2310: That's the way I like it and I never get bored
@AllThanks, how bout yours?
@AllThanks, 2287: I have to find Shaun!
Well I've been to the year 3000. Not much has changed, but they live underwater.
@Salem, Oh, how's my great great great granddaughter?
@Sir LancesALot, hot...
@Sir LancesALot, she's doing fine
@Sir LancesALot, I’m pretty sure it’ll be more greats in 1000 years
@Soul Eaten, Probably, but it's called a song.
2030: Our estimations were off move the catastrophe back 30 more years.
@PoliticalOtters, 2060: Our estimations were off again, move it back another 100 years
@PoliticalOtters, the ice is already pretty thin though :/
@Runnin with scissors, so what does that mean for the future, how did it come about, and what ought we do to change it?
@PoliticalOtters, primarily caused by greenhouse gases largely comprised of CO2 which are being absorbed by our ocean and plant life but as too much becomes present for the amount of plants and ocean to naturally balance out they accumulate. Greenhouse gases are capable of absorbing and releasing thermal radiation so when the sun's rays penetrate the atmosphere the radiation gets trapped instead of going back into space which causes more heat to be retained under the atmosphere globally. For the future it could be really bad for humans but life will go on. To change it lessen global emissions, use renewable sources for energy, plant more plants, go back in time and kill Hitler, and write your senator.
@Runnin with scissors, how would it be bad for humans? Is green house gases the only contributing factor? What about the massive volcano under Antarctica? What will writing to my senator do?
@PoliticalOtters, you ask a lot of questions that shouldve been told to you in highschool but I will answer them this time but I get the feeling you will have more so my answer to those is look it up and learn it for yourself so I don't have to explain everything to you over an app. It's bad because it means climates will change iceshelfs will fall and sea level will rise. Florida is already seeing some effects in miami of ocean water rising jack black does a good video on you tube about it. Warmer waters could mean the end of a lot of sea life but more scary is CO2's acidification affects that cause calcium shells to no longer be viable meaning most molluscs can't live in that environment. There are a lot of contributing factors a super volcano right now going of especially near a very delicate glacial system would be catastrophic from any point of view regardless of the warming factors. Greenhouse gases are also naturally produced even by volcanos it's just humans do a lot.
Write your senator to get better environmental regulations passed on businesses producing greenhouse gases or damaging natural sinks. Alright that's all the commenting I have in me for the day check Google or your local library for more answers
@Runnin with scissors, yea this is not the place to do long form debating. I would encourage you too to read what exactly the outcomes and timeline is for global warming and where the scientific "consensus" comes from. Global warming isn't as much of a threat as people perceive it to be and throwing our economy out the window for something that isn't as serious as its made out to be is supremely dangerous.
@Runnin with scissors, So, what I’m getting from your post is that it’s bad because changing sea-levels and weather could force Florida Man inland, spreading chaos across the continental US?
@PoliticalOtters, but we don't have to throw our economy out the window you should read up on that and ocean acidification as well as carbon sinks. I've done enough of my own research to understand the threat and it's pretty bad for the ocean specifically which has drastically changed in 25 years especially in biomass. Maybe read more reputable sources on both sides instead of maybe just one. and dammit I commented again good day sir do some more learning.
@Nellybert , pretty much
@Runnin with scissors, how do you know how many sources I've read? That's a pretty big assumption. If you've done enough the research then why does it seem like you're only speaking in generalities of what will happen with global warming? According to your research what will happen to the earth if the trend continues and what is the time line?
@PoliticalOtters, I will only say that you assumed first that I didn't do research in general and that you were correct I'll answer the rest tomorrow as I said if I feel up to it I'm not your personal Google and you can find out on your own. I'm by no means a climate change expert but by listening to them as well as reading papers and neutral articles I have tried to understand as much as I can now like I said good day sir.
@Runnin with scissors, I agree with most of what you’re saying, and I always love when people use the economy as a reason to not work on this. Like creating brand new industry never creates economic prosperity. That’s why we’re all riding around on horses, listening to 8 tracks, while mailing letters.
@Runnin with scissors, How do you expect to convince anyone if your only response is essentially that its "so obvious with one google". You commented to make a point that refuted my original post and then provided no reasoning behind your refutation. If your goal was to convince anyone reading then you've done your side a disservice. If it was just to try and make yourself feel smart and progressive then in my eyes, and probably to most others, you've really made yourself look like a fool.
@PoliticalOtters, I provided the answers to every question you had so chill. I'm allowed to be tired of answering them. I answered the primary effect and explained it as well as I could, I answered your volcano q, and what writing your senator can do, as well as other ways of changing it, I didn't provide a timeline but you can find that info online easily enough just google with requiring a .gov or .edu url., and yes it is googleable. I answered all your questions if you don't believe me reread the comments and stop whining because I'm trying to take a break from talking to what might as well be a potato for all its reading comprehension.
@PoliticalOtters, at the end of the day the global temps have risen more in the last 50 years than in the preceding 2000. Turn a blind eye if you want, but understand that being willfully ignorant is a choice.
@PoliticalOtters, now that you got that down vote out of your system, let’s discuss in all seriousness the worst case scenario here. If we make investments that remove our dependence on fossil fuels, or as you say ruin our economy, and we achieve energy independence that’s a win. Not just a win on the climate change front, but also for national security and our economy. Market disruptions are scary, but they always provide greater prosperity for those that take a leadership position. Not sure why you want the US to go the way of Blockbuster Video..
@Runnin with scissors, alternatively, kill all the termites in Australia, which are responsible for an even greater portion of CO2 emissions
@PoliticalOtters, So I just wanna take a moment here to state that if you actually do intensive research into the subject of climate change as I have had to (environmental science major) you'll see that almost all (can't remember actual percentage but its in the high 90's) scientific articles published are in consensus about the current environmental dangers we face and the reasonings behind them. Those articles that disagree with these findings have, after closer inspection, been found to be using data in which has been tampered with or by using graphs and charts that are framed incorrectly so as to make them fit the authors hypothesis. And also the reason any of us are speaking generally or seem to not be providing a full picture is because you can't without reading through scientific papers that have been peer reviewed for accuracy and those articles are usually small novels. In short I can say temps are rising, CO2 levels are rising and so are sea levels and those are facts
@PoliticalOtters, We don't know how long we have really because we've never faced this before but scientists know it's happening so isn't that enough? To know that eventually what we're doing will kill off thousands of species and potentially the form of this earth we humans find survivable? I could give you article after article of peer-reviewed and scientifically backed articles showing you this if you wanted so that I don't have to explain it myself or others on this app don't because hundreds of scientists already have.
@fishlish, nope that's pretty much what I was looking for. My overall point is that what will happen as a cause of global warming (which I agree in some form is happening) is speculative and the timeline for these outcomes is so far into the future that to push for wholesale economic reform (especially by the government) would be to the detriment of many people currently living. How can we properly solve an issue if we don't know how its going to effect us? Some projections say things like in 80 years sea level will rise anywhere from half a foot to two. Do we think people won't have enough time to respond and move? Or that by 2100 temps will increase by 1 degree F. Do we think that bioengineering won't be able to solve this issue in that time? Heck, 1700's genetic modification adjusted for that issue in way less time.
@PoliticalOtters, the sea level rise is a major concern as is the warming of the oceans. Rising seas means less land, and there’s already not enough. Warming oceans means more hurricanes and typhoons as disparities in surface temps fuel these storms. Yeah there’s ways to engineer around this, but if economics is your main concern it’s a hell of a lot more economical to reduce carbon emissions than to build hurricane proof sea walls along the coasts.
@A Blunt Object, There's not enough space? Couldn't people build up? There's 4.6mil Km^2 of land unoccupied in the US. What about moving people there? Has global warming increased the amount hurricanes and would it bankrupt the country to prevent hurricane damage or allow people the option of moving elsewhere? Also, there are people moving to make it easier to pull carbon and greenhouse gases out of the air at a economically viable cost. If they're able to do that then wouldn't the problem be fixed before 2100?
@PoliticalOtters, ok your first point. You’re moving people away and giving up more land to do so. You can build up, but for agricultural purposes that’s super expensive to have to light/water everything and burn more energy to do so. It’s not about enough land for housing the population, it’s about enough land to grow food to feed it. And before you get into the open space that’s available in the US, have you ever tried growing vegetables or livestock on a mountain or desert? To answer your second point yes, higher ocean temps creates more and stronger storms. Your third point honestly doesn’t make sense. People moving doesn’t pull carbon from the air or make it easier. If you move a population center the carbon still comes from wherever you moved it to, unless you change how that population center is creating and using energy to be more carbon neutral.
@A Blunt Object, I wouldn't expect the agriculture to build up. Just the residences. We actually produce way more food than we consume and still have land to spare. Something like 2/3 of the western united states is owned by the government and that's land that could be put to better use residential or agricultural. As for agriculture is 100 years not enough time to improve out crops to better withstand the 1degree increase or whatever amount less rainfall? My third point was about the fact that technology is already finding ways to literally pull carbon emissions out of the air and turn then it into gasoline. Meaning we can be carbon neutral if not negative relatively soon (certainly less than 80years)
@PoliticalOtters, greenhouse gases trap sun's heat and radiation warming the earth. We need them to survive. However too much of it causes the earth to heat up more than is livable. This is slowly happening now due to increased production of greenhouse gases (of which humans are large contributors,not causers) and increases in deforestation. Forests are massive carbon sinks (i.e they absorb carbon -a big greenhouse gas - and then change it into oxygen so we can breathe and live). Rising global temperatures will melt polar regions which are filled with two things. Sea ice and more importantly land ice. Will return to this. Increased temps will also cause more heat waves,expand desserts,more ocean acidification,droughts,and species extinction due to atmospheric temperature shifts,sea levels rising etc. Back to the ice and stuff. Ice displaces water but essentially sea ice will not really increase water levels. If you fill a glass with water and put ice cubes in it and watch them melt,
@PoliticalOtters, the water level wont change significantly. Land ice however is different and when land ice melts like in greenland or Antarctica, that does raise the water levels significantly. That causes a lot of issues that should go unsaid as I'm sure to use heard about them. One other issue of melting land ice is the ocean temperature. For a variety of reasons the ocea. Is propelled by massive currents that transfer heat and are a large factor in the weather in many and most parts of the world. For example the Atlantic ocean brings up warm water to europe and then as it reaches the arctic sea it loses it's hot water and also reaches cold water. The current changes direction toward the east coast of N America bringing cold water with it. This also is a huge dynamic to sea life in both coastal regions. Now if say land ice from greenland were to melt,that would release a fvck ton of cold water into the northern Atlantic causing the hot water in europe to become cooler and cause
@PoliticalOtters, temperatures in europe to drastically cool. Also the ocean currents would become distabalized which becomes a whole other issue in itself. This concept was visualized in Day After Tomorrow,except more exaggerated and drastic. A lot of this is common scientific knowledge and scientifically approved and backed up. Science books contain this info and this is taught in classrooms. So don't come at me asking for sources. Look that up on your own time. I'm not assuming you haven't but I'm just saying it to be sure. Hopefully this helps you understand more about the issue. My main purpose was to only provide verified and accurate information. Have a good day/night/evening
@PoliticalOtters, I should add increased temps also melt permafrost. The full implications of that are still being discovered but some threats could be something like a frozen virus that is reawakened. Also permafrost contains a lot of greenhouse gases
@PoliticalOtters, you didn’t listen to the mountains and deserts are not good growing areas did you, and engineering crops to produce more in worse conditions isn’t as easy as you say, so I couldn’t say with certainty that would fix it.
Here’s the thing you started this talking about economic reasons that reacting to climate change is bad, and now your advocating for moving population centers away from coastal areas, which BTW is where the majority of the population is, genetically engineering plants, and building high rises in what for over a century has been looked at as unusable land. All that so we don’t have to move from getting our energy from fossil fuels, which would be infinitely less expensive than what you are asking for.
The bottom line is if everyone on this App is going to be dead before this gets real bad. The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to leave real bad for our kids and grandkids.
@PoliticalOtters, I don't think that by shifting our gaze to green alternatives we'll be a detriment to our society or people. I could write a 10 page paper off of that one paragraph you just gave me but the issue is known and yes while some of the effects may not be that's entirely different than treating the source. When you try and treat a disease you don't focus on the symptoms you focus on the main problem and that's the release of far too many green house gases into the atmosphere. Who the Fvck cares what it may or may not cause and how bad it may be what I'm trying to say is that prevention is the best idea and putting money towards it doesn't have to degrade the quality of living for the people. Our quality of living is already many times lower than it could be as a country (US) because of the percentage of our tax dollars that go to the military, but that's an entirely different argument.