Just for sh--ts and giggles our math freeks wanted to know how long it would take oxygen to run out on our planet if all the plants died and we kept consuming fossil fuels. The answer they came up with is astonishing it would take 5000 years just to burn up one percent of the earths oxygen level. If you believe in peak oil and peak coal you know this would be impossible.
@dissturbbed The only astonishing thing about this incomprehensible statement is that your math freeks seem to have forgotten that human beings need to eat, and we get about 80% of our calories from grains in one form or another. Not to mention that simply eliminating plant life shreds your environmental support network. Your conclusion makes no sense.
I love it when scientist talk about this cascading effect, here is their theory they think that when the ice sheets melt more sunlight will collect on the earth instead of reflecting off the ice and in the process burn the planet. What i would like to know is why didnt the opposite effect happen during the ice age? Why didnt the planet turn into a big ball of ice since the light reflected off the ice and cause this cascading domino effect.
@dissturbbed Lighter colors (or white ice) reflect the rays of the sun (and thus heat). Darker colors absorb heat. The darker water uncovered by the melting ice absorbs more heat, changing the climate dynamic. During previous ice ages, so much water vapor (a greenhouse gas) was trapped in ice that the atmosphere dried out, allowing more heat to be reflected back into space, cooling the planet. Nonetheless, there are tipping points past which a planet cannot self-correct - e.g., Venus.
@Oilyboyd Isnt that what i just said?? Now you explain why the planet didn't go passed this tipping point on the other thousands if not millions of other hot and cold cycles and why didn't we die off in the last ice age or other cycles like your predicting for this global warming. Venus is a totally different matter, the earth has 389 parts per million (0.039%) volume of carbon dioxide while VENUS has 96% carbon dioxide. Since the industrial revolution co2 has only increased 85 ppm.
@dissturbbed Because there was life on board, and living systems apparently self-regulate their environment - up to a point. Past that point, wherever it is, conditions are so changed that something else comes along and opportunistically takes over the new niche, and whatever occupied it before goes extinct. In the current situation, that might be us. Yeast goes extinct in a petri dish after it's consumed all the resources and drowned in its own toxins. Are we smarter than yeast?
@Oilyboyd yea this might be true for an animal, humans are way more adaptable. Who cares if we consume all our natural resources the planet will just have shed a few million or billion humans. There will always be fresh water, iron, sand, aluminun, mud, sunlight and a multitude of others to have some sort of a civilization. You dont need cars, trains, lightbulbs, cellphones, or etc. to survive.
@dissturbbed We have the chance to "adapt" - it's called changing our collective behavior once we know the consequences. It does not appear to me that we are doing that, certainly not at a pace that would make a difference. What you are talking about is not "adaptation", it's just survival, and it's doubtful that anything like "civilization" would be possible given the most dire scenarios. Blithely dismissing the deaths of billions of human beings isn't just irresponsible, it's unconscionable.
@dissturbbed Second part of the answer to your question: left to its own devices, over very long periods of time the planet's systems appear to attempt to self-correct - i.e., after the extinction of the dinosaurs. Our addition of vast quantities of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the short term , however, may not allow the earth to do so, and it is that kind of a tipping point, triggering another mass extinction that will take us with it, that scientists are warning us about.
@Oilyboyd Co2 was being released far more in the past than it is today and the reason is that the earths magma was a lot closer to the surface this caused more volcanic activity that released more co2 in the atmosphere. As time goes on the earths inner core cools down which has an effect on volcanic activity which has an effect on the amount of co2 released in the atmosphere. So the amount released today or in the past did not and will not cause cause a tipping point.
@dissturbbed But we know that there were prior tipping points, changes (such as the addition of oxygen to the atmosphere) that permanently altered the conditions of life on this planet. They didn't turn us into Venus, because living systems were diverse and well-established enough, and given long periods of time, managed to self-regulate and find new forms in which to take advantage of the changed circumstances. But that's no guarantee that humanity can survive such radical short-term changes.
@Oilyboyd Well carbon dioxide is not going to do it neither a release of methane, it might raise the planets temperature a few degrees but not cause it to tip into oblivion. Not even a nuclear winter will exterminate all humanity IMO.
added: did you also know that we are going to have to deal with another ice age in a few thousand years...OMG WILL HUMANITY SURVIVE..AHHHHHH!!!!!..wait a minute we already have, MY BAD
@dissturbbed And in a couple of billion years, the sun will expand into the earth's orbit and burn us to a crisp, but I'm not terribly worried about it. Humanity is not actively contributing to the process so that, by stopping the activity, we could prevent or mitigate the result.
uhhh what about the global cooling SCARE in the 1970s through the late 1980s, and what about this hole in the ozone that was going to envelope the whole planet in twenty years thereby killing all living organisms on earth. I can go on and on but have you ever thought about global cycles, this is nothing new the planet has and will continue and life always prevails..so even if global warming happens we will deal with it life goes on, i don't see Russia or Canada bitching about it..lol
Just for sh--ts and giggles our math freeks wanted to know how long it would take oxygen to run out on our planet if all the plants died and we kept consuming fossil fuels. The answer they came up with is astonishing it would take 5000 years just to burn up one percent of the earths oxygen level. If you believe in peak oil and peak coal you know this would be impossible.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed The only astonishing thing about this incomprehensible statement is that your math freeks seem to have forgotten that human beings need to eat, and we get about 80% of our calories from grains in one form or another. Not to mention that simply eliminating plant life shreds your environmental support network. Your conclusion makes no sense.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@Oilyboyd They did it to show what it would take to burn up the oxygen in the earths atmosphere, not if life could go on without plants.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
I love it when scientist talk about this cascading effect, here is their theory they think that when the ice sheets melt more sunlight will collect on the earth instead of reflecting off the ice and in the process burn the planet. What i would like to know is why didnt the opposite effect happen during the ice age? Why didnt the planet turn into a big ball of ice since the light reflected off the ice and cause this cascading domino effect.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed Lighter colors (or white ice) reflect the rays of the sun (and thus heat). Darker colors absorb heat. The darker water uncovered by the melting ice absorbs more heat, changing the climate dynamic. During previous ice ages, so much water vapor (a greenhouse gas) was trapped in ice that the atmosphere dried out, allowing more heat to be reflected back into space, cooling the planet. Nonetheless, there are tipping points past which a planet cannot self-correct - e.g., Venus.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@Oilyboyd Isnt that what i just said?? Now you explain why the planet didn't go passed this tipping point on the other thousands if not millions of other hot and cold cycles and why didn't we die off in the last ice age or other cycles like your predicting for this global warming. Venus is a totally different matter, the earth has 389 parts per million (0.039%) volume of carbon dioxide while VENUS has 96% carbon dioxide. Since the industrial revolution co2 has only increased 85 ppm.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed Because there was life on board, and living systems apparently self-regulate their environment - up to a point. Past that point, wherever it is, conditions are so changed that something else comes along and opportunistically takes over the new niche, and whatever occupied it before goes extinct. In the current situation, that might be us. Yeast goes extinct in a petri dish after it's consumed all the resources and drowned in its own toxins. Are we smarter than yeast?
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@Oilyboyd yea this might be true for an animal, humans are way more adaptable. Who cares if we consume all our natural resources the planet will just have shed a few million or billion humans. There will always be fresh water, iron, sand, aluminun, mud, sunlight and a multitude of others to have some sort of a civilization. You dont need cars, trains, lightbulbs, cellphones, or etc. to survive.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed We have the chance to "adapt" - it's called changing our collective behavior once we know the consequences. It does not appear to me that we are doing that, certainly not at a pace that would make a difference. What you are talking about is not "adaptation", it's just survival, and it's doubtful that anything like "civilization" would be possible given the most dire scenarios. Blithely dismissing the deaths of billions of human beings isn't just irresponsible, it's unconscionable.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@dissturbbed Second part of the answer to your question: left to its own devices, over very long periods of time the planet's systems appear to attempt to self-correct - i.e., after the extinction of the dinosaurs. Our addition of vast quantities of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the short term , however, may not allow the earth to do so, and it is that kind of a tipping point, triggering another mass extinction that will take us with it, that scientists are warning us about.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@Oilyboyd Co2 was being released far more in the past than it is today and the reason is that the earths magma was a lot closer to the surface this caused more volcanic activity that released more co2 in the atmosphere. As time goes on the earths inner core cools down which has an effect on volcanic activity which has an effect on the amount of co2 released in the atmosphere. So the amount released today or in the past did not and will not cause cause a tipping point.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed But we know that there were prior tipping points, changes (such as the addition of oxygen to the atmosphere) that permanently altered the conditions of life on this planet. They didn't turn us into Venus, because living systems were diverse and well-established enough, and given long periods of time, managed to self-regulate and find new forms in which to take advantage of the changed circumstances. But that's no guarantee that humanity can survive such radical short-term changes.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
@Oilyboyd Well carbon dioxide is not going to do it neither a release of methane, it might raise the planets temperature a few degrees but not cause it to tip into oblivion. Not even a nuclear winter will exterminate all humanity IMO.
dissturbbed 8 months ago
added: did you also know that we are going to have to deal with another ice age in a few thousand years...OMG WILL HUMANITY SURVIVE..AHHHHHH!!!!!..wait a minute we already have, MY BAD
dissturbbed 8 months ago
@dissturbbed And in a couple of billion years, the sun will expand into the earth's orbit and burn us to a crisp, but I'm not terribly worried about it. Humanity is not actively contributing to the process so that, by stopping the activity, we could prevent or mitigate the result.
Oilyboyd 8 months ago
uhhh what about the global cooling SCARE in the 1970s through the late 1980s, and what about this hole in the ozone that was going to envelope the whole planet in twenty years thereby killing all living organisms on earth. I can go on and on but have you ever thought about global cycles, this is nothing new the planet has and will continue and life always prevails..so even if global warming happens we will deal with it life goes on, i don't see Russia or Canada bitching about it..lol
dissturbbed 8 months ago