This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Global warming.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Morec0
What I meant to imply with that is that I think the whole thing has been shot completely out of proportion due to paronoia to where we're making mountains out of molehills (which I hear is also a likely side effect of Global Warming), but I suppose I have to agree with you Skree. Better safe than sorry.
Post by
donnymurph
we should just be prepared to weather it.
Many doomsayers are predicting that current sea levels could rise by 30cm, 50cm or even a metre by 2100. I'm going to write this making the assumption that sea levels will rise
5 metres
by 2100 (I'm not even sure there's enough ice in the ice caps for this to happen, but that isn't the point).
So what happens if the sea level do indeed rise by such an amount? Well, for a start, hundreds of major coastal cities will be inundated, displacing billions of people. New York, LA, Seattle, Vancouver, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, Lisbon, Barcelona, Venice, Athens, Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Cairo, Cape Town, Durban, Abu Dhabi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Shanghai, Seoul, every city in Japan, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland; all inundated. Not to mention smaller cities, coastal towns, and cities that lie on the river near the coast. Billions displaced. Mankind might be exposed to new diseases, water could infiltrate sewers, propagating further disease. All bad stuff.
So where to from there? San Francisco has been destroyed twice by earthquake. Kobe has been destroyed by earthquake. Darwin has been destroyed twice, once by war and once by cyclone. London has burned down. Rome has burned down. Where are all those cities today? Still there, bigger and better than ever. Humans will survive, adapt, and ultimately,
improve
.
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation.
If there's one thing mankind is really good at, it's banding together when the proverbial excrement hits the fan. Sure, people may be living in impoverished conditions in the short term, but it's amazing how quickly things can be built when needed to. (The Australians among us will surely recall the offeorts to get Brisbane back into working order at the start of the year.) At first, established inland cities would probably expand. They may be initially stretched thin, but they too will beef up their infrastructure.
Soon enough, new cities would form. And this affords the opportunity to really think about city design. This point is two-faceted. Darwin is cyclone-proof, Kobe and San Fran are earthquake-proof. Any new, "post-apocalyptic" cities built would be significantly more resistant to natural events.
The other facet is that we could build cities which are much more efficiently designed and better-equipped to handle large populations. Tokyo's population could be over 60 million by 2100, NY and LA could be over 40 million; we don't know. Imagine cities with 12-lane motorways that run underground with on- and off-ramps that run between the motorway and ground level. 15-storey carparks built entirely underground. Not just trains, but also short-hop transport, such as trams or monorails, that run underground. Downtown areas that are 100% automobile-free. Efficient, space-saving infrastructure capable of handling massive populations.
Much more consideration could be taken with regards to
where
to build the cities; for example, when British settlers arrived in Sydney Harbour in 1788, they simply set up camp and started building. Now we have a horribly laid out city with bad topography that struggles with the 4.6 million people it has. That could be 12 million by 2100. It would be much better if it was built on nice, flat plains, West of the Blue Mountains so that there is a flood barrier, allowing us to use the fertile East coast for what it should be used for: agriculture.
Speaking of which, the increased sea levels will increase the amount of arable land available to us. Wind currents would bring rain and moisture further inland than they currently come, turning arid or semi-arid land into usable agricultural real estate. And once the cooling cycle starts, and the sea levels drop again, we might even have a whole new bunch of wetlands to work with where our coast used to be.
Anyway, I've been drinking and feel that I'm starting to rant, so I'll wrap this up, by simply saying this: even in a worst-case scenario, mankind will survive, adapt and improve as it always has done. People may die and that will be tragic, but mankind will be the better in the end. So while I feel we should take precautions to protect ourselves, there is no justification for being an alarmist doomsayer.
Post by
gnomerdon
Yes,
mankind
will survive even after a horrific doomsday. There are too many humans covering the entire earth. If North America and Europe are completely wiped out, there is still Australia. etc ec.
Post by
pezz
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation.
Additional example: Katrina hit the bureaucratic center for public education administration
very
hard when she blew through New Orleans. This turned out to be an exceedingly good thing.
Post by
Skreeran
Oh, right, let's just not worry about it. Humanity could use a good pruning now and then.
I think you're forgetting that you're talking about human lives being lost here.
Post by
OverZealous
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation.
Additional example: Katrina hit the bureaucratic center for public education administration
very
hard when she blew through New Orleans. This turned out to be an exceedingly good thing.
For one not very well-informed on the matter; how did it turn out to be an exceedingly good thing?
Post by
pnkflffytutu
Alarmed, no; Aware of, yes.
I don't think we should put our fingers in our ears and say nothing is happening, but I don't think we need be investing in doomsday shelters anytime soon.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Oh, right, let's just not worry about it. Humanity could use a good pruning now and then.
To be fair, it actually could.
Agreed.
Post by
donnymurph
Oh, right, let's just not worry about it. Humanity could use a good pruning now and then.
I think you're forgetting that you're talking about human lives being lost here.
No, I'm not. And you completely missed the point of my post. Again, I'm on my lunch break and can't write long posts. Will do so later.
To be fair, it actually could.Indeed, it could. Whether it
should
or not is a question of morals. But then natural events don't have morals.
Post by
Skreeran
Oh, right, let's just not worry about it. Humanity could use a good pruning now and then.
I think you're forgetting that you're talking about human lives being lost here.
No, I'm not. And you completely missed the point of my post. Again, I'm on my lunch break and can't write long posts. Will do so later.
To be fair, it actually could.Indeed, it could. Whether it
should
or not is a question of morals. But then natural events don't have morals.Of course, letting a natural disaster take its course without doing anything to prevent it
is
a question of morality.
Post by
wildx22
Many natural disasters can't be prevented...
Post by
Skreeran
Many natural disasters can't be prevented...Not prevented, but at least dealt with. If we had avoided building levies in New Orleans and sent no aid to the people there, justifying it as "Well, New Orleans has too many people. The people dumb enough to stay there during the hurricane can be pruned away." would also be morally wrong.
Perhaps I misunderstood Donnymurph's point, but saying "Well, some of us can survive it and we'll be stronger for it." seem heartless to me, because you're still talking about people dying. You might as well be talking about eugenics.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Perhaps I misunderstood Donnymurph's point, but saying "Well, some of us can survive it and we'll be stronger for it." seem heartless to me, because you're still talking about people dying.
You might as well be talking about eugenics
.
I disagree- in my opinion inaction which results in loss of life is not morally equivalent to action which results in loss of life.
Intentional
inaction, however, is somewhat comparable to Social Darwinism.
Post by
deathbyte
I think that the tsunami that happened in Indonesia a few years back had something to do with the climate change. When the tsunami happened it knocked the earth axis off a slight amount. (By slight amount, I mean by hundredths of nanometers) Which by the way the earth rotates, I believe that is making winters colder and summers warmer everywhere.
I voted no, it isn't something to be concerned about unless we have another major shift in the rotation of the earth.
Post by
donnymurph
Of course, letting a natural disaster take its course without doing anything to prevent it
is
a question of morality.
I think your choice of words in this post is quite poor. We can't prevent natural events. Not at the moment. Perhaps in the future, we may have the technology to prevent seismic or atmospheric events; although I wonder at the consequences of such actions. We can try to minimise the damage they cause. That is all. We will never be 100% safe from seismic and atmospheric activity.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
I agree with everything you've jsut said, I've simply just been trying to be diplomatic. :P
If we can prevent an earthquake, where does all that potential/kinetic energy go to?
Also, you'll note that I refer to them as natural "events", rather than "disasters". They only become disasters if they end life (not necessarily human) or destroy buildings.
Post by
Tartonga
Well, we can't exactly expect the cows to pay for it. Even though they are farting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all forms of transport combined (yes, including planes).
Don't forget that the ones using the cows are we. After all we are raising them along with other livestock to feed the rest of the world. The cattle rancher sector is the subsistence means for more than 1.300 million people. I think you can pretty much imagine how many cows are raised by humans, and we need them since ruminant livestock also play an important role in global food security as they can convert the ligno-cellulosic and non-protein nitrogen compounds, found widely in plants but indigestible to all monogastric animals including man, into high value proteins for human consumption. Besides, the cattle rancher sector produce 15-24% of the total amount of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases emissions, but actually only 9% of the total amount of CO2. The cows by themselves only produce 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions, on a CO2 equivalent basis.
Also, there are several ways to battle this:
Improvements in efficiency through application of best practise in ‘on-farm’ management, the application of animal genetics and improved feed quality.
Biotechnological solutions based on the introduction of new or modified microorganisms to the animal, immunological and hormonal control of gut function, or the use of GM crops and/or animals.
Dietary change including novel forages and dietary additives that manipulate rumen function.
If mankind wanted, it could invest to reduce the amount of GHG emissions that the rancher sector produces. So yes, I expect us to pay for what we use.
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation.
DUDE, I'M GOING TO THEIR CONCERT WHEN THEY COME HERE THE 18th SEPTEMBER. I just can't wait :3.
OnT: You say that we can move from place to place to live, when the situation gets tight where we live. Now, what if I told you that this will unavoidably happen in the future, but what we do now can extend the time gap between now and then?
If we can prevent an earthquake, where does all that potential/kinetic energy go to?
I can think of a huge elastic metal spring attached to the Earth and when a seismic event occurs, it just simply wobbles from side to side, even though that would be like 20 km from side to side. (?)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.