The personal consequences of one’s actions are in proportion
to the good or bad intentions towards others.

Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021)

The Trailer

Breaking Boundaries tells the story of the most important scientific discovery of our time – that humanity has pushed Earth beyond the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years, since the dawn of civilization. The 75-minute film takes the audience on a journey of discovery of planetary thresholds we must not exceed, not just for the stability of our planet, but for the future of humanity. It offers up the solutions we can and must put in place now if we are to protect Earth’s life support systems.

Ogmog said:

The personal consequences of one’s actions are in proportion
to the good or bad intentions towards others.

Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021)

The Trailer

Breaking Boundaries tells the story of the most important scientific discovery of our time – that humanity has pushed Earth beyond the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years, since the dawn of civilization. The 75-minute film takes the audience on a journey of discovery of planetary thresholds we must not exceed, not just for the stability of our planet, but for the future of humanity. It offers up the solutions we can and must put in place now if we are to protect Earth’s life support systems.

> the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years

PMSL. The Earth has never been stable. Remeber the children ice ages. Norway lost it’s ice cap only recently. Countries are still tilting due to isostatic rebound. Coral is still trying to catch up with the sea level rise after the last ice age. No, the Earth has never been stable.

mollwollfumble said:

Ogmog said:

The personal consequences of one’s actions are in proportion
to the good or bad intentions towards others.

Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021)

The Trailer

Breaking Boundaries tells the story of the most important scientific discovery of our time – that humanity has pushed Earth beyond the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years, since the dawn of civilization. The 75-minute film takes the audience on a journey of discovery of planetary thresholds we must not exceed, not just for the stability of our planet, but for the future of humanity. It offers up the solutions we can and must put in place now if we are to protect Earth’s life support systems.

> the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years

PMSL. The Earth has never been stable. Remeber the children ice ages. Norway lost it’s ice cap only recently. Countries are still tilting due to isostatic rebound. Coral is still trying to catch up with the sea level rise after the last ice age. No, the Earth has never been stable.

I guess it depends on what is meant by “stable”, and also by “Earth”.

I think one could say – other than very, very, very slowly radiating heat into space, and the rate of rotation very, very, very slowly reducing – the Earth has been “stable” for over 4 billion years. Stable orbit, stable mass, stable elemental composition….

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ogmog said:

The personal consequences of one’s actions are in proportion
to the good or bad intentions towards others.

Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021)

The Trailer

Breaking Boundaries tells the story of the most important scientific discovery of our time – that humanity has pushed Earth beyond the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years, since the dawn of civilization. The 75-minute film takes the audience on a journey of discovery of planetary thresholds we must not exceed, not just for the stability of our planet, but for the future of humanity. It offers up the solutions we can and must put in place now if we are to protect Earth’s life support systems.

> the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years

PMSL. The Earth has never been stable. Remeber the children ice ages. Norway lost it’s ice cap only recently. Countries are still tilting due to isostatic rebound. Coral is still trying to catch up with the sea level rise after the last ice age. No, the Earth has never been stable.

I guess it depends on what is meant by “stable”, and also by “Earth”.

I think one could say – other than very, very, very slowly radiating heat into space, and the rate of rotation very, very, very slowly reducing – the Earth has been “stable” for over 4 billion years. Stable orbit, stable mass, stable elemental composition….

Deep thought. Is like a deep but steep de/incline?

roughbarked said:

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

> the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years

PMSL. The Earth has never been stable. Remeber the children ice ages. Norway lost it’s ice cap only recently. Countries are still tilting due to isostatic rebound. Coral is still trying to catch up with the sea level rise after the last ice age. No, the Earth has never been stable.

I guess it depends on what is meant by “stable”, and also by “Earth”.

I think one could say – other than very, very, very slowly radiating heat into space, and the rate of rotation very, very, very slowly reducing – the Earth has been “stable” for over 4 billion years. Stable orbit, stable mass, stable elemental composition….

Deep thought. Is like a deep but steep de/incline?

Or could it be a ripple folding up?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

esselte said:

I guess it depends on what is meant by “stable”, and also by “Earth”.

I think one could say – other than very, very, very slowly radiating heat into space, and the rate of rotation very, very, very slowly reducing – the Earth has been “stable” for over 4 billion years. Stable orbit, stable mass, stable elemental composition….

Deep thought. Is like a deep but steep de/incline?

Or could it be a ripple folding up?

Who benefits?

When most people think of Earth they think of a giant globe. But when you ask them to describe Earth they will talk about the land, oceans, mountains and rivers, trees and animals, the sky, clouds. All this stuff is confined to the crust and the atmosphere which only compose, what? One and a bit per cent of the total mass of the big old globe they are picturing in their head.

I think if, instead of equating the habitable and visible bits of Earth with the whole globe, if we pictured in our heads the swirls and fragments in a drop of water under a microscope we might see more concern and action around stuff like climate change. In other words, I don’t think most people have an accurate concept of just how tiny the volume of space that can support life is in comparison to the entire planet, and I think that is detrimental to our ability to manage our presence here.

esselte said:

When most people think of Earth they think of a giant globe. But when you ask them to describe Earth they will talk about the land, oceans, mountains and rivers, trees and animals, the sky, clouds. All this stuff is confined to the crust and the atmosphere which only compose, what? One and a bit per cent of the total mass of the big old globe they are picturing in their head.

I think if, instead of equating the habitable and visible bits of Earth with the whole globe, if we pictured in our heads the swirls and fragments in a drop of water under a microscope we might see more concern and action around stuff like climate change. In other words, I don’t think most people have an accurate concept of just how tiny the volume of space that can support life is in comparison to the entire planet, and I think that is detrimental to our ability to manage our presence here.

Indeed
it’s shocking how people in general
still find it impossible to wrap their head around
how “thin” the layer of atmosphere is, or how easily it’s effected.

Ogmog said:

Indeed
it’s shocking how people in general
still find it impossible to wrap their head around
how “thin” the layer of atmosphere is, or how easily it’s effected.

An analogy that has always stuck with me (though I admit I’ve never checked it’s accuracy) is that if we were to shrink Earth down to the size of a basket ball, then left that ball outside over night and in the morning there is a layer of dew on the surface of the ball, that layer of dew represents the thickness of that planets atmosphere. This is where I get the “drop of water under a microscope” thing in my previous post.

Then it’s even more fun to remember that the entire 100 km or so thickness of the atmosphere can’t support life. People can only survive a short while at the top of Everest, 10 km high. One tenth of the thickness of a layer of dew on basket ball is hospitable to life. The remainder of that basketball and everything surrounding it is inhospitable. Thought of in these terms the existence of life on this planet is insanely fragile.

mollwollfumble said:

Ogmog said:

The personal consequences of one’s actions are in proportion
to the good or bad intentions towards others.

Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021)

The Trailer

Breaking Boundaries tells the story of the most important scientific discovery of our time – that humanity has pushed Earth beyond the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years, since the dawn of civilization. The 75-minute film takes the audience on a journey of discovery of planetary thresholds we must not exceed, not just for the stability of our planet, but for the future of humanity. It offers up the solutions we can and must put in place now if we are to protect Earth’s life support systems.

> the boundaries that have kept Earth stable for 10,000 years

PMSL. The Earth has never been stable. Remeber the children ice ages. Norway lost it’s ice cap only recently. Countries are still tilting due to isostatic rebound. Coral is still trying to catch up with the sea level rise after the last ice age. No, the Earth has never been stable.

Sea level in the last 7,000 years has been pretty stable. A large part of the worlds population now lives within a few metres of it, and will not do well as it rapidly rises.

Carl Sagan used the same basketball scale
but likened the thickness of our atmosphere
to that of a layer of paint or varnish.

…but I agree with your Mt.Everest thing…

Ogmog said:

Carl Sagan used the same basketball scale
but likened the thickness of our atmosphere
to that of a layer of paint or varnish.

…but I agree with your Mt.Everest thing…

Just looking at the thickness of the atmosphere from a spacecraft vividly illustrates how thin it is.

Tamb said:

Ogmog said:

Carl Sagan used the same basketball scale
but likened the thickness of our atmosphere
to that of a layer of paint or varnish.

…but I agree with your Mt.Everest thing…

Just looking at the thickness of the atmosphere from a spacecraft vividly illustrates how thin it is.

As a bonus you can see that the Earth is not flat.

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

As a bonus you can see that the Earth is not flat.

that’s just the horizon of the disc

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

As a bonus you can see that the Earth is not flat.

that’s just the horizon of the disc

Like many politicians it’s bent.

Use of “ye olde” dates at least to the late 18th century. The use of the term “ye” to mean “the” derives from Early Modern English, in which the was written þe, employing the Old English letter thorn, þ. During the Tudor period, the scribal abbreviation for þe was EME ye.svg (“þͤ” or “þᵉ” with modern symbols); here, the letter ⟨þ⟩ is combined with the letter ⟨e⟩. Because ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨y⟩ look nearly identical in medieval English blackletter (as the ⟨þ⟩ in EME ye.svg, compared with the ⟨y⟩ in ye), the two have since been mistakenly substituted for each other. The connection became less obvious after the letter thorn was discontinued in favour of the digraph ⟨th⟩. Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

As a bonus you can see that the Earth is not flat.

that’s just the horizon of the disc

Like many politicians it’s bent.

it’s all about the optics, that’s lens distortion right there

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s just the horizon of the disc

Like many politicians it’s bent.

it’s all about the optics, that’s lens distortion right there

The curse of the wide angle lens.

Boris said:

Use of “ye olde” dates at least to the late 18th century. The use of the term “ye” to mean “the” derives from Early Modern English, in which the was written þe, employing the Old English letter thorn, þ. During the Tudor period, the scribal abbreviation for þe was EME ye.svg (“þͤ” or “þᵉ” with modern symbols); here, the letter ⟨þ⟩ is combined with the letter ⟨e⟩. Because ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨y⟩ look nearly identical in medieval English blackletter (as the ⟨þ⟩ in EME ye.svg, compared with the ⟨y⟩ in ye), the two have since been mistakenly substituted for each other. The connection became less obvious after the letter thorn was discontinued in favour of the digraph ⟨th⟩. Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

ye ye ye.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

Use of “ye olde” dates at least to the late 18th century. The use of the term “ye” to mean “the” derives from Early Modern English, in which the was written þe, employing the Old English letter thorn, þ. During the Tudor period, the scribal abbreviation for þe was EME ye.svg (“þͤ” or “þᵉ” with modern symbols); here, the letter ⟨þ⟩ is combined with the letter ⟨e⟩. Because ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨y⟩ look nearly identical in medieval English blackletter (as the ⟨þ⟩ in EME ye.svg, compared with the ⟨y⟩ in ye), the two have since been mistakenly substituted for each other. The connection became less obvious after the letter thorn was discontinued in favour of the digraph ⟨th⟩. Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

ye ye ye.

A thorny conundrum.

Boris said:

Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

Ye was the plural form of you. I wonder why it fell out of favour when it still could be a useful word. It is certainly better than the modern plural form “youse”.

party_pants said:

Boris said:

Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

Ye was the plural form of you. I wonder why it fell out of favour when it still could be a useful word. It is certainly better than the modern plural form “youse”.

Or yez as in waddyez all doin.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Boris said:

Today, ye is often incorrectly pronounced as the archaic pronoun of the same spelling

Ye was the plural form of you. I wonder why it fell out of favour when it still could be a useful word. It is certainly better than the modern plural form “youse”.

Or yez as in waddyez all doin.

or wazzapinin’?

or Wazapp?