Humanity's first influence on climate change could have come much earlier than previously thought
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission.
We all know that humans are helping drive climate change. No, we aren't the only cause of the increasing global temperatures, but there's no question that we have had a serious impact over the years. Now, new research estimates that humanity's first influence on global climate change may have come much earlier than previously believed.
By most accounts, it's believed that the human fingerprint on global warming really began when modern cars took off. However, our first misstep in the fight against climate change may have come far before the first modern cars roamed the streets. Instead, researchers believe the start of the industrial revolution may have been the tipping point.
Today's Top Deals
Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales
Best Ring Video Doorbell deals
Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98
During that time, more factories sprouted up, leading to increased output of greenhouse gases. To dig a little deeper, the researchers believe that the first signs of human influence on climate change likely happened as early as 1885, just before the gas-powered car became a standard part of life. These findings are detailed in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, it's extremely difficult to tell exactly when we first started to have a noticeable impact on the global climate. While we've done plenty to try to combat climate change in recent years, with a mission set to test a solar umbrella happening later this decade, there's still a long way to go if we truly hope to stop rising sea levels.
While some scientists argue that we're far past the tipping point, others aren't sure. But one thing is clear: if we want to truly make a difference, we need to understand where we started to go wrong. Not only can that help us ascertain how much damage we've actually done, but it could help us find ways to go about living in a way that doesn't risk additional climate change pushes, without making us give up the modern luxuries we've come to depend on.
One researcher says that had we kept track of the changes in the atmosphere back then like we do now, it's very likely we could have detected the signals of incoming climate change far before it became such a problem. Instead, we'll simply have to accept that the world is what it is now, and that human influence on climate change has been running rampant for centuries at this point.
More Top Deals
Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free
See the
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
31 minutes ago
- The Verge
Denis Villeneuve is directing the next Bond film for Amazon
First, Amazon MGM secured creative control of the James Bond IP, then it brought Amy Pascal and David Heyman in to produce a new feature about the iconic spy. Now, the studio has found a director to lead the project. Last night, Amazon MGM announced that Denis Villeneuve has been tapped to direct a new Bond film — the studio's first since it obtained the property as part of its MGM acquisition back in 2021 for $8.45 billion. The new Bond project does not yet have a name, casting details, or a production timeline, but Amazon MGM also shared that Tanya Lapointe is attached to produce. In a press release about his involvement in the new movie, Villeneuve said that as a longtime fan who grew up watching the Bond series, he sees the character as 'sacred territory.' 'Some of my earliest movie-going memories are connected to 007,' Villeneuve said. 'I intend to honor the tradition and open the path for many new missions to come. This is a massive responsibility, but also, incredibly exciting for me and a huge honor.' Amazon MGM and Prime Video head Mike Hopkins echoed Villeneuve's enthusiasm and said that it was an honor to be able to collaborate with him. Hopkins also seemed to indicate that the studio intends for the new project to receive a theatrical release. 'From Blade Runner 2049 to Arrival to the Dune films, [Villeneuve] has delivered compelling worlds, dynamic visuals, complex characters, and—most importantly—the immersive storytelling that global audiences yearn to experience in theaters,' Hopkins said. 'James Bond is in the hands of one of today's greatest filmmakers and we cannot wait to get started on 007's next adventure.' It's likely going to be a while until we see any of the new Bond given how busy Villeneuve currently is with his work on a third Dune feature for Legendary and Warner Bros. Discovery, which is slated to hit theaters next year. As Deadline notes, Villeneuve has also reportedly been in talks to work on Universal's upcoming Cleopatra project, Alcon Entertainment's adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama, and Legendary's adaptation of Annie Jacobsen's Nuclear War: A Scenario. Bringing Villeneuve on for Bond seems like a solid move on Amazon's part considering how much money the studio spent to buy MGM and then, as part of a separate deal, to convince longtime Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson to give up creative control of the IP. Villeneuve's a known hit maker, and he might be able to help Amazon recoup a substantial chunk of its investment. But the new film's success is undoubtedly going to hinge on its story and whoever ends up becoming the latest 007.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Creative Problem-Solving With Limited Resources
Duncan Wardle, former vice president at The Walt Disney Company, runs creative consulting company iD8 & innov8 to embed innovative cultures. Why do some of the best ideas start not in boardrooms but in basements? Not with seven-figure innovation budgets but with seven sticky notes? Global R&D spending has nearly tripled since 2000, from $1 trillion to over $2.75 trillion in 2023. But despite the funding surge, companies often struggle to create game-changing ideas. Why? Because more money doesn't mean more imagination. The real secret weapon for innovation might be having less. Less money. Less time. Tighter constraints. It sounds counterintuitive, but limitation is often the mother of innovation. When there's no clear path forward, you start building your own. This paradox, that scarcity breeds the most original ideas, isn't just a romantic startup myth. It's a mindset shift that savvy leaders at every level can harness. The Myth Of The Perfect Conditions We're conditioned to believe that big breakthroughs require perfect conditions. But that's not how most innovative ideas are born. They're born in the wild, on the fly. Take Sara Blakely, founder of Spanx. With no background in fashion and no access to manufacturers, she hacked her first prototype by cutting the feet off her pantyhose. Her first pitches? Relentlessly persuasive DIY. Today? Billion-dollar brand. Research backs this scrappy spirit. The University of Illinois found that moderate constraints actually boost creative output by forcing people to think more divergently than when they had unlimited options. Harvard Business School researchers discovered that resource scarcity drives teams to more innovative solutions, especially when compared to teams with endless options. Think of constraints like bumpers in a bowling alley. They don't limit you, they redirect you. They keep you moving forward by ruling out obvious routes and nudging you toward unexpected ones. From Sketches To Storyboards: What I Learned At Disney At Disney, I worked alongside some of the most inventive people on the planet. But our best ideas didn't come from state-of-the-art labs or endless whiteboard sessions. They came from scrappy, resourceful acts of visual storytelling—using whatever we had on hand. One approach I loved? Hiring graphic artists to sketch visual mockups of new ideas instead of building costly physical prototypes. These lightweight visuals weren't just pretty pictures; they became powerful persuasion tools. A compelling story on paper can move mountains faster than a million-dollar model. Visual storytelling remains a powerful tool for innovation today. When designing my book, I wanted to ensure visual learners could engage deeply with the material. Each chapter includes a QR code linking to short videos that bring key concepts to life. Meeting people where they are helps unlock new ideas. Because when resources are limited, creativity becomes your greatest currency. If you can sell an idea with a sketch and a story, imagine what you'll do once the real tools show up. A Playbook For Constraint-Led Innovation If you're a mid-level manager, early-career leader or anyone working with less than you'd like—good. You're in the perfect position to innovate. Here's how to turn limitations into launchpads: Instead of asking 'How do we do this?' ask, 'How else might we do this?' The first question assumes the answer lives in the known. The second opens the door to new territory. At Disney, we'd often flip through briefs to see what unexpected ideas would emerge. One of the most powerful flips wasn't a product brief; it was a cultural reframe. We didn't have 'customers,' we had guests. We didn't have 'employees,' we had cast members. Those subtle shifts shaped the entire experience. If someone is a guest, how do you welcome them? If you're a cast member, how do you show up? Flipping the brief doesn't just generate ideas. It generates new worldviews. Challenge your team to prototype an idea using only what's in front of them. No Googling. No budgets. Just brains and bodies. One standout example? LEGO Serious Play is a method where teams prototype abstract ideas and complex systems using nothing but LEGO. It forces people to get out of their heads and into their hands, building new perspectives from the ground up. The simplicity of the materials sharpens creativity. The real win? It's not about crafting a perfect model; it's about the shared meaning that emerges from the messy building process. Being new isn't a liability; it's a superpower. I call these fresh perspectives 'naive experts.' They're not shackled by 'how it's always been done,' and that's exactly what makes them powerful. Naive experts could be new hires, junior team members or even folks pulled in from other departments or industries. Because they don't carry the same mental baggage, they often ask the questions the rest of the room stopped asking years ago. Questions like, 'Wait, why do we even do it that way?' which is usually the first domino in a breakthrough idea. The best disruptions don't always come from the experts, but from the untrained eyes bold enough to see things differently. Instead of starting with 'What do we want people to do?' ask 'How do we want them to feel?' Designing backward from delight can yield more human, emotionally resonant solutions. Today, the most powerful kind of AI isn't artificial intelligence; it's authentic interactions. In a world obsessed with automation and algorithms, what stands out is when someone feels seen, heard and surprised by a brand. Whether you're designing an experience, a product or a simple email, don't just optimize for clicks or conversions. Optimize for connection. Solve for emotion first, and you won't just earn attention, you'll earn loyalty. Reframing Constraints As Creative Advantages Budget cuts sting. Timelines shrink. Approval processes drag. But that's where the magic often lives. Iconic ideas rarely come from perfect conditions; they come from urgency, ingenuity and a refusal to settle. So, the next time you hear, 'We don't have the resources,' don't see it as a roadblock. See it as your unfair advantage. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
It's Complicated: Surgery and Lung Cancer Care
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. It's Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, continuing my little series on the initial treatment of patients with lung cancers. In the earlier discussions, we talked about people with metastatic disease. I'd like to switch today to talking about people who are candidates for surgery. The two operant terms here are operable and resectable. Operable means that the patient is medically fit to have an operation and to undergo the extent of surgery needed for a complete resection. Resectable means that, in the opinion of the thoracic surgeon who will be performing the surgery, R0 resection is likely to be achieved. Again, these things are not perfect. Experience guides many of our decisions here, and the operative decision is made by many different folks. The surgery decision really needs to be made by a surgeon. The truth is that the question of resectability comes from the surgeon at your institution, in your multidisciplinary tumor board. What are the stages we're talking about? Looking at the trials of perioperative therapies, the stages looked at are IB (tumors greater than 4 cm, regardless of nodal status) up to IIIB (larger primary tumors with N2 nodes). N3 nodes are a different discussion, which we'll hopefully have later on. I think I personally am unbelievably struck by the amount of data and the absolute consistency of data about the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients who do not have a driver. That's the first group I'd like to address. It is critical to get sufficient tissue to make sure that there are no drivers present. If you have a driver, particularly EGFR and ALK , it sends you in a different direction for decision making. Also, if you're following the package insert, for example, you need to show that the patients are EGFR and ALK negative. To do that, you really should do next-generation sequencing in 2025. It has to be done on tissue. The data from using blood in these situations show that less than [about] one in five of the mutations are detected in blood in these earlier-stage patients. You must have tissue. Obviously, if you have a positive blood test, that's great. You can use it. If it's negative, though, you must have tissue. You have to get the tissue, you have to get the answer, and you have to get it quickly. It's not an easy situation, and we can talk about that. I think the data are very, very clear in the nine trials now. There are nine randomized trials that have been reported, and every single one shows an improvement in disease-free survival by giving neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. I'm struck by the consistency of the trials, by the huge amount of data, and I think that makes this the standard of care today in patients that are both operable and resectable. What about the discussions that go on at our tumor boards about the need for immediate surgery, particularly for sick patients with IB and II disease? Well, I have to say that there are virtually no data for the patient sitting in your office, saying that immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy is as good, or better than, the neoadjuvant approach. Frankly, there probably is never going to be a trial that answers that. When you look at the trials of where people have proposed to do adjuvant therapy, up to one-third of the patients, or more, never get the adjuvant therapy. It's really an apples-and-oranges comparison here. The data just do not exist and I think are unlikely to exist just by the nature of the problems. For people who have neoadjuvant therapy, there are two groups now as well. There are patients who have a major response, particularly a pathologic complete response or no pathologic response, and there are patients who don't. I think for those who don't, the way forward is clear. You need an alternative therapy. I personally would advise not to give a component of the neoadjuvant program that was truly unsuccessful, particularly for folks who have a large amount of remaining disease in the resection specimen. For people with no pathologic response or a pathologic complete response, the question there comes whether to give perioperative therapy, generally the checkpoint inhibitor, after or not. The data here are, again, not going to give you the answer. The trial of nivolumab — not followed by a year of nivolumab after surgery — showed very, very good results and really comparable to those results. The FDA has clearly pointed out that the data supporting the use of the additional year of therapy with the checkpoint inhibitor are not proven. There is toxicity. In adjuvant situations, the data are not particularly impressive. I do want to point out the need for consideration of postoperative therapy with radiation if you have N2 disease. When you look at the recurrences noted in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant trials, now with better systemic therapy, the recurrences are in the chest. We must think about improving control in the chest. Frankly, the only modality we have today to do that is radiation, and it's most proven for N2 disease. I do think it's very, very important for people with N2 disease to get a radiation oncologist in the treatment planning group to see if there is a role for radiation in those patients. To summarize, I think for patients who don't have a driver and are operable and resectable, neoadjuvant is the way to go. What you do afterward is difficult for people with a major pathologic response. You can make a good case for not giving any additional therapy. There are FDA-approved regimens to give additional therapy of the same drugs. For people who clearly progress, you need to think about what other alternatives there are, both local and systemic.
