Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
And that, dear friends, answers Fermi's question "Where is everybody?"
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And that, dear friends, answers Fermi's question "Where is everybody?"The worst case scenario is that the methane hydrate at the bottom of the world’s oceans begins to melt, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is ten times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
The more the hydrate melted, the more the temperature would rise, and so the more it would melt - in a run away feedback loop which couldn’t be halted until the Earth was an oven.
. the atoms in the crystal lattice takes up more room so the ice is less dense . Same amount of atoms as in liquid water but further apart . That’s why ice floatsI'm talking to myself - this a bad sign.
I may have been unnecessarily confusing in my water comments.
For any lurkers let me explain:
- Warm water expands. Warmer water takes up more space because the water molecules are further apart due to the energy input (the 'warmness').
- Frozen water also expands compared to not-frozen water. This is related to the crystal lattice structure taken on by frozen water. Once again the molecules are further apart.
So... we have a weird situation where warm water has more volume than cooler water and frozen water has more volume than not-frozen water.
Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.
OB
Except humans wouldn't be alone. Many species are dying off already. I don't believe extinction of humans is likely, at least not by climate change. Most likely is lots of displaced people. Extinction is unlikely unless the situation provokes a full-scale nuclear war. In that case not many other mammals will be left either, though the cockroaches might rejoice.Many mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates "inconvenienced" by human activity would view this as a plus.
The longer mankind survives, the more species are eliminated. I'm just speaking out for all those that are threatened by our activity. I'm not saying I agree with the position, but my cat insisted I make the point, as she is not currently a forum member.Except humans wouldn't be alone. Many species are dying off already. I don't believe extinction of humans is likely, at least not by climate change. Most likely is lots of displaced people. Extinction is unlikely unless the situation provokes a full-scale nuclear war. In that case not many other mammals will be left either, though the cockroaches might rejoice.
No.If we just keep using resources, at the rate we are, will we pollute the Earth beyond all reasonable use?
My failure not to get a visual field test didn't result in me going blind from Glaucoma is just as valid as any of your examples.............No.
Back in the 70s, we were told we'd run out of food w/i fifty years, assuming we didn't overpopulate ourselves out of house and home.
Well ... here we are fifty years later with almost twice the population, and we're still going strong; in spite of what the Doomsday Clock says.
Wasn't it the Gulf War that was supposed to choke out the sun if Saddam Hussein set fire to the oil fields?
He set fire to the oil fields and guess what?
Here we are posting.
Then Y2K was supposed to get us (assuming we survived through the Harmonic Convergence) ... and on and on it goes.
This thread of the discussion (which is not due to you) is a straw man. The claim isn't that humans will go out of existence. It is more frequent disasters, particularly in areas near the oceans. And more refugees.Back in the 70s, we were told we'd run out of food w/i fifty years, assuming we didn't overpopulate ourselves out of house and home.
Okay, thanks.This thread of the discussion (which is not due to you) is a straw man. The claim isn't that humans will go out of existence. It is more frequent disasters, particularly in areas near the oceans. And more refugees.
Okay, thanks.None of this will cause humans to die out, and in the long run people will move (or in the worst case, die in certain areas) but people will die, refugees will cause all kinds of problems, and in situations like this, wars are not impossible.
Another effect that wouldn't be a global problem but would certainly be a big deal for the US East Coast and the UK: weakening of the Gulf Stream.
Well if the globe is actually getting warmer, it could be due to this:Fun aspect of the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation in the Atlantic is that it would cause Western Europe to get COLDER even though (and actually BECAUSE) the globe is getting warmer. This would be seriously confusing to climate skeptics but makes perfect sense if one understands a bit of science.
Here is a January article from The Atlantic.Hi there,
So I actually mailed my government about this and did not get an answer: is there a "worst case scenario" for Global Warming?
If we just keep using resources, at the rate we are, will we pollute the Earth beyond all reasonable use? Or is there a slow ebb of fossil fuels that will eventually take second place to renewable energy sources? How much pressure are we under?
I never hear about the pros and cons of Global Warming, it's always "alarm! catastrophe!", but no detail?
Thanks, for your help.
Yes, but probably not in the sense you're thinking.Well if the globe is actually getting warmer, it could be due to this:
Isaiah 5:14a Therefore hell hath enlarged herself,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?