-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
as fake a global warming is thats still a cool pic.
Who cares if the ice melts completely. It’s done so in the past and will again in the future. Just like the world has nearly frozen over in the past and will do so again in the future.
People that live on the coasts.
Live by the coast, die by the coast.
That’s easy to say to a rich American, but what are you going to do about the billion or so people in Southeast Asia? Mass migration of people tend to cause severe social disorder, eg the Germanic invasions of Rome.
Thems the breaks.
Because the world won’t be quite as comfortable and lots of nice places will be underwater. Lots of people will have to move but have nowhere to go.
HOLY FUCK THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING. THAT NEVER EVER HAPPENS! Seriously people, panicking and inciting fear about a natural process is about as reasonable as complaining about supernovas. If our science is correct it is an inevitability and we should embrace that lest we do more damage than we intend to prevent. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take precautionary measures so as to adapt to it, we are resilient creatures who love to spit in the face of nature. We survived before and we will survive again.
We survived before? What, exactly, have we survived before? :/
The last ice age, for one thing. Anatomically modern humans have been around for over a hundred thousand years… which covers most of the last ice age. Humans used the ice bridges between continents to help spread out across the globe. Humans make the best of any situation. It’s why we’re the dominant species.
Why do we try to put out fires that burn away entire woods then. Some of them are started by natural causes and humanity will survive even if Santa Barbara doesn’t exist any more. Maybe because humans have the power to keep the damage smaller than it would be if they did nothing? There are many natural processes on earth that we can and do manipulate. So far it doesn’t look like there are any other planets that have a life-form as “intelligent” as the human race so should we take any chances? Stephen Hawking said it doesn’t look too good for us if one considers only the next 100 years and we should try to spread out into the galaxy. I’m not too sure about how realistic that option is but I think if someone like Stephen worries about the existence of humanity on earth then that’s a good reason to try to interfere with nature or the consequences of human actions – I really don’t see why it matters which one it is because the things humans do on this planet aren’t necessarily natural either.
@Phyreblade.
Currently we are in an intergacial period, or in other words we are technically in an ice age right now. So far we seem to be surviving just fine. But basically we are in what is called the quaternary period and for the past 200,000 years we have been going in and out of ice ages. Modern man has been around for about 200,00 years now. Temperatures in 3,000-,5000 BC were believed to be 2-4 degrees warmer than present, and eventually other periods of cooling followed.
@Die
Well that is a very good point. But the thing is how do we not know that we aren’t going to completely fuck shit up more (to put it bluntly) i mean there is a big difference between putting out a forest fire in california and drastically attempting to prevent the change of AN ENTIRE PLANET’S climate. Something of this scale shouldn’t be rushed into. I mean we have only been studying all of this since the middle of the last century (although i could be wrong about that feel free to correct me) and we still have yet to nail down the source. It just feels like we are hastily rushing into an issue we do not completely understand yet. So maybe geoengineering is our only option if we hope to survive but it may be our undoing. I could say ” we have never done anything like this before” but that would be counter-intuitive since there is a first for everything. I think the biggest problem with the issue is that it is highly politicized on both ends of the spectrum ( i.e. global warming IS happenning and the counter argument to that) which is going to deliberately or inadvertently stifle genuine scientific progress. I agree that something should be done, as much as i despise people i have grown rather fond of our existence. Now i would assume that i am not the only person with this concern, which is why i am ultimately open to the idea of geoengineering. I mean if a crazy 21 year old american metal head can see the potential hazard of geoengineering then surely a guy who has a PHD in environmental sciences can see it too. Ultimately i would just be really pissed if in my lifetime the human race started becoming extinct because we freaked out over an uncontrollable process.
There’s also the fact that fighting fires in California is to global warning is like realising your trashcan is on fire is to coming home to find your entire apartment block is ablaze. In the first case, no one’s going to fault you for doing something (and they’d likely question your intelligence if you failed to), but in the second, all you can really do is sit back at watch. Even the firemen are going to be there just to contain the damage, rather than really do anything about it.
As for global warming, outside of special ed classrooms, there is no debate about whether or not it is happening. The debate is about whether it’s caused by humans, or whether it’s just the planet doing its thing. And naturally, there’s a boatload of money on either side of the argument. The “it’s not man-made” crowd would have to fork out a bundle of dough if the “it is man-made” crowd got their way, and who also stand to make serious money from carbon taxes and other such bullshit.
So basically, the house is burning down, and we’re standing inside arguing over whether or not our insurance will cover it.
Um, we are already “geoengineering.” We are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and have caused an increase in temperature. We are pretty damn sure that it is human activity that is causing this, and we know that we can reduce our greenhouse gas production and become more efficient at the same time. How would that cause us to become extinct? Or is this just another lotus-logic trip?
We will probably survive much of what the world can throw at us, but what kind of survival will it be? 1st world, 3rd world or just plain savage?
shoop
Interesting graphic, fail in factuality. The earth is not hourglass shaped, i.e. melting ice does not flood the earth. lrn2liquiddisplacement. For a simple example: If all the ice in your drink melts, does it overflow?
The only “danger” from Global Warming is the possible extinction of species which do not/cannot evolve and minor flooding along the coastlines from fallen glaciers causing tidal waves.
It would NOT, however, flood the entire planet’s land surface and destroy humanity. Also, earth will be fine. Always has been. Anyone who says they care about “the earth” is either full of shit or so egomaniacal that they think they have superpowers.
The planet doesn’t need your “saving”. If you care about the survival of your own species at least be honest with yourself.
The water in a cup analogy fails to account for the enormous ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica.
Is sea water desalination a consideration? Is there enough glacial freshwater melting to actually, significantly change the amount of salt in seawater, which would mean the oceans (where they were affected) would freeze at a higher temp, among other effects?
Catherine Longfellow,
Your own analogy that was supposed to be somehow more true than the one in the graphic is false as well, like reboot said. Maybe you should look up analogy though, it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about.
Nobody claimed the earth is in danger, in this thread anyway. Nobody said it would flood the entire planet’s land surface either, I don’t know why you’re trying to refute arguments that nobody made.
DieA has a good point with the California wildfires, however, these people who live in the wildfire region- an area of California KNOWN for it’s necessary fire ecology- choose to live in such a place which is known for its annual fires. In an ecological sense, it’s not good for the particular area to be putting out the fires, because so much regrowth of species depends on the fires.
People build million dollar homes there, and then are surprised each year when the fires become threatening, leading to several million dollars being spent to rescue them, allocation of resources to fight the fires, and potential loss of human lives. This is why builders never build in the floodplains- yeah, you might have a good view, but overall, it’s certainly not worth it.
As far as the flooding goes from glacial melting, Catherine you’re sort of half-right, the problem isn’t with glaciers within water, but land-based glaciers, such as Greenland, which aren’t adding to the total volume of the sea when they’re terrestrial, but once they do melt, which they are, it will add a lot to the volume of seawater.
Climate change is a normal cyclical part of Earth’s cycle; there seems to be some solid evidence linking the sine curve of moderate warming and cooling to patterns of solar winds. The input of human’s CO2 in the atmosphere is still debatable, we really don’t know enough to accurately determine it, though attempts to reduce the pollution output from emissions is generally a good thing.
tl;dr wildfires are good, melting land-based glaciers are not.
humans as a race have survived ice-ages. how would our civilization weather it tho? how many millions of people would die?
Whenever a population becomes too dense, it becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain, by an order of magnitude. I’m not sure that there is much we can do at this point.
If the ice caps melted completely, it would be Waterworld. Only the Rocky and Andes Mountain ranges would be above water in the Western Hemisphere. Over 5 billion would die, with no place to grow food, the survivors livin on fish and seaweed, with no weed or cigarettes or booze. Have fun if you live through it and make it on a boat.
You’ve been watching too many movies. The sea level wouldn’t rise anywhere near that high. It wouldn’t even hit 50 feet. Yes, many low-lying areas like Florida would be flooded pretty bad, but it would in way come close to Waterworld. 😀
It’s cool guy, I live on a hill, 100m above sea water. With the highest projections being a rise of 12m in sea level, I’m okay.
Global warming is as serious as a cow fart.