These sci-fi books ask the most basic question: Are we our memories?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
5 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Nuclear Winter Would Be Even Worse Than We Thought
Despite happening (thankfully) just once in real life, nuclear warfare has long been a staple element of science fiction. Popular depictions of nuclear conflict—from biographic thrillers like Oppenheimer to imagined disasters like The Day After—reflect the understanding that its consequences would be irreversible and catastrophic to modern society. Unsurprisingly, nuclear warfare and its potential repercussions concern scientists as much as fiction writers. In a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters, researchers at Pennsylvania State University examined how nuclear war might disrupt food security worldwide, focusing specifically on the global production of corn, the most produced grain crop in the world. In the worst-case scenario, nuclear weapons would wreak havoc on our atmospheric systems, gradually cutting our annual corn production by up to 87%, the study warns. For their simulations, the authors considered 38,572 locations for corn production across six different nuclear war scenarios of increasing severity. The simulations took place under nuclear winter conditions, a hypothetical climate scenario following a large-scale nuclear war. During nuclear winters, black carbon from fires triggered by nuclear detonations would fill up the sky, obstructing sunlight. The resulting drop in global temperatures could last for over a decade—long enough to decimate agricultural systems worldwide, according to the scientists. In addition to black carbon, the authors examined the potential UV-B radiation exposure to plants. The Earth's ozone usually blocks this type of radiation, but this protective layer would be weakened in the wake of nuclear war. As UV-B radiation causes DNA damage and obstructs plant photosynthesis, the researchers modeled how overexposure to this energy source could affect the soil-plant-atmosphere system that drives crop growth. The results were disturbing. First, the 'best-case scenario,' a regional nuclear war, would release enough soot into the atmosphere to reduce annual corn production by 7%—which, to be clear, would severely impact the global food system, study lead author and meteorologist Yuning Shi explained in a press release. A global-scale war, on the other hand, would inject a massive 165 million tons of soot into the atmosphere, curbing global corn production by a whopping 80%. That wasn't all; radiation damage 'would peak in years 8 and 9' following the initial detonation of the bomb, causing an additional 7% decrease in corn yields, according to the paper. 'The blast and fireball of atomic explosions produce nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere,' Shi explained. This, in combination with heat-absorbing soot, injects a fiery cycle into the atmosphere that 'rapidly [destroys] ozone, increasing UV-B radiation levels at the Earth's surface.' Thankfully, these are just simulations. They nevertheless 'force us to realize the fragility of the biosphere—the totality of all living things and how they interact with one another and the environment,' Shi said. What's more, the study acts as an early precursor to a more refined, effective response plan for potential disasters, he added. Hopefully, that disaster won't be nuclear—though it could be something like a volcanic eruption, which obstructs sunlight in a similar way and is something we can better prepare for. For example, the paper recommended preparing 'agricultural resilience kits' containing seeds for crops that can grow under cooler conditions. 'These kits would help sustain food production during the unstable years following a nuclear war, while supply chains and infrastructure recover,' said Armen Kemanian, an environmental systems expert and paper senior author, in the same release. But these kits could easily assist food security in areas affected by severe volcanic activity, he added. Natural disasters are beyond our control, save for the preparatory part. A self-inflicted environmental catastrophe and global-scale famine—that's clearly another story. When it comes to nuclear winter, the 'best approach to preventing its devastating effects is to avoid it,' the scientists wrote.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Experts warn drastic action may be necessary in communities along US East Coast: 'We're dealing with something completely unprecedented'
Experts warn drastic action may be necessary in communities along US East Coast: 'We're dealing with something completely unprecedented' A climate adaptation scientist is warning that drastic changes may be necessary along the American East Coast. What's happening? According to EcoRI, Emma Gildesgame, a climate adaptation scientist for The Nature Conservancy, believes that it's time to start talking about managed retreat as a response to climate-induced coastal change. Managed retreat is when coastal buildings and towns pull back from their original locations, relocating further inland in an attempt to avoid being submerged by the rising oceans as our planet gets warmer. The practice is often seen as a last-ditch attempt to salvage areas that are most impacted by rising oceans as our coastlines shrink. However, per EcoRI, Gildesgame says the time is coming sooner than we think and that the goal right now is to "work with nature to keep people safer from climate change." Why is managed retreat important? For the United States, sea levels are expected to rise by a foot by 2050 if we continue along our current path, according to the Earth Information Center. That means that as time goes on, more and more coastal towns and cities are going to find themselves threatened by the same seas that they've relied on to thrive for decades or longer. On top of that, with sea levels rising, issues like flooding become more commonplace, with storms needing to be less and less severe to cause widespread flooding and damage. Managed retreat is a way to stave off those problems and keep towns safe from our changing climate. While extreme weather events have always existed, experts have found that human activities like burning dirty fuels have caused our planet to heat up, supercharging weather events and creating the need for proactive safety measures as temperatures rise. What's being done about managed retreat and rising ocean levels? Gildesgame said she's been having conversations for years about starting the process of managed retreat from coastal towns in New England. "I think it was like 2022 that I started having these conversations," she told EcoRI. "People were like, 'Oh, we can't talk about that. It's too complicated.' Governments don't want to be in the business of telling people where they can and can't live. There's deep, deep, deep trauma around government relocation in a lot of communities." However, she noted that people are realizing the severity of the situation. Do you think our power grid needs to be upgraded? Definitely Only in some states Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. "We're tough New Englanders. We'll be fine. We'll just build stronger," Gildesgame said. "But we're dealing with something completely unprecedented." The hope is that by moving communities away from the shore, it will reduce the strain on the natural ecosystem in the area, restoring natural beaches, salt marshes, and sand dunes to mitigate the spread of flooding. As for the wider issue of coastal erosion and rising oceans, our best course of action is to continue prioritizing the reduction of carbon pollution, in the hopes of slowing our changing climate down. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Experts raise red flags as White House makes concerning U-turn on vital public resource: 'Doesn't want people to know'
Experts raise red flags as White House makes concerning U-turn on vital public resource: 'Doesn't want people to know' The Trump administration has once again reversed a major decision regarding vital climate-based assessments, and many experts are sounding the alarm. What's happening? In June, the Trump administration revealed that it was shutting down the U.S. Global Change Research Program's website, which hosted the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessments as well as other climate research. This decision removed public access to extensive data on how climate-related issues impact the United States. The move was criticized by scientists who viewed it as an attempt to hinder the nation's ability to prepare for the future. As reported by The Associated Press, NASA then announced on July 3 that "all preexisting reports will be hosted on the NASA website, ensuring continuity of reporting." Despite this, the Trump administration appears to have changed its mind regarding the data for a second time. "The USGCRP met its statutory requirements by presenting its reports to Congress. NASA has no legal obligations to host data," NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens wrote in an email. Why is the removal of public access to the National Climate Assessment concerning? According to Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, the lack of National Climate Assessment hosting could leave the public uninformed. Hayhoe, who has co-authored multiple National Climate Assessments, derided the decision by the Trump administration. "This document was written for the American people, paid for by the taxpayers, and it contains vital information we need to keep ourselves safe in a changing climate, as the disasters that continue to mount demonstrate so tragically and clearly," Hayhoe told the AP. Do you think our power grid needs to be upgraded? Definitely Only in some states Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Hayhoe's sentiments were echoed by John Holdren, a fellow climate scientist and former science adviser during the Obama administration. Holdren criticized the current administration's direction regarding climate-based data, accusing it of intentionally keeping the public in the dark. "They simply don't want the public to see the meticulously assembled and scientifically validated information about what climate change is already doing to our farms, forests, and fisheries, as well as to storms, floods, wildfires, and coast property — and about how all those damages will grow in the absence of concerted remedial action," Holdren wrote in an email to the AP. "Trump doesn't want people to know." What's being done about the rising global temperatures? As noted by the most recent National Climate Assessment, released in 2023, the more the planet warms, the greater the impacts will be. "Without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather, and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow," the report reads. To help combat this, 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015. The initiative aims to limit the rise of the global temperature to below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit compared with preindustrial levels. It involves a series of commitments from participating countries to reduce planet-warming gas pollution and promote the advancement of renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar power. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
