
A Terrifying, Fascinating Timelapse of 30 Years of Human Impact on Earth - endtwist
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/05/terrifying-fascinating-timelapse-30-years-human-impact-earth-gifs/5540/
======
ChrisNorstrom
These gifs are pretty much useless in showing the real destruction because
they're only looking back 30 years and showing the changes of little plots of
land here and there.

If you compare North America today with what it was before Europeans landed.
You'd see a truly horrifying picture. Something like 70% of the forests of
North America are gone. Just load up google maps in satellite mode and look at
the USA. Farms and settlements are literally everywhere. Brazil too has lost a
massive chunk. Entire forests along the ocean are gone. So has europe. And in
Australia Koalas are becoming endangered because of the loss of their habitat.
In Asia, rain forests are being cut down for palm oil plantations. And don't
even get me started on the "Great African Land Grab" in which rich countries
bought prime fertile African land for pennies per hectare.

This continues to this day: 6 percent of [the US lost it's] forest cover in
just five years time, a total of 120,000 square kilometers (46,332 square
miles)

(
[http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0427-hance_forestloss.html#PuE...](http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0427-hance_forestloss.html#PuEszYs3LDm28uWC.99)
)

Let's not forget the enormous swaths of plastic swimming around in all the
major oceans: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch>

The fact that more than half of all the streams in the USA are too polluted to
support normal life: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300022/More-
HALF-U-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300022/More-HALF-U-S-
rivers-polluted-support-life-shocking-report-reveals-scale-water-
contamination.html)

And don't get me started on particles from the pollution in China crossing the
Pacific Ocean and entering the US Eastern Coast. As well as residents living
near highways have a 27% increase in Asthema. And the list goes on and on.

~~~
downandout
Why is it that so many left-wing rants leave me with the unnerving impression
that their authors care more about Koalas than humans? You created an
impressive list of eco-complaints, but the simple fact is that human life
expectancy - my primary concern as a human - has risen dramatically in the
same 30 years. Perhaps a little more focus on humans and a little less on sad
Koalas will keep us on track toward even higher life expectancy.

~~~
rayiner
Human life expectancy rising over that period has nothing to do with the lost
forest cover. Indeed, the vast majority of the increase is due to a few
relatively low-tech advances targeted at reducing infant mortality.

~~~
marknutter
relatively low-tech advances that were made possibly by modern civilization,
which was made possible by our expansionism.

~~~
rayiner
That's hardly an iron-clad causal chain there. I'm pretty sure penicillin
would have happened whether or not we deforested California and turned it into
a giant collection of freeways and parking lots.

~~~
marknutter
Penicillin isn't the only medical advancement from the past 100 years that is
contributing to our high life expectancy rates.

~~~
rayiner
Yes, but the majority of the improvements stem from a handful of relatively
low-tech things: antibiotics, clean water, improved nutrition, urbanization
leading to most births happening in the presence of a medical professional,
social changes reducing pregnancy among young teenagers, and a handful of key
vaccines. Its not blockbuster cancer drags driving the increase.

------
MichaelApproved
I don't see why these pictures are all terrifying. I'm amazed and impressed by
many of them.

~~~
coherentpony
Receding ice sheets don't terrify you? The felling of rainforest, the Earth's
inhaler of carbon dioxide. Disappearing.

All because of one species. Human beings. That is a chilling.

~~~
nathannecro
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you may be vastly overreacting.

Talking about what's happening in both the Atlantic ice sheets and the
Antarctic ice shelves can become complicated, and as far as I can tell
(someone please correct me if I'm wrong) not definitive by any means.

However, rainforests are by no means the "Earth's inhaler of carbon dioxide
(and by extension I took that to mean 'oxygen producer' as well)". According
to many sources (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest#Tropical>,
<http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm>,
[http://www.iub.edu/~act/files/publications/1992-93/93-03_Def...](http://www.iub.edu/~act/files/publications/1992-93/93-03_Deforestation_LandUse.pdf)),
rainforests do not contribute much to global oxygenation.

In fact, organisms like the prochlorococcus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prochlorococcus> have been theorized to be
responsible for at least 50% to 60% of the world's atmospheric oxygen
([http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6952/full/nature0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6952/full/nature01947.html)
there's a paper in the references there which has that statistic, but I don't
remember which). Today, these microbes are still hard at work, churning out
oxygen and while some mistakes have been made (iron seeding, etc) they're
still the most populous microbe on the planet.

I would also contest the point about human beings. (This is my opinion talking
now). I will not disagree that the earth's climate is changing rather rapidly
(relative to the measurable past). I will argue though that it is arrogant to
presume that humans are the root cause. On a micro scale, humans have been
rather destructive to specific ecosystems. However, I have yet to see
convincing proof that humans can effect climate change to this magnitude on a
macro scale.

~~~
SupremumLimit
97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is
anthropogenic: [http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-
sa...](http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-
change-is-happening-14051)

It's not even the first review. How much more proof do you need?

I think it's arrogant to ignore scientific consensus.

~~~
nathannecro
I'm fully aware of the PNAS paper (and others like it which have been
published). Let me point out a few other times in history where scientists,
without clear evidence for their beliefs, were wrong:

When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all
other astronomers during his time opposed his views.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>

The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for
about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible
turds. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory>

Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The
smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and
fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics.
Clearly, they were wrong.

Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate
(across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that
humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local
climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger
when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale.

This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation.
Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking
local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a
scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question,
but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my
beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have
currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can
cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we
do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.

~~~
Locke1689
_Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The
smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and
fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics.
Clearly, they were wrong._

I don't believe any of this is true.

------
toast76
Amazing. This is the area where I grew up (in Australia). The area features 3
"open cut" coal mines. One of which has been going through a reforestation
process over the past decade or so.
[http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/v=-38.2235574,146.46468...](http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/v=-38.2235574,146.46468559999996,11.614889860260392)

~~~
rfatnabayeff
This is my native city (more than 1M of people):
[http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/v=54.739011,55.95804350...](http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/v=54.739011,55.95804350000003,9.179454532197578)
Everything seems fine so far. :)

------
EarthLaunch
The ignorance and fear-mongering in this thread is far more terrifying to me.
The environmental movement is intellectually disgusting.

------
fla
Watch the Aral sea dissapear :
[http://earthengine.google.org/#timelapse/v=45.03875,59.72822...](http://earthengine.google.org/#timelapse/v=45.03875,59.72822,5.58,latLng&t=2.24)

------
binarysolo
Does anyone have an authoritative, scientific resource that can quantify human
impact on Earth in our presumably negative ways? I want to understand more
about the issues as a whole but from a macro standpoint, ideally backed with
numbers and science from a trusted third party.

~~~
brc
You will never get an authoritative unbiased scientific resource.

There is no agreed measure on what 'impact' means, and whether that is
positive or negative. One persons fantastic city is anothers urban blight on
pristine wilderness.

All published data are biased in some direction.

You can measure conversion of wilderness to farmland, farmland to cities,
displacement of wildlife, and many other factors. Much of the data is
modelled. All of it is produced to prove one point of the other. Even when
people agree on the data, they will disagree on the positive or negative
impacts.

The trusted third party is a mirage. All you can do is interpret the supplied
data and arguments and make up your own mind.

------
tomohawk
I've been looking at the aftermath of the deforestation of Ireland for the
past couple of weeks. The country was down to about .1% forest in 1900 due to:
clearing forests to put down insurgency, building British navy, burning wood
for fuel, clearing marginal land for potatoes (then abandoning it after a
couple of years), sheep. After the wood was gone, people started burning the
soil (peat) for heating.

Now, much of Ireland is a denuded landscape that may never recover. The scary
thing is that this is now what people are used to and think is normal.

Reforestation has brought back the forest cover to 10%, but most of it seems
to be non-native species and not the Oaks, Elms, etc that used to be here.

------
jballanc
Pictures are certainly worth a certain number of words, but sometimes all you
really need is the hook of an idea to really grasp a much larger concept. In
this case, I've always been caught by something Jared Diamond wrote in "Germs,
Guns, and Steel". (What do you mean you haven't read it? Drop everything and
go read it now!)

I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was this: You know that war that the US has
been fighting in Iraq? You know all the images of desert warfare from over
there?

That's the "Fertile Crescent".

If it doesn't seem so _fertile_ any longer, that's almost entirely due to
human activity.

~~~
brazzy
> If it doesn't seem so fertile any longer, that's almost entirely due to
> human activity.

Bullshit. The area was never fertile in the way it's understood by people used
to temperate climates. There were _never_ (during the course of human history)
lush green forests covering everything.

The fertile areas were (and continue to be) only along rivers (Euphrat,
Tigris, Jordan, Nile) and greatly extended through irrigation (i.e. human
activity).

------
hfsktr
I am still amazed at how small the UK is (I think I read it was roughly the
size of Florida). Even though I knew the general area I had to zoom farther
than I thought to see it.

On second look I think it's the type of map. It seems lower than I would
recognize from other maps.

The area around Cairo expanded like crazy.

Definitely bookmarking this for later.

------
tectonic
Zoom out as far as possible. Drag the slider. Watch the snow-line retreat in
the north of Canada and Russia.

------
hkmurakami
Wish this went back to the 60's. I have heard about how much of SV was
farmland (orchards) when my parents first arrived, and would _love_ to see a
timelapse that visualizes the change over time here.

------
vegasbrianc
Wow. It is quite scary these pictures. I lived in Vegas for 10 years and
personally saw Lake Mead slowly going away every year. I hope more people will
take notice and help anyway they can.

~~~
moheeb
I'll be sure to urinate directly in Lake Mead.

------
Nux
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked!" - George Carlin

------
aidenn0
Take a look at the area just west of Dulles Airport. The 80s is when that all
started turning from farm land to suburbs at an astonishing rate.

------
ChuckMcM
I find it interesting how many roofs turn white.

------
eclipxe
San Jose - pre Highway 85 & 87\. I've always wanted to see maps of the area
before they were built. This is great!

~~~
enigmo
Google Earth lets you view old aerial and satellite images... they have
portions of the peninsula back to the 1940's.

------
ISL
Scroll the interactive map to watch the Amazon.

The build-out of some Chinese cities are impressive too.

~~~
NamTaf
Hong Kong's massive projects to reclaim land are captured in this and makes
for very impressive viewing.

------
tomohawk
Maybe more horrifying would be time lapse of Washington DC area

------
rfatnabayeff
The Earth is fine, people. One herd of farting cows diminishes all the human
effort in CO emission decrease in nearby town. One volcano eruption diminishes
it worldwide. One major earthquake contributes to Earth landscape change more
than all the humanity did. Claiming that human can change the Earth is like
claiming that the single flea drives the whole elephant. Earth is fine,
people.

~~~
mmanfrin
You are the reason that reason has such a hard time in politics. You've made
up your mind about something that evidence and facts overwhelmingly disagree
with you on.

~~~
rfatnabayeff
You know, when local rednecks witness slight daily weather change, they
proudly attribute it to 'global warming'. I mean, we track the weather for at
most a hundred year. We tend to see any several-year trend as an alarming
global tendency. Weather change periods definitely have very low-frequency
components, so it's unwise to declare any locality as a global tendency.

