Times Atlas to reflect 'environmental disasters'

[Pooeypants]

Climate change and unregulated irrigation projects are becoming major drivers for redrawing maps, say the cartographers of a renowned atlas. "We can literally see environmental disasters unfolding before our eyes," says Mick Ashworth, the editor-in-chief of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. "We have a real fear that, in the near future, famous geographical features will disappear forever." The latest edition of the atlas is published on 3 September, four years after the previous version. The atlas's cartographers have had to make changes to their maps because of environmental changes in the past, but "there were even more of these cases in this edition," says Jethro Lennox, publishing editor. "Rather than just one or two, you have half a dozen major examples of how human activities are causing changes in our maps." Features that have changed over the past few decades include: • the Aral Sea in Central Asia has shrunk by 75% since 1967 mostly because of uncontrolled irrigation • Lake Chad in Africa has shrunk by 95% since 1963 because of a combination of failing monsoons and human overexploitation • the Dead Sea is 25 metres lower than it was 50 years ago – like the Aral Sea, the shrinking is largely due to uncontrolled irrigation

Source

Now, I'm not going to preach about the climate change (a la global warming) side but its quite clear that direct human activity can have huge implications on a region's climate (uncontrolled irrigation). I mean, to have an entire Sea shrink by 75% in just four decades is just astonishing! But what can we do about this? If anything at all?

[HelioPrime]

Will it also include New Orleans as a disaster of failed recovery programs thanks our Washington leadership?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime Will it also include New Orleans as a disaster of failed recovery programs thanks our Washington leadership?

The map would if there was a change in the landscape as viewed from aircraft.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Pooeypants Source Now, I'm not going to preach about the climate change (a la global warming) side but its quite clear that direct human activity can have huge implications on a region's climate (uncontrolled irrigation).

Well, no, it is not "quite clear."

I mean, to have an entire Sea shrink by 75% in just four decades is just astonishing! But what can we do about this? If anything at all?

Is it really "astonishing"? - drain the water out of a lake (or sea) and you have an empty hole. But why are we so damned arrogant as a species that we think we must do something about this? For that matter, why are we so damned arrogant as a species that we think somehow we have can affect the weather (climate)?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime Will it also include New Orleans as a disaster of failed recovery programs thanks our Washington leadership?

No, the New Orleans disaster was a failure in recovery programs because of the people PRIMARILY responsible for them: Mayor Nagin and the Governor of Louisiana. The federal government does not have primary responsibility over local disasters.

People stupid enough to continue to live in a place that has to rely on levees to hold back the water above their heads don't deserve to have their city rebuilt after a disaster destroys those levees. Some Frog was dumb enough to build a settlement (that we now call New Orleans) in a low-lying area and the settlement got flooded out the next year. The smart thing to do would have been to relocate the settlement to higher ground. It's as bad as the Californicators stupid enough to build their houses on the edge of a cliff whining when the rain causes mudslides to wash their homes away.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Chancellor Well, no, it is not "quite clear."

It is, unless you want to argue that it wasn't human activity that was the prime cause.

Quote by: Chancellor Is it really "astonishing"? - drain the water out of a lake (or sea) and you have an empty hole. But why are we so damned arrogant as a species that we think we must do something about this?

No, arrogance would be where we assume that draining most of a sea has no repercussions for the land around it.

Quote by: Chancellor For that matter, why are we so damned arrogant as a species that we think somehow we have can affect the weather (climate)?

No, arrogance would be to assume that despite all the changes to the landscapes we've made and all the pollution we've pumped into the area that we'd not affect our atmosphere. Because we do and the evidence says so.

[Suburbanite]

who cares about "geological" treasures.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Suburbanite who cares about "geological" treasures.

If the individual states want to preserve such things within their respective territories, let them create state parks. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to engage in such preservation.

[5010]

This report feels like an excuse to serve an agenda (by the reporter, not necessarily you pooey). After all, I would expect regulated irrigation projects to change the map too. Why else report shinking lakes but not report expanding greenery rooted in the same cause?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: 5010 This report feels like an excuse to serve an agenda (by the reporter, not necessarily you pooey). After all, I would expect regulated irrigation projects to change the map too. Why else report shinking lakes but not report expanding greenery rooted in the same cause?

It's about changing the landscape on a massive scale, how do you think that affects the wildlife? Or how it might change the rain fall for the surrounding areas?

[5010]

Quote by: Pooeypants It's about changing the landscape on a massive scale, how do you think that affects the wildlife? Or how it might change the rain fall for the surrounding areas?

Some benefit and some are hurt by it. Irrigation can green the desert. How many acres lost to some fish, how many gained for plants and animals on land? If we only see the hurt and not the benefit we cannot understand the full impact of the change.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: 5010 Some benefit and some are hurt by it. Irrigation can green the desert. How many acres lost to some fish, how many gained for plants and animals on land? If we only see the hurt and not the benefit we cannot understand the full impact of the change.

This is about change on a massive scale, if we don't understand all the implication and consequences, who knows what it may lead? Furthermore, who are we to decide that a sea should be virtually drained of most of its water? So if we use all the water upstream, then what about the people and wildlife that depended on the water previously downstream?