Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shades]

So you reckon that there's bound to be some catastrophic outcome to melting the ice caps?
Why would it cause mankind's extinction? I don't recall there being some mass extinction periods in prehistory, associated with warmer periods on the planet.(but I'm not terribly well informed on the subject, so feel free to correct me)

Actually the melting of the icecaps is more likely to trigger another major ice age due to it's effect on the north atlantic conveyor, this will be after some mild flooding (estimated one to two meters due to excess water and water expansion). If there isn't an ice age the flooding gets worse as the water warms up, we also get an influx of alga growth in the seas which should reduce the co2 in the atmosphere, this in turn may be a good thing or a bad thing depending where the major growth is and how fast it happens.

There is also a high likelihood of desertification along the equator, which will make everything inside the +- 20 degree lines virtually inhabitable to us.

Worse case of course is massive desertification, and atmospheric fires caused by the increased O2 thanks to supercharged alga growth, followed swiftly by an ice age that would finish of most of what survived the first to, but that is unlikely (at least according to what I've read, I'm certainly not expert).

Whatever happens cockroaches should be okay ....

[Josephus]

Wait, isn't the supercharged algae growth lake and riverway based?

[Shades]

Wait, isn't the supercharged algae growth lake and riverway based?

That is because most of our warm water issues are from industry using the river as discharge and/or cooling. Of course as the locked up icewater is fresh water there will be a dilution of the salt seas anyway.

[Il Palazzo]

@Jopax: O.K., so we might be facing a harsh trek in the future, with loads of cyclones and floods and forest fires. But that's hardly a case for preaching armageddon.

@Josephus: O.K., the currently dominant algae species die en masse, in some parts of the globe, causing their fishy consumers to either die too, or migrate. It wouldn't take longer than a few decades for another algae(or similar from the food chain perspective) species to fill the freed up ecologic niche. With their predators(I know, I shouldn't use "predator" with regards to plant consumers, but I can't find the proper word) gone, they grow exponentially. This attracts/enables rapid growth of new predatory population, and lo, we're back to normal, and without a centuries waiting.
It's not like we haven't seen this before - just look at the speed of spread of European Rabbit in Australia.

As I said, while the times might get harsh, with (more than usual) starvations and populations migrating from whole regions, and a serious case of bad weather, it's hardly the end of the world.

[Josephus]

"Consumers" is a good enough word for plant-eaters, actually.

What I've been trying to say is your "increased starvation" scenario is not acceptable. If there is a chance to prevent the unnecessary loss of human life then we should damn well take it. "Okay, so a few million people will die, but we'll recover eventually" is a weasel's rationalization couched in the big-picture viewpoint for preserving the current unsustainable path of human development. At the cost of human life. Fuck that.

Your "acceptable losses" scenario is inhumane and inhuman, is what I'm saying here.

[Jopax]

It's not easy to fill a spot a dying spieces left, it takes a lot of time for animals adapt, as we know evolution is very slow.And those storms are not so bad alone, but the cumulative effect is frightening.Due to the warm up, crops either fail or produce less food, as the climate becomes unstable storms ravage fields and leave almost nothing, then as the fish start to die from lack of food we loose that food source, then what we have left is some greenhouses, and some domesticated animals, that has to feed the entire human race, now a part should survive, but most of the poorer countries that don't have the money or the technology to feed their people will simply vanish leaving only a few of the most powerfull nations to fight over the dwindling food supplies, and since most of the ecosystem is allready screwed nobody would notice if we dropped a nuke or two.

Of course this is the absolute worst case scenario but things like this are very possible

[Shades]

Of course this is the absolute worst case scenario but things like this are very possible

No the worst case scenario is that it happens during a major solar storm that is strong enough to kill our communications grid, the various super volcanoes we are overdue for all go off together and that giant planet killing asteroid from the 97% of the sky we haven't yet scanned in enough detail hits us.

Oh yes and an alien invasion enslaves anything that survives ...

[Josephus]

And then zombies. Of course.

[Jopax]

That's not the worst case scenario, thats the awesomecase scenario, fighting zombies with alien tech while riding magma waves and talking trough signal fires is an awesome way to die

[Josephus]

It's an even better way to live.

Fuck this serious conversation. Who's with me? We will fight the zombie horde and pierce through to tomorrow! WITH LASERS!

[Il Palazzo]

What I've been trying to say is your "increased starvation" scenario is not acceptable. If there is a chance to prevent the unnecessary loss of human life then we should damn well take it. "Okay, so a few million people will die, but we'll recover eventually" is a weasel's rationalization couched in the big-picture viewpoint for preserving the current unsustainable path of human development. At the cost of human life. Fuck that.

Your "acceptable losses" scenario is inhumane and inhuman, is what I'm saying here.

Ah, I see. It does seem a bit hypocritical, though. The millions are already(and had been for a long time) dying from starvation, sickness and wars in the, using your figure of speach, "less-white" parts of the world.

Besides, I thought that what we were discussing was the outcome of the more or less inevitable natural catastrophe, which is global warming.
Your comment certainly seems to indicate that you're supporting the theory of humanity actually causing the thing.

So, is that the crux of "global warming" discussion? Should I be denying this now?(I'm sure as hell inclined to)

It's not easy to fill a spot a dying spieces left, it takes a lot of time for animals adapt, as we know evolution is very slow.

If you were to wait for a new species to emerge spontanously, then surely, you'd be right. But just like with the history on invasive species imported to the New World and Australia, all you need is a previously small population of already existing species, which would thrive in the changed climate, and breed explosively due to the lack of competition.

ninjad: so, no serious conversation then?

[Rose]

Drills need to be involved.

[Josephus]

So, is that the crux of "global warming" discussion? Should I be denying this now?(I'm sure as hell inclined to)

By all means. You have every right to believe what you are inclined to. Also I went a bit Armok up there. SERIOUS CONVERSATION OVER.

Drills need to be involved.

We can borrow BP's drills, God knows they aren't doing anything useful witih them.

[Il Palazzo]

So, is that the crux of "global warming" discussion? Should I be denying this now?(I'm sure as hell inclined to)

By all means. You have every right to believe what you are inclined to. Also I went a bit Armok up there. SERIOUS CONVERSATION OVER.

Party popper.

[Jopax]

Dibs on the face city!!