GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Most of you will know what a baobab looks like. They are African trees that look as if they were planted upside-down with the branches at the top of the enormously tall trunk looking like a tangle of roots. Some of them are incredibly old, thousands of years. And now they are dying.
A recent study found that 8 of the 13 most ancient known baobabs and 5 of the 6 largest are either dying or dead.
The scientists investigating the problem say it's unlikely to be just old age — too many are going at the same time — and they can't detect disease. Rising temperatures and decreasing rainfall are obvious suspects.
Between 2005 and 2017, Patrut’s team dated more than 60 trees across Africa and its islands — nearly all of the continent’s largest, and potentially longest living, known baobabs. To compare ages of different parts of the trees, the researchers collected samples of wood from the inner cavities and exteriors of the trunks and from deep incisions in the stems, which were then sealed to prevent infection.
Quote:
But, surprisingly, the scientists also found that most of the oldest and largest baobabs died during the study, often suddenly between measurements.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,718
Rep:
A fun thought. The climate changes in 60 year cycles and 1,000 and 10,000 year cycles, with some minor changes between those three. The planet warms up and cools off, becomes tropical and becomes frozen. Those ice caps that scientists love to focus on, are leftovers from the last iceage, they have been melting for 10,000 years.
When the global warming scam was exposed, and even the United Nations was forced to admit that it was a scam, the global warming scientists then changed the name to Global Climate Change, well because duh, it is one of the few constants in life, the climate is constantly changing, its actually a sign of a healthy planet. Now Global Climate stagnation thats a real pain in the ass.
As some always need a caricature for just everything which is not proven on TV, a caricature for you. “Recent” will become a matter of definition and death is in the eye of the beholder.., I guess.
As the past is never right, and the present is always the one we like to perceive, All that has Ever been said about the climat change since the Club Of Rome and each time after that, the 360° report of Lloyds inclusive, must forcibly been wrong.
Everything that's right is wrong until it becomes comfortable. And all becomes comprehensible, easy. Slogans are cool.
Last edited by Michael Uplawski; 06-13-2018 at 12:18 PM.
What I know is this: where I live, we used to have spring and fall. Now spring and fall are about two weeks long, the sea level is rising, areas flood that never used to flood, the weather is more unpredictable and violent than it used to be, and so on and so on.
But you climate-change deniers can keep denying until you are all under water for all I care.
What I know is this: where I live, we used to have spring and fall. Now spring and fall are about two weeks long, the sea level is rising, areas flood that never used to flood, the weather is more unpredictable and violent than it used to be, and so on and so on.
But you climate-change deniers can keep denying until you are all under water for all I care.
Furrfu.
Umm ok. I too see everything you mention, But I think there's a lot more at play here. Check This out. This is only what is available to the public, what do you think is being done behind our backs? I feel it has a domino effect, if they "fix" it up anywhere it affects everybody "downwind" with drought or flooding. Please research this a little more.
This does have undesired effects on life in general and this would include trees.
As some always need a caricature for just everything which is not proven on TV, a caricature for you. “Recent” will become a matter of definition and death is in the eye of the beholder.., I guess.
i know that article, but the image you posted is very small; would you like to repost with a proper link and maybe some explanation?
because it makes a very important point, esp. to all those "normal fluctuation" theory supporters.
Regarding purposeful weather modification please note that this has always been attempted on extremely localized areas. The overall effect if put to scale is far less than expecting the lighting of a single match to raise the temperature not only of your home but all the homes in your county, in some cases all the homes in your State. There is no large scale concerted "behind our backs" modification because of the sheer cost involved, not only initially but for extended time. For example one of the largest public single cloud seeding efforts to date was exercised in the State of Wyoming in 2006 in an attempt to increase snowfall at three ski resorts. It amounted to a few tons of material and cost 8.8 Million US Dollars for a few months work. The US Military probably spent more than that during the Vietnam War in an attempt to turn the Ho Chi Minh trail into a mudhole but it failed and the numbers are not public. It just makes no sense whatsoever to imagine any deliberate localized attempt has any effect at all (it is still inconclusive) let alone any Global effect.
OTOH look at any graph compiled by anyone that documents the rise in Carbon emissions Globally even from just the burning of fossil fuels since the dawn of The Industrial Age and largely because much of it is distributed among so many people over so large an area and as a side-effect (hiding the true cost) and you will see we are talking not about a few tons but several billions of tons annually uninterrupted for over 120 years now. In 2004 it had reached nearly 30 Billion tons, that's 60,000,000,000,000 pounds in one year. That Human Caused Global Climate Change deniers still try to distract us from the real by citing volcanos as being even more important than the human contribution would be laughable if the effects weren't so grim. The facts are that the human contribution is not only NOT dwarfed by volcano emissions, it's the other way around. If we add up all the volcanoes effects the whole world over for a year and the total of global human emission, human caused emissions are sixty (60) times greater. It is absolutely conclusive that volcanoes affect weather, at least for a few years and over a not inconsiderable proportion of the globe, yet some maintain that 60 times that amount that has continued unabated for many decades has no effect. Does that seem sensible to you?
On the flip side of this coin from the possible causes we go to the effects. We have excellent documentation from several sources about how weather has changed on many different scales and for a massive amount of History and Pre History. One important record is found in ice core samples that now date back to just shy of 3 million years back in time. The fossil record is less exact but we do know that certain plants and animals only exist under certain, and often very narrow, range of conditions and these date back a half billion years. Just how fast this is occurring is thoroughly documented by satellite studies coordinated with "boots on the ground" such as the rate of glacier melting. The point is it is just as safe a bet to say "humans have caused global climate change and it is increasing" as it is to say "somewhere on Earth next year it will rain". It is literally that solid.
It is very important to note that no serious experts in the field deny that change is occurring. It is safe to note that the only ones of those that think humans have had nothing to do with that trend "have a dog in that race" because their livelihood is tied to fossil fuels. There is no counter to this since essentially everyone depends on fossil fuels. Furthermore, it is far more important to realize no serious scientist wants the climate trends we see to be true, because whatever short term gain might conceivably be even possible is dwarfed by the Russian Roulette effects of these trends continuing. Most scientists heartily wish these trends were not so. Many in the know are actually frightened by the projections calculated.
Make of it what you will... Deny. Ignore. Write it off as a money scam. Whatever. But the Jury is most definitely in. Human Caused Global Climate Change is Real. Whatever else may also be true, that much is simple Fact. It is likely also true that as alarming as it is, the loss of the Baobab will soon be "small potatoes". There are consequences to defecating in your kitchen.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.