| CuCabeludo said: Human-made global warming is a hoax. |
It's not.
The general scientific consensus (97%) is that it is a real fundamental thing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Don't be that guy who is a science denier.
The real debate is the extent of human-made climate change.
| fatslob-:O said: The vast majority of life can still adapt. Most simple lifeforms like bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants aren't going anywhere anytime soon since they are much less sensitive to climate conditions. Most of the animals that already have a conservation status classified as domesticated or least concern will still likely have the same status as they did before 100 years later ... |
Simpler organisms will of course be fine.
Depending on region though, it's hard to say what species will be impacted... I would imagine the arctic regions for example would suffer most.
| fatslob-:O said: It's a pretty huge stretch of a scenario though since we'd have to at least find 10x higher fossil fuel reserves to burn before it remotely becomes a problem because right now at our current level we're still under the optimum level of CO2 concentrations for plant life respiration ... So far from the NASA data, there's no panic or alarm of large patches of land becoming less arable ... |
You don't need to burn 10x fossil fuels for there to be an accompanying increase.
Remember... As temperatures increase, massive amounts of CO2/Methane etc' is released from Oceans and Ice, Trillions of tons.
Water vapor in the earths atmosphere will also increase which adds to it.
It's an exponential increase.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon
| fatslob-:O said: I'm not sure if we can just make a simple quantifiable statement that there is an "exponential increase in damage" because there are other life forms that have benefited so far from increased temperatures such as plants ... Also, how can you prove that your example isn't an isolated case ? I realize that some hot and inhospitable areas such as several patches of the sub-saharan desert and some middle eastern territories but for the most part much of Earth seems to be getting greener ... |
Of course some species will thrive, speciation will be on the decline however as many more species succumb to significantly changing environments as their evolutionary adaptations are no longer relevant.
| fatslob-:O said: While Venus's case is extreme, the IPCC's pessimistic projection so far is 2 degrees celsius so you might want to cut your example by say a factor of 3 and do note that most of this warming will occur in colder regions rather than already hot regions like Australia as a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... (Venus, I think in our entire solar system is the only planet of exhibiting a runaway greenhouse effect since Mercury which is even closer to the sun doesn't have a thick enough atmosphere to create the effect) |
We don't need the Earth to be like Venus for it to be inhospitable.
Life is actually very fragile.
| fatslob-:O said: China is already mostly done with it's industrial revolution according to the US BLS. They're soon going to be richer than both Turkey and Russia per capita since their economies aren't that advanced. The former's bet was to get into the EU single market and the latter's bet on oil but so far it hasn't worked out for both of them. The next likely industrial centers are going to be Africa and India since their still relatively unindustrialized ... |
I think she still has more room to go yet. Interested to see how much growth China can still push on this front though.
| fatslob-:O said: As far as the risk of arctic regions releasing more emissions, most of the greenhouse gases aren't trapped at the arctic's surface. It's under the deep ocean where it's not likely to reach out of the water and is instead consumed by microbes ... |
If it's all melted, it's all melted.
| fatslob-:O said: As it stands, there are currently not strong enough factors to support a "climate change feedback" AKA "runaway greenhouse effect" like we see on Venus. Sure it'll get undeniably warmer but let's be rational and drop the fear mongering of entertaining the possibility of a rapid uncontrollable increase in temperature for reasons such as not receiving enough solar energy or having an extremely thick atmosphere ... |
No one is claiming for a Venus effect though? Nor is it needed for things to become unteniable on our own little ball hurtling through space anyway.
| fatslob-:O said: There's not that much fossil fuel to be extracted from the arctic as far as past estimates suggest. It would maybe add a couple of years in our current reserves ? Really the biggest market for warming the arctic would be inhabitation in general ... |
There is a ton also in Antarctica.
It's not just the North Pole we need to account for you know.
https://www.asoc.org/component/content/article/9-blog/1184-the-antarctic-oil-myth
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
