Special Ed Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 There are chances for many things.....quite correct.....and the work done by anthropologists and evolutionary biologists says that our species could have likely died off on the plains of Africa had it not been for our ability to survive and migrate through conditions that made our competitors extinct. We were not the strongest of the species that lived at that time. Had there been no ice age, we could have starved to death in competition with our stronger cousins. Asteroids may or may not have triggered an Ice Age. High Volcanic activity could have as well. Like past climatic changes....it won't be gradual...it'll be sudden, from what i've read. So, if the technology isn't available by the time it starts, and it is starting now somewhat, then the rapid changes like the availability of drinking water, ability to grow crops, to deal with super-storm cells, that lead to more devastating tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, among other things, they won't be in our ability to deal with technologically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 There are chances for many things.....quite correct.....and the work done by anthropologists and evolutionary biologists says that our species could have likely died off on the plains of Africa had it not been for our ability to survive and migrate through conditions that made our competitors extinct. We were not the strongest of the species that lived at that time. Had there been no ice age, we could have starved to death in competition with our stronger cousins. Asteroids may or may not have triggered an Ice Age. High Volcanic activity could have as well. Like past climatic changes....it won't be gradual...it'll be sudden, from what i've read. So, if the technology isn't available by the time it starts, and it is starting now somewhat, then the rapid changes like the availability of drinking water, ability to grow crops, to deal with super-storm cells, that lead to more devastating tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, among other things, they won't be in our ability to deal with technologically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Here's an interesting thought. Would it be worth our while to induce somethig similar to another ice age? Or to let the polar ice caps melt away? Which would be more damaging to us? I think as whole humans could have the ability to block out the suns heat on a global scale. For a period of time. Interesting thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Artificially reflecting radiation is a theoretical measure that deserves exploration. Like I said, an all hands on deck approach is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 . Let's start painting EVERYTHING white!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Rooftops are a good start. I think scientists are looking a cloud seeding as well as a way of reflecting more radiation from the earth's surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 There has to be way smart scientist types can come up with a reflective rooftop shingle. And I like the cloud idea but doesn't warmer temperatures and not as much water mean less condensation in our atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I'm just assuming here, but i'd assume that with warmer temperatures, there'd be more water vapour, and more water vapour could create more cloud formation perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Interesting theory. Sure wish there was a ScienceCoaster hangin around this forum. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 There has to be way smart scientist types can come up with a reflective rooftop shingle. And I like the cloud idea but doesn't warmer temperatures and not as much water mean less condensation in our atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Overall speaking, the increase in atmospheric temperature will lead to more water vapor, but at the same time also increases the amount of water vapor needed to form clouds. As far as I know there is no particular reason why overall cloud cover should increase or decrease (naturally) due to the warming. Having said that, using clouds to control climate is in fact a very difficult task. So far in cloud seeding experiments, which seem to have some success, the goal is to increase precipitation which goes in opposit to what we want to achieve. Ultimately to increase cloud cover is not easy as cloud formation largely depends on moisture level and temperature, and modifying these will likely be expensive as a lot of energy is required. The other difficulty is that clouds do not all cool the planet: high clouds exerts an overall warming effect on the planet as clouds do have a greenhouse effect as well. An example of that is airplane contrails, which are clouds formed by water vapor artificially introduced and have a warming effect. A more viable strategy is to make existing clouds more reflective ( see http://en.wikipedia....ity_enhancement) by changing the composition of clouds. The biggest downside of these type of geoengineering is that you are trying to modify the part of climate that we have the least understanding of (clouds), and the chances of unintended consequences is high. It is also something you have to do for a long (thousands of years) period of time until nature can draw down the extra co2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Thanks for the info MadMonk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Possibly even 10,000 years if we exhaust our natural C02 supply in the form of burning all the fossil fuels. Even 1000 years is mind-boggling....and that's the low end of what it will take for the earth to naturally re-absorb or filter the present amount, iirc. It's not too late, but we are definitely not acting for tomorrow, today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thanks for the info MadMonk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnabyJoe Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 It scares me how many people just want to give up the fight. People are so ignorantly addicted to their wasteful energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Just a little video and blurb mentioned today on the Weather Network: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Arctic_sea_ice_cover_to_hit_record_low_22_08_2012?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 So the drilling will commence in 10yrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 So the drilling will commence in 10yrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donky Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Im being optimistic/naive that we will realize the severity of the problem before we burn all of the fossil fuel. However even in the worse case I suspect that carbon sequestration will be implemented in parallel, not only because it is likely going to be cheaper than tinkering with cloudsand aerosols for 1000-10000 years, but also ocean acidification will be a severe problem that needs to be dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 We have realized the problem. It is well documented and studied. There have been global meetings with heads of states(see Kyoto, Copenhagen) that are all in agreement that CO2 emissions must be cut. They shake hands, sign accords, smile for cameras....and go home and completely ignore the problem. Why? Because there is too much money at stake for the people who put them in power. Would you walk away from $23 trillion? Not on your life. And you should enjoy your life while you can because that oil and gas and coal is coming out of the ground whether civilization as we know it disappears or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.