FREE TAPATALK APP

LaPalida · 13th December 2006, 10:24 PM

Can humans change the face of the Earth in any significant way? What I mean by this is for example: Can we do it through global warming, nuclear war or some other way or is that all unproven assertions? Is it possible for us puny humans to actually change the climate or to disrupt the natural cycle of the Earth? Is there any concrete data for this assertion? I want to know if there are any other examples of man made disruption that is not just localized but global apart from global warming. Thanks for your help

The Atheist · 13th December 2006, 11:56 PM

This shows a pretty global change, as do satellite photos of the Amazon basin, where it can clearly be seen that vast amounts of forest have been removed and the landscape of a significant portion of South America has been changed through the hand of man.

Cuddles · 14th December 2006, 03:38 AM

Acid rain, ozone holes, Chernobyl, fish stocks, deoxygenated zones, extinction. We're pretty good at disrupting nature really.

Buckaroo · 14th December 2006, 06:14 AM

I sense a question behind the question here. What are you driving at, LaPalida?

Orangutan · 14th December 2006, 06:42 AM

Sure!
We are mucking up Bio-Diversity too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...st/1949132.stm

Jeff Wagg · 14th December 2006, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by LaPalida

Can humans change the face of the Earth in any significant way? What I mean by this is for example: Can we do it through global warming, nuclear war or some other way or is that all unproven assertions? Is it possible for us puny humans to actually change the climate or to disrupt the natural cycle of the Earth? Is there any concrete data for this assertion? I want to know if there are any other examples of man made disruption that is not just localized but global apart from global warming. Thanks for your help

Yes. Consider how bring the earth is at night, for example. As for "changing the climate or disrupting the natural cycle of the Earth" we don't know what the climate or natural cycle is, so any changes are difficult to attribute directly to mankind. However, we DO know that man made isotopes of carbon are finding their way to the upper atmosphere.

The climate's going to change whether we do it or not. It's best to plan for it rather than bicker about it.

LaPalida · 14th December 2006, 08:05 AM

@ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know.

DeviousB · 14th December 2006, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by LaPalida

@ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know.

It changed the atmosphere pretty dramatically, doubling the C14 isotope concentrations for example. You can use the C14 pulse to calculate someones age from their teeth (LiveScience), and many high-energy physics experiments used to use recovered pre-war steel for experimental shielding because the background radiation of post-war steel was now too high (couldn't find direct ref, but here).

BTW, "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" is an argument from incredulity. It is no different to saying "the eye is just too complex to have evolved", or "a plane just can't have brought down the WTC".

Cuddles · 14th December 2006, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by LaPalida

@ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know.

Small (relatively speaking) volcanic erruptions can cause massive effects on the climate, and there have been several observed cases of this over the last few centuries. I forget the name of the biggest, which caused massive crop faliure and famine, but if you look up Krakatau (or Krakatoa) I believe it had similar, although less severe, effects. A nuclear war would release much more energy and dust, and would be on a global scale rather than a local erruption. And that's not taking the effects of wiping out large areas of land and radioactive contamination. Nuclear winter is not an unproven hypothesis, it is a logical extension of what has been observed. We may not be able to wipe out all life, but we could do some pretty hefty damage.

Dragonrock · 14th December 2006, 10:09 AM

Humans affect the environment but nature affects more a more suddenly. When the next big volcanic erruption occurs everything humans have done will just be an interesting footnote. In fact, if we are causing global warming then maybe it will lessen the effects of the next volcanic winter.

LaPalida · 14th December 2006, 11:56 AM

Is it true though that after Chernobyl happened that it affected the climate in far away regions like Central America for example (I heard anecdotes that it hailed). Where can I find some references on this. I don't see much on climate change but then again I don't know if I looked in the right places.

kleinjahr · 16th December 2006, 08:45 AM

I don't know about Central America, but after the meltdown at Chernoybl there were higher radiation levels as far away as Sweden. It was one of the things that clued in the West that something had gone seriously wrong.

Lynx2174 · 17th December 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by LaPalida

Is it true though that after Chernobyl happened that it affected the climate in far away regions like Central America for example (I heard anecdotes that it hailed). Where can I find some references on this. I don't see much on climate change but then again I don't know if I looked in the right places.

That's eminently unlikley. the Chernoblyl disaster invoved a very small explosion on the grand scale of things. It may have thrown enough radioactive dust into the air to justify evacuating the area for decades, and raising the background radiation hundreds of miles away, but in all likelyhood, it did nothing to change the climate of the earth. the explosion was far smaller than any nuclear weapon ever detonated, even the diminuitive W-54. Over the course of the century, dozens of nucelar weapons have been detonated in tests. any one of those tests would have had a far more powerful effect on the world's climate.

Cuddles · 18th December 2006, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

I don't know about Central America, but after the meltdown at Chernoybl there were higher radiation levels as far away as Sweden. It was one of the things that clued in the West that something had gone seriously wrong.

And in Britain, which is actually further away, some areas still aren't allowed to sell meat from animals grown there because of the high radiation levels.

I've never heard of this affecting the climate, and I seriously doubt that this would be possible with such a small explosion, but you don't need to affect the climate in order to affect the world. Wiping out most of the fish in the Atlantic may not change the climate at all, but it will have pretty major effects on the ecosystem.

Loss Leader · 18th December 2006, 12:43 PM

During prehistory, we burned Central Africa to the ground and turned one of the largest forests in the world into the world's largest desert in an attempt to create farmland. And we did it without any technology whatsoever besides fire.

robinson · 18th December 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonrock

Humans affect the environment but nature affects more a more suddenly. When the next big volcanic erruption occurs everything humans have done will just be an interesting footnote. In fact, if we are causing global warming then maybe it will lessen the effects of the next volcanic winter.

I have been saying the same thing! If we get a really big eruption, maybe we can burn ALL our fossil fuels and warm the planet back up. What if GW actually saves us from a global winter?

LaPalida · 18th December 2006, 03:34 PM

I hardly think it wise to depend on natural eruptions to save us like a Deus Ex Machina.

Hindmost · 18th December 2006, 04:51 PM

One example.

The levees on the missisippi river have diverted the natural flow of the river for too many years now. The river should be headed down the Atchafalaya basin but the levees have steered it east for too long. It will change course--most likely within the next 50 years. There is a long, bad history of what has been done to the ecosystem in Louisiana--particularly the wetlands. This also contributed to the problem with Katrina.

glenn

Hindmost · 18th December 2006, 05:01 PM

Hmmmm, just thought of another interesting one. If global warming continues as it is now, the possibility of the global currents in the oceans losing natural circulation and locking up is on the scary side. I recently saw a couple shows on one of the science channels...either "discovery" or the "science channel." What was too troubling was how the onset of the problem could be very quick...on the order of decades...and the return to a more normal flow of currents much slower. It would make a mess of climates world wide.

glenn

thaiboxerken · 18th December 2006, 05:08 PM

Ever heard of Mount Rushmore?

robinson · 18th December 2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by LaPalida

I hardly think it wise to depend on natural eruptions to save us like a Deus Ex Machina.

Oh I agree. I don't think it is wise at all, just a skewed perspective on what seems to be a really screwed up human trait. To go for the short term profit, while screwing those who come after.

Freddy · 18th December 2006, 07:14 PM

I suppose it depends what you mean. We can do our worst and the planet, and life on the planet, will survive us. We can do some damage though, and we might not survive us.

robinson · 19th December 2006, 12:57 AM

I think humans are real survivors. People. Us. I think we survived a couple of ice ages already, some really bad firestorms, maybe even a few mass extinctions. Nobody ever really survives, but the species does. I would bet human beings survive global warming, a global ice age, global pollution, even a great big world war three.

Can humans change the face of the earth? We do nothing but.

Dragonrock · 19th December 2006, 07:09 AM

The problem is that many people think that the climate we have right now is the way the earth is supposed to be. There is no normal climate, the earth is in a constant state of flux and eventually, either due to us or not, the climate will change. The only thing we can do is learn to predict the changes and try to adapt our societies to the new situation.

robinson · 19th December 2006, 12:43 PM

That being said, the melting of polar ice, glaciers, and snow, worldwide, has alarmed even the most skeptical scientist. The rate is beyond anything historical. It is enough to alarm even a cynic at this point.

Dragonrock · 19th December 2006, 01:06 PM

Still, there's not much we can do except learn to deal with the new situation.

robinson · 19th December 2006, 01:16 PM

I don't consider GW a scientific problem at all. It is a money issue. With a trillion barrels of oil still in the ground, (and a lot more coal), there is no way the people who own that oil and coal want people to convert to solar, wind, biofuels, tidal, animal, or any other energy source that reduces profits for greenhouse gas producers.

That is just how it is.

Comsat Angel · 19th December 2006, 02:21 PM

Well yes. The UK in the eyes of some is no longer an island because we now have the Channel Tunnel. Consider the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal, the Mont Blanc Tunnel or the Thames Flood Barrier. These are all positive alterations, making a significant change. For the negative, people have already mentioned WW3. For the speculative, we might posit the shaped nuclear charges used to progressively demolish Gran Canaria (IIRC) and so pre-empt it's collapse into the Atlantic and the subsequent tsunami effect.

Soapy Sam · 19th December 2006, 03:29 PM

If we (for some odd reason) chose to, I think the triggering of a small number of fusion bombs in strategically chosen spots might have fairly dramatic consequences.
I'm thinking drilling into (or close above) a dozen or so magma chambers and fault zones to implant the bombs.

Disruption of ocean currents by the same method, might also be effective.

Of course, any results would be transient.
But so is everything.

robinson · 19th December 2006, 05:14 PM

You don't have to drill. A few 100 Megaton bombs would be more than enough to start major eruptions. Just drop em in the current craters.

Cuddles · 20th December 2006, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by robinson

That being said, the melting of polar ice, glaciers, and snow, worldwide, has alarmed even the most skeptical scientist. The rate is beyond anything historical. It is enough to alarm even a cynic at this point.

This is not necessarily true. The geological record is very low resolution, so it is almost impossible to tell if something has taken 1 year, 100 years or even 1000 years. Most changes take much longer than this, so the current trend is considered fast, but there have been other changes in the past that were fast enough that we simply can't tell how long they took. It is entirely possible that big changes often happen this fast, and there are theories that say past ice ages have started in just a few decades. We also can't be sure that the climate does not have fluctuations like this all the time, but we can't see them in the record because they are too quick to notice. For example, the Little Ice Age has a recorded history so we know it happened, and we can also see it in trees and recent sediment. In a few thousand years it is entirely possible that the organic record will no longer be available and the sediment layers will be too thin to analyse, or even notice. In a million years we can be fairly sure that no-one will know it happened at all.

robinson · 20th December 2006, 05:47 AM

Ice core measurements are really really well documented, studied, understood. What the climate has been like in the past, is very well known. While some might think every scientist and climatologist in the world is wrong about this stuff, that they really don't know anything, haven't done the research, that they don't all share data and look at reality with a cold rational eye, while some might think this is what is going on, it is stupid.

Cuddles · 21st December 2006, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by robinson

Ice core measurements are really really well documented, studied, understood. What the climate has been like in the past, is very well known. While some might think every scientist and climatologist in the world is wrong about this stuff, that they really don't know anything, haven't done the research, that they don't all share data and look at reality with a cold rational eye, while some might think this is what is going on, it is stupid.

Was this a reply to me? If so you completely missed the point. The climate in the past is known from ice cores and other methods over periods of thousands of years. We are currently trying to compare this with changes over a few decades since we started recording climate ourselves. We simply don't know if changes have happened this fast in the past.

robinson · 21st December 2006, 07:25 AM

I tend to trust the scientist that have spent a lifetime doing the research on these things. Ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, they seem to have good evidence about the climate, and how fast it changed, going back a long time.

I could be wrong, but we are talking about millions of years, not thousands.

13th December 2006, 10:24 PM	#1
LaPalida Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 89	Can humans change the face of the Earth in any significant way? Can humans change the face of the Earth in any significant way? What I mean by this is for example: Can we do it through global warming, nuclear war or some other way or is that all unproven assertions? Is it possible for us puny humans to actually change the climate or to disrupt the natural cycle of the Earth? Is there any concrete data for this assertion? I want to know if there are any other examples of man made disruption that is not just localized but global apart from global warming. Thanks for your help

13th December 2006, 11:56 PM	#2
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	This shows a pretty global change, as do satellite photos of the Amazon basin, where it can clearly be seen that vast amounts of forest have been removed and the landscape of a significant portion of South America has been changed through the hand of man.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

14th December 2006, 03:38 AM	#3
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Acid rain, ozone holes, Chernobyl, fish stocks, deoxygenated zones, extinction. We're pretty good at disrupting nature really.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

14th December 2006, 06:14 AM	#4
Buckaroo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 1,726	I sense a question behind the question here. What are you driving at, LaPalida?
	__________________ "You ask me do I love you... does the pope live in the woods? Quad Erat Demonstrandum, baby... " "Oh! You speak French!" -- Airhead, by Thomas Dolby "When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." -- Sam Spade

14th December 2006, 06:46 AM	#6
Jeff Wagg Eponymous Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,052	Originally Posted by LaPalida Can humans change the face of the Earth in any significant way? What I mean by this is for example: Can we do it through global warming, nuclear war or some other way or is that all unproven assertions? Is it possible for us puny humans to actually change the climate or to disrupt the natural cycle of the Earth? Is there any concrete data for this assertion? I want to know if there are any other examples of man made disruption that is not just localized but global apart from global warming. Thanks for your help Yes. Consider how bring the earth is at night, for example. As for "changing the climate or disrupting the natural cycle of the Earth" we don't know what the climate or natural cycle is, so any changes are difficult to attribute directly to mankind. However, we DO know that man made isotopes of carbon are finding their way to the upper atmosphere. The climate's going to change whether we do it or not. It's best to plan for it rather than bicker about it.
	Last edited by Jeff Wagg; 14th December 2006 at 06:50 AM.

14th December 2006, 06:42 AM	#5
Orangutan Graduate Poster Tagger Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Florida. Posts: 1,175	Sure! We are mucking up Bio-Diversity too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...st/1949132.stm

14th December 2006, 08:05 AM	#7
LaPalida Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 89	@ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know.

14th December 2006, 09:05 AM	#8
DeviousB Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 374	Originally Posted by LaPalida @ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know. It changed the atmosphere pretty dramatically, doubling the C14 isotope concentrations for example. You can use the C14 pulse to calculate someones age from their teeth (LiveScience), and many high-energy physics experiments used to use recovered pre-war steel for experimental shielding because the background radiation of post-war steel was now too high (couldn't find direct ref, but here). BTW, "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" is an argument from incredulity. It is no different to saying "the eye is just too complex to have evolved", or "a plane just can't have brought down the WTC".
DeviousB Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 374	Last edited by DeviousB; 14th December 2006 at 09:08 AM.

14th December 2006, 09:19 AM	#9
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by LaPalida @ Buckaroo - Hmmm I was bickering with some people about global warming and they keep bringing "Humans are too puny to change something so grand as Earth" argument forward. I thought that dropping a few hydrogen bombs would in fact change the climate pretty drastically but now I am not sure since Nuclear Winter is an unproven hypotheisis (I guess I hope it stays that way too lol) or so it says in the wiki. I don't see how though since a meteorite is said to have alot of impact on the climate etc but that's not man mande. So that's basically what I want to know. Small (relatively speaking) volcanic erruptions can cause massive effects on the climate, and there have been several observed cases of this over the last few centuries. I forget the name of the biggest, which caused massive crop faliure and famine, but if you look up Krakatau (or Krakatoa) I believe it had similar, although less severe, effects. A nuclear war would release much more energy and dust, and would be on a global scale rather than a local erruption. And that's not taking the effects of wiping out large areas of land and radioactive contamination. Nuclear winter is not an unproven hypothesis, it is a logical extension of what has been observed. We may not be able to wipe out all life, but we could do some pretty hefty damage.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

14th December 2006, 10:09 AM	#10
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	Humans affect the environment but nature affects more a more suddenly. When the next big volcanic erruption occurs everything humans have done will just be an interesting footnote. In fact, if we are causing global warming then maybe it will lessen the effects of the next volcanic winter.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

14th December 2006, 11:56 AM	#11
LaPalida Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 89	Is it true though that after Chernobyl happened that it affected the climate in far away regions like Central America for example (I heard anecdotes that it hailed). Where can I find some references on this. I don't see much on climate change but then again I don't know if I looked in the right places.

16th December 2006, 08:45 AM	#12
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235	I don't know about Central America, but after the meltdown at Chernoybl there were higher radiation levels as far away as Sweden. It was one of the things that clued in the West that something had gone seriously wrong.
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235

17th December 2006, 12:06 PM	#13
Lynx2174 Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Location: California Posts: 250	Originally Posted by LaPalida Is it true though that after Chernobyl happened that it affected the climate in far away regions like Central America for example (I heard anecdotes that it hailed). Where can I find some references on this. I don't see much on climate change but then again I don't know if I looked in the right places. That's eminently unlikley. the Chernoblyl disaster invoved a very small explosion on the grand scale of things. It may have thrown enough radioactive dust into the air to justify evacuating the area for decades, and raising the background radiation hundreds of miles away, but in all likelyhood, it did nothing to change the climate of the earth. the explosion was far smaller than any nuclear weapon ever detonated, even the diminuitive W-54. Over the course of the century, dozens of nucelar weapons have been detonated in tests. any one of those tests would have had a far more powerful effect on the world's climate.
	__________________ Fight apathy or dont. This isn't *********** rocket surgery.

18th December 2006, 04:13 AM	#14
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by kleinjahr I don't know about Central America, but after the meltdown at Chernoybl there were higher radiation levels as far away as Sweden. It was one of the things that clued in the West that something had gone seriously wrong. And in Britain, which is actually further away, some areas still aren't allowed to sell meat from animals grown there because of the high radiation levels. I've never heard of this affecting the climate, and I seriously doubt that this would be possible with such a small explosion, but you don't need to affect the climate in order to affect the world. Wiping out most of the fish in the Atlantic may not change the climate at all, but it will have pretty major effects on the ecosystem.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

18th December 2006, 12:43 PM	#15
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,890	During prehistory, we burned Central Africa to the ground and turned one of the largest forests in the world into the world's largest desert in an attempt to create farmland. And we did it without any technology whatsoever besides fire.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

18th December 2006, 01:00 PM	#16
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Originally Posted by Dragonrock Humans affect the environment but nature affects more a more suddenly. When the next big volcanic erruption occurs everything humans have done will just be an interesting footnote. In fact, if we are causing global warming then maybe it will lessen the effects of the next volcanic winter. I have been saying the same thing! If we get a really big eruption, maybe we can burn ALL our fossil fuels and warm the planet back up. What if GW actually saves us from a global winter?
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

18th December 2006, 03:34 PM	#17
LaPalida Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 89	I hardly think it wise to depend on natural eruptions to save us like a Deus Ex Machina.

18th December 2006, 04:51 PM	#18
Hindmost Guest Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 3,317	One example. The levees on the missisippi river have diverted the natural flow of the river for too many years now. The river should be headed down the Atchafalaya basin but the levees have steered it east for too long. It will change course--most likely within the next 50 years. There is a long, bad history of what has been done to the ecosystem in Louisiana--particularly the wetlands. This also contributed to the problem with Katrina. glenn

18th December 2006, 05:01 PM	#19
Hindmost Guest Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 3,317	Hmmmm, just thought of another interesting one. If global warming continues as it is now, the possibility of the global currents in the oceans losing natural circulation and locking up is on the scary side. I recently saw a couple shows on one of the science channels...either "discovery" or the "science channel." What was too troubling was how the onset of the problem could be very quick...on the order of decades...and the return to a more normal flow of currents much slower. It would make a mess of climates world wide. glenn

18th December 2006, 05:08 PM	#20
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 21,076	Ever heard of Mount Rushmore?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

18th December 2006, 06:47 PM	#21
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Originally Posted by LaPalida I hardly think it wise to depend on natural eruptions to save us like a Deus Ex Machina. Oh I agree. I don't think it is wise at all, just a skewed perspective on what seems to be a really screwed up human trait. To go for the short term profit, while screwing those who come after.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

18th December 2006, 07:14 PM	#22
Freddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 1,046	I suppose it depends what you mean. We can do our worst and the planet, and life on the planet, will survive us. We can do some damage though, and we might not survive us.

19th December 2006, 12:57 AM	#23
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	I think humans are real survivors. People. Us. I think we survived a couple of ice ages already, some really bad firestorms, maybe even a few mass extinctions. Nobody ever really survives, but the species does. I would bet human beings survive global warming, a global ice age, global pollution, even a great big world war three. Can humans change the face of the earth? We do nothing but.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

19th December 2006, 07:09 AM	#24
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	The problem is that many people think that the climate we have right now is the way the earth is supposed to be. There is no normal climate, the earth is in a constant state of flux and eventually, either due to us or not, the climate will change. The only thing we can do is learn to predict the changes and try to adapt our societies to the new situation.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

19th December 2006, 12:43 PM	#25
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	That being said, the melting of polar ice, glaciers, and snow, worldwide, has alarmed even the most skeptical scientist. The rate is beyond anything historical. It is enough to alarm even a cynic at this point.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

19th December 2006, 01:06 PM	#26
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	Still, there's not much we can do except learn to deal with the new situation.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

19th December 2006, 01:16 PM	#27
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	I don't consider GW a scientific problem at all. It is a money issue. With a trillion barrels of oil still in the ground, (and a lot more coal), there is no way the people who own that oil and coal want people to convert to solar, wind, biofuels, tidal, animal, or any other energy source that reduces profits for greenhouse gas producers. That is just how it is.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

19th December 2006, 02:21 PM	#28
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893	Well yes. The UK in the eyes of some is no longer an island because we now have the Channel Tunnel. Consider the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal, the Mont Blanc Tunnel or the Thames Flood Barrier. These are all positive alterations, making a significant change. For the negative, people have already mentioned WW3. For the speculative, we might posit the shaped nuclear charges used to progressively demolish Gran Canaria (IIRC) and so pre-empt it's collapse into the Atlantic and the subsequent tsunami effect.
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893

19th December 2006, 03:29 PM	#29
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,907	If we (for some odd reason) chose to, I think the triggering of a small number of fusion bombs in strategically chosen spots might have fairly dramatic consequences. I'm thinking drilling into (or close above) a dozen or so magma chambers and fault zones to implant the bombs. Disruption of ocean currents by the same method, might also be effective. Of course, any results would be transient. But so is everything.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,907

19th December 2006, 05:14 PM	#30
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	You don't have to drill. A few 100 Megaton bombs would be more than enough to start major eruptions. Just drop em in the current craters.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

20th December 2006, 03:44 AM	#31
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by robinson That being said, the melting of polar ice, glaciers, and snow, worldwide, has alarmed even the most skeptical scientist. The rate is beyond anything historical. It is enough to alarm even a cynic at this point. This is not necessarily true. The geological record is very low resolution, so it is almost impossible to tell if something has taken 1 year, 100 years or even 1000 years. Most changes take much longer than this, so the current trend is considered fast, but there have been other changes in the past that were fast enough that we simply can't tell how long they took. It is entirely possible that big changes often happen this fast, and there are theories that say past ice ages have started in just a few decades. We also can't be sure that the climate does not have fluctuations like this all the time, but we can't see them in the record because they are too quick to notice. For example, the Little Ice Age has a recorded history so we know it happened, and we can also see it in trees and recent sediment. In a few thousand years it is entirely possible that the organic record will no longer be available and the sediment layers will be too thin to analyse, or even notice. In a million years we can be fairly sure that no-one will know it happened at all.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

20th December 2006, 05:47 AM	#32
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Ice core measurements are really really well documented, studied, understood. What the climate has been like in the past, is very well known. While some might think every scientist and climatologist in the world is wrong about this stuff, that they really don't know anything, haven't done the research, that they don't all share data and look at reality with a cold rational eye, while some might think this is what is going on, it is stupid.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

21st December 2006, 03:55 AM	#33
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by robinson Ice core measurements are really really well documented, studied, understood. What the climate has been like in the past, is very well known. While some might think every scientist and climatologist in the world is wrong about this stuff, that they really don't know anything, haven't done the research, that they don't all share data and look at reality with a cold rational eye, while some might think this is what is going on, it is stupid. Was this a reply to me? If so you completely missed the point. The climate in the past is known from ice cores and other methods over periods of thousands of years. We are currently trying to compare this with changes over a few decades since we started recording climate ourselves. We simply don't know if changes have happened this fast in the past.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

21st December 2006, 07:25 AM	#34
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	I tend to trust the scientist that have spent a lifetime doing the research on these things. Ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, they seem to have good evidence about the climate, and how fast it changed, going back a long time. I could be wrong, but we are talking about millions of years, not thousands.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136