ reduction to the absurd. There is no possibility under any circumstances that 98% of the biomass of Homo sapiens and his meat can be sustained on this planet by 2% of the remaining resources of life. There is no level of ignorance, aside from coma, that can process such a scenario into a cognitively believable worldview. There will be no ‘sustainability.’ There will be a Global Mass Extinction. I am now going to begin addressing the timelines for said Global Mass Extinction in its various stages.
21 GLOBAL DEPOPULATION
[141] The top line is based on the idea that nothing catastrophic will happen to make the lower line, which is based on general survivability. Now, it is most interesting to note that the source of this data, the United Nations, paints a lower down turning line that if we look at the curve as we have done before we can make some startling predictions, based on data from the UN. First, we plot these points and use Excel to make a projected line, which in this case I’ve used a multi-order curve to get as close as fit as possible.
y = 2E-09x5 - 3E-05x 4 + 0.1824x3 - 452.71x2 + 532876x - 2E+08
Now we add numbers into the equation of the line to get projections.
22
This is based on UN data. Yes, it passes through zero in 2125. The United Nations scientists predict human extinction by 2125. The data is peer reviewed and published by the UN. Sea life.
For anyone thinking our respite is in the Earth’s oceans as some untapped resource are neglecting the fact that ¾ of the Earth’s oceans are depleted or very nearly depleted of sea life from over fishing. That is, 75% of all of the oceans in the world have been fished to the point of becoming void of sea life. Stated clearly – 75% of our oceans are dead. That number can be seen clearly on the United Nations FAO web site.
It is important to note here that target fishing, such as tuna (tuna is the target) pulls 5 times as much fish (by weight) that is not tuna. For every pound of targeted fish, such as tuna, cod, sea bass, swai, and so on, there are 5 pounds of non-target fish; referred to as bykill (includes sharks, dolphins, turtles, even young whales and other sea mammals that drown in the nets). Smaller fishing operations have such small vessels they have no choice but to throw the dead fish back, the decaying fish contribute to expanding ocean dead zones, which we discussed earlier. Larger fisheries can carry the mass of the bykill and simply grind it all into animal feed. In any case, 75% of the Earth’s oceans are depleted or nearly depleted of sea life from over fishing. The legal term Farm Raised is internationally very loose and simply means in most cases that a particular fishery has purchased a permit to have exclusive rights to fish a particular patch of open ocean; not a ‘farm’ as you envision it. Legally, there is openly stated in international law that there will be no enforcement of the labeling of the term, because that would require Interpol, and fish wholesalers are exempt, because they operate in international waters, meaning they can label fish as ‘farm raised’ at will. The legal term Sustainable Fishing has no legal definition, because the term was invented a-priori in the hope that such a thing as ‘sustainable fishing’ would be developed. There has been no development of any means of ‘sustainable fishing.’ In every case, we harvest fish more rapidly than the fish can reproduce. There is no such thing as Sustainable Fishing, but the label can be applied, again, at will, because the international operations of fishing, importing and exporting, cannot be enforced because of simple physical limitations in doing so. Most species of sharks are nearly extinct, not that I mind, I hate sharks, but the shark has been around for nearly 300 million years, survived at least five mass extinctions, and now to disappear forever from the universe as bykill. A 300 million year old survivor of five Global Mass Extinction Events going extinct in real time as you watch should scare you. The clam, a species that not only has survived 400 million years and 5 Global Mass Extinction Events, and has existed without change for those 400 million years (it’s still exactly the same, no survival evolutionary changes whatsoever), is becoming endangered in real time as you watch. The most powerful survival organism in Earth’s history will go extinct in your lifetime because we ate them all. I have looked extensively into the international laws on labeling, labels such as ‘dolphin safe,’ ‘sustainable fishing,’ ‘pole caught,’ and so on are not at all enforced because of the international overhead it would require to do so. Therefore, any fish can, package, or whatever can say anything the seller wants – the laws state openly in the documents that most every wholesaler is exempt from any enforcement of labeling laws. A can of tuna labeled as ‘pole caught,’ ‘sustainably fished,’ ‘dolphin safe’ tuna, is very likely just netted, unsustainably caught, tons of bykill, millions of dead dolphin, purchased from the same rusty boats and sold at $4 a can.
23 I went on to Greenpeace’s web site; they have what they call a list of good vs. bad tuna. They list a few varieties as being pole caught, sustainably fished and give them high rankings, but they have delivered no information suggesting they investigated at all to see if the labeling on the can is true, and the cans typically sell for 4$ to $7 a can. There is nothing to suggest they have not peeled the label off of a can of ‘Bumble-Bee’ and relabeled it as pole caught sustainably fished and sold it at 7 times the cost. There is no international law to prevent them from doing so. They can put any label they please on it, and fetch a hefty increase in price.
Totally depleted, fishless oceans are predicted as early as 2048.
[142,143]
Most people will not have access to the Science article. About a dozen authors contributed to this paper, which is primarily metaanalysis (mathematical theory) in origin. Interestingly, they focus on Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), which are actually the same size as our previously discussed ‘ocean dead zones.’ The focus is on what turns an area of ocean into a dead zone, contributing factors, including plankton large-scale die-off because of human factors. It appears from their mathematical analysis that fishing is no longer the primary issue, the LME die-offs have taken on a life of their own, spiraled out of control, nature shutting down these large ecosystems, not unlike a cancer. They remark that they believe the effect to be reversible, but that would require aside from discontinuation of fishing, the discontinuation of agriculture which is the primary source of ocean degradation.
Each year 100 million tons, about 3 trillion fish are harvested.
[144,145,146,147]
This number is important. There are roughly 7 billion people on Earth, 3 trillion fish harvested per year means very roughly 500 fish per human. Since you probably did not eat 500 fish last year you can understand that a large segment of the human population is living on a solely or primarily fish diet. Whereas your diet is beef and pork intensive, someone else’s is omnivorous in the form of fish. So omnivores consuming beef and pork are destroying land, and omnivores living on fish are destroying the sea. This is a very important point to make clear. Omnivorism means meat and/or fish. Our omnivorous life style is killing Earth both by land and by its vast seas. I say life style because there is nothing at all preventing any one or all of us from becoming completely vegetarian, millions do it just fine. Miscellaneous
In Brazil the ‘Forest Code’ law was passed, a law that allowed the deforestation of the rainforest exempt from international laws, 20 years ago. In that time frame, 1,100 environmental activists in Brazil speaking out against deforestation have been assassinated. [148]
Health Care
In the USA, approximately ½ Trillion dollars are taken from our taxes and given to the Animal Agriculture industrialists.
This is to provide land, resources, and primarily pharmaceuticals. AA consumes several times the amount of pharmaceuticals as the humans do in the USA. The primary cost in all of this is the pharmaceutical cost. I find it absolutely amazing that when we read and live so much in a society of ‘food or medicine,’ particularly for the elderly and those who cannot afford health care, that the vast majority of pharmaceuticals are being GIVEN to Animal Agriculture industrialists, free of charge, and given to healthy animals as preventative measures, not even to sick animals – that you pay for by having it pried out of your hands by the tax machine. Resources
The current population is a little more than 7 billion people. The supportive livestock population is 70 billion. Animal agriculture produces 130 times the amount of excrement as the US population, and this excrement is untreated, amounting to 5 tons of untreated animal waste per person, per year. [149] This number is important because this number poisons soil, leading to dead land zones, and our fresh water supply, which is nearly exhausted, as well as eventually leading into the seas to contribute to our ocean dead zones, which as we have discussed, is primarily the result of either over harvesting of fish or Animal Agriculture. The human population consumes 5.2 billion gallons of water and 21 billion pounds of food. Cattle consume 45 billion gallons of water and 135 billion pounds of food. [150]
A graph is always better:
24
That is 9 billion from Animal Agriculture to feed 300 million, 30 animals per American, and a lot of chicken. However, ten Americans eat a cow every year. That is at least 7 cows per person in a lifetime. The average roaster chicken weighs about 6 pounds, at 25 chickens (subtracting out cows, pigs and such) per American per year, which is 150 pounds of chicken per year. An American eats his/her body weight in just chicken every year; in the simplest sense, the soil that grows crop sees two of you, the one standing and the one you eat. In general, fowl requires more food per pound of body mass than a mammal. That is because their metabolism is designed to expend a huge amount of energy for flight. Below is a chart from the USDA, look at the right most column, consumption/kg body weight, and you will see that in general, a broiler chicken requires 3 times the feed per unit body mass.
25
That is why the graph has the vast bulk of food going to feed Animal Agriculture with a fraction being fed to humans, because you will eat your own mass in just chicken every year, which requires 2X to 3X the food per unit body mass as you. Therefore, the soil that grows crop sees four of you, the one standing and the three you eat, every year. So what starts to happen if we eliminate the cows, pigs, and chickens, and just consume high protein crop ourselves? First a couple of definitions. 1. 2. 3.
A ‘Vegan’ is a type of vegetarian that consumes no milk, cheese, eggs, or animal products at all. A ‘Vegetarian’ may consume animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs, and so on, but not the flesh. An ‘Omnivore,’ like me, eats most anything animal or plant.
A ‘Vegan,’ who requires no animal products requires about just 0.2 acres of and to feed for an entire year. This number is based on real Vegans farming their own crops. This land requirement for vegetarians and vegans (vegans do not eat fish, some vegetarians do
26 on occasion) along with the methane savings alone can prevent human extinction, see the recovery of the land, soil, oceans, air, everything. According to the film, (an unreferenced) 216,000 people are born each day (above the death rate) requiring an additional 34,000 acres farmable land. That number is just slightly lower, at 209,000 births above the death rate per day [150] requiring just under 33,000 acres, roughly 50 square miles, of additional farmable land, every day. That is an area the size of Michigan every five years. As I have stated earlier, I do not want to wear cloth and eat tofu. However, I don’t see any option. We saw the data, turning off the fossil fuel machine worldwide will have little effect, and the savings is primarily CO 2 , with methane coming in second. Nevertheless, until another energy source is found, the machine cannot be turned off. In the second half of this text I provide a feasible solution for getting to the helium-3 deposits on the moon via some theoretical technology (to replace fossil fuel altogether), but even if the technology works the R&D required will take at least a decade, if and only if as much resources is poured into that R&D on a scale we haven’t seen since the Manhattan project. I doubt that is going to happen. So reducing fossil fuel consumption while the human population is increasing by the current means, solar, wind, and so on simply is not going to work. Reducing emissions does not reduce consumption, and ultimately that CO2 , methane, and nitrous oxide are just going to increase.
Carbon dioxide is not reduced by controlling emissions; it is the inevitable effect of burning fossil fuel. Methane can be reduced somewhat. At https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf you will see a proposal by the Whitehouse for ‘Opportunities to control methane emissions. 2014’ the paper states clearly, “Through the Natural Gas STAR program, EPA will work with the industry to expand voluntary efforts to reduce methane emissions.” There will be no enforcement of reduction of methane for industry. That means it is not going to happen, particularly in countries, such as China, who are expanding their industrial need for fossil fuels. In November 1998, the European Council produced a report, “RESTRICTED - AEAT-4180: Issue 3 Options to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions.” The paper discusses industrial processes that produce nitrous oxide and plans to reduce the production of nitrous oxide by reducing or abandoning industrial consumption. However, as the graphs clearly illustrate, nothing has been done.
27
The global production of nitrous oxide has increased since the European Union proposed similar controls. In the USA nitrous oxide production has looked like this:
In the USA there has been no change in nitrous oxide production in industry.
28 If we all became ‘Vegan,’ the cattle industry could use that same land to produce high protein crop. This will require approximately 5% of the overhead as raising cattle. If the price per pound of high protein crop, replacing beef, remains the same as the price per pound of meat and poultry, this means the cattle industry, which would now be using their crop to feed humans instead of cattle, would increase profits 20 fold. The consumer would see no difference at the checkout, assuming the high protein crop is pound for pound as high in protein as meat. If the high protein crop is not as high in protein as meat, the price is normalized as such, and the cattle industry would still see an increase in profits of several fold with the consumer bearing no difference in the price for food. This is not an issue of whether or not we want to change our diet from omnivorous to herbivorous; this is an issue that we simply do not have a choice if we are to avoid extinction of our species and the vast majority of other species on Earth. We cannot place the burden of effort on the fossil fuel sector at this time, as we can plainly see from the data, nothing is changing (improving), and it is only getting worse. Therefore, in the past 20 years we have tried the fossil fuel approach and failed, a time proven failure, primarily because we have no viable options at this time other than fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and other alternative means have proven ineffective because of the extreme initial price burden when compared to fossil fuels. The Trillions of dollars to change everything over to wind and solar just does not exist. There is discussion in various reports about the money being made up by savings in money spent on fossil fuel, but the initial investment, $5 trillion in the USA alone for just partial conversion, does not exist now, regardless of any future savings by eliminating a portion of our fossil fuel consumption. Furthermore, the multi-trillions lost by the fossil fuel industry is not going to go down without a fight, a very long and costly fight that environmentalists simply cannot win. As an example, if you go shopping for solar panels for your home, the going price is roughly $4 per watt. A hair dryer requires 1,000 watts, that’s $4,000 worth of solar panels if you intend to shut every little thing down in your house when you go to dry your hair. Here is an example wattage chart:
So you need, as an average household 6,000 watts to keep your continuous appliances such as the refrigerator and possibly A/C running in the background with access to things like the coffee maker and toaster on demand. That is $24,000 worth of solar panels. Solar panel sites try to tell you less, but they are implying that your electric bill makes up the rest. So we’re going to spend $24,000 on solar panels when the average American pays roughly $120/month, meaning it will take 200 months (about 16 ½ years) to see that money comeback. Are you going to burrow $24,000 to buy solar panels to see a comeback (breakeven point) in 16 ½ years? The USA consumes 4 trillion kilowatts of energy. At $4/watt that means the figures the salesman is trying to sell in the articles discussing single digit trillion dollars for total conversion are off by a factor of 16,000. The real price will be in the range of 20,000 trillion dollars, for total conversion to solar power in the USA. That amount of money does not even exist in the world. The cattle industry, on the other hand, stands to gain immediate several fold increases in profits merely by changing from feeding high overhead cattle to feeding people. That can happen literally overnight. Moreover, in the wake of that change we can immediately reduce methane and nitrous oxide by more than half, with the time to clear methane from the atmosphere being just one decade, whereas the carbon dioxide savings from industry would take 1,000 years to clear.
29 In a century, where all of the hell fire predictions come to bear, the nitrous oxide would be reduced by half, evading the global catastrophes discussed in all of these various UN reports, and so on. The cattle industry makes a fortune, we see no price difference at the checkout, as we would trying to spend $5 trillion dollars in a vain effort to switch to wind and solar, and we save the planet, save ourselves from extinction, and save most life on Earth (but not all of it). THE SOLUTION Beef, pork, fowl, and fish have been successfully grown in the laboratory. The common term for this is ‘shmeat,’ or sheet meat. Essentially, we start with a cell culture, and grow a sheet of it in the lab. It started back in the 80’s with human skin for skin grafts for burn victims. Then of course as all things do, it expanded out to include other things including means of supplementing our food supply. I’ve seen it done, I’ve done it myself. The horror stories you see on TV about the $25,000 hamburger is simply because that one lab has not geared up for mass production. Any prototype costs a fortune. Once you have geared up for mass production in sheet meat, and have more than one lab vying for sales, the costs will be below current market prices for meat, because there is little cost in sheet meat compared to Animal Agriculture. [151-224] This technology has been around since the 1990’s and has evolved considerably to produce completely eatable and virtually indifferentiable product. At this time, the cost is high, but that cost will come down to ‘normalized’ when the technology is used in large-scale production. The technology in question is chemically benign, produces no toxic chemical waste, CO2, nitrous oxide, or methane, and of course no slaughtering of animals. There is no animal present, no organism, just tissue grown in vitro. The obvious recourse, rather than have the entire planet turn vegetarian would be to invest heavily in this evolving and developing technology and replace the cattle, pork, and fish industries altogether in order to save our oceans, atmosphere, and avoid a cataclysmic mass extinction. The investment opportunities for the individual as well as industrial interests are vast and would obviously produce a massive turnover, yet another gain in this cycle of avoiding calamity of life on this planet. This sounds like a solid plan. It requires nothing, no input, no new technologies or impossible budgets, just the will and agreement to do so, with immediate results.
CONCLUSION In summary, in this paper I have run over a dozen different scenarios: Oxygen depletion, Ocean Dead Zones, Desertitation by strip feeding of cattle, collapse of the Earth’s Themohaline system, glaciation, fossil fuel depletion, UN projections for human extinction, fresh water depletion, depletion of sea life, depletion of land life, global starvation, and in another paper, the total chaotic collapse of Global Commerce. In each case I have used hard data from the most reputable sources, sources such as the UN and so forth who have unlimited resources to collect and analyze such data and report it responsibly. I have shown the mathematical approaches I have used, and taken the most conservative routes in each case. In each of the dozen or so scenarios, the outcome has been the same. We are looking at a mass extinction event that is imminent, of all species including human. In addition, in each of the scenarios, the outcomes all point to the same endpoint in time, by the year 2200 the oceans and land will be lifeless. There will be a great deal of suffering between now and that endpoint. It is likely that nations will undergo extreme measures to control the human population as the situation worsens in an attempt to maintain control and order. All of these negative outcomes can be to some degree but not completely salvaged by a simple change in philosophy about what we eat. This ‘salvaging’ of the damage requires no commerce, no budget, no new technologies, nothing but the agreement to do so. The technology to salvage some human population along with a significant number of species of non-human life exists. However, the very core of the problem is that Commerce, which in another paper I define as a Chaotic collapsed (past tense) system, is a digital system based on debt. Only 3% of that system is tangible (does not exist in the null digital domain). The tangible portion, 3%, is the non-human biomass ransomed for this 97% digital debt (via the Global Fractional Reserve Banking System). In the study of Chaos Theory, no random system has ever been found in nature. Even supernovae, which occur at a rate of about 20/second anywhere in the sky, from millions to billions of years ago, have a well-defined pattern as their light reaches us, millions to billions of years later. The only random system man has ever found is Commerce. No matter what you do to a random system, you can only obtain a random result. That is why presidents fail, leaders fail, banks fail, nations fail, and this is the Holocene Extinction. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Walker, J. C. G. (1980) “The oxygen cycle in the natural environment and the biogeochemical cycles,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany (DEU) Peter Ward: Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere. Killer Inhabitants of the Rainforests. "Killer Inhabitants of the Rainforests". Trendsupdates.com. Retrieved 2012-08-26. Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011) Report: IPCC AR5 WG# Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Us (AFOLU) United Nations. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). June 21, 2012. Retrieved June 23, 2012. David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor (2008-08-15). "Scientists alarmed by ocean dead-zone growth". Sfgate.com. Retrieved 201008-03 Diaz, R. J.; Rosenberg, R. (2008-08-15). "Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems". Science 321 (5891): 926– 9. Climate change and dead zones, Andrew H. Altieri, Keryn B. Gedan, 10 November, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12754 Global Change Biology. Lauren Morello, Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950, Scientific American, 29 July 2010
30 11. 12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.
"International Chronostratigraphic Chart". International Commission on Stratigraphy. 2015. Retrieved 29 April 2015. Renne, Paul R.; Deino, Alan L.; Hilgen, Frederik J.; Kuiper, Klaudia F.; Mark, Darren F.; Mitchell, William S.; Morgan, Leah E.; Mundil, Roland; Smit, Jan (7 February 2013). "Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary". Science 339 (6120): 684–687. Bibcode:2013Sci...339..684R.doi:10.1126/science.1230492. PMID 23393261. Fortey, Richard (1999). Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. Vintage. pp. 238–260. ISBN 978-0375-70261-7. Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV (1980). "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095 1108. Bibcode:1980Sci...208.1095A. doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095.PMID 17783054. Vellekoop J, Sluijs A, Smit J; et al. (May 2014). "Rapid short-term cooling following the Chicxulub impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (21): 7537– 41. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.7537V.doi:10.1073/pnas.1319253111. PMID 24821785. Smith, A.G. (2009). "Neoproterozoic timescales and stratigraphy". Geological Society, London, Special Publications (Geological Society, London, Special Publications) 326: 27–54. Bibcode:2009GSLSP.326...27S. doi:10.1144/SP326.2. Kirschvink, J.L. (1992). "Late Proterozoic low-latitude global glaciation: The snowball Earth". In Schopf, JW, and Klein, C. The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study (PDF). Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–2. Allen, Philip A.; Etienne, James L. (2008). "Sedimentary challenge to Snowball Earth". Nature Geoscience 1 (12): 817. Bibcode:2008NatGe...1..817A. doi:10.1038/ngeo355. Alderman, A. R.; Tilley, C. E. (1960). "Douglas Mawson 1882-1958". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 5: 119. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1960.0011 Kirschvink, Joseph (1992). "Late Proterozoic low-latitude global glaciation: the Snowball Earth". In J. W. Schopf; C. Klein. The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study. Cambridge University Press. Snowball Earth: New Evidence Hints at Global Glaciation 716.5 Million Years Ago Harland, W.B. (1964). "Critical evidence for a great infra-Cambrian glaciation" (PDF). International Journal of Earth Sciences 54 (1): 45–61. Bibcode:1964GeoRu..54...45H. doi:10.1007/BF01821169. Retrieved 11 March 2008. Eyles, N.; Januszczak, N. (2004). "'Zipper-rift': A tectonic model for Neoproterozoic glaciations during the breakup of Rodinia after 750 Ma" (PDF). Earth-Science Reviews 65 (1–2): 1–73. Bibcode:2004ESRv...65....1E. doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(03)00080-1. Retrieved 4 May 2007. "International Chronostratigraphic Chart". International Commission on Stratigraphy. 2015. Retrieved 29 April 2015. “Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gas than driving cars, UN report warns.” 29 Nov 2006 See “Global Greenhouse Emissions” UN Food and Agricultural Organization 2006 FAO 2013 See EPA “Overview of Greenhouse Gases – methane” See FAO document “Livestock’s Role in Water Depletion and Pollution” Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print. Comfortably Unaware. Oppenlander. NOAA, "what is a dead zone". Scientific America, "What Causes Ocean "Dead Zones"?". “What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. The Encyclopedia of Earth, "The Causes of Extinction". Annenberg Learner, Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline // Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences WWF, "Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans." Center for Biological Diversity, "How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet". Science Direct “Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption” FAO, "Livestock impacts on the environment". “Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th.” Worldwatch Institute. Oppenlander, Richard A. “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification.” Comfortably Unaware. 2012 “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004. http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm Collins, Ronald (1998-03-23). "Veggie-Libel Law Still Poses a Threat". Retrieved 2009-12-28. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 96.003, accessible at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf Jennings, Marianne M. (2005). Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. Cengage Learning. p. 377. ISBN 978-0-324-204889. Retrieved 2009-12-28. "Court shares light moment during Oprah jury selection". CNN. 1998-01-20. Retrieved 2009-12-27. "Texas Cattlemen v. Oprah Winfrey". MediaLibel.org. Retrieved 2009-12-28. Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here?. Madison, WI: Common Courage Press. p. 192. ISBN 1-56751-111-2. "McLibel pair get police payout". BBC. 2000-07-05. "'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid". BBC. 2004-09-07. "McDonald's lets McLibel case rest". AP. 1997-07-19. Press release issued by the Registrar. "Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom" The European Court of Human Rights, 15 February 2005. Received 1 September 2008. FBI.gov Meier et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 2008
31 56.
Rignot et al. 2008
57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
Rignot et al. 2011 Rignot and Mouginot 2012 Mouginot et al. 2014 Krabill et al. 2004 Shepherd and Wingham 2007 Flament and Rémy 2012 McMillan et al. 2014 http://education.nationalgeographic.com/assets/file/freshwater_chapter5_v2.pdf Natural Resources Defense Council Report, “The Consequences of On Glaciers and Sea Levels.” http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html#ixzz3nAiIuRzx http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html#ixzz3nAhjXgnH
66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
100. 101. 102. 103. 104.
Global
Warming
Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18. Barber, N.L., “Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098.” Pacific Institute, "California's Water Footprint" Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006. Oxford Journals. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues" The World's Water. "Water Content of Things" Journal of Animal Science. "Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States." Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group. “Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands. Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print “Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group. http://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/fixleak.html SAP Report: SAP 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change, Chapter 4. The Potential for Abrupt Change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Loeb, N.G. et al. (2012) Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geoscience, 5, 110–113. NASA (2014, February 18) NASA Satellites See Arctic Surface Darkening Faster. Accessed October 13, 2014. NASA Earth Observatory (2011, February 24) Melting Snow and Ice Warm Northern Hemisphere. NASA Earth Observatory (2009, January 14) Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget. NASA Earth Observatory (2007, January 31) Arctic Reflection: Clouds Replace Snow and Ice as Solar Reflector. NASA Langley Research Center (2014) CERES. Accessed October 13, 2014. Stephens, G.L. et al. (2012) An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience, 5, 691-696. "Melting Greenland ice sheet may affect global ocean circulation, future climate". Phys.org. 2016. James Hansen and Makiko Sato (2015). "Predictions Implicit in "Ice Melt" Paper and Global Implications". Jianjun Yin & Stephen Griffies (25 March 2015). "Extreme sea level rise event linked to AMOC downturn". CLIVAR. Mihai Dima and Gerrit Lohmann (2010). "Evidence for Two Distinct Modes of Large-Scale Ocean Circulation Changes over the Last Century". AMS. doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2867.1. Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik J. Schaffernicht. "Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation". Nature. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..475R. doi:10.1038/nclimate2554. Didier Swingedouw (2015). "Oceanography: Fresh news from the Atlantic". Nature. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..411S. doi:10.1038/nclimate2626. "Why the U.S. East Coast could be a major 'hotspot' for rising seas". The Washington Post. 2016. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219153611.htm Schiermeier, Quirin (2007). "Ocean circulation noisy, not stalling". Nature. 448 (7156): 844– 5. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..844S. doi:10.1038/448844b. PMID 17713489. J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Hearty, R. Ruedy, M. Kelley, V. Masson-Delmotte, G. Russell, G. Tselioudis, J. Cao, E. Rignot, I. Velicogna, E. Kandiano, K. von Schuckmann, P. Kharecha, A. N. Legrande, M. Bauer, and K.-W. Lo (2015). "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous". Bibcode:2015ACPD...1520059H. doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015. Satellites record weakening North Atlantic Current. NASA, 15 April 2004. Leake, Jonathan (8 May 2005). "Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows". The Sunday Times. Gulf Stream slowdown?RealClimate.org, 26 May 2005. F. Pearce. Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age.NewScientist, 30 November 2005 Quadfasel D (December 2005). "Oceanography: The Atlantic heat conveyor slows". Nature. 438 (7068): 565– 6. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..565Q. doi:10.1038/438565a. PMID 16319866.
32 105.
119.
Schiermeier, Quirin (2007). "Climate change: A sea change". Nature. 439 (7074): 256– 60. Bibcode:2006Natur.439..256S. doi:10.1038/439256a. PMID 16421539. (subscription required); see also "Atlantic circulation change summary". RealClimate.org. 19 Jan 2006. Våge, Kjetil; Pickart, Robert S.; Thierry, Virginie; Reverdin, Gilles; Lee, Craig M.; Petrie, Brian; Agnew, Tom A.; Wong, Amy; Ribergaard, Mads H. (2009). "Surprising return of deep convection to the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean in winter 2007– 2008". Nature Geoscience. 2 (1): 67–72. Bibcode:2009NatGe...2...67V. doi:10.1038/ngeo382. FishOutofWater, Diaries (6 January 2010). "Freak Current Takes Gulf Stream to Greenland". Daily Kos. Retrieved 11 January 2010. FishOutofWater, Diaries (30 December 2009). "Warm Atlantic Water Rapidly Replacing Arctic Sea Ice". Daily Kos. Retrieved 11 January 2010. Seager R (July–August 2006). "The Source of Europe's Mild Climate". American Scientist. The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth Rhines, P.B.; Häkkinen, S. (September 2003). "Is the Oceanic Heat Transport in the North Atlantic Irrelevant to the Climate in Europe?" (PDF). ASOF Newsletter. "Salinity and Brine". NSIDC. "Everything you need to know about the surprisingly cold 'blob' in the North Atlantic ocean". The Washington Post. 2015. Gierz, Paul (31 August 2015). "Response of Atlantic Overturning to future warming in a coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet model". Geophysical Research Letters. Bibcode:2015GeoRL..42.6811G. doi:10.1002/2015GL065276. Turrell, B. The Big ChillTranscript of discussion on BBC 2, 13 November 2003 Vellinga, M.; Wood, R.A. (2002). "Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation" (PDF). Climatic Change. 54 (3): 251–267. doi:10.1023/A:1016168827653. Lund DC, Lynch-Stieglitz J, Curry WB; Lynch-Stieglitz; Curry (November 2006). "Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium". Nature. 444 (7119): 601–4. Bibcode:2006Natur.444..601L. doi:10.1038/nature05277. PMID 17136090. IPCC TAR WG1 (2001). "9.3.4.3 Thermohaline circulation changes". In Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-807670 (pb: 0-521-01495-6) “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html
120. 121.
Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html
122. 123. 124. 125. 126.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm World Bank. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon” Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003. WORLD BANK WORKING PAPER NO. 22 Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print. Niles Eldredge, "The Sixth Extinction". Mass extinction of species has begun. Gerardo Ceballos, PaulBiological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines, R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, PNAS 2017 July, 114 (30) E6089E6096. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114 Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html
106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117.
118.
127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137.
138.
EPA – “Overview of Greenhouse Gases”; http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?” WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19. Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang. The Independent, article Nov. 2009. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. The source of the methane percentage produced by livestock (the methane data does not appear on the EPA web site as animal agriculture): FAO Newsroom, Christopher Mathews, 29 Nov 2006, available at http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html
139. 140.
Vaclav Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613-36, December 2011. The proportions are of mass measures in dry weight. Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil New York Times Jul 2013
141. 142. 143.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2015 Revision Science, "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services". National Geographic, article Nov. 2006
144.
“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
33
145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158.
159. 160. 161. 162. 163.
164. 165.
166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187.
188.
(FAO). 2012. (pg 6, 20) Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic. A Mood and P Brooke, July 2010, "Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year". Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic. Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon.” The Guardian. 2009; 20 years ago the Amazon lost its strongest advocate. Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.} Population Reference Bureau & The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency Jha, Alok (5 August 2013). "Synthetic meat: how the world's costliest burger made it on to the plate". Retrieved 1 January 2016. Sheppard, Kate (7 September 2011). "Shmeat: It's What's for Dinner". Retrieved 1 January 2016. Siegelbaum, D.J. (2008-04-23). "In Search of a Test-Tube Hamburger". Time. Retrieved 2009-04-30. "World's first lab-grown burger is eaten in London". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016. "Building a $325,000 Burger". The New York Times. 14 May 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2016. Temple, James (2009-02-23). "The Future of Food: The No-kill Carnivore". Portfolio.com. Retrieved 2009-08-07. The In Vitro Meat Consortium (March 2008). "Preliminary Economics Study" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-1003. Chiles, Robert; Magneson (2013-12-01). "If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations". Agriculture and Human Values (Springer Netherlands) 30 (4): 511–523. doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9427-9. Retrieved 18 October 2014. Fifty Years Hence, The Strand Magazine (December 1931) Ross, Russell (1 July 1971). "Growth of Smooth Muscle in Culture and Formation of Elastic Fibers". The Journal of Cell Biology. pp. 172–186. Retrieved 12 February 2015. Macintyre, Ben (2007-01-20). "Test-tube meat science's next leap". The Australian. Retrieved 2011-11-26. Webb, Sarah (2006-01-08). "Tissue Engineers Cook Up Plan for Lab-Grown Meat (The Year in Science: Technology)". Discover. Retrieved 2009-08-07. Benjaminson, Morris (2001-12-05). "Featured Research at Touro: Growing Fish Fillets Outside the Fish". Touro College School of Health Sciences. Retrieved 2010-01-10. Advance announcement of paper's publication in Acta Astronautica (not found there, but note Journal articles below). WO9931222 A1 Application WO9931222, van Eelen, Willem Frederik; Willem Jan van Kooten & Wiete Westerhof, "Industrial scale production of meat from in vitro cell cultures", published 1999-06-24 Van Eelen, Willem (2007-12-12). "Patent holder Willem van Eelen: ‘In another five years meat will come out of the factory’". inVitroMeat Foundation, operated by Willem van Eelen, publishing what appears to be an English translation of an article in Dutch by Anouck Vrouwe (subscribers only) from Het Financieele Dagblad. External link in |publisher= (help) "Ingestion / Disembodied Cuisine". Cabinet Magazine. Winter 2004–2005. "Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale" (Press release). University of Maryland. 2005-07-06. Retrieved 2008-10-12. Levine, Ketzel (2008-05-20), Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?, National Public Radio, retrieved 2010-01-10 "The 50 Best Inventions of 2009". Time. 2009-11-12. Rogers, Lois (2009-11-29). "Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory". The Sunday Times (London). Lab-Grown Meat? $1 Million Reward Deadline Nears at FoodSafetyNews.com "Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?". NPR. Retrieved 2011-12-08. "Meet Shmeat: Test-Tube Meat". Huffingtonpost.com. 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2011-12-08. "Shmeat (sheet + meat)". 2013-03-30. Retrieved 2013-05-24. "What does a stem cell burger taste like?". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016. "A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste Test". The New York Times. 6 August 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2016. Fountain, Henry (May 12, 2013). "Building a $325,000 Burger". New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2013. Raizel, Robin (2005-12-11). "In Vitro Meat". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-07. Kurzweil, Raymond (2005). The Singularity is Near. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303788-9. Artificial meat grown in a lab could become a reality THIS year at DailyMail.co.uk http://www.new-harvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MayAdamSG2013MSciComm.pdf In vitro meat habitat at Terreform Edelman, P. D, D. C. McFarland, V. A. Mironov, and J. G. Matheny. 2005. In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Engineering 11(5–6): 659–662. Kruglinski, Susan; Wright, Karen (2008-09-22). "I'll Have My Burger Petri-Dish Bred, With Extra Omega-3". Discover. McFarland, D. C., Doumit, M. E., & Minshall, R. D. (1988). The turkey myogenic satellite cell: Optimization of in vitro proliferation and differentiation. Tissue and Cell, 20(6), 899–908. Benjaminson, M. A., Gilchriest, J. A., & Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta Astronautica, 51(12), 879–889. Dodson, M. V., & Mathison, B. A. (1988). Comparison of ovine and rat muscle-derived satellite cells: Response to insulin. Tissue and Cell, 20(6), 909–918. Doumit, M. E., Cook, D. R., & Merkel, R. A. (1993). Fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor, insulin-like growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor-BB stimulate proliferate of clonally derived porcine myogenic satellite cells. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 157(2), 326–332. Datar, M. Betti, Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 11 (2010) at 17.
34 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226.
Marta Zaraska. "Is Lab-Grown Meat Good for Us?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 February 2016. Despommier, D. (2008). "Vertical Farm Essay I". Vertical Farm. Retrieved 2009-06-26. A Practical Health Guide to In Vitro Meat from the Animal Liberation Front Pigott, George M.; Tucker, Barbee W. (1990). Seafood. CRC Press. p. 236. ISBN 0-8247-7922-3. Eating in Vitro: Magic Meatballs at Next Nature Tuomisto, Hannah (2011-06-17), Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production, American Chemical Society, doi:10.1021/es200130u, retrieved 2013-09-21 A Farm on Every Floor, The New York Times, August 23, 2009 Case Study – Landfill Power Generation, H. Scott Matthews, Green Design Initiative, Carnegie Mellon University. http://gdi.ce.cmu.edu/gd/education/landfill-case.pdf Retrieved 07.02.09 Specter, Michael (2011-05-23), Annals of Science, Test-Tube Burgers, The New Yorker, retrieved 2010-06-28 Lab-grown meat would 'cut emissions and save energy', 21 June 2011 Koerner, Brendan I. (2008-05-20). "Will Lab-Grown Meat Save the Planet? Or is it only good for cows and pigs?". Slate. Cheng, Maria (2010-01-15). "Stem Cells Turned Into Pork". "Livestock a major threat to environment". FAO Newsroom. The Vertical Farm Project. 2009. "Agriculture for the 21st Century and Beyond." S.L. Davis (2001). "The least harm principle suggests that humans should eat beef, lamb, dairy, not a vegan diet". Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. pp. 449–450. Despommier, Dickson (November 2009). "The Rise of Vertical Farms". Scientific American (New York: Scientific American Inc.) 301 (5): 60–67. ISSN 0036-8733. Sandhana, Lakshmi. "Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table". Archived from the original on August 19, 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2014. Vein, John. "Patent US6835390". Retrieved 27 January 2014. Haagsman, H.P.; K.J. HelIingwerf; B.A.J. Roelen (October 2009). "Production of Animal Proteins by Cell Systems" (PDF). Universiteit Utrecht: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: 13–14. Retrieved 27 January 2014. Tuomisto, Hanna L.; Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (22–24 September 2010). "Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production" (PDF): 5. Retrieved 27 January 2014. Alok Jha. "Synthetic meat: how the world's costliest burger made it on to the plate". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 February 2016. "Could vegetarians eat a 'test tube' burger?". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016. "Can Vegetarians Eat In-Vitro Meat? The Debate Rages.". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2 February 2016. In vitro meat at Food Ethics Council In Vitro Meat: Power, Authenticity and Vegetarianism Tim Barribeau. "Is Vat-Grown Meat Kosher? We Asked A Rabbi". io9. Retrieved 2 February 2016. Billinghurst, Thomas (2013-05-02). "Is 'shmeat' the answer?". Gulf News. Retrieved 2013-10-10. "Wolfram-Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine". Retrieved 2 February 2016. Post, Mark (26 March 2015). "Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands has developed synthetic beef patties.". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 14 May 2015. "Stem cells promise Noah’s ark of test-tube burger choices". "The Colbert Report: World of Nahlej – Shmeat". Comedy Central. 2009-03-17. Retrieved 2011-12-08. http://bitelabs.org/ "Hunger Game? Startup Whets Public Appetite For Salami Made From Celebrities". Huffington Post. 2014-03-03. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-guy-who-want-to-sell-you-salami-made-out-of-james-franco-are-100-serious No, This Website Won't Actually Make Salami Out Of Famous People". Time. 2014-02-28. Harris, Jenn (2014-03-05). "Ellen DeGeneres salami? One company's quest to make meat from celebrity tissue samples". Los Angeles Times. US Census Bureau, 2015 Buchanan, Ian (2010). A Dictionary of Critical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199532919.
